State of New South Wales v Yaqoob Benshabir

2026/00264828

ADMIN LAW (other) – In September 2025, the respondent was arrested and charged with using a carriage service to possess violent extremist material (the Commonwealth offence) while on bail in respect of one count of affray – following a plea of guilty to the affray charge, the appellant was sentenced on 12 February 2026 to a backdated term of imprisonment of 10 months and was due to be released on parole on 24 February 2026 – on that day, the State Parole Authority determined that the respondent was a “terrorism related offender” and revoked the statutory parole order – on 4 March 2026, the respondent filed a severity appeal to the District Court in relation to his sentence for the affray charge – on 30 March 2026, the appellant filed a summons seeking, amongst other things, an extended supervision order (ESO) against the respondent for a period of 12 months – on 31 March 2026, the Commonwealth offence was withdrawn – before Weinstein J on 1 April 2026, the appellant sought several orders, including the appointment of experts to conduct examinations in respect of the respondent and an interim supervision order (ISO), pursuant to ss 24(5) and 27 of the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) (the Act) respectively – his Honour refused the ISO application but made the expert orders – on 2 April 2026, David DCJ pronounced orders setting aside the respondent’s term of imprisonment for the affray charge and imposing a conditional release order in lieu thereof – on the same day, the appellant filed an urgent application for an ISO, contending that the respondent remained an “eligible offender” under s 7 of the Act until David DCJ’s orders were uploaded onto JusticeLink – Emmett J dismissed the appellant’s application on the basis that, upon the pronouncement of orders by David DCJ, the respondent was no longer an “eligible offender” under the Act – by notice of motion dated 21 April 2026, the respondent commenced proceedings seeking to have Weinstein J’s 1 April 2026 order set aside and the appellant’s ESO application dismissed – Yehia J (the primary judge) held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to make an ESO under s 20(a) of the Act is enlivened where, at the time of the making of the order, the eligible offender was not “in custody or under supervision”, but was so at the time the original application for the order was filed – the primary judge determined that, as the respondent was not an “eligible offender”, the Court did not have jurisdiction to make an ESO – whether the primary judge erred in her Honour’s construction of s 20(a) of the Act.

State of New South Wales v Benshabir (Interlocutory) (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 679