Citation: State of New South Wales v Matthew White (Preliminary) [2026] NSWSC 1101
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 September 2026
Judge: Richardson J
Background
The State of New South Wales applied to the Supreme Court for an extended supervision order (ESO) against the defendant, a man whose current prison term was due to expire on 27 October 2026. The application was made under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) (the Act), which empowers the Supreme Court to impose supervision conditions on eligible offenders assessed as posing an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released unsupervised.
The defendant's index offences, for which he was sentenced in December 2025, related to violent extremist material and Nazi symbolism. Between December 2023 and June 2024, he posted and possessed material including a video of the 2019 Christchurch massacre, the Tarrant manifesto, and antisemitic and racially vilifying content on Telegram. He also spray-painted Nazi symbols on properties and, in a voice recording posted to a public Telegram channel, explicitly incited violence against Jewish people.
At this preliminary hearing, the State did not seek a final ESO. It sought an interim supervision order (ISO) to take effect from the date of the defendant's release, along with the appointment of two expert assessors (psychiatrists or psychologists) to examine the defendant before the final hearing.
Legal Issues
- Whether the matters alleged in the supporting documentation, if proved, would justify the making of an extended supervision order under the Act.
- Whether an ISO commencing on the defendant's release date should be imposed under ss 27, 28(1) and 29(1) of the Act.
- Whether each of the supervision conditions sought by the State was appropriate, or whether certain conditions should be refused or modified.
Decision
Threshold for ISO: Richardson J was satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation, if proved, would justify the making of an extended supervision order. That finding engaged the Court's power to impose an ISO and to appoint expert examiners. The test at this preliminary stage is not a final determination of risk; it requires only that the supporting material discloses a case that could, if established, warrant an ESO.
Interim Supervision Order: The Court made an ISO commencing 27 October 2026 and expiring 24 November 2026, a period of 28 days aligned with the defendant's release from custody. The ISO was made subject to the conditions in Schedule A, which broadly governed where the defendant could live, whom he could associate with, and how his online activity could be monitored.
Conditions disputed: The State sought a wide-ranging condition (condition 41(i)) that would have prohibited the defendant from accessing or using any website, application or computer program not expressly approved by an enforcement officer. The defendant's senior counsel submitted that this formulation was unnecessarily broad, given that other conditions already provided enforcement officers with extensive monitoring powers, including examination and seizure of electronic devices, and given that separate conditions already prohibited access to online chat groups (condition 41(d)) and social media and social networking accounts (condition 41(h)).
Modification of conditions: Richardson J accepted those submissions. The Court found that the combination of existing conditions provided sufficient monitoring capacity without the additional blanket restriction. Rather than imposing condition 41(i) as sought, the Court substituted a modified condition (designated condition 41(A)), under which the defendant is prohibited from accessing or using, or causing another person to access or use on his behalf, any website, application or computer program specifically identified as prohibited by an enforcement officer. The final condition list in the ISO therefore ends at condition 41(h), followed by the new condition 41(A) in the defendant's preferred formulation.
Orders Made
- Two qualified psychiatrists and/or registered psychologists appointed to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and report to the Supreme Court by a date to be fixed; the defendant directed to attend those examinations (s 24(5) of the Act).
- Interim Supervision Order imposed, commencing 27 October 2026 and expiring 24 November 2026 (ss 27 and 28(1) of the Act).
- Defendant directed to comply with the conditions in Schedule A for the duration of the ISO (s 29(1) of the Act).
- Access to the Court's file restricted: non-parties may access the file only with leave of a Judge and after prior notice to the parties.
Key Takeaways
- At the preliminary stage of an ESO application under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), the Court need only be satisfied that the alleged facts, if proved, would justify the making of an extended supervision order. No final risk assessment is made at this stage.
- Possession and distribution of violent extremist material, including Christchurch massacre footage and the Tarrant manifesto, combined with public incitement of violence against a religious group, constituted the factual basis found sufficient to meet that preliminary threshold.
- Where the cumulative effect of multiple supervision conditions already provides adequate monitoring capacity, a court may decline to impose an additional condition in the broader form sought by the State, substituting a more targeted formulation.
- A blanket prohibition on all online activity unless expressly approved was not imposed; instead, the Court preferred a condition restricting only those websites, applications or programs specifically designated as prohibited by an enforcement officer.
- The defendant's criminal history, spanning firearms, explosives, drugs and now terrorism-related offences, formed part of the factual picture before the Court, though the preliminary judgment does not make any final findings about recidivism risk pending the expert reports.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93Z(1), 93ZA(1), 547E
- Criminal Code (Cth), ss 80.H(1), 474.45C(1)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 10(1)
- Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) , ss 4, 10, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
Cases
- New South Wales v White (Final) [2018] NSWSC 1943
- State of New South Wales v Dunn (a pseudonym) [2018] NSWSC 1008
- State of New South Wales v Naaman (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 328; (2018) 276 A Crim R 30
- Wilde v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 28