AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 22 July 2026

State of New South Wales v Farzad (Final) (No 2)

[2026] NSWSC 869

Sexual offences

Citation: State of New South Wales v Farzad (Final) (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 869
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 July 2026
Judge(s): Roberts J

Background

The defendant committed a series of serious sexual offences in May 2004, including administering a stupefying drug to a 13-year-old girl and subjecting her to aggravated sexual assault and indecent assault. He pleaded guilty in 2006 and received a total effective sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a six-year non-parole period. Due to subsequent offending in Tasmania and New South Wales, he remained in custody beyond his original sentence and was not first released until August 2015.

The State first applied for orders under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) in September 2023, seeking a Continuing Detention Order. In March 2024, Hamill J declined that application but made a two-year Extended Supervision Order (ESO). When that ESO was nearing expiry, the State applied in December 2025 for a further ESO. The defendant was subject to an Interim Supervision Order at the time of the final hearing, which took place on 1 and 2 July 2026. He did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not legally represented at that stage, though he participated in the final hearing.

Roberts J heard oral evidence from two experts: Dr Jeremy O'Dea (forensic psychiatrist) and Dr Carollyne Youssef (clinical and forensic psychologist). The defendant opposed both the finding of unacceptable risk and the orders sought, submitting in the alternative that discretionary considerations should lead the Court to decline to make an ESO.

  • Whether the Court was satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious sexual offence if not kept under supervision, as required by s 5B(d) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
  • Whether the statutory preconditions for making an ESO were met
  • What conditions should attach to any ESO, including whether electronic monitoring and medication compliance conditions were appropriate
  • Whether any discretionary reasons existed to refuse the orders even if the unacceptable risk threshold was met

Decision

Issue 1: Statutory preconditions

There was no dispute that the formal statutory preconditions under s 5B were satisfied. The predicate offences constituted serious sex offences under the Act. The defendant was a supervised offender within the meaning of s 5I(2)(b) because he was already subject to an ESO when the application was filed in December 2025. The application was made within the required timeframe, being in the last nine months of the existing ESO.

Issue 2: Unacceptable risk

Roberts J was satisfied to the required high degree of probability that the defendant posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious sexual offence without supervision. While the predicate offences occurred approximately 20 years ago, multiple risk factors remained. Untreated mental illness was identified as a material contributor to risk, and the expert evidence addressed the significance of competing diagnostic positions. The defendant's subsequent offending, although not rising to the level of "serious" offences under the Act, was treated as relevant context. No breach of the existing ESO was established, but the absence of breach did not, of itself, displace the finding of unacceptable risk.

Issue 3: Conditions of the ESO

Roberts J considered the specific conditions proposed by the State. The electronic monitoring condition was removed from the order. Conditions relating to internet use, supervision, and monitoring were retained, the Court accepting that the defendant's risk was closely connected to his online conduct. A condition requiring medication compliance was retained, with Roberts J accepting Dr O'Dea's evidence that appropriate medication was critical to reducing risk; prescribing decisions remained with treating doctors. A condition requiring prior approval for changes in appearance was modified so that notification only was required. The condition requiring disclosure of criminal history to treating healthcare professionals was maintained, having regard to the defendant's conduct toward female healthcare workers.

Issue 4: Discretionary refusal

Roberts J did not accept that discretionary reasons warranted refusing the orders. The objects of the Act, being community safety and the encouragement of rehabilitation, supported the making of the ESO on the evidence before the Court.

Orders Made

  • A two-year Extended Supervision Order made pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), running from the date of the order
  • An order pursuant to s 11 of the Act directing the defendant to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule annexed to the judgment for the duration of the ESO
  • An order restricting non-party access to the Supreme Court file, requiring leave of a judge and notification to the parties before any such access is granted

Key Takeaways

  • An unacceptable risk finding under s 5B(d) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) is not precluded by the passage of approximately 20 years since the predicate serious sexual offending, where multiple current risk factors remain unaddressed.
  • Untreated or inadequately managed mental illness can constitute a significant risk factor capable of supporting an unacceptable risk finding, even in the absence of a breach of an existing supervision order during the preceding ESO period.
  • Subsequent offending that does not meet the statutory definition of "serious offences" under the Act may nonetheless remain relevant to the overall risk assessment.
  • Where expert evidence establishes a direct link between medication compliance and risk reduction, the Supreme Court may impose a condition requiring the supervised person to take prescribed medication, provided prescribing decisions remain with treating clinicians.
  • Electronic monitoring is not an automatic condition of an ESO; Roberts J removed that condition on the facts of this case, reflecting that the appropriateness of individual conditions turns on their relevance to the particular risk profile established by the evidence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW)
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
- Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2006 (Tas)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 5(1), 5B , 9(1)(a), 9(3)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 38, s 60A(1) , 61J(2)(d) , 61M(3)(b) (repealed)
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) , s 474.17(1)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (repealed), ss 32 , 33
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) , ss 14(1)(b) , 14(2)
- Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) , s 11C(1)

Cases
- Arthur Fairwell v Senior Sergeant Luke Moore [2019] TASSC 44
- Attorney General of NSW v Doolan by his tutor Jennifer Thompson (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 107
- R v Arthur Fairwell [2006] NSWDC 18
- State of New South Wales v Farzad (also known as Arthur Fairwell) (Final) [2024] NSWSC 265
- State of New South Wales v Farzad (Preliminary) (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 301
- State of New South Wales v Farzad (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 1207
- State of New South Wales v JC (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 31