ABSTRACT

Since 2020, the Terrorism (High-Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) (THRO Act) has increasingly become a frontier for contestation about the implied freedom of political communication and the maintenance of community safety. In closely considering two recent decisions, State of New South Wales v Cheema (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 876 and Cheema v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 190, this article analyses the courts’ use of a deeming provision to prove that an offender has advocated support for a terrorist act or violent extremism. I argue that these decisions have significant implications for the rights of offenders convicted of indictable offences and journalists who seek to engage in political communication. I further argue contrary to the reasoning in the decisions, that the THRO Act has the real capacity to burden the implied freedom of political communication in extending the State’s powers to subject individuals to supervision and detention after expiry of their sentences in a way that is disproportionate to the end of maintaining community safety. In doing so, I seek to draw attention to the THRO Act’s extraordinary ambit in a call for wider scholarly attention as provisions such as that under examination are increasingly frequently invoked.

摘要

自 2020 年以来，《2017 年恐怖主义（高风险罪犯）法》（新南威尔士州）（THRO 法）日益成为有关隐含的政治交流自由和维护社区安全的争论的前沿。在仔细考虑最近的两项裁决时，State of New South Wales v Cheema (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 876 和Cheema v State of New South Wales[2020] NSWCA 190，本文分析了法院使用推定条款来证明犯罪者主张支持恐怖行为或暴力极端主义。我认为，这些决定对被判犯有可公诉罪行的罪犯和寻求参与政治交流的记者的权利具有重大影响。我进一步争辩说，与判决中的推理相反，THRO 法案具有真正的能力，以不相称的方式扩大国家的权力，使个人在刑期届满后受到监督和拘留，从而加重隐含的政治交流自由以维护社区安全。在这样做，