In order to prevent further criminal activity, the NSW Commissioner of Police sought to enact a crime prevention order pursuant to s5(1) of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) (the CSCPO Act). This would restrict their activity for 12 months with a number of conditions that the men had to comply with. In order for a serious crime prevention order to be imposed the court must be satisfied pursuant to s5(1)(b) of the Act that the person had been convicted of a serious criminal offence or involved with serious crime related activity. The use of such an order by law enforcement is in the interests of protecting the community from harm. The Commissioner relied on s93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to establish their involvement in serious crime related activity. activity. The section defines participation in a criminal group as an offence if the person knows or out to reasonably know that it is a criminal group and if they know or ought to reasonably know that their participation in the group contributes to the occurrence of criminal activity. Section 93 defines a criminal groups as a group with the objective to obtain material from conduct that constitutes a serious indictable offence or committing serious violence offences. The Commissioner submitted that apart from the first defendant the men had been convicted of offences where they had acted together to assault the public and that this demonstrated that their participation in the Nomads OMCG contributed to the occurrence of criminal activity. Furthermore the Commissioner submitted that the Nomads were a criminal group due to being a group three or more who have the objective of committing serious violence offences. It was submitted that each defendant had participated in the group and that each knew or ought to have known that they had contributed to the group’s criminal activities. Along with these submissions significant evidence was provided of the five defendant’s’ significant record of criminality.

A number of submissions were made in defence of the five men. It was submitted that the serious crime prevention order legislation is focussed on individuals, and that individual offending by the defendants could not be taken to show that the Nomads had particular objectives as suggested by the Commissioner. It was also submitted that the presumption of innocence should be maintained in accordance with Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that a prevention order would be contrary to this as their offences had not been proved in court.

The court deemed it appropriate to impose Serious Crime Prevention Orders on the five men. These prevention orders included a number of conditions that the men had to comply with. These included restrictions including prevention from contacting or associating directly or indirectly with any member, nominee or associate of any Outlaw Motor Cycle Gang (OMCG). This included any form of contact such as oral, electronic communication or by telephone. The men were also prevented from night driving unless related to lawful employment. The men were also prohibited from a number of actions including possession of encrypted devices, more than one mobile phone and wearing Nomad insignia. The men were also subject to strict monitoring by the police, including of their communications and their possessions.