Booth v Brookman (No 3) [2022] FCA 42

Booth v Brookman (No 3) [2022] FCA 42

The court confirmed the interim control order without variation because it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism and/or had provided support for or otherwise facilitated engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country, and that each obligation, prohibition and restriction was reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the statutory purposes of protecting the public from a terrorist act and preventing support for or facilitation of a terrorist act or hostile activity in a foreign country.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Confirmation of Interim Control Order Under S 104.14 of the Criminal Code / Confirmation Hearing
Outcome
Interim control order confirmed without variation; non-disclosure orders made.
Legal Topics
['control Orders' 'interim Control Order Confirmation' 'terrorism Related Offence' 'hostile Activity in a Foreign Country' 'suppression and Non Disclosure Orders']
['criminal Law' 'federal Crime and Related Proceedings'] ['control Orders' 'interim Control Order Confirmation' 'terrorism Related Offence' 'hostile Activity in a Foreign Country' 'suppression and Non Disclosure Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Confirmation of Interim Control Order Under S 104.14 of the Criminal Code / Confirmation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether one or more circumstances listed in s 104.4(1)(c) of the Criminal Code existed, including whether the respondent had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism or had provided support for or otherwise facilitated engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country.' 'Whether each obligation, prohibition and restriction imposed by the interim control order was reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purposes identified in s 104.4(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.' 'Whether the interim control order should be confirmed without variation under s 104.14 of the Criminal Code.' 'Whether non-disclosure orders should be replicated under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The court confirmed the interim control order without variation because it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism and/or had provided support for or otherwise facilitated engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country, and that each obligation, prohibition and restriction was reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the statutory purposes of protecting the public from a terrorist act and preventing support for or facilitation of a terrorist act or hostile activity in a foreign country.

Court Disposition

Interim control order confirmed without variation; non-disclosure orders made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 104.14(4) of the Criminal Code (Cth), the interim control order made in relation to the respondent on 6 July 2021 and as varied of 24 January 2022 is confirmed as set out in the Annexure to the Orders.' 'The confirmed order is in force until and including 5 July 2022.' "The respondent's lawyer may...