Booth v Brookman (No 2) [2022] FCA 30

Booth v Brookman (No 2) [2022] FCA 30

Because written consent to the variation had been given, the variation did not add obligations, prohibitions or restrictions, and it was appropriate to avoid unduly burdening the respondent or causing unavoidable or technical breaches while he remained in custody, the criteria in s 104.11A(2) were satisfied. The sensitive witness statement was substantially identical to a document previously protected by equivalent orders, so equivalent non-disclosure orders were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Federal Crime Control Order Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Dated 20 January 2022 for Variation of an Interim Control Order, Determined on the Papers/in Chambers
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['control Orders' 'variation of Interim Control Order' 'consent to Variation' 'non Disclosure Orders' 'sensitive Witness Statement']
['criminal Law' 'federal Crime and Related Proceedings'] ['control Orders' 'variation of Interim Control Order' 'consent to Variation' 'non Disclosure Orders' 'sensitive Witness Statement']

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

Federal Crime Control Order Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Dated 20 January 2022 for Variation of an Interim Control Order, Determined on the Papers/in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interim control order should be varied under s 104.11A of the Criminal Code to suspend controls 1–23 while the respondent is held in custody.' 'Whether non-disclosure orders should be made for the witness statement dated 22 September 2016 and its annexures.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because written consent to the variation had been given, the variation did not add obligations, prohibitions or restrictions, and it was appropriate to avoid unduly burdening the respondent or causing unavoidable or technical breaches while he remained in custody, the criteria in s 104.11A(2) were satisfied. The sensitive witness statement was substantially identical to a document previously protected by equivalent orders, so equivalent non-disclosure orders were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 104.11A of the Criminal Code (Cth), the interim control order entered in relation to the respondent on 6 July 2021 is varied to include Control 24, providing that Controls 1–23 do not apply while the respondent is held by or on behalf of an officer in a prison or remand centre of the Commonwealth, a...