Booth v Namoa (No 2) [2020] FCA 73
The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the requirements for confirmation of the interim control order were met, including proper service, the respondent's prior conviction for a terrorism offence, and the necessity, appropriateness, and adaptation of the order's terms. Accordingly, the interim control order should be confirmed without variation until 18 December 2020.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 February 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Confirmation of Interim Control Order / Final Hearing
- Outcome
- control order confirmed without variation
- Legal Topics
- ['control Orders' 'confirmation of Interim Control Order' 'service of Court Documents']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Confirmation of Interim Control Order / Final Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the preconditions for the confirmation of a control order have been met under s 104.14 of the Criminal Code.' 'Whether the respondent was properly served with required materials under ss 104.12 and 104.12A.' 'Whether the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions are reasonably necessary, appropriate, and adapted for the purposes of s 104.4(1)(d)(i) and (ii).']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the requirements for confirmation of the interim control order were met, including proper service, the respondent's prior conviction for a terrorism offence, and the necessity, appropriateness, and adaptation of the order's terms. Accordingly, the interim control order should be confirmed without variation until 18 December 2020.
Court Disposition
control order confirmed without variation
Orders
- ['The interim control order made in relation to the respondent on 19 December 2019 is confirmed to apply to the respondent without variation in the terms of the confirmed control order set out in the Annexure to these Orders.' "The respondent's lawyer may attend the AFP Sydney office at 110 Goulburn St, Sydney NSW...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment