Booth v Granata [2020] FCA 768

Booth v Granata [2020] FCA 768

The Court was satisfied that the applicant had standing and had complied with s 104.3, that the Court had considered the required information, and that the respondent's conviction was an offence relating to terrorism for s 104.4(1)(c)(iv). Given the respondent's offending, extended extremist interest, and continuing associations with persons of security concern, an Interim Control Order was appropriate. However, not every proposed control was justified as framed: twice-weekly reporting was not reasonably necessary and weekly reporting was sufficient; the proposed advance paid-work notification condition should be replaced with a less stringent information requirement; the prohibition on...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for the Making of an Interim Control Order Pursuant to S 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment; Matter Adjourned to a Case Management Hearing for Consideration of Orders for the Confirmation Hearing
Outcome
Application for an Interim Control Order granted in part, with some proposed controls modified or refused; matter adjourned for further consideration at the confirmation hearing.
Legal Topics
['interim Control Order' 'terrorist Act' 'hostile Activity in a Foreign Country' 'foreign Incursions' 'reporting Requirements' 'employment Notification' 'communications and Association Restrictions' 'technology Platforms and Internet Service Restrictions']
['criminal Law' 'federal Crime' 'counter Terrorism'] ['interim Control Order' 'terrorist Act' 'hostile Activity in a Foreign Country' 'foreign Incursions' 'reporting Requirements' 'employment Notification' 'communications and Association Restrictions' 'technology Platforms and Internet Service Restrictions']

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 the Making of an Interim Control Order Pursuant to S 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment; Matter Adjourned to a Case Management Hearing for Consideration of Orders for the Confirmation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statutory requirements for making an Interim Control Order under s 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) were satisfied.' 'Whether each proposed obligation, prohibition and restriction was reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purposes in s 104.4(1)(d).' 'Whether the respondent should be subject to twice-weekly reporting requirements.' 'Whether advance notification to the Australian Federal Police before undertaking paid work was reasonably necessary.' 'Whether the respondent should be prohibited from communicating or associating with a specified individual.' 'Whether restrictions on access to WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Facebook, Skype, Zoom, Facetime and internet services were appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the applicant had standing and had complied with s 104.3, that the Court had considered the required information, and that the respondent's conviction was an offence relating to terrorism for s 104.4(1)(c)(iv). Given the respondent's offending, extended extremist interest, and continuing associations with persons of security concern, an Interim Control Order was appropriate. However, not every proposed control was justified as framed: twice-weekly reporting was not reasonably necessary and weekly reporting was sufficient; the proposed advance paid-work notification condition should be replaced with a less stringent information requirement; the prohibition on...

Court Disposition

Application for an Interim Control Order granted in part, with some proposed controls modified or refused; matter adjourned for further consideration at the confirmation hearing.

Orders

  • ['The matter is adjourned to a Case Management Hearing at 11:30 (AEST) on Tuesday 16 June 2020 for consideration of the orders reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted for the confirmation hearing.' 'There be liberty to the parties to apply.']