Booth v Kadir Kaya (No 2) [2020] FCA 1330

Booth v Kadir Kaya (No 2) [2020] FCA 1330

The Court confirmed the interim control order because it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Kaya had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism and that each obligation, prohibition and restriction in the confirmed order, as varied, was reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted for the purposes in s 104.4(1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii). The affidavits and Statement of Agreed Facts supported that conclusion, the parties agreed to confirmation with variations, and the Court removed the proposed requirement for 24 hours written notice before Mr Kaya stayed at the second specified address because that element was not shown to be necessary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Confirmation of Interim Control Order Pursuant to S 104.14 of the Criminal Code Contained in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 / Confirmation Hearing
Outcome
Interim control order confirmed with variations. The confirmed control order remains in force until and including 28 May 2021.
Legal Topics
['interim Control Order' 'confirmed Control Order' 'terrorism Related Offence' 'obligations, Prohibitions and Restrictions' 'reasonably Necessary and Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted']
['criminal Law' 'federal Crime and Related Proceedings' 'counter Terrorism'] ['interim Control Order' 'confirmed Control Order' 'terrorism Related Offence' 'obligations, Prohibitions and Restrictions' 'reasonably Necessary and Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted']

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 Pursuant to S 104.14 of the Criminal Code Contained in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 / Confirmation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interim control order should be confirmed under s 104.14 of the Criminal Code.' 'Whether the Court had to be satisfied of both the s 104.4(1)(c) and s 104.4(1)(d) elements when confirming the interim control order.' 'Whether each obligation, prohibition and restriction in the confirmed control order was reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purposes in s 104.4(1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Criminal Code.' 'Whether the proposed curfew condition requiring 24 hours written notice before staying at the second specified address was unduly restrictive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court confirmed the interim control order because it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Kaya had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism and that each obligation, prohibition and restriction in the confirmed order, as varied, was reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted for the purposes in s 104.4(1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii). The affidavits and Statement of Agreed Facts supported that conclusion, the parties agreed to confirmation with variations, and the Court removed the proposed requirement for 24 hours written notice before Mr Kaya stayed at the second specified address because that element was not shown to be necessary...

Court Disposition

Interim control order confirmed with variations. The confirmed control order remains in force until and including 28 May 2021.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 104.14(7)(b) of the Criminal Code, being the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions imposed on the Respondent by this confirmed control order are those set out in Annexure A to these Orders.' 'The confirmed control order is in force until and...