Booth v Kaya (No 2) [2020] FCA 1119

Booth v Kaya (No 2) [2020] FCA 1119

The Court was satisfied that the procedural requirements for confirmation had been met, including personal service of the interim control order and notice of the election to confirm; the evidence enabled the represented respondent to understand and respond to the basis for confirmation; the respondent did not oppose confirmation and consented to the form of the controls; and the Court was satisfied the statutory conditions for confirmation and the reasonableness of the controls were met. The interim control order was therefore confirmed with variations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Control Orders / Application for Confirmation of Interim Control Order
Outcome
Interim control order confirmed with variations.
Legal Topics
['control Orders' 'confirmation of Interim Control Order' 'terrorism Related Offence']
['criminal Law' 'federal Crime and Related Proceedings'] ['control Orders' 'confirmation of Interim Control Order' 'terrorism Related Offence']

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

Criminal Law Control Orders / Application for Confirmation of Interim Control Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the requirements of ss 104.12 and 104.12A of the Criminal Code had been complied with for the purposes of s 104.14(1A).' 'Whether the interim control order made in relation to the respondent should be confirmed with variations.' 'Whether each obligation, prohibition and restriction imposed by the confirmed control order was reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purposes of s 104.4(1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Criminal Code.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the procedural requirements for confirmation had been met, including personal service of the interim control order and notice of the election to confirm; the evidence enabled the represented respondent to understand and respond to the basis for confirmation; the respondent did not oppose confirmation and consented to the form of the controls; and the Court was satisfied the statutory conditions for confirmation and the reasonableness of the controls were met. The interim control order was therefore confirmed with variations.

Court Disposition

Interim control order confirmed with variations.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 104.14(7)(b) of the Criminal Code, being the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the interim control order made in relation to the respondent on 22 January 2020 is confirmed with variations as set out in red in Annexure A to these Orders.' 'The confirmed control order relates to the...