Booth v Kaya [2020] FCA 25

Booth v Kaya [2020] FCA 25

The Court held that the statutory preconditions for an interim control order were satisfied. The respondent's conviction for preparation for incursion into a foreign country for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities, contrary to s 119.4(1), was properly characterised as an offence relating to terrorism because it involved conduct preparatory to hostile activity directed at overthrowing by force or violence the government of the Southern Philippines. Further, the respondent's agreement and preparatory conduct supported the conclusion that he had provided support for or otherwise facilitated engagement in hostile activity in a foreign country. The agreed controls were proportionate...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Control Order Pursuant to S 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Interim Control Order Application; Application Granted in Part
Outcome
Application granted in part; interim control order made with amended curfew hours.
Legal Topics
['interim Control Orders' 'offence Relating to Terrorism' 'hostile Activity in a Foreign Country' 'reasonably Necessary, Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted Restrictions' 'proportionality']
['criminal Law' 'federal Crime and Related Proceedings' 'counter Terrorism Control Orders'] ['interim Control Orders' 'offence Relating to Terrorism' 'hostile Activity in a Foreign Country' 'reasonably Necessary, Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted Restrictions' 'proportionality']

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 Interim Control Order Pursuant to S 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Interim Control Order Application; Application Granted in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism within s 104.4(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the respondent had provided support for or otherwise facilitated the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country within s 104.4(1)(c)(vii) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether each obligation, prohibition and restriction proposed for the interim control order was reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purposes in s 104.4(1)(d) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed curfew and twice-weekly reporting requirement should be imposed in the terms sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the statutory preconditions for an interim control order were satisfied. The respondent's conviction for preparation for incursion into a foreign country for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities, contrary to s 119.4(1), was properly characterised as an offence relating to terrorism because it involved conduct preparatory to hostile activity directed at overthrowing by force or violence the government of the Southern Philippines. Further, the respondent's agreement and preparatory conduct supported the conclusion that he had provided support for or otherwise facilitated engagement in hostile activity in a foreign country. The agreed controls were proportionate...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; interim control order made with amended curfew hours.

Orders

  • ['The Court makes an interim control order pursuant to s 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) in the terms set out in the Schedule.' 'The confirmation hearing of the interim control order is listed at 10:15 am on 3 June 2020.' 'The curfew control was imposed between 12:00 am and 6:00 am each day rather than the...