Booth v Dakkak [2020] FCA 1882

Booth v Dakkak [2020] FCA 1882

The Court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had been convicted of offences relating to terrorism and that each control imposed by the interim control order was (as modified where appropriate) reasonably necessary, appropriate and adapted for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorist acts or preventing support for terrorist acts or hostile activities abroad. Certain controls were amended to ensure proportionality and legal conformity, but the order as a whole was justified by the evidence of the respondent’s past conduct, radicalisation, lack of remorse, and risk of recidivism.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Control Order / Interlocutory (determination of Interim Control Order)
Outcome
Application for interim control order granted (with modifications).
Legal Topics
['control Orders' 'counter Terrorism' 'interim Orders' 'proportionality of Restrictions' 'criminal Code Act 1995 (cth)']
['criminal Law'] ['control Orders' 'counter Terrorism' 'interim Orders' 'proportionality of Restrictions' 'criminal Code Act 1995 (cth)']

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 / Interlocutory (determination of Interim Control Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an interim control order should be made under s 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) against Radwan Dakkak upon his release from prison' 'Whether the controls sought are proportionate and justified under s 104.4(1)(d)' 'Whether each imposed obligation, prohibition or restriction is reasonably necessary, appropriate and adapted for the stated purposes']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had been convicted of offences relating to terrorism and that each control imposed by the interim control order was (as modified where appropriate) reasonably necessary, appropriate and adapted for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorist acts or preventing support for terrorist acts or hostile activities abroad. Certain controls were amended to ensure proportionality and legal conformity, but the order as a whole was justified by the evidence of the respondent’s past conduct, radicalisation, lack of remorse, and risk of recidivism.

Court Disposition

Application for interim control order granted (with modifications).

Orders

  • ['An interim control order pursuant to s 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) was made in the terms set out in the Schedule to the orders.' 'Case management hearing listed for 22 March 2021 at 9.30 am for confirmation, variation or revocation of the order.' 'Various controls and restrictions imposed as...