Booth v Abdirahman-Khalif [2021] FCA 1651

Booth v Abdirahman-Khalif [2021] FCA 1651

Confirmation of the control order is justified because, notwithstanding the absence of violent offending, the respondent's prior conduct, associations, lack of insight, and vulnerability to extremist influence create sufficient risk of facilitating or supporting a terrorist act, and the controls (including communication/device restrictions) are reasonably necessary and proportionate for public protection.

Parties
Applicant: Sandra Booth; Respondent: Zainab Abdirahman-Khalif
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Application to Confirm Interim Control Order (ico) Under Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Judgment on Confirmation of Interim Control Order
Outcome
Interim control order confirmed without variation
Legal Topics
Control Orders, Terrorist Organisations, Proportionality, Public Protection, Reasonable Necessity
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Control Orders Terrorist Organisations Proportionality Public Protection Reasonable Necessity

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Booth

Applicant

Zainab Abdirahman-Khalif

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Confirm Interim Control Order (ico) Under Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Judgment on Confirmation of Interim Control Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim control order (ICO) should be confirmed against the respondent under s 104.14(7)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether each of the obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions imposed by the ICO is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted for the purpose of public protection and preventing support for terrorism
  3. 3 Whether less restrictive alternatives render controls disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

Confirmation of the control order is justified because, notwithstanding the absence of violent offending, the respondent's prior conduct, associations, lack of insight, and vulnerability to extremist influence create sufficient risk of facilitating or supporting a terrorist act, and the controls (including communication/device restrictions) are reasonably necessary and proportionate for public protection.

Court Disposition

Interim control order confirmed without variation

Orders

  • The interim control order made in relation to the respondent on 4 May 2021 is confirmed pursuant to s 104.14(7)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
  • All obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions as set out in the annexure to the orders are imposed and the order is operative until 4 May 2022.