Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Booth v Dacre [2020] FCA 751 File number: VID 297 of 2020
Judge: WHITE J
Date of judgment: 14 May 2020
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for the making of an Interim Control Order pursuant to s 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the person has been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism, a terrorist organisation or a terrorist act – whether the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions are reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted – application granted.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AG Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.2A, 104.1, 104.3, 104.4, 104.5, 119.4(1)
Cases cited: Sandra Booth v Murat Kaya [2020] FCA 25 Booth v Thorne [2020] FCA 445 R v Cerantonio [2019] VSC 284 Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33; (2007) 233 CLR 307
Date of hearing: 14 May 2020
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Federal Crime and Related Proceedings
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 25
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms C Fitzgerald
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Brand
Solicitor for the Respondent: Slades & Parsons Criminal Law
ORDERS VID 297 of 2020
BETWEEN: SANDRA BOOTH Applicant
AND: PAUL JAMES DACRE Respondent
JUDGE: WHITE J DATE OF ORDER: 14 MAY 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 104.4 of the Criminal Code, which is the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), upon the Respondent being personally served, he is bound by the terms of the Interim Control Order (ICO) set out in the schedule to the orders. 2. The Applicant take all reasonable steps to ensure that any request for approval which the Respondent makes to an AFP Superintendent as defined in paragraph [23.1(a)] of the ICO, in accordance with the ICO, including any request for exemption under paragraph [22] is determined as soon as reasonably practicable. 3. Acting pursuant to s 37AF(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and on the ground in s 37AG(1)(d), there is to be no publication of the address mentioned in paragraph [1.1] of the terms of the ICO, the name of the police station and the address mentioned in paragraph [2.2] of the ICO, the names of any of the individuals named in paragraph [16.3(a)] in the ICO and any of the dates of birth of the persons listed in paragraph [11.1(c)] of the ICO. 4. The form of the order which is to be available to the public on the Court's Portal is to have the details to which Order 3 refers redacted. 5. Any further affidavits to be relied upon by the Applicant at the hearing fixed by Order 8 in the schedule are to be filed and served by 19 May 2020. 6. Any further affidavits to be relied upon by the Respondent at that hearing are to be filed and served by 26 May 2020. 7. The Applicant is by 19 May 2020 to file and serve an outline of submissions to be made at that hearing, with that outline not to exceed 10 pages. 8. The Respondent is by 26 May 2020 to file and serve an outline of submissions to be made at that hearing, with that outline not to exceed 10 pages. 9. There be liberty to the parties to apply. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate