Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Booth v Khazaal [2020] FCA 1241 File number: NSD 859 of 2020
Judgment of: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 26 August 2020
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – control orders – application for interim control orders pursuant to s 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – where person has been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism, a terrorist organisation or a terrorist act – whether proposed orders reasonably necessary – whether proposed orders reasonably appropriate and adapted – application granted
Legislation: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 100.1, 101.5(1), 102.1(1), 104.1, 104.2(3), 104.3, 104.4, 104.4(1), 104.4(1)(a), 104.4(1)(b), 104.4(1)(c)(iv), 104.4(1)(d)(i), 104.4.(1)(d)(ii), 104.4(1)(d)(iii), 104.4(2), 104.4(3) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AG, 37AG(1)(a), 37AG(1)(b), 37AG(1)(c)
Cases cited: Booth v Kaya [2020] FCA 25 McCartney v EB (2019) 263 FCR 170 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 73
Date of hearing: 18 August 2020
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D G Staehli SC with Mr T Glover
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Parkin
Solicitor for the Respondent: Lawyers Corp Pty Ltd
ORDERS NSD 859 of 2020
BETWEEN: SANDRA BOOTH Applicant
AND: BELAL SAADALLAY KHAZAAL Respondent
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