Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nicolson v Naizmand [2022] FCA 1108 File number: NSD 491 of 2022
Judgment of: BROMWICH J
Date of judgment: 20 September 2022
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – control orders – application for interim control order (ICO) pursuant to s 104.04 of the Criminal Code (Cth) – ICO not opposed, and most controls sought not opposed, without conceding they meet, on the balance of probabilities, the test of being reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted for the purposes identified in s 104.4(1)(d) – determination of whether the basis for the ICO is made out; adjudication on whether each of the disputed controls meet the test Held: application granted
Legislation: Criminal Code (Cth) Chapter 5; Div 104; Subdivisions B, C, CA, D; Pt 5.3, ss 100.1, 102.1(1), 104.1, 104.2, 104.2(3)(aa), 104.3, 104.3(a), 104.4(1), 104.4(1)(a), 104.4(1)(b), 104.4(1)(c), 104.4(1)(c)(iv), 104.4(1)(d), 104.4(1)(d)(i), 104.4(2), 104.27 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 3(1)(b)
Cases cited: McCartney v Abdirahman-Khalif (No 2) [2020] FCA 1002 McCartney v EB [2019] FCA 183; 263 FCR 170 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33; 233 CLR 307
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Federal Crime and Related Proceedings
Number of paragraphs: 48
Date of hearing: 31 August 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: M Varley
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: G James AM QC and AR Sapienza
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