Booth v Dacre - [2020] FCA 751

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Booth v Dacre

Details

AGLC: Booth v Dacre [2020] FCA 751
Case: [2020] FCA 751
Decision Date: 14 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Booth v Dacre, the applicant sought the making of an interim control order against the respondent under section 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The application was heard by the Federal Court, which had to determine whether the respondent had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism, a terrorist organisation, or a terrorist act. The court was also required to consider whether the obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions proposed in the application were reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted to the circumstances of the case.

The court examined the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards, including the criteria for making an interim control order as set out in the legislation. It assessed the respondent's criminal history, including the nature and seriousness of the offences committed, and considered the risk posed by the respondent to the community if an order was not made. The court found that the respondent had been convicted of offences relating to terrorism and that the proposed control order was reasonably necessary and appropriately tailored to address the risk posed by the respondent. It was satisfied that the order would not be oppressive or otherwise unjust and that the respondent's rights and freedoms would be protected.

The court granted the application and made the interim control order, which includes obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions on the respondent's activities and movements. The order is in effect until the final hearing of the application for a control order, which is scheduled to take place in the near future. The court's decision is subject to appeal, and the parties have the right to seek further legal remedies if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the case.

Orders