Booth v Dakkak

This case involved an application for an interim control order in relation to Radwan Dakkak, who had been convicted of associating with a terrorist organisation. The legal issues before the court were whether the control order was justified on the basis that Dakkak had been convicted of a terrorism-related offence, and that the obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions imposed on him were reasonably necessary to protect the public from a terrorist act, to prevent the provision of support for or the facilitation of a terrorist act, or to prevent the provision of support for or the facilitation of the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country. The court found that the interim control order was justified on the basis that Dakkak had been convicted of a terrorism-related offence, and that the obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions imposed on him were reasonably necessary to achieve the relevant purposes. The court made an interim control order in relation to Dakkak, subject to a case management hearing on 22 March 2021. The interim control order included a curfew, reporting requirements, restrictions on movement and communication, and restrictions on the use of electronic devices and the internet. The applicant undertook to the court and the respondent that she, and AFP appointees under her command, would not contact any person who was the subject of a notification provided by the respondent, unless it was prejudicial to security or for purposes unrelated to the respondent. The respondent was liable to imprisonment, sequestration of property or punishment for contempt if he failed to comply with the order.