FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Booth v Namoa (No 2) [2020] FCA 73
File number: NSD 2028 of 2019 Judge: RARES J Date of judgment: 3 February 2020 Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – control orders – application for confirmation of interim control order pursuant to s 104.14 of the Criminal Code in the schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – where respondent and her legal representatives not appear at hearing for making of confirmation order - where preconditions for confirmation of control order met - where the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions contained in the control order on balance of probabilities reasonably necessary, reasonably appropriate and adapted for purposes of s 104.4(1)(d)(i) and (ii) – Held: control order confirmed without variation Legislation: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Code ss 104.4; 104.5; 104.12, 104.12A, 104.14, 104.15, 104.16, 104.28A
Date of hearing 3 February 2020 Registry New South Wales Division General Division National Practice Area Federal Crime and Related Proceedings Category Catchwords Number of paragraphs 19 Counsel for the Applicant Mr P Melican Solicitor for the Applicant Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent The respondent did not appear ORDERS
NSD 2028 of 2019 BETWEEN: SANDRA BOOTH
Applicant
AND: ALO-BRIDGET NAMOA
Respondent
JUDGE:
RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 FEBRUARY 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 104.14(4) of the Criminal Code, being the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the interim control order made in relation to the respondent on 19 December 2019 be confirmed to apply to the respondent without variation in the terms of the confirmed control order set out in the Annexure to these Orders.
2.The respondent’s lawyer may attend the AFP Sydney office at 110 Goulburn St, Sydney NSW between 9 am to 4 pm, Monday to Friday in order to obtain a copy of these Orders.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
3.It is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that,
(a)for the purpose of s 104.4(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code, the respondent has been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism or a terrorist act, namely conspiring to do acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act between 8 December 2015 and 25 January 2016 at Sydney, contrary to ss 11.5 and 101.6 of the Criminal Code.
(b)each of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on the respondent by the confirmed control order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purposes of s 104.4(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)RARES J:
On 19 December 2019, on the application Sandra Booth, a Commander in the Australian Federal Police, I made an interim control order in respect of the respondent, Alo-Bridget Namoa, pursuant to s 104.4 of the Criminal Code in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth): Booth v Namoa (No 1) [2019] FCA…
Continue reading Booth v Namoa (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Booth v Namoa (No 2) [2020] FCA 73
- Case
- [2020] FCA 73
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that Ms Namoa was properly served and that the evidence presented was consistent with the prior hearing on 19 December 2019. The reasons given for the interim control order were still relevant and justified its continuation. The court was satisfied that the respondent had been convicted of an offence relating to terrorism and that the control order's conditions were necessary and appropriate for the purposes outlined in the Criminal Code. Therefore, the court confirmed the interim control order without any changes.
The final orders included confirming the interim control order in its original terms, effective until 18 December 2020. The respondent's lawyer was permitted to obtain a copy of these orders from the AFP Sydney office. The court noted that it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had been convicted of a terrorism-related offence and that the control order's conditions were reasonably necessary and appropriate.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 104.14(4) of the Criminal Code, being the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the interim control order made in relation to the respondent on 19 December 2019 be confirmed to apply to the respondent without variation in the terms of the confirmed control order set out in the Annexure to these Orders.
2. The respondent’s lawyer may attend the AFP Sydney office at 110 Goulburn St, Sydney NSW between 9 am to 4 pm, Monday to Friday in order to obtain a copy of these Orders.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
3. It is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that,
(a) for the purpose of s 104.4(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code, the respondent has been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism or a terrorist act, namely conspiring to do acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act between 8 December 2015 and 25 January 2016 at Sydney, contrary to ss 11.5 and 101.6 of the Criminal Code.
(b) each of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on the respondent by the confirmed control order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purposes of s 104.4(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.