Booth v Thorne

The case of Booth v Thorne involved an application for interim control orders under section 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The applicant sought the orders in relation to the respondent, who was about to be released from prison. The application was made on short notice, filed on 27 February 2020, due to the urgency caused by the respondent's imminent release. The background of the case includes the respondent being one of the co-offenders in a group that conspired to overthrow the government of the Southern Philippines by force or violence. The applicant argued that the respondent posed a risk of reoffending, necessitating the imposition of a control order to prevent further terrorist activities.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the methodology used for the risk assessment was reliable and whether the proposed controls were reasonably necessary, reasonably appropriate, and adapted to achieve the objectives of the Act. The respondent argued that the risk assessment methodology was unreliable and that the risk posed by the respondent was insufficient to justify the imposition of a control order. The court needed to determine if the applicant had established a sufficient risk of reoffending based on the evidence presented.

The court found that the applicant's risk assessment, based on multiple factors including a Violent Extremism Risk Assessment and the applicant's extensive experience in counter-terrorism operations, provided a rational basis for concluding that the respondent posed a risk of reoffending. The court was satisfied that the terms of the control order were reasonably necessary, reasonably appropriate, and adapted to achieve the objectives of the Act. As a result, the court granted the application and imposed an interim control order on the respondent.

The final orders included amending the schedule of the orders made on 6 March 2020 to include additional annexures and requiring the applicant to personally serve the order on the respondent. The entry of these orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.