Booth v Thorne (No 2)
Case
•
[2020] FCA 1196
•17 August 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Booth v Thorne (No 2) [2020] FCA 1196
[2020] FCA 1196
17 August 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Booth v Thorne (No 2) is a matter before the Federal Court of Australia concerning an application for the confirmation of an interim control order. The respondent, Shayden Jamil Thorne, is subject to the interim control order which was made on 6 March 2020 and last varied on 24 June 2020. The applicant, presumably the Australian Federal Police (AFP), seeks to confirm the interim control order with further variations agreed upon by the parties. The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the interim control order should be confirmed and what the terms of the confirmed control order should be. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the respondent had been convicted of an offence relating to terrorism, if he had provided support for or facilitated hostile activities in a foreign country, and whether the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions proposed in the confirmed control order were reasonably necessary and appropriate.
The court confirmed the interim control order with variations as set out in Annexure A to the orders. The court found that the respondent had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism, namely engaging in conduct in preparation for incursions into foreign countries for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities. Additionally, the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had provided support for or otherwise facilitated the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country. The court also found that each of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on the respondent by the confirmed control order were reasonably necessary and appropriate. The confirmed control order is in force until and including 5 March 2021.
The final orders confirm the interim control order with variations, declare the respondent's convictions and activities, and state the necessity and appropriateness of the control order's terms. The respondent's lawyer may obtain a copy of these orders from the AFP Melbourne office between 9 am to 4 pm, Monday to Friday.
The court confirmed the interim control order with variations as set out in Annexure A to the orders. The court found that the respondent had been convicted in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism, namely engaging in conduct in preparation for incursions into foreign countries for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities. Additionally, the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had provided support for or otherwise facilitated the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country. The court also found that each of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on the respondent by the confirmed control order were reasonably necessary and appropriate. The confirmed control order is in force until and including 5 March 2021.
The final orders confirm the interim control order with variations, declare the respondent's convictions and activities, and state the necessity and appropriateness of the control order's terms. The respondent's lawyer may obtain a copy of these orders from the AFP Melbourne office between 9 am to 4 pm, Monday to Friday.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Control Orders
-
Terrorism Offences
-
Conviction
-
Support for Terrorism
-
Necessity of Restrictions
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Booth v Thorne (No 2) [2020] FCA 1196
Most Recent Citation
Booth v Thorne [2021] FCA 380
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Minister for Home Affairs v Pender
[2021] NSWSC 1644
Booth v Thorne
[2021] FCA 380
Minister for Home Affairs v Pender
[2021] NSWSC 1644
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Booth v Thorne
[2020] FCA 445
Booth v Kaya (No 2)
[2020] FCA 1119
R v Cerantonio & Ors
[2019] VSC 284