GAUGHAN v CAUSEVIC

This matter came before Judge Hartnett of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning an interim control order made against the Respondent, Harun Causevic, under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The Applicant, Neil Gaughan, sought to have the confirmation hearing proceed in the Federal Circuit Court. The Respondent, however, foreshadowed an application to transfer the proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia.

The Court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the legislative scheme under Division 104 of the Criminal Code mandates that the specific court which issued the interim control order must also conduct the confirmation hearing, thereby precluding any transfer. Secondly, if a power to transfer did exist under section 39 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), whether the Court should, in its discretion, exercise that power and transfer the proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia.

In considering the first issue, the Court referred to the legislative framework and the reasoning in *Jabbour v Thomas (No.3)*, which held that the Criminal Code scheme requires the issuing court to determine the confirmation hearing. The Court found this interpretation to be consistent with the systematic use of terms like "an issuing court" and "the issuing court" within Division 104, indicating an intent for the original court to retain carriage of the matter. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no power to transfer the confirmation hearing to the Federal Court of Australia.

Given the determination that no power to transfer existed, the Court did not need to consider the second issue regarding the exercise of discretion. The proceeding was adjourned for a further hearing, with costs reserved. The Respondent was ordered to file and serve any affidavit material on which he sought to rely by a specified date.