Site Logo

Booth v Namoa [2019] FCA 2213

interim control order — s 104.4(1) — conspiring to do acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act contrary to sections 11.5(1) and 101.6(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — sentence imposed 3 years’ and 9 months imprisonment with a 2 year and 10 month non-parole period — parole not granted — sentence expired on 22 December 2019 — offender in agreement with and expressly supported co-offender’s intention to carry out terrorist attack — sentencing judge found offender drawn into previous Salafi jihadism beliefs at superficial and emotional level because doctrine gave a sense of belonging to something as well as sense of purpose and channel for expression of aggressive feelings — sentencing judge made allowances for offenders youth that allowed offender to be seduced by ideology promoted by propaganda — sentencing judge found causal effect of offender’s mental disturbances made it inappropriate to penalise at level that otherwise might have been called for by way of deterrent to others — still real and reasonable risk offender remains person about whom it is not possible conclusively to say that they are not at risk of relapsing to, or actually maintaining, offending behaviours that led to conviction although there are many positive indications that they have abandoned those behaviours — it is not always possible objectively to ascertain whether subsequent renunciation is genuine or even if genuine one that person can maintain because of personality traits, education and psychological conditions that led to initial adoption of those toxic beliefs — making of control order requires Court to engage in process of evaluating through balancing exercise that Div 104 of Code prescribes what obligations prohibitions and restrictions ought to be imposed on person having regard to what is reasonably necessary reasonably appropriate and adapted for purposes of protecting public from terrorist attack or preventing provision of support for or facilitation of terrorist act — object of Parliament is paramount consideration in evaluating terms and provisions of interim control order — each of proposed obligations prohibitions and restrictions in final version of proposed interim control order imposes on offender no more than is reasonably necessary, reasonably appropriate and adapted for purpose of paramount consideration of protecting public from terrorist act and preventing provision of support for or facilitation of terrorist act — proposed orders are also reasonably necessary reasonably appropriate and adapted to minimise, consistently with object of rehabilitation of offender, impact of controls on financial and personal circumstances — control order to be confirmed, varied declared void or revoked on 3 February 2020 — if interim control order is confirmed control order is to be in force for 12 months after day on which interim control order is made
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions