Background
On 23 March 2026, Justice Burley made an interim control order concerning Haisem Zahab under s 104.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The applicant elected to seek confirmation of that order, and Justice Bromwich heard the confirmation application on 2 July 2026. Judgment on confirmation remained reserved, although separate orders had narrowed and altered some interim controls pending that decision.
As a collateral issue, Zahab applied to suppress limited portions of material placed before the Court at the confirmation hearing, including specified passages in the nearly 2,500-page Court Book and two paragraphs of a further affidavit from his solicitor. The applicant consented. Other suppression orders had already been made to maintain protections ordered in other courts and protections associated with the interim control order.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Bromwich granted the requested suppression orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), relying on ss 37AG(1)(b) and 37AG(1)(c). The Court was satisfied that suppressing the two paragraphs of the solicitor’s affidavit was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice. Because of their substance, the Court did not describe them further in open court or in the published reasons.
The remaining material comprised small portions of the Court Book—altogether probably fewer than 10 pages and less than half of one per cent of the filed material. The Court found that the information had no real bearing on the confirmation hearing or the forthcoming decision and that suppression was clearly and unambiguously necessary for the administration of justice and the protection of certain individuals.
The identified material may be disclosed only to specified permitted persons, including judges, court staff, the parties and their legal representatives, and government officers acting in the course of their duties. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the suppression order remains in force until 8 December 2053.
Key Takeaways
- The decision concerns suppression of evidence used in control-order proceedings, not the still-reserved determination of whether the interim control order should be confirmed.
- The Court suppressed the precise portions of the filed material listed in Annexure A, including personal identifying information and two paragraphs whose substance was not disclosed publicly.
- The Court held that suppression was necessary for the administration of justice and the protection of certain individuals under ss 37AG(1)(b) and 37AG(1)(c).
Why It Matters
The ruling preserves confidentiality over specified sensitive material while the substantive control-order confirmation decision remains pending. It also makes clear that the suppressed information did not materially bear on the confirmation hearing or the Court’s forthcoming decision.