Background
Abdul Nacer Benbrika was convicted of terrorism offences in 2008 and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in 2009. While serving his sentence, he participated in Victoria Police’s Community Integration Support Program (CISP) between 2018 and 2023, a deradicalisation initiative. In 2020, Scott Lee, a former Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, applied for an interim control order against Benbrika under s 104.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) in the Federal Court.
Justice Besanko had previously made a suppression order on 21 October 2020 preventing publication of sensitive documents relating to the CISP, including a Countering Violent Extremism Unit Program Intervention Report. However, due to oversight by Victoria Police, this suppression order expired on 21 October 2025 when its five-year term concluded, and no extension application was filed in the Federal Court proceeding.
The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police then sought urgent interim suppression orders on 1 July 2026 to prevent publication of three items: the Intervention Report, paragraph 80 of the applicant’s Statement of Facts, and a confidential affidavit by Acting Superintendent Julian Horan explaining why suppression was necessary.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Rangiah granted interim suppression orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), finding sufficient risk of prejudice to the administration of justice and to the interests of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory in relation to national security. The court was satisfied that publication of the Intervention Report would undermine the security of persons involved in the CISP and compromise the effectiveness of the program’s methodologies.
The court noted that the Australian Federal Police did not object to the interim orders, and whilst the respondent’s legal representatives indicated they had not obtained instructions due to short notice, the respondent had not opposed similar suppression orders previously. Justice Rangiah found the urgency of the application justified the interim orders despite the abbreviated notice period. The matter was listed for case management as soon as practicable.
Key Takeaways
- Courts may make urgent interim suppression orders to protect sensitive deradicalisation and national security programs when there is risk of prejudice to administration of justice and state interests.
- Suppression orders are time-limited and require proactive renewal; oversight in failing to file extension applications can result in orders lapsing, necessitating fresh applications.
- In considering the balance between open justice and national security, courts may grant suppression for operational details that would compromise program effectiveness or participant safety.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the Federal Court’s protective approach towards law enforcement and security programs, particularly deradicalisation initiatives aimed at rehabilitating terrorism offenders. By shielding operational details and methodologies of the CISP, the court recognised that transparency about such programs’ inner workings could undermine their rehabilitative purpose and expose vulnerable individuals to risk. This reflects broader jurisprudence recognising that some security and law enforcement information must remain confidential to be effective.
The case also serves as a cautionary note to government agencies about the administrative burden of suppression orders: even when security justifications are compelling, orders expire and require timely renewal. The Federal Court’s willingness to grant interim orders on an urgent basis suggests it takes seriously applications to prevent the exposure of sensitive deradicalisation materials, but practitioners must ensure extension applications are filed before original orders lapse.