Staunton v Zahab (No 2) [2026] FCA 1173

Federal Court of Australia

File number(s):	NSD 324 of 2026

Judgment of:	BROMWICH J

Date of judgment:	19 August 2026

Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – suppression orders – whether a suppression order should be granted pursuant to section 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – control orders – suppression orders made

Legislation:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 10.4.4 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AG

Cases cited:	Staunton v Zahab [2026] FCA 308

Division:	General Division

Registry:	New South Wales

National Practice Area:	Federal Crime and Related Proceedings

Number of paragraphs:	6

Date of hearing:	14 August 2026

Counsel for the Applicant:	K Curry

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Government Solicitor

Solicitor for the Respondent:	S Hedberg of Legal Aid NSW

ORDERS

		NSD 324 of 2026

BETWEEN:	JEREMY EWEN STAUNTON Applicant
AND:	HAISEM ZAHAB Respondent

order made by:	BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 August 2026

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Suppression of Identified Materials

1. Pursuant to section 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act), on the grounds in sections 37AG(1)(b) and 37AG(1)(c), there be no disclosure by publication or otherwise of the Identified Materials except to and between Permitted Persons.

Duration of Order 1

2. Pursuant to section 37AG of the Act, the order is to operate until 8 December 2053, unless this court otherwise orders.

Interpretation

3. In these orders:

(a) Identified Materials means the portions of the documents filed in the subject proceeding and identified in Annexure A to this order.

(b) The reference to “CB” in the header in Annexure A is a reference to the “Court Book”.

(i) Judges of this Court;

(ii) court staff, including transcript service providers;

(iii) the parties;

(iv) legal representatives of the parties instructed in these proceedings; and

(v) Commonwealth, State, and Territory officers acting in the course of their duties.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Annexure A

Redactions to material pursuant to Order 1
Source document	CB page	Substance of redaction
Affidavit of Sarah Elizabeth Hedberg affirmed 10 March 2026	Not included in Court Book.	[13] and [14]
Respondent’s written submissions filed on 11 March 2026	1885	[34]
Statement of facts against the making of the order, Exhibit JES-1 Document 5 to the affidavit of Jeremy Ewen Staunton sworn 27 February 2026 (Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026)	1814	[24]
Statement of facts against the making of the order, Exhibit JES-1 Document 5 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1814	[26]
Statement of facts against the making of the order, Exhibit JES-1 Document 5 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1818	[50]
Statement of facts against the making of the order, Exhibit JES-1 Document 5 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1830	[111]
Annexure S to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1387	Case Note entry dated 10 June 2019, the redaction comprising the text from the subheading “Location” and all remaining text and content after and below that subheading up to and excluding the subsequent Case Note.
Annexure S to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1424	Case Note entry dated 8 December 2020, the redaction comprising the text from the subheading “Text,” comprising all remaining text and content after and below that subheading up to and excluding the subsequent Case Note.
Annexure S to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1430	Case Note entry dated 14 March 2021, under the subheading “Text”, the redaction comprising the text immediately after the words “association with” up to and excluding the words “I asked ZAHAB.”
Annexure S to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1468 – 1469	Case Note entry dated 14 February 2023, under the subheading “Text”, the redaction comprising the text immediately after the sentence ending with the words “be contacted for verifications” up to and excluding the words “ACTIONS.”
Annexure VV to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1606	[82] and it’s corresponding subheading above the text of the paragraph.
Annexure VV to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1609	[94] and it’s corresponding subheading above the text of the paragraph.
Annexure VV to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1610	The first bullet point to [97], commencing after the chapeau sentence up to and excluding the second bullet point.
Annexure VV to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1622	At [184] the redaction comprising the text immediately after the words “custodial progress” and up to and excluding the words “and familiar circumstances,” and then commencing immediately after the words “family hardship and” and up to and excluding the words “have been addressed.”
Annexure VV to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1623	[191] and it’s corresponding subheading above the text of the paragraph.
Annexure XX to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1747 – 1749	At page 3 of the source document, the redaction comprising the text immediately after the words “successfully into the community” and comprising the subsequent heading and text up to and excluding the subheading “The pre-release report” on page 5 of the source document.
Annexure XX to Statement of facts why interim control order should be made, Exhibit JES-1 Document 4 to the Staunton affidavit 27.02.2026	1753	On page 9 of the source document, the redaction comprising the text immediately after the words “established legal principle” and comprising all the text of the subsequent paragraph up to and excluding the paragraph commencing with the words “in our submissions.”
Redactions pertaining to identifying information
Affidavit of Kieran Prakash Mirchandani affirmed 2 June 2026	2029	Respondent’s home address in [3].
Affidavit of Kieran Prakash Mirchandani affirmed 2 June 2026	2034 – 2035	Respondent’s home address in [8], subparagraphs (a) to (g).
Annexure BRC-01 to the affidavit of Brian Russell Coe affirmed on 2 June 2026	2046	Respondent’s home address in [12].
Annexure BRC-01 to the affidavit of Brian Russell Coe affirmed on 2 June 2026	2052	Respondent’s home address in [56].
Exhibit-SEH Tab 1 to the affidavit of Sarah Elizabeth Hedberg affirmed 17 June 2026 (Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026)	2243	Sydney hotel address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 1 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2244	Entire page.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 2 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2246	Respondent’s home address and the Sydney hotel address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 2 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2247	Respondent’s home address, email address, and the Sydney hotel address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 3 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2248	Respondent’s email address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 3 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2249	Addresses of places intended to be visited in Sydney.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 3 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2250	Addresses of places intended to be visited in Sydney.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 4 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2251	Respondent’s email address and Sydney hotel address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 5 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2253	Respondent’s email address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 6 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2255	Respondent’s email address and son’s name.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 7 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2257	Respondent’s email address and building license number.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 7 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2259	Respondent’s email address and building license number.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 7 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2260	Respondent’s email address and building license number.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 7 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2261	Respondent’s email address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 7 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2262	Respondent’s email address.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 8 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2264	Respondent’s email address, home and postal addresses.
Exhibit-SEH Tab 9 to the Hedberg affidavit 17.6.2026	2266	Email address of the Sheikh of Young Mosque and the respondent’s son’s name.
Affidavit of Mervat Chehaita sworn 26 June 2026	2385	Respondent’s home address.
Annexure to respondent’s written submissions dated 29 June 2026, summary of conditions and party positions	2443	Respondent’s home address.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Delivered ex tempore and revised

BROMWICH J:

1 On 23 March 2026, Justice Burley, a Judge of this Court, made an interim control order in respect of the respondent under s 104.4 of the Criminal Code (Cth) and published reasons: Staunton v Zahab [2026] FCA 308.

2 The applicant elected to confirm the interim control order and, accordingly, the matter was listed for a final hearing for that confirmation application to be heard. That confirmation hearing took place on 2 July 2026 before me. I have reserved on that decision, although subsequent orders were made, the subject of separate decision, which revised some of the controls imposed by the interim control order so that the holding pattern until my decision is made is that the control orders are somewhat narrower and in part have a different ambit.

3 A further collateral aspect of the confirmation hearing is that there has been a need for applications to be made and determined for suppression orders. Some suppression orders have already been made to be consistent with previous orders that have been made in other courts, and to continue interim suppression orders that were made consequent upon the interim control order. What has now come before me today is an application for further suppression orders over particular material that was before the Court for the confirmation hearing. By way of a short minute of proposed orders, the respondent seeks orders be made for suppression over certain limited identified material. I note that these orders are consented to by the applicant. Nearly all of the orders have been made by reference to portions of the Court Book (referred to as “CB” in the schedule to the orders I have made) that was in the hearing before me. There is an additional application made in relation to parts of a further affidavit of the solicitor for the respondent which was not included in the Court Book.

4 I have been taken through nearly all of the entries over which suppression is sought, and the balance that I have not been taken to individually are in a class which only relates to limited and uncontroversial personal information. In relation to the solicitor’s further affidavit, over which suppression is sought of only two paragraphs, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that that information contained in those two paragraphs be supressed. Owing to the nature of the substance of those paragraphs, it is not material that I can talk about any further, but it is not a marginal issue and as a result none of this has been overtly referred to in open court and none of it will be referred to in open terms in these reasons.

5 The balance of the suppression orders sought are in relation to only small components of the Court Book, which is nearly 2500 pages long. The total parts over which suppression is sought is probably, if you put all of them together, something less than 10 pages, which is less than half of one per cent of the total documents. None of the suppressed information had a real bearing itself on the confirmation hearing or will have any material bearing on the resulting decision. It is information of the sort that you would expect always to be the subject of an application for a suppression order and, from my experience, of a kind where ordinarily you would have to have an extraordinary reason not to grant it. I am well and truly satisfied that making the suppression orders over that very small portion of the evidence that was before me is clearly and unambiguously necessary for the purposes of the administration of justice and for the protection of certain individuals. Accordingly, I am satisfied that those orders should be made pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) on the basis of the grounds in ss 37AG(1)(b) and 37AG(1)(c).

6 For these reasons, a suppression order has been made over the identified materials, which are identified in Annexure A to the orders. Annexure A will appear with the orders once entered.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bromwich.

Associate:

Dated: 19 August 2026

Top