A-G Qld v Watego - [2003] QCA 512

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G Qld v Watego [2003] QCA 512

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant/appellant)
v
DAVID GREGORY WATEGO (AKA DAGLEY)
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9828 of 2003
SC No 8811 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2003

JUDGES:

McPherson and Davies JJA and Mullins J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – GENERALLY – primary function to hear appeals not to determine questions of fact as court sitting at first instance – whether hearing evidence as primary court deprives parties of ordinary right of appeal – whether risk of special leave adequate right of appeal

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – ACTS AND CLAUSES – PARTICULAR ACTS – QLD – application made to detain prisoner for risk assessment under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) - allowed one clear day to prepare for hearing – whether disability repaired by time before appeal heard – whether lack of time denial of natural justice – whether requirements of Act must be strictly complied with

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 7, s 8(2), s 8(2)(a), s 8(2)(b), s 13(5), s 41(2), s 43, s 44
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 68(3)

Attorney-General v Fardon [2003] QCA 416; Appeal No 6596 of 2003, 23 September 2003, referred to
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ahern (No 2) [1988] 2 Qd R 158, followed
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ferguson [2003] QSC 1, SC No 11803 of 2002, 8 January 2003, considered
Steffen v Ruban (1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 264, followed

COUNSEL:

G C Martin SC, with B Thomas for the applicant/appellant
D S Perkins for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor (Queensland) for the applicant/appellant
Lawsons Lawyers for the respondent

:THE COURT On 28 July 1994, the respondent was convicted on his own plea in the District Court at Brisbane of raping a nine year old girl in 1990, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 10 years. Having served his sentence with the benefit of some remissions, he was due for release from prison on 31 October 2003, when on 24 October 2003 the Attorney-General applied pursuant to s 5(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 for orders under s 8(2) of that Act. The Act, which commenced on 6 June 2003, provides in s 13(5) subject to certain conditions for the making of a continuing detention order or a supervision order in respect of a prisoner who is about to be released from prison at the end of his term of imprisonment. The Act contemplates a two-stage process, in the first of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read A-G Qld v Watego and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] QCA 512
Decision Date: 17 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of A-G Qld v Watego involved an appeal against a decision to detain a prisoner for a risk assessment under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The appellant argued that the prisoner was not given adequate time to prepare for the hearing, which amounted to a denial of natural justice. The prisoner, Watego, was granted only one clear day to prepare for the hearing, which he contended was insufficient. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the limited time provided for preparation constituted a breach of natural justice and whether the requirements of the Act had been strictly complied with.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the prisoner's right to natural justice was compromised by the short preparation time and whether the statutory requirements of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) had been adhered to strictly. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the statutory provisions for time to prepare for such hearings were mandatory and, if so, whether the failure to comply with these provisions rendered the hearing unlawful. The court also considered whether the risk of special leave providing an adequate right of appeal negated any breach of the prisoner's right to appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory provisions concerning the preparation time for hearings under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) were directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, the failure to provide the requisite time for preparation did not render the hearing unlawful. The court further reasoned that the risk of special leave provided an adequate right of appeal, mitigating any potential breach of the prisoner's right to appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	A-G Qld v Watego [2003] QCA 512
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/appellant) v DAVID GREGORY WATEGO (AKA DAGLEY) (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9828 of 2003 SC No 8811 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 November 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 November 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson and Davies JJA and Mullins J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – GENERALLY – primary function to hear appeals not to determine questions of fact as court sitting at first instance – whether hearing evidence as primary court deprives parties of ordinary right of appeal – whether risk of special leave adequate right of appeal STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – ACTS AND CLAUSES – PARTICULAR ACTS – QLD – application made to detain prisoner for risk assessment under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) - allowed one clear day to prepare for hearing – whether disability repaired by time before appeal heard – whether lack of time denial of natural justice – whether requirements of Act must be strictly complied with Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 7, s 8(2), s 8(2)(a), s 8(2)(b), s 13(5), s 41(2), s 43, s 44 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 68(3) Attorney-General v Fardon [2003] QCA 416; Appeal No 6596 of 2003, 23 September 2003, referred to Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ahern (No 2) [1988] 2 Qd R 158, followed Director of Public Prosecutions v Ferguson [2003] QSC 1, SC No 11803 of 2002, 8 January 2003, considered Steffen v Ruban (1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 264, followed
COUNSEL:	G C Martin SC, with B Thomas for the applicant/appellant D S Perkins for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Solicitor (Queensland) for the applicant/appellant Lawsons Lawyers for the respondent