Attorney-General for Qld v SGH

The Attorney-General for Queensland (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent, SGH, had been granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the applicant from proceeding with a prosecution against SGH for alleged breaches of the *Public Health Act 2005* (Qld). The core of the dispute concerned whether the Supreme Court had the power to grant such an injunction to restrain a criminal prosecution.

The primary legal issue before Callinan J was whether the Supreme Court possessed the inherent jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain the commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings, particularly where the applicant alleged that the prosecution was an abuse of process. This involved considering the traditional reluctance of courts to interfere with the executive function of prosecuting alleged criminal offences and the circumstances, if any, in which such interference might be justified.

Callinan J considered the established principle that courts are generally hesitant to grant injunctions to restrain criminal proceedings, as this would involve the court in supervising the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. However, his Honour acknowledged that exceptional circumstances, such as a clear abuse of process, might warrant intervention. After reviewing the material before him, Callinan J concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient case to justify departing from the general rule. The applicant's arguments regarding abuse of process were not, in his Honour's view, sufficiently compelling to warrant the extraordinary step of restraining a criminal prosecution at this interlocutory stage.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.