Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Downs

[2015] QCA 29

COURT OF APPEAL

MARGARET McMURDO P
HOLMES JA
PHILIPPIDES JA

Appeal No 6642 of 2014
SC No 530 of 2008

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

RONALD JAMES DOWNS Respondent

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 6 MARCH 2015

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: This appeal purports to be from the order of Ann Lyons J on 20 June 2014 dismissing the appellant’s application under s 22 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) and making auxiliary orders.

At the hearing, the appellant frankly conceded that, in fact, this matter is not an appeal from those orders. The appellant now seeks only an order that this appeal be dismissed but with reasons dealing with the argument raised in the appellant’s outline of argument in this Court as to the primary judge’s construction of s 22. This amounts to asking this Court for an advisory opinion on an issue which is moot. The Court has no jurisdiction to embark on such an exercise. The appeal should be dismissed. We note the respondent does not seek costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Downs, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal against an order made by Ann Lyons J, dismissing the Attorney-General's application under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The application was intended to address the detention of Ronald James Downs, a respondent classified as a dangerous sexual offender. The appeal was initially noted to be from specific orders dismissing the application and making auxiliary orders; however, at the hearing, the Attorney-General conceded that the actual matter before the Court was not an appeal from those orders. Instead, the Attorney-General sought an order dismissing the appeal but with reasons addressing a specific argument concerning the primary judge's interpretation of Section 22 of the Act.

The legal issue central to this appeal was the interpretation of Section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), specifically whether the primary judge's construction of the section was correct. The Attorney-General's appeal sought a clarification or advisory opinion on this interpretation, despite the primary orders being no longer in contention. The Court had to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to provide an advisory opinion on a moot issue, especially since the appeal was not from the orders themselves but rather sought to address an argument raised post-hearing.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to provide an advisory opinion on the interpretation of Section 22 in this context. The appeal was not from the primary judge's orders but rather sought an opinion on an argument that was no longer pertinent to the orders being appealed. The Court concluded that it could not embark on such an exercise as it would be providing a non-binding opinion on a matter that had already been decided and was no longer before the Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were sought by the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established