Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2005] QSC 137

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
ROBERT JOHN FARDON

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS5346 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 and 9 February 2005

JUDGE:

Moynihan J

ORDER:

1.   That the respondent continue to be the subject of a continuing detention order.

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – STATUTORY POWERS AND DUTIES – EXERCISE – GENERAL MATTERS – where respondent ordered to be detained in custody pursuant to Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) for indefinite term for control, care and treatment – where Attorney-General made application for order to be reviewed at end of one year – where court is to be satisfied that there is serious danger to community because of unacceptable risk the prisoner will commit serious sexual offence if released, or released unsupervised.

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld).

Attorney-General (Qld) v Downs [2005] QSC 016;
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2003] QSC 379;
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2003] QCA 416;
Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616;
Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 78 ALJR 1519;
Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1;

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69.

COUNSEL:

Mr M Hinson SC for the applicant

Mr D Ross SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the respondent

Introduction

1. On 6 November 2003 White J ordered, pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act), that Robert John Fardon (the respondent) be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment; Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon[1].

   [1] [2003] QSC 379

1. Section 27 of the Act requires that such an order be reviewed at the end of one year after it was made.  The Attorney-General is to make an application for such a review and has done so.  This is the outcome of the review.

The Act and provision for review:

1. Put shortly the Act provides for the continued detention of a prisoner in a particular category when the court is satisfied that there is a serious danger to the community because of an unacceptable risk the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if released, or released unsupervised.

1. The constitutional validity of the Act was upheld first by the Court of Appeal Division of this court (Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon[2]) and, subsequent to White J’s decision, by the High Court; Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)[3].

   [2] [2003] QCA 416

   [3] (2004) 78 ALJR 1519

1. The objects of the Act are stated by s 3 to be:

“(a)to provide for the continued detention in custody or supervised release of a particular class of prisoner to ensure the adequate protection of the community; and

(b)         

to provide…