Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon

The case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon involved the Attorney-General of Queensland, as the appellant, and Fardon, as the respondent. The dispute centred on the constitutional validity of the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Act 2013 (the Declarations Act) and the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act (DPSOA). The Court of Appeal was asked to determine the validity of these Acts and whether the Court should make a declaratory order regarding the Declarations Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Court should adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of the DPSOA and the Declarations Act, whether the Declarations Act contravened the Kable doctrine, and whether the Court should make a declaratory order as to the validity of the Declarations Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the primary judge in the case had misapprehended the test to be applied under s 30(4) of the DPSOA when assessing the risk of re-offending and whether the primary judge's findings regarding the respondent's prospects of compliance with a supervision order were reasonable.

The Court of Appeal held that it was empowered to consider the grounds of contention despite the respondent's concession that a notice of contention was not an appropriate means of challenging the validity of the Declarations Act. The Court found that sections 3 and 6 of the Declarations Act were invalid as they contravened the Kable doctrine. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared sections 3 and 6 of the Declarations Act invalid. The Court did not consider it appropriate to make a declaratory order as to the validity of the DPSOA, given the arguments presented by the Attorney-General.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal determined that it had the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of the Declarations Act and found it to be invalid. The Court declined to make a declaratory order regarding the DPSOA but did declare sections 3 and 6 of the Declarations Act invalid. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent remained subject to the supervision order as determined by the primary judge.