SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111
PARTIES:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
ROBERT JOHN FARDON
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 4240 of 2011
SC No 5346 of 2003DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for Stay of Execution
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
3 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
30 May 2011
JUDGE:
Chesterman JA
ORDER:
Order that the order of Dick AJ made on 20 May 2011 not take effect until the determination of appeal 4240 of 2011, or earlier order
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant has appealed against the order of Dick AJ releasing the respondent from custody subject to a supervision order – where the applicant claims the community can only be adequately protected against the risk of the respondent re-offending by being detained in custody – where the applicant seeks a stay of the order of Dick AJ made on 20 May 2011 until the appeal is heard – whether a stay of the order should be granted
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 3, Part 2 Div 3, s 17, s 22
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 761(2)Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685, applied
Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, considered
Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453; [2008] QCA 322, applied
Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46, considered
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17, consideredCOUNSEL:
P J Davis SC, with A D Scott, for the applicant
D P O’Gorman SC, with M Nolan, for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Crown Law for the applicant
Patrick Murphy Solicitor for the respondent
[1] CHESTERMAN JA: On 30 June 1989 the respondent was convicted of rape, sodomy and assault occasioning bodily harm, and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. The offences were committed on 4 October 1988, only a few months after he had been released from prison after serving a sentence of 13 years for offences of rape, indecent dealing and unlawful wounding. In June 2003, shortly before the expiration of the 14 year term of imprisonment the Attorney-General applied for orders pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”) that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control and treatment.
[2] By s 3 of the Act its objects are:
“(a)to provide for the continued detention in custody or supervised release of a particular class of prisoner to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
(b) to provide continuing control, care or treatment of a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation.”
[3] Gleeson CJ explained the purpose…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] QCA 111
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether a stay should be granted of the order made by Dick AJ, which released the respondent from custody subject to a supervision order. The appeal raised questions about the principles governing the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings, particularly in circumstances where there is a risk of re-offending by the respondent.
The court examined the general principles that guide the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings. It considered the balance between the interests of the community in protecting public safety and the rights of the individual respondent. The court noted the seriousness of the respondent's offences and the risk of re-offending but also considered the conditions of the supervision order. Ultimately, the court found that the appeal had a real prospect of success and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay of the order until the appeal was determined. The court issued an order that the order of Dick AJ not take effect until the determination of the appeal, or earlier order.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order that the order of Dick AJ made on 20 May 2011 not take effect until the determination of appeal 4240 of 2011, or earlier order
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.