Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams - [2014] QSC 192

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2014] QSC 192

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
STEPHEN WILLIAMS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS3592/10

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

18 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2013

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDERS:

The orders of the Court are:

1. It is declared that ss 21 and 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) are not inconsistent with s 474.19 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

2. The application filed by the respondent on 20 September 2013 is dismissed.

3. The further hearing of the application filed on 23 November 2011 is adjourned to 24 November 2014.

4. The costs of the application filed by the respondent on 20 September 2013 including the hearing on 4 December 2013 are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – INCONSISTENCY OF LAWS – GENERALLY – where the respondent was alleged to have contravened a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent was detained under an interim order pending hearing of the contravention application - where the facts constituting the alleged contravention also amounted to an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – where the respondent was convicted and sentenced for the Commonwealth offence – where the respondent was eligible for release on parole under the applicable Commonwealth sentencing laws – where the respondent was kept in custody under the interim order, pending the outcome of the State contravention proceedings – whether the power to detain the respondent in custody pending the outcome of the contravention proceedings and the power to make a continuing detention order or further supervision order are inconsistent with the Commonwealth laws

Commonwealth Constitution, s 109
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Qld), s 474.19
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 20, s 21, s 22

Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis (2008) 187 A Crim R 124, cited
Buckman v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 258, cited
Dickson v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 491, cited
Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, cited
Hume v Palmer (1926) 38 CLR 441, referred to
McWaters v Day (1989) 168 CLR 289, cited
Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1, cited
R v Credit Tribunal: ex parte General Motors Acceptance Corporation (1977) 137 CLR 545, cited
R v Loewenthal: ex parte Blacklock (1974) 131 CLR 338, cited
R v Winneke; ex parte Gallagher (1982) 152 CLR 211, cited
Telstra Corporation v Worthing (1999) 197 CLR 61, referred to
Victoria v The Commonwealth (1937) 58 CLR 618, cited

COUNSEL:

J Sharp for the applicant
J Fenton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

GR Cooper, Crown Law for the applicant
Fisher Dore Lawyers for the respondent

Jackson J: The application by the Attorney-General is for orders, pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QSC 192
Decision Date: 18 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams, the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the consistency of certain state laws with federal legislation. The respondent, Williams, had been subject to a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), and was detained under an interim order pending the hearing of a contravention application. Williams was also convicted and sentenced under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) for an offence that constituted the alleged contravention under state law. Despite being eligible for release on parole under Commonwealth sentencing laws, Williams remained in custody pending the outcome of the state contravention proceedings. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the state laws allowing for the detention of Williams pending the outcome of the contravention proceedings and the power to make a continuing detention order or further supervision order were inconsistent with the Commonwealth laws.

The Court examined the provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) to determine if there was an inconsistency that would render the state laws invalid. The Court held that there was no inconsistency between the state supervision orders and the Commonwealth sentencing provisions. The detention under the interim order and the power to make a continuing detention order were consistent with the Commonwealth laws, as they did not conflict with the federal parole eligibility and sentencing framework. The Court concluded that the state laws could operate concurrently with the Commonwealth laws without undermining the federal system.

The Court dismissed the application filed by Williams on 20 September 2013, declaring that sections 21 and 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) were not inconsistent with section 474.19 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The further hearing of the application filed on 23 November 2011 was adjourned to 24 November 2014. The costs of the application filed by Williams on 20 September 2013, including the hearing on 4 December 2013, were reserved for later determination. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that state and federal laws can coexist without undermining the overarching legal framework established by the Commonwealth Constitution.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

1. It is declared that ss 21 and 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) are not inconsistent with s 474.19 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

2. The application filed by the respondent on 20 September 2013 is dismissed.

3. The further hearing of the application filed on 23 November 2011 is adjourned to 24 November 2014.

4. The costs of the application filed by the respondent on 20 September 2013 including the hearing on 4 December 2013 are reserved.

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.

CITATION:	Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2014] QSC 192
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v STEPHEN WILLIAMS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS3592/10
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	18 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 December 2013
JUDGE:	Jackson J
ORDERS:	The orders of the Court are: *1. It is declared that ss 21 and 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act* 2003 (Qld) are not inconsistent with s 474.19 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). 2. The application filed by the respondent on 20 September 2013 is dismissed. 3. The further hearing of the application filed on 23 November 2011 is adjourned to 24 November 2014. 4. The costs of the application filed by the respondent on 20 September 2013 including the hearing on 4 December 2013 are reserved.**
CATCHWORDS:	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – INCONSISTENCY OF LAWS – GENERALLY – where the respondent was alleged to have contravened a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent was detained under an interim order pending hearing of the contravention application - where the facts constituting the alleged contravention also amounted to an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – where the respondent was convicted and sentenced for the Commonwealth offence – where the respondent was eligible for release on parole under the applicable Commonwealth sentencing laws – where the respondent was kept in custody under the interim order, pending the outcome of the State contravention proceedings – whether the power to detain the respondent in custody pending the outcome of the contravention proceedings and the power to make a continuing detention order or further supervision order are inconsistent with the Commonwealth laws Commonwealth Constitution, s 109 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Qld), s 474.19 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 20, s 21, s 22 Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis (2008) 187 A Crim R 124, cited Buckman v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 258, cited Dickson v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 491, cited Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, cited Hume v Palmer (1926) 38 CLR 441, referred to McWaters v Day (1989) 168 CLR 289, cited Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1, cited R v Credit Tribunal: ex parte General Motors Acceptance Corporation (1977) 137 CLR 545, cited R v Loewenthal: ex parte Blacklock (1974) 131 CLR 338, cited R v Winneke; ex parte Gallagher (1982) 152 CLR 211, cited Telstra Corporation v Worthing (1999) 197 CLR 61, referred to Victoria v The Commonwealth (1937) 58 CLR 618, cited
COUNSEL:	J Sharp for the applicant J Fenton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	GR Cooper, Crown Law for the applicant Fisher Dore Lawyers for the respondent