Attorney-General v Fardon

Case [2003] QSC 379


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General v Fardon [2003] QSC 379

PARTIES:

RODNEY JON WELFORD, ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
ROBERT JOHN FARDON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 5346 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27, 28, 29, 30 October 2003

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

Robert John Fardon be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – STATUTORY POWERS AND DUTIES – EXERCISE – GENERAL MATTERS – Where respondent convicted of rape and sodomy – where respondent “serious sexual offender” for purposes of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent’s sentence expired – where Attorney-General made application to have respondent detained indefinitely – whether respondent is a “serious danger to the community” – whether court satisfied of this by acceptable, cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability

EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS, AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – SUFFICIENCY – where applicant required to establish “to a high degree of probability” that respondent is a serious danger to the community – whether applicant satisfied requisite standard of proof

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – FACTS RELEVANT TO FACTS IN ISSUE – IN GENERAL – where issue is whether there is an “unacceptable risk” that respondent will commit a serious sexual offence – consideration of material relevant to fact in issue

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld), s 18
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act
2003 (Qld), s 5, s 8, s 11, s 13, s 14
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Part 10

Chester v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 611, referred to
Coco v The Queen (1993-1994) 179 CLR 427, referred to
McGarry v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 121, referred to
Minister for Immigration & Multi Cultural & Indigenous Affairs v Applicant VFAD [2002] FCAFC 390, referred to
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449, considered
R v Secretary of State; Ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74, considered
Re Bolton & Anor;  Ex parte Bean (1987) 162 CLR 514, referred to
Trobridge v Hardy
(1955) 94 CLR 147, referred to

COUNSEL:

R V Hanson QC, with R W Campbell and M Maloney, for the applicant
S R Southwood QC, with P D Keyzer, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the applicant
Prisoners’ Legal Service for the respondent

  1. The Attorney-General has applied to the court for an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 that the respondent, Robert John Fardon, be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment.

  1. The respondent was convicted of rape, sodomy and assault occasioning bodily harm on 30 June 1989 at Townsville and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.  That sentence expired on or about 30 June 2003.  The Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the…

Continue reading Attorney-General v Fardon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General v Fardon [2003] QSC 379
Case
[2003] QSC 379
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Attorney-General sought an order for the indefinite detention of Robert John Fardon under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). Fardon had been convicted of rape and sodomy and was classified as a serious sexual offender. His original sentence had expired, but the Attorney-General applied for his continued detention under the Act, arguing that Fardon posed a serious danger to the community. The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Attorney-General had established that Fardon was a serious danger to the community and if so, whether this was proven to a high degree of probability. Additionally, the Court needed to consider what material was relevant and admissible in determining whether Fardon posed an unacceptable risk of committing serious sexual offences.

The Court examined the evidence presented and the statutory framework governing the Act. It held that the burden of proof lay with the Attorney-General to demonstrate that Fardon posed a serious danger to the community to a high degree of probability. The Court considered various pieces of evidence, including Fardon's criminal history, expert psychiatric assessments, and other relevant material. The Court found that the cumulative evidence provided a clear and convincing picture of Fardon's ongoing risk of reoffending, satisfying the high threshold required by the Act. Consequently, the Court was satisfied that Fardon was a serious danger to the community and ordered his detention in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, and treatment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Robert John Fardon be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment

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.