Attorney-General v Fardon

The appeal in this case involves the Attorney-General of Queensland against Fardon, a prisoner subject to a soon-to-expire supervision order. The Attorney-General applied for a further supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), but the application was dismissed at the preliminary hearing. Fardon appealed against this decision. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the satisfaction of the preliminary hearing test was incorrectly conflated with the final hearing test, and whether the Court of Appeal, in applying the preliminary hearing test afresh, was satisfied that the test had been met.

The court examined the statutory framework and the procedural steps required under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act. The court noted that the preliminary hearing required satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing the respondent was a serious danger to the community, while the final hearing required the court to be satisfied that the respondent was indeed a serious danger to the community. The court found that the trial judge had conflated the two tests, leading to an error in the dismissal of the application. The Court of Appeal conducted its own assessment of the preliminary hearing test and found that there were reasonable grounds for believing Fardon to be a serious danger to the community.

The appeal was allowed, and leave was granted for the Attorney-General to adduce further evidence. The court ordered that a judge of the Trial Division conduct a final hearing of the application for a further supervision order. Fardon was required to undergo examination by two psychiatrists, Dr Elizabeth McVie and Dr Scott Harden, who would prepare independent reports. The duration of the supervision order was varied to remain in effect until the disposition of the final hearing. The order included liberty to apply for further directions if necessary.