SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 155
PARTIES:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
v
ROBERT JOHN FARDON
(respondent)FILE NOS:
Appeal No 4240 of 2011
SC No 5346 of 2003DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
1 July 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 June 2011
JUDGES:
Chief Justice, Fraser JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. That the appeal be allowed;
2. That the order made 20 May 2011 be set aside; and3. Under s 22(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, that the supervision order made on 19 October 2007 be rescinded and the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control or treatment.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – GENERALLY – where appellant seeks rescission of the supervision order and order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term – where respondent is 62 years old with serious criminal history – where respondent had contravened existing supervision order by visiting licensed premises and going unsupervised to the residence of an intellectually disabled person – where there was uncontested evidence that the respondent was likely to contravene the supervision order – where primary judge found that the contraventions had occurred, and had ordered that the respondent be released from custody subject to an amended supervision order – whether it was reasonably open to the primary judge to conclude that the community would be adequately protected with an appropriately amended supervision order – whether the primary judge gave adequate reasons for her conclusion – whether the failure of the respondent to give evidence was significant
Dangerous Prisoner (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13(5)(a), s 17(1), s 22(2), s 22(7)
Attorney-General v Fardon [2003] QSC 379, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2006] QSC 275, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2006] QSC 336, cited
A-G (Qld) v Fardon[2006] QCA 512, cited
A-G (Qld) v Fardon [2007] QSC 299, cited
A-G for the State of Qld v Fardon [2011] QSC 18, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon (No 2) [2011] QSC 128, overruled
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon[2011] QCA 111, considered
Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, cited
R v Fardon[2010] QCA 317, citedCOUNSEL:
P J Davis SC, with A D Scott, for the appellant
D P O'Gorman SC, with M G Nolan, for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Crown Law for the appellant
Patrick Murphy Solicitor for the respondent
CHIEF JUSTICE:
Introduction
The Attorney-General appeals against an order made in the Trial Division on…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General 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 155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether it was reasonably open to the primary judge to conclude that the community would be adequately protected with an amended supervision order, whether the primary judge gave adequate reasons for her conclusion, and whether the failure of the respondent to give evidence was significant. The court found that it was not reasonably open to the primary judge to conclude that the community would be adequately protected with an amended supervision order, as there was uncontested evidence that the respondent was likely to contravene the supervision order. The court also found that the primary judge failed to give adequate reasons for her conclusion, as she did not consider the respondent's failure to give evidence and did not adequately address the risk he posed to the community. The court found that the failure of the respondent to give evidence was significant, as it meant that the primary judge did not have all the relevant information before her when making her decision.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order made on 20 May 2011. The court rescinded the supervision order made on 19 October 2007 and ordered that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control or treatment under section 22(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. This decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant information when making decisions about the detention of dangerous offenders and the need for adequate reasons to be given for such decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. That the appeal be allowed;
2. That the order made 20 May 2011 be set aside; and
3. Under s 22(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, that the supervision order made on 19 October 2007 be rescinded and the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control or 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.