ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/respondent) v DARREN ANTHONY FRANCIS (respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 452 of 2006 SC No 3069 of 2004
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
30 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 August 2006
JUDGES:
Keane and Holmes JJA and Dutney J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:
Appeal allowed 1.
Decision of the learned primary judge set aside2.
The further hearing of the appeal, in relation to the orders which should now be made under s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), is adjourned to 26 September 20063.
In accordance with s 43(2)(c) of the Act, the parties are to place before the Court evidence that circumstances existing at the time the matter was before the primary judge either continue to apply or have been overtaken by events4.
CATCHWORDS:
STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) - appellant convicted of violent sexual offences against two women - order made that the appellant be detained after his sentence expired - upon review further order made that the appellant continue to be subject to the continuing detention order - original order included a rehabilitative plan which included treatment program - rehabilitative plan has not been fully implemented - appellant argued he was worse off under the further order than the original order because there was no treatment program in place or in prospect - whether primary judge erred in affirming the original continuing detention order in these circumstances
STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) - primary judge held that conditions necessary to supervised release of appellant could be sufficiently enforced only if Department of Corrective Services made a sufficiently intensive commitment of resources to monitor compliance - whether the primary judge made an error of law on the question whether the protection of the community could adequately be ensured by an order for supervised release
N M Cooke QC, with M J Rinaudo, for the appellant M D Hinson SC, with M Maloney, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the appellant Crown Law for the respondent
THE COURT: The appellant was convicted of violent sexual offences against two women. He was sentenced for those crimes to terms of imprisonment in New South Wales and Queensland. The latter sentence expired on 8 May 2004. On 13 August 2004, Byrne J made an order for the continuing detention of the appellant. That order was made under s 13(5)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners…
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.
Continue reading Attorney-General v Francis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Attorney-General v Francis [2006] QCA 324
Case
[2006] QCA 324
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Francis, was convicted of violent sexual offences against two women and was subject to an order for detention under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) after his sentence expired. Following a review, the primary judge affirmed the original order for continuing detention, despite the absence of a rehabilitative plan and treatment program for the appellant. Francis argued that he was worse off under the further order due to the lack of a treatment program. This case was brought before the court to determine whether the primary judge erred in affirming the original continuing detention order under these circumstances.
The legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) and whether the primary judge made an error of law when deciding that the protection of the community could be adequately ensured by an order for supervised release, rather than a continuing detention order. The court had to consider the conditions necessary for the supervised release of the appellant and whether the Department of Corrective Services made a sufficiently intensive commitment of resources to monitor compliance. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the absence of a rehabilitative plan and treatment program in the further order made the appellant worse off than under the original order.
The court found that the primary judge did not err in affirming the original continuing detention order. The court held that the conditions necessary to supervised release of the appellant could only be sufficiently enforced if the Department of Corrective Services made a sufficiently intensive commitment of resources to monitor compliance. The absence of a rehabilitative plan and treatment program did not necessarily mean that the appellant was worse off, as the primary judge had reasonable grounds to believe that the protection of the community could be adequately ensured by an order for supervised release. The court also found that the primary judge's decision was supported by evidence and that there was no error of law in the decision-making process.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the primary judge. The further hearing of the appeal, in relation to the orders that should now be made under s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), was adjourned to 26 September 2006. The parties were to place before the Court evidence that circumstances existing at the time the matter was before the primary judge either continued to apply or had been overtaken by events, in accordance with s 43(2)(c) of the Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed 1.
Decision of the learned primary judge set aside2.
The further hearing of the appeal, in relation to the orders which should now be made under s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), is adjourned to 26 September 20063.
In accordance with s 43(2)(c) of the Act, the parties are to place before the Court evidence that circumstances existing at the time the matter was before the primary judge either continue to apply or have been overtaken by events4.