Attorney-General v Phineasa

[2012] QCA 184

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Phineasa [2012] QCA 184

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
v
HENRY SIMEON PHINEASA
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3793 of 2012
SC No 1811 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 July 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 June 2012

JUDGES:

Muir and White JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – GENERALLY – where the respondent had previously been convicted of various sexual offences, including indecent acts, indecent assaults, and one charge of entering a dwelling with intent at night – where primary judge implicitly held that none of the offences were a “serious sexual offence” under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (‘the Act’) – where “serious sexual offence” is defined by the Act as “an offence of a sexual nature… involving violence” – where the appellant contended that “violence” included any assault falling under s 245 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether “violence” as used in the Act ought to be defined in that way or given some other definition – whether the offences of which the respondent was convicted were “serious sexual offences” under the Act – whether the appeal ought to be upheld

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14B
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 245, s 349
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), division 3, s 3, s 5, s 8, s 13, schedule
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 19

Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562; [2004] HCA 37, followed
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41, considered
Attorney-General for the State of Qld v Tilbrook [2012] QSC 128, considered
Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476; [2003] HCA 2, followed
R v Butcher [1986] VR 43; [1986] VicRp 4, considered
R v Evans (1999) 8 Tas R 325; [1999] TASSC 25, considered
R v McCrossen (1991) Tas R 1; [1991] TASSC 1, considered
Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514; [1987] HCA 12, cited

COUNSEL:

J B Rolls for the appellant
J Allen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

1. MUIR JA:
   Introduction
   
   
   On 28 March 2012, the primary judge refused an application by the appellant Attorney-General pursuant to s 8 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”) for an order that a date be set for the hearing of an application for an order under division 3 of the Act and for an order that the respondent undergo examination by two psychiatrists named by the court for the…