Butler v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland
Case
•
[2018] QSC 103
•9 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Butler v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2018] QSC 103
[2018] QSC 103
9 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Butler v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland involved an application for judicial review by the applicant, who was detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure under section 18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld). The applicant sought to be released from indefinite detention, but the respondent, the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, determined that the applicant should not be released. The court was tasked with deciding whether the decision to detain the applicant was unreasonable and whether the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations in making the decision.
The legal issues before the court were whether the decision to detain the applicant was unreasonable to the extent that no reasonable person could have exercised the power in the same way and whether the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations in making the decision. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the respondent had not considered all relevant factors. The respondent maintained that the decision was within the power granted by the statute and that all relevant considerations had been taken into account.
The court considered the scope of the power granted by section 18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld) and the principles of judicial review applicable to decisions of this nature. The court found that the decision to detain the applicant was not unreasonable and that the respondent had taken into account all relevant considerations in making the decision. The court held that the decision was within the scope of the power granted by the statute and that the respondent had exercised the power in a manner that was not unreasonable. The court dismissed the application for judicial review.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed. The decision of the court upheld the respondent's determination that the applicant should remain in indefinite detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure.
The legal issues before the court were whether the decision to detain the applicant was unreasonable to the extent that no reasonable person could have exercised the power in the same way and whether the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations in making the decision. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the respondent had not considered all relevant factors. The respondent maintained that the decision was within the power granted by the statute and that all relevant considerations had been taken into account.
The court considered the scope of the power granted by section 18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld) and the principles of judicial review applicable to decisions of this nature. The court found that the decision to detain the applicant was not unreasonable and that the respondent had taken into account all relevant considerations in making the decision. The court held that the decision was within the scope of the power granted by the statute and that the respondent had exercised the power in a manner that was not unreasonable. The court dismissed the application for judicial review.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed. The decision of the court upheld the respondent's determination that the applicant should remain in indefinite detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Grounds of Review
-
Unreasonableness
-
Relevant Considerations
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Butler v Attorney General (Qld) [2018] QCA 243
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Ripi v Parole Board Queensland
[2018] QSC 205
Butler v Attorney General (Qld)
[2018] QCA 243
Ripi v Parole Board Queensland
[2018] QSC 205
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
2
Crump v New South Wales
[2012] HCA 20
Crump v New South Wales
[2012] HCA 20
WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2017] QSC 141