Cherry v State of Queensland - [2025] HCATrans 2

[2025] HCATrans 002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B11 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
RODNEY MICHAEL CHERRY
Plaintiff
and
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Defendant

GAGELER CJ
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J
BEECH‑JONES J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2025, AT 9.59 AM

MR A.D. SCOTT, KC: If the Court pleases, I appear on behalf of the plaintiff with MS Z.G. BRERETON. (instructed by Prisoners’ Legal Service)

MR G.J.D. DEL VILLAR, KC, Solicitor‑General of the State of Queensland: May it please the Court, I appear for the defendant with my learned friends MS F.J. NAGORCKA and MR G.F. PERRY. (instructed by Crown Law (Qld))

MR M.J. WAIT, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of South Australia: If the Court pleases, I appear with MR J.F. METZER on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of South Australia, intervening. (instructed by Crown Solicitor’s Office (SA))

MR N. CHRISTRUP, SC, Solicitor‑General for the Northern Territory: If the Court pleases, I appear with MR L.S. SPARGO‑PEATTIE on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the Northern Territory, intervening. (instructed by Solicitor for the Northern Territory)

MR C.S. BYDDER, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Western Australia: May it please the Court, with my learned friend MS D. VAN NELLESTIJN, I appear on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of Western Australia, intervening, in support of the defendant. (instructed by State Solicitor’s Office (WA))

MR A.D. POUND, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Victoria: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend MS F.L. BATTEN on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of Victoria, intervening. (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office)

MS J.S. CALDWELL: May it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of New South Wales, who intervenes in the proceedings. (instructed by Crown Solicitor for NSW)

GAGELER CJ: Thank you, Ms Caldwell. Mr Scott.

MR SCOTT: May the Court please. If I could commence, please, your Honours, with the provisions of the Criminal Code as they stood at the time that my client was sentenced. Those provisions should appear behind part B, volume 2, tab 8 of the joint bundle of the authorities. If convenient, your Honours, can I ask that the Court please turns to page 293 of that bundle, where section 305 of the Code as it then stood will appear.

Your Honours, we submit that a couple of things should be noticed about that provision, one of which relates to the provision that appears on the immediately preceding page of the bundle, which is section 18 of the Criminal Code, which states expressly that:

This Code does not affect the royal prerogative of mercy.

We submit that informs the ambit of an order made under section 305(2), in particular that…

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 Cherry v State of Queensland

Details

AGLC: Cherry v State of Queensland [2025] HCATrans 2
Case: [2025] HCATrans 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland in a dispute between Cherry and the State of Queensland. The case concerned the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the *Corrective Services Act 2018* (Qld) and the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) in the context of a prisoner's disclosures.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the prisoner, Mr Cherry, was entitled to protection under the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) for disclosures he made concerning alleged misconduct within the correctional system. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the protections afforded by that Act extended to a prisoner making disclosures about matters occurring within a correctional facility, and if so, under what circumstances.

The Court's reasoning focused on the statutory language of both Acts and their interplay. It was held that the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) is intended to provide broad protection for disclosures of wrongdoing, and that there was no explicit exclusion of prisoners from its ambit. The Court considered the purpose of the Act, which is to encourage and facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector, and concluded that a prisoner making disclosures about misconduct within the correctional system falls within the scope of the Act. The Court analysed the definition of "discloser" and "public officer" within the relevant legislation, finding that the prisoner's status did not preclude him from being a discloser, nor did the subject of his disclosures necessarily remove them from the purview of public interest disclosures.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that Mr Cherry was entitled to the protections afforded by the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) in relation to the disclosures he made. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland for further proceedings consistent with the High Court's judgment.

Orders