Forbes v Wilmot

In Forbes v Wilmot, the applicant, Forbes, sought judicial review of an official warning issued by the respondent, a police officer, under section 53BAC of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 1990 (Qld). Forbes requested a statement of reasons for the issuance of the warning, which the respondent refused, arguing there was no obligation to provide such reasons. The central issue before the court was whether the decision to issue an official warning was subject to the requirements of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and, if so, whether the respondent was obligated to provide a statement of reasons for the decision.

The court examined the nature of the decision to issue an official warning, considering whether it fell within the scope of decisions relating to the administration of criminal justice, as contemplated by the exemption in the Judicial Review Act. The court referenced relevant authorities, including Pepper v Attorney-General, which indicated that the phrase "relating to the administration of criminal justice" should not be interpreted broadly to encompass all decisions connected to law enforcement but rather those integral to the administration of justice or investigation of offences. The court found that while the issuance of an official warning might be a precursor to criminal proceedings, it did not inherently involve the administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the decision to issue an official warning was considered independent of any subsequent criminal proceedings and did not necessarily relate to the administration of criminal justice.

In conclusion, the court held that the decision to issue an official warning under section 53BAC of the PPRA was not exempt from the requirements of the Judicial Review Act. Therefore, the respondent was required to provide a statement of reasons for the decision made on 17 February 2022 to serve the official warning. The court did not make an order regarding costs.