Pepper v Attorney-General

Case [2008] QCA 207

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pepper v A-G (Qld) [No 2] [2008] QCA 207

PARTIES:

NOEL JOSEPH PEPPER
(applicant/respondent)
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1421 of 2008
SC No 9966 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 July 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2008

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Muir JA and  Fraser JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed

2.   Orders made by the primary judge on 12 February  2008 be set aside

3.    Respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to this appeal and of the hearing at first instance on 12 February 2008

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTEPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – GENERALLY – where the respondent was convicted in June 2000 of one count of maintaining a relationship of a sexual nature with a child under 12 in his care, one count of rape and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 in his care – where the respondent in October 2005 petitioned to the Governor for a pardon – where the appellant decided not to refer the respondent’s case to the Court of Appeal for consideration pursuant to s 672A Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where the respondent made an application for an order pursuant to s 39 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) that the appellant give a statement of reasons – where the primary judge ordered that the appellant give the respondent a statement of reasons in relation to the decision not to refer the respondent’s case to the Court of Appeal – where Item 1 of Sch 2 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) provides that reasons need not be given in relation to “decisions relating to the administration of criminal justice, and in particular–” – where the primary judge applied the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction to come to the conclusion that the class of matters coming within Item 1 of Sch 2 was confined to “decisions relating to the investigation and trial of criminal offences” – whether the general introductory words of Item 1 of Sch 2 were restricted by the particular matters outlined in the item’s sub-paragraphs – whether a referral under s 672A can be categorised as a decision relating to the “administration of criminal justice”

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 672A(1)(a), s 672A(1)(b)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 16, s 31, s 38(2), s 39, s 48, Item 1 of Sch 2

Bull v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 443; [2000] HCA 24, cited
Burt v Governor-General [1992] 3 NZLR 672, cited
Cody v J H Nelson Pty Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 629; [1947] HCA 17, considered
Harper v Costigan (1983) 72 FLR 140, considered
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Parker [1966] AC 141,…

Continue reading Pepper v Attorney-General

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pepper v Attorney-General [2008] QCA 207
Case
[2008] QCA 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Pepper v Attorney-General, the respondent, previously convicted of serious offences against children, petitioned for a pardon in 2005. The appellant, the Attorney-General, decided not to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal under section 672A of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The respondent sought an order under section 39 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) for the appellant to provide reasons for this decision. The primary judge ordered the appellant to give reasons, holding that the decision did not fall within the exceptions listed in Item 1 of Schedule 2 of the Judicial Review Act. The appellant appealed, arguing that the decision not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal was a matter of criminal justice administration, exempt from the requirement to give reasons.

The central issue before the court was the interpretation of Item 1 of Schedule 2 of the Judicial Review Act, which exempts certain decisions from the requirement to provide reasons. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the phrase "decisions relating to the administration of criminal justice" in Item 1 of Schedule 2 was limited to decisions relating to the investigation and trial of criminal offences, or if it included other decisions such as the referral of a case to the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the court considered whether a referral under section 672A could be categorised as a decision relating to the "administration of criminal justice".

The court held that the phrase "decisions relating to the administration of criminal justice" was not limited to decisions about the investigation and trial of criminal offences. Instead, it encompassed broader administrative decisions within the criminal justice system. The court applied the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction, which interprets general words in a statute in light of specific words that precede them. In this case, the court found that the general introductory words of Item 1 were not restricted by the particular matters outlined in the sub-paragraphs. Consequently, the decision not to refer a case to the Court of Appeal was held to fall within the category of decisions relating to the administration of criminal justice, and thus exempt from the requirement to provide reasons.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal and of the hearing at first instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Orders made by the primary judge on 12 February 2008 be set aside

3. Respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to this appeal and of the hearing at first instance on 12 February 2008

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.