Pepper v. Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (No 2)

In Pepper v. Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (No 2), the applicant, Mr Pepper, sought a judicial review of the Attorney-General’s decision not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal. The dispute centred on whether the Attorney-General’s decision was subject to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The court was required to determine whether the Attorney-General’s decision to not refer Mr Pepper’s case to the Court of Appeal fell within the scope of the Judicial Review Act 1991. Specifically, the court had to interpret whether the term "decision affecting ongoing proceedings" in the schedule of the Act applied to the Attorney-General’s decision. This involved examining whether the decision was one that affected ongoing proceedings, as the prosecution of Mr Pepper was no longer ongoing at the time the decision was made.

The court found that the decision was not subject to the Act as it did not affect ongoing proceedings. The court applied the rule of construction noscitur a sociis, which means that the meaning of a word is determined by the context of the words around it. The court determined that the term "decision affecting ongoing proceedings" should be interpreted in the context of the other terms in the schedule, which related to decisions that affected proceedings that were still ongoing. Since Mr Pepper’s prosecution was not ongoing, the decision did not fit within the scope of the Act. The court further held that the Attorney-General was required to provide Mr Pepper with a statement explaining the decision not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal, and that the Attorney-General was to pay Mr Pepper’s costs.

The court made several orders, including that the Attorney-General provide Mr Pepper with a statement explaining the decision not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal. The order was to be stayed if an appeal was filed within seven days, or until the determination of the appeal. The court also ordered the Attorney-General to pay Mr Pepper’s costs and adjourned the originating application to a future date. The court granted liberty to apply for further orders.