Pepper v Attorney-General

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.