Pollentine v Bleijie

The plaintiffs, who had pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against children in the District Court of Queensland, were declared incapable of exercising proper control over their sexual instincts and were subsequently detained in an institution during Her Majesty's pleasure. They commenced proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia, seeking a declaration that section 18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld) was invalid. The parties agreed to state a special case to the Full Court of the High Court, posing the question of whether section 18 was invalid on the ground that it was contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution, by infringing the principle of the institutional integrity of State courts, or otherwise.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether section 18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld) was invalid due to its incompatibility with Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, specifically concerning the institutional integrity of State courts. This involved considering whether the provisions of section 18, which allowed for the declaration of a person's incapacity to control their sexual instincts and directed their detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, with release determined by the Governor in Council, infringed upon the constitutional role and integrity of the judiciary. The Court also had to determine the costs of the special case.

The Court reasoned that while the plaintiffs correctly identified that decisions regarding the release of individuals detained under section 18 were made by the Executive, and not by a court, this distinction did not render the provision incompatible with the institutional integrity of State courts. The Court found that the conferral of power on the District Court to make the declarations and directions under section 18 was not shown to be repugnant to the constitutionally mandated position of State courts. Therefore, the arguments for the invalidity of section 18 failed.

The Full Court answered the first question in the special case by stating "No," meaning section 18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld) was not invalid on the grounds raised. The Court further ordered that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the case stated, answering the second question accordingly.