Sica v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland

In the case of Sica v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, the applicant, Massimo Sica, sought a statutory order of review concerning the Attorney-General’s decision not to refer his petition for a pardon to the Court of Appeal. Sica was convicted of three counts of murder in 2012, and despite an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal, he petitioned the Governor of Queensland for a pardon. When the Governor declined the pardon, Sica requested the Attorney-General to refer his petition to the Court of Appeal under section 672A of the Criminal Code (Qld). However, the Attorney-General decided not to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal, prompting Sica to apply for judicial review under Part 3 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

The court was required to determine whether Sica had standing to apply for a statutory order of review, whether he was adversely affected by the Attorney-General’s decision, and whether the decision was a reviewable administrative decision under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The court examined whether Sica's interests were directly impacted by the decision, given his status as a convicted murderer with an unsuccessful appeal, and whether the decision of the Attorney-General was an administrative decision under an enactment or otherwise amenable to review. The court also had to consider if the decision fell within the exclusions provided under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

The court concluded that Sica did not have standing to apply for a statutory order of review of the Attorney-General’s decision. The reasoning involved determining that Sica's interests were not adversely affected by the decision, as the decision not to refer the petition to the Court of Appeal did not result in a tangible legal disadvantage to him. Furthermore, the court found that the decision was not a reviewable administrative decision under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), as it did not meet the criteria of being made under an enactment or being otherwise amenable to review. Consequently, the application for a statutory order of review was dismissed, and Sica was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.

In summary, the court held that Sica's application for a statutory order of review was without merit and dismissed the application. The court ordered that Sica pay the costs of the proceeding to the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland.