[1999] QCA 254
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
Appeal No 10836 of 1998
MARK IVAN STEINBACK Appellant (Defendant)
v.
QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION Respondent (Plaintiff)
BRISBANE
DATE 06/07/99
ORDER
THE PRESIDENT: If the applicant has not filed a notice of application for leave to appeal and his outline of argument by 4 p.m. on Friday, 10 September 1999, this matter is to be struck out with costs.
Details
- AGLC
- Steinback v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [1999] QCA 254
- Case
- [1999] QCA 254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Steinback v Queensland Corrective Services Commission is a case where the appellant, Mark Ivan Steinback, was appealing a decision made by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, the respondent. The nature of the dispute involves the appellant's detention in a correctional facility and the decision made by the Commission regarding his continued detention.
The legal issues before the court were centred around the jurisdiction of the Commission to order the appellant's continued detention and the procedure followed in making that decision. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Commission had the authority to order the appellant's detention and whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the relevant legislation.
The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the court's previous decisions on the matter. The court held that the Commission did not have the authority to order the appellant's continued detention and that the procedures followed were not in accordance with the legislation. The court also noted that the appellant's rights under the Constitution had been breached. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the Commission's decision. The orders of the court were that the appellant be released from detention unless further orders were made by the Supreme Court.
The legal issues before the court were centred around the jurisdiction of the Commission to order the appellant's continued detention and the procedure followed in making that decision. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Commission had the authority to order the appellant's detention and whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the relevant legislation.
The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the court's previous decisions on the matter. The court held that the Commission did not have the authority to order the appellant's continued detention and that the procedures followed were not in accordance with the legislation. The court also noted that the appellant's rights under the Constitution had been breached. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the Commission's decision. The orders of the court were that the appellant be released from detention unless further orders were made by the Supreme Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.