Turner v State of New South Wales
Case
•
[2019] NSWCA 164
•05 July 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Turner v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWCA 164
[2019] NSWCA 164
05 July 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Turner, sought leave to appeal against interim detention orders made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The proceedings were brought by the State of New South Wales pursuant to the *Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006* (NSW), which allows for the making of interim detention orders in respect of high-risk offenders. The appeal concerned the validity of these interim detention orders, specifically whether the offender must be in lawful custody at the time an interim detention order is made or renewed.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the *Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006* impliedly required an offender to be in lawful custody for an interim detention order to be made or renewed, and if so, whether this requirement had been met in Turner's case. The court also considered the effect of previous judicial interpretations of the Act and subsequent legislative amendments on these issues.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Bathurst CJ, Basten and Payne JJA, determined that the Act did not contain an implied limitation requiring an offender to be in lawful custody at the time an interim detention order is made or renewed. The court found that a purposive interpretation of the Act did not support such a limitation. Furthermore, the court noted that earlier precedent, which was inconsistent with an implied limitation, had not been altered by subsequent amendments to the Act, indicating legislative acceptance of those prior interpretations. Consequently, the court concluded that the interim detention orders were validly made.
The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal from the interim detention orders but ultimately dismissed the appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the *Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006* impliedly required an offender to be in lawful custody for an interim detention order to be made or renewed, and if so, whether this requirement had been met in Turner's case. The court also considered the effect of previous judicial interpretations of the Act and subsequent legislative amendments on these issues.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Bathurst CJ, Basten and Payne JJA, determined that the Act did not contain an implied limitation requiring an offender to be in lawful custody at the time an interim detention order is made or renewed. The court found that a purposive interpretation of the Act did not support such a limitation. Furthermore, the court noted that earlier precedent, which was inconsistent with an implied limitation, had not been altered by subsequent amendments to the Act, indicating legislative acceptance of those prior interpretations. Consequently, the court concluded that the interim detention orders were validly made.
The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal from the interim detention orders but ultimately dismissed the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Iliou v Eason & Eason [2005] SADC 130
Cases Citing This Decision
25
Attorney General of New South Wales v WB
[2020] NSWCA 7
Lynn v State of New South Wales
[2019] NSWCA 300
Attorney General of New South Wales v WB
[2019] NSWCA 301
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
11
State of New South Wales v Craig Anthony Turner (Preliminary)
[2019] NSWSC 282
State of New South Wales v CT
[2019] NSWSC 695
New South Wales v Kable
[2013] HCA 26