Welford, Attorney-General v Francis

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Welford, Attorney-General v Francis [2004] QSC 128

PARTIES:

RODNEY JON WELFORD, ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
v
DARREN ANTHONY FRANCIS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 3069 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 April 2004

JUDGE:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

The parties make submissions forthwith as to:

(a)      the names of two psychiatrists who are to prepare independent reports pursuant to s   8(2)(a) of the Act;

(b)      the date which should be set for the hearing of an application for a Division 3 order; and

(c)       the period for which the prisoner may be detained pursuant to an order under s 8(2)(b) of the Act.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OTHER SEX OFFENDERS – where applicant sought preliminary order s 8 Dangerous Prisoners’ (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – whether respondent denied natural justice – whether respondent committed serious sexual offence – whether interim detention order appropriate

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act (Qld) 2003
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 130

Attorney-General v Nash [2003] QSC 377, distinguished
Attorney-General v Watego [2003] QSC 367, distinguished

COUNSEL:

B Thomas for the applicant
J Fraser for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the respondent

1. MACKENZIE J:        This is an application by the Attorney-General for the following orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003:

1.          That the respondent undergo examination by two psychiatrists who are to prepare independent reports in accordance with s 11 of the Act;

2.          That the respondent be detained in custody until the court is able to determine the application for orders in paragraphs 3 and 4;

3.          That pursuant to s 13(5)(a) of the Act the respondent be detained in custody for care control and treatment;

4.          That in the alternative the respondent be released subject to conditions considered appropriate by the court. 

1. As required by s 5(2)(b) the application was accompanied by the affidavits intended to be relied on.  There were 12 of them, the earliest of which was sworn on 4 March 2004 and the latest on 6 April 2004, the Tuesday before Easter, and also the day upon which the application was filed and served on the respondent at 4.35pm.  The return date was fixed as 23 April 2004, the 11^th working day after the effective date of service pursuant to UCPR 103.  The respondent’s period of imprisonment ends on 6 May 2004.  The procedural requirements of s 5 were therefore complied with. 

General issues

1. At the outset there was a complaint described as one of denial of procedural fairness on behalf of the respondent.  In its general form it was that although the application can be made up to six months before the end of the prisoner’s period of imprisonment, this application was filed only…