Attorney-General v Hynds No. 2
[2012] QSC 56
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Attorney-General v Hynds No. 2[2012] QSC 56
- Add to List
Attorney-General v Hynds No. 2[2012] QSC 56
Attorney-General v Hynds No. 2[2012] QSC 56
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second resopndent) |
FILE NO: | |
DIVISION: | Trial |
PROCEEDING: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 2 March 2012 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 2 March 2012 |
JUDGE: | Fryberg J |
ORDERS: | The tender of a document purporting to be a s 8A Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 report is rejected. |
CATCHWORDS: | Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Orders and declarations relating to serious or violent offenders or dangerous sexual offenders – Dangerous sexual offender – Generally – s 8A report Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 s 8A |
COUNSEL: | A D Scott for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf S Hamlyn-Harris for the second respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Crown Law for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf Crown Law for the second respondent |
HIS HONOUR: The respondent is presently detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and the Court is conducting a review of the order by which he is detained. Counsel for the Attorney-General has tendered a document, which I am informed is a report prepared by the Chief Executive, Corrective Services for the Attorney about the prisoner under s 8A of the Act.
The report is signed by two officers who are officers of the Department of Corrective Services. No instrument of delegation has been put before me to indicate that they have authority to make the report referred to in that section. It is not suggested that any provision of the Acts Interpretation Act is relevant.
To overcome the difficulty counsel for the Chief Executive has submitted that the words "Chief Executive" in that section are satisfied as a matter of interpretation if the work is done by an officer of the Chief Executive. I am not persuaded that that is a tenable construction of the Act. In my view it would be necessary to demonstrate a proper delegation of authority if that mode of signature and preparation is to be adopted.
More importantly, the document which has been tendered does not propose requirements under section 16(ii) for any supervised release of the prisoner. In other words, the document does not answer the fundamental description which the Act requires of the document to satisfy it. It is simply not a report under s 8A.
Counsel for the Attorney-General did not, in the end, suggest that the tender could be upheld. I directed that it be marked Exhibit 2 when it was handed to me. I now reject the tender and direct that it be handed back to counsel.