Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)

Last updated
Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameFardon v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland
Decided 1 October 2004
Citation(s) (2004) 210 CLR 50
Case history
Prior action(s) none
Subsequent action(s) none
Case opinions
(6:1) The Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 is valid (per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ

Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575 was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the separation of powers in Australia.

<i>Commonwealth Law Reports</i>

The Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR) are the authorised reports of decisions of the High Court of Australia. The Commonwealth Law Reports are published by the Lawbook Company, a division of Thomson Reuters. James Merralls AM QC was the editor of the Reports from 1969 until his death in 2016.

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

The doctrine of the separation of powers in Australia divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislature makes the laws; the executive put the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws. The doctrine of the separation of powers is often assumed to be one of the cornerstones of fair government. A strict separation of powers is not always evident in Australia; instead the Australian version of separation of powers combines the basic democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. The issue of separation of powers in Australia has been a contentious one and continues to raise questions about where power lies in the Australian political system.

Contents

Background

Queensland passed legislation regarding sex offenders, allowing the Supreme Court of Queensland to continually detain a particular class of prisoner to protect the community. In the event that a prisoner was about to be released, the Attorney-General could request continuing detention. The Act required that the prisoner be serving a sentence of serious sexual offence (involving violence or against children).

Supreme Court of Queensland

The Supreme Court of Queensland is the highest court in the Australian State of Queensland.

Fardon was such a prisoner who was convicted in 1989 of offences of rape, sodomy and assault, and was due to be released in June 2003. The Attorney-General applied for an order on 17 June 2003, which was granted on 27 June, but not finalised until November of that year. Fardon was hence detained after his prison sentence had expired.

Fardon argued the legislation conferred non-judicial power to the Supreme Court (per Kable ).

<i>Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)</i>

Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions for NSW, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the independence of the judiciary under the Constitution of Australia.

Decision

A majority (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ) found the law valid. They held that a higher onus of proof on the Attorney-General was required in this case than the one in Kable i.e. high cogent evidence that the prisoner is a danger to the community. There was nothing in the Queensland Act which might lead a reasonable person to believe that a resident of Queensland would perceive the court to be a non-partial tribunal. The Act was to protect the community rather than to punish an individual.

The ordering of a detention order was valid within the exercise of judicial power. The court held that courts in general should be vigilant that the continual detention provisions were not extended for arbitrary periods. Gummow J noted that the detention orders were compatible with federal judicial power.

In dissent, Kirby J thought the law was invalid. He looked to the substance of the law rather than intention. It was evidently a punitive law, offending the principles of double jeopardy and retrospective punishment.

Subsequent developments

The Supreme Court of Queensland indicated in September 2006 that Fardon should be released, [1] and later ordered his release, imposing strict conditions for ongoing supervision until 2016. [2] Fardon was due for release on 9 November 2006, but the Queensland Government immediately appealed the decision. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 10 November 2006 and Fardon remained imprisoned while the court's decision is reserved. [3]

Government of Queensland state government of Queensland, Australia

The Government of Queensland, also referred to as the Queensland Government, is the Australian state democratic administrative authority of Queensland. The Government of Queensland, a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, was formed in 1859 as prescribed in its Constitution, as amended from time to time. Since the Federation of Australia in 1901, Queensland has been a state of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Constitution of Australia regulates its relationship with the Commonwealth. Under the Australian Constitution, Queensland ceded legislative and judicial supremacy to the Commonwealth, but retained powers in all matters not in conflict with the Commonwealth. Key state government offices are located at 1 William Street in the Brisbane central business district.

Upon his release, Fardon breached the terms of his supervision order and was arrested in July 2007. [4] He was released again in November 2007 [5] In May 2008 Fardon was once again arrested and returned to prison.

See also

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

William Montague Charles Gummow is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. He was appointed to the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong on 8 April 2013 as a non-permanent judge from other common law jurisdictions.

Judiciary of Australia

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a new crime who was previously convicted of a crime(s). Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

Preventive detention is an imprisonment that is putatively justified for non-punitive purposes.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand setting out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a Bill of rights. It is part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i>

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

Diane McGrath Fingleton is a former magistrate in the Queensland Magistrates Court, most notable for being appointed Chief Magistrate and later being convicted of the offence of intimidation of a witness, before the conviction was quashed on appeal to the High Court of Australia.

At Her Majesty's pleasure is a legal term of art referring to the indeterminate or undetermined length of service of certain appointed officials or the indeterminate sentences of some prisoners. It is based on the concept that all legitimate authority for government comes from the Crown. Originating in the United Kingdom, it is now used throughout the Commonwealth realms. In realms where the monarch is represented by a governor-general, governor or administrator, the phrase may be modified to be at the Governor's pleasure, since the governor-general, governor, lieutenant governor or administrator is the Queen's personal representative in the country, state or province.

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence by imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life. Such a sentence is unconstitutional today, particularly in the United States.

<i>Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs</i>

Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988. The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered obiter dicta the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"). The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. This was a landmark shift from the position in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v. Minister of Home Affairs, which had been an authority for the application of a subjective test until it was overruled by Chng Suan Tze.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

Lieutenant Colonel Justice John Harris Byrne, was the Senior Judge Administrator of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Having been a judge of that court since 1989, he was one of the court’s most experienced judges. He was also Chair of the National Judicial College of Australia, a body which provides programs and professional development resources to judicial officers in Australia.

Remedies in Singapore constitutional law

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

<i>South Australia v Totani</i>

South Australia v Totani is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court concerning the extent to which the legislative power of an Australian State is limited by the separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution. The High Court held that the legislative power of a State does not extend to enacting a law which deprives a court of the State of one of its defining characteristics as a court or impairs one or more of those characteristics.

The voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand have been in a near constant state of flux since the first election in New Zealand in 1853. Prisoners have experienced varying degrees of enfranchisement. The present position in New Zealand is that anyone in prison at the time of an election is ineligible to vote, regardless of the length of sentence imposed.

This page is about the penalties juveniles are subject to if found guilty of trafficking Cannabis. Most juveniles suffer the same, or very similar, penalties as adults. However this varies between countries, cultures and according to where the nation's minimum age of criminal responsibility lies. Information and laws regarding minors are difficult to find as they are usually classified or protected. This is due to laws preventing crimes committed, under the minimum age of criminal responsibility, being kept on a criminal record.

References

Footnotes