The Court of Appeal held that an artificial lens implant in the eye constitutes a 'defect, weakness or abnormality' for the purposes of s 23(1A) Criminal Code (Qld), meaning the provision is not restricted to naturally occurring conditions but extends to surgically implanted prosthetics, consistent with giving the statutory words their current meaning in light of changing technology. The Court further held that a pre-trial ruling under s 592A may only be re-opened where a 'special reason' exists — not merely because a subsequent judge substantially disagrees with the earlier ruling — but that in the circumstances, the novel and uncertain point of statutory interpretation involved constituted such a special reason, and no abuse of process arose.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.