A-G (Qld) v Lawrence

[2009] QCA 136

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Dangerous prisoners
3. › Sexual offenders
4. › Continuing detention orders
5. › Whether court had power to make order for 'control' alone
6. › Whether 'control, care or treatment' read disjunctively
7. › Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13(5)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Dangerous prisoners
3. › Sexual offenders
4. › Continuing detention order versus supervision order
5. › Onus of proof
6. › Whether Attorney-General bears onus of proving supervision order inadequate
7. › Whether primary judge reversed onus
8. › Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), ss 13(5), 13(7)
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Judicial power
3. › Preventive detention
4. › Whether continuing detention order for control unconstitutional
5. › Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13(5)(a)
1. Appeal
2. › Interference with discretion of court below
3. › Whether primary judge appreciated seriousness of continuing detention order
4. › Whether failure to refer to High Court authority on indefinite sentences demonstrated error

Quick Take

Where the Attorney-General has established that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community under s 13(7) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) and seeks a continuing detention order rather than a supervision order, the Attorney-General bears the onus of proving that a supervision order will not afford adequate protection to the community. A continuing detention order may be made solely for the purpose of 'control' without any requirement that detention facilitate rehabilitation. Cases concerning indefinite sentences as punishment (Buckley, Chester) have limited relevance to the preventive detention regime under the Act.