Hocking v Attorney-General for Qld

[2012] QCA 65

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with judge's findings of fact
4. › Preference of expert evidence
5. › Whether primary judge erred in preferring evidence of two experts over a third
6. › Whether evaluative judgment involving room for reasonable differences of opinion
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Standard of appellate review
4. › Findings based on credibility and evaluation of witnesses
5. › Whether trial judge palpably misused advantage
6. › Whether findings glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences
1. Criminal Law
2. › Dangerous prisoners
3. › Sexual offenders
4. › Supervision orders
5. › Whether unacceptable risk of committing serious sexual offence
6. › Whether risk of violent offending impermissibly blurred with risk of violent sexual offending
7. › Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13

Quick Take

Where three expert psychiatrists give evidence on risk of sexual re-offending and their differences concern matters of evaluative judgment rather than principle, a primary judge's preference for two experts over a third will not be disturbed on appeal absent demonstrated error. The existence of a definite link between general violence and sexual violence means that expert evidence connecting the two does not impermissibly blur the distinction required by the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld).