Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence

(2014) 244 A Crim R 184; [2014] QCA 220

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Interference with discretion of court below
3. › General principles
4. › Functions of appellate court
5. › Whether House v The King principles apply to appeal from discretionary decision under s 30(3) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)
6. › Whether appellate court may substitute its own decision without demonstrating error
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing orders
4. › Orders relating to dangerous sexual offenders
5. › Review of continuing detention order
6. › Whether supervision order could ensure adequate protection of the community
7. › Whether primary judge properly assessed truthfulness of respondent's self-reports underlying expert risk assessments
8. › Whether respondent should have been called to give evidence
9. › Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), ss 27, 30(3), 30(4)
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Factual foundation for expert opinions
4. › Where expert opinion depends on truthfulness of subject's self-report
5. › Role of court in assessing truthfulness of factual foundation
6. › Whether court may rely on expert's assessment of subject's truthfulness without independent verification

Quick Take

Where expert risk assessments under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) depend materially on the truthfulness of a prisoner's self-reports, the court must independently assess the truthfulness of those accounts and cannot simply rely on the experts' assessments of the prisoner's credibility. The failure of a prisoner to give evidence may be significant where the factual foundation for expert opinions is contested. The House v The King principles apply to appeals from discretionary decisions under s 30(3) of the Act.