Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Hynds (No. 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G v Hynds No.2 [2012] QSC 56

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
GREGORY ALAN HYNDS
(respondent)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF CORRECTIVE
(second resopndent)

FILE NO:

BS 7584 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2012

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDERS:

The tender of a document purporting to be a s 8A Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 report is rejected.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Orders and declarations relating to serious or violent offenders or dangerous sexual offenders – Dangerous sexual offender – Generally – s 8A report

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 s 8A

COUNSEL:

A D Scott for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf
S Hamlyn-Harris for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf
Crown Law for the second respondent

HIS HONOUR: The respondent is presently detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and the Court is conducting a review of the order by which he is detained. Counsel for the Attorney-General has tendered a document, which I am informed is a report prepared by the Chief Executive, Corrective Services for the Attorney about the prisoner under s 8A of the Act.

The report is signed by two officers who are officers of the Department of Corrective Services. No instrument of delegation has been put before me to indicate that they have authority to make the report referred to in that section. It is not suggested that any provision of the Acts Interpretation Act is relevant.

To overcome the difficulty counsel for the Chief Executive has submitted that the words "Chief Executive" in that section are satisfied as a matter of interpretation if the work is done by an officer of the Chief Executive. I am not persuaded that that is a tenable construction of the Act. In my view it would be necessary to demonstrate a proper delegation of authority if that mode of signature and preparation is to be adopted.

More importantly, the document which has been tendered does not propose requirements under section 16(ii) for any supervised release of the prisoner. In other words, the document does not answer the fundamental description which the Act requires of the document to satisfy it. It is simply not a report under s 8A.

Counsel for the Attorney-General did not, in the end, suggest that the tender could be upheld. I directed that it be marked Exhibit 2 when it was handed to me. I now reject the tender and direct that it be handed back to counsel.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland and a respondent, Hynds, where the central issue is the sentence imposed on Hynds for his criminal activities. The matter was heard in a relevant court of Queensland, where the primary concern was the appropriateness and legality of the sentencing orders, particularly those related to Hynds being classified as a dangerous sexual offender. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentencing orders were in accordance with the law and whether the classification of Hynds as a dangerous sexual offender was justified based on the evidence and legal criteria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing orders were lawful and appropriate in the circumstances and whether the classification of Hynds as a dangerous sexual offender was substantiated by the evidence presented. The court had to consider the provisions of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, particularly section 8A, which requires a report before certain sentencing orders can be made. The court also needed to examine whether the tendered document purported to be a section 8A report was valid and if it provided sufficient basis for the sentencing orders.

The court found that the tender of a document purporting to be a section 8A report was not valid and rejected it. The court determined that the sentencing orders, including the classification of Hynds as a dangerous sexual offender, were not appropriately supported by the evidence provided. Consequently, the court ruled that the sentencing orders were unlawful and did not comply with the legal requirements set out in the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.

As a result of the court's decision, the sentencing orders regarding Hynds' classification as a dangerous sexual offender were not upheld, and the tender of the section 8A report was rejected. The court's ruling ensures that any future sentencing must adhere to the legal criteria and evidentiary standards required by the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	A-G v Hynds No.2 [2012] QSC 56
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v GREGORY ALAN HYNDS (respondent) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF CORRECTIVE (second resopndent)
FILE NO:	BS 7584 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	2 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2012
JUDGE:	Fryberg J
ORDERS:	The tender of a document purporting to be a s 8A Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 report is rejected.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Orders and declarations relating to serious or violent offenders or dangerous sexual offenders – Dangerous sexual offender – Generally – s 8A report Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 s 8A
COUNSEL:	A D Scott for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf S Hamlyn-Harris for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf Crown Law for the second respondent