Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Hynds (No. 2) [2012] QSC 56

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 -- 1 of 3 -- 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 -- 2 of 3 -- 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. -- 3 of 3 --