Wood v The King & Anor [2022] QSC 216
Item
-
Title
-
Wood v The King & Anor [2022] QSC 216
-
Date
-
October 13, 2022
-
Summary
-
The applicant sought a declaration from the District Court as to the lawfulness of his detention for domestic violence offences for which he failed to appear in relation to a bail undertaking, leading to his arrest and remand. The District Court referred that question of law to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 49(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
The relevant question raised by the applicant was whether section 29(7) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provided a right to declaratory relief or just provides that one should exist: at [70]. The Court reasoned that section 29(7) did not vest jurisdiction in any court, but instead recognised a human right to apply to a court for a declaration as to the lawfulness of detention: at [81]. Given that ‘court’ includes inferior courts such as the District Court, the Magistrates Court, the Childrens Court and the Coroners Court which have no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief (at [82]-[83]), the Court concluded that the appropriate forum for an application under 29(7) was to apply for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court: at [90]. The human right identified in section 29(7) would be accommodated by such an application: at [90].
With reference to the applicant’s specific circumstance, the Court ultimately concluded that section 29(7) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not vest jurisdiction in the District Court to grant a declaration that the prisoner was being held in custody unlawfully. To make such a challenge, the applicant, or any other prisoner ought to seek habeas corpus in the Supreme Court: at [93]. In any event, the misguided applicant’s real remedy was to simply apply for bail: at [94].
