The blood is needed to ensure that the spermatozoa does not pose a risk to other samples from other donors where the spermatozoa of the deceased would be stored.

It is unnecessary for the purposes of this application to do other than record that (i) it is unlikely that the extractions will be conducted in circumstances which might involve a contravention of s. 236 of the Criminal Code; (ii) a serious question to be tried arises in relation to the power to grant the relief ultimately to be sought: namely, access to and use of the spermatozoa.

The circumstances are urgent. The deceased's sperm is unlikely to be vital within at most a few hours.

There are conflicting decisions in this State on whether such a course is permissible.

In Re Denman [2004] 2 Qd R 595, Atkinson J permitted such an extraction on an interim basis, pending an application to use the sperm.

Similar orders have been made in Victoria: see AB v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria [2005] VSC 180, at [138] - [140].

Here, an order for interim preservation ought to be made to permit mature reflection by the applicant and, if an application for use for fertilisation is made, to ensure that the application would not be rendered futile through loss of vitality in the sperm if it should be held that there is power to grant such relief and, if so, that it would be just to do so.

I wish to express my appreciation to Mr Parrott from the Office of Crown Law for attending so promptly once belated notice was given.

Understandably in the rushed circumstances, and given the Attorney-General's other commitments, it was not possible for him to do more than assist me in the consideration of the terms of the draft order.