Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Attorney-General v Wilson

 

[2017] QSC 327

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

 

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Wilson [2017] QSC 327

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

ALWYN DANIEL WILSON

(respondent) 

FILE NO:

BS10515 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Contravention of supervision order

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2017 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 December 2017

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Order as per draft initialled by Mullins J and placed with the file.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – GENERALLY – where respondent contravened supervision order to abstain from illicit drug use – where application pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by release under the existing supervision order – where applicant released under existing supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 22

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant

J Robson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

HER HONOUR:   Mr Wilson is a 51 year old indigenous man. He was released under a supervision order made by Justice Flanagan on 24 August 2014 for a period of five years. His response to the supervision order has been problematic. Today is the hearing of the contravention application filed on 22 May 2017, pursuant to section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2013. Mr Wilson accepts that he contravened the supervision order by the use of cannabis sativa.

This contravention was detected in the result from the urine analysis test undertaken on 24 April 2017. The contravention also extends to further use of cannabis sativa by Mr Wilson that he described to his supervising Corrective Services officer, and, as a result, another sample was taken on 8 May 2017 that was sent for testing, and the presence of cannabis sativa was confirmed. Mr Wilson, by his counsel, accepts that the onus is on him to satisfy the Court that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by a supervision order.

This is Mr Wilson’s fourth contravention proceeding. He has been returned to custody previously in February 2015, January 2016, and October 2016. After the respective contraventions were found to be proved, he was released into the community under the supervision order in August 2015, April 2016 and March 2017. This latest contravention proceeding was commenced less than three months after he was returned back to the community in March 2017.

During the period between March and May 2017, Mr Wilson was undergoing counselling from a psychologist, and it is proposed that that counselling will continue when he is released back into the community again. Psychiatrists Dr Grant and Dr Harden have updated their risk assessment reports in respect of Mr Wilson for the purpose of this contravention proceeding. Dr Grant’s diagnosis is that Mr Wilson suffers from an antisocial personality disorder with quite prominent psychopathic traits, although, falling short of a diagnosis of psychopathic personality disorder. Dr Grant notes that Mr Wilson also has a past history of significant alcohol abuse and possible dependence, and that he clearly has a strong history of cannabis abuse.

Relevantly, it is noted by Dr Grant that Mr Wilson’s offending behaviour against women appears to be driven primarily by sexual drive complicated by alcohol and drug intoxication. Dr Grant’s current risk assessment is as follows:

My current risk assessment in the light of the recent contravention in using marijuana would be that the risk for future sexual offending remains at least moderate to high. Such an offence would most likely occur in the presence of significant intoxication of alcohol and/or drugs. Mr Wilson’s own assessment is that alcohol is the more high risk intoxicant; and in that, I think he is being accurate. However, the combination of alcohol and marijuana or other intoxicants such as amphetamines would be a serious risk. The use of marijuana on its own might be a lower level risk, but the problem is that it might lead on to the use of alcohol as well, in a situation where he is socially unstable or experiencing some emotional decompensation.

Dr Grant’s conclusion, however, is that a supervision order would have the capacity to reduce and contain the risk for future sexual reoffending. Contraventions of the order through substance abuse would likely be rapidly detected and that would act as a further safeguard. In terms of long-term reduction of risk, Dr Grant suggests that it would be beneficial for Mr Wilson to stay abstinent from alcohol and drugs and attend to aspects of his rehabilitation over an extended period of time.

Dr Harden also has formed the view that the supervision order does reduce Mr Wilson’s reoffending in the community from high to moderate, and Dr Harden holds this opinion even though Mr Wilson has breached the order by recurrently using marijuana. Dr Harden recommends that Mr Wilson continue to have individual psychological treatment focusing on his sexual offending and substance misuse, and that he be required to be abstinent from alcohol and drug use and undergo an appropriate random testing regime on a supervision order.

The applicant fairly acknowledges that the psychiatric evidence supports the contention that Mr Wilson’s risk of sexual recidivism can be managed by the existing supervision order. That is an appropriate acknowledgment in the light of how the supervision order has worked to date, and ensured that departures by Mr Wilson from his requirement to be abstinent from alcohol and illegal drugs have been picked up in a relatively timely way. This assists in ensuring the adequate protection of the community.

I am, therefore, satisfied that Mr Wilson has discharged the onus that he bears to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that despite his contravention, the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by his release on a supervision order. I, therefore, make an order in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the file. That will enable Mr Wilson to be released from custody again and continue to be the subject of the supervision order made by Justice Flanagan on 25 August 2014.

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Attorney-General (Qld) v Wilson

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Attorney-General v Wilson

  • MNC:

    [2017] QSC 327

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Mullins J

  • Date:

    20 Dec 2017

Litigation History

Event Citation or File Date Notes
Primary Judgment [2017] QSC 327 20 Dec 2017 -

Appeal Status

No Status