- Unreported Judgment
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Attorney-General (Qld) v Heidke  QSC 29
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
ALBERT RONALD HEIDKE
BS No 9699 of 2019
Supreme Court of Queensland
4 March 2020
24 February 2020
The order of the court is that, pursuant to s 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), Albert Ronald Heidke be released from custody subject to a supervision order in the terms appearing in the Appendix to these reasons.
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where there is an application pursuant to s 5 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 for an order pursuant to Division 3 of Part 2 of that Act – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – where the court may order a continuing detention order or a supervision order pursuant to s 13(5) of the Act – whether the adequate protection of the community could be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order – whether the requirements under s 16 of the Act could be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13, s 16
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Beattie  QCA 96, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon  QCA 155, cited
Attorney-General v Francis  QCA 324, cited, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland  QSC 268, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn  QSC 171, cited
J Rolls for the applicant
S Robb for the respondent
Crown Solicitor for the applicant
Legal Aid (Qld) for the respondent
The Attorney-General for the State of Queensland applies for orders pursuant to s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) to detain the respondent, Albert Ronald Heidke, in custody for an indefinite term for care, treatment or control or, in the alternative, that he be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
The statutory premise for the making of either form of order is that there is evidence on which the court is satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community, that is to say, that there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit, relevantly, a sexual offence against children if released into the community. The respondent concedes, through his counsel, that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order but contends that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by his release subject to a supervision order for a period of 10 years. The applicant, through her counsel, accepts that the psychiatric opinions placed before the court support that conclusion.
For the reasons that follow, the respondent will be released subject to a supervision order containing the conditions set forth in the Appendix to these reasons.
The respondent is 77 years of age, having been born in 1943. After the separation of his parents when he was quite young, he was raised by his father and stepmother. He left school when he was 15 years of age and thereafter had a reasonable employment history for many years, working in the main in unskilled occupations. He has never married and has no children.
On 26 March 1973, the respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh of two counts of aggravated assault. These offences were committed against two boys who were both seven years of age. The children were in the respondent’s care while their parents attended a party. The assault in each instance consisted of fondling.
Then, on 25 October 1990, the respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Petrie of another charge of aggravated assault, this time against a boy aged 14. The respondent felt the boy’s penis through his pyjama pants on two occasions while exposing himself.
Almost 20 years later, on 8 October 2010, the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court at Rockhampton to 41 offences against boys between 1973 and 2009. There were two episodes of offending. The first concerned 31 offences that took place between 1973 and 1981 and involved, as victims, three young brothers from the one family. This offending commenced when the boys were each nine or 10 years of age. The second involved 10 counts of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 12. There was one victim, a boy who was seven years old at the time, but he was subjected to sustained offending over a 12 month period between April 2008 and March 2009.
In the case of all of the offending, it was the respondent’s friendship with the families of the victims that provided him with the opportunity to commit the offences. Overall, the offending ranged between indecent dealing with the boys and sodomy. There was quite sophisticated grooming behaviour on the part of the respondent and, with the more serious offending, the application of considerable force to restrain the boys.
The sentencing judge, his Honour Judge Irwin, ordered a pre-sentence report. As a result, the respondent was examined by Dr Flanagan, a psychiatrist, who subsequently provided a report. It contained a diagnosis of paedophilia and the observation that the respondent had an “enduring and exclusive interest in male children”. According to the sentencing judge, Dr Flanagan recommended that the respondent’s eventual release from custody should be subject to “whatever restrictions the law is able to impose to make [his] opportunity of [offending] more difficult”. The respondent was sentenced to an effective head term of 11 years imprisonment with a declaration that 582 days spent in presentence custody was time already served under that sentence.
The respondent became eligible for parole on 8 April 2016 and although he applied for release in June of that year, the Parole Board refused his application on 24 March 2017. A further application was made by the respondent on 24 September 2017. This, too, was refused on 14 March 2018 because the Board considered that the respondent posed an unacceptable risk of further offending in the community. No further application for release on parole has been made.
The respondent’s full time release date is tomorrow, 5 March 2020.
Is the respondent a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order?
Section 13 of the Act is in the these terms:
“13 Division 3 orders
This section applies if, on the hearing of an application for a division 3 order, the court is satisfied the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order (a serious danger to the community).
A prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1) if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence—
if the prisoner is released from custody; or
if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made.
On hearing the application, the court may decide that it is satisfied as required under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied—
by acceptable, cogent evidence; and
to a high degree of probability;
that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify the decision.
In deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following—
(aa) any report produced under section 8A;
the reports prepared by the psychiatrists under section 11 and the extent to which the prisoner cooperated in the examinations by the psychiatrists;
any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the prisoner;
information indicating whether or not there is a propensity on the part of the prisoner to commit serious sexual offences in the future;
whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the prisoner;
efforts by the prisoner to address the cause or causes of the prisoner’s offending behaviour, including whether the prisoner participated in rehabilitation programs;
whether or not the prisoner’s participation in rehabilitation programs has had a positive effect on the prisoner;
the prisoner’s antecedents and criminal history;
the risk that the prisoner will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community;
the need to protect members of the community from that risk;
any other relevant matter.
If the court is satisfied as required under subsection (1), the court may order—
that the prisoner be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (continuing detention order); or
that the prisoner be released from custody subject to the requirements it considers appropriate that are stated in the order (supervision order).
In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (5)(a) or (b)—
the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
the court must consider whether—
(i) adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and
(ii) requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.
The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1).”
It will be seen that s 13 of the Act requires the court to consider whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. To do so, it is necessary to determine whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody or if he is released from custody without a supervision order being made. A “serious sexual offence” means an offence of a sexual nature involving violence or against children. The court may decide that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 only if satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify that decision. Furthermore, in deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community, the court must have regard to the various matters set forth in s 13(4). The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the court that an order is required.
It is important to an understanding of the provisions of the Act that the relevant risk is the risk of commission of a serious sexual offence; it is not the risk that the respondent will offend in other ways. It follows that the respondent will represent a serious danger to the community within the meaning of s 13(2) if there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody, with or without a supervision order. In considering whether any such risk is unacceptable, it is necessary to take into account, and balance, the nature of the risk and the degree of likelihood of it eventuating, with the seriousness of the consequences if the risk does eventuate.
The respondent has, by and large, been satisfactorily behaved during his confinement. He has no breach history and no issues of concern have been reported. At times, he has been employed within the prison system and he has completed a number of vocational courses.
Between 7 February 2014 and 21 March 2014, the respondent participated in the Getting Started Preparatory Program. Although he was described as an active participant and expressed a commitment to change, he gave a grossly inaccurate history of his offending and sought to minimise his culpability.
Between 2 December 2015 and 16 June 2016, the respondent undertook the Medium Intensity Sexual Offender Program. All in all, he attended 48 sessions over approximately 150 hours. His participation was variable and his engagement minimal. On several occasions, he was observed to fall asleep and at other times he made comments to other participants that had nothing at all to do with the program. He demonstrated a limited ability to talk openly and frankly about his offending and his disclosures regarding the same were inconsistent. The respondent appeared to take little, if any, responsibility for his offending and attempted to justify his behaviour by linking it to offences of a like nature allegedly committed against him when he was a child. More generally, it was thought that the respondent lacked motivation to explore his offending behaviour. He was considered to have distorted thinking about the capacity for children to consent to sexual conduct and a limited understanding of the very serious and enduring harm he caused to his young victims. He had no apparent motivation to create protective factors to guard against any further offending.
Between 29 April 2019 and 26 June 2019, the respondent participated in the Sexual Offender Maintenance Program. That took place over eight sessions. He engaged verbally in most group discussions and was able to complete worksheets to a generic standard with assistance from other group members. It was recommended that, on his eventual release, the respondent be provided with appropriate professional supports who were briefed about his high risk factors and early warning signs. It was also recommended that he undertake professional counselling.
Mention has already been made of the diagnosis and recommendations offered by Dr Flanagan at the time when the respondent was sentenced in 2010. Since then, he has been assessed on a number of occasions whilst in custody to determine his treatment needs. He was also assessed by Mr Palk, forensic psychologist, at the request of the Parole Board to assess his risk of recidivism. Although the respondent admitted committing the index offences, he provided only scant information to Mr Palk about his offending. Mr Palk expressed the view that the respondent had minimal empathy for his victims and was refusing to take responsibility for his offending. The respondent was of average to low average intelligence and, after the administration of a number of actuarial instruments, Mr Palk expressed the opinion that the respondent presented as a “moderate high risk” for future sexual offending. He had, Mr Palk thought, a serious, long-term and entrenched sexual deviancy and, although the respondent had an understanding of risk factors and triggers and had managed to develop some measures to control his desires, he would find it a challenge to refrain from acting out of his deviant sexual fantasies. Mr Palk thought that if the respondent had access to young children, there would be a high risk of reoffending.
More recently, and for the purposes of this application, the respondent was examined by three psychiatrists, Drs Timmins, Beech and Harden. They were not required for cross-examination on the hearing of the application.
Dr Timmins interviewed the respondent on 21 January 2019 and provided a risk assessment report on 4 March 2019. Dr Timmins noted that the respondent had offended sexually across many decades and several child victims. He had managed to avoid detection for a considerable length of time. He developed relationships with the families of his victims and then groomed the children, initially touching them before moving on to much more serious sexualised behaviour, such as sodomy. Both physical and psychological coercion were employed by the respondent to maintain the victims’ compliance. His offending was planned and premeditated and he has, according to Dr Timmins, very little regard for the victims or the high degree of harm he caused to them. Dr Timmins considered that the respondent met the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia - nonexclusive, attracted to pre-pubescent males. The respondent also had relevant personality traits, particularly of the avoidant kind. Testing revealed the presence of psychopathy. Dr Timmins believed that the respondent is probably of below average intelligence and she did not think that he was suffering from any psychotic illness or mood disorder.
Dr Timmins did not think that the results of the actuarial instruments administered by her truly reflected the level of risk the respondent represents. This was because, despite his advanced age, the respondent still has an active sex drive combined with his sexual deviance and poor insight of reoffending sexually against male children. That risk is likely to increase if the respondent has access to young boys which, when combined with his sexual deviance and poor insight, meant that he represents a moderate to high risk of reoffending in a sexual manner if released into the community at this time. She believes that the respondent is likely to reoffend in situations where he has access to young boys through a family situation where he has been invited into a position of trust. His offending will be planned but it may also be opportunistic if he is not able to inveigle himself into the family dynamic.
However, Dr Timmins did express the opinion that the risk to the community could be managed in the community on a 10 year supervision order. He will need significant support, close monitoring, psychological treatment, and other measures to keep the risk within acceptable limits.
Dr Beech examined the respondent on 22 November 2019 and provided a report on 18 December 2019. He, too, noted that the respondent has a tendency to minimise his offending and lacks insight regarding that conduct. Dr Beech considered that a diagnosis of paedophilia, with some avoidant personality traits, was justified. He did not think that the respondent would benefit from any further treatment although he might benefit from anti-libidinal medication. He regarded the unmodified risk posed by the respondent if he was released without a supervision order to be in the “much above range despite his age”. Although the absence of any other criminal history, psychological problems or substance abuse problems are all factors that go in reduction of the risk, his offending spanned decades, he has an entrenched sexual deviance, cognitive distortions and a lack of insight that all point in the other direction.
Nonetheless, Dr Beech considered that the risk would be “substantially reduced” by a supervision order that prevented the respondent from coming into contact with families and their children upon whom he might prey. Such restrictions would substantially reduce the opportunity for reoffending and thereby substantially reduce the risk of such an occurrence.
Dr Harden examined the respondent on 20 November 2019 and provided a report on 9 February 2020. He administered a number of actuarial instruments but, like Dr Beech, considered that the resulting scores “under represented the respondent’s risk” at the time of the interview. He agreed with both of the other psychiatrists that the respondent met the criteria for paedophilia and also demonstrated features of an avoidant personality disorder. He was, Dr Harden considered, of low average intelligence.
As to the future risk of sexual reoffending against children, Dr Harden expressed the opinion that the unmodified risk of sexually reoffending against children is “well above average (high)”. However, he also agreed that the monitoring and supports associated with a supervision order would reduce the respondent’s risk of recidivism to “low to moderate”, although that risk will persist for a very long time.
It will therefore be seen that the psychiatric evidence assembled in support of this application is uniformly to the same effect. The respondent satisfies the criteria for a diagnosis of paedophilia. He has distorted beliefs, a lack of insight, and entrenched sexual deviance that he has acted on. He presents as a high risk of the commission of a serious sexual offence if he is released into the community without a Division 3 order. At risk would be young boys.
I am satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence and to the high degree of probability required by the Act that the evidence overall is of sufficient weight to justify the conclusion that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.
Which, if any, order should be made?
As s 13(5) of the Act makes plain, when the court is satisfied that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, the court may order that the prisoner be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (a continuing detention order) or that he be released from custody subject to the requirements it considers appropriate that are stated in the order (a supervision order). In deciding whether to make either of those orders, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. In that regard, the court must consider whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order and, further, whether the requirements under s 16 of the Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by Corrective Services officers.
Section 16 of the Act provides as follows:
“16 Requirements for orders
If the court or a relevant appeal court orders that a prisoner’s release from custody be supervised under a supervision order or interim supervision order, the order must contain requirements that the prisoner—
report to a corrective services officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the prisoner’s current name and address; and
report to, and receive visits from, a corrective services officer as directed by the court or a relevant appeal court; and
notify a corrective services officer of every change of the prisoner’s name, place of residence or employment at least 2 business days before the change happens; and
be under the supervision of a corrective services officer; and
(da) comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction; and
(daa) comply with any reasonable direction under section 16B given to the prisoner; and
(db) comply with every reasonable direction of a corrective services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of the order; and
Examples of direct inconsistency—
If the only requirement under subsection (2) contained in a particular order is that the released prisoner must live at least 1km from any school—
1 A proposed direction to the prisoner would be directly inconsistent if it requires the released prisoner to live at least 2km from any school.
2 A proposed direction to the prisoner would not be directly inconsistent if it requires the released prisoner to live at least a stated distance from something else, including, for example, children’s playgrounds, public parks, education and care service premises or QEC service premises.
3 A proposed direction to the prisoner would not be directly inconsistent if it requires the released prisoner not to live anywhere unless that place has been approved by a corrective services officer.
not leave or stay out of Queensland without the permission of a corrective services officer; and
not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order.
The order may contain any other requirement the court or a relevant appeal court considers appropriate—
to ensure adequate protection of the community; or
Examples for paragraph (a)—
• a requirement that the prisoner must not knowingly reside with a convicted sexual offender
• a requirement that the prisoner must not, without reasonable excuse, be within 200m of a school
• a requirement that the prisoner must wear a device for monitoring the prisoner’s location
for the prisoner’s rehabilitation or care or treatment.”
In the exercise of the discretion conferred by s 13(5) of the Act, the principal question is whether the protection of the community can be adequately ensured. If supervision of the prisoner is apt to ensure adequate protection, then an order for supervised release should, in principle, be preferred to a continuing detention order. This is because “the intrusions of the Act upon the liberty of the subject are exceptional, and the liberty of the subject should be constrained to no greater extent than is warranted by the statute which authorises such constraint”. It is for that reason that a continuing detention order should only be made where the applicant proves that the community cannot be adequately protected by a supervision order.
It is important also to keep in mind that the risk in relation to which the community requires protection is the risk that the respondent, if released, will commit a serious sexual offence. Even then, the existence of some risk of reoffending is not sufficient; the risk must be of an unacceptable order. Adequate protection is a relevant concept, as is unacceptable risk. As such, the Act recognises that some level of risk can be acceptable consistently with the adequate protection of the community. Indeed, the assessment of what level of risk is unacceptable or, expressed another way, what order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community, is not a matter for psychiatric opinion. It is a matter for the court, requiring a “value judgment as to what risk should be accepted against the serious alternative of the deprivation of a person’s liberty”.
The onus of demonstrating that the supervision order affords inadequate protection of the community is on the applicant. If, on all of the evidence, a supervision order would be likely to reduce the opportunity to the respondent to engage in sexual offending against children to an “acceptably low level” then such an order should be made provided there is some evidence to demonstrate that the respondent would be likely to comply with it.
Here, each of the psychiatrists has expressed opinion that there will be a substantial lowering of the risk of reoffending if the respondent is released on a supervision order in terms of the draft forming Exhibit 1 in this proceeding. In particular, the conditions of the proposed order prohibiting contact with any children under the age of 16 years (paragraph 29) and limiting the respondent’s movements so as to reduce the opportunity for that to occur (paragraph 33) will in my view go a long way to reducing the risk to an acceptable level. The other conditions of the proposed order are designed to work hand in hand with those primary prohibitions and, in that way, ensure the adequate protection of the community. The evidence otherwise as to the respondent’s compliance whilst in custody supports the conclusion that he is likely to adopt the same approach regarding the proposed conditions and there is no suggestion in the evidence that the requirements under s 16 of the Act cannot be reasonably and practicably managed by Corrective Services officers.
Lastly, each of the psychiatrists has expressed opinion that the supervision order should be for a period of 10 years and, despite the respondent’s age, an order of that duration is, in my view, required.
The respondent will be released from custody subject to a supervision order containing the conditions appearing in the Appendix to these reasons.
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
ALBERT RONALD HEIDKE
Before: Justice Burns
Date: 4 March 2020
Initiating document: Originating Application filed 11 September 2019
THE COURT is satisfied that Albert Ronald Heidke is a serious danger to the community. The rules in this order are made according to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT Albert Ronald Heidke be released from prison and must follow the rules in this supervision order for 10 years, until 5 March 2030.
TO Albert Ronald Heidke:
- You are being released from prison but only if you obey the rules in this supervision order.
- If you break any of the rules in this supervision order, the police or Queensland Corrective Services have the power to arrest you. Then the Court might order that you go back to prison.
- You must obey these rules for the next 10 years.
- On the day you are released from prison, you must report before 4 pm to a Corrective Services officer at the Community Corrections office closest to where you will live. You must tell the Corrective Services officer your name and the address where you will live.
- A Corrective Services officer will tell you the times and dates when you must report to them. You must report to them at the times they tell you to report. A Corrective Services officer might visit you at your home. You must let the Corrective Services officer come into your house.
To “report” means to visit a Corrective Services officer and talk to them face to face.
- A Corrective Services officer will supervise you until this order is finished. This means you must obey any reasonable direction that a Corrective Services officer gives you about:
- where you are allowed to live; and
- rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and
- using drugs;
- who you may not have contact with; and
- anything else, except for instructions that mean you will break the rules in this supervision order.
A “reasonable direction” is an instruction about what you must do, or what you must not do, that is reasonable in that situation.
“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
If you are not sure about a direction, you can ask a Corrective Services officer for more information, or talk to your lawyer about it.
- You must answer and tell the truth if a Corrective Services officer asks you about where you are, what you have been doing or what you are planning to do, and who you are spending time with.
- If you change your name, where you live or any employment, you must tell a Corrective Services officer at least two business days before the change will happen.
A “business day” is a week day (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) that is not a public holiday.
- You must not break the law by committing a sexual offence.
- You must not break the law by committing an indictable offence.
Where you must live
- You must live at a place approved by a Corrective Services officer. You must obey any rules that are made about people who live there.
- You must not live at another place. If you want to live at another place, you must tell a Corrective Services officer the address of the place you want to live. The Corrective Services officer will decide if you are allowed to live at that place. You are allowed to change the place you live only when you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer to live at another place.
This also means you must get written permission from a Corrective Service officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place.
- You must not leave Queensland. If you want to leave Queensland, you must ask for written permission from a Corrective Services officer. You are allowed to leave Queensland only after you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer.
- A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to stay at a place (for example, the place you live) at particular times. This is called a curfew direction. You must obey a curfew direction.
- A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to:
- wear a device that tracks your location; and
- let them install a device or equipment at the place you live. This will monitor if you are there.
This is called a monitoring direction. You must obey a monitoring direction.
Employment or study
- You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work.
- When you ask for permission, you must tell the Corrective Services officer these things:
- what the job is;
- who you will work for;
- what hours you will work each day;
- the place or places where you will work; and
- (if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study.
- If a Corrective Services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you.
- You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, colour and registration number) about any vehicle you own, borrow or hire. You must tell the Corrective Services officer these details immediately (on the same day) you get the vehicle.
A vehicle includes a car, motorbike, ute or truck.
- You are only allowed to own or have (even if you do not own it) one mobile phone. You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, phone number and service provider) about any mobile phone you own or have within 24 hours of when you get the phone.
- You must give a Corrective Services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phone you own or have. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone.
No contact with any victim
- You must not contact or try to contact any victims of a sexual offence committed by you. You must not ask someone else to do this for you.
“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
Rules about rehabilitation and counselling
- You must obey any direction a Corrective Services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor.
- You must obey any direction a Corrective Services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program.
- You must let Corrective Services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program.
Speaking to Corrective Services about what you plan to do
- You must talk to a Corrective Services officer about what you plan to do that week. A Corrective Services officer will tell you how to do this (for example, face to face or in writing).
- You must also tell a Corrective Services officer the name of any person you associate with.
This includes: people who you spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly.
- You may need to tell new contacts about your supervision order and offending history. The Corrective Services officer will instruct you to tell those persons and the Corrective Services officer may speak to them to make sure you have given them all the information.
Contact with children
- You are not allowed to have any contact with children under 16 years of age. If you want to have supervised or unsupervised contact with a child under 16 years of age you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to have contact with the child.
“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking with them face to face, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting, using a telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
“Supervised” means having contact with the child while another person is with you and the child.
“Unsupervised” means having contact with the child while there is no other person with you and the child.
- If you have any repeated contact (that is, more than one time) with a parent, guardian or carer of a child under the age of 16, you must:
- tell the person(s) about this supervision order; and
- tell a Corrective Services officer the details of the person(s).
You must do this immediately. This means you have to tell the person, and tell a Corrective Services officer, on the same day you have contact with the person.
- Queensland Corrective Services has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to any parent, guardian or caregivers that you have contact with.
- Queensland Corrective Services also has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to an external agency (such as the Department of Child Safety).
- You must not:
- attend any school or childcare centre;
- be in a place where there is a children’s play area or child minding area;
- go to a public park;
- go to a shopping centre;
- join any club or organisation in which children are involved;
- participate in any club or organisation in which children are involved.
If you want to do any of these things, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you cannot do any of these things.
Offence specific requirements
- You must advise a Corrective Services officer of any personal relationships you have started.
Attorney-General v Francis  QCA 324, .
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland  QSC 268, .
See Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn  QSC 171, .
See Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland  QSC 268, .
See Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Beattie  QCA 96, .
See Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon  QCA 155.
- Published Case Name:
Attorney-General (Qld) v Heidke
- Shortened Case Name:
Attorney-General v Heidke
 QSC 29
04 Mar 2020
|Event||Citation or File||Date||Notes|
|Primary Judgment|| QSC 29||04 Mar 2020||Attorney-General's application for an order under section 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003; respondent released from custody subject to the requirements of a supervision order: Burns J.|