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

Attorney-General v Bielefeld

 

[2020] QSC 69

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bielefeld [2020] QSC 69

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

GARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 11614 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made on 23 March 2020, reasons delivered on 9 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Application determined without oral hearing

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

It is declared that, pursuant to s 24(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003:

  1. The period of the respondent’s supervision order made on 11 March 2010 and as amended on 4 August 2014 has been extended from 24 March 2020 to 27 April 2020; and
  2. The supervision order expires on 27 April 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent is subject to a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) – where, during the period of the supervision order, the respondent was held in custody on remand for a period of 34 days – where the applicant seeks an order declaring that the duration of the supervision order has been extended by a period of 34 days – where the supervision order is extended by force of s 24 of the Act – whether the effect of the operation of s 24 of the Act upon the supervision order ought be the subject of declaration

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13, s 23, s 24

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bielefeld [2009] QSC 352, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland [2020] QSC 33, cited
Edwards v Santos Limited (2011) 242 CLR 421, cited
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421, cited

SOLICITORS:

GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

  1. [1]
    The respondent is the subject of a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act).  During the period of the supervision order the respondent has spent time on remand in relation to offences not of a sexual nature.
  2. [2]
    The applicant seeks a declaration that the period of the supervision order has been extended, by force of the Act, from 24 March 2020 to 27 April 2020.

Statutory context

  1. [3]
    By s 13 of the Act, the court is empowered, upon finding that a respondent is “a serious danger to the community in the absence of [an order under the Act]”[1] to make an order that the prisoner be detained in custody after the expiry of the sentence that he is then serving (continuing detention order) or to order the prisoner’s release subject to supervision (supervision order).[2]  By s 13A of the Act, the court must state the period for which the supervision order is to have effect. 
  2. [4]
    Sections 23 and 24 of the Act[3] are in these terms:

23 Application of division

This division applies if, after being released from custody under a supervision order or interim supervision order, a released prisoner is sentenced to a term or period of imprisonment for any offence, other than an offence of a sexual nature.

24 Period in custody not counted

  1. (1)
    The released prisoner’s supervision order or interim supervision order is suspended for any period the released prisoner is detained in custody on remand or serving the term of imprisonment.
  2. (2)
    The period for which the released prisoner’s supervision order or interim supervision order has effect as stated in the order is extended by any period the released prisoner is detained in custody.”

Relevant history

  1. [5]
    The respondent, when 19 years of age, committed serious sexual offences against a nine year old girl.  It was opportunistic offending.  He came across her and her friend in the Nerang State Forest.  She was injured and the respondent offered her a ride, which she accepted.  He took her into the bushland, sodomised her, committed other sexual assaults upon her and then abandoned her.
  2. [6]
    Upon pleas of guilty to the criminal charges arising from the incidents in the forest, the respondent was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.[4]
  3. [7]
    On 11 March 2010, Douglas J:
    1. (a)
      found that the respondent was a “serious danger to the community” in the absence of an order under the Act;[5]
    2. (b)
      made a supervision order releasing the respondent into the community;
    3. (c)
      included in the supervision order conditions concerning curfews;[6]
    4. (d)
      set the duration of the supervision order at 10 years, expiring on 24 March 2020.
  4. [8]
    In 2014, the respondent:
    1. (a)
      breached a curfew direction given under the supervision order, which constituted an offence against s 43AA of the Act; and
    2. (b)
      committed various traffic offences including drink driving and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle (the offences).
  5. [9]
    Upon his arrest on the offences, the respondent was remanded in custody where he remained until he was sentenced to suspended terms of imprisonment and released.  He had served 34 days.

Determination

  1. [10]
    An extension of the duration of a supervision order occurs by force of s 24 of the Act when the circumstances identified in that section occur.
  2. [11]
    Here, as already observed, the respondent was in custody on remand for offences other than offences of a sexual nature for a total of 34 days.
  3. [12]
    It follows then that by force of s 24(2) the supervision order has been extended by a period of 34 days from 27 March 2020 to 27 April 2020.
  4. [13]
    Both parties were content for the declarations to be made upon consideration of the material and without oral argument.
  5. [14]
    Declarations are discretionary remedies[7] and ought not generally be made where the matter sought to be declared is not in dispute.
  6. [15]
    However, for the reasons I explained in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland,[8] a supervision order made under the Act vests significant rights upon corrective services officers and imposes significant obligations upon a person who is subject to the order.  It is therefore of some significance to the parties for the status of the supervision order to be declared and it is appropriate to do so.

Orders

  1. [16]
    It is declared that, pursuant to s 24(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003:
  1. The period of the respondent’s supervision order made on 11 March 2010 and as amended on 4 August 2014 has been extended from 24 March 2020 to 27 April 2020; and
  2. The supervision order expires on 27 April 2020.

Footnotes

[1]Section 13(1).

[2]Section 13(5).

[3]Which constitute Division 6 of Part 2.

[4]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bielefeld [2009] QSC 352.

[5]Section 13(1).

[6]Section 16(da), s 16A.

[7]Edwards v Santos Limited (2011) 242 CLR 421 and Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421.

[8][2020] QSC 33.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bielefeld

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Attorney-General v Bielefeld

  • MNC:

    [2020] QSC 69

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Davis J

  • Date:

    09 Apr 2020

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.
Help

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.