DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   Mr. Eades was sentenced on the 20.12.01 to an indefinite sentence for two offences of sodomy of a child and at the same time I indicated nominal sentences of 10 years for each offence. The indefinite sentences were reviewed by me in 2006, and I concluded on the basis of the evidence then before me that Mr. Eades then still remained a serious danger to the community: R v Eades [2006] QDC 171.

2. [2]
   As is clear from those reasons, an important reason for so concluding was based on the failure of Mr. Eades at that time to complete any module of the sex offenders treatment programmes offered in prison.

3. [3]
   The Director has sought a further review of the indefinite sentences as is required by s. 171(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentencing Act 1992. The hearing took place on 28^th May and after hearing submissions I reserved judgment.

4. [4]
   On a review of this kind, the prosecution has the onus of proving that an offender is still a serious danger to the community and the standard of proof is governed by s. 170 of the Act.

5. [5]
   At the time of the sentence, the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 was not in effect, however it was at the time of the first review, and reference is made to it in my reasons.

6. [6]
   I also referred to Buckley v The Queen [2006] 80 ALJR 605; [2006] HCA 7; in which the High Court allowed an appeal against an indefinite sentence and referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal. That court delivered judgment on 7.3.08 and set aside the indefinite sentence imposed at first instance and instead imposed a sentence which accorded with the nominal sentence originally indicated by the sentencing judge: R v Buckley [2008] QCA 45.

7. [7]
   In Buckley, at the time of the hearing, the offender was still facing a very lengthy term of imprisonment at the time of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, whereas here the nominal sentence (if imposed originally) would expire in December 2010; nevertheless, observations made by Muir JA in that case (with whom Fraser JA and Mullins J agreed) are apposite to this review. At [19] his Honour observed:

“The ability of the Attorney General, prior to the release of a prisoner, to make an application for a permanent detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) is a relevant and highly cogent consideration on this application. The relevance of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) was properly acknowledged by the respondent’s counsel. However, the bearing of that Act on the exercise of the discretion under s 163 does not appear to have been the subject of argument before the sentencing judge, on the original hearing in this court, or in the High Court. It is convenient to mention also that the nominal sentence of 22 years arrived at by the sentencing judge was not challenged on this hearing or on the initial hearing in this court or in the High Court.”

8. [8]
   As Mr. Meredith, on behalf of the Director observed during argument, the existence of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 as part of the law of this State, may effectively mean that indefinite sentences will rarely be imposed in the future on sexual offenders caught by its provisions. With that in mind, I now turn to a consideration of the evidence in this case.

The Evidence

9. [9]
   The evidence before me on the review was uncontested. No witness was required for cross-examination and Mr. Eades did not seek to place evidence before the Court on his own behalf.

1. Behaviour Summary Report 22.4.08 from Wolston Correctional Centre

10. [10]
    The psychologists summary (at p.7 of the report) is in these terms:

“Offender Raymond Eades is subject to an indefinite sentence imposed on 20 December 2001 with a nominal period of 10 years. He has an extensive criminal history of sexual and non-sexual offences dating back to 24 July 1974 and has been incarcerated on numerous occasions.

Offender Eades commenced his current sentence on 05 December 2000 and has been accommodated at Wolston Correctional Centre since 24 April 2001. During his time at the Centre, he has demonstrated acceptable institutional behaviour and has not incurred any breaches. Recent case notes suggest that he interacts appropriately with staff and is polite and cooperative. He is currently considered a moderate escape risk.

Offender Eades has been considered medically unfit for work since 11 March 2008. Prior to this, he maintained regular employment throughout his incarceration. He has successfully completed several vocational modules and intends to continue his studies in the Engineering field for self development. He has been identified as having needs in the area of literacy and has not completed any literacy courses to date.

Offender Eades currently has a limited external support system. His primary support appears to be a female friend whom he has reported to have known for approximately 15 years.

Limited information was available on offender Eades’ mental health history. However, there was no evidence to suggest that he had been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition and he is not currently on a psychopharmacological regime.

Offender Eades has completed the Getting Started: Preparatory Program for Sexual Offending and the HISOP (High Intensity Sexual Offenders Programme). During the current interview, he displayed some consolidation of concepts learnt during the program and indicated that he had developed victim empathy and insight into his offending behaviour as a result of program participation. Following his completion in the HISOP, he was further recommended to undertake the Staying on Track: Sexual Offending Maintenance Program whilst in the community. In addition, he meets eligibility criteria for the Transitions Program and has been recommended to undertake the program in order to address his pre-release needs. Offender Eades has expressed a willingness to undertake any outstanding program recommendations.”

11. [11]
    In the report reference is made to his physical health which is the subject of a brief report from Dr. D.P. Scott.

2. Summary Health Report

Dr. Scott reviewed Mr. Eade’s prison file and notes:

“Medical summary

1. CHROMIC RIGHT OTITIS EXTERNA

• Onset mid – 2007
• ENT specialist consulted next review May 2008
• Active treatment includes Aural antibiotic and analgesia

2. VERTIGO

• Onset December 2007
• No active treatment presently (improved)

3.. SENSONEURAL HEARING LOSS RIGHT EAR

• Diagnosed early 2008
• ENT specialist review

4. ISCHAEMIC HEART DISEASE/ ANGINA

• Diagnosed 2000
• Active treatment using regular medication with periodic cardiologist review

NB Otitis Externa, Vertigo and hearing loss are new conditions since May 2006.

12. [12]
    Mr. Reid informed me that Mr. Eades has had his right ear drum removed (presumably at the ENT review in May referred to by Dr. Scott); and that he is now deaf in that ear. Of  more concern (and relevance to this review) is that his vertigo is worse since the procedure and he can now only get around safely in a wheelchair because of balance difficulties. He appeared in Court in a wheelchair. Clearly a recidivist sex offender’s physical health, to the extent that it effects his ability to commit offences, is relevant to the issue of his dangerousness to the community. This issue will no doubt be further considered by the appropriate authorities in due course in light of medical assessments available then.

3. Sexual Offending Programme Outcomes

13. [13]
    Since the last review, Mr. Eades has successfully completed the preparatory and high intensity sexual offending programs. The high intensity programme clearly presented many challenges to Mr. Eades, no doubt in large part due to the nature of his personality disorder to which reference will be made later. However, he completed the programme over approximately 9 months and the Project Manager’s report suggests that he gained some positive insight as a result. The summary is in these terms:

"• Mr Eades has made some improvement in his positive social influences;    however he will have greater opportunity  to further expand his social network upon his release to the community. With regard to intimacy deficits Mr Eades demonstrated an increased willingness and recognition of the importance of establishing and maintaining appropriate adult relationships. This is an ongoing area for intervention and monitoring particularly as Mr Eades identified seeking intimacy through his offending. Similarly he was able to articulate, to some degree, having identified with children due to his mistrust of adult peers and fear of rejection. He acknowledged this as a factor in his offending however focussed primarily on external constraints and avoidance rather than an internal barrier to offending.

• With regard to Sexual Self-Regulation Mr Eades demonstrated some insight into his having interpreted sex with his victims as a means of attaining intimacy. He was able to identify potential strategies that primarily focussed on accessing professional support and ensuring he had appropriate adult supervision if he anticipates a situation that may place him at risk of offending. Mr Eades expressed a willingness to seek support from his parole and probation officer in terms of practical assistance. He identified a range of potential obstacles that may impact on his transition from custody to the community and was able to generate basic strategies to overcome these. For instance, he highlighted the problems of obtaining appropriate accommodation due to his history of sexual offending.

• Mr Eades was assessed as High risk in the Sexual Offending Program Assessment dated 06 February 2006. This risk level is likely to be reduced if Mr Eades effectively utilises his New Future Plan and actively seeks an appropriate support network.”

14. [14]
    The manager recommends that Mr. Eades be provided with the opportunity

“…to have a period of supervised release to assist his transition to the community. Initially a high level of supervision and support is recommended.

Mr Eades should contact his parole officer upon his release and that he comply with all parole conditions. The supervising officer should be familiar with Mr Eades’s work on the HISOP, and in particular his New Future Plan. In order to assist Mr Eades understanding of the conditions it is recommended that his parole officer ensure his understanding of the conditions is accurate.

Mr Eades’ activities, relationships and life circumstances should be monitored by the Parole Officer.

That Mr Eades be offered the opportunity to participate in the Sexual Offenders Maintenance Program whilst in the community.”

4. Report of Psychiatrist Dr. Ken Arthur; 20.4.08

15. [15]
    In line with previous assessments done for the first review (Professor Nurcombe) and at the time of sentence (Dr. Atkinson), Dr. Arthur diagnoses Mr. Eades as a paedophile, non-exclusive, pre-pubertal and pubertal, predominantly male, and as having essentially an untreatable antisocial personality disorder. The major difference is that now he has completed the high intensity sexual offenders treatment programme, which he had not done at the time of the earlier psychiatric assessments.

16. [16]
    At p18-19 of his report, Dr. Arthur sets out his summary of risk assessment and recommendations:

“SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT

Based on past and current actuarial assessments of risk, Mr Eades continues to present as a moderate-high risk of re-offending, based predominantly on static (unchanging) risk factors.

Overall, the most outstanding feature of Mr Eades’ clinical assessment is the ongoing influence of his underlying Psychopathic personality structure, as reflected in his relative lack of true remorse or guilt, shallow affective responses, lack of empathy, failure to accept full responsibility for his actions and pathological lying. Examples of this include the following:

• Although Mr Eades appears to have made some progress in relation to understanding the antecedents and style of his offending, his degree of insight is still somewhat superficial and predominantly intellectual in nature.
• It is of concern that he continues to show evidence of ongoing minimization and rationalisation in relation to his offences. He continues to deny the more violent aspects of his acts, displays deficits in empathy and makes subtle implications that there was a degree of consent given by many of his victims.
• In spite of his apparent cooperation and open manner, Mr Eades continues to present as an unreliable historian, and he has a tendency to present information in a biased manner or exclude important details.
• When it comes to issues of morality, Mr Eades’ concrete attitudes display little depth of understanding.

Mr Eades appears to be functioning reasonably well in jail at the current time, although does not appear to have made any close friends or confidants with the other inmates. He has little if any supports available in the community apart from his friend Gail and the theoretical support of some Anglican Ministers, and has no ongoing contact with family members or his own children.

There is evidence that Mr Eades has become institutionalised, and his future plans reflect his ongoing dependence on external controls to modify his behaviour. As such, he is yet to accept full responsibility for his future actions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

At this stage I believe that Mr Eades still represents an unacceptable risk of re-offending should he be released.

I agree with Dr Atkinson’s opinion that Mr Eades’ severe personality problems are, for all practical purposes, untreatable. As professor Nurcombe documented in his report, it appears that the effectiveness of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for sexual offenders is only mildly effective in reducing recidivism. Concern has been raised by experts in the field that people with high psychopathy scores (such as Mr Eades) may be even less responsive to these types of treatment. As such I cannot recommend any specific treatment or therapy in jail that would have a significant effect on Mr Eades’ risk of re-offending if released. He may benefit from interventions aimed at increasing his level of social connectedness (encouraging appropriate adult relationships) and self worth (such as literacy/ education programs).

Should Mr Eades be released, he would require a supervision order relying predominantly on behavioural interventions centred on minimising risk factors such as victim access, exposure to destabilisers/stress, maximising personal support and employing monitoring devices.

Although it is debatable whether Mr Eades has a treatable Psychiatric condition, if released he may derive benefit from psychotherapy provided by a trained specialist, who could continue to assist Mr Eades in the development of insight, empathy and trust.”

17. [17]
    Conclusions

18. [18]
    The phrase “a serious danger to the community” is not defined in the Act or in the authorities. In my reasons in 2006 I said [at 16]; by reference to the relevant provisions in Part 10 of the Act:

“These safeguards built into the Act are a sure sign that in providing for this extraordinary form of punishment, the Parliament of Queensland did not intend Courts to approach the sentencing of dangerous sex offenders on the basis that they should be locked up forever, with no hope of release and no hope of rehabilitation.”

19. [19]
    It is correct, as Mr. Meredith submits, that if not discharged, the indefinite sentence will need to be reviewed again at least once before the end of the nominal finite sentence in December 2010, however; it is difficult to see how there could be much change, given the static nature or Mr. Eades’ personality disorder and paedophilia. His successful completion of the high intensity programme has lead to some progress. Dr. Arthur opines that he still represents “an unacceptable risk of re-offending” should he be released” which I take to be a level of risk below that stated in s 173(1). I am also influenced in that conclusion by the comments of Muir JA in Buckley to which I earlier referred.

20. [20]
    In those circumstances, I order that the indefinite sentences imposed on 20.12.2001 be discharged. I will hear the parties in relation to the sentences now to be imposed pursuant to s 173(1)(b).