Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
- Attorney-General v Bewert[2013] QSC 98
- Add to List
Attorney-General v Bewert[2013] QSC 98
Attorney-General v Bewert[2013] QSC 98
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Attorney-General (Qld) v Bewert [2013] QSC 98 |
PARTIES: | ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND |
FILE NO/S: | BS 13210 of 2010 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application for review |
DELIVERED ON: | 8 April 2013 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 8 April 2013 |
JUDGE: | Philip McMurdo J |
ORDER: |
The respondent must:
|
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING – ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING – TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS – SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where evidence of psychologists initially adverse to making of supervision order – where evidence of psychologists was subsequently revised and now supportive of making supervision order – whether supervision order should be made Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), ss 30, 48 |
COUNSEL: | M Maloney for the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | Crown Law for the applicant |
HIS HONOUR: This is an application by way of a review under section 48 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. On 10 May 2011, this Court ordered that the respondent be retained in custody for an indefinite term for controlled care or treatment.
The relevant history since that order was made might be seen as falling into two parts. The first is constituted by the psychiatric opinion which was obtained for the purpose of the court’s considering the matter under section 30. That psychiatric opinion came from Professor Lawrence and Dr Beech, each of whom had given evidence in the hearing from which the original detention order was made.
The evidence of each of those psychiatrists, within her or his reports of September and October 2012, was that very little had changed insofar as the respondent's mental health and his other relevant circumstances were concerned. The effect of that evidence, without any further development, would have been, in my view, quite adverse to the court making a supervision order under section 30.
However, the second part of the evidence consists of what has occurred since in respect of his treatment and proposed treatment and the assistance he would receive, if released, through the organisation Richmond Fellowship Queensland.
That evidence is supportive of an order being made for his release, but moreover, each of Professor Lawrence and Dr Beech have revised their opinions, such that it also would support an order for the prisoner's release.
On the 4th of April, that is, last Thursday, Professor Lawrence wrote: "The management plans of Dr Eve Timmins would appear to provide him with ready access to mental health services and a case manager to assist and monitor him in such matters. Overall, I believe that the arrangements that have been established are very appropriate for Mr Bewert's needs, and if he complies with these and contributes his own energies to helping himself and complies with all that is required of him, it is my opinion that the risk that he presents to the community by his antisocial (including sexual) behaviours will be manageable by an appropriately-designed supervision order."
Dr Beech wrote last week that having read the report of Dr Timmins of 7 March this year, which states that Mr Bewert's mental state has been stable and that there are currently no signs of mental illness within the supportive prison setting, he believes that he would support the prisoner's release on supervision if he were to be released to supported accommodation with case management provided by District Mental Health Services, as is proposed.
This being the present position, the applicant's suitability for supervised release, as distinct from detention, has become quite different. Clearly, the position remains that absent a division 3 order, the prisoner would be a serious danger to the community. I am well satisfied of that matter by evidence which satisfies the requirements of section 30 subsection (2), and in particular, by the evidence of Professor Lawrence and Dr Beech.
However, I am persuaded that it is appropriate to rescind the continuing detention order and to make an order for supervised release, in particular, according to the draft order which was handed up by counsel for the Attorney-General.
Having regard to the current evidence, the Attorney-General, through his counsel, has acknowledged that it would be appropriate for a supervision order in these terms to be made.
Accordingly, there will be an order in terms of that draft, which has the agreement of the respondent through his counsel. That draft provides, amongst other things, that the decision made on 10 May 2011, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under division 3, be affirmed, that the continuing detention order made on that day be rescinded, and that the respondent be released from custody subject to the conditions of that order, those conditions operating until late April 2023.