Attorney-General v DJH[2017] QSC 162

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

HER HONOUR:   The respondent is approaching the full time release date of a period of imprisonment imposed on him in 2011 for serious sexual offences.  He is due to be released on 10 August 2017.  The Attorney-General applies for an order, under section 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, that the respondent be released from custody subject to a supervision order made under that Act. 

Prior to this morning the only contentious issue between the parties was the duration of that supervision order:  the Attorney-General contending that it ought to be for 10 years and the respondent submitting that it should be for no more than five years.  That difference between the parties has been resolved for reasons that I will come to in a moment. 

Notwithstanding the extent of agreement between the parties it is appropriate that I make reference to the material which supports the agreed outcome and the orders that are proposed to be made by the Court today. 

An order may only be made under section 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act if the Court is satisfied the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of such an order (see sections 13(5) and 13(1)).  Under section 13(2) a prisoner is a serious danger to the community: 

...if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence - (a) if the prisoner is released from custody;  or (b) if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made. 

As defined in the schedule to the Act a “serious sexual offence” is an offence of a sexual nature involving violence; or against a child; or against a person, including a fictitious person represented to the prisoner as a real person, whom the prisoner believed to be a child under the age of 16 years. 

Section 13(4) sets out a number of matters the Court must have regard to, culminating in subsection (j), referring to any other relevant matter. 

In deciding whether to make an order under section 13(5)(a) (a continuing detention order), or section 13(5)(b) (a supervision order), the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.  The court must consider whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order and that the requirements of the supervision order, which are governed by section 16, can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. 

As already foreshadowed, it is not contended in this case that protection of the community warrants a continuing detention order.  However, it is contended that protection of the community calls for a supervision order to be made; and that is conceded by the respondent. 

In relation to the first matter, whether the respondent presents as a serious danger to the community, I am satisfied, to the requisite high degree of probability, based on the evidence which has been placed before the Court, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community for the purposes of section 13(1). 

In forming that view I have had regard to the following matters.

Firstly, the respondent’s antecedents and criminal history.  The respondent is currently 34 years of age, turning 35 in July.  He is the youngest of 10 siblings, although only one of those siblings shares a father with him.  The remaining siblings are from his mother’s earlier relationships.  The psychiatric reports refer to the respondent having a very close relationship with his mother growing up; and she remains supportive of him.  Upon his release what he proposes and hopes for is that he can return to live with her.   The reports refer to the respondent being overprotected and coddled by his mother and siblings as a child.  His biological father left the relationship with his mother when he was an infant and apart from some brief contact prior to going into custody he has had no other contact with him.  The respondent has a stepfather with whom he has a good relationship. 

He was educated to part way through year 10, when he left school in order to work to help his mother.  He has worked on an egg farm, as a yardman, with a lawn mowing company and at a meatworks.  He commenced a relationship with a woman T when he was 21, but that relationship ended following the stillbirth of their child.  He then developed another relationship with a woman G, whom he later married and with whom he has two children.  They have divorced since the respondent was charged with the most serious offences, which have seen him serve a lengthy term in custody. 

The reports also refer to the respondent giving a history of himself being the victim of significant sexual abuse as a young child at the hands of his mother’s brother.  I refer in particular to the report of Dr Grant at page 12; although I note there is some inconsistency about this, including that he denied childhood sexual abuse to Dr Beech. 

The respondent’s relevant criminal history is as follows.

In 2000 he was convicted on his own plea of three counts of indecent assault.  He was 17 at the time of the offences, which involved assaulting three separate women in public places (one in a park, one at a shopping centre and the third as she was walking to work) by grabbing them between their legs, in the genital area, saying something to them like “hey babe”, and then walking off.  He was sentenced to three years’ probation with special conditions requiring participation in a cognitive skills program and psychological counselling. 

In 2011 he was convicted on his own plea of two counts of rape, three counts of indecent treatment of a child and one count of taking a child for immoral purposes.  The victim was his cousin who was aged 10 at the time of the first rape and aged 11 at the time of the second, which occurred about a year apart in 2008 and 2009.  She was described as having a mild intellectual impairment.   On the first occasion when the child was aged 10 the respondent was babysitting her and took her into her room where he penetrated her vagina with his penis.  The second occasion, 12 months later, occurred after a family christening of the respondent’s daughter.  The girl’s parents had left and he offered to take her home.  On the way he stopped on the side of the road, laid a plastic sheet on the ground beside the car and again penetrated her vagina with his penis.  This incident was interrupted by the police.   The charge of taking a child for immoral purposes arose from the respondent taking the child home from the christening in circumstances where it was accepted he had planned to offend against her as he did.  The indecent dealing charges related to other indecent acts done to the child in the course of the two incidents, including tongue kissing and making her put her hand on his penis and moving it until he ejaculated. 

The respondent is recorded by the psychiatrists as saying that he was having relationship difficulties with his wife at the time, needed some affection or intimacy, and that he got this from the child.  He also referred to the child telling him that her father had done sexual things to her and that this somehow gave him permission to do what he did.  He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the rapes and lesser concurrent terms for the other offences.  With time already served prior to being sentenced in 2011 he was eligible for parole in April 2012 and released on parole in August 2012. 

The respondent re-offended just under two years after his release, in June 2014, by committing three offences.  In each case the conduct involved the respondent going to the same BP service station.  On the first occasion he was wearing a T-shirt wrapped around his hips with no other clothing covering his upper body.  He went to the counter and removed the T-shirt and was wearing just a purple women’s G-string underwear.  The next day he went there again entering the store wearing only a pink women’s bra and blue women’s G-string underwear.  He was charged with committing public nuisance for these first two incidents.  About a week later he again went to the service station wearing a bra and G-string with one of his testicles hanging out.  He was charged with doing an indecent act in a public place on that occasion. 

Although he received a suspended sentence for that offending it resulted in his parole being cancelled on 23 January 2015 and his return to custody where he has remained until now. 

There is reference in the reports to another occasion on which the respondent faced charges of raping his niece, but he was acquitted following a trial.  The details of this are somewhat unclear; however, Dr Grant refers to the trial taking place in 2008, relating to conduct alleged to have occurred between 1997 and 2006. 

Turning then to the material regarding the respondent’s participation in rehabilitation programs. 

The psychiatrist’s reports detail the programs that the respondent has participated in, both in custody and in the time that he was released on parole.  As recorded by Dr Beech the facilitators of the Medium Intensity Sexual Offender Program, which he completed in custody: 

...noted that he had demonstrated little insight into the effects of his offending, and instead he had tended to focus on himself.  He described how a poor relationship with his wife at the time had led him to seek intimacy from the victim and this was considered to be an ongoing risk factor.  He had tended to see himself as a victim and it appeared that his mother supported some of this projection of this responsibility.  Ongoing risk factors related to boredom and isolation and passivity.  While on parole he had completed a Sexual Offenders Maintenance Program.  The facilitators noted that he had regressed in the community and he had not used the strategies he had developed during prison programs. (Dr Beech’s report at pp 17-18)

I refer also to the observations by Dr Grant about the programs undertaken by the respondent, in Dr Grant’s report at pages 18 to 22, and his observation that the respondent has undertaken these programs with:

fairly minimal benefit and demonstrated apparent difficulties with absorbing concepts and developing much insight.  (at p 24)

In terms of section 8A of the Act, I note that the Attorney-General has not filed a report expressly made under section 8A.  However, there is evidence before the court in the form of an affidavit from Cassandra Cowie who is the acting manager of the High Risk Offender Management Unit within Specialist Operations, Queensland Corrective Services.  Relevantly, that report deals with two particular aspects of the proposed supervision order:  one concerning psychological treatment and the other concerning accommodation. 

In relation to psychological treatment, Ms Cowie’s affidavit confirms that her unit has made inquiries with a qualified forensic psychologist who has indicated that they are able to provide treatment with the respondent in the community should he be released from prison on 10 August 2017 (see paragraph 8).

In relation to accommodation, there has been a request made for an assessment for the respondent to reside at his previous address but a suitability assessment has not yet been made available.  I am told today by counsel for the Attorney-General that it may be available by the time of his release on 10 August but in the event that either it is not available or the assessment does not indicate that that accommodation is suitable, the respondent will be initially, upon his release, accommodated within what is referred to as the precinct, at Wacol.

Turning then to the psychiatric reports which have been relied on, there are three.  The first is prepared by Dr Beech who prepared a report dated 8 June 2016 on instructions from Crown Law to prepare a risk assessment for a possible application under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act.  In that report, Dr Beech expresses the following opinion:

In my opinion [the respondent] has Paedophilia (based on the 2009 conviction and reports of some fantasy), Frotteurism Disorder (based upon the 2000 conviction and his talk of urges), and Transvestism (based on his cross dressing) and Exhibitionism (based on the 2014 convictions).  It is unclear but I suspect that the sexual practices in fact interact and it is possible that cross dressing is a prelude to his child sex offending.  Much of the offending appears to occur in response to interpersonal difficulties and stressors, relationship problems, immaturity, and a desire for intimacy or attention.  The material indicates that he identifies with children, as instanced by his play with his cousin in 2009.  Clearly he has used sex as a form of coping with stressors. 

He has developed an anxiety disorder and probably a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from an assault during his incarceration earlier.  As well, he appears to be an anxious and avoidant man and earlier facilitators noted his passivity.  He describes struggling with identity formation in his youth.  I think that he has a passive and avoidant Personality Disorder. 

He has now displayed a recurrent pattern of sexual offending, and it probably occurs in response to stress.  He is (sic) now reoffended while on Parole despite the family support and counselling.  The nature of his offending has not escalated, but I would think that in fact it is likely that Parole the revocation (sic) prevented any further offending.  He has poor insight into his offending and very limited if any strategies to deal with stress.  When questioned about his offending his immediate response is to deny it, minimise it, or to project blame.  He has struggled to take responsibility for his behaviour.  I think that generally he has poor insight into his behaviour and this is associated as well with a limited capacity for empathy.  Some of this may reflect his limited intellect and poor verbal reasoning and communication.

Using the STATIC-99R assessment instrument Dr Beech gave the respondent a score of 7 placing him in the group of offenders seen to be at high risk of reoffending.  Dr Beech also expressed the following further opinion:

Overall it is my belief that [the respondent] is at high risk of reoffending if he were to be released into the community without supervision.  In my opinion the likely scenario is that on release he will at some point again become stressed by interpersonal difficulties, relationship problems, work or other matters.  He will not have benefitted from earlier courses and strategies, community support, or counselling.  As his stress rises, he will return to deviant fantasies and practices.  This is likely to commence with cross dressing and from there to Frotteurism or Exhibitionism.  His behaviour may then be limited by legal sanctions. However, I believe that there is significant risk that his behaviour would escalate and he will start to fantasise again about young minors.  He would then act to groom a small child and progress to sexually assault her.  The victim is likely to be known to him.  There may be some limited physical violence.  It is very likely that he will groom her, and the psychological effects could be very significant.  The violence could involve sexual penetration. 

It is possible [the respondent] has now learnt from his return to custody but I think that the circumstances of his return to prison, and the apparent limited benefits from earlier programs, lends credence to the opinion that he will reoffend. 

His libido may be reduced now by medication. However, it would seem to me that the offending is driven by sexual drive and other factors that include the need for intimacy or attachment, a desire for attention, or the use of sex to cope with stress. 

He has already completed the Medium Intensity Sexual Offender Program but with a very mixed report.  His offending occurred despite a maintenance program in the community.  I am uncertain whether further treatment would assist him, but I think the best recommendation now would be for a High Intensity Sexual Offender Program or alternatively intensive individual psychological treatment.

Dr Grant prepared a report dated 27 April 2017, under section 11 of the Act following the making of an order by this Court under section 8.  In his report, Dr Grant refers to the results of his application of the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (at page 27 of his report) and goes on to say (at pages 28 to 29) the following:

It is unclear how imminent offending behaviour would be upon release from prison.  Warning signs might be that he is having significant relationship problems, social instability and feeling alone and unsupported, and grooming of an underage female.  Offending could be recurrent once it recurred and the risk would be quite long term.  The frequency of sexual offending in the past has varied, tending to occur in clusters.  The overall assessment of risk for future offending using this instrument would be high risk. 

Case management would involve monitoring his emotional state, his relationships, his sexual drive and sexual impulses.  If he was feeling isolated, upset or stressed that might increase risk.  Management and treatment could involve maintenance sexual offender treatment programs and individual therapy.  Such therapy would need to address sexual deviance as well as dependent and avoidant traits and relationship difficulties. 

The treatment and management could be best applied under a Supervision Order, which would mandate no unsupervised conduct with female children and no access to child exploitation material on the internet.  He should also avoid alcohol excess.

There should be no contact with previous victims.  He will need an extra level of surveillance if he has a lack of personal support or conflict in close relationships. 

Overall the case prioritisation would be high but the risk of any serious physical harm to victims is low.  He may present some fairly early or imminent risks after release from custody but it is more likely there will be some delay before any potential re-offending.  There is no substantial risk of any non-sexual offending. 

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF RISK

In my opinion, taking all of the history background and risk assessment instruments into account, it is evident that the static risk factors show a high risk of future sexual re-offending.  Dynamic changes have been fairly minimal with questionable gains from the group sexual offender treatments that he has undergone, possibly related to subtle cognitive and intellectual deficits. 

The underlying risks relate primarily to his personality disorder and relationship problems, which are basically unchanged.  His future plans remain basic and probably somewhat unrealistic.  He will have some family support when he gets out of prison. 

Overall I see the risk of future sexual offending as being high.

In my opinion [the respondent] would benefit from further treatment in order to achieve better insights and coping strategies.  One way of addressing this might be to have him stay in custody to complete a High-Intensity Sexual Offender Program.  However, I have some doubts as to whether he would be able to cope with that program and whether he would really benefit from such a program.  In my opinion, it is probably better to take the approach of him undergoing individual therapy over an extended period of time. 

In my opinion, the risk could be reduced by him being placed on a Supervision Order in the community mandating that he have individual therapy.  It would also need to mandate that he have no conduct unsupervised with underage girls and that his emotional state and relationships would be closely monitored.  Alcohol and drug use is in my opinion not a serious risk factor but he should be required not to abuse alcohol.

The duration of a Supervision Order would need to be at least five years.  Ongoing risk would depend upon his response to ongoing individual therapy and the degree of rehabilitation he achieves in that time.  It may be that a longer Supervision Order will be required and therefore it might be most efficacious to make the Order for 10 years. 

Individual therapy could be provided by an experienced forensic psychologist, but it may become evident that psychological management alone might not be sufficient to contain the risk of future sexual offending.  Under those circumstances, a psychiatric assessment would be necessary to decide whether [the respondent] requires antiandrogen therapy as part of his overall treatment plan and to contain risk.

Dr Harden also prepared a report under section 11 of the Act, dated 17 July 2017.  I note that the STATIC-99R risk assessment carried out by Dr Harden placed the respondent in the well above average risk category.  Dr Harden diagnoses the respondent with the following:  a personality disorder mixed with narcissistic, avoidant and dependent features; pedophilia; exhibitionism, frotteurism and transvestitism.  He expresses the following opinion at page 16:

Risk 

His ongoing unmodified risk of sexual re-offence if released into the community after considering all the available data is in my opinion in the high (well above average) range compared to the recidivism rate of sexual offenders generally. 

His greatest risk factors are his multiple areas of deviant sexual arousal as well as his persistent sexual offending over a long period even after sanctions and treatment.  Although the most recent exposure offences are not in the most serious category they speak to the ongoing operation of his sexual behaviour in a dysfunctional way that poses a risk to other people in the community even on parole. 

If he were to be placed on a supervision order in the community, in my opinion the risk of sexual recidivism would be reduced to low to moderate.  He is likely to comply with the supervision order because of his dependent and avoidant personality features.

Recommendations

If released into the community he should have ongoing psychological therapy and support with skilled mental health practitioners including those able to address his deviant sexuality.

He is less likely to do well in group treatment with his weaker verbal intelligence and communication. 

He should have no unsupervised contact with girls under 16 years of age.

The material, in the form of the psychiatric reports, includes reference to and summaries of other psychiatric assessments of the respondent previously undertaken.  For example, one undertaken by Dr Sundin who provided a report to the parole board in January 2015.  A useful summary appears in Dr Harden’s report at pages 11 to 12 which I will not set out here. 

The assessments undertaken, and opinions expressed by the three psychiatrists that I have just referred to consistently support a finding to the requisite high degree of probability that the respondent is a serious danger to the community, if released in the absence of a supervision order.  On the basis of the opinion evidence of the psychiatrists, I am satisfied that the risk that the respondent will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community unsupervised is high; and that there is a need to protect members of the community from that risk. 

It follows that I am also satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order (see section 13(6)(b)(i)).  In this regard I note again the observation by Dr Harden that the respondent is likely to comply with a supervision order because of his dependent and avoidant personality features. 

The requirements for supervised release orders are set out in section 16 of the Act.  The parties are agreed on the terms of an appropriate supervised release order.  The order which has been proposed does contain the requirements in section 16 as well as a number of other conditions.  Once again, the adequate protection of the community is the paramount consideration in terms of the form of the supervision order.  A copy of the order will be set out in a schedule to these reasons. 

Importantly, I note the opinion expressed by each of the psychiatrists as to the desirability for the respondent of undertaking intensive individual psychological treatment given the seemingly limited benefit he has received from the group programs he has already undertaken and, as observed by Dr Harden, that he is less likely to do well in a group treatment program given his weaker verbal intelligence and communication skills.  I would add to that, by reference to the affidavit of Andrew Conellen filed by leave today, that it seems that the group programs may in  fact not be adequate to address the particular paraphilias of the respondent and in that respect also individual psychological treatment is to be preferred. 

I have discussed with the legal representatives for both parties today the terms of the order proposed in relation to treatment, which are expressed fairly broadly at paragraphs 27 to 29 of the order.  I accept that there is a need for that given the duration that the order will be in place and the need for those who are supervising and managing the supervision to have flexibility about steps that are taken under the order.  But plainly it is the expectation that the recommendation of the psychiatrists that have given rise to this application and to this order would be given considerable emphasis by those making decisions about the treatment of the respondent whilst he is subject to this order. 

In relation to section 13(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, which requires that the Court be satisfied the requirements of the order can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services, I have had regard to the affidavit of Ms Cowie that I have already referred to and I note also the approach which has been taken in the Attorney-General for Queensland v Francis [2006] QCA 234 referred to by her Honour Justice Lyons in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2011] QSC 382 at [94], which is that the Act assumes that supervision will be available and that the Court should not conclude either that it will not be made available or will not be made sufficiently available in the absence of clear evidence to that effect and an explanation as to why its provision is regarded as unreasonable or impracticable.  In this matter there is no material to suggest that the requirements of what is in the end an agreed supervision order cannot reasonably and practicably be managed by corrective services. 

In relation to the duration of the order, as noted, prior to today it had been the position that the parties were at odds in relation to that, with the Attorney-General submitting it ought to be for 10 years and the respondent submitting it ought to be for five years.  I note that Dr Grant expressed the opinion that the order should be at least five years, but that it may be that a longer supervision order would be required and therefore it may be most efficacious to make the order for 10 years.  In their written reports Dr Beech and Dr Harden did not make any comment about the appropriate duration.  Under section 13A of the Act the minimum period of the supervision order is five years. 

Counsel for the respondent has helpfully indicated to the Court today that she had the opportunity to confer with each of the psychiatrists this morning about this matter and she has conveyed to the Court that each of them expressed the view that given the circumstances – that the respondent is a young man, who has a number of paraphilias, that they are matters that are not likely to resolve in a short period, and that there will be an ongoing need for treatment for him – they are all of the view that the longer duration of 10 years is appropriate for a supervision order. 

I also note the respondent’s instructions, through his counsel, in terms of wishing this matter to be resolved and having a positive attitude to the supervision order and the duration of it, which are also taken into account as a matter indicating some optimism for the respondent in terms of his supervision in the community.  On behalf of the respondent, given the indications from those three psychiatrists about the appropriate duration of the order and his instructions about the matter more generally, it is said the respondent no longer today opposes the order being made for a period of 10 years.

Having considered all of the material and taken into account those indications, communicated to me by counsel for the respondent, from the psychiatrists, I am satisfied that the appropriate duration of the order should be 10 years, given the material that is before the Court. 

For the reasons that I have articulated I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a supervision order in terms of the draft that has been handed to the Court and which will become a schedule to these reasons. 

SCHEDULE

SUPERVISION ORDER

Before: Bowskill J

Date: 24 July 2017

Initiating document: Originating Application filed 22 February 2017 (CFI 1)

THE COURT, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, DJH, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent be subject to the following conditions until 10 August 2027:

The respondent must:

Statutory requirements

1. be under the supervision of a Corrective Services officer for the duration of the order;
2. report to a Corrective Services officer at the Queensland Corrective Services Probation and Parole Office closest to his place of residence between 9am and 4pm on the day of his release from custody and at that time advise the officer of his current name and address;
3. report to, and receive visits from, a Corrective Services officer at such times and at such frequency as determined by Queensland Corrective Services;
4. notify a Corrective Services officer of every change of his name, place or residence or employment at least two (2) business days before the change happens;
5. comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction;
6. comply with any reasonable direction under section 16B of the Act given to him;
7. comply with every reasonable direction of a Corrective Services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of the order;
8. not leave or stay out of Queensland without the permission of a Corrective Services officer;
9. not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order;

Employment

10. seek permission and obtain approval from a Corrective Services officer prior to entering into an employment agreement or engaging in volunteer work or paid or unpaid employment;
11. notify a Corrective Services officer of the nature of his employment, or offers of employment, the hours of work each day, the name of his employer and the address of the premises where he is or will be employed at least two (2) days prior to commencement or any change;

Residence

12. reside at a place within the State of Queensland as approved by a Corrective Services officer by way of a suitability assessment and obtain written approval prior to any change of residence;
13. if this accommodation is of a temporary or contingency nature, comply with any regulations or rules in place at this accommodation and demonstrate reasonable efforts to secure alternative, viable long term accommodation to be assessed for suitability by Queensland Corrective Services;
14. not reside at a place by way of short term accommodation including overnight stays without the permission of a Corrective Services officer;

General terms

15. not to have any direct or indirect contact with a victim of his sexual offences;
16. not commit an indictable offence during the period of the order;

Disclosure of plans and associates

17. respond truthfully to enquiries by a Corrective Services officer about his activities, whereabouts and movements generally;
18. disclose to a Corrective Services officer the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information from a Corrective Services officer about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior offending behaviour;
19. submit to and discuss with a Corrective Services officer a schedule of his planned and proposed activities on a weekly basis or as otherwise directed;
20. if directed by a Corrective Services officer, make complete disclosure of the terms of this supervision order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by a Corrective Services officer who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred;
21. notify the supervising Corrective Services officer of all personal relationships entered into by him.

Motor vehicles

22. notify a Corrective Services officer of the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle owned by or generally driven by him, whether hired or otherwise obtained for his use;

Alcohol and other substances

23. abstain from the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of this order;
24. submit to any form of drug and alcohol testing including both random urinalysis and breath testing as directed by a Corrective Services officer;
25. disclose to a Corrective Services officer all prescription and over the counter medication that he obtains;
26. not visit premises licensed to supply or serve alcohol, without the prior written permission of a Corrective Services officer;

Treatment

27. attend upon and submit to assessment, treatment, and/or medical testing by a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional as directed by a Corrective Services officer at a frequency and duration which shall be recommended by the treating intervention specialist;
28. permit any medical, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional to disclose details of treatment, intervention and opinions relating to level of risk of re-offending and compliance with this order to Queensland Corrective Services if such a request is made for the purposes of updating or amending the supervision order and/or ensuring compliance with this order;
29. attend any program, course, psychologist, social worker or counsellor, in a group or individual capacity, as directed by a Corrective Services officer in consultation with treating medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioners where appropriate;

Contact with children

30. not establish or maintain any supervised or unsupervised contact, including undertaking any care of children under 16 years of age, except with prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer.  The respondent is required to fully disclose the terms of the order and nature of offences to the guardians and caregivers of the children before any such contact can take place; Queensland Corrective Services may disclose information pertaining to the offender to guardians or caregivers and external agencies (i.e. Department of Child Safety) in the interests of ensuring the safety of the children;
31. not establish or maintain contact with a child under 16 years of age without the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer; except in the case of the respondent’s daughter/son by way of supervised contact and communications in writing or by telephone if agreed between the respondent and the mother of the child or approved by order of a court under the Family Law Act 1975;
32. advise a Corrective Services officer of any repeated contact with a parent or guardian of a child under the age of 16. The respondent, shall if directed by a Corrective Services officer make complete disclosure of the terms of this supervision order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by a Corrective Services officer who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred;

Attendance at places

33. not without reasonable excuse be within 100 metres of schools or child care centres without the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer;
34. not visit or attend on the premises of any establishment where there is a dedicated children's play area or child minding area without the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer;
35. not visit public parks without the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer;
36. obtain prior approval from a Corrective Services officer before attending on the premises of any shopping centre, including the times in which he wishes to attend;
37. not join, affiliate with, attend on the premises of or attend at the activities carried on by any club or organisation in respect of which there are reasonable grounds for believing there is either child membership or child participation without the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer;

Access to information technology

38. notify a Corrective Services officer of any computer or other device connected to the internet that he regularly uses or has used;
39. supply to a Corrective Services officer any password or other access code known to him to permit access to such computer or other device or content accessible through such computer or other device and allow any device where the internet is accessible to be randomly examined using a data exploitation tool to extract digital information or any other recognised forensic examination process;

Phones and other devices

40. allow any other device including a telephone to be randomly examined. If applicable, account details and/or phone bills are to be provided upon request of a Corrective Services officer;
41. to advise a Corrective Services officer of the make, model and phone number of any mobile phone owned, possessed or regularly utilised by him within 24 hours of connection or commencement of use and includes reporting any changes to mobile phone details;
42. except with prior written approval from a Corrective Services officer, not own, possess or regularly utilise more than one mobile phone.