Attorney-General v Williams[2017] QSC 304

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

HER HONOUR:   This is the fifth occasion on which Mr Williams has been dealt with for a contravention of the supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) that I imposed on 12 October 2010 and was amended by Justice Applegarth on 10 August 2015.  The contravention is in respect of requirement 24 of the supervision order, which is a requirement to abstain from illicit drugs for the duration of the order.  The facts of the contravention are admitted by Mr Williams, and I find them proved. 

When Mr Williams was last released to supervision on 20 March 2017, he was issued with a reasonable direction in accordance with requirement 24 of his supervision order to abstain from illicit drugs for the duration of the order.  Mr Williams acknowledged his understanding by signing the reasonable direction. 

On 23 May 2017, Mr Williams submitted to urinalysis testing in accordance with requirement 25 of his supervision order.  He denied any illicit substance use or the use of prescription medication.  The sample returned a presumptive positive result to Buprenorphine and was sent for confirmatory testing.  On 24 May 2017, Mr Williams was questioned on the test result, and made admissions to ingesting Suboxone.  Mr Williams advised that he had ingested Suboxone on 19 or 20 May 2017 as he was feeling stressed.  He advised he was not prescribed this medication but had obtained it in an exchange with another prisoner prior to his release from custody in March.  Mr Williams has been detained in custody for this contravention since 26 May 2017. 

Mr Williams’ offending history is set out in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams [2010] QSC 248.  Details of a significant previous contravention of the supervision order are set out by Justice Jackson in Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2014] QSC 192 at [6] to [9].  The next contravention resulted in Mr Williams being returned to custody in February 2015 for a contravention of the requirement not to collect or retain any material that contains images of children, and he was released on the amended supervision order by Justice Applegarth on 10 August 2015.  He returned to custody on 3 May 2016 for admitting that he had accessed child exploitation material, which was a breach of the condition of the supervision order not to access pornographic images that display photographs or images of children on a computer or on the internet or in any other format.  I released Mr Williams on the supervision order again on 11 October 2016, Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2016] QSC 230.  On 2 December 2016, Mr Williams was returned to custody after admitting to his treating psychologist that he had been using cannabis.  He was released again on the supervision order on 20 March 2017 by Justice Daubney. 

For the purpose of this hearing today, Mr Williams has been interviewed by two psychiatrists, Dr Sundin and Dr Beech, who both have provided written reports.  There is no change to the diagnosis previously made in respect of Mr Williams.  Dr Sundin interviewed Mr Williams on 24 April 2017.  She considers that Mr Williams remains at high risk of sexual recidivism unless closely monitored under a supervision order.  Dr Sundin expressed the view that the supervision order is  working to protect the community and there are appropriate clauses and opportunities for high risk factors to be identified early prior to Mr Williams acting upon them. 

Dr Beech interviewed Mr Williams on 1 September 2017.  He concluded:

In my opinion, the risk of reoffending without a supervision order is high.  The alleged contravention does not alter that risk.  It was high to commence with.  The risk of reoffending on release from custody unsupervised is high.  It is my opinion that the risk is substantially reduced with supervision below moderate towards low-moderate.  This, though, has been dependent on close supervision, close monitoring, urine testing and breath testing, and a vigilance about his mobile devices and internet access, and vigilance about the possibility that he might be accessing, viewing or even retaining images related to children.  He appears to struggle with this level of supervision, but in my opinion, it has been appropriate under those circumstances.

In this current period of detention, Mr Williams has completed a substance abuse program, which is particularly relevant to this contravention, as ingesting substances increases the risk of sexual reoffending by Mr Williams.  Mr Williams also commenced therapy with psychologist Dr Madsen in May 2017, and it is anticipated that he will continue with this treatment under the supervision order.

The Attorney-General concedes that having regard to the evidence of the psychiatrists, Mr Williams is able to discharge the onus cast upon him by section 22 of the Act that, despite the contravention, adequate protection of the community can be ensured by release to the community under the existing supervision order. 

I am satisfied that the respondent has discharged the onus he bears by reference to the psychiatric evidence and the steps that he has undertaken whilst in custody since 26 May 2017  and that the terms of the existing supervision order are appropriate for ensuring the adequate protection of the community.  I therefore make an order in terms of the draft, initialled by me and the placed with the file.