Attorney-General v WAM[2020] QSC 337

1. [1]
   This is a decision on an application by the Attorney-General for orders against the respondent under s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act). The respondent is presently the subject of an interim supervision order made on 6 April 2020 under the Act.

2. [2]
   The objects of the Act are set out in s 3. There are two, relevantly:

   1. (a)
      to provide for the continued detention, custody or supervised release of a particular class of prisoner to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
   2. (b)
      to provide continuing control, care or treatment for a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation. These objects are implemented by a scheme in the Act which provides for the detention of prisoners beyond the expiry of their sentences or, alternatively, for their release under supervision.

3. [3]
   In an application such as the present, the initial inquiry for the court is whether the making of a supervision order is appropriate. Here, the making of an order is not opposed by the respondent.

4. [4]
   The respondent’s position is sensible in light of the evidence adduced at the hearing about the risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence if released without a supervision order. In that respect, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection for the community. The purpose of a supervision order or even a continuing detention order is the protection of the community. It is not directed to any punishment of an offender. By the time an order is made under division 3 of the Act, an offender will ordinarily have served the punishment imposed for his or her offending.

5. [5]
   However, the court must be satisfied that the risk of the respondent offending in the absence of a supervision order is unacceptable. It follows that the existence of some risk of reoffending is not a sufficient basis for an order.

Psychiatric and psychological evidence

6. [6]
   The evidence before the court today is in the form of a number of written reports from psychiatrists and psychologists as well as short oral evidence from three psychiatrists and a treating psychologist.

Mr Smith

7. [7]
   The earliest of the reports was by psychologist Nick Smith dated 3 June 2010. The respondent was referred to Mr Smith by his legal representatives before sentencing. Mr Smith supplied two psychometric assessments for the purpose of forming a view of the respondent’s risk of reoffending.

8. [8]
   On the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) measure, the respondent was assessed as being a moderate risk for future sexual violence, most likely against members of his family. According to Mr Smith, the respondent’s scoring indicated the presence of psychopathy, past supervision failures, high density sexual offending, non-sexual violent and non-violent offending, experiences of child abuse and problems in the area of substance abuse, employment and relationships. Mr Smith noted other factors as being possibly present, including sexual deviation, extreme minimisation and denial of sexual offending and attitudes that support sexual offending.

9. [9]
   The second assessment conducted by Mr Smith was the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, screening version. The respondent’s score indicated the presence of psychopathy. He also scored positively for superficial, lacks remorse and empathy, does not accept responsibility, impulsive, irresponsible and antisocial behaviour in adulthood. Other factors were possibly positive. These included grandiose, deceitful, poor behavioural controls and antisocial behaviour during adolescence.

Dr Andrews

10. [10]
    The next report was by psychiatrist Dr Michelle Andrews dated 24 July 2018. It was prepared following a referral from Queensland Corrective Services requesting an assessment of the respondent’s personality, risk of reoffending and recommendations for treatment and program participation.

11. [11]
    Dr Andrews described the respondent as having a surprising lack of insight into his offence as well as supportive beliefs and cognitive distortions relating to his offences. According to Dr Andrews, the respondent viewed his offending as having occurred within the context of relationships with his victims whom he considered had been willing participants. The respondent appeared to have an ongoing infatuation with the victim of his most serious offending. This was demonstrated by his enduring sexually deviant fantasies about that victim. The respondent externalised blame onto other family members whom he believed had been aware of the offending for some time. The respondent expressed only limited genuine remorse for his actions and no empathy for his victims. He did appear remorseful for having lost his family relationships.

12. [12]
    Dr Andrews considered it more likely than not that the respondent met the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder (non-exclusive, sexually attracted to females). She also considered the respondent to have a mixed personality disorder characterised by antisocial, borderline and narcissistic traits and a moderate level of psychopathic traits, falling short of meeting formal criteria for a diagnosis for psychopathy. On the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, revised, Dr Andrews assessed the respondent’s score to fall within the upper limit of the moderate range, indicating he has a moderate level of psychopathic personality traits. On the Risk Assessment Violence Protocol, Dr Andrews scored the respondent as indicating his risk of similar reoffending was moderate to moderate-high.

13. [13]
    In summary, Dr Andrews assessed the respondent’s risk of reoffending as moderate, mitigated only by his imprisonment with other limited protective factors.

Dr Madsen

14. [14]
    The next report was from Dr Lars Madsen, a forensic and clinical psychologist. The respondent was referred to Dr Madsen in September 2018 for individual treatment. Since that time, the respondent has been a patient of Dr Madsen. This relationship complicates to some extent Dr Madsen’s provision of evidence, but given the client- patient relationship Dr Madsen was appropriately careful in the evidence that he provided. That evidence comprised a brief psychological progress report dated 5 March 2019 and a psychological progress report dated 14 July 2020.

15. [15]
    The latter report contained Dr Madsen’s views about the respondent’s progress since his release on an interim supervision order. He noted that the respondent appears to have adjusted well, generally speaking. The respondent has managed to live under the supervision order and undertaken many ordinary tasks. He appears to get along reasonably well with other residents in the Wacol precinct. He has described to Dr Madsen sharing shopping, cooking and cleaning duties with his housemates. He has also reported making efforts to help out other residents in various ways. The respondent has had limited contact with his family, mainly with an aunt, and also limited contact with any persons other than residents in the precinct.

16. [16]
    Dr Madsen notes that the respondent has struggled with case management and the controlling aspects of the interim supervision order. He notes:

“It is my understanding that he has been contravened for being late home on a number of occasions. He has also had heated discussions with his case manager on numerous occasions, interactions that appear to make him prone to hostile feelings and psychological anguish. Much of these triggers seem to relate to having to accept limits imposed by others and feeling powerless to make decisions with regards to himself. Underlying his sensitivity, however, appears to be anxiety about being labelled a dangerous sex offender and associated feelings of defectiveness and shame.”

17. [17]
    Dr Madsen provided an updated assessment of the respondent’s risk of reoffending. He did so using the Static-99R measure and the Stable-2007 tool. He reported:

“The interpretive range on the Stable-2007 can be combined with the Static-99R nominal risk category to provide a composite assessment of risks and needs. When these measures are combined, WAM’s composite assessment places him in the low-moderate priority category for supervision and intervention in comparison to other sexual offenders assessed using these measures.”

18. [18]
    Dr Madsen identified two clinically significant concerns for the respondent, being, firstly, negative emotionality or hostility displayed as a tendency to feel victimised and generally mistreated by others and to respond with anger and hostility to challenges he experiences whilst on the supervision order, including excessively negative reactions to routine problems and, secondly, sexual deviant interest, which remains a clinically relevant factor given his sexual development and offending history.

19. [19]
    Dr Madsen also identified seven areas of some concern, including the limited practical support available to the respondent in the community, his capacity for relationship stability, his general social isolation without many friends and with weak connections to others generally, his impulsivity and his poor cognitive problem-solving.

Dr Brown

20. [20]
    Dr Karen Brown, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, provided an assessment report dated 28 October 2019.

21. [21]
    In her report, Dr Brown noted the respondent’s index offending involved two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years, nine counts of rape and two counts of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child. She described the respondent’s offending against one complainant by reference to the reasons of McMurdo P in R v WAM,^[1] which were as follows:

“[6] The offending against N occurred over an eight year period. The applicant [WAM] began to have penetrative penile vaginal sexual intercourse with N when she was six or seven years old and he was 15 or 16 years old. Counts 1–5 were particularised occasions prior to the applicant’s 18th birthday. The maintaining offence, count 6, covered the full eight year period from when she was eight years old until she disclosed the offending to police just prior to her 17th birthday. During this time, the applicant had regular penile sexual intercourse with her on a great many occasions, sometimes more than once a day and on one afternoon on eight occasions. The offending included oral sex, digital penetration and penile penetration. It continued after he had formed a permanent relationship with his girlfriend and became a father. In 2008, when she was 16 and he was 25, he had penile vaginal sex with her when she had a vaginal infection and then had anal sex with her for the first time (count 7).

[7] In February 2009 she tried to cease all contact with him because of his prolonged sexual, physical and verbal abuse. In March 2009, the applicant visited the family home on NW’s birthday. The next day, the applicant had penile vaginal sexual intercourse with her for the last time. She told him she did not want to have sex and said ‘fuck off’ as loudly as she could, but he persisted (count 8). She made it clear to him she wanted nothing more to do with him. He said if he lost her he would commit suicide and asked her to think things over.”

22. [22]
    Also in her report, Dr Brown said:

“WAM described prison as ‘a whole new world’. He said that he found the legal processes surrounding his case frustrating. He only met his legal team a short time before his trial, ‘it ended up in the hands of other people … I felt underrepresented by my lawyer … I was just trying to say that there was no penetration of M or C [other complainants] … I never got my Court the way I wanted it’.

He admitted to finding prison hard, ‘coming here from a place of love and manners is so hard … everyone manipulates each other … there is betrayal and backstabbing … lots of that in the staff … I had the unbearable realisation of how sick people are … it’s been hard to accept and I have been victimised … sending me to prison … it was like sending me an angel from heaven to hell’.

He stated that he had worked for periods of a few years in the prison, but that, ‘I would have worked for longer if people didn’t fuck with me … I worked for a few years but I was let go a few times, usually because the supervisors swore at me or made me look like an idiot … I also stole some coffee from the kitchen’.

He explained that he had written a few ‘blue letters’ to the general manager of the prison whom he referred to as ‘Tamara’. He stated that he was given a guitar to keep in his cell which led to his victimisation by officers, ‘they would look for anything to tip me back to secure … I was tipped three times … once they sent me back because I had pepper in my cell … that was just bullshit’ [and] ‘One of the officers said to me, ‘you are a grub … I am going to get rid of you from the moment you fuck up’ … the officers are entitled … they have wrecked my good behaviour’. He admitted to some other breaches of discipline including refusal to relocate (and associated food refusal), fighting with other prisoners and failure to provide a urine sample, ‘I just couldn’t do it’.

He is currently a unit worker in secure accommodation, ‘I have met some guys there … some friends … the officers said that I help all the groups get along’.

He confirmed that he had applied for parole in 2017, ‘the parole woman thought that I said I was still in love with my victims … I didn’t say that … I said I loved all of my sisters and she misinterpreted me … I have only made one application, I feel like the prison is keeping me here … I have applied to CREST for a parole address but no address is forthcoming’.”

23. [23]
    In the section of her report headed “Diagnosis”, Dr Brown noted:

“In my opinion WAM has a robust diagnosis of paedophilic disorder (non-exclusive type), as evidenced by his sexual offending involving three of his half sisters and his cousin over a period of almost ten years. Although the offending began when he was a teenager, it continued until he was in his mid-twenties and occurred whilst he had adult female partners. There is some alleged evidence that he was unable to perform sexually during his relationship with his adult female partner. He has also previously expressed a fear that he may be attracted to 12 or 13 year olds in the future. He continues to intermittently masturbate to fantasies of one of his victims.

WAM also has a diagnosis of substance use disorder involving alcohol, cannabis and amphetamine. He was a fairly consistent user of one or more substances from his mid-teenage years up until his incarceration. In custody he failed to provide a negative urine sample on one occasion. He is now abstinent in a controlled environment.

With regards to his personality WAM meets criteria for mixed personality disorder with narcissistic, antisocial and emotionally unstable traits. His [sic] demonstrates marked narcissistic traits including a grandiose view of himself and his achievements. He views himself as superior, he is demeaning and belittling of others (in order to validate his own superiority) and he views himself as entitled to special treatment. He generally lacks empathy for others and he prefers to associate with high status people (for example the general manager of the prison). He seeks admiration from others and he prefers to fixate on fantasies of success (particularly with regards to his guitar playing and employment prospects) rather than to face the reality of his situation. When he suffers a narcissistic injury (for example removal of his guitar in custody) he becomes emotionally unstable and threatens self harm as a means to manipulate and control others. His criminal history, illicit drug use and generalised antisocial attitudes are longitudinally evident.”

24. [24]
    Dr Brown’s view is that if the respondent were returned to the community without supervision, his risk of sexual recidivism would be, at least, moderate.

25. [25]
    Dr Brown identified six matters to be considered when developing a plan for the respondent’s release. These address what Dr Brown considered to be modifiable risk factors to reduce the respondent’s risk of sexual recidivism to a low-moderate level. It is pleasing to see that each of these six factors has been made the subject of conditions in the proposed order.

Dr Sundin

26. [26]
    Consultant psychiatrist Dr Josephine Sundin provided a report dated 30 May 2020. The report was provided on the basis of an examination of the documentation about the respondent. The respondent declined to participate in a video link interview arranged with Dr Sundin, apparently because it would not be recorded.

27. [27]
    Dr Sundin was satisfied using the DSM-5 criteria that the respondent met criteria for three diagnoses: firstly, paedophilic disorder (non-exclusive type limited to incest); secondly, mixed personality disorder (narcissistic, antisocial, borderline personality traits); and, thirdly, substance use disorder (cannabis, stimulants), noting it was in sustained remission whilst the respondent was incarcerated.

28. [28]
    Dr Sundin performed a risk-assessment using the Static-99R tool and then an attempt at a Hare Psychopathy rating on the basis of the documentary material available about the respondent. Dr Sundin scored the respondent on the Static-99R scale at two, which would be an average risk for future sexual offending. However, Dr Sundin expressed the view that the score was distorted because, although the respondent had offended for many years and on multiple occasions, all of his offences were dealt with in a single sentence and were regarded as a single event or cluster or incident in terms of the Static-99R scale.

29. [29]
    Noting the material provided to Dr Sundin, which canvassed certain items as being present in his behaviour, Dr Sundin considered that the respondent’s risk for future sexual recidivism was moderate to high and that it was likely to remain chronic for a number of decades. However, Dr Sundin was of the view that that risk could be modified by the presence of a supervision order, including recommendations about disclosure clauses. Dr Sundin thought that those supervising the respondent would need to:

“…pay very close attention to his relationships and the people with whom he associates. It is more likely that he will be deceptive about these relationships given his paranoid attitude towards QCS against a chronic background of sexually deviant cognitions/permission statement. Thus, a high level of caution and oversight will need to be demonstrated by those managing him within the community.”

30. [30]
    Dr Sundin recommended a supervision order be in place for 10 years, but expressed the view that the respondent’s risk for sexual recidivism was likely to remain active for a considerable time thereafter, given the foundations of his offending in personality disorder and sexually deviant cognitions.

Dr McVie

31. [31]
    The final written report was from Dr Ness McVie, a consultant psychiatrist. It was dated 16 June 2020. Dr McVie undertook a number of risk assessments using the PCLR, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Static-99R, Stable-2007, RSVP and the HCR-20 instrument. Overall, Dr McVie concluded that the respondent has a moderate loading of historical risk factors for violence.

32. [32]
    Dr McVie agreed with previous reports that the respondent met the criteria for a diagnosis of paedophilia (non-exclusive type) and that his risk of reoffending sexually was within the risk range of an average sexual offender. However, Dr McVie expressed the view that the structured professional judgment instruments suggest that he has considerable outstanding treatment needs and that, overall, his risk of reoffending is at least moderate to high.

33. [33]
    Dr McVie made a number of recommendations as to matters which might be the subject of a supervision order. In Dr McVie’s view, a supervision order with conditions premised upon restricting the respondent’s contact with children, the continuation of one-to-one therapy with a treating psychologist, abstinence from alcohol and drugs and with a term of 10 years, would reduce his risk of reoffending to low.

34. [34]
    Dr McVie, Dr Sundin, Dr Brown and Dr Madsen gave short oral evidence, including under cross-examination. That further evidence was directed, most particularly, to a small number of matters in a draft supervision order which are the subject of particular contention. Those matters will be dealt with later in these reasons.

Consideration

35. [35]
    On the basis of the evidence adduced in this hearing, I am satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under division 3 of the Act. By that I mean that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence if he were released from custody without a supervision order being made. In reaching this conclusion, I have given paramount consideration to the need to ensure adequate protection of the community and I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence if he were released without such an order.

36. [36]
    I am conscious that the courts have interpreted this legislative scheme in a way that gives preference to a supervision order over a continuing detention order and I am comforted by the attention that each of the relevant expert witnesses has given to the subject matter of appropriate conditions in order to reach the conclusion that the unacceptable risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence can be adequately managed by the imposition of conditions in a supervision order. It is on this basis that I have reached the view that a supervision order would be efficacious in constraining his behaviour by preventing the opportunity for him to commit sexual offences and I have reached the positive conclusion that the supervision order will provide adequate protection in that respect.

37. [37]
    As I mentioned, the following specific matters were the subject of oral evidence earlier today, including cross-examination by counsel on behalf of the respondent and subsequent oral submissions based upon the evidence so adduced.

38. [38]
    I have determined, firstly, that the supervision order should be for a period of 10 years, until 27 July 2030. This is consistent with the unanimous view expressed by the psychiatric witnesses. Each of them explained that the term of the order was appropriate because of the relatively young age of the respondent, his personality traits which are likely to make his therapeutic process somewhat more prolonged than might otherwise be the case.

39. [39]
    The next point of contention concerned whether the supervision order should include a prohibition on the respondent consuming alcohol, with associated testing, and requirements that he obtain prior written permission to attend various types of licenced premises. Each of the psychiatrists who was asked specifically about this matter indicated that in their view the respondent’s transition from custody to liberty in the community, subject to a supervision order, would be assisted significantly by a further period of abstinence from alcohol as well as from illegal drugs. The specific periods nominated were six to 12 months and 12 months. As Dr Sundin explained, fixing the period was a balancing act due to the prevalent role of alcohol in the community as a general medium for socialisation.

40. [40]
    In the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to include in the supervision order a prohibition on the respondent consuming alcohol for a period of 12 months. Thereafter, I consider it appropriate to include a prohibition on the respondent consuming an excessive quantity of alcohol. An appropriate means by which this may be effected is to impose upon the respondent a blood alcohol content limit of 0.05 per cent. This might most conveniently be done by reference to the general alcohol limit provided for in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) (the TORUM Act). It could either be done by a statement about the concentration of alcohol in the respondent’s blood being less than 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres or the concentration of alcohol in his breath being no more than 0.05 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath, or by reference to the defined term in the TORUM Act. This is a relatively well-known and understood limit because it applies to the driving of motor vehicles.

41. [41]
    I consider that the order ought to include a provision that would permit the respondent to exceed that limit on occasions, with the prior written consent of his supervising corrective services officer.

42. [42]
    Modifications to the proposed supervision order in these terms will, in my view, assist the respondent to understand that the order is both a means for the protection of the community, but also a means to assist his transition from his present status to an eventual assessment that he is no longer a present risk, relevantly, to the community.

43. [43]
    The next area of contention is whether the supervision order should include a condition that the respondent obtain the prior written permission of a corrective services officer before going to a pub, club, hotel or nightclub that is licenced to serve alcohol, or to a business that is only licenced for that purpose. I accept that this is a significant constraint upon the respondent’s liberty. However, on balance, it forms a necessary part of the supervision intended by the order in respect of the respondent’s use of alcohol as a disinhibiting substance. The draft condition proposed will remain in the order. By agreement, the draft condition 31 is to be deleted, which provided for a separate prohibition on the respondent attending a public park.

44. [44]
    The next area of contention concerns the places the respondent may not visit without the prior written permission of the corrective services officer. There is no issue that he ought not to attend any school or childcare centre, except with such permission. The respondent, however, opposes the imposition of such a requirement for him attending a place where there is a children’s play area or child-minding area, a public park or a shopping centre.

45. [45]
    The scheme of the supervision order includes a requirement that the respondent must talk to a corrective services officer about what he plans to do each week. The inclusion of these places on a list of places that the respondent must not attend without prior written consent in my view promotes a better interaction between the respondent and the corrective services officer with whom he is to discuss his plans for the week. It gives more particular content to that discussion. It promotes a more open and better supervisory relationship. In all of these ways I would consider that the inclusion of such a condition is appropriate and necessary to make the supervision order effective to adequately manage the risk of the respondent reoffending in a relevant way.

46. [46]
    Finally, there is contention as to whether the respondent ought to be subject to a condition requiring him to obtain the prior written consent of a corrective services officer before joining any club or organisation in which children are involved or before participating in any such club or organisation. Again, I accept that this restriction is a significant infringement of the respondent’s liberty. However, I am of the view that the prohibition is appropriate in order to give effect as part of a process of adequately managing the risk of the respondent relevantly offending. The prohibition includes a mechanism whereby the respondent can obtain the prior written consent of a corrective services officer to participating in such activities and, therefore, has the additional benefit that it provides some further content for a discussion with that officer and therefore also promotes an open and better supervisory relationship.

Disposition

47. [47]
    In the circumstances, I will make an order in terms of the draft prepared by the applicant with amendments to draft clause 26 to limit the prohibition on alcohol to a period of 12 months ending on 27 July 2030 and providing for a prohibition on the respondent consuming alcohol so as to exceed the general alcohol limit under the TORUM Act. I propose to leave paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the draft in their present form, to delete paragraph 31 and to leave paragraph 43 in the form that it appears in the draft.

Schedule A

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY:  Brisbane

NUMBER: 13962/19

AND

SUPERVISION ORDER

Before: Bradley J

Date: 27 July 2020

Initiating document: Originating Application filed 16 December 2019 (CFI No. 1)

THE COURT is satisfied that is a serious danger to the community.

The rules in this order are made according to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT must follow the rules in this supervision order for 10 years, until 27 July 2030.

TO  :

1. You are being released from prison but only if you obey the rules in this supervision order.

2. If you break any of the rules in this supervision order, the police or Queensland Corrective Services have the power to arrest you. Then the Court might order that you go back to prison.

3. You must obey these rules for the next 10 years.

Supervision Order GR Cooper

 CROWN SOLICITOR

Filed on behalf of the applicant 11^th Floor, State Law Building 50 Ann Street

Form 59 R. 661 Brisbane Qld 4000

Per Margaret Maloney Telephone  07 3031 5864

PL4/ATT110/3917/MAM Facsimile 07 3031 5998

Reporting

4. On the day you are released from prison, you must report before 4 pm to a Corrective Services officer at the Community Corrections office closest to where you will live. You must tell the Corrective Services officer your name and the address where you will live.

5. A Corrective Services officer will tell you the times and dates when you must report to them. You must report to them at the times they tell you to report. A Corrective Services officer might visit you at your home. You must let the Corrective Services officer come into your house.

To “report” means to visit a Corrective Services officer and talk to them face to face.

Supervision

6. A Corrective Services officer will supervise you until this order is finished. This means you must obey any reasonable direction that a Corrective Services officer gives you about:
   1. where you are allowed to live; and
   2. rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and
   3. using drugs and alcohol;
   4. anything else, except for instructions that mean you will break the rules in this supervision order.

A “reasonable direction” is an instruction about what you must do, or what you must not do, that is reasonable in that situation.

If you are not sure about a direction, you can ask a Corrective Services officer for more information, or talk to your lawyer about it.

7. You must answer and tell the truth if a Corrective Services officer asks you about where you are, what you have been doing or what you are planning to do, and who you are spending time with.

8. If you change your name, where you live or any employment, you must tell a Corrective Services officer at least two business days before the change will happen.

A “business day” is a week day (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) that is not a public holiday.

No offences

9. You must not break the law by committing a sexual offence.

10. You must not break the law by committing an indictable offence.

Where you must live

11. You must live at a place approved by a Corrective Services officer. You must obey any rules that are made about people who live there.

12. You must not live at another place. If you want to live at another place, you must tell a Corrective Services officer the address of the place you want to live. The Corrective Services officer will decide if you are allowed to live at that place. You are allowed to change the place you live only when you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer to live at another place.

This also means you must get written permission from a Corrective Service officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place.

13. You must not leave Queensland. If you want to leave Queensland, you must ask for written permission from a Corrective Services officer. You are allowed to leave Queensland only after you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer.

Curfew direction

14. A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to stay at a place (for example, the place you live) at particular times. This is called a curfew direction. You must obey a curfew direction.

Monitoring direction

15. A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to:
    1. wear a device that tracks your location; and
    2. let them install a device or equipment at the place you live. This will monitor if you are there.

This is called a monitoring direction. You must obey a monitoring direction.

Employment or study

16. You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work.

17. When you ask for permission, you must tell the Corrective Services officer these things:
    1. what the job is;
    2. who you will work for;
    3. what hours you will work each day;
    4. the place or places where you will work; and
    5. (if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study.

18. If a Corrective Services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you.

Motor vehicles

19. You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, colour and registration number) about any vehicle you own, borrow or hire. You must tell the Corrective Services officer these details immediately (on the same day) you get the vehicle.

A vehicle includes a car, motorbike, ute or truck.

Mobile phone

20. You are only allowed to own or have (even if you do not own it) one mobile phone. You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, phone number and service provider) about any mobile phone you own or have within 24 hours of when you get the phone.

21. You must give a Corrective Services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phone you own or have. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone.

Computers and internet

22. You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to use a computer, phone or other device to access the internet.

23. You must give a Corrective Services officer any password or other access code you know for the computer, phone or other device. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using the computer, phone or other device. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the computer, phone or other device and everything on it.

24. You must give a Corrective Services officer details (including user names and passwords) about any email address, instant messaging service, chat rooms, or social networking sites that you use. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using any of these things.

No contact with any victim

25. You must not contact or try to contact any victims of a sexual offence committed by you. You must not ask someone else to do this for you.

“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.

Rules about alcohol and drugs

26. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject or sniff) any alcohol for a period of 12 months ending 27 July 2021. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any alcohol during that period.

After 27 July 2021, you are not allowed to exceed the general alcohol limit of 50mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood or 0.050g or alcohol in 210L of breath, without the prior written permission of a Corrective Services officer.

27. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, smoke or sniff) any illegal drugs. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any illegal drugs.

28. A Corrective Services officer has the power to tell you to take a drug test or alcohol test. You must take the drug test or alcohol test when they tell you to. You must give them some of your breath, spit (saliva), pee (urine) or blood when they tell you to do this.

29. You are not allowed to go to pubs, clubs, hotels or nightclubs which are licensed to supply or serve alcohol. If you want to go to one of these places, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to go.

30. You are not allowed to visit any business that is only licensed to supply alcohol. If you want to go to one of these places, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to go.

31. You must tell a Corrective Services officer about any medicine that a doctor prescribes (tells you to buy). You must also tell a Corrective Services officer about any over the counter medicine that you buy or have with you. You must do this within 24 hours of seeing the doctor or buying the medicine.

Rules about rehabilitation and counselling

32. You must obey any direction a Corrective Services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor.

33. You must obey any direction a Corrective Services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program.

34. You must let Corrective Services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program.

Speaking to Corrective Services about what you plan to do

35. You must talk to a Corrective Services officer about what you plan to do each week. A Corrective Services officer will tell you how and when to do this (for example, face to face or in writing).

36. You must also tell a Corrective Services officer the name of new persons you have met.

This includes: people who you spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly.

37. You may need to tell new contacts about your supervision order and offending history. The Corrective Services officer will instruct you to tell those persons and the Corrective Services officer may speak to them to make sure you have given them all the information.

38. You are not allowed to have any contact with children under 16 years of age. If you want to have supervised or unsupervised contact with a child under 16 years of age you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to have contact with the child.

“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking with them face to face, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting, using a telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.

“Supervised” means having contact with the child while another person is with you and the child.

“Unsupervised” means having contact with the child while there is no other person with you and the child.

39. If you have any repeated contact (that is, more than one time) with a parent, guardian or carer of a child under the age of 16, you must:
    1. tell the person(s) about this supervision order; and
    2. tell a Corrective Services officer the details of the person(s).

You must do this immediately. This means you have to tell the person, and tell a Corrective Services officer, on the same day you have contact with the person.

40. Queensland Corrective Services has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to any parent, guardian or caregivers that you have contact with.

41. Queensland Corrective Services also has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to an external agency (such as the Department of Child Safety).

42. You must not:
    1. attend any school or childcare centre;
    2. be in a place where there is a children’s play area or child minding area;
    3. go to a public park;
    4. go to a shopping centre;
    5. join any club or organisation in which children are involved;
    6. participate in any club or organisation in which children are involved.

If you want to do any of these things, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you cannot do any of these things.

Offence specific requirements

43. You must not collect photos/videos/magazines which have images of children in them without the prior approval of a Corrective Services officer. If you have any you will be asked to get rid of them by a Corrective Services officer.

44. You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet.

45. You cannot get pornographic images on a computer or phone from the internet or magazines without written approval from a Corrective Services officer. Your treating psychologist will provide advice regarding this approval.

46. You must develop a management plan with your psychologist or psychiatrist to address any risk of sexual re-offence. You must talk about this with a Corrective Services officer when asked.

47. You must advise your case manager of any personal relationships you have started.

Signed: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland