Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Attorney-General v LKR[2021] QSC 135

Attorney-General v LKR[2021] QSC 135

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v LKR [2021] QSC 135

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

LKR

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 6692 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 June 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 June 2021

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

  1. Pursuant to s 30(1) of the DPSO Act, the decision made on 26 November 2018, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed.
  2. Pursuant to s 30(5) of the DPSO Act, the continuing detention order made on 26 November 2018 be rescinded.
  3. Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the DPSO Act, the respondent be released from custody on 9 June 2021, subject to a supervision order for a period of 10 years until 9 June 2031, on the conditions set out in Annexure A.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent has been the subject of a continuing detention order since November 2018 – where the applicant makes an application for a review of the continuing detention order pursuant to Part 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSO Act) – where the respondent was assessed by two psychiatrists for the purpose of the review – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – whether adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13, s 16, s 27, s 30

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Anderson [2020] QSC 142, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Beattie [2007] QCA 96, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v DBJ [2017] QSC 302, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v LKR [2018] QSC 280, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v LKR [2020] QSC 71, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268, cited

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant

E Lewsey for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

KLM Solicitors for the respondent

  1. [1]
    This is an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland pursuant to s 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSO Act) that the continuing detention of the respondent be reviewed.  This is the second annual review.
  2. [2]
    On 26 November 2018, Applegarth J found the respondent to be a serious danger to the community and ordered that the respondent remain in custody for an indefinite term under a continuing detention order.[1]
  3. [3]
    On 9 April 2020, Davis J reviewed the continuing detention order and affirmed the decision that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the DPSO Act.  Further, Davis J ordered that the respondent continue to be subject to a continuing detention order.[2]
  4. [4]
    The reasons of Davis J conveniently summarised the criminal offending of the respondent as follows:

[2] The respondent was born in 1973. He is 47 years of age. He has a serious criminal history which was analysed by Applegarth J who made the CDO against the respondent.

[3] Serious sexual offences were committed by the respondent in January 1999 the result of which was a sentence of imprisonment of 13 years. However, it was offences committed in June of 2013 that formed the basis of the application by the applicant for the CDO. That offending was described by Applegarth J as follows:

[37] On 28 August 2014, the respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on counts of rape, attempting to pervert the course of justice, unlawful entry of a vehicle for committing an indictable offence at night, stealing and possession of a Schedule 1 dangerous drug. On 20 February 2015, the respondent also pleaded guilty and was convicted of a number of summary offences that included possession of suspected stolen property, trespass and obstruction of police in the performance of their duties.

[38] The victim was the respondent’s eight year old niece. He was 40 years old at the time of these offences. The respondent had been staying at his brother’s home and helping with the family mowing business.

[39] Early in the morning on 1 June 2013, the respondent entered the bedroom of the victim that she shared with her 11 year old stepsister. He went into the room with a pair of black handled scissors that had been taken from a knife block in the kitchen, a mobile phone that was used as a torch and a cup of water.

[40] The respondent poured water over the victim. He then used the scissors to cut away the victim’s pyjama bottoms and he penetrated her vagina with his finger. He also took a number of photographs of the victim’s vagina. The older child, who was sleeping on the upper bunkbed, observed some of the respondent’s conduct.

[41] The following morning, the respondent told the victim’s parents that the victim had urinated in bed during the previous night, and that he had cleaned it up. The victim, however, made an early preliminary complaint to her step-sister. The victim informed her step-mother and the police were called. A subsequent medical examination found a small one to two millimetre puncture to one of the internal structures of the child’s vagina.

[42] As part of their investigation into the respondent, the police took possession of his vehicle, and took it to an impounding yard. The respondent broke into that yard by climbing over the fence, broke into the vehicle and took evidence (specifically, the mobile phone and other effects incriminating him in the rape).

[43] Police later located a plastic bag buried near a tree in the respondent’s garden which contained a mobile phone, adaptor and battery. A further examination of the phone was conducted. Stored on the phone were a number of photographs of the victim’s vagina exposed with part of her pink and white pants also visible. Police also located a backpack in the garage. Inside were clothing, three knives and a quantity of jewellery in a plastic container.

[44] An arrest warrant was issued for the respondent on 4 June 2013. He was at large until 11 June 2013, when he was arrested by police following a lengthy pursuit. He was only stopped when a police dog bit him on the ankle, and continued to struggle until he was handcuffed. When police searched the respondent, they located a black wallet and a clip seal bag containing 0.249 grams of methylamphetamine.”

[4] That offending resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of five years and six months. A period of 619 days of pre-sentence custody was declared as time served on those sentences and the date of the sentence was set as the parole eligibility date. However, parole was not granted and in due course the applicant made application pursuant to s 5 of the Act for a CDO.

[5] Of some importance is that after the 1999 offending the respondent completed sexual offender treatment programs only to then commit the 2013 offences. The fact that the relevant offending occurred after completing programs was a significant issue in the opinions of the psychiatrists who were called in the case.

[6] The respondent denied, and continues to deny, some of the offending.”

  1. [5]
    Further, Davis J summarised the psychiatric evidence as at the time of the first review.[3]  These reasons do not repeat the summary of the earlier psychiatric evidence but I have considered the summary set out at paragraphs [19] to [30] of the reasons of Davis J.
  2. [6]
    Both Applegarth J and Davis J identified as a critical consideration the respondent’s denial of the offending and his refusal to participate in sexual offender programs.   Davis J stated as follows:

[16] A critical issue in the respondent’s case was identified by Applegarth J when imposing the CDO. His Honour said:

[92] The respondent is entitled to deny that he committed some of the sexual offences to which he pleaded guilty, and to refuse to participate in the HISOP. However, his failure and refusal to address the causes of his sexual offending impedes the development of an informed plan to address the risk of his reoffending upon release into the community. That, in turn, means that the extent to which any supervision order will reduce his risk of re-offending to an acceptably low level is uncertain. The respondent’s refusal to engage in sex offending programs in custody and to address the truth about his offending against his niece in 2013 provides a poor basis to conclude that participation in an individual treatment program in the community will adequately address his high risk of sexual reoffending and provide the respondent with (to quote Dr Brown):

‘(a) self-awareness with regard to sexual deviance and behaviour in relationships,

  1. (b)
    coping strategies when relationships don’t go well or breakdown
  1. (c)
    ability to accept responsibility for his offending on more than just a superficial level.’

[93] Until the respondent does these things it is difficult to say what risk reduction strategies should be implemented under a supervision order, and questionable whether the respondent would comply with them to a satisfactory extent.”

  1. [7]
    In the circumstances, Davis J went on to recognise that the likely issue at the second annual review would be as follows:

[30] By force of s 27 of the Act, the CDO must be reviewed annually.  Assuming that the respondent engages in treatment from Dr Oertel (or a similarly qualified and experienced psychologist), the question on the next review will probably be whether that individual, “one-on-one” treatment has sufficiently reduced risk to enable his release on a supervision order or whether the completion of some form of group sexual offender treatment program is necessary.”

Statutory scheme

  1. [8]
    Section 27 of the DPSO Act provides for periodic reviews as follows:

27  Review—periodic

  1. (1)
    If the court makes a continuing detention order, it must review the order at the intervals provided for under this section.

(1A) The hearing for the first review and all submissions for the hearing must be completed within 2 years after the day the order first had effect.

(1B) There must be subsequent annual reviews while the order continues to have effect.

(1C) Each annual review must start within 12 months after the completion of the hearing for the last review under this section.

  1. (2)
    The Attorney-General must make any application that is required to be made to cause the reviews to be carried out.”
  1. [9]
    Section 30 of the DPSO Act directs the Court on the hearing of the review as follows:

30 Review hearing

  1. (1)
    This section applies if, on the hearing of a review under section 27 or 28 and having regard to the required matters, the court affirms a decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.
  1. (2)
    On the hearing of the review, the court may affirm the decision only if it is satisfied—
  1. (a)
    by acceptable, cogent evidence; and
  1. (b)
    to a high degree of probability;

that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision.

  1. (3)
    If the court affirms the decision, the court may order that the prisoner—
  1. (a)
    continue to be subject to the continuing detention order; or
  1. (b)
    be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
  1. (4)
    In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3)(a) or (b)—
  1. (a)
    the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
  1. (b)
    the court must consider whether—
  1. (i)
    adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and
  1. (ii)
    requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.
  1. (5)
    If the court does not make the order under subsection (3)(a), the court must rescind the continuing detention order.
  1. (6)
    In this section—

required matters means all of the following—

  1. (a)
    the matters mentioned in section 13(4);
  1. (b)
    any report produced under section 28A.”
  1. [10]
    Section 30 incorporates the term “serious danger to the community” which in turn encompasses the notions of “serious sexual offence” and “unacceptable risk”.  This in effect mirrors s 13 of the DPSO Act.
  2. [11]
    Section 13 of the DPSO Act provides as follows:

13 Division 3 orders

  1. (1)
    This section applies if, on the hearing of an application for a division 3 order, the court is satisfied the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order (a serious danger to the community).
  1. (2)
    A prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1) if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence—
  1. (a)
    if the prisoner is released from custody; or
  1. (b)
    if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made.
  1. (3)
    On hearing the application, the court may decide that it is satisfied as required under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied—
  1. (a)
    by acceptable, cogent evidence; and
  1. (b)
    to a high degree of probability;

that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify the decision.

  1. (4)
    In deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following—

(aa) any report produced under section 8A;

  1. (a)
    the reports prepared by the psychiatrists under section 11 and the extent to which the prisoner cooperated in the examinations by the psychiatrists;
  1. (b)
    any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the prisoner;
  1. (c)
    information indicating whether or not there is a propensity on the part of the prisoner to commit serious sexual offences in the future;
  1. (d)
    whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the prisoner;
  1. (e)
    efforts by the prisoner to address the cause or causes of the prisoner’s offending behaviour, including whether the prisoner participated in rehabilitation programs;
  1. (f)
    whether or not the prisoner’s participation in rehabilitation programs has had a positive effect on the prisoner;
  1. (g)
    the prisoner’s antecedents and criminal history;
  1. (h)
    the risk that the prisoner will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community;
  1. (i)
    the need to protect members of the community from that risk;
  1. (j)
    any other relevant matter.
  1. (5)
    If the court is satisfied as required under subsection (1), the court may order—
  1. (a)
    that the prisoner be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (continuing detention order); or
  1. (b)
    that the prisoner be released from custody subject to the requirements it considers appropriate that are stated in the order (supervision order).
  1. (6)
    In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (5)(a) or (b)—
  1. (a)
    the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
  1. (b)
    the court must consider whether—
  1. (i)
    adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and
  1. (ii)
    requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.
  1. (7)
    The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1).”
  1. [12]
    In the decision of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Anderson[4] Davis J summarised the effect of s 13:

[5] The effect of s 13 is:

  1. (a)
    the court must consider whether the prisoner is a ‘serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order’;[5]
  1. (b)
    a prisoner is a ‘serious danger to the community’ where there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a ‘serious sexual offence’ in the absence of an order;[6]
  1. (c)
    a ‘serious sexual offence’ is, relevantly here, ‘an offence of a sexual nature … involving violence; or … against a child …’;[7]
  1. (d)
    orders under Division 3 are:
  1. (i)
    a continuing detention order;[8] or
  1. (ii)
    a supervision order;[9]
  1. (e)
    if there is a finding that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, then the court may:
  1. (i)
    make no order;
  1. (ii)
    make a continuing detention order; or
  1. (iii)
    make a supervision order;[10]
  1. (f)
    in determining what, if any order, to make “the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community” from the commission by the prisoner of a “serious sexual offence”;[11]
  1. (g)
    if the adequate protection of the community cannot be ensured by a supervision order, then a continuing detention order should be made;[12] and
  1. (h)
    if the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by a supervision order, then supervision ought to be preferred to the making of a continuing detention order.[13]

[6] The process of the assessment of risk in terms of the DPSOA was explained by McMurdo J (as his Honour then was) in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland[14] where his Honour said:

[30] The existence of this onus of proof is important for the present case. None of the psychiatrists suggests that there is no risk. They differ in their descriptions of the extent of that risk. But the assessment of what level of risk is unacceptable, or alternatively put, what order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community, is not a matter for psychiatric opinion. It is a matter for judicial determination, requiring a value judgement as to what risk should be accepted against the serious alternative of the deprivation of a person’s liberty.’[15]

  1. [13]
    Further, his Honour helpfully summarised the process that is to be undertaken under s 30:

[10] The process under s 30 involves the following steps:

  1. (a)
    determination of whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order;
  1. (b)
    if so, the court must determine whether adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order;
  1. (c)
    if so, then release of the respondent on supervision ought to be preferred to the maintenance of the continuing detention order; and
  1. (d)
    if not, then the continuing detention order ought to be maintained.”
  1. [14]
    In respect of what is meant by “unacceptable risk”, in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v DBJ,[16] Bowskill J recently observed:

[12] As to what constitutes an ‘unacceptable risk’, that is ‘a matter for judicial determination, requiring a value judgment as to what risk should be accepted against the serious alternative of the deprivation of a person’s liberty’. The test is not satisfied by evidence of any risk that the released prisoner may commit a further serious sexual offence. What must be established by the Attorney-General, to the requisite standard, is an unacceptable risk, the determination of which involves a balancing of competing considerations. The notion of an unacceptable risk recognises that some risk can be acceptable consistently with the adequate protection of the community.

[13] In considering whether a risk is unacceptable it is necessary to take into account, and balance, the nature of the risk and the degree of likelihood of it eventuating, with the seriousness of the consequences if the risk eventuates. …

[14] As observed in Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2013) 41 VR 359 at [6]:

‘Whether a risk is unacceptable depends upon the degree of likelihood of offending and the seriousness of the consequences if the risk eventuates. There must be a sufficient likelihood of the occurrence of the risk which, when considered in combination with the magnitude of the harm that may result and any other relevant circumstance, makes the risk unacceptable.’

[15] For present purposes, what is required is an assessment of the risk of the released prisoner committing a serious sexual offence in the absence of a further supervision order. Relevantly, the object of the DPSOA is to ensure adequate protection of the community (s 3(a)). That does not mean the purpose of the legislation is to guarantee the safety and protection of the community. If that were the case, every risk would be unacceptable. …”

Current psychiatric and psychological reports

Dr Oertel

  1. [15]
    Dr Oertel, the respondent’s treating psychologist, prepared a report dated 5 March 2021.  The respondent began treatment in early April 2020 and attended a further 19 sessions at the Wolston Correctional Centre, the most recent being 5 March 2021.[17]
  2. [16]
    Dr Oertel’s assessment of the respondent includes as follows:

“CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS AND MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION

  1. [The respondent] presents as a 48 year old male of Indigenous descent. He has been pleasant and cooperative. He presents as a voluble individual. A positive working relationship has been established and maintained over the course of treatment. His participation in intervention appears genuine and he has been noted to complete homework tasks in between his treatment sessions. It appears that [the respondent] has responded well to individual treatment designed to improve his psychosocial adjustment and reduce the risk of sexual violence. His mood has generally been euthymic. He has been observed to present as somewhat dysphoric at times which appears to have been related to decrements in his pain management regime. His affective expression is considered to be shallow. There have been no indications that [the respondent] presents with perceptual disturbances such as hallucinations, dissociation or agnosia. With respect to his thought content, he does not verbalise any delusions, overvalued ideas, obsessions, phobias, suicidal ideation or violent ideation. It appears that [the respondent] has at times exhibited verbal aggression towards fellow inmates however there are no indications that he has behaved violently or physically aggressive within the custodial environment over the course of treatment. [The respondent] does not appear to exhibit symptoms indicative of a thought disorder. He presents as alert and oriented to time, place and person. His attention and concentration appear sufficient. No significant sensorium, memory or cognitive disturbances have been observed. He seems to be of borderline to low average intelligence although no formal assessment measure has been utilised.
  2. [The respondent] admits to and accepts responsibility for the acts of sexual violence committed in January 1999. He continues to deny perpetrating the index sexual offence on 01 June 2013. Over the course of treatment, [the respondent’s] understanding or appreciation of his sexual violence-related functioning or the factors and processes that place him at risk for sexual violence has improved. However, he continues to present with a lack of appreciation or awareness of the nature and motivations of his index sexual behaviour. [The respondent] acknowledges the presence of his substance-related disorders and the associated negative consequences including aggravating or mitigating the likelihood that he will commit sexual violence. He also demonstrates an understanding of the personal factors (e.g. negative emotionality), interpersonal factors (e.g. influence of intimate relationships) and contextual factors (e.g. employment status, presence or absence of personal social support) that will aggravate or mitigate the likelihood of sexual violence acts in the future. There seems to have been an improvement in [the respondent’s] appraisal of his own general mental processes and reactions, particularly as they relate to his history. Furthermore, he appears to display fair abilities in judgement, planning and problem solving.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. [The respondent] is considered to be a MODERATE-HIGH risk of future sexual violence. It appears that he has benefited from individual treatment designed to improve his psychosocial adjustment and reduce the risk of sexual violence. Although it is noted that he continues to exhibit difficulties or risk factors within three risk domains associated with various facets of sexual violence risk. In terms of reducing [the respondent’s] risk of sexual offending, he would benefit from ongoing participation in individual treatment adopting a cognitive and behavioural model approach targeting his dynamic risk factors and criminogenic needs. Treatment with [the respondent] addressing his risk of sexual offending should overall aim to focus on the following areas:
  • Extreme minimisation – Breaking down denial to facilitate change and the assumption of responsibility
  • Emotion dysregulation – Emotional labelling and psychoeducation about the experience and purpose of emotions, improving management of anger and other negative emotions, enhance understanding of how emotions and feelings influence his behaviour patterns, developing effective coping skills
  • Interpersonal skills deficits – Psychoeducation around intimacy and healthy relationships, enhancing social support and maintaining nonconflictual interpersonal relationships, addressing issues relating to emotional loneliness and adult intimacy, maintaining nonconflictual interpersonal relationships, enhancing communication skills, conflict resolution skills
  • Cognitive distortions and schemas – Identifying the inaccurate and thought processes that support offending behaviour as well as beliefs that support these problematic cognitions and processes, enhancing ability to challenge inappropriate thoughts and beliefs, exploring sexual scripts, appropriateness of specific sexual behaviours, consensual sexual interactions
  • Empathy deficits – Enhancing ability to take another’s perspective or experience his or her emotions, education as to the harmful effects of sexual violence and strengthening the motivation not to offend, develop empathy for victims of offending
  • Antisocial and violence-related cognitions – Identifying inaccurate and thought processes that support offending behaviour as well as beliefs that support these problematic cognitions and processes, enhancing ability to challenge inappropriate thoughts and beliefs, modifying general violence-related cognitions
  • Offence chains and cycles – Delineating the offence process and circumstances that trigger offending, enhancing responsibility for offending behaviour, understanding offence-specific factors, understanding the role of substance use in offending
  • Relapse prevention and self-management – Recognising risky situations, feelings, moods and thoughts, enhancing problem solving abilities, developing strategies to prevent relapse, promoting personal agency, developing realistic long-term goals and feasible plans

Dr Scott Harden

  1. [17]
    Dr Scott Harden, consultant psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 14 May 2021 in relation to the respondent.  On 9 April 2021, Dr Harden conducted a risk assessment interview with the respondent by video link to the Wolston Correctional Centre. 
  2. [18]
    Dr Harden’s assessment of the respondent includes as follows:

“On the STATIC 99R (coding rules revised 2016), [the respondent] scored a 5 on this risk assessment instrument Based upon the STATIC-99R score, this places [the respondent] in the MODERATE - HIGH (above average), risk category relative to other adult male sex offenders.

On the Stable 2007 he had a score of 16 out of a possible score of 24 which placed him in the high needs group in terms of sexual offender’s dynamic risk.

On the Hare Psychopathy Checklist I have given [the respondent] an overall score of 24. This overall score is somewhat elevated.

On the SVR-20 I assessed [the respondent] as being positive for 12 items out of 20 and possibly positive for 3 items. In my opinion this places him in a High risk category on this measure of Sexual Violence Risk.”

  1. [19]
    Dr Harden’s overall risk assessment and opinion in respect of the respondent is as follows:

“OPINION

[The respondent] was a 48 year old man of indigenous heritage who had committed two groups of sexual offences. The first group of offences was against adult women in their own home at night by breaking into their homes and sexually assaulting them using threats and weapons. The second sexual offence was against an eight-year-old girl under circumstances where there was easy access to her as a victim.

Initially he denies committing any of the offences. Over time he admits and accepts that he committed the first set of offences. He has now undertaken significant individual therapy in custody regarding this and seems to have developing insight into his sexual offending and the factors that contribute to this albeit that he maintains denial of the more recent offence against a child relative.

He previously appeared to have little or no concern for his previous victims and minimised and distorted any potential risk of future offending. This appears to have improved since the 2018 assessment with his admission that his substance abuse in particular poses a risk with regard to future offending and his consideration of factors associated with his early life exposure to sexual behaviour and his subsequent attitude towards women.

He has a long and robust history of polysubstance abuse probably with a preference for amphetamines but also marked use of opiates. This has included lots of stealing and also dealing in drugs to maintain his substance use in the past. It has also resulted in relationship breakdown, loss of employment and estrangement from support structures.

He reported initially coming from a reasonable family of origin and having a fair degree of stability in his early years. More recently he has become more aware of a series of very adverse events in his earlier life and family life that may have contributed to his later offending. In his adolescence he began to have more and more conflict with his peers and authority, started using substances with the assistance of his uncle and embarked on a chronic pattern of substance misuse and then criminal behaviour.

He has a history of depressive symptoms in the context of relationship breakdown, polysubstance abuse and stressors associated with being charged with and convicted of sexual offences.

He has a multitude of physical complaints including joint and back pain, gastrointestinal problems, atypical chest pain and other concerns. These have resulted in him being placed on narcotic analgesia in custody.

He has some strengths in that he can maintain interpersonal relationships with adult obtain productive employment in the community. He now also has developing insight into both his substance abuse problems and his sexual offending problems albeit relatively early days with regard to this insight.

Diagnoses

Polysubstance abuse in remission. Antisocial personality disorder.

Provisional diagnosis of paedophilia, non-exclusive.

Risk statement

The actuarial and structured professional judgement measures I administered would suggest that when considered as it et al as he his future risk of sexual reoffence is high (well above average) in the absence of a supervision order. My assessment of this risk is based on the combined clinical and actuarial assessment.

He has now undertaken substantial individual treatment that has resulted in improved insight and improved chance of cooperation with supervision processes and thereby risk reduction.

A supervision order in my opinion will reduce the risk to moderate or below by decreasing his capacity for use of substances, monitoring his activity and enforcing further treatment intervention.

Recommendations

I recommend that he continue individual therapy for several years. If he were to be released:

I recommend that he be placed on a supervision order for a period of 10 years.

I would recommend that he be required to be abstinent from alcohol and drug use and undergo an appropriate random testing regime.

I recommend that he have no unsupervised contact with persons under the age of 18 years.

I would recommend that he have ongoing psychological, drug and alcohol and psychiatric (as indicated) treatment to address his risk issues.”

Dr Karen Brown

  1. [20]
    Dr Karen Brown, consultant psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 30 May 2021.  On 7 May 2021, Dr Brown conducted a risk assessment interview with the respondent.
  2. [21]
    Dr Brown’s diagnosis and assessment of the respondent included as follows:

“In my previous reports I made diagnoses of substance misuse disorder (in remission in a controlled environment) and antisocial personality disorder (noted to have attenuated over time). I concluded that [the respondent’s] offending behaviour was strongly suggestive of a paraphilia (most likely paedophilia), but that the lack of information and understanding of his offending precluded a definitive diagnosis. I also noted significant psychopathic traits. These diagnoses have not changed, but I do note a further overall reduction in antisocial attitudes, likely due to advancing age and participation in offender treatment.

[The respondent] is still prescribed (what appears to be) long term diazepam, which may be assisting him currently but over time will become ineffective and to which he will habituate. (For this reason long term prescribing of benzodiazepine medication is generally discouraged). His personality disturbance may temporarily worsen if and when this medication is ceased.

Static -99R

… [The respondent] still scores 6 on the Static-99, placing him in the high or well above average range of sexual re-offending.

Psychopathy Check List - Revised (PCL-R)

… The total PCL-R score for [the respondent], taking into account the attenuation of his antisocial personality traits is now 18 out of 40, (previously 22/40) which indicates psychopathic traits but is below the score required to make a diagnosis of psychopathy (30 and above).

Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP)

… [The respondent] has made gains in the areas of psychological adjustment, mental disorder, social adjustment and manageability. The number and severity of the dynamic factors associated with his risk have reduced.

[The respondent] minimises his level of responsibility with regard to the offences in 1999 as he states he was intoxicated and can not recall the incidents. He denies that the offences in 2013 occurred, despite the significant evidence against him. However he has now engaged in almost a year of individual sexual offender treatment and he has developed an understanding of his risk factors and a relapse prevention plan.

He does not appear to support or condone sexual violence. He has gained some self awareness, particularly with regard to his view of women and his inability to tolerate loss of control or rejection. He is able to utilise coping strategies in prison other than relapse to substance use.

At this stage more evidence is required for a diagnosis of paraphilia, ie paedophilic disorder. There is no severe and enduring mental illness but there is a history of emotional instability, dysphoria and thoughts / threats of suicide in context of antisocial personality disorder and other cluster B traits, which may have extended to periods of depression in the past. His antisocial attitudes are now attenuated and he is beginning to develop self awareness with regards to his negative attitudes and associated cognitive distortions. He currently presents with a prosocial attitude to risk reduction.

[The respondent] has a severe and lifelong substance use disorder. He has not maintained abstinence for any significant length of time when in the community. He has used drugs whilst in prison and visitors have been positive to drug screening tests in the past. He has now though, engaged in a 24 session long substance use treatment program and the exit report was positive. He has expressed a wish to continue with substance use treatment in the community.

He now appears to be better managing his medical conditions and his mental state is more stable. He states he is currently abstinent from drug use in custody. However I note his prescription of benzodiazepine medication as well as long term opiate medications (to which he has been addicted in the past). He is at risk of becoming addicted to these substances and obtaining higher doses illegally.

[The respondent] has had problems within intimate relationships including infidelity, domestic violence and a pattern of over reliance on his partners to manage and take responsibility for his behaviour. He is more aware of these risk factors now and he has maintained contact with family members in custody so he will have some support upon release.

There is a long history of criminal offending (usually associated in some way with drug use) dating back to early adulthood and his custodial discipline record is historically poor. However he has a relatively good work history and he has worked in the prison. His disciplinary record for the recent review period has been good apart from a recent physical altercation with another prisoner (which he claims was not initiated by him and in which he sustained injuries).

In the past, despite the presence of a risk management and relapse prevention plan [the respondent] had problems adhering to treatment and supervision. However his relapse prevention plans are arguably more detailed now, he is well engaged with treatment and if he is released this will be to a more comprehensive supervision order.

  1. [22]
    Dr Brown’s overall risk assessment and opinion in respect of the respondent is as follows:

“OVERALL RISK OF REOFFENDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In my last report, I advised that [the respondent] presented with a high unmodified risk of sexual reoffending and that, in the absence of sexual offender treatment and relapse prevention planning, his risks could not be safely managed on a supervision order in the community. In addition to the static factor of chronic sexual offending, I noted that he had several dynamic risk factors including antisocial personality traits, substance use disorder, a tendency to form unstable relationships and poorly managed medical problems and that he there were no strategies or management plans in place to address these factors.

[The respondent] has now engaged in sexual offender and substance use treatment with good outcomes. He has explored his risk factors for sexual reoffending and developed a relapse prevention plan. He has engaged very well with his psychologist and begun to address previously undisclosed childhood trauma. He has attended a group substance misuse course and he can now outline strategies in order to remain abstinent. He has expressed a wish to continue with treatment in both areas if he is released to the community.

Additionally [the respondent] appears to have some good family supports and he is a qualified mechanic with skills that will enable him to obtain employment. He has expressed some realistic goals for release and he recognises that he is somewhat institutionalised and will need assistance initially. He has expressed a willingness to engage with corrective services case managers, as evidence by his engagement with DPSOA reviews whilst in custody.

Although [the respondent] has engaged in fighting behaviours with another prisoner (he states he was provoked and he sustained significant injuries), overall his custodial behaviour has been reasonable. In my opinion, the most recent breach of custodial behaviour does not change his overall longitudinal risk of sexual reoffending.

[The respondent] presents with ongoing issues associated with pain management. As poorly managed pain (or disagreement regarding dose or type of pain medications) is a risk factor for both substance use and sexual reoffending, pain management will need to be addressed on an ongoing basis. Similarly his reliance on benzodiazepine medication will need to be managed as well as any mood or sleep disturbance. [The respondent] should be referred to a GP with the appropriate skill set (or relevant specialists) as has been the case in custody.

It is now my overall opinion that if [the respondent] were to be released to a supervision order, the risks would reduce to a moderate and manageable level. He should remain abstinent from substances and alcohol, he should not have unsupervised contact with children and he should disclose his relationships to his case manager. Given that he may have a paraphilia, he has psychopathic traits and that his sexual drives and function remains unclear, I recommend that if a supervision order is made, it should be for ten years, by which time [the respondent] will be approaching 60 years old and his risks will have further reduced due to the effects of advancing age.”

Applicant’s submissions

  1. [23]
    The applicant submits that there is acceptable cogent evidence which would satisfy the Court, to the high degree of probability required, that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under Division 3 of the DPSO Act.
  2. [24]
    As the evidence establishes that the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order under the Act, the applicant submits that the decision made on 26 November 2018 ought to be affirmed.
  3. [25]
    Based on the current psychiatric evidence, the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending remains high if released without an order.  However, both psychiatrists are of the view that if released on a supervision order the risk would reduce to moderate or moderate or below.
  4. [26]
    The applicant notes that the respondent has engaged well with his treating psychologist, has engaged in substance use treatment, both with good outcomes and he has developed a relapse prevention plan and can now outline strategies in order to remain abstinent.
  5. [27]
    The applicant accepts the evidence and at this time supports that the respondent could be released into the community and be managed on a supervision order.  Further, it is submitted that both psychiatrists are of the view that any supervision order should be in place for a period of ten years.
  6. [28]
    In these circumstances, the applicant submits that it is open to the Court to rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order for a period of 10 years.
  7. [29]
    As to appropriate conditions, the applicant points to both psychiatrists recommending that the respondent should remain abstinent from alcohol and drugs with an appropriate random testing regime, continue with treatment both with his psychologist and for substance abuse, he should have no unsupervised contact with children and he should disclose his relationships to his supervisors.
  8. [30]
    Further, the applicant points to Dr Harden’s view that treatment with the respondent’s psychologist should continue for several years.
  9. [31]
    The applicant has provided a draft form of order containing proposed orders and conditions if the Court is satisfied that a supervision order should be made.  The draft order is reproduced at Annexure A to these reasons.

Respondent’s position

  1. [32]
    The respondent submits that the Court should rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order for a period of 10 years.
  1. [33]
    In support of this position the respondent submits:

“20. It is submitted that respondent [sic] concedes that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.

  1. It is submitted that it is appropriate, in light of the evidence provided by the two psychiatrists and the respondent’s treating psychologist, that the Court order the respondent’s release on a supervision order.[18]
  2. At the first annual review of this matter by his Honour Justice Davis in April 2020, a key issue was that the respondent was largely untreated and had not engaged in any group sexual offender treatment programs or individual treatment.”
  1. [34]
    In respect of the updated evidence of the psychiatrist and psychologist, the respondent particularly relies on the following:
    1. (a)
      The respondent has engaged well with his treating psychologist Dr Oertel.
    2. (b)
      The respondent has engaged in sexual offender and substance use treatment with good outcomes.  Further, the respondent has explored his risk factors for sexual re-offending and developed a relapse prevention plan.
    3. (c)
      The respondent has attended a group substance misuse course and can now outline strategies in order to remain abstinent.
    4. (d)
      While Dr Brown and Dr Harden remain of the view that the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending remains high if released without a supervision order, both psychiatrists are of the view that the risk would be reduced if released subject to a supervision order.
      1. (i)
        Dr Brown is of the opinion that if the respondent were released to a supervision order, the risk would reduce to moderate and manageable levels.
      1. (ii)
        Dr Harden is of the opinion that a supervision order would reduce the risks to moderate or below.
  2. [35]
    It is in these circumstances that the respondent submits that the conditions contained within the draft order proposed by the Crown would be appropriate in the circumstances (reproduced as Annexure A).

Consideration

  1. [36]
    It is clear on the evidence that the respondent has engaged with his treating psychologist and has taken considerable steps towards mitigating the risk of further offending. 
  2. [37]
    The relevant question is whether the protection of the community can be adequately ensured.  An order for supervised release should, in principle, be preferred to a continuing detention order if the supervision is apt to ensure adequate protection.
  3. [38]
    The risk being protected against is the risk of the respondent, if released, committing a serious sexual offence and that risk must be of an unacceptable magnitude.  The legislative scheme must accept that some level of risk is acceptable, consistent with the concept of adequate protection of the community.
  4. [39]
    The assessment of that risk and what terms of order would provide for adequate protection of the community is not a matter for expert, particularly psychiatric, opinion.  It is a matter for the Court.  As recognised by McMurdo J in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268 at [30], the exercise requires a:

“… value judgment as to what risk should be accepted against the serious alternative of the deprivation of a person’s liberty.”

  1. [40]
    While that is the case, I note that each of the two psychiatrists are now of the view that a supervision order would be sufficient to lower the respondent’s risk of sexual offending to a level such that he could be released into the community.  Each of them also considers that a 10 year supervision order would be appropriate in all the circumstances.
  2. [41]
    In respect of the issue identified by Davis J at the first review, I accept there is evidence that the “one-on-one” treatment has reduced the risk sufficiently, such that both psychiatrists are of the view that the risk has been reduced to a level to enable his release on a supervision order.

Whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order?

  1. [42]
    This is not contentious between the parties or between the two psychiatrists.
  2. [43]
    Based on the evidence of Dr Harden and Dr Brown, and the other affidavit evidence filed in support of the application, I am satisfied that there is acceptable, cogent evidence, which satisfies me to the high degree of probability required pursuant to s 30(2) of the DPSO Act that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under Division 3 of the DPSO Act.
  3. [44]
    The psychiatric evidence identifies that the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending is:
    1. (a)
      Dr Harden – high (well above average) without a supervision order, reduced to moderate or below on a supervision order.
    2. (b)
      Dr Brown – high without a supervision order, reduced to a moderate and manageable level on a supervision order.
  4. [45]
    Further, the evidence establishes that the respondent has on-going treatment needs.
  5. [46]
    In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order under the DPSO Act and that the decision made by Applegarth J on 26 November 2018 and affirmed by Davis J on 9 April 2020 ought to be affirmed.

Whether adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order?

  1. [47]
    The paramount consideration under s 30(4)(a) of the DPSO Act is the adequate protection of the community.
  1. [48]
    The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that a supervision order does not afford adequate protection of the community.  If, on all the evidence, a supervision order would be likely to reduce the risk to an “acceptably low level” then the supervision order should be made: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Beattie [2007] QCA 96 at [19].
  2. [49]
    In making the “value judgment” required, I have considered and accept the views expressed by Dr Harden and Dr Brown as well as the respondent’s treating psychologist Dr Oertel, and the evidence filed in support of the application.  I find that the adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practically managed by the terms of the proposed supervision order. 
  3. [50]
    Further, I am satisfied that the requirements under section 16 of the DPSO Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by Corrective Services officers.
  4. [51]
    Accordingly, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the DPSO Act, I order that:
  1. Pursuant to s 30(1) of the DPSO Act, the decision made on 26 November 2018, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed.
  2. Pursuant to s 30(5) of the DPSO Act, the continuing detention order made on 26 November 2018 be rescinded.
  3. Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the DPSO Act, the respondent be released from custody on 9 June 2021, subject to a supervision order for a period of 10 years until 9 June 2031, on the conditions set out in Annexure A.

Annexure A

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY:Brisbane

NUMBER:BS 6692/18

Applicant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

AND

Respondent

LKR

SUPERVISION ORDER

Before:Justice Williams

Date:9 June 2021

Initiating document: Application filed 29 March 2021 (CFI No.51)

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

  1. Pursuant to s.30(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”), the decision made on 26 November 2018, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed;
  2. Pursuant to s.30(5) of the Act, the continuing detention order made on 26 November 2018 be rescinded;
  3. Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the Act, the respondent be released from custody on 9 June 2021, subject to a supervision order for a period of 10 years until 9 June 2031, with the following requirements.

TO [the respondent]

  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 (ten) years.

Reporting

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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. a)
      where you are allowed to live; and
    1. b)
      rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and
    1. c)
      using drugs and alcohol; and
    1. d)
      who you may have contact with; and
    1. e)
      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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. You must not break the law by committing a sexual offence.
  2. You must not break the law by committing an indictable offence.

Where you must live

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. A Corrective Services Officer has power to tell you to:
    1. a)
      Wear a device that tracks your location; and
    1. b)
      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

  1. You must get written permission from a Corrective Services Officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work.
  2. When you ask for permission, you must tell the Corrective Services Officer these things:
    1. a)
      what the job is;
    1. b)
      who you will work for;
    1. c)
      what hours you will work each day;
    1. d)
      the place or places where you will work; and
    1. e)
      (if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study.
  3. If a Corrective Services Officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you.

Motor vehicles

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 within any victim

  1. You must not contact or try to contact any victim(s) 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

  1. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, or sniff) any alcohol.  You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any alcohol.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 or pee (urine) when they tell you to do this.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

Rules about medicine

  1. 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. 
  2. You must take prescribed medicine only as directed by a doctor.  You must not take any medicine (other than over the counter medicine) which has not been prescribed for you by a doctor.

Rules about rehabilitation and counselling

  1. You must obey any direction a Corrective Services Officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor.
  2. You must obey any direction a Corrective Services Officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program.
  3. 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

  1. 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).
  2. 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.

  1. 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.

Contact with children

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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. a)
      tell the person(s) about this supervision order; and
    1. b)
      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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. You must not:
    1. a)
      attend any school or childcare centre;
    1. b)
      be in a place where there is a children’s play area or child minding area;
    1. c)
      go to a public park;
    1. d)
      join any club or organisation in which children are involved;
    1. e)
      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 Conditions

  1. You must not collect photos/ videos/ magazines which have images of children in them without prior approval of a Corrective Services Officer.

If you have any you may be asked to get rid of them by a Corrective Services Officer

  1. You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. You must advise your case manager of any personal relationships you have started.

Signed:

Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Footnotes

[1]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v LKR [2018] QSC 280.

[2]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v LKR [2020] QSC 71.

[3]  See [19]-[30].

[4]  [2020] QSC 142.

[5]  Section 13(1).

[6]  Section 13(2).

[7]  Section 2 and Schedule (Dictionary). As to the term “involving violence” see Attorney-General v Phineasa [2013] 1 Qd R 305 at 312-16, [23]-[45].

[8]  Section 13(5)(a).

[9]  Section 13(5)(b).

[10]Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575 at 597, [34].

[11]  Section 13(b).

[12]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at 405, [39].

[13]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at 405, [39].

[14]  [2006] QSC 268.

[15]  At [30] and see also Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575 at 657, [225], [226].

[16]  See Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v DBJ [2017] QSC 302.

[17]  Two appointments in 2020 were not able to proceed due to COVID-19 restrictions.

[18]  See s30(3)(b) of the Act.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v LKR

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Attorney-General v LKR

  • MNC:

    [2021] QSC 135

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Williams J

  • Date:

    09 Jun 2021

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.
Help

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.