Attorney-General v Watt[2021] QSC 206

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland in respect of the respondent, Rowland Arnold Watt.  Mr Watt has previously been released from custody on 9 May 2021 following a Division 3 hearing before Davis J, to be subject to a Supervision Order for a period of 10 years.^[1]  This application arises as a result of an alleged contravention of the Supervision Order. 
2. [2]
   The applicant’s application is pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 for an order for rescission of the supervision order of Davis J made on 6 May 2021, and that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite period for care, control or treatment or alternatively, that pursuant to s 22(7) of the Act, the supervision order be amended. 
3. [3]
   The process under s 22 is a two-part process.  This requires a determination of a contravention of the supervision order, and the second step is in the event that a contravention is proved, the discretion then arises for the Court to rescind or amend the supervision order, as appropriate. 
4. [4]
   The circumstances of the alleged contravention are that on 18 May 2021, Mr Watt was directed to submit to urine analysis testing in accordance with requirement 27 of the supervision order.  He provided a sample which was presumptively positive to Amphetamine, Methylamphetamine and Methadone.  Mr Watt is prescribed Methadone.  Mr Watt made admissions at the time of the test to having consumed Methylamphetamine on 15 May 2021.  On 19 May 2021, a confirmatory report was received detecting Methylamphetamine at a level of 1243 milligrams per litre. 
5. [5]
   The respondent’s submissions admit the contravention as alleged against him.  In the circumstances I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent has contravened requirement 27 in the Supervision Order. 
6. [6]
   In relation to the second step of whether it is appropriate to rescind or amend the supervision order, further psychiatric evidence has been put into evidence before the Court.  This is relevant to the consideration of whether I am satisfied that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the respondent’s return to a supervision order. 
7. [7]
   Pursuant to s 22(2) of the Act, upon being satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has contravened a requirement of a supervision order then, unless the respondent satisfies the Court on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured, the Court must, in the case of an existing supervision order, rescind it and make a continuing detention order.
8. [8]
   The further psychiatric evidence in this case includes a further report from Dr Elizabeth McVie, dated 23 May 2021.  Dr McVie notes that Mr Watt has used methylamphetamine less than two weeks after his release on the supervision order.  Dr Brown noted that Mr Watt presented a very high risk of offending due to his diagnosis of paedophilia, his relatively young age, his personality structure, his history of substance abuse, his minimisation of his offending and lack of taking any genuine responsibility for his offending.^[2]
9. [9]
   However, she provides her opinion that whilst he is being closely supervised on the order, his risk of reoffending sexually should not significantly increase.  His inability to comply with conditions of his order after such a short time is of concern.  Dr McVie also notes:

“On any return to custody, it would be beneficial if his individual therapy with the psychologist could continue.”

10. [10]
    Also that if he did breach again, she would recommend consideration be given to have him repeat the HISOP prior to any subsequent release.
11. [11]
    A further report has also been provided by Dr Brown dated 17 June 2021.  Dr Brown undertakes a review of her original recommendations which were relevant to the considerations of Davis J in making the original supervision order.  Dr Brown provides a further opinion as follows:

“Mr Watt was released to a supervision order in May 2021 and he used substances (methylamphetamine) just over a week later in the context of boredom, frustration regarding his level of restriction, rejection by one of his supports, and general anxiety in relation to the process of community reintegration.  He has a history of institutionalisation, past trauma and cluster B personality traits, such that his ability to cope with change, lack of routine, reaction by others and boredom is limited with risk of increased anxiety and relapse to maladaptive coping strategies including substance use (and reoffending). 

The substance use appears to have been opportunistic and afterwards Mr Watt disclosed his use to his case manager and expressed remorse.  He otherwise appears to have managed reasonably well at the Precinct and he engaged with his case manager and his psychologist. At interview he explained that he was unable to self occupy at the precinct as his access to a television and a mobile phone was prohibited.  He was able to identify that frustration and boredom were risk factors for substance use (and reoffending) and he offered strategies to address this in the future. 

As per my original opinion (April 2021), I remain of the view that release to a supervision order would reduce the risk of sexual reoffending to a moderate and manageable level.  Although Mr Watt used substances, his risks were adequately managed at the time by the supervision framework.  I recommend that supervision conditions continue to include abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances, restricted (or no) contact with children, monitoring of electronic devices, and monitoring of adult relationships with appropriate disclosure.  I additionally advise that, should Mr Watt be released, that at the point of release he is permitted to have a television and a simple mobile phone (without internet access).  He should be engaged with a specialist drug and alcohol service (such as AODS) as quickly as possible and be subject to regular and random urine drug testing. 

I do not recommend any changes to the length of supervision order (currently until May 2031).”

12. [12]
    Having been satisfied that the respondent has contravened requirement 27 of the Supervision Order as particularised in the application, the onus is on the respondent to demonstrate that the adequate protection of the community is able to be ensured by his release on supervision.  The psychiatric evidence supports the conclusion that the respondent’s risk of sexual recidivism can be managed by a supervision order.  The applicant submits the Court can be satisfied, on the evidence, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by the respondent’s return to the existing Supervision Order.
13. [13]
    I am satisfied, to the necessary level of satisfaction, that on the evidence the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by the respondent’s return to the existing Supervision Order.  Accordingly, I will make the order as per the proposed draft which I will initial and place with the papers.