Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Attorney-General v Jackway QSC 358
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jackway  QSC 358
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
DOUGLAS BRIAN JACKWAY
BS 7422 of 2011
Supreme Court at Brisbane
8 November 2021 (ex tempore)
8 November 2021
The respondent continue to be subject to the supervision order made on 15 December 2020.
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT SEXUAL OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY — where the respondent was subject to a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent contravened that supervision order by assisting another to inject themselves with drugs – where the respondent pleaded guilty and accepted the consequences of the contraventions – whether the respondent should be subject to a further supervision order
J Rolls, counsel for the applicant
J Robson, counsel for the respondent
Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
- The respondent is subject to a supervision order. Justice Brown ordered his release from custody after he had been subject to continuing detention orders and made a supervision order which subjected him to supervision for 15 years.
- This matter comes before me because the respondent contravened his supervision order in June 2021. Shortly stated, he allowed himself to be prevailed upon by a woman who sought his assistance to inject herself. To his credit, he disclosed this to his treating psychologist and then disclosed it to the supervising authorities. He has been dealt with for those contraventions.
- The issue is whether there should be a further supervision order. The Attorney-General acknowledges that the evidence before the Court indicates that the respondent has discharged his onus under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”). As counsel for the Attorney-General says, a supervision order would, on the evidence available, reduce the respondent’s risk to an inadequate level. Supervision can provide the respondent with the necessary treatment and support he requires to function in the community. In these circumstances, adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on the existing order.
- I will not, in the light of a lack of contest as to the disposition of the matter, address the evidence in great detail. The principles governing a proceeding of this kind are well-stated.
- Dr Madsen, a forensic psychologist, who had been treating and counselling the respondent following his release on the supervision order is a highly experienced practitioner. He has identified problems which are apparent in the respondent’s predicament. However, the respondent had performed well. He was subject to a suboxone program for opioid dependency. That helped him to avoid drugs. Dr Madsen also noted there is little evidence that the respondent has been sexually preoccupied.
- Dr Madsen considered the event giving rise to the contravention. He said that the circumstances placed the respondent in an impossible situation, taking into account the respondent’s personality and background. Dr Madsen considered it positive, as anyone would, that after this lapse in judgment, the respondent did not use drugs himself despite having access to them and the opportunity to self-administer. As I have said, he reported his error of judgment. Dr Madsen opines that the respondent should continue with the treatment and arrangements which existed prior to his arrest.
- Dr Aboud has considered the matter. His report is before the Court. He also has analysed many aspects of the respondent’s background, risk pathway, and the like. He says – and perhaps we did not need someone of his experience to say – that the contravention arose out of the respondent’s poor exercise of judgment in his interactions with a woman with whom the respondent had had some dealings. Dr Aboud considered that the respondent exercised poor judgment and acted recklessly, but says, having carefully reviewed the material, that the respondent had been faring overall relatively well in the community over the period that he had been subject to supervision. He had been engaging during this time with his case management and treating psychologist and had not misused substances or drugs. And Dr Aboud expresses the view, which accords with the evidence that led to the supervision order being made in the first place, that the risk of the respondent’s sexual offending would be reduced to below moderate with a supervision order.
- Dr Timmins has also reported on the matter. It is anticipated that the respondent will reside at the Precinct; that his relationship with other offenders will be monitored. He will be subject to supervision, including GPS monitoring and support to enable him to engage in appropriate friendships and prosocial activities. Dr Timmins considers that the respondent’s risk can be modified under a supervision order to a moderate risk.
- As I have already alluded to, the Crown submits that the respondent’s engagement in treatment with Dr Madsen, his disclosure of matters to Dr Madsen and his disclosure of matters to Corrective Services officers provides support for the order which is before me, and I agree with that submission.
- It is unfortunate that a lapse of judgment resulted in these proceedings and their consequences. The consequences have been significant for the respondent over recent months. I accept the Attorney-General’s submission joined in by the respondent that the respondent has discharged the onus.
- I should add by way of amplification that the respondent accepted the consequences of his actions: he pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Act. He was convicted and fined. It is not for me to pass any observation on that disposition other than to say that the non-recording of a conviction and a fine in that amount reflect both the seriousness of any breach of the Act and also the mitigating circumstances that are before me. A more serious contravention would have resulted in a substantial period of actual imprisonment by way of a sentence.
- In all the circumstances, the aberrant conduct which was the result of poor judgment does not alter the basic risk profile that justified this Court granting a supervision order in the first place. Accordingly, it is agreed that I should find the contraventions of condition 6, 27 and 37 of the supervision order made on 15 December 2020 and order that he continue to be subject to the supervision order made on that day, and I so order.
- Published Case Name:
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jackway
- Shortened Case Name:
Attorney-General v Jackway
 QSC 358
08 Nov 2021