Attorney-General v Crutch[2021] QSC 4

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

The Applications before the Court

1. [1]
   Pursuant to an Originating Application filed on 21 April 2020, the Attorney-General sought Division 3 orders pursuant to s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the DPSOA’ or ‘the Act’) that the respondent, Jason Matthew Crutch, be subjected to continued detention under s 13(5)(a) of the Act, or released subject to supervision orders under s 13(5)(b) of the Act.
2. [2]
   The matter came on for final hearing on 31 August 2020 but was not able to be finalised on that date. An Interim Order was made pursuant to s 9A(2)(a) of the Act which contained 48 conditions. The respondent was released subject to that Order on 9 September 2020.
3. [3]
   The respondent, however, allegedly breached that Order within days of his release and, on 24 September 2020, he was brought before the Court pursuant to a warrant under s 20 of the Act as a result of those contraventions and was ordered to be detained in custody pursuant to s 21 of the Act.
4. [4]
   The respondent was charged with breaching conditions (5), (19), (21), (37) and (40) of the Interim Supervision Order and pleaded guilty on 3 December 2020.  He was sentenced to a head sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment with a parole release of 3 December 2020.  The respondent does not dispute that he breached the Interim Supervision Order.
5. [5]
   Accordingly there are two applications before this Court:

   1. (a)
      the finalisation of the alleged contravention of the interim supervision order; and
   2. (b)
      the finalisation of the originating application for a Division 3 Order.
6. [6]
   It is necessary therefore to consider the basis upon which the applicant argues the respondent should be subject to the Act.  The respondent is a 25 year old man currently serving a term of imprisonment for offences of a sexual nature.  He has an extensive history of offences against children which have been primarily committed through social media.  He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment for one count of rape, failure to comply with reporting, breach of probation and two breaches of a suspended sentence.  The count of rape was committed against a woman he had met through social media.  He was convicted after trial and was due for release on 9 September 2020.

The Respondent’s Criminal History

7. [7]
   The following table prepared by Counsel for the applicant provides a convenient summary of the respondent’s criminal history:

Previous offences of a sexual nature

8. [8]
   Accordingly, there can be no doubt from a perusal of his criminal history that the respondent has previously been convicted of offences of a sexual nature.^[1]  He was originally sentenced by her Honour Dick DCJ on 7 August 2015 following a plea of guilty to a series of offences committed against a number of children.  The respondent was aged between 18 and 19 at the time of the offending.  Following the respondent’s release on bail in respect of some of that offending, he committed further offences against a number of other children.
9. [9]
   He was then remanded in custody for approximately five months before his release on bail.  Shortly after his release, he again breached his bail conditions by committing further offences in relation to another child which ultimately led to his arrest.
10. [10]
    He was dealt with again on 12 December 2016 after pleading guilty to 46 internet-related sexual offences before Robertson DCJ. He was 19 and 20 at the time of the offences.  Two of the offences were detected as a result of the respondent engaging with an undercover officer from Task Force Argos, who he thought was a 14 year old girl. Counts 4 to 46 of the offending related to 32 different girls who ranged in age from 13 to 15.  The messages included highly sexualised content and often involved the respondent seeking indecent images of the children and sending them indecent images of himself.  The respondent commenced offending again 12 days after being released on the suspended term of imprisonment.  He would often contact, on average, two girls each day.

The current offences

11. [11]
    The respondent was convicted by a jury on 19 October 2017 of one count of rape and was acquitted of a second count of rape.  At the time of the offence, he was 21.
12. [12]
    In sentencing the respondent in June 2018 for the most recent offences, Horneman-Wren DCJ noted that the respondent had “committed a series of very serious sexual offences, the most serious of which is the one which [he is] currently being sentenced for”.  The issue at trial was whether the victim consented or whether the respondent had an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that she had consented.  Judge Horneman-Wren remarked that the respondent “had difficulties in relating to peers and forming friendships” in his formative years and that he suffered from both attention deficit hyperactive disorder and from autism spectrum disorder.

The Statutory Scheme

13. [13]
    The statutory objects of the DPSOA are:^[2]

1. (a)
   to provide for the continued detention in 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 of a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation.

14. [14]
    The DPSOA establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme for the continued detention in custody, or for the release under supervision, of prisoners who are considered to be at risk of committing serious sexual offences in the future if the prisoner is released at all, or if the prisoner is released from custody without appropriate supervision.  The DPSOA confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear applications for orders under it.  In turn, s 5 of the Act vests the statutory responsibility for making the necessary applications on the Attorney-General.
15. [15]
    The primary orders which may be granted under the DPSOA are called “Division 3 orders”, which are provided for in s 13:

“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).
2. (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

2. (b)
   if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made.

3. (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

2. (b)
   to a high degree of probability;

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

4. (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—

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;

2. (b)
   any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the prisoner;

3. (c)
   information indicating whether or not there is a propensity on the part of the prisoner to commit serious sexual offences in the future;

4. (d)
   whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the prisoner;

5. (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;

6. (f)
   whether or not the prisoner’s participation in rehabilitation programs has had a positive effect on the prisoner;

7. (g)
   the prisoner’s antecedents and criminal history;

8. (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;

10. (j)
    any other relevant matter.

5. (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

2. (b)
   that the prisoner be released from custody subject to the conditions it considers appropriate that are stated in the order (supervision order).

6. (6)
   In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (5)(a) or (b), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
7. (7)
   The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1).”

  The 31 August 2020 Hearing

16. [16]
    The first question for the court is whether or not the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.^[3]  The statutory test is whether there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if released without a Division 3 order.^[4]

The Reports

17. [17]
    A number of reports from psychiatrists and a psychologist have been provided for the purpose of these applications.  I have considered the two reports from 2014 by psychiatrist Dr Jonathan Mann in relation to the sentencing hearing, and the report by psychologist, Dr Luke Hatzipetrou for the 2018 sentence.  The respondent has also been assessed by three psychiatrists Dr Ken Arthur, Dr Karen Brown and Dr Andrew Aboud who all provided risk assessments pursuant to s 11 of the DPSOA.
18. [18]
    The application was listed for hearing before me on 31 August 2020 as the respondent’s full time release date was 9 September 2020. Due to the Stage 4 COVID-19 restrictions operating in Correctional Centres at that time and the fact that Dr Aboud was required to self-isolate due to his attendance at those Correctional Centres, his report for the purposes of this application had not been finalised.  Section 13(4) of the Act provides that the Court must consider the reports of the psychiatrists which had been prepared pursuant to s 11 for the purposes of the application.
19. [19]
    As Dr Aboud’s Report had not finalised, Counsel for the applicant and the respondent submitted that the court could not proceed to a final hearing until after the receipt of Dr Aboud’s written report. The court did however have the finalised reports of Dr Arthur and Dr Brown and a summary of Dr Aboud’s evidence. Given that concern about proceeding in the absence of Dr Aboud’s finalised report, it was submitted that the hearing should be adjourned to a later date.
20. [20]
    Section 9A of the Act provides that the Court may, on its own initiative, adjourn the final hearing of an application for a Division 3 order as follows:

“9A Court may adjourn hearing for division 3 order

1. (1)
   The court may, on application or on its own initiative, adjourn the hearing of an application for a division 3 order.
2. (2)
   If the court adjourns the hearing of the application and is satisfied the application may not be finally decided until after the prisoner’s release day, the court may make an order—

   1. that the prisoner’s release from custody be supervised; or
   2. that the prisoner be detained in custody for the period stated in the order.

Note—

If the court makes an order under subsection (2)(a), the order must contain the requirements for the prisoner stated in section 16(1).”

21. [21]
    Accordingly, if the Court is satisfied that the application may not be finally decided until after the prisoner’s release from custody, the Court may make an order that the prisoner’s release from custody is to be supervised, or order that he be detained in custody for the period stated in the Order.  If a supervision order is made, it must contain the requirements as set out in s 16 of the Act.  I was satisfied that the application may not be finalised before the respondent’s release date and that it would be appropriate to make an Order pursuant to s 9A.  In order to determine which order I should make, I have taken into account all the matters I am required to consider pursuant to s 13(4).
22. [22]
    Having considered the Reports of Dr Mann, Dr Hatzipetrou, the finalised reports of Dr Arthur and Dr Brown which are set out below together, with the preliminary views of Dr Aboud, I considered that there was evidence to indicate that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.  The Reports indicate that the respondent’s unmodified risk was considered to be high by Dr Arthur and extremely high by Dr Brown, but both considered that risk could be moderated to a manageable level by a supervision order. 
23. [23]
    As the matter could not be finalised on 31 August 2020, 1 was satisfied an Interim Supervision Order should be made to ensure the adequate protection of the community prior to the final hearing.  I was also satisfied that the draft Supervision Order, submitted by the parties after hearing oral evidence from Dr Arthur, Dr Brown and Dr Aboud about the necessary conditions, was appropriate.  In this regard, I was satisfied at the time that the conditions which restricted the respondent’s access to children, as well as computers, the internet and social media, were adequate to address to risk identified by the psychiatrist in their reports.
24. [24]
    Accordingly, an Interim Supervision Order was made on 31 August 2020, until the final hearing of the application, allowing for the respondent’s release into the community on a Supervision Order which contained 48 conditions.

The Contraventions

25. [25]
    Although the respondent was released on 9 September 2020 and went to reside in regional Queensland, it was evident within days that there were significant concerns that he had breached the supervision order. The contravention which was alleged related to conditions 5, 19, 21, 23, 37, 40 and 46. The evidence indicates that on 14 September 2020, Queensland Corrective Services (‘QCS’) identified an Instagram account being used by the respondent under the name of ‘Matt Renton’ which featured images of the respondent.  The account was following a number of users who were young females who appeared to be under the age of 16. The information was referred to QCS and the respondent was questioned on 15 September 2020. The respondent admitted to creating Instagram accounts on 11 September 2020 and accessing a smart phone without approval.  He also admitted to adding a large number of people on his account.  He also disclosed sending several people sexual images and commenting on photos of people who were under the age of 18.
26. [26]
    On 15 September 2020, the respondent was directed to reside at the Wacol accommodation precinct and was directed to provide any device that he was not permitted to access.  He handed over his phone and subsequently handed over two USB devices.  On 21 September 2020, QCS was advised from several other social media users of attempts to establish contact with females under the age of 16 by the respondent. 
27. [27]
    It was argued that the respondent was in contravention of the following conditions:

    1. (a)
       Requirement 5 – that he failed to comply with reasonable directions in respect to social media access and use;
    2. (b)
       Requirement 19 –that he used a second phone without QCS approval;
    3. (c)
       Requirement 21 – that he accessed an internet-enabled device without consent;
    4. (d)
       Requirement 37 – that he failed to disclose the name and association of people he has connected with via social media; and
    5. (e)
       Requirement 40 – that he communicated or attempting to communicate via social media with persons under 16.
28. [28]
    The respondent was charged with five offences under s 43AA of the Act and he pleaded guilty to all five charges that he had breached requirements 5, 19, 21, 37 and 40.  He was sentenced on 3 December 2020 to a further imprisonment of nine months on charge 5, being a breach of requirement 40, and six months’ imprisonment on each of the remaining four offences with a parole release date fixed at 3 December 2020.

This application

29. [29]
    By application filed on 24 September 2020, the Attorney-General applied under s 22 of Act for orders:

    1. (a)
       that the interim supervision order made on 31 August 2020 be rescinded, and that the respondent be detained in custody; or alternatively
    2. (b)
       that pursuant to s 22(7), the supervision order be amended. 
30. [30]
    The application therefore involves a two part process: a determination firstly of the contravention of the supervision order under s 22, and then the finalisation of the final orders under s 13 of the Act.
31. [31]
    In the application, pursuant to s 22, the Attorney-General must satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has contravened the order. If the court is satisfied the order has been contravened, the onus then shifts to the respondent to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can despite the contravention be ensured by the supervision order in its current form, or as amended.  If the respondent does not discharge the onus, the court must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order pursuant to s 22(2) of the Act:

“22 Court may make further order

32. [32]
    In determining whether there has been a breach of the Interim Supervision Order dated 31 August 2020, I note the respondent’s plea of guilty to those five charges on 3 December 2020.  I also note the concession by Counsel for the respondent that the fact of the contravention was not disputed.
33. [33]
    I am accordingly satisfied that the applicant has satisfied the Court, on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has breached the Supervision Order.  I am also satisfied pursuant to s 22(2)(b) that the Interim Supervision Order dated 31 August 2020 be rescinded and the respondent be detained in custody until the finalisation of the Division 3 Application and final orders pursuant to s 13 of the Act.

The Finalisation of the Division 3 Application

34. [34]
    At the hearing of the Division 3 application on 1 February 2021, I once again considered the psychological, psychiatric and other reports prepared for the purposes of the original application together with the supplementary Reports of Drs Arthur, Aboud and Brown prepared as a consequence of the contravention.

Reports Prepared for the Purpose of Sentencing

Report of Dr Jonathan Mann, General and Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 23 May 2014 and Addendum Report dated 28 July 2014

35. [35]
    Dr Jonathan Mann prepared a report for the respondent’s sentence with respect to the 2014 charges of indecent treatment of a child under 16, possessing child exploitation material, rape, common assault and breach of bail conditions.  He also considered whether the respondent was deprived of any of the relevant capacities of at the time of any of the offences and whether he was fit for trial and had capacity to understand the proceedings.
36. [36]
    Dr Mann assessed the respondent as suffering from ADHD, Dyslexia, Asperger’s Disorder and Irlen Syndrome and opined that the combination of those conditions represented a mental disease that did affect him at the time of the alleged offences.  However, Dr Mann considered that he was not deprived of any three relevant capacities with respect to unsoundness of mind.  He considered however that the respondent’s capacity to understand his actions was impaired and it was likely that the respondent did not fully appreciate the vulnerability of a girl several years younger than him.  Dr Mann stated:

“I do believe that his capacity to understand what he was doing was impaired. I believe that he saw himself as somewhat younger than his chronological age. He appears to have had difficulty maintaining stable friendships with people his own age and it is not uncommon for immature and socially naïve children to associate with others who are younger than them…While I have no doubt that Jason Crutch fully understands that he should not sexually assault a person who actively resists or says ‘no’, it is a somewhat more abstract concept and more difficult for him to understand that he should not engaged [sic] in a sexual act with somebody because they lack the capacity to consent. I believe that Jason Crutch’s ability to assess the victim’s capacity to consent to the sexual acts was impaired by his mental disease.”

37. [37]
    In Dr Mann’s addendum report dated 28 July 2014 he clarified that view by stating:

“If the victim…communicated her non-consent in a less direct or non-verbal way then he would likely have had more difficulty in interpreting the meaning of her responses”.

38. [38]
    Dr Mann noted that because the respondent suffers from a combination of ADHD, Dyslexia, Asperger’s Disorder and Irlen Syndrome, he has symptoms of each that overlap and create a “complex clinical picture which affects his functioning in many different ways.” Namely, it would have been a complex task for him to assess another person’s capacity to consent to a sexual act.

Report of Dr Luke Hatzipetrou, Psychologist, dated 6 June 2018

39. [39]
    Dr Luke Hatzipetrou prepared a report for the purposes of the respondent’s sentence after his conviction by a jury for the present offences on 20 October 2017.  He considered the respondent presented with signs and symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (‘ADHD’) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’) with associated attentional deficits and overactivity. He also noted evidence of heightened anxiety, mood instability and qualitative impairments in the respondent’s social and communication skills.  He considered that he had partial insight into the seriousness of his offending behaviour.
40. [40]
    Dr Hatzipetrou considered that without the respondent was likely to remain at risk of reoffending. He presented with a history of sexually deviant urges and behaviours and social and communication skills deficits, associated with ASD/ADHD.  Dr Hatzipetrou was of the view that the respondent’s offending behaviours were not the direct result of his ASD/ADHD or his low average intelligence.  Rather, these clinical problems impacted upon the respondent’s judgment and capacity for self-regulation.  Dr Hatzipetrou noted “At the time of the offences, he was likely to experience difficulties interpreting [the victim’s] behaviours, yet his decision making was likely to be influenced by pre-existing deviant cognitive distortions about females and sexuality”.  It was considered that his behaviours were problematic but not necessarily consistent with paedophilia.

Reports Prepared for the Purpose of this Application

Report of Dr Ken Arthur, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 20 January 2020

41. [41]
    Dr Arthur was engaged by Crown Law to assess the respondent’s risk of sexual recidivism in relation to a possible application made under the DPSOA.  Dr Arthur prepared a Report dated 20 January 2020 and gave evidence at the hearing on 31 August.
42. [42]
    Dr Arthur referred to the respondent’s criminal history in great detail and noted the nature of the offences, which I shall set out as it provides a convenient summary of the nature of the respondent’s offending:

“234. At the time of the initial offences, prisoner Crutch was 18. He sent a 12-year- old girl a picture of his penis and procured naked photos from another 13- year-old victim. He subsequently met the 13-year-old girl and they engaged in sexual activity which involved oral sex, penetrative sexual intercourse and ejaculating on the girl’s hair and face. The possession of child exploitation material charge related to a photograph the child sent him. He was remanded in custody between August 2013 to March 2014, after which time he was released on bail. He was returned to custody within a month, breaching his bail by having unsupervised contact with two 15-year-old girls and engaging in inappropriate behaviour (resulting in charges of common assault). After a further 4 month period of incarceration he was once more released on bail in August 2014, the conditions of which he once again breached by having sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl.

235. He was subsequently sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment suspended after 11 months; he offended within 12 days of release with a spate of online contact with girls under the age of 16 including 11 counts of using electronic communication to procure, 27 counts of grooming, 11 counts of failure to comply with reporting obligations and one count of electronic communication to procure a child under 16 with intention to meet. The victims were aged between 13 and 15 years. These offences occurred whilst he was released into the care of his mother. His suspended sentence was reactivated, and further sentences were imposed.

236. The index offence relates to a charge of rape dated 9 February 2017. In the context of intoxication with a combination of alcohol and a stimulant antidepressant (Reboxetine), prisoner Crutch digitally penetrated the vagina of an intoxicated 17-year-old. He was subsequently sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment in relation to the rape offence and a lesser term in relation to a charge of failing to report. He was returned to court in August 2018 in relation to a breach of probation charge which was overlooked in prior sentencing proceedings.

237. In relation to the 2013 offences, prisoner Crutch maintained that dating younger teenage girls was normal behaviour for his peer group but admitted he had not considered the 12-year-old victim’s age and was focused only on sexual gratification. He now acknowledges that he coerced the 13-year-old girl into sexual intercourse but claimed at the time he was unaware of this because his social skills were underdeveloped. He denied any wrongdoing in relation to the breach of bail with the 15-year-old girls.

238. In regard to the 2014 offences, he acknowledges that he was sexually frustrated in the context of being in a platonic relationship. He claims the victim of the carnal knowledge charge sought him out and that the sex was consensual. After his release from custody in August 2015, he claims to have misunderstood his reporting conditions. The online contact with younger girls was in part for sexual gratification but also bolstered his self-esteem. He denied any intent to meet up with the girls, describing the behaviour as: ‘a game.’

239. After his release from custody in December 2016 he moved to (X) and quickly returned to alcohol abuse and casual sex. Whilst he acknowledged culpability in regard to the index offence of rape, he maintained that the victim misconstrued the events to make them look worse than they were. He again blamed the offending on his lack of social awareness.”

43. [43]
    Dr Arthur also referred to his early developmental history and the fact that he struggled academically and was diagnosed with ADHD and Asperger’s Disorder around the age of 9.  He had contact with Mental Health Services in relation to self-harm when he was 17 but has no formal diagnosis.  He also described a history of substance use commencing with alcohol at age six, and then the use of cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine.
44. [44]
    In relation to the courses the respondent completed in custody Dr Arthur noted the following:

“248. Whilst he completed the GS:PP, program staff noted limited insight into his offending behaviour, avoidance of responsibility, a lack of empathy towards the victims, externalisation of blame and minimisation. It was considered that his motivation for offending may include responses to rejection, sexual entitlement and sexual preoccupation. While he has consistently claimed that his diagnoses of ASD and ADHD influenced his judgement in relation to the offences, he demonstrated a firm understanding of morality and the capacity to consider the consequences of his actions.

249. Prisoner Crutch is currently engaged in the HISOP. A sessional summary from the beginning of the program identifies behaviour consistent with impression management and a dominant self-focus with the use of victim blaming. He was observed to be boasting about previous antisocial behaviours.

250. Prisoner Crutch purports to accept responsibility for his offending behaviour and explains his offences as a function of social skills deficits, immaturity and not caring about the consequences of his behaviour. He now claims to have matured in jail and has developed better insight into the drivers for his behaviour through his involvement in the treatment programs. Despite these assurances, he continues to display limited insight, engages in externalisation of blame, remains self-focused and is in denial about his ongoing sexual needs and underlying sexual preoccupation.”

45. [45]
    Dr Arthur made the following diagnosis:

“251. There is evidence to support the diagnoses of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mild Autism Spectrum Disorder, possibly associated with a mild intellectual impairment. Clinical features of this condition include his somewhat unusual verbal expression/emotional palate, limited capacity for problem solving and concrete cognitive style.

252. He has a history of Substance Misuse Disorder, predominantly alcohol, currently in remission in a controlled environment. He also has a history of abusing prescription medication. He displays many features of an Antisocial Personality Disorder, such as a failure to conform with social norms with respect to lawful behaviours, deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability and aggressiveness, disregard for safety for self and others, irresponsibility and lack of remorse.

253. Whilst he has persistently engaged in sexual activity with post-pubertal teenage girls, he does not appear to have a specific deviant sexual interest in children reflective of Paedophilia, but is rather driven by an indiscriminate sexual preoccupation associated with low levels of self-regulation and an antisocial lack of concern for social norms and the consequences of his behaviour. Prisoner Crutch claims that, at least in relation to the initial offences, it was peer-appropriate for someone of his age to have sex with a younger teen, and there may be some truth to that. It does appear that with advancing age his victims have also become older. There are a number of possible explanations for this; one is that he found it easier to manipulate (and attract) teenage girls online as opposed to young adults. It may be that his online victims were a self-selected population of teenagers that were most likely to respond to his contacts. It is also possible that he found it easier to relate to teenage girls due to his emotional immaturity.

254. I cannot rule out the possibility that he has developed a non-exclusive deviant sexual interest in post-pubescent teenage girls, and this topic should be further explored in therapy. There is also a history of exhibitionism in his teenage years which requires further clarification.”

46. [46]
    Dr Arthur conducted a number of risk assessments and noted the following conclusions in relation to Static-99R, which is an actuarial risk assessment tool which scores offenders in terms of their relative risk for sexual recidivism based on commonly available demographic and criminal history information that has been found to correlate with sexual recidivism in adult male sex offenders.
47. [47]
    Whilst the Static-99R does not measure all relevant risk factors and Dr Arthur considered that the respondent’s recidivism risk may be higher or lower than that indicated by the instrument based on factors not included in this tool, he gave a score of 9 which places him in the “well above average risk” group.
48. [48]
    The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (‘PCL-R’) is a symptom construct rating scale which utilises clinical and collateral information to assess an individual on 20 items relevant to psychopathic personality.  On this instrument, the respondent achieved a score of 25/39 (a pro rata score of 25.6) which is below the accepted cut off for psychopathy, but Dr Arthur considered it was elevated when compared to scores for typical males in the prison population.
49. [49]
    The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (‘RSVP’) instrument is a structured professional judgement tool that aids risk assessment of sexual violence, facilitates the formulation of future risk scenarios and informs risk management recommendations. On this instrument, Dr Arthur considered there were many salient risk factors for sexual recidivism and the respondent scored positive in the following areas:

“Sexual Violence:

• Chronicity and duration
• Diversity of offences
• Escalation
• Physical coercion
• Psychological coercion.

Psychological Adjustment:

• Problems with self-awareness
• Problems with stress/coping.

Mental Disorder:

• Major mental illness
• Problems with substance abuse.

Social Adjustment:

• Problems with intimate relationships
• Problems with non-intimate relationships
• Problems with employment.

Manageability:

• Problems with planning
• Problems with supervision.”

50. [50]
    Dr Arthur also identified the following further possible risk factors which he considered were of relevance, and then made his risk assessment:

    1. (a)
       Extreme minimisation or denial;
    2. (b)
       Sexual deviance;
    3. (c)
       Problems with treatment; and
    4. (d)
       Attitudes supporting sexual violence.

Risk Statement

51. [51]
    Dr Arthur outlined a comprehensive analysis of the respondent’s risk.  He noted that the offending behaviour is likely to be influenced by his psychiatric diagnoses and that his proneness to boredom and impulsivity can be linked to ADHD. He also considered that his objectification of women, deficits in empathy and social skills can be linked to his mild ASD. He also referred to the respondent’s acknowledgement that his use of substances acts as a permission statement for him to engage in sexual activity without considering the consequences, as well as having further disinhibiting effects on his behaviour.  He also considered that he has utilised his diagnoses of ASD and ADHD as excuses for his behaviour and continues to do so despite a degree of intellectual insight.
52. [52]
    In terms of his propensity to reoffend, he considered that the main drivers for his offending appear to be high levels of sexual preoccupation and entitlement.  There is some indication that he has used sexual encounters to bolster his self-esteem and to compensate for an inability to maintain relationships, as a way of coping with boredom and or stress, and as a substitute for intimacy.
53. [53]
    In relation to his pattern of offending, Dr Arthur’s view was that, on release, it is likely that the respondent will return to his pattern of seeking out casual sexual partners as well as using substances as a way of facilitating social interactions and overcoming his social awkwardness.  Dr Arthur considered that if the respondent finds himself in a situation where he is sexually aroused, disinhibited by substances, and has access to vulnerable young women or teens, he is likely to engage in sexual activity without thought for the consequences of his actions.  He also stated that in socially ambiguous situations there is a significant risk the respondent will engage in non-consensual sex with minors or intoxicated partners and that he is likely to use psychological coercion and may use physical coercion if suitably aroused.
54. [54]
    An alternative pathway for offending will be his return to the use of social media to groom and engage young women in sexualised interactions, possibly with the intention of meeting for sex.  His primary motivation is the pursuit of sexual gratification; he does not appear to be interested in forming relationships with the girls that he contacts online. Whilst he may not expressly target underage teens, once aroused and engaged, he is unlikely to modify his behaviour based on their age. His offending behaviour carries a significant risk of emotional harm to the victims, with a lesser risk of physical harm. He is likely to continue with such behaviour until he is caught.
55. [55]
    With respect to the treatment programs he has been involved with, the respondent has engaged in Sexual Offender Treatment Programs and a Substance Abuse Program in 2019. Whist his involvement in these programs appears to have improved his literacy regarding his sexual offending, the GS:PP convenors identified many treatment targets, and early documentation from the HISOP noted the presence of victim blaming and possible impression management. Whilst it is to his credit that he has willingly engaged in treatment, Dr Arthur considered that it was too early to gauge the effectiveness of such programs. 
56. [56]
    Furthermore, it was considered that his use of justifications, externalisation of blame, “all or none” thinking and use of denial indicate little shift in his underlying attitudes and coping strategies. In addition, Dr Arthur considered that his angry refutation of the contents of the GS:PP Completion Report and letter addressing his termination from a workplace are further evidence of his tendency to project blame and use his diagnosis as an excuse for poor behaviour.
57. [57]
    Dr Arthur concluded that, on the basis of his clinical interview assessment of both static and dynamic risk factors, the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual recidivism was high and he made the following recommendation:

“RECOMMENDATIONS

268. A supervision order would reduce his risk from high to moderate.

269. He should complete the HISOP prior to his release from custody.

270. Due to his psychiatric comorbidities, he will require ongoing specialist psychological therapy targeting key areas of self-regulation, relationships and sexual attitudes. Prisoner Crutch remains at a high risk of returning to substance use, which in turn may increase his risk of recidivism by the mechanisms of disinhibition and victim access. As such, he should remain abstinent from all drugs of abuse, including alcohol. Whilst I accept that as a young person, attending licensed premises is an important aspect of social functioning, such benefits should be measured against the risk of returning to substance abuse, promoting casual/superficial relationships and increasing victim access. Such activities should be closely regulated and monitored.

271. Given his history of poor self-control and a rapid return to offending, his access to social media should also be highly regulated and closely monitored. Whilst there is no evidence that he has engaged in predatory behaviour towards stranger children in public places, his access to areas of the community frequented by teens should also be regulated and monitored.

272. Medical treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder may reduce impulsivity and improve his capacity for consequential thinking. As such, he should be referred to a Psychiatrist with experience in the treatment of ADHD in forensic populations. He may also benefit from the judicious use of psychotropic agents (such as SSRI antidepressants) to assist with affect regulation.

273. He should be encouraged to seek out age appropriate social activity and engage in meaningful endeavours such as work or study to alleviate boredom. His associations should be monitored to ensure he does not engage with antisocial peers.

274. A supervision order of 5 years would be indicated to ensure he gains maximum benefit from therapy and has an opportunity to develop appropriate social skills and concretise adaptive coping strategies.”

Supplementary Report dated 22 January 2021

58. [58]
    Dr Arthur provided a further updated report dated 22 January 2021.  Dr Arthur noted that within days of being released, the respondent had used an unauthorised mobile phone to access the internet and had, in direct contravention of a direction, accessed the social media sites Instagram and Facebook.  He used an alias to create an Instagram account which he linked to a prior account and proceeded to interact with people via those sites.  Whilst other users identified him on Facebook as a sex offender, he was able to use Instagram for a number of days.  It was clear that he came in contact with various young females. He admitted to engaging in conversations with two 15 year olds, and to sexualised interaction with a 19 year old woman to whom he had sent naked pictures, and who had sent him similar pictures.
59. [59]
    Dr Arthur also noted that the respondent disclosed that he had perused the contents of a USB stick which included pornographic images.  He also had viewed the material on his mother’s laptop without permission.
60. [60]
    Dr Arthur noted that initially the respondent denied accessing the social media and gave a false account of accessing USB material. Dr Arthur considered that whilst the respondent claimed to accept responsibility, he still engages in “externalisation of blame, minimisation and misdirection”^[5].  Dr Arthur also considers that the relationship between the respondent and his mother is complicated and potentially destabilising.  His mother also externalised blame of the respondent’s offending, was critical of the order and minimised his offending. 
61. [61]
    In conclusion, Dr Arthur noted:^[6]

“Prisoner Crutch’s behaviour in the community highlights his sense of entitlement, disregard for the law, lack of consequential thinking and impulsivity.  Whilst he recorded that his behaviour was not sexually driven, his self-report should be viewed with a high level of scepticism given his propensity for deceit.  The fact that he engaged in sexualised activity on Instagram and admits to viewing pornographic material and images of young teenagers runs counter to his claims.”

62. [62]
    Furthermore, Dr Arthur considers that the respondent is not able to display any insight into the drivers for his offending and risk situations and is unable to apply his knowledge or engage in adaptive coping strategies. Dr Arthur noted his continuing diagnoses of ADHD, mild ASD, substance misuse disorder, and a Cluster B personality disorder with anti-social and narcissistic traits. He also noted that the respondent has no particular paraphilic disorders but has rather high levels of sexual preoccupation and sexual entitlement.
63. [63]
    In terms of the risk assessment, Dr Arthur considers there has been no change in his
    Static-99R score, which places him in the well-above average risk group, nor in the PCLR, or the risk factors identified using the RSVP.  Dr Arthur considers that without the supervision order, it is likely the respondent would engage in the pattern of seeking out casual sexual partners and using substances as a way of facilitating social interactions.  If he then finds himself in a situation where he is sexually aroused, disinhibited by substances and has access to vulnerable young women or teens, he is likely to engage in sexual activity without thought for the consequences of his actions. 
64. [64]
    Dr Arthur considers that in socially ambiguous situations there is a risk he will engage in non-consensual sex with minors or intoxicated partners.  He is likely to use psychological coercion and may use physical coercion.  He considers that the most likely pathway for offending will be his return to the use of social media to groom and engage young women in sexualised interactions.  Dr Arthur also considers that his primary motivation is to pursue sexual gratification and bolster his self-esteem, and that he is not interested in following relationships.
65. [65]
    Dr Arthur notes that whilst he has engaged in the sex offender treatment program and a substance abuse program, he is unwilling or unable to use the strategies learned and continues to engage in justification, blame shifting and minimisation.  Dr Arthur also stated that the respondent’s behaviour during his brief period in the community highlights his lack of insight, poor self-regulation, limited capacity to cope with boredom, impulsivity, egocentricity, dishonesty and impairments in consequential thinking and general disregard for the law.
66. [66]
    Dr Arthur argues however that the interim order was effective in that the respondent’s activities which were likely to increase his risk of recidivism were identified and acted on as such that he did not commit any further offences.
67. [67]
    He considers in retrospect that releasing the respondent to his mother’s home was ill-advised, particularly given his mother had not been previously able to confine his offending and that she also encourages his entitlement, minimisation and justifications.  Dr Arthur also considers that his mother’s home is an uncontrolled environment which provides him with easy access to unauthorised telephone and electronic media.  Dr Arthur stated that the respondent was more settled once relocated to the precinct as he has freedom to move around whilst under a 24 hour curfew, but did not have to deal with his mother who he perceives as intrusive and overwhelming. 
68. [68]
    Dr Arthur stated that the respondent pushes boundaries but had also suffered the consequences of being returned to custody and is therefore now more motivated to comply with a supervision order.  He also stated that housing him at the precinct had set additional limitations on his ability to access unauthorised devices and provided him with an environment that was more controlled and familiar. 
69. [69]
    Dr Arthur also indicated in his report that the respondent has indicated a willingness to trial increased doses of Paroxetine to assist in regulating his impulsivity.  He also stated that consideration should be given to a trial of stimulant medication to contain his impulsive behaviour.  He is of the view that the respondent should be referred to a psychiatrist that is experienced in the treatment of ADHD. He should begin individual therapy with a forensic psychologist with experience in the treatment of ADHD in forensic populations.
70. [70]
    Dr Arthur considered that, given the rapid return to risky behaviours and his disregard for possible legal sanction, the respondent should be under a long period of strict supervision before he is allowed to gradually reintegrate into the community.  He also considers that his access to social media should be highly regulated and closely monitored, and he should not be provided any potential access to the internet, and his associations should also be closely monitored.

Report of Dr Karen Brown, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 21 August 2020

71. [71]
    Dr Brown was appointed by the Court at the preliminary hearing for the purpose of a risk assessment pursuant to section 11 of the DPSOA.  Her diagnosis, risk assessment and recommendations are as follows:

“SECTION D: FORMULATION AND DIAGNOSIS

FORMULATION

Mr Crutch was the only child of a union between his mother and his father who were separated from previous partners. He was therefore the youngest in a blended family and his step-siblings were much older than him. His parents were unavailable at times due to their work and study commitments and, following a stroke, his father engaged in domestic violence towards him and his mother such that he developed a disrupted attachment style.

He displayed a range of behavioural problems in school and was diagnosed with a pervasive developmental disorder, dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He was medicated for these conditions but he continued to struggle academically and he suffered bullying from other children. As he got older he began to truant from school and he failed most grades, eventually leaving part way though [sic] grade 12 at the request of the school. His attempts at tertiary preparation failed owing to his inattention and distractibility and his only employment was as a trolley pusher and casual work as a DJ.

He began to use alcohol (and other substances) from a young age and into his later teens he developed a high (and at times distressing) sex drive and he began viewing at (adult) pornography on a daily basis. He struggled to make friends and in order to engage with others he became intoxicated and frequented pubs and nightclubs, where he engaged superficial and casual encounters. He also developed an online presence and interacted, again superficially with multiple contacts. His poor communication and social skills coupled with a narcissistic desire to achieve group status led him to seek out more vulnerable (and usually younger) teens, both online and in person whom he could more easily impress and manipulate. In these circumstances he began to sexually offend.

He committed a range of sexual offences in a short space of time, most of which involved female children. Beginning at the age of 18 years he had sex with a 13 year old girl and aged 19 he had sex with a 15 year old girl. Both of these incidents took place after a period of online grooming. He was also convicted of a number of other offences including sexualised behaviours towards females on a bus and numerous online sex offences involving many victims. The index offence involved a 17 year old female whom he digitally raped in a shower. Throughout the period of offending, he was not deterred by the various criminal justice sanctions made against him, including imprisonment, and, despite his assurances to the Court and others that he had reformed, he often offended within days of release, breaching his various reporting and parole conditions. His offending appears to have been driven by a high sex drive and extensive use of pornography (and associated sexual objectification of women), coupled with social isolation, poor communication and social skills and a narcissistic and antisocial entitlement to sexual activity, which was achieved through a series of both opportunistic and planned incidents (both online and in person), which demonstrated his low empathy, tendency to engage in reward seeking behaviours, extremely poor judgement and disregard for the law.

In prison, he was bullied and sexually exploited by others and he required significant support from prison psychologists. He reported intermittent low mood and anxiety secondary to the death of his father, association issues and alleged sexual assault and he was managed by the Prison Mental Health Service. He used substances applied to him by other prisoners and he struggled to sustain work at times owing to his autistic symptoms and antisocial behaviours. He did however remain motivated to develop a positive routine and he commenced the tertiary preparation course again. He also engaged in sex offender treatment, during which he made some partial (albeit superficial) gains in relation to his understanding of his offending behaviour and risk reduction strategies, although he displayed some challenging behaviours during the program and he was ultimately considered to have outstanding treatment needs in most areas. In particular he continued to minimise some of his offending and externalise blame onto his various mental disorders. It was considered that his relapse prevention strategies were intellectually derived and he lacked emotional insight and self awareness into the various challenges he would face upon release. His tendency to positive impression management was also highlighted.

DIAGNOSIS

Mr Crutch has a diagnosis of pervasive development disorder (Asperger’s syndrome), dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He also had a childhood diagnosis of Irlen’s syndrome which is a disorder of visual processing (although I note this diagnosis is controversial and lacks an evidence base). He continues to demonstrate significant autistic spectrum symptoms which impact on his ability to successfully emotionally and socially interact with others. His attention deficit problems promote impulsive reward seeking behaviours and limit his ability to sustain focus upon long term goals.

Mr Crutch meets criteria for a diagnosis of mixed personality disorder with antisocial and narcissistic traits as evidenced by his profound disregard for rules, lack of empathy, irresponsible attitude (particularly with regards to the criminal justice system), historical tendency to externalise blame for his situation onto others and inability to profit from punishment or rehabilitation. In addition he presents with a need for admiration, he has a sense of entitlement (particularly in relation to getting his sexual needs met), he is interpersonally exploitative (particularly with those more vulnerable than him) and he lacks empathy.

Mr Crutch reported symptoms of low mood and post-traumatic stress in a custodial environment for which he is treated with an antidepressant. He may meet criteria for a diagnosis of a depression or anxiety disorder, but it is difficult to confirm this without the prison mental health clinical record. He did not present as depressed or anxious at the time of interview.

He also has a diagnosis of substance use disorder (alcohol and illicit substances) which is currently in enforced remission in a custodial environment.

On balance I do not consider that he meets criteria for paedophilic disorder, as his child victims were as a result of indiscriminate sexual offending, rather than secondary to sexual fantasies specifically involving children.”

72. [72]
    Dr Brown used three risk assessment tools to assess the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending.  On the Static-99R she also scored the respondent at 9 which she considered suggests that his risk of sexual re-offending is in the well above average (high) range.
73. [73]
    On the PCL-R, his score of 26 out of 38 (marital item omitted), with a loading on factor 2, indicates the presence of psychopathic traits, in particular antisocial behaviours, but is below the score of 30 required for a diagnosis of psychopathy.
74. [74]
    In relation to the RSVP instrument, which assesses the risk of sexual reoffending and guides the development of a risk reduction management plan.  Dr Brown considered the respondent demonstrates 15 definite risk factors (and four partial risk factors indicated in brackets) as follows:

“Sexual Violence History: chronicity of sexual violence / diversity of sexual violence / physical coercion / psychological coercion

There is a chronicity to the offending, despite criminal justice interventions. The offending was diverse in that it involved contact and non-contact offending and child and adult victims. Some of the offending involved mild physical coercion. There was significant psychological coercion (grooming) of most of the victims.

Psychological adjustment: problems with self awareness / problems with stress or coping /(some minimisation of sexual offences)

Although Mr Crutch does not condone sexual violence, he has overall poor self awareness with regards to himself and his risk of sexual reoffending. He accepts that he committed the offences and that it was wrong of him to do so, but he continues to minimise some of the incidents and he does not properly understand that children cannot consent to sexual activity and his associated adult responsibilities. Other psychological adjustment risk factors include his diagnoses of autistic spectrum disorder and his very limited coping skills when under stress.

Mental Disorder: (psychopathy traits) / problems with substance use / major mental illness /(history of suicidal ideation) / (sexual deviance)

Mr Crutch has psychopathic traits, a mixed personality disorder, an autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit problems and dyslexia. He is currently treated for (self reported) symptoms of anxiety and depression and he has expressed suicidal ideation in the past. Therefore his burden of symptoms is high which in turn may limit his ability to adhere to risk reduction strategies in the future.

He does not have a definite diagnosis of sexual deviance but his sexual drives and preferences are somewhat indiscriminate and require further longitudinal assessment.

He has used alcohol and other substances as a strategy to socially connect with others and he is very likely to recommence alcohol and substance use if not subject to supervision in the future.

Social adjustment: problems with intimate relationships / problems with non-intimate relationships / problems with employment / non sexual criminality

Mr Crutch has significant problems establishing non-intimate and intimate relationships as detailed above. He is motivated to obtain employment, but he has problems sustaining this owing to his various mental disorders. He has a history of non-sexual criminality, in particular he has disregarded reporting and probation conditions in the past.

Manageability: Problems with planning / problems with treatment / problems with supervision

He has demonstrated major problems with supervision in the past and reoffended within days of release from prison, such that he has spent most of his adult life incarcerated. He has engaged in treatment but his gains were only partial and superficial. He created a relapse prevention plan but he lacks insight into the various challenges he will face putting these plans into place and adhering to them. His statements that he intends to continue to watch pornography and engage sex workers upon release are of concern.”

75. [75]
    Dr Brown concluded that the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending is high to extremely high, as follows:

“Risk factors include his pervasive developmental disorder, psychopathic personality structure, his extremely poor self awareness, his lack of empathy, his disregard for the law and his only limited response to treatment. Sexual offending risk would be significantly increased if Mr Crutch had online or face to face access to underage or vulnerable females and further increased if he (and/or the victim were intoxicated). Offending may be impulsive or planned and would most likely involve relatively new acquaintances met online, in person or both. Offending may quickly escalate to contact sexual acts with those that are unable to consent, (either due to their age or other vulnerability), or those that do not give consent but are easily physically or psychologically coerced. Offending risk would also be increased in socially ambiguous situations and when Mr Crutch has become aroused, including via use of pornography.

His sexual offending risk is grossly complicated by his diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome which will continue to limit his ability to form appropriate non-intimate and non-intimate relationships, limit his self awareness with regards to his needs and the needs of others and limit his community supports. His response to sex offender treatment was largely academic and it is unlikely that he will be able to utilise internalised self regulation strategies or manage his sexual drives and behaviours upon release. His future risk reduction management will therefore need to employ various external strategies, at least initially, until he is better able to develop and utilise a more comprehensive relapse prevention plan. Such strategies should include abstinence from alcohol, monitoring of online and in person associations and restricted (or no) contact with children.

Mr Crutch is willing to engage with additional psychological therapy upon release. Future therapeutic work should focus upon social skill building, use of prosocial strategies to improve self esteem, substance misuse work, and ongoing exploration and management of sexual drives and preferences. He should be encouraged to review and update his relapse prevention strategies, particularly when he encounters challenges or difficulties in the community which may potentially increase his risk.

Mr Crutch should also be referred to a forensic psychiatrist for assessment and management of his mental disorders, in particular his more recent symptoms of depression and post traumatic stress. He is currently prescribed paroxetine which is an SSRI medication that can also reduce sexual drive. As Mr Crutch has a history of high sexual drive, he may benefit from continuation of this drug (or other SSRI) along with monitoring of his sexual functioning, drives and preferences.

Mr Crutch remains socially isolated and vulnerable to exploitation by others. Given his various mental disorders and associated disabilities, his eligibility for NDIS funding should be explored, which would give him access to a range of group and individualised occupational, social and other functional supports in a more protected setting.

I respectfully recommended that, should the Court make a supervision order, it is inclusive of the following:

• GPS monitoring.
• No unsupervised contact with children.
• Monitoring of electronic devices and online activity.
• Referral to a forensic psychiatrist (cessation of SRRI medication should prompt a review of risk)
• Referral to a forensic psychologist for individualised therapy
• Abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs and regular urine drug testing.
• Monitoring of relationships and appropriate disclosure of offending history to potential partners.
• Development of a daily routine and support to find work (or other structured activity).

Monitoring and case management should take into account Mr Crutch’s history of denying or grossly minimising offending behaviours (particularly when first questioned) and his tendency to positive impression management.

As Mr Crutch further matures, some of his impulsive antisocial behaviours may attenuate and his attention deficit symptoms may improve. This, coupled with ongoing engagement in therapy and associated improved relapse prevention strategies, should gradually reduce his risk over time. I therefore recommend that, should a supervision order be made, it is for a period of five years. Should Mr Crutch breach the order, the circumstances of the breach and the risk assessment at the time can inform as to the need to extend the supervision timeframe.”

Supplementary Report of Dr Karen Brown dated 18 January 2021

76. [76]
    In her updated report, Dr Brown noted that the respondent reported to her that he was not fully aware of how “full-on” the order was, although it had been explained to him.  He also stated that he found living with his mother very “difficult”. In particular, he did not realise how hard it would be, and how bored he would become.  He also felt very isolated.  Dr Brown indicated that once he his contraventions were discovered and he was relocated to the Wacol precinct, he was more settled because he could walk around and talk to people, and he was not smothered by his mother.  Once he was returned to the custodial centre, however, she stated that there was some problematic incidents and he was assaulted by another prisoner. He then fractured his wrist by punching a wall when he was angry. Subsequent to those incidents, his custodial behaviour has been good.
    Dr Brown stated that her diagnosis is unchanged from her previous 2020 report and whilst she had updated the risk assessments that she had provided, essentially her risk assessment is unchanged from her 2020 report.
77. [77]
    She concluded that the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending is high to extremely high, and it remains her view that with appropriate supervision and additional supports, the risks would be reduced to a moderate and manageable level. 
78. [78]
    Dr Brown noted:^[7]

“With regard to recent contraventions, Mr Crutch is extremely intolerant to feelings of isolation and abandonment as per his Cluster B personality traits, however he has significant difficulties in establishing appropriate friends and a social network due to his pervasive developmental disorders.  His long-standing tendency to surround himself with superficial acquaintances and contacts via social media (and via nightclubs etc.) can be understood as a narcissistic and borderline attempt to protect against his low self-esteem.

At the time of his release in September 2020, he was relatively socially isolated at his mother’s residence, and he appears to have felt infantilised and controlled by his mother, further increasing his stress and risk of poorly judged behaviours.  In these circumstances, he made the decision to re-establish himself on social media.  He would have been aware that he risked a breach and a return to prison, but, given his intolerance of perceived social isolation and rejection, he likely concluded that the risk was worth taking, and that even imprisonment was preferable to his feelings of social isolation and rejection.  This is endorsed by the fact that once he returned to the Wacol precinct, despite the more controlled, less homely environment, his presentation improved in line with the perception that he had gained some friends.”

79. [79]
    Dr Brown noted that his behaviour continues to suggest the possibility of an ongoing sexual preference for pubescent females although she also considers that the most likely explanation is that he is more able to socially connect with those who are much younger than himself.  Dr Brown is still of the view that the risk factors displayed by the respondent include his pervasive developmental disorder, his psychopathic personality structure, his extremely poor self-awareness, his lack of empathy, his disregard for the law and his limited response to treatment.  She considers that his risk of sexual offending would be significantly increased if he had online or face-to-face access to underage or vulnerable females, which would be further increased if he were intoxicated.  She was also of the view that the offending may be impulsive or planned and would most likely involve relatively new acquaintances who were met online or in person.  She stated that the offending would quickly escalate to sexual acts with those who are unable to consent. 
80. [80]
    Dr Brown remains of the view that his offending risk is grossly complicated by his diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome.  She considers that numerous external strategies will need to be developed to manage the risk, particularly monitoring his online and in person associations.  She also considers that he is willing to engage with a psychologist and noted that it would be helpful to schedule an appointment prior to release or very soon after release.  Dr Brown also considered that the respondent should be referred to a forensic psychiatrist for assessment and management, particularly given his more recent symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress.  Dr Brown stated that he is currently prescribed Paroxetine which can reduce sexual drive and noted that the respondent could benefit from the continuation of this drug. 
81. [81]
    Dr Brown in conclusion recommended a supervision order and, whilst she initially considered it would be for five years, she considered that given the difficulties the respondent faced within days of his release, she considers there is an argument that the period of supervision should be longer and that he will be very slow to assimilate internalised self-management strategies.  Dr Brown stated that she would not be opposed to a supervision period of ten years given his young age, his active sexual drive, his treatment resistance and recent contraventions. 

Evidence of Dr Andrew Aboud, Consultant Psychiatrist

82. [82]
    Dr Aboud gave evidence on 31 August 2020 and provided Reports dated 15 August 2020 (received on 17 September 2020) and 20 January 2021.  Dr Aboud had initially assessed the respondent at Wolston Correction Centre on 19 June 2020.  Whilst he had prepared a written report he was unable to provide it to the Court at the time of the hearing due to the lockdown of several correctional centres.  He considers that the respondent suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (secondary to being sexually assaulted in prison), Polysubstance (cannabis, alcohol, prescription drugs) Abuse Disorder and Antisocial Personality Traits with some psychopathic features.  Dr Aboud considers that those conditions can explain his tendency toward some episodes of raised anxiety (including panic) and short-lived periods of low mood. 
83. [83]
    Dr Aboud stated that it is hard to confidently conclude that his sexual offending against minors is associated with a specific paedophile drive, rather than to his migration toward children as being more vulnerable and easily procured and manipulated as victims.  Dr Aboud was of the view that the respondent has benefited from participating in the HISOP while in custody.
84. [84]
    Overall he considered that the respondent presents a moderate-high unmodified risk of sexual reoffending, but a low-moderate risk of sexual re-offending in the context of a supervision order.
85. [85]
    Should he be released to a supervision order, Dr Aboud recommended that: “he be housed in a stable living arrangement in the first instance; be provided with assistance to build structure, routine and personal supports; be provided with clear directions and explanation of conditions; have access to a psychologist for individual therapy; remain abstinent of substances and alcohol; have no unsupervised access to children; be carefully and gradually progressed to circumstances of greater freedom and independence; be provided with medical assistance via a General Practitioner, to address any difficulties he experiences in respect of management of anxiety and/or mood (and in turn have recourse to specialist psychiatrist care, if these difficulties require such onward referral).”

Report dated 15 August 2020

86. [86]
    In his report dated 15 August 2020 (received on 17 September), Dr Aboud indicated that the respondent has clear evidence of Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’) but within the normal average intelligence range, as well as some mild features of ADHD and polysubstance abuse.  He also considered that he manifests anti-social personality traits with some psychopathic features but stated that it was important to recognise that it is difficult to distinguish his anti-social and psychopathic traits from his symptoms of ASD and ADHD.  He also stated that given his previous assaults in prison, he has also described some features of post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’). 
87. [87]
    Dr Aboud undertook risk assessments under the six instruments, namely Static-99R, Risk Matrix 2000/S, Risk Matrix 2000/V, PCLR-R, HCR-20 and RSVP.  In relation to the Static-99R, which was used to predict risk of sexual and violent recidivism in adult males, the respondent scored 9, which places him in a group regarded as well above average in terms of a risk of reoffending. In relation to the Risk Matrix 2000/S which is an instrument used to predict the risk of sexual recidivism, the respondent scored 4, and had two aggravating factors for step 2, which placed him in a group regarded as very high risk of reoffending.  In relation to the Risk Matrix 2000/V, the respondent scored 3, which placed him in a group regarded as a medium risk of violent recidivism in adult males.  In terms of the psychopathy checklist, PCL-R, which measures psychopathic traits, the respondent scored 21 out of 40, which is below the cut-off point for diagnosing psychopathy, but reflective of some psychopathic traits.  In terms of the HCR-20, his overall score was 29 out of 40, and Dr Aboud deemed his overall risk to be moderate, with a relative static loading with areas of concern pertaining to risk management items indicating the need for support and supervision in the community.  In terms of the RSVP, which is the risk for sexual violence protocol, Dr Aboud identified a number of positive scores, and also had partial scores for a number of other items. 
88. [88]
    Dr Aboud considered that, should the respondent reoffend, he would speculate he would most likely replicate his previous pattern seeking out sexual encounters via social media platforms or opportunistically with those at risk being under age or vulnerable females.  He also stated that his behaviour would be driven by sexual need and shaped by his impulsivity and lack of social skills to engage in relations with age-appropriate women.  Dr Aboud stated that the respondent’s overall unmodified risk of sexual reoffending would be moderate to high but that his risk of non-sexual violence and of general offending would be relatively low.  He stated that if the respondent was released he would require careful support, supervision and monitoring.  He stated that in the context of a supervision order, his risk of sexual reoffending would be reduced to low-moderate. 
89. [89]
    Dr Aboud concluded:

“Should the court choose to release Mr Crutch to the community, consideration should be made of providing him with support and guidance to: establish stable and appropriate accommodation; build daily routine and structure into his life (including educational and vocational activities as a priority); grow pro-social personal supports and enhance his mother’s ability to provide proper boundaries and limit setting; ensure he has no contact with any female children; ensure careful restriction and supervision of any internet and social media use, and also of his use of pornography; ensure that he remains abstinent from alcohol (and illicit substances); ensure his participation in a sexual offending maintenance program; engage with a psychological therapist to address issues related to his poor social and communication skills, his low self-esteem, his maladaptive and avoidant coping style, his manipulative interpersonal style and potential to deceive people about how he is feeling and about other matters.”

90. [90]
    Dr Aboud also said consideration should be given to access to a general practitioner to supervise his prescription of medication and a referral to specialist psychiatric services.  Dr Aboud suggested that the initial focus should be on engaging the respondent with a case manager and psychologist to set clear and transparent goals, boundaries and limits.  It was also important he built structure and routine into his daily life. Dr Aboud recommended the supervision order should be at least for five years. 

Supplementary Report dated 20 January 2021

91. [91]
    In his supplementary report, Dr Aboud stated that at interview on 15 January 2021, the respondent had told him how stressful the situation was on his release and outlined all of the issues which have previously been referred to by other psychiatrists.  Dr Aboud also stated that his risk assessment remained essentially unchanged but considered however that it was of significant concern that he contravened the supervision order within days of being released and noted that the respondent stated that he felt lonely and disconnected from other people, bored and stressed by the circumstances of his home environment.  He was also overwhelmed by having a visitor so soon after arriving home and was also struggling with his mother’s attentions towards him.  Dr Aboud noted that whilst the respondent stated he did not intend to reoffend but was rather testing his resolve by exposing himself to social media, Dr Aboud was of the opinion that while some of his explanation may be true, it is likely that his explanation is a form of hindsight rationalisation as well as justification and minimisation. 
92. [92]
    Dr Aboud stated:

“It is without doubt that he knowingly breached the conditions of his supervision order, and placed himself in a very high risk situation in respect of reoffending.  In fact, at the time he was apprehended, even after only a few days in the community, his risk of sexually reoffending had increased markedly.  Further, it is clear that his mother is not able to monitor or supervise him in any meaningful way.’

93. [93]
    Dr Aboud considered that it was unclear, and in the balance, whether his risk could be considered manageable in a community setting at the current time.  He stated that if he was released to the community, he would require very careful support, supervision and monitoring.  In the context of a supervision order, he would consider that his risk of sexual reoffending to be reduced to moderate, whereas before he considered it was low-moderate. He stated that that evaluation of the risk would be contingent on the circumstances of future release being quite different to that which occurred on his interim supervision order. 
94. [94]
    Dr Aboud did not consider he could be safely managed while residing with his mother in Toowoomba, and instead he would need to be at the Wacol precinct.  He considered that in that environment he would fell less overwhelmed and stressed, and would have more control over his immediate living environment. He would also be able to access other people to talk to and feel connected to and would be able to walk within the campus to clear his head and process thoughts and not feel smothered by his mother or well-meaning visitors. Once again, Dr Aboud considered that the order could be in place for at least five years. 

Is the Respondent a Serious Danger to the Community in the absence of a Division 3 Order?

95. [95]
    Having considered all of the material I am required to consider pursuant to s 13(4) of the Act, particularly the reports of Dr Arthur, Dr Brown and Dr Aboud, it is clear the reports provide a basis to conclude that that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.  The psychiatrists all conclude that he is a high or extremely high risk of further sexual offending against children in the absence of a Division 3 Order.  As the applicant submits the respondent was serving a period of over three years’ imprisonment which is his second period of imprisonment for committing serious sexual offences.  The respondent is still relatively young but his offending over a short period of time has been persistent and he now has an extensive criminal history for sexual offending, a significant portion of which was committed whilst on bail.
96. [96]
    Accordingly, having considered the matters identified in s 13(4) of the DPSOA, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability, that if released without a Division 3 order the respondent represents an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant has discharged its burden of proving that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order.
97. [97]
    I am satisfied that a Division 3 order should be made. The next question is whether he should be detained in custody or whether he can be released into the community subject to a supervision order.

What Orders Should be Made?

98. [98]
    Counsel for the respondent concedes that the respondent would continue to be considered a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order.  Counsel also concedes that the respondent’s contravention of the interim supervision order is relevant to a consideration of whether a continuing detention order or a supervision order should be made.  However Counsel submits that the consistent view of all three psychiatrists is that whilst the respondent’s unmodified risk is well above average or a high risk of sexual offending, his risk can be appropriately managed in the community under a supervision order and that such an order would ensure the adequate protection of the community. Accordingly, the ultimate submission is that he ought to be released from custody subject to the requirements of a strict supervision order because the matters to be considered in s 13(6)(b), namely, the adequate protection of the community, can reasonably and practicably be managed by a supervision order, and the requirements under s 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.
99. [99]
    His Counsel submits that a supervision order could sufficiently address the his risk factors, recognising what was said in Attorney-General v Francis:^[8]

“The Act does not contemplate that arrangements to prevent such a risk must be ‘watertight’; otherwise orders under s.13(5)(b) would never be made. The question is whether the protection of the community is adequately ensured. If supervision of the prisoner is apt to ensure adequate protection, having regard to the risk to the community posed by the prisoner, then an order for supervised release should, in principle, be preferred to a continuing detention order on the basis that the intrusions of the Act upon the liberty of the subject are exceptional, and the liberty of the subject should be constrained to no greater extent than is warranted by the statute which authorised such constraint.”

100. [100]
     In addition to the mandatory conditions, the respondent accepts that further conditions would need to address the following specific issues:

1. (a)
   abstention from alcohol and drug use and facilitating testing for same;

2. (b)
   restriction on contact with or access to children and areas where children gather;

3. (c)
   facilitation of ongoing treatment with a psychiatrist and a psychologist experienced in the treatment of sexual offenders;

4. (d)
   monitoring of relationships including appropriate disclosure of his offending history; and

5. (e)
   monitoring of internet activity and electronic devices.

101. [101]
     Ultimately, in keeping with the opinions of Dr Arthur and Dr Brown, the respondent submits that a supervision order should be in place for a period of at least five years but would not support an order longer than 10 years.
102. [102]
     Although the applicant maintains the application in the alternative, Counsel for the applicant acknowledges that the risk assessment reports support the making of a supervision order.^[9] 
103. [103]
     In the Division 3 context, the decision as to what form of order should be made under s 13 of the DPSOA the major statutory consideration in the requirement to ensure adequate protection of the community.^[10]  There can be no doubt that there should always be a preference for a supervision order over a continuing detention order and it is for the applicant to establish that adequate protection of the community cannot be ensured by the adoption of a supervision order.^[11] As was stated by PD McMurdo J in Attorney-General for State of Queensland v S:^[12]

“[38] Other judgments of the Court of Appeal have expressed the present question somewhat differently. In Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence, Chesterman JA (with whom Margaret Wilson J agreed) said this as to the relevant onus of proof:

‘[I]n cases where the Attorney-General contends that the community will not be adequately protected by a prisoner’s release on supervision the burden of proving the contention is on the Attorney. The exceptional restriction of the prisoner’s liberty, after he has served the whole of whatever imprisonment was imposed for the crimes he committed, and for the protection of the public only, should not be imposed unless the inadequacy of a supervision order is demonstrated. The liberties of the subject and the wider public interest are best protected by insisting that the Attorney-General, as applicant, discharges the burden of proving that only a continuing detention order will provide adequate protection to the community.’

Similarly, in Yeo v Attorney-General (Qld), Margaret McMurdo P (with whom White JA agreed) said:

‘[73] Under s 13(6), the paramount consideration in determining whether to order a continuing detention order or a supervision order is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. This requires the judge to make a value judgment based on the evidence. It is impossible to eliminate all risk of criminal offending, including offending against children, from a community. A judge must determine what is adequate protection of the community in all the circumstances (Attorney-General v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268, [28]-[30]; Attorney-General v DGK [2011] QSC 73, [28]). The Respondent has not persuaded me that the adequate protection of the community in this case cannot be assured by the release of the appellant into the community under a carefully structured supervision order, conscientiously supervised by corrective services officers. It follows that I must release the appellant on an appropriate supervision order.’”

104. [104]
     In Turnbull v Attorney General for the State of Qld^[13] the Court held:

“The means of providing the protection, and avoiding that risk, is a supervision order. When a court is assessing whether a supervision order can reasonably and practically manage the adequate protection of the community, it is necessarily assessing the protection the order can provide against that risk. Before making the order a court has to reach a positive conclusion that the supervision order will provide adequate protection.”

105. [105]
     The construction of s 13A of the DPSOA was recently considered by Davis J in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v KAH.^[14] His Honour made the following findings in relation to setting the period of a supervision order as follows:

“[68] It follows then that setting a period of supervision under s.13A must involve an assessment now of the prisoner’s current state but predicting when he will be an acceptable risk in the community without a supervision order.

[69] The Court cannot consider “whether or not the prisoner may become the subject of an application for a further supervision order or a supervision order” in the future. However, it does not follow that the consideration of the appropriate length of the order is undertaken without reference to the statutory scheme.”

106. [106]
     All of the psychiatrists consider that a supervision order is appropriate to manage the risk despite the fact that his risk of reoffending without an order is high.  They consider that the supervision order which is proposed will reduce his risk to moderate. 
107. [107]
     Having considered the proposed conditions, I consider that the conditions will ameliorate the risk to a level which will ensure the adequate protection of the community. The order will ensure that the respondent obtains ongoing psychological treatment, abstains from using drugs, restricts his use of social media which will then be controlled and supervised.  The order also ensures he receives appropriate medication and treatment for his ADHD and ASD.  In my view given the breach of the interim supervision order, the respondent’s criminal history and his young age the order should be for a period of 10 years.
108. [108]
     There should be orders in terms of the orders in Attachment ‘A’ to these reasons.

Attachment ‘A’

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

  REGISTRY: Brisbane

  NUMBER: BS 4452/20

ORDER

Before:   Her Honour Justice Lyons SJA

Date:   1 February 2021

Initiating document: Application filed 24 September 2020 (CFI no. 27)

THE COURT, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Jason Matthew Crutch, has contravened the interim supervision order made on 31 August 2020, ORDERS THAT:

1. The interim supervision order made on 31 August 2020, be rescinded.

2. The respondent be detained in custody until the originating application filed 23 April 2020 is finally decided.

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

 Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

  REGISTRY: Brisbane

  NUMBER: BS 4452/20

SUPERVISION ORDER

Before:   Her Honour Justice Lyons SJA

Date:   1 February 2021

Initiating document: Originating Application filed 23 April 2020 (CFI no. 1)

THE COURT is satisfied that Jason Matthew Crutch, 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 Jason Matthew Crutch be released from prison by 12pm on 2 February 2021 and must follow the rules in this supervision order for 10 years, until 1 February 2031.

TO Jason Matthew Crutch:

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.

Reporting

3. 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.
4. 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

5. 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;
   2. rehabilitation, care or treatment programs;
   3. using drugs and alcohol;
   4. who you may have contact with; and
   5. 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.

6. 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.
7. 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 criminal offences

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

Where you must live

10. 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.
11. 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 Services officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work.
16. 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.
17. If a Corrective Services officer tells you to stop working or studying, you must obey what they tell you.

Motor vehicles

18. 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

19. 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.
20. You must give a Corrective Services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phones you own or have. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone.

Computers and internet

21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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

24. 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

25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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

30. 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.
31. 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

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.
35. 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.

Speaking to corrective services about what you plan to do

36. You must talk to a Corrective Services officer about what you plan to do each week. A Corrective Services officer will tell you how to do this (for example, face to face or in writing).
37. 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.

38. 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.
39. You must tell your case manager of any personal relationships you have started.

Contact with children

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.
43. 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).
44. You must notify a Corrective Services officer before attending on the premises of any shopping centre, including the times and place which you wish to attend.
45. 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. join any club or organisation in which children are involved;
    5. 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.

Rules about child exploitation material and pornography

46. 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 without written approval, you may be asked to get rid of them by a Corrective Services officer.
47. You must not to get or have child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet.
48. You must not get or have 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.