Attorney-General v Yeatman[2022] QSC 256

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   The Attorney-General sought orders under s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) consequent upon an alleged breach of a supervision order made by Philippides J (as her Honour then was) on 30 June 2014 (the supervision order).
2. [2]
   The breach is admitted by the respondent.
3. [3]
   On 31 October 2022, I made the following order:

“THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, has contravened a requirement of the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014, ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, be released from custody and continues to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014.”

4. [4]
   By releasing the respondent back on the supervision order, I did not “make” a supervision order and therefore s 17 of the DPSOA did not oblige me to deliver reasons at the time of making the order.^[1]  These are the reasons for making the order releasing the respondent back on the supervision order.

Background

5. [5]
   The respondent was born on 17 March 1979. 
6. [6]
   In July 1999 and April 2000, the respondent suffered convictions in relation to sexual offences he committed against two girls, one being 14 years of age and one being 15.  The earlier offence involved the abduction of the victim at knifepoint.  He was convicted of various offences, including counts of rape, in each incident.^[2]
7. [7]
   The respondent was sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment as a result of the sexual offending. 
8. [8]
   On 30 June 2014, the respondent was released on a supervision order made under the DPSOA.  Since that time, he has been the subject of various breach proceedings and returned to custody.  On each occasion though, he has been released into the community on the supervision order.^[3]
9. [9]
   After breach proceedings heard in September 2019, the respondent was released on 13 September 2019.  He remained in the community until April 2022 when he was arrested on a warrant based on a complaint of further breaches.^[4]  He was ordered to be detained pursuant to s 21 of the DPSOA and was in custody until I ordered his release on 31 October 2022.

The current breach

10. [10]
    The contraventions are alleged as follows:

“SUPERVISION ORDER REQUIREMENTS

ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CONTRAVENED

8. (viii)
   comply with any reasonable direction under section 16B of the Act given to him;

9. (ix)
   comply with every reasonable direction of a Corrective Services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of the order;

(xviii) disclose to an authorised Corrective Services officer, upon request, the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information from a Corrective Services officer about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior offending behaviour;

(xxx) advise an authorised Corrective Services officer of the make, model and telephone number of any mobile telephone owned, possessed or regularly utilised by him within 24 hours of connection or commencement of use, and this includes reporting any changes to mobile telephone details.

(xxxii) notify a Corrective Services officer of all personal relationships entered into by the respondent.

FACTUAL BASIS OF CONTRAVENTION

On 29 March 2022, Mr Yeatman disclosed having contact with his ex-partner at Westpac Bank in Stockland Shopping Centre. On 29 March 2021, Mr Yeatman was issued with a Reasonable Direction ‘You are prohibited from having any contact with C .... N .... without prior approval of an authorised Corrective Services Officer. This includes, however is not limited to, phone contact, in person contact, written contact etc.’

On 6 April 2022, Queensland Police Services (QPS) conducted a search warrant in Mr Yeatman’s room at the Townsville Contingency Precinct. During the search QPS located an undisclosed mobile phone on his person. Mr Yeatman denied that the phone belonged to him however inspection of the device and checks with the server confirm that the device was registered to Mr Yeatman and had been since January 2021.

A review of the seized device revealed that Mr Yeatman had active social media accounts including Facebook, Messenger and Instagram. Mr Yeatman’s Facebook accounts were under ‘Ryan Jake Mitchell’ and ‘Kai Morris’. On 16 September 2019, Mr Yeatman was issued with a Reasonable Direction ‘Not sign up, create or participate in any Facebook activities in accordance with the condition of your Supervision Order’.

Mr Yeatman’s undisclosed device had ‘Easy Clean’ application downloaded which may be indicative of removing history. On 13 September 2019, Mr Yeatman was issued with a Reasonable Direction ‘NOT delete or hide any mobile phone data or information from your mobile phone without approval of an authorised corrective services officer. This includes, but is not limited to, incoming and outgoing calls, incoming and outgoing text messages, emails, multimedia messages, internet browsing history and applications’.

A review of text messages on the device highlights an undisclosed association with a female saved in contacts as ‘M ...’. On 5 April 2022, Mr Yeatman sent an outgoing text message that states, ‘Yeah I smashed My phone up when I was Drinkin the other night Ok’.

There are 32201 images on the device. Including thumbnail images that depict a red substance which appears to be blood smeared on Mr Yeatman’s face followed by what appears to be cutting wounds and blood. There are self-images of Mr Yeatman taken at the Townsville Contingency Precinct and outside the High Risk Offender Manager Unit (HROMU) Office, several images of young females including sexually explicit images, photoshopped images of Mr Yeatman and different females with love hearts and words including ‘always’ and ‘forever always’, screenshot images from TikTok, images of alcohol, sexually explicit images of Mr Yeatman and photos of Mr Yeatman’s ex-partner.

A review of internet search history outlines Mr Yeatman’s access to Pornhub with search terms of ‘Tiny black teens with braces’.”

Psychiatric/psychological evidence

11. [11]
    Evidence was received by way of reports from Dr Steve Morgan, psychologist and from psychiatrists, Drs Scott Harden and Andrew Aboud.  None of the witnesses were required for cross-examination.
12. [12]
    Dr Harden diagnosed the respondent as suffering Anti-Social Personality Disorder with some psychopathic personality features which may be starting to ameliorate with age.  He also diagnosed alcohol abuse and marijuana abuse, both being in remission because of incarceration.  He identified no suggestion of paraphilia such as sexual sadism or paedophilia. 
13. [13]
    As to risk assessment and recommendations, Dr Harden opined:

“Risk statement

This is my opinion that on the basis of the information available his future risk of sexual reoffence continues to be moderate - high/above average.

Risk issues of concern in this man continue to be substance intoxication, violation of social rules and laws, lack of empathy for other people and lack of vocational and social structure in the community. These are exacerbated by his interpersonal coping style, his strong desire for an intimate relationship, his relative lack of skills in choosing an appropriate partner and maintaining the relationship.

In my opinion the monitoring, supports and abstinence from substances associated with a supervision order continue to reduce his risk of recidivism to moderate/average in the community.

In the absence of supervision in the community, he will rapidly return to substance abuse and unregulated dysfunctional interpersonal relationships with a high likelihood of development of domestic violence.

Recommendations

I would recommend that he continue on the supervision order if released into the community. A minimum period of remaining supervision of 2 years (preferably 3) is required to allow time for his compliance and relationship patterns to improve.

I have no suggestions for additional conditions for the supervision order.

Close monitoring of intimate relationships should continue if he is released into the community.

Couple therapy should be considered if he is in intimate relationships.

Psychological therapy should continue if he is released into the community.

I recommend that he be actively supported to seek appropriate training and/or employment.”

14. [14]
    Dr Aboud diagnosed the respondent as suffering Anti-Social Personality Disorder (with borderline traits); prominent features of psychopathy; alcohol dependence, currently in remission; cannabis dependence, currently in remission. 
15. [15]
    As to risk and recommendations, Dr Aboud opined:

“OVERALL RISK LEVEL & RECOMMENDATIONS

Taking into consideration the various actuarial and dynamic assessments of future violence and sexual violence risk that have been applied, it is my view that Mr Yeatman’s current overall unmodified risk of reoffending through sexual violence and nonsexual violence would be moderate to high. In coming to this conclusion I take into account: the more worrying aspects of his offending behaviour, including the impulsive, opportunistic and predatory nature of his sexual violence; his use of physical coercion and threats to control his victims; his sense of sexual entitlement, leading to a direct link between a fractured intimate relationship, and a maladaptive reaction using sexual violence; the historical problems he has had with anger management, and coping with stress, frustration, and relationship conflict and jealousy; his significant history of alcohol and cannabis misuse, both implicated in his sexual offending, and their potential relationship with maladaptive coping; his previous and current relationship and intimacy difficulties; his Cluster B (Antisocial and Borderline) personality traits (including emotional lability and reactivity, with poor frustration tolerance and adaptive coping skills) together with his prominent Psychopathic traits. It is noteworthy and concerning that he has breached his supervision order on numerous occasions.

There is some evidence that in recent years he has undergone some maturation, and perhaps the fact that he most recently remained in the community for 2½ years speaks to this. His tendency toward substance use seems to have reduced. The problematic nature of his relationship/s with women seem to have possibly also lessened. However, while in the community he procured a secret second mobile phone, connected and communicated with numerous women via social media and text, and he also searched for pornography (including possible deliberate search for child content, which he denies).

He has now been in custody for over six months. In my opinion his risk of reoffending sexually would be reduced to below moderate in the context of the supervision order. If and when he is released to the community, I highlight the following issues as important considerations for future management: access to stable accommodation; abstinence from alcohol and substances; enhancement of prosocial personal and family supports; management of associations with criminogenic peers and peers who misuse alcohol and substances; management of isolation and discretionary time; efforts to enhance structured prosocial daily activities and routine, and if possible by way of employment; continued provision of professional support from a psychologist in the community (to assist with adaptive coping, broad problem solving skills, emotional regulation, ongoing motivational work regarding alcohol and substance use vulnerabilities, and relationship stability); referral for specialist relationship counselling and domestic violence counselling, and also relationship management (when he is maintaining a relationship); ongoing efforts to ensure effective communication, in view of his deafness.”

16. [16]
    Dr Morgan is the respondent’s treating psychologist, but, at the time of preparation of his report, he had limited contact with the respondent.  Treatment with Dr Morgan only commenced on 20 October 2021. 
17. [17]
    Relevantly, Dr Morgan reported:

“Engagement in treatment

Mr Yeatman consistently attended treatment sessions in a punctual manner. Over the initial span of four sessions from 20th October 2021, he impressed as committed to a treatment process. The dominant treatment focus of that time informed by a review of his expressed goals - was to aid him to fully comply with his Order (in the context of sequential contraventions), review his relationship history (and its influence on his situation/contraventions) and risk of reoffending and to develop a positive sense of selfhood and identity. He discussed the latter as his dominant goal, as he discussed a historical paucity of attachments and self-value, this a salient source of low mood and possibly resentment (that may be relevant in respect of his complex and problematic relationship history - however that could not be assertively gauged within my span of contact with him). A further aim would have been to develop longer-term prosocial goals (that impressed as somewhat absent), that may conceivably be addressed within future treatment with an alternative provider.

His engagement was somewhat terse from February 2022, as he offered his understanding that a letter offered by myself to Ms Hoyer was not of value to a hearing in respect of Order contravention - this pertaining to his contact with a former partner (that he argued coincidental, rather than planned). This impresses as having affected to some degree the quality of interaction within 2022 sessions, within which he impressed as reserved and ill-disposed to extend himself beyond discussions of his general welfare and the immediate goals of a visit to his mother at Yarrabah and a brother on Palm Island.

Notably, at the time of attending his final session of 4th April 2022, he did not disclose his recent Queensland Police Service contact or any sense of worry, but after which I understand he has been subject to a further charge (or charges) and has been returned to custody. His choice to disclose or not disclose this or indeed any contact (or for that matter any associated concern) within a treatment session is clearly a matter for Mr Yeatman. Irrespective, it does suggest limited purchase in terms of rapport and the therapeutic relationship.

I am obliged to the view of limited rapport or therapeutic traction being gained across my span of contact with Mr Yeatman. A strategy had been (particularly in 2022) to develop such a therapeutic alliance, however that does not impress as effective. This may parallel challenges in supervision and possibly prior psychological treatment. It would be useful for any future treating psychologist to engage with prior practitioners in order to consider prior effective strategic approaches in order to maximise any future therapeutic alliance.

An assessment of his current risk factors relevant to risk of sexual offending

Mr Yeatman attended eight sessions of intervention, within which limited progress was made in therapeutic terms. During that period, he notably re-attended Court on the basis of a 2021 Order contravention (that became an appreciable focus) and was latterly returned to custody. I have not been provided QP9, Court Brief or other information in regard to any current charges, thus cannot offer any detailed view of their basis or thus a view on his risk may be accordingly altered.

Given that I have not been able to review such QP9, Court Brief or other information - I cannot offer a detailed view of these recent matters, nor a view on how risk may be accordingly altered. I am however obliged to note concern for his evident limited capacity to comply with his Order/supervision, documented challenging contacts with former intimate partners (suggestive of focal relationship-oriented treatment needs) and his limited treatment responsivity arguably reflective of internal barriers to engagement and potentially the external barrier arising from treatment being mandated.

I note comments (including on risk) as expressed within the 30th July 2019 expert report by Dr Harden (Psychiatrist):

‘There has been a previous pattern of deceptive behaviour towards supervisory staff and then alternating belligerence and emotional instability and crying when detected.

He has continued to form relationships with women that are highly emotionally intense and where he is prone to emotional instability, jealousy, insecurity and threatening and/or aggressive behaviour. This mirrors his offence pathway with his earlier sexual offences. This has likely been further exacerbated by his hearing difficulties’;

‘He has Antisocial Personality Disorder, Alcohol Abuse and Marijuana Abuse, but there are no features to suggest that he has a paraphilia’;

‘... on the basis of the information available his future risk of sexual reoffence continues to be moderate - high/above average’;

‘Issues in this man in my opinion continue to be substance intoxication, violation of social rules and laws, lack of empathy for other people and lack of vocational and social structure in the community. These are exacerbated by his interpersonal coping style, his strong desire for an intimate relationship, his relative lack of skills in choosing an appropriate partner and maintaining the relationship’; &

‘In the absence of supervision in the community, he will rapidly return to substance abuse and unregulated dysfunctional interpersonal relationships with a high likelihood of development of domestic violence’.

Recommendations for future treatment

Given a limited therapeutic relationship and allied responsivity factors, also my limited span my contact with him, it is difficult to offer assertive views by way of future recommendations. This established, I may offer the following comments:

1. As rapport and responsivity would seem critical concerns within 2021-22 intervention, a focus may be to develop a meaningful level of working rapport - that may take some months and may be challenging to achieve. I believe that he would benefit from attending a practitioner with expertise in this area of practice and who may confer with previous treating practitioners to discuss efficacious future approaches.

2. He may attend sessions on a 2-4 weekly basis - as he may struggle to tolerate more frequent sessions - and with any less frequent attendance unlikely to allow treatment gains.

3. An assessment of risk would seem likely best available by an independently assessment proves, such as again by Dr Harden.”

Statutory context

18. [18]
    The objects of the DPSOA are two-fold, namely the protection of the community and the control, care and treatment of certain prisoners to facilitate their rehabilitation.^[5]  Those prisoners the subject of the DPSOA are those who have committed a “serious sexual offence”^[6] which is defined as “an offence of a sexual nature … involving violence” or “an offence of a sexual nature … against a child”.^[7]
19. [19]
    The Attorney-General may apply to the court for an order that such a prisoner either continue to be detained or released only on supervision.^[8]
20. [20]
    Section 13 is a pivotal section in the DPSOA and its terms are relevant to proceedings such as the present where a breach of a supervision order is alleged.  Section 13 is in these terms, relevantly here:

“13 Division 3 orders

3. (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).

3. (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. (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 requirements it considers appropriate that are stated in the order (supervision order).

3. (6)
   In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (5)(a) or (b)—

1. (a)
   the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and

2. (b)
   the court must consider whether—

1. (i)
   adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and

2. (ii)
   requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. …”

21. [21]
    Therefore:

1. the test under s 13 is whether the prisoner is “a serious danger to the community”;^[9]
2. that initial question is answered by determining whether there is an “unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence”^[10] if no order is made; and
3. if that conclusion is reached, then a supervision order (as opposed to a continuing detention order) can only be made where the adequate protection of  the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order;^[11] but
4. where “adequate protection of the community” can be ensured by a supervision order, then the making of a supervision order ought to be preferred to the making of a continuing detention order.^[12]

22. [22]
    Breach of a supervision order has consequences under Division 5 of Part 2 of the DPSOA.  Section 20 provides, relevantly:

“20 Warrant for released prisoner suspected of contravening a supervision order or interim supervision order

3. (1)
   This section applies if a police officer or corrective services officer reasonably suspects a released prisoner is likely to contravene, is contravening, or has contravened, a requirement of the released prisoner’s supervision order or interim supervision order.

3. (2)
   The officer may, by a complaint to a magistrate, apply for a warrant for the arrest of the released prisoner directed to all police officers and corrective services officers to arrest the released prisoner and bring the released prisoner before the Supreme Court to be dealt with according to law.

3. (3)
   The magistrate must issue the warrant, in the approved form, if the magistrate is satisfied the grounds for issuing the warrant exist.

3. (4)
   However, the warrant may be issued only if the complaint is under oath.

3. (6)
   The warrant may state the suspected contravention in general terms. …”

23. [23]
    Section 22 provides, relevantly here:

“22 Court may make further order

3. (1)
   The following subsections apply if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the released prisoner is likely to contravene, is contravening, or has contravened, a requirement of the supervision order or interim supervision order (each the existing order).

3. (2)
   Unless the released prisoner satisfies the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by the existing order as amended under subsection (7), the court must—

1. (a)
   if the existing order is a supervision order, rescind it and make a continuing detention order; or

2. (b)
   if the existing order is an interim supervision order, rescind it and make an order that the released prisoner be detained in custody for the period stated in the order. …

3. (7)
   If the released prisoner satisfies the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by a supervision order or interim supervision order, the court—

1. (a)
   must amend the existing order to include all of the requirements under section 16(1) if the order does not already include all of those requirements; and

2. (b)
   may otherwise amend the existing order in a way the court considers appropriate—

1. (i)
   to ensure adequate protection of the community; or

2. (ii)
   for the prisoner’s rehabilitation or care or treatment. …”

24. [24]
    Proceedings on an alleged breach of a supervision order are commenced by the issue of a warrant under s 20.  As a matter of practice, the Attorney-General files an application seeking orders under s 22.^[13]  That is what occurred here and the particulars of the alleged breach, as stated in the application, appear in paragraph [10] of these reasons. 
25. [25]
    Section 22 of the DPSOA provides that if a contravention is proved, the onus then shifts to the prisoner to satisfy the court that their continuation on supervision in the community will ensure the adequate protection of the community.^[14]  Otherwise, the court must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order.^[15]  The concept of “the adequate protection of the community” in s 22(7) has the same meaning as it bears in s 13.^[16]
26. [26]
    The issue under s 22 of the DPSOA is not whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will breach the supervision order. The issue is whether there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence.^[17]

Consideration

27. [27]
    As already observed, the breach is admitted^[18] and I find that the respondent has contravened a requirement of the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014. 
28. [28]
    Dr Aboud opines that upon release on the supervision order, Mr Yeatman’s risk of reoffending sexually would be reduced to below moderate.  Dr Harden thought the supervision order reduced the respondent’s risk of sexual recidivism to moderate-average in the community.
29. [29]
    As already observed, an object of the DPSOA is the protection of the community against the commission of a serious sexual offence.  Mr Yeatman has, while in the community since the making of the supervision order, committed various breaches, but has not committed a serious sexual offence.
30. [30]
    Based on the psychiatric and psychological evidence, which I accept, the respondent has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by releasing him on the existing supervision order.
31. [31]
    For those reasons, I made the order which I did.