Attorney-General v Watt[2023] QSC 9

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   The respondent, Rowland Arnold Watt, is subject to a supervision order made under s 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) by Davis J on 6 May 2021.

2. [2]
   The Attorney-General now applies under s 22 of the Act for:

   1. (a)
      an order rescinding the supervision order made by Davis J and an order that Mr Watt be detained in custody for an indefinite period for care, control or treatment; or
   2. (b)
      alternatively, an order that pursuant to s 22(7) of the Act the supervision order be amended.

The question to be considered under the statutory scheme

3. [3]
   Section 13 of the Act is directed towards the making of orders to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the risk that a prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence.  The term “serious sexual offence” is defined in Schedule 1 of the Act to include an offence of a sexual nature against a child.

4. [4]
   The jurisdiction to make orders is enlivened once “…the court is satisfied the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order”: see s 13(1).  A prisoner will be characterised as a serious danger to the community “if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence: (a) if the prisoner is released from custody; or (b) if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made”: see s 13(2).  In those circumstances the court must consider whether a continuing detention order or a supervision order should be made: see s 13(5).  Where a supervision order will ensure the adequate protection of the community from the commission by a respondent of a “serious sexual offence”, then the making of a supervision order ought to be preferred to the making of a continuing detention order.^[1]

5. [5]
   Section 22 of the Act applies if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a prisoner released on a supervision order is likely to contravene, is contravening, or has contravened a requirement of that order.  There is no dispute on this application that Mr Watt has contravened the requirements of the supervision order.  I address the nature of those contraventions later in these reasons.
6. [6]
   Where the section is engaged, s 22(2) provides that Mr Watt must satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contraventions of the existing supervision order, be ensured by that existing order.  The term “the adequate protection of the community” as it appears in s 22 bears the same meaning as it bears in s 13 of the Act.^[2] 

7. [7]
   The relevant “protection” is not protection from any offending, or indeed from any sexual offending.  The relevant “protection” is from the commission of a “serious sexual offence”.  In Turnbull v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland,^[3] Morrison JA (with whom Philippides JA and Douglas J agreed) said:^[4]

1. “[36]
   The consideration required under s 13(6)(b)(i) is whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order.  The risk which leads to the need to protect the community is because, under s 13(1) and (2), there is an unacceptable risk that Mr Turnbull will commit a serious sexual offence if released without such an order.  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 the court has to reach a positive conclusion that the supervision order will provide the adequate protection.”

8. [8]
   Consequently, the question under s 22 is whether Mr Watt has satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that his release back into the community under the supervision order provides “adequate protection of the community” in the sense that the order reduces the risk of him committing a serious sexual offence to an acceptable level.  If Mr Watt fails to discharge that onus the court must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order: see s 22(2)(a).

Background

9. [9]
   Mr Watt was born on 25 February 1987.  He was 34 years old when the supervision order was made.  He is presently 35 years of age.
10. [10]
    As recorded in the reports of Dr Karen Brown and Dr Elizabeth McVie which were prepared for the purposes of this application he has been diagnosed with: a paedophilic disorder (non-exclusive) with sexual attraction to prepubertal females; a substance abuse disorder; and a mixed cluster B personality disorder with significant narcissistic, antisocial and psychopathic traits.
11. [11]
    Mr Watt’s extensive criminal history was summarised by Davis J in his reasons for making the supervision order.^[5]  It is not necessary for the purposes of this application to set out that summary in full.  It is sufficient to note that since 2006, Mr Watt has been regularly convicted of sexual offences against children.  He has also pleaded guilty on numerous occasions to charges of failing to comply with his obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld).
12. [12]
    Prior to his release from custody under the supervision order, Mr Watt had completed the Getting Started: Preparatory Program in April 2019 and the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Treatment Program (HISOP) in May 2021.
13. [13]
    On the hearing of the application before Davis J the expert psychiatric evidence of Dr Brown, Dr McVie and Dr Scott Harden was that the completion of the HISOP by Mr Watt and the imposition of a supervision order would reduce the risk of him committing a serious sexual offence to a level of moderate or below.  Davis J accepted that evidence and found that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by releasing Mr Watt on the supervision order.^[6]
14. [14]
    Mr Watt first contravened the requirements of the supervision order on 18 May 2021, less than two weeks after his initial release, when he tested positive for the use of methylamphetamine.  He was returned to custody on 20 May 2021.
15. [15]
    As a consequence of that contravention the Attorney-General filed an application under s 22 of the Act for relief similar to the present application.  That earlier application was heard by Williams J on 20 July 2021.  Her Honour considered further reports provided by Dr McVie and Dr Brown.  At that time, Dr McVie’s opinion was that while Mr Watt was being closely supervised on the order his risk of reoffending sexually should not significantly increase.  Dr Brown also remained of the view that Mr Watt’s release under the supervision order would reduce the risk of sexual reoffending to a moderate and manageable level.  On the basis of that evidence, Williams J was satisfied that the adequate protection of the community could, despite that first contravention, be ensured by the Mr Watt being returned to the community under the supervision order.^[7]
16. [16]
    Mr Watt was released back into the community under the supervision order on 20 July 2021.

Relevant contraventions of the supervision order

17. [17]
    On 7 May 2022, police conducted covert surveillance on Mr Watt.  As a consequence of this surveillance the police apprehended Mr Watt with ten Subutex strips in excess of his prescribed dose.  Police then interviewed the female pharmacist involved in providing Mr Watt with his Subutex dose.
18. [18]
    Information from the pharmacist indicated that Mr Watt had formed a personal association with her.  The pharmacist provided screenshots of conversations she had engaged in with Mr Watt via text message.  None of the messages had been identified on earlier reviews of Mr Watt’s phone indicating that he had deleted the messages.  Those messages also indicated that Mr Watt had knowledge of the pharmacist’s daughter.  Mr Watt had not disclosed to corrective services officers the fact of his repeated contact with the pharmacist and that she is the parent of a child under 16 years old.
19. [19]
    The pharmacist also stated that Mr Watt had given her a stuffed toy to give to her daughter and had asked for a picture of her daughter.  The pharmacist did not give Mr Watt a picture of her daughter.  Mr Watt did not disclose his offending history to the pharmacist.
20. [20]
    The pharmacist later produced a smartphone that belonged to Mr Watt.  Mr Watt had not been approved to purchase a smartphone and did not disclose to corrective services officers his possession of the smartphone.  Review of the smartphone indicated that it had been in Mr Watt’s possession since at least 18 January 2022 and that Mr Watt had used the smartphone to access the internet, as well as communicating with the pharmacist.
21. [21]
    Mr Watt was returned to custody on about 9 May 2022 and has remained in custody since that time pending the determination of the present application.
22. [22]
    Mr Watt admits that he contravened requirements of the supervision order.^[8]  Consistent with that, he pleaded guilty to six charges under s 43AA of the Act of breaching the supervision order.  Those charges were dealt with at the Richlands Magistrates Court on 6 September 2022.

Treatment upon initial release into the community

23. [23]
    Upon his initial release under the supervision order, Mr Watt was referred for treatment by Ms Shay Addison, psychologist.  Ms Addison provided a treatment summary report following Mr Watt’s return to custody. 
24. [24]
    Between May 2021 and May 2022, Mr Watt engaged in 27 treatment sessions with Ms Addison.  Ms Addison described Mr Watt as being motivated to talk about his offending and to develop his understanding of how to manage paedophilia.  He told Ms Addison during the course of those sessions that he was highly motivated to avoid further time in custody. 
25. [25]
    Ms Addison noted that over the course of the treatment sessions Mr Watt demonstrated an improved capacity for psychological insight and reflection.  At times when he was emotionally stable and grounded he was able to focus on the problematic aspects of his behaviour and showed a reasonable understanding of his psychological make up, vulnerabilities and dysfunctional modes of coping.  In the sessions with Ms Addison, Mr Watt was able to accept the fact that he has a paedophilic sexual interest which is the core problem of his offending, but showed an under-developed appreciation of victim issues and evidence of an array of cognitive distortions with regard to his offences, including denial of intent and minimisation of harm.
26. [26]
    Ms Addison’s report addressed the contraventions of the supervision order as follows:

“Of his recent behaviour, Mr Watt indicated to me that his involvement with the pharmacist was opportunistic as he got his dose from her daily, he found her to be friendly and that he was motivated to chat with her to create some type of friendship with her outside of the precinct.  He denied targeting or grooming her, but agreed that when he found out she had a daughter, he lied to her about his conviction, and continued to deepen their association, which included things to do with the child and on-selling pharmacy medication to precinct residents.  He denied any intention to sexually offend.  He did not present with any real appreciation of the risks of the situation, again highlighting his own disadvantages and thwarted needs as the reasons for his behaviour.  He could not relay [sic, relate] his past association with families and his pathway to offending in those circumstances to his current behaviour, which is concerning.

When questioned about the many opportunities he had to discuss things with me and didn’t, he simply stated ‘I didn’t want to get caught and I knew if I told you I would’.  He said it wasn’t planned, he acted on the basis of feelings (she seemed to like him as a person), and as their supposed friendship grew, things escalated and he knew it was out of control, but he enjoyed the contact so he kept it going.

…

Mr Watt’s most recent transgressions (i.e. being in contact with a person who has a pre-pubescent female child, having another phone, breaching rules etc) follow a familiar pattern to that of his previous supervised orders.  Whilst he appears to have made some initial efforts to create positive opportunities for his future (i.e enrolling in university, better management of drug addiction etc) and to try and work with the systems, he has very poor frustration tolerance, which makes it hard for him to see through longer-term goals.  Moreover, a core part of antisocial personality structures is the capacity for entitlement.

Mr Watt is most likely to act in an entitled manner when he feels thwarted, treated unfairly or as though people are not caring for his specific emotional / psychological needs.  He finds it very hard to be responsible for his behaviour when he feels victimized.  His personality disorder means that he experiences these interpersonal outcomes fairly regularly.  At these times he becomes dysregulated and his behaviour typically escalates, which might take the form of being argumentative and interpersonally aggressive, complaining, presenting with suicidal ideation, attempting to co-opt other health professionals into the situation etc, or just ‘give up’.  The prolonged nature of this presentation increases the likelihood that he will exploit opportunities in his environment to seek out what he desires or what makes him feel good irrespective of the rules (be that drugs, social interaction with females, children, acquisition of material goods etc).  He feels entitled and justified to do this as an antidote to his feelings, but also in defiance of people he feels have persecuted him &/or rejected his needs.

Despite the very tight supervision and professional services he accessed, Mr Watt has repeated the cycle of his previous offending and engaged in a series of very high risk behaviours over a period of months, while at the same time consistently deceiving a range of professionals working closely together to assist him manage the difficulties he experienced with the [supervision order].” 

Monitoring of Mr Watt while he is in the community

27. [27]
    Bruce Tannock, the Acting Manager of the High Risk Offender Management Unit (HROMU) within Community Corrections, Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) gave evidence that, over the period the contraventions occurred, Mr Watt was subject to numerous requirements under the supervision order, including:

    1. (a)
       GPS monitoring;
    2. (b)
       stage 4 curfew (12 hours);
    3. (c)
       home visits;
    4. (d)
       collateral checks;
    5. (e)
       urinalysis and breathalyser testing;
    6. (f)
       weekly case management meetings;
    7. (g)
       mobile telephone examinations;
    8. (h)
       individual treatment; and
    9. (i)
       reasonable directions concerning restricting victim access and device usage.
28. [28]
    Mr Tannock deposed that, while restrictions could be placed upon the respondent’s movements upon release in terms of a staged curfew, QCS does not have the capacity to escort Mr Watt in the community and undertake constant surveillance which would be required to avoid the unauthorised acquisition of internet capable devices or to identify associations which Mr Watt fails to disclose to QCS.

The evidence of Dr Brown

29. [29]
    Dr Brown provided a further report dated 29 December 2022 following Mr Watt’s contraventions of the supervision order.  Dr Brown set out her opinions on the risk of Mr Watt committing sexual offences as follows:

“SECTION F: OVERALL RISK OF SEXUAL OFFENDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr Watt has now been returned to custody on two occasions since May 2021.  On the first occasion he used methamphetamine (after less than two weeks) which he self disclosed to his QCS case manager.  Although the contravention was concerning, it was considered that he had found the transition to the Wacol Precinct and the supervision order stressful, particularly in the absence of diversionary activities such as a television and simple mobile phone.  Mr Watt was re-released in July 2021 and this time he was provided with a television and a basic mobile phone more quickly.  However, his personality dysfunction became routinely evident and he presented with a low tolerance to frustration, chronic sense of abandonment, adoption of a prominent victim position and externalisation of blame towards corrections staff.  Although he did attend psychology appointments (and at times he was able to demonstrate some transitory insight into his personality vulnerabilities) he was not able to significantly modify his behaviour.  He also continued to attribute some of his difficulties to having Asperger’s Syndrome, despite never having been diagnosed with the condition.

After a few weeks in the community Mr Watt ceased his antidepressant medication (which probably had an antilibidinal effect).  He did not report any increase in his sexual drive to QCS, but he did request access to a brothel and pornography, suggesting that his sexual drive had increased.  After approximately 6 months in the community, Mr Watt obtained an unauthorised mobile phone which he used to make unauthorised internet searches and to befriend a female pharmacist that he had met whilst obtaining daily opiate replacement.  The pharmacist allegedly revealed to him that she was in an abusive relationship and that she had a 6 year old daughter.  Mr Watt obtained her personal mobile number and sent her text messages.  He encouraged her to view her relationship with him as special.  He bought bracelets for her and her colleagues.  He said that he would introduce her to his cousin (a lawyer) so she could discuss her legal options regarding her ex-partner.  He enquired about her daughter over text message and he allegedly bought a toy for the child / requested a picture of her.  He did not disclose his history of child sexual offending to the woman.  In addition Mr Watt also had possession of a large amount of subutex strips suggesting that he was either using more than the prescribed dose or selling the drugs (or both).

These behaviours represent Mr Watt’s usual antecedents to sexual offending, ie personality deterioration, emotional instability and feelings of loneliness and abandonment, adoption of a victim position and rejection of supervision, need to feel wanted, important and powerful (and use of sex as a coping strategy), drug use, the seeking out of a vulnerable adult female with a prepubescent female child, grooming of the adult and the child (on this occasion offer of legal advice, buying presents, text messages and phone calls).  Mr Watt was well aware that these behaviours placed him at risk of sexually reoffending.  During the HISOP he explicitly detailed his offence cycle (inclusive of all of the above) and he knew he should not form relationships with women with children.  Additionally, prior to the discovery of his relationship with the female pharmacist by QCS, Mr Watt had discussed the presence of the pharmacist’s number on his mobile phone and assured corrections staff that he had only used the number on one occasion in order to obtain his Subutex dose.  (Also of note, some months earlier Mr Watt had advised his case manager that he was thinking of trying to form a personal relationship with a male pharmacist.  He was advised this was inappropriate and the reasons were discussed in supervision).

Once Mr Watt was arrested by QPS regarding the Subutex in his possession, he continued to make false statements to QCS including that he had only had the second mobile phone for a few weeks (in fact he had obtained it several months earlier).  He gave various accounts of why he was in possession of the Subutex including that the pharmacist had asked him to sell the drug at the precinct (he now denies this) and then that he had obtained the drug from an associate that used the same chemist in order to appease another precinct resident that was standing over him (an explanation that he maintained at interview).  His account regarding the possession and use of the drug is unreliable and the possibility that he was using more than the prescribed dose and/or selling the drug cannot be excluded.

I note that Mr Watt’s relationship with the female pharmacist was only discovered when he was arrested by police regarding drug possession.  If that had not occurred it is quite possible that Mr Watt would have continued his relationship with the pharmacist and progressed to regular in person contact with her and her daughter as his curfew was relaxed.  In my opinion the contraventions represent a marked disregard for the conditions of the supervision order and a gross failure of sexual offender treatment.  Despite completion of the HISOP (and apparent engagement to a high standard) and completion of a New Futures Plan, Mr Watt failed to internalise and adhere to most (if not all) of his risk reducing strategies.  At interview he continued to externalise blame for his situation onto QCS.

In my previous reports I opined that Mr Watt’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending was high (see pages 14-15 of this report).  This remains my opinion.  I am not able to say that this risk can be adequately lowered with a supervision order.  During his 10 months of community supervision Mr Watt was maintained on a fairly restrictive curfew and monitoring at the Wacol Precinct, however this was not sufficient to prevent him from engaging in a number of risk increasing behaviours, which were only discovered when he was arrested by QPS for a drug related matter.

Mr Watt has completed the HISOP but this has not resulted in an adequate treatment response.  I recommend that he complete further sexual offender treatment in custody (the SOMP and individual therapy).  His sexual preferences and drives should be assessed longitudinally along with his suitability for anti-libidinal medication.  An update / progress report from Mr Watt’s treating psychologist may further inform as to his outstanding treatment needs.”

30. [30]
    The last two paragraphs of that extract shows that Dr Brown’s opinions on whether the supervision order will lower the risk that, if released into the community, Mr Watt will commit sexual offences to an acceptable level has changed since she provided reports which were relied upon by Davis J and by Williams J in the earlier applications referred to above.
31. [31]
    Dr Brown confirmed this in her oral evidence.  When asked to explain her opinion that Mr Watt should complete further sexual offender treatment in custody, Dr Brown gave the following response:^[9]

“Well, I – I think now there’s been two occasions where he – attempts have been made to supervise Mr Watt in the community, neither of which have been successful, and I note that when he has been in the community, he’s been kept on a rather strict curfew conditions; essentially, the highest level of monitoring, I think, that QCS can provide, really. He wants to progress through a more – through a more relaxed curfew, but he was unable to – to do that really very quickly, and that caused him frustration. And then, of course, he’s ended up, on the first occasion, using methamphetamine and, on the second occasion, engaging in various behaviours which led to a number of contraventions and, I think, really mirrored his offending cycle. And on this occasion, the most recent occasion, he – he really did, I think, show very – a very close – the pattern that – the pattern of his behaviour was very similar to his previous offending. So, in particular, he stopped taking his antidepressant. He had probably an increased sex drive, which he didn’t really report. He sought out a vulnerable woman with a child and then started to engage in a pattern of I think what could be reasonably assumed to be grooming behaviour. So there’s – there’s a – there’s a pattern there and, despite the supervision that he was on, it wasn’t picked up by QCS. It was picked up by the police, when they noted that he was potentially dealing in Subutex. So it wasn’t the supervision framework that actually picked up that he was engaging in these behaviours, nor was the fact that he had a second phone picked up, to allow him to engage in many of those behaviours, and I think until he’s done some more work, in particular to address the specifics of his most recent behaviour – he needs to, I think, have more time with his psychologist.”

32. [32]
    To similar effect, during cross-examination Dr Brown gave the following response when asked whether she agreed that one of the benefits of an offender undertaking the Sexual Offender Maintenance Program (SOMP) in the community is that it allows the participant to apply theoretical knowledge gained through completion of the HISOP in practice:^[10]

“Well, it’s always preferable to be able to risk manage somebody in the least restrictive way, because it allows them to learn and take managed risks. So you’re absolutely right, that that’s the backbone of risk management in the community: to educate alongside managed risk-taking, if you like, but I don’t think that Mr Watt is able to do that at this stage, and I think he needs to do more theory before he puts it into practice, and whether that’s through the SOMP or through individual therapy, or a combination of both, I think he’s had an opportunity to demonstrate that he has not learned enough, because his pattern of behaviour when he was out in the community mirrored his offence cycle that he has engaged in many times. So despite completion of 360-odd hours of HISOP and individual therapy, which was in the community and allowing him to take those managed risks under the supervision of QCS, he was still unable to maintain appropriate behaviour, which really, essentially, boils down to, ‘Don’t start to community [sic, communicate] with vulnerable women with children or vulnerable parents with children, or parents with children, or spend any time with children,’ and he did that, and he – he did it in a way that wasn’t picked up by QCS, and he hid it from QCS.  And I don’t think that, therefore, there’s an opportunity for him to practise at this stage. I think he needs to do a bit more theory before there’s another testing in the community, and that’s my opinion.”

The evidence of Dr McVie

33. [33]
    Dr McVie provided a further report dated 4 December 2022 following Mr Watt’s contraventions of the supervision order.  Dr McVie set out her opinions on the risk of Mr Watt committing sexual offences as follows:

“Summary

Rowland Arnold Watt is a 35 year old single man with a history of sexual offending from age 14 on a self-reported background of himself being a victim of child sexual abuse.

He may well have been introduced to sexual behaviour at an early age, then this continued through his early adolescence.  There is some history suggestive of inappropriate sexual behaviours with children within his family with an older half sister leaving the family when he was aged 8 years.

Though most of his convictions are for charges of indecent treatment, touching young girls on the genital area, he also has convictions for possession of CEM and making CEM.

Mr Watt meets criteria for a diagnosis of paedophilia, non-exclusive, with sexual attraction to pre-pubertal females.  He may also have other paraphilias such as an underwear fetishism.

Mr Watt has a significant history of substance abuse from an early age including cannabis, amphetamine, and opiates.  He would meet criteria for a substance use disorder.  He variously reports some association between his substance use and his sexual offending though does not identify substance use as a significant precipitant to this offending.

Mr Watt has a personality structure with significant narcissistic, antisocial, and psychopathic traits.  While there is some overlap between Autistic Spectrum Disorder, (which currently encompasses Asperger’s Syndrome diagnostically) and psychopathy, Mr Watt’s interpersonal style, his abilities to form relationships with others, particularly relationships which benefit him, as well as his ability to divert discussion away from his sexually deviant behaviours, are factors which suggests his psychopathology is more likely to be in the latter diagnostic category.

He has multiple convictions for failing to comply with reporting (under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004) though he is fully cognisant of his reporting requirements.

He does present as having at least average intellectual ability.  I did not find any evidence to suggest Mr Watt suffered with a major mental disorder though he has a family history of alcohol abuse, depression, and the suicide of his mother.

As previously identified by psychologist Michelle Kelly in her 2017 report, he presents many inconsistencies in his self-report of his history of offending, his family history, and his mental health history.

He has one conviction for providing false information to police.  The perception that he was manipulating supervising staff was identified by his treating psychologist in 2017. 

Mr Watt does minimize his own offending and tends to portray himself as a victim.

He does not appear to be expressing remorse for his actions and displayed little in relation to victim empathy.  He was very focussed on ‘self’.  He has continued to attempt to present himself in a positive manner and to divert discussion away from his offending and his breaches of the supervision order.

He has completed the GS:PP in 2019, and later, the HISOP at Wolston Correctional Centre.  He displayed an intellectual understanding of concepts though the overall clinical assessment was that of limited understanding of, or acceptance of, his sexual offending, and limited intention to alter his behaviour.

He was also identified as having substantial outstanding treatment needs in every domain.

On risk assessment, both actuarial and structured clinical, he presents with scores indicating very high risk of re-offending and multiple risk factors.

He has now breached his supervision order twice, initially by using methamphetamine, and, in 2022, by forming a trusting relationship with a female pharmacist, the mother of a young daughter in his previous victim age range, in addition to being deceptive with QCS staff, having an additional smartphone, deleting information and failing to admit responsibility for his actions when confronted.

If released without a supervision order he would continue to present a high risk of reoffending.

Based on his history and convictions, a potential scenario for future offending would be that Mr Watt would find a family with female children in his preferred age range and repeat similar offences, with grooming of the family and child, then touching the child over the genital area, and making images of children.

Recommendations:

The supervision order does appear to have contained the risks he presents, though he was able to manoeuvre his way into forming a relationship with an educated female, a pharmacist and mother of a young daughter.

I note it was specifically recommended in the HISOP exit report that the case manager monitor his interactions and relationships with others, ‘with a particular focus on single mothers.’  I would recommend that his relationships with others, in particular women who may have children, or any adults who may be carers of female children aged 6 to 10 years, should be carefully monitored.

As previously assessed, based on interview and assessment, Mr Watt requires further intensive individual therapy to address his offending behaviours and the clearly identified outstanding treatment needs.

He should be referred for participation in the maintenance program for sexual offenders (SOMP) as recommended in the HISOP exit report.

He also requires ongoing participation in a program to address his substance abuse.

A supervision order should continue to be able to decrease his risk to moderate or to moderate to low.”

34. [34]
    Although the conclusion expressed in her report as to the continuing effectiveness of the supervision order in lowering the risk of Mr Watt sexually reoffending suggests Dr McVie’s opinion on risk differs from that of Dr Brown, that difference narrowed a great deal during Dr McVie’s oral evidence. 
35. [35]
    When asked to explain the significance of her observation that Mr Watt “minimises his own offending and portrays himself as a victim” Dr McVie said:^[11]

“I think that ties into the fact that he hasn’t really accepted the nature of his sexual deviancy and he hasn’t really incorporated a lot of the information that he’s been given in the courses that he’s done and in the individual therapy that he’s done, which should have enabled him to identify in himself when he’s going down the wrong track, and he’s not able to do that. He spends a lot of time justifying his behaviour and trying to blame other people.”

36. [36]
    That answer is broadly consistent with Dr Brown’s evidence extracted at [32] above.
37. [37]
    Dr McVie then referred to the significance of the fact, as set out in Ms Addison’s report, that when Mr Watt found out the pharmacist had a daughter he lied to her about his earlier convictions for sexual offending against children, and stated:^[12]

“So there’s a lot of deliberate behaviour on his part to mislead people, and he clearly realised that a relationship was developing, and progressed that, without reporting that relationship back to QCS.”

38. [38]
    It was a requirement of the supervision order that Mr Watt tell a corrective services officer the names of new persons he met (condition 36) and the details of any person he had contact with more than once who was a parent, guardian or carer of a child under the age of 16 (condition 39).
39. [39]
    A little later in her evidence in chief Dr McVie said that the view expressed in her written report, that the supervision order should continue to be able to decrease the risk that Mr Watt would commit further serious sexual offences to a level of moderate or moderate to low, had been modified based on evidence given by Mr Tannock which made it clear that QCS doesn’t have the facility to monitor Mr Watt’s relationships on a day to day basis (see [28]  above).  While QCS might get a general view of where someone subject to a supervision order had been based on electronic monitoring they may not know who that person has talked to or what they talked about.
40. [40]
    Following that, in response to a question from the court as to whether the efficacy of a supervision order depended to some degree on a person’s compliance with reporting requirements of the type referred to at [38] above, Dr McVie said the following:^[13]

“It does rely on that to a certain degree. I know that HROMU use surveillance as well, so sometimes QCS surveillance will identify somebody as being somewhere where they shouldn’t be or talking to somebody that presents a concern, and then that would be addressed with the client after that observation.  So there are things that can be done, but this – Mr Watt seems to have been able to convince people that he was safe, even though, based on Shay Addison’s report, he got to the stage where he knew he was enjoying this relationship and he – and it increased once he found out there was a child present.  So he must have known at some level what he was doing, and he was on a path to replicating, perhaps, some of his previous offending, but he didn’t report that to anybody.”

41. [41]
    Dr McVie confirmed that those matters, which became apparent to her when she read Ms Addison’s report and Mr Tannock’s affidavit after she prepared her report, meant that she was not sure that QCS can monitor Mr Watt effectively at this time.

Attorney-General’s submissions

42. [42]
    Having regard to the evidence of Dr Brown and Dr McVie (including the modification of her opinions in her oral evidence), Ms Maloney submitted on behalf of the Attorney-General that I may not be satisfied, as required by s 22 of the Act, that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the supervision order.

Mr Watt’s submissions

43. [43]
    Ms Cappellano, who appeared for Mr Watt, submitted that on the evidence before the court I could be satisfied that, despite the contraventions, the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the release of Mr Watt back onto the existing supervision order.
44. [44]
    In the written outline filed on behalf of Mr Watt, that submission emphasised the opinion expressed by Dr McVie in her written report that a supervision order should continue to be able to decrease the respondent’s risk to a level of moderate or moderate to low.^[14] 
45. [45]
    Ms Cappellano accepted in the course of her closing submissions that the strength of Dr McVie’s opinion reduced when she gave her oral evidence.  Nevertheless, Ms Cappellano submitted that a number of steps would allow me to be satisfied that the supervision order would ensure the adequate protection of the community.  Those steps comprised Mr Watt:

    1. (a)
       remaining on a more restrictive curfew (stage 1) for a longer period of time upon his release;
    2. (b)
       engaging in further individual therapy with Ms Addison (which both Dr Brown and Dr McVie regard as the critical feature of his ongoing treatment) whilst also undertaking the SOMP (which he was unable to do during his earlier release period);
    3. (c)
       participating in an ongoing substance abuse program.
46. [46]
    Ms Cappellano emphasised evidence, particularly in the report of Ms Addison, that Mr Watt had shown a willingness to engage in treatment and had begun to demonstrate an improved capacity for psychological insight and reflection.  She also referred to a number of records found in the Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS) case file for Mr Watt during his most recent eight months in custody which she submitted showed improved insight, understanding and attitudes in relation to his obligations under the supervision order.^[15]  Another positive development which, in Ms Cappellano’s submission, would be likely to further reduce the risk of re-offending is that Mr Watt has resumed taking antidepressant medication which had previously had an antilibidinal effect on him.
47. [47]
    Finally, Ms Cappellano relied on evidence from both Dr Brown and Dr McVie that participating in individual therapy and the SOMP while in the community would be more beneficial in treating Mr Watt’s behaviour than if that treatment occurs while he is in custody.  In the eight months since he was returned to custody Mr Watt has not been able to take part in any further individual therapy sessions with Ms Addison.

What order should be made?

48. [48]
    On the evidence I am not satisfied that Mr Watt’s response to treatment has progressed to a point where the supervision order can ensure the adequate protection of the community.  The matters which lead me to that conclusion are:

    1. (a)
       the nature of Mr Watt’s contraventions of the supervision order, the similarities between the contravening conduct and Mr Watt’s earlier sexual offending and Mr Watt’s success in concealing the contravening conduct from QCS for a number of months;
    2. (b)
       the evidence from both Dr Brown and Dr McVie of the limited extent Mr Watt has taken on the information conveyed through the HISOP and through his individual therapy to enable him to maintain appropriate behaviour while in the community;
    3. (c)
       the evidence from Mr Tannock of the limits on the capacity of QCS to monitor and supervise Mr Watt’s associations and the concerns that evidence raised for both Dr Brown and Dr McVie having regard to the preceding two matters.
49. [49]
    Although it is likely that Mr Watt would be placed on a more restrictive curfew if he was released back into the community, I am not persuaded that this would provide adequate protection given the point which Mr Watt has presently reached with his treatment.  The evidence shows that, despite the regrettable break in his individual therapy over the past eight months, Ms Addison can continue to provide individual therapy to Mr Watt while he is in custody.  Mr Watt can also undertake the SOMP and substance abuse programs while he is in custody.  I accept the evidence of Dr Brown that the contraventions demonstrate Mr Watt should undertake that further treatment while in custody.  That, in my view, is required to reduce the risk that he will sexually reoffend to a level where a supervision order could provide adequate protection to the community.  The evidence that Mr Watt has made some positive progress in his treatment does not alter my view, from the whole of the evidence, as to the point Mr Watt’s response to treatment has reached.
50. [50]
    Nor does the evidence concerning the antilibidinal effect of certain antidepressant medications alter the view I have reached.
51. [51]
    The material relied upon by Mr Watt included an affidavit of his solicitor deposing, on Mr Watt’s instructions, that he is currently taking antidepressant medication daily.  Although that affidavit did not identify which antidepressant medication Mr Watt was taking, the written outline of submissions filed on behalf of Mr Watt describe it as 15 mg mirtazapine.
52. [52]
    Both psychiatrists gave oral evidence about the antilibidinal effect of certain antidepressant medication.
53. [53]
    Dr Brown’s opinion was that, according to World Health Organisation guidelines, a person with Mr Watt’s history should be prescribed high dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or cyproterone to reduce his libido.  That should be prescribed by a forensic psychiatrist who would then monitor the effect of the drugs on Mr Watt’s libido.  Dr Brown stated that mirtazapine is not the preferred drug for reducing libido.
54. [54]
    Dr McVie agreed with Dr Brown’s evidence concerning prescription of SSRI antidepressant medication but cautioned:^[16]

“I’m probably not 100 percent convinced that the antidepressant is going to be his saviour at this stage.  I think he needs more individual psychological work to start with.”

55. [55]
    It was common ground at the hearing before me that Mr Watt had previously ceased taking his antidepressant medication after he had been released on the supervision order.
56. [56]
    Although I accept the evidence of the psychiatrists that it would be beneficial for Mr Watt to be prescribed high dose SSRI antidepressant medication, and that this is unlikely to happen while Mr Watt remains in custody, I am not persuaded that the likelihood of Mr Watt commencing and continuing with that course of treatment following his release on the supervision order is sufficiently high to address the concerns I have set out above about the level of protection the supervision order can provide to community at the present time.

Conclusion

57. [57]
    For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied to the required standard that, despite Mr Watt’s contraventions of the supervision order, the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by that order.
58. [58]
    In those circumstances, as required by s 22(2)(a) of the Act, I order that:

1. The supervision order of Davis J made on 6 May 2021 be rescinded.
2. The respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.