Attorney-General v Salmon[2024] QSC 272

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   The Respondent, Timothy Salmon, is the subject of a continuing detention order made pursuant to the provisions of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA).
2. [2]
   This is an application brought by the Attorney-General pursuant to s 27 of the DPSOA to review the continuing detention order to which the respondent is subject.

Background

3. [3]
   The respondent was born on 27 February 1990.  He is presently 34 years of age.
4. [4]
   He has a criminal history described in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Salmon^[1] as follows:

5. “[5]
   The respondent’s relationship with his mother broke down and he then lived in a series of foster homes.  His drug use commenced with inhaling paint fumes and smoking cannabis from the age of about 12.  At this time, he began also to drink alcohol heavily.
6. [6]
   By the time he was in his early 20s, the respondent was using methylamphetamine, LSD and MDMA.  He resorted to committing offences of primarily dishonesty to pay for his drug habit.
7. [7]
   The respondent’s criminal history generally reflects that description of his lifestyle.  He appeared five times before the Southport Childrens Court between 2003 and 2007 for a variety of offences, including unlawful entry of a motor vehicle, break and enter premises and commit indictable offences, unlawful use and possession of motor vehicles, wilful damage, and receiving stolen property.
8. [8]
   The respondent’s adult criminal history commenced on 15 June 2007 in the Southport Magistrates Court when he was convicted of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence.  From that entry in 2007 through to 18 February 2014, the respondent was convicted of various offences of dishonesty. 
9. [9]
   On 18 February 2014, in the Bundaberg District Court, the respondent was convicted of sexual offences for the first time.  On that day he was convicted of one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under the age of 16.  The complainant child was living with her uncle in Bundaberg.  The respondent knew the complainant’s uncle.  The complainant was 14 years of age and suffering autism and mild intellectual impairment.  The respondent led the complainant off into a garden, pushed her down onto her hands and knees and penetrated her.  The intercourse was interrupted by the complainant’s uncle who grabbed the respondent by the throat.  That offence occurred on 25 September 2013.
10. [10]
    On the day the respondent pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful carnal knowledge, he also pleaded guilty to a series of offences of dishonesty and some drug offences.  He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be suspended after serving six months with 144 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served on the sentence.  Probation orders were also made.
11. [11]
    Between February 2014 and 22 August 2019, the respondent appeared before various courts on various occasions and was convicted of several offences of dishonesty, drug offences and failure to comply with reporting conditions pursuant to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (the Reporting Act).  He was also dealt with for breaches of suspended sentences that had been imposed and also breaches of community service orders.
12. [12]
    On 22 August 2019, the respondent was convicted of further offences of a sexual nature.  On that day, the respondent pleaded guilty to 16 counts of supply of a dangerous drug between 27 June 2017 and 26 July 2017.  He was also convicted of two counts of failing to comply with reporting conditions pursuant to the Reporting Act, one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 with a circumstance of aggravation that the child was under 12, one count of possession of child exploitation material, and one count of distributing child exploitation material.
13. [13]
    The counts of supply of a dangerous drug were not related to the other offending.  The seizure and search of the respondent’s mobile phone revealed that over a period of about a month he supplied small amounts of drugs to a number of people.  It was accepted that while the motivation was commercial, the respondent’s aim was to feed his own drug habit. 
14. [14]
    The sexual offending occurred against a complainant who was then nine years of age.  She resided with her family, being her mother, stepfather and four year old sister.  The complainant’s stepfather had been in prison with the respondent in 2016 and during the first half of 2017, the respondent lived with the complainant’s family.
15. [15]
    One evening, the respondent entered the complainant’s bedroom which she shared with her sister.  He took her into the spare bedroom where he touched her vagina.  That was the count of indecent treatment of a child.  The complainant’s parents examined the respondent’s mobile telephone.  They discovered a video and some messages.  The video showed a girl, aged between eight to 10 years, performing oral sex on an adult male.  A police investigation located a further video of a young girl (between six to eight years) being penetrated by an adult male.  Possession of those two videos constituted the count of possessing child exploitation material.  The messages were sent on 24 March 2017.  The subject matter were stories of various sexual acts performed upon children.  That constituted the charge of distributing child exploitation material.
16. [16]
    Notwithstanding that the respondent was subject to reporting conditions under the Reporting Act, he had failed to report his change of address and failed to report contact with a child under the age of 18.  These failures constituted the two counts of breaching the Reporting Act.

5. [5]
   On 20 October 2021, the Attorney-General filed an application for orders under the DPSOA.  On 18 February 2022, a finding was made that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the DPSOA^[2] and an order was made that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.^[3]
6. [6]
   On 30 October 2023, Freeburn J heard the respondent’s first annual review of the continuing detention order.^[4]  His Honour confirmed the finding that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the DPSOA and ordered that the respondent remain in custody for an indefinite term under the continuing detention order for control, care and treatment.^[5]
7. [7]
   On 17 September 2024, the Attorney-General filed an application for the second annual review of the continuing detention order.

The statutory structure

8. [8]
   Section 13 is pivotal to the scheme of the DPSOA.  It provides for the making of either a supervision order or a continuing detention order if “the Court is satisfied the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of [such an] order”.^[6]
9. [9]
   By s 13(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.  if the prisoner is released from custody, or

2.  if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made.”

10. [10]
    The term “serious sexual offence” is defined as:

“Serious sexual offence means an offence of a sexual nature, whether committed in Queensland or outside Queensland-

1.  involving violence; or

2.  against a child; or

3.  against a person, including a fictitious person represented to the prisoner as a real person, whom the prisoner believed to be a child under the age of 16 years.”

11. [11]
    It is well established that the objects of the DPSOA include ensuring adequate protection of the community^[7] not against all offending but only against the commission of “serious sexual offences”.^[8] 
12. [12]
    The question of “unacceptable risk” requires an exercise of judgment.^[9]  An acceptable risk does not equate to “some absolute guarantee of protection”.^[10]  If a supervision order  will ensure the adequate protection of the community, then a supervision order ought to be preferred over the making of a continuing detention order.^[11]
13. [13]
    If a continuing detention order is made, as is the case here, it must be reviewed pursuant to Part 3 of the Act.  Section 30 provides:

“30  Review hearing

1.  This section applies if, on the hearing of a review under section 27 or 28 and having regard to the required matters, the court affirms a decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.

2.  On the hearing of the review, the court may affirm the decision only if it is satisfied—

1.  by acceptable, cogent evidence; and

2.  to a high degree of probability;

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

3.  If the court affirms the decision, the court may order that the prisoner—

1.  continue to be subject to the continuing detention order; or

2.  be released from custody subject to a supervision order.

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

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

2.  the court must consider whether—

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

2.  requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.

5.  If the court does not make the order under subsection (3)(a), the court must rescind the continuing detention order.

6.  In this section—

required matters means all of the following—

1.  the matters mentioned in section 13(4);

2.  any report produced under section 28A.”

14. [14]
    It is well established that s 30 effectively mirrors s 13 both in form and in policy.  The notion of “serious danger to the community” in s 30(1) is the same as that referred to in s 13(1) and defined in s 13(2).^[12] 
15. [15]
    As I observed in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Guy:^[13]

“[10] Section 30 operates in this way:

1.  Firstly, the Court must consider whether the respondent is “a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order”;

2.  If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, then consideration must be given to whether “adequate protection of the community” can be ensured by release of the respondent on a supervision order;

3.  If the answer to that question is in the negative, then generally (subject to any discretion to make no order) a continuing detention order should be made.”

Consideration

16. [16]
    On the current review, psychiatrists Dr Brown and Dr Timmins provided reports and gave evidence.  Those two doctors provided reports for the first annual review and they gave evidence before Justice Freeburn.
17. [17]
    Of the psychiatric evidence before his Honour, Justice Freeburn observed:

“Both Dr Brown and Dr Timmins gave evidence before me.  Dr Brown’s evidence was to this effect.  Firstly, she and a number of other practitioners do not understand the extent of Mr Salmon’s psychiatric condition, particularly the extent of his untreated paraphilia.  Secondly, and this is related, it is hard to manage risks you do not understand.  Thirdly, a part of the risk is that Mr Salmon is unlikely to be compliant with orders or conditions.  And fourthly, Mr Salmon gave a starkly different narrative at HISOP to that reflected in the criminal convictions.

Dr Timmins’ views are that Mr Salmon’s insight has significantly improved since the HISOP program.  She described Mr Salmon as having completed the HISOP program but not being deemed to have completed it satisfactorily.  Dr Timmins said that the risk is likely to be modified by a supervision order to a moderate risk category.  Dr Timmins also had some question about the lack of information on Mr Salmon’s psychiatric condition.  She described this as a difficult case.  She said there was a need for continuing of treatment, particularly specific treatment by his psychologist.  Dr Timmins also had concerns about compliance, and talked of there being heavy reliance on the close restrictions that would be present at the outset of supervision.

Resolving the conflict between Dr Brown and Dr Timmins is a difficult exercise.  The unanswered questions and the guarded nature of the evidence of both experts mean that this is a finely balanced case.  However, given the gravity of the risks to the community, the concerns of the psychiatrists do not persuade me that a supervision order can provide adequate protection to the community in the circumstances.  There is, it seems to me, great force in Dr Brown’s evidence that there are many unanswered questions about Mr Salmon’s psychiatric condition, and there are significant risks of non-compliance.”

18. [18]
    Dr Timmins and Dr Brown have, since giving evidence before Freeburn J, examined the respondent again.  Dr Timmins’ current diagnoses are as follows:

1. Paedophillia (attracted to females, non-exclusive);
2. Psychopathy;
3. Antisocial Personality Disorder (possible narcissistic traits); and
4. Substance Abuse to Dependence (mainly methamphetamines,  cannabis and alcohol).

19. [19]
    Dr Brown’s current diagnoses are as follows:

1. Paedophilic Disorder (non-exclusive type);
2. Antisocial Personality Disorder;
3. Severe Substance Use Disorder (methamphetamine, cannabis,  alcohol and opiates); and
4. Chronic (Complex) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

20. [20]
    Dr Timmins categorised the respondent’s risks in these terms:

“With regards to future sexual offending, his possible victims continue to be underage girls from 14 years and below.  He appears to take advantage of others’ offers of assistance with accommodation, thus allowing victim access through the child’s parents or relatives.  He is likely to deny or omit the truth regarding his offending when confronted or questioned, thus remain in the community after offending.  He will possibly present as an absconding risk during this time.  He is likely to commit penetrative offences against his victims and there is a risk of physical and psychological harm to the victim.

He also has evidence of child exploitation offences, both possessing and distributing.  He is evasive regarding the details and is avoidant of discussing his messages sent to others regarding the child exploitation material.” (emphasis added)

21. [21]
    Dr Brown categorised the respondent’s risks in these terms:

“It remains my opinion that Mr Salmon’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending is high.  As per my original report, the main risk factors include the chronicity of his offending, his paraphilia, his only limited self-awareness of his sexual drives and preferences, his chronic substance use disorder and his psychopathic traits.

Sexual offending risk would be increased if Mr Salmon were to have access to a female child, which would most likely occur if he befriended the adult caregiver to the child.  Risk would be further increased if Mr Salmon was able to visit or stay in the same residence as the child and there would likely be a period of grooming beforehand.  Risk would also increase with intoxication.  There is also a risk of online grooming and offending.” (emphasis added)

22. [22]
    Both psychiatrists opined that a supervision order, if complied with, would reduce risk to the “moderate range”.  Dr Brown considered that the respondent’s risk of serious sexual offending could be managed by release to the community under a suitably conditioned supervision order, but Dr Timmins was more guarded.  She made these observations:

“Mr Salmon has high levels of psychopathy and will attempt to give a version that he thinks meets his needs the best.  He fails to see that his behaviour is his responsibility, which is not uncommon with people who have a high level of psychopathy.

He seems to wish to be released and although there is ongoing poor behaviour, it does appear to be attenuated when compared to his behaviour when in the HISOP program.

He continues to have difficulties with emotional regulation and poor tolerance of other people, engaging in passive aggressive behaviours, and ruminating on negative situations and events.  He engages in revenge/retaliation style of thinking, especially when he perceives some form of disrespect or disappointment.

He can engage in aggressive and disrespectful communication especially towards staff and there are behaviours and activities that suggest ongoing criminal attitudes.  He has ongoing poor insight into many of these issues and how they may link to or impact on his risk of sexual re-offending.

He is untested in the community, and it remains to be seen whether he has internalised any of the content from either the sexual offending program, the substance program or psychological sessions.

Behaviourally he continues with problematic conduct and I am concerned that this indicates that he remains dismissive of the need to manage himself and his sexual offending risk factors in the community.  He has a history of breaching previous orders and there have been previous concerns that he intends to treat the DPSOA order in the same manner.

He also seems to have become very entrenched in his view that he does not have a paedophilic sexual interest in young female children despite in earlier interviews being more open to this idea.” (emphasis added)

23. [23]
    By the time of the hearing before Freeburn J, the respondent had completed the High Intensity Sexual Offenders’ Program (HISOP).  His Honour did not accept that completion of the HISOP, in all the circumstances of the case, was such as to lower risk of release upon a supervision order to an acceptable level.  However, since the first review of the continuing detention order there has been progress in the respondent’s treatment.
24. [24]
    The respondent consented to the prescription of antilibidinal medication.  He was referred to Dr Arthur, psychiatrist, for assessment regarding the potential use of antilibidinal medication.  Dr Arthur has seen the respondent on several occasions.
25. [25]
    While the respondent will not consent to be prescribed antilibidinal medication, he will consent to being prescribed a high dose of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).  That medication has recently been commenced by the prison mental health service.
26. [26]
    In January 2024, the respondent agreed to participate in the Low Intensity Substance Intervention (LISI) program delivered by Drug.ARM. This was significant as the psychiatrists have identified drug use as a significant risk factor.  The respondent completed a Relapse Prevention Plan and on 12 March 2024 received a certificate of completion for the course.
27. [27]
    The psychiatrists consider that support by an appropriately trained and experienced psychologist is important to the respondent’s treatment and management.  Dr Luke Hatzipetrou treated the respondent whilst he was completing the HISOP.  Dr Hatzipetrou was not available to continue providing individual treatment to the respondent and so he was referred to another psychologist, Donna Ward.  Ms Ward is recognised as an appropriately skilled and experienced psychologist in this area.
28. [28]
    Ms Ward has seen the respondent for nine sessions since January 2024 and she provided a report, dated 13 September 2024.
29. [29]
    Ms Ward opines that the respondent is engaging willingly in treatment.  Although his motivation has fluctuated he is now engaging well, completing tasks and requesting additional sessions.
30. [30]
    Ms Ward opines that the respondent is learning to identify factors which played a role in the development of his antisocial behaviour which is a gateway to then identifying risk factors.  He is beginning to accept responsibility for at least some of the offending.  He is becoming less defensive and less avoidant in therapy and he has completed a workbook entitled “My Risk Reduction and Safety Plan”.  It is well recognised that the preparation of a relapse prevention plan (like the workbook materials) is an important step in the management of risk.
31. [31]
    Both Dr Brown and Dr Timmins gave evidence before me.  Dr Brown thought that the acceptance of treatment from Dr Arthur and engaging in ongoing treatment with Ms Ward were positive steps which reinforced her opinion that the respondent’s risk could be reduced to moderate and managed in the community with a supervision order.
32. [32]
    Dr Timmins was encouraged by the report of Ms Ward and the preparation of the workbook.  She also thought it was significant that the respondent is beginning to take responsibility for his actions.  She was concerned though that the safety plan relies heavily on external supports and it is therefore important for those supports to be put in place and maintained.
33. [33]
    Dr Timmins thought the likely offending path would not be by way of spontaneous action but more likely after grooming of victims.  The lack of likely spontaneity in the offending allows management of risk on a supervision order to be easier.
34. [34]
    While Dr Timmins is clearly cautious in any optimism for the respondent, the material from Ms Ward clearly encouraged her.
35. [35]
    Both doctors opined that given the nature of the respondent’s underlying paraphilia and personality disorder, any treatment will be slow and both thought that risk would be best managed by a lengthy supervision order period of 10 years.
36. [36]
    A proposed supervision order was produced.  The conditions are not contentious between the parties and appear appropriate to the circumstances.

Conclusions

37. [37]
    It is clear from the evidence of the psychiatrists that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.  I will confirm the decision made on 18 February 2022 to that effect.
38. [38]
    The respondent should be released from custody subject to a supervision order on the terms appearing in annexure A.^[14]  In so deciding I have turned my mind to the fact that the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community and I have considered whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order and whether the requirements under s 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by Corrective Services officers.^[15]  I am so satisfied.
39. [39]
    The respondent has completed the HISOP.  He is receiving regular treatment from a psychologist who is experienced and knowledgeable in the area.  He is undertaking a type of antilibidinal treatment and is responding well to psychological treatment.  Both psychiatrists consider that the risk of reoffending by the commission of a serious sexual offence while on supervision is moderate.  In my view, a supervision order will address risk to an acceptable level and in those circumstances, a supervision order ought to be preferred to the making of a continuing detention order.^[16]

Orders

1. Pursuant to section 30 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act), the decision made on 18 February 2022 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, be affirmed.
2. Pursuant to section 30(5) of the Act the continuing detention order made 18 February 2022 and confirmed on 30 October 2023 be rescinded.
3. Pursuant to section 30(3)(b) of the Act the respondent be released from custody on 7 November 2024 subject to a supervision order for a period of 10 years until 7 November 2034 with the requirements as appearing in Annexure A.

“A”

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY:  Brisbane

NUMBER:  BS 2268/21

Applicant  ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

AND

Respondent TIMOTHY SALMON

TO Timothy Salmon:

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.
3. You must obey these rules after you are released from prison for the next 10 years.

Reporting

4. 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.
5. 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

6. 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; and
2. rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and
3. using drugs and alcohol;
4. who you may and may not 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.

7. 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.
8. If you change you 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 weekday (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) that is not a public holiday.

No offences

9. You must not break the law by committing an offence of a sexual nature.
10. You must not break the law by committing an indictable offence.

Where you must live

11. 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.
12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you ae allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work.
17. 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.

18. If a corrective services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you.

Motor vehicles

19. 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

20. 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 hone you own or have within 24 hours of when you get the phone.
21. 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

22. You must not purchase, obtain, or have in your possession a computer, mobile phone or any other device that is able to access the internet without prior written permission from a corrective services officer.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. You must give a corrective services officer details (including user names an 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 with any victim

26. 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

27. 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.
28. 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.
29. You are not allowed to take (for example swallow, eat, vape, smoke or sniff) tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in any form prescribed or non-prescribed.  You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any products / substances that contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
30. 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 you breath or pee (urine) when they tell you to do this.
31. 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.
32. 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

33. You must tell a corrective services officer about any medicine that a doctor prescribes (tells you to buy) and any change to the type, dosage, or frequency of the medication.  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.
34. You must take prescribed medicine only as directed by your 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

35. You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor.
36. You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about participation in any treatment or rehabilitation program.
37. You must let corrective services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program.

Speaking to corrective services about what you plan to do

38. You must talk to a corrective services officer about what you plan to do each week.  A corrective services officer will tell you how and when to do this (for example, face to face or in writing).
39. You must also tell a corrective services officer the names 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.

40. You may need to tell new contacts bout 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.

Contact with children

41. 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 firs 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.
44. 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).
45. You must not:

1. be within 100 metres of any school or childcare centre;
2. be in a place where there is a children’s play are or child minding area;
3. go to a public park;
4. go to a shopping centre;
5. join any club or organisation in which children are involved; and
6. 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.

Offence Specific Conditions

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 you may be asked to get rid of them by a corrective services officer.

47. You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet.
48. You cannot get or look at pornographic material of any type without written approval from a corrective services officer.  Your treating psychologist may provide advice regarding this approval.

This includes pictures on a computer, photographs, movies, or magazines.

49. 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.
50. You must advise your case manager of any personal relationships you have started.
51. You must obtain the prior written approval of a corrective services officer before possessing any equipment that enables you to take photographs or record moving images.

“Equipment” means any type of devices, including things like mobile phones, digital or video cameras, computers, laptops, tablets, surveillance cameras including dashboard cameras and drones.