Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QSC
  3. 2025
  4. Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Hill - [2025] QSC 229

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Hill[2025] QSC 229

Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Hill[2025] QSC 229

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Hill [2025] QSC 229

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Applicant)

v

IAN HILTON HILL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 4191/24

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for review under section 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 September 2025

JUDGE:

Smith J

ORDER:

  1. 1. Pursuant to section 30 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) the decision made on 20 June 2024, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, is affirmed.
  2. 2. Pursuant to section 30(3)(a) of the Act the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 20 June 2024.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – GENERALLY – where the respondent was convicted of serious sexual offences – where the respondent denies his guilt – where the respondent has not undertaken sexual offender treatment programs – where the respondent has not addressed his offending behaviour -  where the respondent is a high risk of reoffending – where there is a risk of committing a serious sexual offence in the absence of a Division 3 order -   where a supervision order is not apt to ensure community protection -  where it is concluded that the continuing detention order should be affirmed

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) ss 13, 16, 16A, 27, 29, 30

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 48

Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Allen [2019] QSC 56, considered

Attorney General for the State of Queensland v DBJ [2017] QSC 302, considered

Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Francis [2006] QCA 324; [2007] 1 Qd R 396, applied

Attorney General v Grant (No 2) [2022] QSC 252; (2022) 12 QR 357, cited

Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Guy [2018] QSC 179, cited

Fardon v Attorney General [2004] HCA 46; (2004) 223 CLR 575, applied

R v Hill [2020] QCA 209, cited

Van De Wetering v Attorney General [2024] QCA 222, applied

COUNSEL:

Mr B Mumford for the Attorney General

Mr J Feeley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the Attorney General

Rostron Carlyle Rojas for the respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This is a review of a continuing detention order pursuant to s 27(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSOA).
  2. [2]
    For the reasons which follow, I have decided that the Respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. I have also decided that to ensure adequate protection of the community a continuing detention order should be made rather than a supervision order.

Background

  1. [3]
    The respondent was born on 15 June 1965 and is presently 60 years of age.
  2. [4]
    The respondent has a criminal history commencing in 1986. In addition to the index offences, he has been dealt with for wilful exposure, offences of violence, property offences, vagrancy offences, substance related offences, breaches of bail and probation. These include offences committed in Western Australia. The most relevant are the following:

Date

Offence

Sentence

Innisfail District Court 3/3/1986

3 x wilful exposure. He was 20 years old. Her stood naked in front of three children aged 5, 7 and 8.   

Convicted and placed on recognisance of $400 and to be of good behaviour for 2 years.

Karatha Court of Petty sessions 22/6/1988

1 x wilful exposure. The respondent approached the complainant and exposed his penis and began to masturbate.

12 months’ probation.

Townsville Magistrates Court 15/11/1988

1 x aggravated assault on a female. He was 23 years old and the complainant’s cousin.  The complainant was 15 years old. He went to her bedroom and put his hands on her breasts and pelvic area and then masturbated beside the bed. He told the police he had been drinking.

Convicted and 14 days imprisonment with 2 years’ probation.

Innisfail Magistrates Court 22/8/1989

1 x Behave in an indecent manner. He was sleeping in a tent beside a public pathway. He was dressed in women’s lingerie. He revealed his attire to a school student.

Convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment and to be of good behaviour for 6 months.

Brisbane Magistrates Court 15/1/1991

1 x Wilful exposure. He exposed his buttocks to a schoolgirl. He was arrested the next day in a park in Yeronga wearing pink tights, a black negligee and a pair of high heels.

No conviction recorded.

Cairns Magistrates Court 22/8/1998

1 x Behave in an indecent manner. He was naked and exposed himself to a 14 year old schoolgirl.

Convicted and placed on recognisance $250 and to be of good behaviour for 2 years.

Charters Towers District Court 18/7/2014

2 x rape; 14 x indecent dealing and 2 x possession of child exploitation material (details below)

10 years imprisonment. Declaration serious violent offence.

4 years imprisonment.

3 years imprisonment.

To be served concurrently. 

  1. [5]
    On 18 July 2014, the respondent was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape, 14 counts of indecent dealing and two counts of possessing child exploitation material. The victims were a brother (11 years old) and sister (9 years old) both of whom were intellectually impaired. They lived with the respondent and their older sibling who was in a relationship with the respondent. The respondent raped the brother by penile penetration of his anus and the sister by penile penetration of her vagina. He also took indecent photographs of the female victim. The offending occurred over a period of two years. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
  2. [6]
    An application for extension of time to appeal the convictions was refused by the Court of Appeal in R v Hill.[1]
  3. [7]
    On 20 June 2024, Muir J ordered that the respondent be subject to a continuing detention order under s 13(5) of the DPSOA.

Attorney-general’s evidence

Silvi Baretta

  1. [8]
    Silvi Baretta (a general manager from the Townsville Correctional Centre) in his affidavit produces the IOMS records before Mr Hill. I have regard to those records and accept the records generally describe Mr Hill as a good prisoner.

Emma Wildermoth

  1. [9]
    Emma Wildermoth is the acting manager of the high-risk offender management unit of Queensland Corrective Services. After accessing the file, she refers to the recommendations of Dr Andrews, a psychologist. The respondent was referred to and agreed to engage with a psychologist, Dr Morgan, in late 2024 and early 2025. His treatment notes are attached to Ms Wildermoth’s affidavit. The session summaries indicate a fluctuation and Mr Hill’s willingness to discuss sexual offending and attend a sexual offending program. In his last appointment note dated 19 May 2025, Mr Hill derailed the session by protesting his innocence of the last index offence. He said he would not consider relocating to Brisbane or Southeast Qld to complete a sexual offender program. His preferred option is to persuade the police to reinvestigate his case. Mr Hill advised he did not wish to complete a program which was a retreat from prior discussions.
  2. [10]
    The respondent has declined to participate in the Getting Started Preparatory Program (GSPP) on five separate occasions namely 11 January 2019, 14 October 2020, 5 January 2022, 13 November 2023 and 16 January 2025. If the respondent continues to decline the GSPP offer, QCS will continue to periodically encourage him to engage in treatment targeted at sexual offending. There is no record of the respondent enquiring regarding antilibidinal medication.
  3. [11]
    In a further affidavit sworn 26 August 2025, Ms Wildermoth encloses the IOMS records and notes that the respondent attended three sessions with Ms Orr, a psychologist, commencing 19 June 2025. Those notes are attached.
  4. [12]
    On 9 June 2025, an appointment was held between the respondent and Dr Morgan to make a further offer for the next GSPP program. He declined based on his stance of innocence but indicated he was prepared to engage with a psychologist.
  5. [13]
    Ms Wildermoth also sets out the investigations made should a supervision order be made by the court.
  6. [14]
    Ms Orr has seen the respondent three times now. 
  7. [15]
    Ms Orr noted at page 4 that there is a potential risk to others if he is released due to his ongoing limited insight into the emotional and physical impact of his actions on others. She also notes that he maintained a fixed and delusional narrative of innocence.[2] Further, Ms Orr states that targeting paedophilic or sexual tendencies is an area of therapeutic focus moving forward.[3]  

Dr Michelle Andrews

  1. [16]
    Dr Michelle Andrews, a psychologist, has provided a report dated 28 August 2025.
  2. [17]
    Dr Andrews noted that Mr Hill continued to maintain his innocence in relation to the index offence. With respect to future planning, should he be released on a supervision order he would like to relocate and reside with his mother.[4]
  3. [18]
    With respect to intellectual functioning, his full-scale IQ fell within the low average range of 89.[5] Throughout the assessment he did not demonstrate indicators of behavioural impulsivity or disinhibition.[6] He was administered the sexual adjustment inventory. It was noted that on the Test Item Truthfulness Scale his score was very elevated, at or above the 90th percentile, which indicates all the non-sex items scales are considered invalid secondary to denial, problem minimisation and attempts to ‘fake good’.[7] On the Sex Item Truthfulness Scale his score fell in the problem risk range.[8] He reveals a high score of sexual dissatisfaction in the medium risk range.[9] He is in the problem range on the Child Molest (paedophile) Scale.[10] He is in the problem range on the Sexual (Rape) Assault Scale. He is in the medium range for the Exhibitionism Scale.[11]
  4. [19]
    Dr Andrews notes “overall given the elevation in scores on the truthfulness scales in his pattern of responses on the PDS, it appears that little meaningful information could be drawn from Mr Hill’s self-report on formal psychometrics, and similarly it is likely that his self-report regarding sexual offences is also influenced by overly positive self-presentation, denial and minimisation.”[12]
  5. [20]
    It was noted that Mr Hill continued to maintain a stance of innocence with adamant denial of the sexual offending. Overall, he is a male with mostly average cognitive skills who will present well in a typical everyday environment. He knows right from wrong however he has been largely insensitive to punishment across time. His impairments in higher-level executive functions and added social personality structure result in a propensity for invalid and deceitful responding, denial of difficulties, minimisations of faults and a lack of appreciation or insight into his presentation and personality traits.[13]
  6. [21]
    Dr Andrews notes that “His adherence to strategy such as denial, minimisation or blaming likely allow him to maintain a sense of self-esteem and avoid possible consequences associated with taking responsibility for his offending both in a custodial setting and in the community. Whilst this is not uncommon in child sexual offenders, this does present as a concern in relation to his understanding of his offending, his potential paraphilias and understanding of his own risk factors and risk of reoffending.”[14]
  7. [22]
    Without treatment his risk will remain unchanged.[15] He has no motivation to engage in treatment. He could be considered for individual therapy.

“Mr Hill would certainly benefit from engaging with a psychologist or psychiatrist to address his issues with motivation and readiness for treatment, his avoidant coping and to assist him to understand his personality structure and drivers for sexual offending. Given his emphatic denials this is likely to be a long term process should he engage.”[16]

Dr Brown

  1. [23]
    Dr Karen Brown, psychiatrist, has provided a report dated 15 July 2025.
  2. [24]
    In this report she notes that Mr Hill has a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder. He left school at the age of 15 and began to commit criminal offences in his twenties and failed to conform to social norms. He led a rather desultory and parasitic lifestyle with limited community employment and reliance on family members for housing. He had a history of manipulating and controlling more vulnerable people and his history was consistent with a significant capacity for deceit. There was a lack of remorse, and he shows limited empathy for others and has a tendency to put his needs before the needs of others. He also has some avoidant and dependant personality traits with a degree of social inadequacy and over reliance on family members. He has a tendency to isolate and use drugs as a maladaptive coping mechanism. He has a diagnosis of a substance use disorder (cannabis) and has used it daily for most of his adult life. He had also used alcohol to excess although his use is in enforced long term remission in a custodial environment.[17]
  3. [25]
    Although he admitted to the historical sexual offences in the interview, he denied any paraphilic sexual interest or arousal. It was Dr Brown’s view though that based on the type and pattern of the offences, he almost certainly had several paraphilic disorders including paedophilic disorder, exhibitionistic disorder and possibly transvestic disorder. He is of low normal intelligence and has cognitive defects in the areas of problem solving and complex function.[18]
  4. [26]
    Dr Brown assessed the risk posed by the respondent using actuarial instruments.
  5. [27]
    On the STATC 99R his risk of sexual offending remains in the well above average (high) risk range.[19]
  6. [28]
    On the PCL-R he is below the cut off for a diagnosis of psychopathy but his antisocial personality disorder is reflected in the score.
  7. [29]
    Under the RSVP, Dr Brown said that Mr Hill demonstrated 17 risk factors which include as follows:
    1. Sexual violence history – chronicity of sexual violence, diversity of sexual violence, escalation of sexual violence, physical coercion and psychological coercion. The offending is diverse in that it has involved male and female children, pubescent and prepubescent children, stranger children and known children. The offending escalated from single exposure offences/indecent behaviour to multiple sexual offences against two children in a domestic setting across an almost two-year time period. The later offending involved long term grooming whilst in a position of trust and physical coercion was involved in the rape offences.[20]
    2. Psychological adjustment – extreme minimisation or denial of sexual violence, problems with self-awareness, problems with stress or coping.

The respondent presents with a denial of the index sexual offending, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary. He now admits to his historical offences but blames these incidents entirely on drug use and he denies a sexual motivation or paraphilia. He has severe problems with self-awareness in relation to factors and processes that will place him at risk of sexual offending in the future and he has not addressed these. He also denies that he has any current sexual drive at all, which is unlikely. There is a history of decompensation in mental state and overdoses at times of stress. He has used substances in the past, probably as an avoidance coping strategy.[21]

  1. Mental disorder – problems with substance abuse and sexual deviance.

There is a history of cannabis (daily use), and alcohol use. Intoxication may have played a role in relation to some of the offending, although this remains unclear. He almost certainly has a diagnosis of more than one paraphilic disorder but refuses to acknowledge or allow exploration of the same.[22]

  1. Social adjustment – problems with intimate relationships, problems with non-intimate relationships, problems with employment and non-sexual criminality.

The respondent has had two past relationships both with intellectually impaired women whom he could manipulate and control as well as use to gain access to potential victims. Prior to his incarceration he did not hold steady employment in the community and his lifestyle was somewhat parasitic. He is a versatile criminal offender and committed several non-sexual offences when he was a younger man.[23]

  1. Manageability – problems with planning and problems and treatment.

The respondent has unfeasible plans for the future including that he will be exonerated and be released to live with his mother. He is ambivalent as to whether he would try and locate his ex-partner on release. He has otherwise no significant plans for release. He has refused to participate in a sexual offender treatment program and was resistant to motivational interviewing although he accepted he had committed the earlier sexual offences during this therapy. He has significant problems with supervision in the past including breach of bail and probation. It is unlikely he would adhere to the terms of a supervision order.[24]

  1. [30]
    Dr Brown concludes her report[25]:

“In my opinion, Mr Hill's unmodified risk of sexual reoffending remains high. The many risk factors for sexual reoffending include the chronicity and diversity of the sexual offending, the diagnosis of more than one paraphilic disorder, his personality disorder, his cognitive deficits and his treatment resistance.

Future sexual reoffending may involve prepubescent or pubescent male or female children. Victims may be strangers or known to him. Mr Hill may engage in acts of exposure in the community, which may include masturbation. He may befriend other adults (who may be intellectually impaired or vulnerable in some other way) or family members, to gain access to children in a domestic setting. Offending in this scenario is likely to include grooming followed by serious contact sexual offending (including penetrative sexual offences) with use of physical force and/or psychological manipulation. Risk of psychological harm to victims is high and physical injury is possible. Substance use may increase the risk of reoffending but is unlikely to be a primary driver for the offending behaviours.

At interview this year, Mr Hill denied that he had a paraphilia and maintained that he has no sexual interest or drive at all. Mr Hill is 60 years old and his sex drive may well be lower than when he was a younger man, however it is unlikely to be completely absent (I suspect this is another strategy to avoid proper assessment). Mr Hill has also given conflicting statements regarding his sexual interest, for example he had reported on more than one occasion that he wants to find his ex-partner. I am therefore not persuaded the risk of sexual reoffending has considerably reduced solely due to age.

Mr Hill has repeatedly declined to participate in group sexual offender treatment program. Mr Hill was engaged in motivational interviewing to address barriers to group participation and he did shift towards accepting some responsibility for the historical sexual offending, but otherwise his presentation was unaltered. Neuropsychological testing shows that Mr Hill has significant difficulties with abstract reasoning and concept formation and that he has difficulties utilising feedback to inform his problem solving. These deficits almost certainly underlie the maintenance of his unsophisticated denials regarding the offending and his cognitive rigidity during treatment and when discussing pathways for release. Additionally, Dr Andrews reported that Mr Hill evidenced of a lack of self-insight with tendencies towards an overall favourable self-presentation with excessive use of defences including denial and minimisation.

Mr Hill's refusal to engage with proper assessment and sexual offender treatment limits the diagnostic process, and the understanding of risk and associated treatment needs. Mr Hill's failure to participate in a sexual offender treatment program means that he is an untreated recidivist sexual offender with very little (or no) understanding of his offence cycle, his risk factors for sexual reoffending and the risk reduction strategies required…

He agreed to individual sexual offender treatment although the gains (if any) will be slow …

He is antisocial and does not adhere to prosocial norms in the community such that I doubt he would adhere to the conditions of a supervision order. I also note that he will not live anywhere other than in Charter Towers with his elderly mother where the level of oversight he requires cannot be provided… Anti-libidinal medications remain theoretical option but Mr Hill has not shown any interest in same..

Should the Court make a supervision order in my view this should be for 10 years..”

 Oral evidence Dr Brown

  1. [31]
    Dr Brown was shown Exhibit 3 (the proposed supervision order) and said that she did not think the conditions were adequate because of the risk factors in this case. She agreed that Mr Hill had made some small gains with Dr Morgan, but they were not sustained. She accepted that he had been willing to do individual treatment. He had undergone three sessions with Ms Orr, but his progress would be slow. Importantly, his risk factors have not been addressed and there was no risk relapse prevention plan. She said that individual treatment may be appropriate but more needs to be done and there needs to be a relapse prevention plan. He would need to do fortnightly sessions at least to start with and then start to prepare the plan. Many risk factors are relevant in his case, and none have been addressed.
  2. [32]
    In cross examination, the witness agreed that Mr Hill had an IQ full scale of 89. She did not dispute there was a slow cognitive processing speed. He had difficulty with abstract thinking, and he had deficits in less structured complex social situations. She thought that social media access was potentially a concern. She agreed that a supervision order would reduce risk to an extent if it was applied strictly.  However she did not think he would adhere to such an order. She took into account the fact that he had reoffended despite criminal sanctions, and he had previously breached probation and bail. There is ample evidence that he does not respond. She does not have much faith that he would comply with a supervision order. She did agree there were gaps in the offending behaviour, but she didn’t agree that her opinion was speculative. She stressed that he did not believe he had done anything wrong. She was not sure if more individual treatment would help and it depends on his willingness to engage.
  3. [33]
    It is encouraging he has started engaging with Ms Orr. Dr Brown thought he would do potentially okay with group therapy and there are a number of group programs in custody, including the HISOP program and the Inclusions Program. With the individual therapy he may do well which can be assessed in 12 months’ time, but it is too early to tell. She did agree that denial of offending was a not a strong predictor of recidivism, but a denial is a bar to entering a group program such as the GSPP or HISOP. There is no program available for “deniers” in Queensland. She thought the respondent was an unreliable self-reporter. With respect to anti libidinal medication, he must consent to this and he would need to admit he has a problem. That is not the situation now. A treating psychiatrist could do an assessment. He certainly should do a relapse prevention plan with a psychologist. He needs to understand his offending pathway and determine treating strategies. Anti libidinal medication can be addressed during that time. If he was kept in a precinct, his risk would be reduced to an extent if there was strict curfew. She wasn’t confident he would comply with this. If he still has a robust sex drive, bearing in mind he is a paedophile, there is a risk.

Dr Moyle

  1. [34]
    Dr Robert Moyle has provided a reported dated 28 July 2025.
  2. [35]
    He notes:

“Mr Hill is now sixty years old, serving his seventh sentence of sexual offending behaviours and he has a relatively minor other offending record, intelligence in the normal range, but was seen as having low intelligence during his school years. When assessed by me in 2024 I felt he had marked avoidant and anxious traits to his personality contributing to his difficulties with attending programs in jail, that there is a risk to his physical and mental health should he do so. Anxious avoidance of risk is coupled with a relatively poor employment history, difficulty sustaining relationships with non-vulnerable individuals, and the victims of all offences with which he has been convicted tend to be children, including prepubertal and possibly pubertal aged children.[26]

He seems in the most recent convictions to have escalated his behaviours to actual hands on offending against both gendered children, using them to make pornographic videos, along with his disabled partner, which whom he had a prolonged relationship of at least eight years, broken by occasional return to her mother, with whom he had a conflicted relationship. They fought over who might have greater control over his partner's decisions.[27]

He has been convicted of having many images of children, pornographic images, including images of genitalia, that he tells me are not his genitalia. He has explanations that free him from responsibility for the vast majority for the sexual crimes, and for those that he vaguely acknowledges. He simply attributes these to being intoxicated in his youth, i.e. that alcohol somehow create sexual offending in people who do not have paraphilic interests such as paedophilia, transvestitism, exhibitionism and possible fetishism. Some of the non-obviously sexual crimes, such as thefts, involve the theft of lingerie, that feeds into possible sexual paraphilic interests.[28]

On examination today the history he rigidly adheres to is to protest his innocence which in his mind frees him from having to address the sexual risks he poses to children in the community. He argues that he has been the victim of malicious accusations, leading to convictions against the law over a lifetime from the mid-1980's to final convictions around 30 years later or in one case he agreed to take the blame for sexual offense for his dealer to supply drugs. There was a prolonged period of hands-on rapes and using children to make child exploitation material offending against the child siblings of his partner before finally caught and convicted.[29]

There are 4 possibilities. Either his mind cannot accept that he does such things (denial), or he simply wants to return to the freedom he enjoyed acting sexually against children in the past, or he has decided that he will never sexually molest children again and will stay at home with mum and attend church to remain abstinent from sexual interests, or, far less likely, he has been subject to malicious accusations over a lifetime aimed at having him either offend or be accused of offending for reasons that are unclear to me. It is possible that several of the motivating factors apply bar the last.[30]

In custody his judgement seems impaired by a personality need for dominance, control and rigid adherence to claims of innocence and wrongful arrest and conviction, rather than trying to address his convictions and formulate a risk management plan that might allow him to achieve or head towards safe re-entry into the community while subject to a Community Supervision Order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act. He has a paucity of quality friendships and relationships, of assets to support himself in the community outside of pensions, no good working history to fall back on to get employment, so he presents as a dependent, anxious, resistant man, with multiple paraphilias the most serious of which paedophilia resulted in sexual offending against children, along with exhibitionism, transvestitism and possibly fetishism if stealing of underwear and lingerie is done for sexual purposes other than for dressing up.[31]

He presents an unconvincing account of wearing [wo]men's bikini and [wo]men's lingerie that he made himself despite criminal convictions but seems to rigidly hold to the view that he is going to be successful in convincing an independent assessor of fact, of all the malicious wrongful behaviours of others towards him over thirty years, plus the time in custody.[32]

These rigid personality attributes when combined with a paraphilia, for the at highest risk clinically of a person leaving custody, as discovered in the large meta-analysis that led to the development of the STATIC-99 R, one of the actuarial instruments used to assess risk over time. The two characteristics most associated with the likelihood of reoffending were a paraphilia and a personality disorder. The main personality disorder they look at is the antisocial personality disorder, especially psychopathy.[33]

While rigid and unbending, he does not have a high psychopathy rating, perhaps around or a little higher than average ratings in a prison population, but not to the level of a milder level of concern and nowhere near the North American cut off for psychopathy or the cut off for dangerous personality disordered offenders in Britain.

His self-esteem, that he sees as attached to his personal safety, has him holding rigidly to claims of innocence and he has been offered opportunities for individual treatment and group psychological treatment with rehabilitation, that he has repeatedly turned down.

In jail he has healthcare needs for emphysema, he has had epilepsy in the past, for injuries from motor vehicle accidents in his youth and possible other injuries. He rigidly refutes the accuracy of recent scans, believes they have not been done to his satisfaction and wants what he feels is not available to prisoners in the form of investigations and treatment. While I am convinced of the elements of avoidance and dependence based on anxiety and I am aware that people with paraphilias, such as paedophilia feel extremely vulnerable, especially in prison populations, I am aware that he is adaptive enough in these environments to be able to live safely in residential unit for well-behaved inmates and smoking is now not allowed. He feels safer away from smokers, but when offered the opportunity to consider medical ways to dampen down arousal that has caused him so much trouble in life, he simply says he wants off all medicines, that reflects the overall personality features that includes some antiauthoritarian and narcissistic entitlement attitudes that seem quite pervasive. Intelligence is not so low that he cannot engage in treatment should he be so motivated. Nor does it account for his offending behaviours. Nor does his drug and alcohol use. He therefore comes across as an embittered, angry, resistant male, with multiple paraphilias, with few friendships that he can call on, a poorly developed support network including a mother who believes him, but a loving mother for him, that he wishes to return to, free of restrictions under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act.[34]

Such rigid refusal to consider behavioural or psychological means to move forward in the direction he says he wishes to proceed towards living back in the region with his mother, caring for her, is fraught with difficulty. His most serious convictions occurred in a situation where he was living in a semi-stable sexually active partnership with visits from his partners siblings, who are victims of his offending. His partner was intellectually disabled and vulnerable to his influence. To be in an environment where his resistance is accepted and his claims of innocence is accepted as valid, away from ready supervision, where he wishes to acquire equipment to download music, seems remarkably like the environment he was in at the time of the most serious offending. To send a person untreated for their paraphilic disorders, not rehabilitated for their sexual offending behaviours, back to an environment similar to that from which they came into custody, is not a recipe for sale reintegration into the community. Clinically I cannot support him progressing towards a Community Supervision Order until there is a clear Relapse Prevention Plan that can address all the risks he poses.”(my underlining)[35]

  1. [36]
    Dr Moyle diagnoses[36]:
    1. Multiple paraphilias – paedophilia, transvestism, exhibitionism and possible fetishism.
    2. Drug and alcohol use disorders (in remission).
    3. Mixed personality disorder with anxious avoidant, narcissistic and antisocial traits.
    4. Emphysema.
    5. Severe psychosocial stresses on release.
    6. Poor past adaptive skills.
  2. [37]
    On the PCL-R he is at the border zone of psychopathy but nowhere near severe levels.
  3. [38]
    On the STATIC 99 he is above the 6 point level required to be at the highest level of risk.
  4. [39]
    On the STABLE assessment he has high needs for psychosocial interventions.
  5. [40]
    On the RSVP 3 he has a high risk.
  6. [41]
    Dr Moyle noted:[37] 
    1. Mr Hill, although now 60, is resistant to engage in treatment and rehabilitation programs that would allow him to develop and acknowledge his offending in multiple tranches of sexual offences against vulnerable children of both genders for over 30 years. He has not changed his behaviours.
    2. The most worrying aspect is the increased severity of offending to now include rapes of children of both genders and making child exploitation material. There is no clear relapse prevention plan that addresses the risk factors.
    3. Although actuarially he has lowered his overall rating based on increasing age, he remains in the highest level of risk.
    4. He is a man with multiple paraphilias, the most serious of which is paedophilia, and has been convicted of hands-on sexual offences against prepubertal and early pubertal children of both genders who come into his sphere of influence.
    5. He has anxious avoidant coping with personality elements of narcissism and anti-authoritarian attitudes that make it hard for his rigid personality structure to allow interventions.
    6. He remains an untreated man with multiple paraphilias and not rehabilitated from his sexual offending behaviours.
    7. He steadfastly holds to claims of innocence despite seven convicted periods of sexual offending.
  7. [42]
    He states:

“Despite his 60 years of age I cannot see him being safely open to release on a community supervision order. He lacks the detailed support base that can assist him to have a good life when he enters the community, the structure needed to support both he and his now aging mother to minimise the risk that children will be allowed into the home, given she allegedly believes him, and he has no intention to change any aspect of his livestock, his decision making or his ways.”[38]

  1. [43]
    Dr Moyle thought that it is unlikely that he won’t reoffend when given the opportunity to do so in the presence of vulnerable children.[39]
  2. [44]
    He recommended that the respondent engage in meaningful treatment with psychologists and psychiatrists to allow him to engage in a sex offender treatment and rehabilitation program[40] noting:

“Ultimately the reasons come down to his being a convincing adult with a severe history of nonresponse to convictions and punishments, with multiple paraphilias that remain untreated as is his avoidant coping and anxious narcissistic personality, despite offers to do so, he wants to retry his cases as his main strategy to prevent reoffending risk to children by raping them and make titillating images for his enjoyment, irrespective for the damage likely to victims.”

  1. [45]
    Dr Moyle also discussed what sort of supervision would be appropriate if a supervision order was made.[41] But he noted “he has refused to consider developing a relapse prevention plan prior to a community supervision order being applied, using the resources that are given for this purpose by our society both in the community and in prison. Such rigid refusal makes this scenario unable to be clinically supported.” [42]

Oral evidence Dr Moyle

  1. [46]
    Dr Moyle was shown Exhibit 3 (the supervision order) and said that it would need to be for at least 10 years. Whilst the conditions in it were strict, he was dubious that the respondent could comply and doubts whether he would accept the order.
  2. [47]
    Dr Moyle accepted under cross examination that since the report, he became aware of Dr Andrews’ assessment, that is a full-scale IQ of 89 and cognitive deficits. He said the risk of reoffending is high because there is an inability on the part of Mr Hill to engage in a process to allow him to understand his offending and to formulate a relapse prevention plan. Because of this, it slows his progress and slows the lowering of risk. He cannot develop a relapse prevention plan unless he discusses it with a psychologist. He thought he could work towards such a plan, but it would take some time. There must be some degree of acceptance by him that he is a paedophile and an acceptance he was attracted to children. This would help. The GSPP or an individual program could be appropriate. At this stage individual therapy is appropriate as he won’t accept anything else. Group therapy could be appropriate. Dr Moyle thought that out of the 10 sessions with Dr Morgan, Mr Hill had failed to respond. He accepted that rapport was developing with Ms Orr, but he has not yet addressed the risk factors.
  3. [48]
    Dr Moyle has seen individual therapy work in the past and it can reduce risk in the community. Group therapy is not the only path. Because he denies the offences, there is only a hypothetical possibility that individual therapy will reduce the risk. Dr Moyle thought it was not likely. He did accept that individual therapy could benefit Mr Hill in the future if he works on his anxiety and paedophilia. As to his age of 60, theoretically this reduces the risk but often with paedophiles at that age risk is not reduced. Antilibidinal medication can’t be introduced until he can talk about his sexual arousal. At the moment he is not eligible because he does not want to talk about ongoing sexual arousal. Dr Moyle recommended that the respondent be given more information about antilibidinal medication. With respect to confinement to the precinct, if he complies with the supervision order this would reduce risk. However, QCS has limited oversight. Dr Moyle thought that Mr Hill cannot come off a curfew until he has a relapse prevention plan. The risk would not be moderate if there was no 24-hour curfew. Dr Brown’s opinion that he was likely to breach a supervision order is based on reasonable evidence. He thought that the dated breaches of bail and probation were just one factor to take into account. He thought that in the next 12 months Mr Hill should receive fortnightly sessions with Ms Orr, work with a case manager and work to a relapse prevention plan. He should keep a diary of sexual arousal so this can be monitored, and they can talk about libidinal medication. The key here is a relapse prevention plan.
  4. [49]
    In re-examination, the doctor said the most effective course was the GSPP because this course looks at the individual’s issues. He could also do the High Intensity Sexual Offender Program (HISOP) course which provides for strategies as to how to engage in the communities. He needs to recognise his risks and his protective factors. If he has a relapse prevention plan this would lower the risk of reoffending.

Submissions

Attorney-General

  1. [50]
    The Attorney General’s position is that, having regard to the required matters under s13(4) of the DPSOA and any report produced under s 29 of the DPSOA, the court would be satisfied by acceptable cogent evidence to a high degree of probability that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. The Attorney submits the evidence discloses there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody or if he is released from custody without a supervision order being made.
  2. [51]
    A live issue for the court’s consideration is whether the court continues a continuing detention order or whether the respondent be released from custody subject to a supervision order. The Attorney’s ultimate contention is the risk cannot be adequately managed in the community on a supervision order.
  3. [52]
    In oral submissions, Mr Mumford submitted:
    1. The respondent is a serious danger to the community and the order of Muir J should be affirmed.
    2. The issue is whether the risk can be managed in the community. On the evidence it cannot be.
    3. There has been no meaningful therapeutic intervention. Ms Orr is a start but it is too early.
    4. The respondent has not addressed the risk of reoffending. There is no appropriate relapse prevention plan. It is not appropriate for him to live with his mother.
    5. It is a real issue there is a complete denial of the index offending.
    6. Anti-libidinal medication is not an option at this point.

Respondent

  1. [53]
    The respondent accepts on the evidence that the court would conclude the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. It is within the court’s discretion to be satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order.
  2. [54]
    The respondent points out:
    1. He has engaged in one on one treatment.
    2. He has shown an acceptance of some of his sexual offences with Dr Morgan.
    3. He has started treatment with Ms Orr.
    4. The IOMS show that he has been of good behaviour in custody.
    5. He is now 60 and the index offences are dated.
    6. The court should give preference to a supervision order.
  3. [55]
    In oral submissions Mr Feeley submitted:
    1. There is sufficient evidence to affirm the order of Muir J.
    2. Whilst the weight of the evidence supports a continuing detention order it is open to the court to make a supervision order.
    3. Section 16A of the DPSOA allows for electronic monitoring and there can be a 24 hour curfew to start with. He can be prevented access to a phone.
    4. It is speculative to conclude he will not comply with the order bearing in mind the breach of bail and probation convictions are dated. He has behaved in custody.
    5. If he is to remain in custody he should be permitted to continue fortnightly counselling and develop a relapse prevention plan. He should also be consulted about anti-libidinal medication.
    6. It was pointed out that he has started to admit some previous offending.[43]   

The legislation

  1. [56]
    Section 30 of DPSOA provides:

“30  Review hearing

  1. (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. (2)
    On the hearing of the review, the court may affirm the decision only if it is satisfied—
  1. (a)
    by acceptable, cogent evidence; and
  2. (a)
    to a high degree of probability;

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

  1. (3)
    If the court affirms the decision, the court may order that the prisoner—
  1. (a)
    continue to be subject to the continuing detention order;     or
  2. (b)
    be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
  1. (4)
    In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3)(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.
  1. (5)
    If the court does not make the order under subsection (3)(a), the court must rescind the continuing detention order.
  2. (6)
    In this section—

required matters means all of the following—

  1. (a)
    the matters mentioned in section 13(4);
  2. (b)
    any report produced under section 28A.”
  1. [57]
    This section involves the two-stage process.
  2. [58]
    First, the court may only affirm the original decision if it is satisfied by acceptable cogent evidence to a high degree of probability that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.
  3. [59]
    Second, if the decision is affirmed then the court has the discretion to make either a continuing detention order or a supervision order. The need to ensure adequate protection of the community is the paramount consideration. Also the court must consider whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order and the requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective service officers.  
  4. [60]
    For the court to affirm the respondent is a serious danger to the community it would need to be satisfied that the respondent, as of the date of the review hearing, is “a serious danger to the community” in the absence of a Division 3 order.
  5. [61]
    It seems clear that this provision takes its meaning from the definition of the phrase in s 13(2) of the DPSOA, that is the court will be satisfied a prisoner is a serious danger to the community “if there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence.” 
  6. [62]
    Serious sexual offence” is defined in schedule 1 to the DPSOA as:

“serious sexual offence means an offence of a sexual nature, whether committed in Queensland or outside Queensland—

  1. (a)
    involving violence; or
  2. (b)
    against a child; or
  3. (c)
    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.”
  1. [63]
    In Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Allen[44] it was held that the decision to make an order  must be made on the evidence as it stands at the review hearing.
  2. [64]
    The expression “unacceptable risk” is not defined by the DPSOA.  But such a phrase is not unknown to the law. It requires the striking of a balance. The relevant risk is the risk of the commission of a serious sexual offence, that is an offence of a sexual nature involving violence or against children if released.[45]
  3. [65]
    Risk means the possibility, chance[46] or likelihood of the commission of such an offence. An unacceptable risk is one which does not ensure adequate protection of the community.
  4. [66]
    In Attorney General for the State of Queensland v DBJ[47] Bowskill J (as her Honour then was) noted at [12-15]:
  1. “[12]
    As to what constitutes an “unacceptable risk”, that is “a matter for judicial determination, requiring a value judgment as to what risk should be accepted against the serious alternative of the deprivation of a person’s liberty”. The test is not satisfied by evidence of any risk that the released prisoner may commit a further serious sexual offence. What must be established by the Attorney-General, to the requisite standard, is an unacceptable risk, the determination of which involves a balancing of competing considerations. The notion of an unacceptable risk recognises that some risk can be acceptable consistently with the adequate protection of the community.
  2. [13]
    In considering whether a risk is unacceptable it is necessary to take into account, and balance, the nature of the risk and the degree of likelihood of it eventuating, with the seriousness of the consequences if the risk eventuates. In this regard, in a case in which the focus was upon the degree of likelihood, Keane JA said in Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie [2007] QCA 96 at [19]:

“For the appellant, it was argued that the expert description of the risk of the appellant’s re-offending as ‘moderate’ meant that the risk fell short of ‘unacceptable.’ But this argument overlooks the point that whether or not a moderate risk is unacceptable must be gauged by taking into account the nature of the risk and the consequences of the risk materialising. In this regard, the appellant’s likely targets are children, and especially street children: vulnerable members of the community who are likely to be peculiarly susceptible to his seduction techniques. The focus of consideration must, therefore, be upon the likely effect of a supervision order in terms of reducing the opportunities for the appellant to engage in acts of seduction of children to an acceptably low level.”

  1. [14]
    As observed in Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2013) 41 VR 3597 at [6]: “Whether a risk is unacceptable depends upon the degree of likelihood of offending and the seriousness of the consequences if the risk eventuates. There must be a sufficient likelihood of the occurrence of the risk which, when considered in combination with the magnitude of the harm that may result and any other relevant circumstance, makes the risk unacceptable.”
  2. [15]
    For present purposes, what is required is an assessment of the risk of the released prisoner committing a serious sexual offence in the absence of a further supervision order. Relevantly, the object of the DPSOA is to ensure adequate protection of the community (s 3(a)). That does not mean the purpose of the legislation is to guarantee the safety and protection of the community. If that were the case, every risk would be unacceptable. This is the corollary of the point made by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at [39] that the Act “does not contemplate that arrangements to prevent [a particular risk] must be ‘watertight’; otherwise orders under s 13(5)(b) would never be made” (as opposed to a continuing detention order). In this regard, as McMurdo J noted in Attorney-General (Qld) v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268 at [30]:

Adequate protection is a relative concept. It involves the same notion which is within the expression ‘unacceptable risk’ within s 13(2). In each way the statute recognises that some risk can be acceptable consistently with the adequate protection of the community.” (citations omitted).

  1. [67]
    If the decision has been affirmed, then s 30(3) of the DPSOA enlivens a court’s discretion to determine whether the respondent should be subject to a continuing detention order or to be released from custody subject to a supervision order, having regard to the paramount consideration of the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. If the answer to that question is in the negative, then a continuing detention order should be made.[48]
  2. [68]
    Section 13(4) of the DPSOA lists the matters the court must have regard to in deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community.  
  3. [69]
    The first such relevant consideration under s 13(4)(a) of the DPSOA are the reports prepared by the psychiatrists under s 29 of the DPSOA, and the extent to which the prisoner cooperated in the examinations. The respondent did cooperate in the examinations of both psychiatrists. I have already referred to their opinions.
  4. [70]
    Section 13(4)(b) of the DPSOA requires the court to have regard to “any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the prisoner.” Dr Andrews, a clinical psychologist, scored the respondents full-scale IQ at 89, being within the upper limit of low average intelligence. I have had regard to the notes of Dr Morgan and Ms Orr.
  5. [71]
    The next consideration under s 13(4)(c) of the DPSOA is “information indicating whether or not there is propensity on the part of the prisoner to commit serious sexual offences in the future.” In this particular case the actuarial assessments administered by the psychiatrists suggest the unmodified risk of reoffending is high. The assessment of the dynamic factors tends to the conclusion that the risk is at least moderate to high. He has a personality disorder and meets the diagnosis for paedophilia.
  6. [72]
    Section 13(4)(d) of the DPSOA concerns “whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the prisoner.” The respondent’s index offending was a significant escalation from his previous offending. The previous offending was sexual in nature and involved young girls. 
  7. [73]
    Section 13(4)(e) and (f) of the DPSOA relate to rehabilitation programs. The respondent has declined to undertake any group base courses.
  8. [74]
    As to the respondent’s antecedents and the criminal history (s 13(4)(g) of the DPSOA) they are covered in the reports of the psychiatrists.
  9. [75]
    The risk that he will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community (section 13(4)(h) of the DPSOA) is a critical consideration in this case.
  10. [76]
    The need to protect members of the community (section 13(4)(i) of the DPSOA) is also a very relevant consideration in this case.

Discussion

  1. [77]
    On all of the evidence I am satisfied to the required degree that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. I consider there is an unacceptable risk he will commit a serious sexual offence in the future if released without such an order.
  2. [78]
    I reach the conclusion for the following reasons:
    1. The opinions of the psychiatrists that he is a high risk of reoffending.
    2. The numerous sentences of imprisonment have been proved to be no deterrent to the respondent.
    3. There are also the type of offences of which he has been convicted.
    4. The respondent has been diagnosed as a paedophile with other paraphilias and he has a severe personality disorder.
    5. His greatest risk factors are paedophilic interests in children and his fixed personality issues.
    6. The respondent shows a lack of insight by his denial of the index offending.
    7. He has not considered relapse prevention plan.
    8. He has not undergone important sexual offender treatment programs. He has in the past resisted the notion of treatment. The fact is he is an untreated sexual offender.
    9. He has not addressed the underlying causes of his sexual offending.
  3. [79]
    I find the unmodified risk the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence is high. The risk is a diverse one. The potential victims (most likely children)  may be known to him, or they may be strangers. Unfortunately, he has not taken any steps to mitigate the risk. He steadfastly refuses to undertake treatment that might serve to reduce the risk of sexual reoffending. He denies the offending despite the evidence against him which limits a realistic prospect that therapeutic engagement will reduce the risk of sexual reoffending. He meets the criteria for being a paedophile and has other paraphilias.
  4. [80]
    I indicate I have reached this conclusion based not just on the reports of the psychiatrists but on all of the evidence.
  5. [81]
    In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that I should make an order confirming the decision of Muir J given on 20 June 2024.

A continuing detention order or supervision?

  1. [82]
    I now turn to whether a continuing detention or supervision order should be made.
  2. [83]
    In Attorney General v Francis[49] it was noted that if supervision of the prisoner is apt to ensure adequate protection then an order for supervised release should in principle be preferred to a continuing detention order on the basis that the intrusions of the DPSOA upon the liberty of the subject are exceptional. This is reflected in the more modern principle that these statutory provisions must, to the extent possible consistent with their purpose be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights.[50]
  3. [84]
    I have had regard to the matters raised by the respondent and accept that Mr Hill has had some one on one counselling with Dr Morgan and Ms Orr and he has been of good behaviour in the prison. This is to the respondent’s credit. It is also noted by Ms Orr that there have been continuing efforts to build a therapeutic alliance, an improvement in progress skill development and in focus on collaborative goal setting.[51] 
  4. [85]
    However, this counselling is only just the start of things and he needs to do much more in terms of treatment before the risk of reoffending is reduced to an acceptable level to permit release into the community. There also needs to be a considered relapse prevention plan.
  5. [86]
    I note Ms Orr states:
    1. 19 June 2025 - There is a potential risk to others if he is released primarily due to his ongoing limited insight into the emotional and physical impact of his actions on others.[52] Risk management will need to focus on increasing his awareness of others’ perspectives and the broader consequences of his behaviours.[53] Due to complete denial – no ability to understand or target paedophilic or sexual urges/tendencies (area of therapeutic focus moving forward).[54] 
    2. 7 August 2025 – Mr Hill’s history and presentation indicate that if released there would be a risk to others.[55] Difficulty recognising risk situations or the consequences of his actions particularly if in the community.[56] Risk to others would become more prominent should Mr Hill be released without substantial improvement in insight and social understanding.[57] Mr Hill maintains a narrative of innocence and demonstrates cognitive rigidity which may impede his ability to recognise or avoid high risk situations in the future.[58]
  6. [87]
    I accept the conclusions of both psychiatrists that at this stage a supervision order is not apt to protect the community, but I make it clear that I have independently reached this view on all the evidence regardless.[59]
  7. [88]
    At the present time, in the absence of treatment which addresses his offending behaviour, I consider the community will not be protected as there is a high risk of his committing serious sexual offences particularly against children, despite being on a supervision order.
  8. [89]
    It is true that if he was locked up in the precinct for 24 hours then there is less risk of a contact offence but that does not mean his risk is lowered, it simply means he is being kept away from potential victims. As both doctors said, he could access social media which could lead to further offending, and I note he has previous child exploitation convictions. Also he cannot be placed indefinitely under a 24 hour curfew. Once this is relaxed the risk will increase to high once again without the treatment to which I have referred.   
  9. [90]
    In this particular case I find that the only appropriate order is a continuing detention order as distinct from a supervision order bearing, in mind the paramount consideration of community protection.
  10. [91]
    I would encourage the respondent to continue his treatment and counselling. He  needs to develop a decent relapse prevention plan. If he does these things then it may be his risk is reduced such that at the least a supervision order may be made at some stage in the future.
  11. [92]
    I recommend that he be permitted to continue the individual therapy with a psychologist, he be encouraged to prepare a relapse prevention plan with a psychologist and he be given more information as to anti-libidinal medication so that he can make a choice on whether to be prescribed such medication.

Orders

  1. 1. Pursuant to section 30 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) the decision made on 20 June 2024, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, is affirmed.
  2. 2. Pursuant to section 30(3)(a) of the Act the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 20 June 2024.

Footnotes

[1] [2020] QCA 209.

[2] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI 33 page 5.

[3] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI 33 page 5

[4] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 10.

[5] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 12.

[6] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 16.

[7] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 20.

[8] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 20.

[9] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 21.

[10] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 21.

[11] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 21.

[12] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 21.

[13] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 23.

[14] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 25.

[15] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 25.

[16] Affidavit of Dr Andrews, document CFI 27 page 26.

[17] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 27.

[18] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 27.

[19] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 28.

[20] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 28.

[21] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 29.

[22] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 29.

[23] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 29.

[24] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 page 30.

[25] Affidavit of Dr Brown, document CFI 35 pages 30-31.

[26] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 22.

[27] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 22.

[28] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 23.

[29] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 23.

[30] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 23.

[31] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 23.

[32] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 23.

[33] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 23.

[34] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 23-24.

[35] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 24.

[36] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 24.

[37] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 25.

[38] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 26.

[39] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 26.

[40] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 26-27.

[41] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 27-28.

[42] Affidavit of Dr Moyle, document CFI 34 page 28.

[43] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI 28 page 18.

[44] [2019] QSC 56 at [14].

[45] Fardon v Attorney General [2004] HCA 46; (2004) 223 CLR 575 at [22], [60] and [225].

[46] Oxford Australian Dictionary 2nd edition.

[47] [2017] QSC 302.

[48] Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Guy [2018] QSC 179 at [10].

[49] [2006] QCA 324; [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at [39].

[50] Section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Attorney General v Grant (No 2) [2022] QSC 252; (2022) 12 QR 357.

[51] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 12.

[52] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 4.

[53] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 5.

[54] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 5.

[55] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 10.

[56] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 10.

[57] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 11.

[58] Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth, document CFI33 page 11.

[59] Van De Wetering v Attorney General [2024] QCA 222 at [51]. 

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Hill

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Hill

  • MNC:

    [2025] QSC 229

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Smith J

  • Date:

    12 Sep 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Attorney-General v Allen [2019] QSC 56
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 56
Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 56
Attorney-General v Beattie [2007] QCA 96
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] QCA 96
Attorney-General v DBJ [2017] QSC 302
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QSC 302
Cite 2 - [2017] QSC 302
Attorney-General v Francis[2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QCA 324
Cite 2 - [2006] QCA 324
Cite 3 - [2007] 1 Qd R 396
Cite 4 - [2007] 1 Qd R 396
Cite 5 - [2007] 1 Qd R 396
Attorney-General v Grant [No 2](2022) 12 QR 357; [2022] QSC 252
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QSC 252
Cite 2 - [2022] QSC 252
Cite 3 - (2022) 12 QR 357
Cite 4 - (2022) 12 QR 357
Attorney-General v Guy [2018] QSC 179
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 179
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 179
Attorney-General v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QSC 268
Fardon v Attorney General for Queensland (2004) HCA 46
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) HCA 46
Cite 2 - (2004) HCA 46
Fardon v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2004) 223 CLR 575
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) 223 CLR 575
Cite 2 - (2004) 223 CLR 575
Nigro v Secretary, Dept of Justice (2013) 41 VR 3597
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2013) 41 VR 3597
R v Hill [2020] QCA 209
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCA 209
Cite 2 - [2020] QCA 209
Van De Wetering v Attorney-General [2024] QCA 222
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QCA 222
Cite 2 - [2024] QCA 222

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.