Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence

This decision considers two issues relevant to continuing detention orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. First, it addresses whether, in affirming an existing continuing detention order, the court is required to give further “detailed reasons” in accordance with s 17 of the Act. Martin J held that detailed reasons are not required in such a case. Second, it considers whether the court can simply affirm an existing order because the parties consent to that course, or whether the court must still independently consider whether the statutory requirements are met. His Honour found that while the parties may consent to an order, the court must still consider the statutory requirements.

Martin J

20 April 2017

In October 2008 the respondent was made the subject of a continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”). [1]. Section 27 requires a continuing detention order to be reviewed annually by the Court. The order in the present case had been reviewed and affirmed on multiple occasions. [1].

At the review hearing, the respondent initially sought an order that he be released from custody subject to a supervision order (see s 30(3)(a) of the Act). [4]. However, following the giving of evidence by a number of specialists and the respondent himself, counsel sought an adjournment to obtain instructions. [5]. The Court was subsequently advised that the respondent did not oppose the orders sought by the Attorney-General, namely, that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order (see s 30(3)(b) of the Act). [5].

Martin J then made the order. In his Honour’s written reasons, however, it was necessary to deal with two issues which arose. [6]. The first concerned whether his Honour was required to give “detailed reasons” at the time the order was made. The second issue concerned the effect of “consent” or the “absence of opposition” on the making of the order.

As to the first issue, s 17 of the Act requires “detailed reasons” to be given at the time an order is made, if the court makes, among other things, a continuing detention order. [7]. Section 30 of the Act permits a court, on the hearing of the review, to (i) affirm a decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order (which includes a continuing detention order), and (ii) order that the prisoner continue to be subject to a continuing detention order. [10]. His Honour explained that “[n]either the affirmation nor the order of continuation is a continuing detention order as defined in s 13(5)(a)” of the Act. [11]. Accordingly, s 17 did not apply and there was no requirement for “detailed reasons” to be given at the time the order was made. [11].

As to the second issue, his Honour distinguished the present context from ordinary civil proceedings involving a private dispute between citizens. In the present case “the interests of the public [were] at the forefront of consideration”. [13]. While his Honour considered it was open to the parties to “consent” to an order, it did not “relieve the court from further consideration of the statutory requirements”. [13].  Accordingly, his Honour considered the evidence by reference to the matters he was “required” to have regard to in accordance with s 13(4) of the Act. His Honour determined that he was satisfied that the evidence adequately dealt with all the matters in s 13(4) of the Act and made the relevant orders. [26].

J English