Queensland Judgments


Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeatman  
Unreported Citation: [2018] QSC 70

In this decision, Justice Davis gives his reasons for his decision to release the respondent from a supervision order.  An issue arose as to whether s 17 of the DSPOA operated to prevent his Honour from making the order without at the same time delivering reasons. His Honour explains that an order to release the respondent under the existing supervision order does not engage s 17 and contemporaneous reasons were not required.

Davis J

9 April 2018

The respondent was subject to a supervision order made on 30 June 2014 imposing numerous conditions. [1]. The Attorney-General brought the present application seeking orders under s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA), alleging the respondent had contravened the order on 14 December 2017.  The respondent admitted he contravened the order by telephoning a woman contrary to the directions of Corrective Services officers. [18].  The contravention having been proved, the real contest was whether the respondent had satisfied the court that the adequate protection of the community could be satisfied by releasing him from the supervision order. [22].  Davis J found that he was satisfied and released the respondent upon the supervision order in its existing form with reasons to follow. [2], [3]. This raised a question as to the application and proper construction of s 17 of the DPSOA.

Section 17 provides that a court must give detailed reasons at the time of making “a continuing detention order”, an “interim detention order”, a “supervision order” or an “interim supervision order”. [29]. Each of these orders is made under Div 1 or 3 of Pt 2 of the DPSOA. [30].  His Honour noted that if, under s 22, the supervision order was revoked and a continuing detention order was made then s 17 would clearly be engaged; the court would be “making” a continuing detention order. [31].

However, an order releasing the respondent under the existing supervision order is not the “making” of a supervision order. It is an order made under s 22 releasing the respondent.  Therefore, s 17 was not engaged and was not offended by the giving on reasons on a later date. [31].

K W Gover of Counsel