Attorney-General v Bewert [2026] QSC 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bewert [2026] QSC 79 PARTIES: Attorney General for the State of Queensland (Applicant) v Henry Bewert (Respondent) FILE NO/S: 13210/10 DIVISION: Trial PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland DELIVERED ON: 21 April 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17 November 2025; 3 December 2025; supplementary written submissions on behalf of the applicant filed 23 December 2025; supplementary submissions on behalf of the respondent filed 16 January 2026 JUDGE: Ryan J ORDER: 1. Pursuant to s 30(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the decision made on 10 May 2011, that the respondent, Henry Bewert, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act be affirmed. 2. Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act, the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 22 June 2020. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – GENERALLY –– where the respondent has been subject to DPSOA orders since 10 May 2011 – where the respondent committed a serious sexual offence while on a supervision order on 24 July 2016 – whether the decision made on 10 May 2011 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act be affirmed – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the -- 1 of 33 -- 2 release of the respondent on a supervision order – whether the respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 22 June 2020, pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bewert [2011] QSC 106 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bewert [2013] QSC 98 R v Jones (2011) 209 A Crim R 379 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) ss 13(6)(b)(ii), 22, 27, 30(1), 30(3), 30(3)(a), 43AA, div 3. COUNSEL: J Rolls for the applicant C Tessmann for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Law for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent [1] Over two days, I heard an application for the review of the continuing detention of the respondent under section 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“DPSOA” or “the Act”). [2] The respondent is a serial serious sexual offender who falls within the relatively rare category of dangerous prisoners who commit serious sexual offences whilst under supervision. Indeed, the respondent’s sexual offending escalated after three years on a supervision order, whilst he was surrounded by multiple professional and other supports in the community. [3] Despite having made some treatment gains since he was returned to custody, I was not satisfied that the adequate protection of the community from the risk posed by the respondent of committing a serious sexual offence could be ensured by his release, again, on supervision. I reached that conclusion on the assumption that the respondent would continue to take anti-libidinal medication (“ALM”), which reduced his testosterone to castration levels, were he to be released. [4] Accordingly, the respondent is to remain subject to the continuing detention order made on 22 June 2020. [5] My reasons in detail are set out below. Background to review -- 2 of 33 -- 3 [6] The respondent is a serial sex offender. His criminal history spans decades and includes (but not only) many convictions for sexual offences against women. His offending has persisted notwithstanding episodes of incarceration and his participation in a variety of sexual offender treatment programs (group and individual). His most serious, and most recent, sexual offence was committed in 2016 whilst he was subject to a DPSOA supervision order (“SO”). [7] The respondent has a complex clinical profile including borderline intellectual functioning, alcohol use disorder, mixed personality disorder, sexual paraphilias, a historical diagnosis of schizophrenia, and various medical conditions. His early life was marked by significant adversity, including childhood sexual abuse. His education is limited. His employment history is sparse. His mental health history includes multiple hospitalisations after suicide attempts. His personality disorder is complex. At 18 years of age, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, although there is now doubt about that diagnosis. His alcohol abuse, which commenced in his mid- teens, is a contributing factor to his criminal offending, including his sexual offending. His interpersonal relationships have been unstable. After his diagnosis of schizophrenia, he was repeatedly hospitalised, either because of self-harming behaviours or upon his reporting auditory hallucinations. In 1989 and 1990, after his girlfriend took her life, he expressed thoughts about staging a mass killing (and was hospitalised). He is a dependent person who has, over the years, reported symptomatology for clear gain – that is, to bring about his hospitalisation or to avoid responsibility for his sexual offending. [8] The respondent has been subject to the DPSOA since 10 May 2011, when Boddice J1 made a continuing detention order (“CDO”) for him. The psychiatrists who prepared risk assessment reports for the first DPSOA hearing were of the view that the respondent was likely to sexually reoffend if released because of a combination of – (a) his sexual preoccupation; (b) his alcohol abuse; and (c) his dependency on (and wish to return to) institutional care (in prison). 1 As his Honour then was. Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bewert [2011] QSC 106. -- 3 of 33 -- 4 [9] On 8 April 2013, at the first review of the CDO, P McMurdo J2 affirmed Boddice J’s finding that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order but was persuaded that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the respondent’s release on supervision. Accordingly, his Honour made a supervision order for the respondent. [10] The SO included a requirement that the respondent not commit a sexual offence and a requirement that he notify a Corrective Services Officer when attending a hospital or emergency department. The reason for the latter requirement was that the respondent had a habit or pattern of committing sexual offences in hospitals. [11] Contrary to those requirements, in 2016, the respondent committed a planned, armed sexual assault on a woman staff member at the Ipswich Hospital. [12] On 26 July 2016, the respondent was brought before the court under a section 22 DPSOA warrant and detained until the court’s final decision about his contravention. [13] On 23 August 2017, the respondent pleaded guilty to the sexual assault and the related offence under section 43AA of the Act. He was imprisoned for four years for the sexual assault and convicted but not further punished for the section 43AA offence. His full-time release date was 24 July 2020. [14] On 22 June 2020, the contravention proceedings were heard and determined by way of rescission of the SO made on 8 April 2013 and an order for the respondent’s continuing detention. [15] Applications for a review of the CDO were heard on 24 September 2021; 18 July 2022; 18 August 2023; and 13 November 2024. At each review, the finding that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order was affirmed; and orders were made for the respondent’s continuing detention. [16] The next review of the CDO was the one heard by me; initiated by the Attorney- General’s application filed on 30 September 2025. [17] At the review, the respondent conceded that he remains a serious risk to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – a concession which was amply 2 As his Honour then was. Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bewert [2013] QSC 98. -- 4 of 33 -- 5 supported on the evidence. The real issue on the review was whether the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by his release on a suitably conditioned supervision order. [18] The respondent’s argument as summarised in his written outline (that is, before the court heard oral evidence), was as follows: “In summary, the respondent submits the Court cannot be satisfied the protection of the community cannot be adequately ensured if [he were] released on a supervision order given: (a) Mr Bewert has been compliant with … anti-libidinal medication for three years and he has, since the last annual review, made real progress with Dr Madsen in addressing other matters relevant to his risk; (b) Given those matters, Dr Beech considers a supervision order would reduce [the] risk of Mr Bewert committing a serious sexual offence to a moderate level ‘or possibly below’, and there is no reason to reject this evidence. (c) The type of sexual offence that is likely to occur if he reoffends is not so serious that a moderate risk would be unacceptable; and (d) A further year on a continuing detention order is a significant infringement on Mr Bewert’s liberty, which now outweighs his risk level on a supervision order. [19] In focusing on the question whether a supervision order could ensure adequate protection of the community, by reference to authority, the respondent invited me to think about – (a) the degree of likelihood that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence; and (b) the magnitude of the harm that would be caused if the risk materialised; balanced against (c) the effect of continued detention upon the respondent’s freedom or liberty (the most elementary and important of all common law rights). [20] The obvious difficulty for the respondent was that his release on supervision had been tested previously, with a terrible outcome. His offending in 2016 occurred in the -- 5 of 33 -- 6 context of significant therapeutic engagement and other professional support – and yet it was more serious than his previous offending. It involved confronting a woman who was alone in her office. Most (but not all) of his previous offending had taken place in public spaces like laundromats, hospital waiting rooms, or supermarkets – where help was not far away. (Although, he had committed a sexual offence in 1995 whilst alone with a psychiatrist in an examination room of a hospital; and in 1997 he committed sexual offences upon two nurses while they were alone with him in a staff room.) Also in 2016 he was armed with a weapon – a knife – which had not been a feature of his prior offending. What had changed since 2016 was, he argued, the passage of time; his engagement in additional therapy; and his voluntarily receiving ALM. [21] The Attorney-General submitted in writing that there was a “very cogent” argument which could be made for the respondent’s release from detention, but the Attorney- General maintained her position that the adequate protection of the community could not be ensured by a supervision order. [22] The respondent’s history of sexual offending is briefly summarised in the following table (with my emphasis). The involvement of alcohol in his offending; the planning involved in the offending; his selection of victims and locations; and his stated motives and drivers may be noted. Year Offence Details of offence/s 1982 Exposure The respondent admitted to a history of exposure since he was about 13 years of age. According to older reports, there was an exhibitionistic episode in 1982. However, it does not appear in the respondent’s criminal history and it was not factored into the application of the Static- 99. 1988 Aggravated assault The respondent entered a laundromat, intoxicated. He sat beside the complainant woman and touched her on her upper leg and upper body. The complainant left the laundromat. The respondent claimed to be hearing voices at the time which told him to introduce himself to a woman. -- 6 of 33 -- 7 1995 Indecent assault, Assault occasioning bodily harm The complainant woman was a psychiatrist at a psychiatric hospital. The respondent voluntarily admitted himself to the hospital, due to what he said were suicidal hallucinations. Whilst the complainant was assessing the respondent (they were alone in an examination room) he lunged at her. She evaded him and tried to escape the room, screaming for help. The respondent struck her with a hard blow to the right side of her face and grabbed her around the torso. He then dragged her away from the door (the exit) and placed his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. The complainant continued to struggle. She managed to escape the respondent’s hold by dropping to the floor. The respondent then groped her breast and crotch areas on the outside of her clothing. He did so multiple times, while the complainant struggled against him. The respondent lifted the complainant and bent her over a table (her feet and legs were on the floor, with her torso on the table). He tried to take off her trousers and belt. The complainant again screamed for help. The respondent released her, and she escaped out of the room. The complainant suffered grazes on both elbows; bruising to her right lower jaw; bruising to both sides of her inner thighs; and a scratch to her vulva area. 1997 Indecent assault (x2) The respondent attended the Ipswich Hospital. He had been drinking. The offences were committed on the day of his release from the John Oxley Hospital. The respondent entered several ‘staff only’ locations. He looked into a staff room and saw that two nurses (the complainants) were the only ones in the room at the time. One of the nurses (the second complainant) said to the respondent, “Can we help you?” The respondent replied, “I am looking for a woman”. The second complainant responded, “What sort of woman?” He replied, “How do you say, a woman to have sex.” The respondent entered the staff room. He approached the other nurse (the first complainant – who was seated) and reached out and touched her on the face and head. The first complainant said, “Please don’t touch me,” and tried to get out of the seat. She could not, as the respondent was standing over her. He grabbed her arm and held her for about 10 to 20 seconds. -- 7 of 33 -- 8 The first complainant attempted to break away from the respondent but could not. The second complainant went over and tried to assist the first complainant. The second complainant saw the respondent reach towards his pants’ zipper, attempting to pull it down, so she (the second complainant) attempted to push him away. The respondent let go of the first complainant. He grabbed the second complainant in a ‘tight bear hug’. The second complainant began to scream and struggle. The respondent, once again, reached down towards his pants’ zipper with one hand, and appeared to be pulling it down. The second complainant managed to escape his grip and fled the staff room with the first complainant. The respondent admitted in a conversation with police that he was touching the complainants “in a sexual manner…”. [I note that, later that year, the respondent was convicted of dangerous driving: he was driving naked and intoxicated with alcohol.] 2003 Indecent assault The complainant was waiting to see a doctor in a waiting room at the Ipswich Hospital. The respondent was also in the waiting room. They both waited, sitting separately, for about an hour. When they were alone in the waiting room, he sat down next to her. He placed his hands on her shoulders (i.e. one hand on each of her shoulders) and kissed her on the neck. The complainant stood up and tried to run. The respondent said, “Don’t be like that.” The complainant screamed for help. The respondent grabbed her around the waist and pulled her back towards him. She struggled against him for some time and broke free. He immediately grabbed her again and pulled her backwards and downwards. The respondent himself fell backwards and the complainant fell on top of him. He did not let her go. He rubbed her breasts and moved his hands down her body. The complainant stopped him from moving his hands further down by locking her arms across her stomach. The respondent let go when people could be heard approaching. He ran to the ladies’ toilet and into a cubicle. When police asked after the fact what he was doing inside the cubicle, he said he was “finishing up”. After his arrest, he admitted to police that he went to the hospital because it “Got [him] a person the other time”. He said he did it so he’d get caught and go to jail. The offence occurred after he had broken up with his girlfriend. -- 8 of 33 -- 9 He was intoxicated at the time. He claimed later that voices told him that if he kissed the woman, it would reduce his frustration and suicidal tendencies. He said at the time he was vacillating between suicide and prison. 2007 Sexual assault (x4) The respondent went to Coles in Queens Plaza on March 2007 after a sex worker declined his business and he felt frustrated. He committed three sexual assaults on the one day, captured on CCTV, which shows him looking sideways regularly for witnesses. He exposed his penis and masturbated behind the first complainant, ejaculating onto her right arm. He touched the second complainant on the buttocks while he masturbated, penis exposed. He touched the third complainant on the buttocks while he masturbated, penis exposed. The respondent was stopped by Coles’ security staff and arrested by police. He took part in an interview during which he made statements to the effect that: • he had consumed alcohol that morning and had, as a result, become aroused; • he had attempted to hire a prostitute, but was denied due to being intoxicated – so he went to Coles; • with respect to the first complainant, “she didn’t seem to mind… unless she was too scared to move,”; and • with respect to the third complainant, “I saw a female by herself again and thought I would go in there and expose myself and touch her up a bit. That was about it.” After arresting the respondent for these assaults, police identified him as the perpetrator of a similar offence committed in January 2007. The fourth complainant was walking across the Victoria Street Bridge via the pedestrian walkway. The respondent approached her from behind. He placed his hand over her left breast, moving it down to her stomach, stopping at her pelvis area. The complainant said, “Don’t touch me.” The respondent -- 9 of 33 -- 10 proceeded to repeat the movement. She shouted at the respondent, who then turned and walked in the opposite direction. Before the January offence, he reported suicidal thoughts. He rang triple zero on more than one occasion, requesting to be arrested. Later, he blamed his offending on being released from the prison farm, rather than from Wolston Correctional Centre. 2016 (whilst on SO) Going armed to cause fear; Sexual assault; Contravention of a DPSOA order The respondent attended the Ipswich Hospital. He approached the office of the complainant woman who was inside working alone. He knocked on the door. The complainant let him in and returned to her desk. She asked him some questions about where he needed to be. He did not respond. He moved closer to her. She told him not to come closer or she would call security. He said he did not care. He produced a 40cm kitchen knife from his backpack and pointed it at the complainant. He then attempted to place his right hand down her shirt. She reached for, and grabbed, the knife with her left hand. She used her right hand to call for assistance on her mobile phone. The respondent forced his right hand underneath her shirt. The complainant felt his fingers under her shirt and bra. She felt him touch the upper part of her left breast. Another staff member went to her aid and ordered the respondent to drop the knife and get on the floor. After being instructed several times, the respondent complied. Security was called and escorted the respondent into the custody of Queensland Protective Services, where he was formally arrested. He was assessed in the emergency department of the hospital and told more than one health professional that he had thoughts to “kill a female”. He had not found anyone suitable in the emergency department waiting room. He wished to be admitted to a mental health hospital or sent to prison because it was less stressful there. Over the years since, he has given various accounts of this incident, including that – (a) he went to the hospital with the intention of harming an adult woman; (b) he went to the hospital to look for someone suitable to kill; -- 10 of 33 -- 11 (c) there had been urges for about two months which worsened on the day he resumed alcohol consumption; (d) his alcohol use was to blame – it created an uncontrollable force to commit the offence; (e) he had been upset by the harassment he experienced in the community; (f) he had been using sex workers, but they were too expensive so he went to the hospital to find a woman (a nurse) to have sex with after he became sexually preoccupied; (g) he found living in the community stressful; (h) the thought of going to the hospital had been present for six weeks; (i) he brought the knife to scare the woman into letting him touch her; (j) he was depressed; he saw a sex worker; then he went home to drink, which led to sexual urges and it felt like he was being controlled by external forces; (k) he wanted to return to prison because he was isolated and unsupported in the community; (l) the sexual offending was a way to get a lengthy sentence, but by then, he was sexually preoccupied; and (m) the sex worker to whom he was attached (X) was not available so he saw a different one and found it unpleasant. He drank alcohol. He associated X with nursing, so he went to the hospital with a knife to scare his potential victim. This was, in part, an attempt to get back at X. [23] Relevant to the 2016 offence, I note that, in 2014, the respondent reported an urge to sexually reoffend which was mitigated by the provision of additional supports for him under the SO. He was later moved into his own accommodation (off the DPSOA “Precinct”) although he was resistant to the move. He was referred to a private psychiatrist (Dr Arthur); received support from a non-government organisation (“NGO”) (Open Minds); and had an individual support worker. -- 11 of 33 -- 12 [24] In the months leading up to the 2016 offence, his NGO supports were withdrawn. He reported stress from the noise and derogatory comments of his youthful neighbours and was using quetiapine for reported auditory hallucinations, but he was not thought to be at risk of sexually reoffending. Indeed, he repeatedly denied sexual preoccupation or having sexually deviant thoughts. He was reviewed by his Queensland Corrective Services (“QCS”) case manager and denied a plan to see a sex worker (which, as will emerge, was untrue). None of his supports, including his professional supports noticed a change in his presentation. He met a family member the day before the 2016 offence, and she did not report a change in his presentation. Evidence tendered at the application for review [25] The evidence tendered at the application included (but not only) – (a) risk assessment reports by Dr Karen Brown and Dr Michael Beech; (b) two reports from Dr Arthur, as the respondent’s treating psychiatrist (dated 14 March 2025 and 6 June 2025); and (c) two reports from Dr Lars Madsen, as the respondent’s treating psychologist (dated 10 March 2025 and 27 July 2025). [26] Dr Brown, Dr Beech and Dr Madsen gave oral evidence at the hearing. [27] Having considered all of the evidence read on this application, I have set out below the aspects of it which I found of particular interest or relevance to this review. From the evidence of Dr Arthur [28] In seeking his release on supervision, the respondent relied heavily on the testosterone reducing effects of his anti-libidinal medication, Zoladex (also called Goserelin). Dr Arthur currently oversees the administration of the respondent’s Goserelin. [29] In his March 2025 report, Dr Arthur noted that there was a suggestion that, despite evidence of significant testosterone suppression, the respondent still had sexual interest. [30] There was another reference to the respondent’s sexual interest in Dr Arthur’s report of June 2025, in which he stated under the heading “Acute Risks”: -- 12 of 33 -- 13 “It is interesting that prisoner Bewert still makes reference to some level of sexual interest whilst on Zoladex, although denied any sexual arousal or activity. However, there is no evidence of any sexual acting out or preoccupation in jail.” [31] I noted also in the “IOMS” that the respondent reported in November of 2025 an intention to use a sex worker if he were released into the community. From the evidence of Dr Madsen [32] Dr Madsen has been working with the respondent for a number of years. [33] His March 2025 report noted, under the heading “Risk Assessments and Opinions”, that the respondent had been assessed as presenting a high to very high risk of future sexual offending. He referred to reports prepared about the respondent from 2014 until 2024, which highlighted the complexity of the respondent’s risk profile and the challenges for the respondent in achieving meaningful behavioural change. He drew from those reports and his clinical observations the following factors as elements that elevated the respondent’s risk of sexual re-offending: (a) Alcohol use; (b) Severe Personality Disorder, with prominent psychopathic traits; (c) Sexual preoccupation, with suggestions of paraphilic tendencies; (d) A pattern of seeking institutional settings (hospital or prison) to cope with life outside controlled environments, likely driven by personality issues and a need for external structure; (e) Possible underlying mental health issues, with reported hallucinations and paranoia; (f) Poor insight and cognitive distortions – leading to a limited understanding of his sexual drives and unreliable self-reporting, and a tendency to externalise blame, which hindered therapeutic processes and risk mitigation. [34] Dr Madsen noted the pattern of the respondent’s offending from the 1980s until 2016; namely, a pattern involving emotional overwhelm – triggered by rejection or unmet intimacy needs – leading to impulsive, maladaptive reactions, like offending, motivated by a desire to return to an institutional setting. -- 13 of 33 -- 14 [35] Dr Madsen noted an improvement over time in the respondent’s engagement with him. There was a shift towards greater openness and a willingness to explore the emotional underpinnings of his offending although Dr Madsen suggested that some of the respondent’s engagement might have been motivated by external pressures (such as the review about which he was anxious) as well as an intrinsic desire for change. [36] There had been advancements in – (a) the respondent’s insight into his emotional triggers; (b) his recognition that turning to offending to cope with distress is dysfunctional; and (c) his engagement in relapse prevention planning. He had developed distress tolerance skills and a deeper understanding of his offending cycles. However, his gains were tempered by his borderline intellectual functioning and personality pathology, which slowed skill generalisation. And he had many outstanding treatment needs, including a need for stronger emotional regulation. [37] In Dr Madsen’s opinion, the highly structured custodial environment limited the respondent’s therapeutic gains by reinforcing institutional dependency rather than fostering real-world coping skills, which made his prognosis guarded. He considered it time to move therapy to a community setting [38] In his oral testimony, Dr Madsen was asked about a document which he had prepared for the respondent which described the work they had done together in simple and relatable language. The respondent had taken the document to his assessment with Dr Beech, and referred to, and read from it when replying to some of Dr Beech’s questions. While this document, the respondent’s use of it, and his motivation for its use at risk assessments were the subject of cross-examination, I did not consider the respondent’s use of this document in his assessment by Dr Beech as relevant one way or another to the outcome of this review. From the evidence of Dr Beech -- 14 of 33 -- 15 [39] Dr Beech had previously assessed the respondent in 2011, 2013, and twice in 2024. [40] In addition to the explanations for his 2016 offending which he had given to others, the respondent told Dr Beech that his thoughts were to hurt someone sexually (by way of rape or assault). He took the knife because he had a “vague thought” about what he wanted and also “to feel notorious” to get back into prison. He said he had not planned to use the knife but did so under the influence of alcohol. [41] He said that since the 2016 offending, he had learned new coping skills. [42] In providing his 2025 risk assessment, Dr Beech assumed, mistakenly, that the respondent would have National Disability Insurance Scheme (“NDIS”) support if he were released into the community. Other evidence explained that the respondent would not have NDIS support upon his release. The respondent’s 2019 application for NDIS support, based on his borderline functioning, had not been successful. An application for NDIS funding could be made by Queensland Corrective Services on the respondent’s behalf, but its success would depend on the outcome of a functional capacity assessment. [43] In his October 2025 report, Dr Beech offered the following opinion about the causes of the respondent’s sexual offending: “The sexual offending has involved two separate causations: a need to obtain sexual gratification of deviant fantasies when destabilised by interpersonal difficulties or other stressors and a need to effect institutional care when overwhelmed, stressed, isolated and lonely in the community. These two factors are interrelated and mutually aggravating, but essentially when he feels rejected and overwhelmed, he has become sexually preoccupied and sought a return to custody through committing a sexual offence.” [44] Dr Beech offered the following observations and opinion about the 2016 offending: “The most recent offence in 2016 occurred under supervision in the context of significant therapeutic support engagement. It also marked an escalation in his offending in that it involved the use of a weapon and the victim was harmed. Mr Bewert these days indicates it occurred when he felt rejected by a sex worker with whom he had fantasised an attachment and while intoxicated. However, earlier accounts from him included thoughts or urges to harm someone, possibly kill them. Nonetheless, I think it is clear that part of the motivation was to return to custody. The more worrying aspect is that it had escalated; he had voiced some suicidal ideation; and -- 15 of 33 -- 16 despite the extent of his reported distress, none of it was detected by his case manager, community supports, or professionals. Instead, having brooded on the offending for a few weeks, he acted suddenly and deliberately. It indicates the limits to which supervision can prevent a person from committing a serious sexual offence once they put their mind to it. Rather than being destabilised by alcohol intoxication, he had, in fact, consumed alcohol to get the courage to act.” [45] Dr Beech noted Dr Madsen’s recommendation that treatment be transferred to a community setting on the strength of the respondent’s modest progress. Dr Beech too found evidence of progress during his assessment of the respondent. [46] Dr Beech’s risk assessment assumed that the respondent would continue to receive ALM. He applied the usual risk assessment instruments even though they did not cater to supervised sex offenders who had committed a sexual offence whilst supervised. [47] He noted that there was some data suggesting that something in the order of five per cent of supervised sexual offenders commit a sexual offence (whilst under supervision) and that the respondent was in a smaller group of supervised offenders who committed a serious sexual offence. (I am aware of a study of the sexual recidivism rates of prisoners released to supervision under the DPSOA, where the authors’ study found that 7.69 per cent of released dangerous prisoners committed a sexual offence whilst under supervision.)3 [48] Applying the instruments (the “Static-99” and the “RSVP”) and his clinical judgment and noting that the respondent had a high dynamic risk factor load, Dr Beech concluded that, unmodified, the respondent’s risk of committing a serious sexual offence was high.4 [49] Goserelin reduced the risk portion attributable to the respondent’s sexual fantasies and desire for sexual gratification. The other contributors to risk – the respondent’s personality disturbance, vulnerability to stress; and a desire to return to custody to 3 Rowlands, Palk, and Young “Recidivism rates of sex offenders managed under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003: an evaluation of actuarial justice” Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, 2020 Jun 23(2): 310–323. 4 Interestingly, Dr Beech noted in his oral evidence that “the worry these days” is that placing a released prisoner on a SO “just kick[s] that risk down the road … and when the supervision order is taken away, then up pops the risk again”. However, I did not take that evidence into account in determining this matter. -- 16 of 33 -- 17 militate against that stress – were currently addressed by Dr Madsen, who indicated that there were limits to how far treatment could progress in custody. [50] Dr Beech found it difficult to provide a risk assessment. In his report, he explained: “… Against Mr Bewert’s almost lifelong need for institutional care and his highly dysfunctional ways of achieving that, must be balanced the gains he has now made in custody through psychological interventions. He has been treated by Dr Madsen now for at least two years and it is clear that he has made progress. Mr Bewert is able to better articulate the strategies he can use and he can show how he can return to the material [that is, the document prepared for him by Dr Madsen]. He indicates that he can now access treating professionals. Those resources, though, were always available to him in 2016. What has changed is that he says he has now managed his shame and avoidance and is now able to recognise and articulate his difficulties and to seek help. Clearly, this is yet to be tested. In my opinion, supervision would reduce the risk that Mr Bewert would commit another serious sexual offence. It would do that by providing the monitoring that usually occurs on supervision orders. It would rely upon continued medication, continued psychiatric intervention and continued psychological intervention. It would rely upon stable accommodation and restrictions on movements. Mr Bewert will require the resources of an NDIS plan for day-to-day assistance. I strongly suspect that the vicissitudes of accommodation on a prison precinct will stress him, though possibly less than in the community per se. It is paramount that his case managers, treating clinicians and community supports are acute to any evidence of deterioration and vigilant to any signs. Mr Bewert’s tendency to secretiveness will need to be routinely challenged. Mr Bewert will require very close supervision if he is released. The difficulty is that if he remains secretive about his level of distress and then formulates a plan to effect his return to custody, matters could escalate very quickly. Once he has started to act, by my calculation, it is a simple brief taxi ride or Uber drive from the Wacol precinct to the Ipswich Hospital where he has tended to go to commit offences. Presumably, there would be GPS alerts that he has broken curfew. However, I suspect that there is a limited window to intervene. Should he commit another offence, it might be similar to that committed in 2016, possibly with a further escalation in harm to the victim, given that Mr Bewert may seek to act out his anger and frustration, seek to scare and harm a victim, or seek to gain greater notoriety and a longer custodial sentence. Overall, I think that the risk of his committing another serious sex offence, the likelihood, would be reduced to moderate or possibly -- 17 of 33 -- 18 below, by supervision. The sexual offence should it occur would be serious with a risk of physical harm. I can think of no further intervention that could be added to reduce his risk other than those generally provided in a strict supervision order. From a treatment perspective, I agree with Dr Madsen that treatment now needs to transition to a supervised community setting.” [51] In his oral evidence, Dr Beech qualified some of the opinions he had expressed in writing. He acknowledged that his written opinion, that the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence would be reduced to moderate or below, was probably taking it too far to the extent that he suggested that a SO might reduce the risk to below moderate. [52] Ultimately, as will emerge, his opinion boiled down to his assessment that the respondent was at moderate risk of committing an offence, including one more serious than the 2016 offence, which might include a sexual element, even though he was on Goserelin, because he was behaviourally driven to offend in the same (sexual) way, when in distress or not coping and desiring to return to prison, even if he were not sexually preoccupied or seeking sexual gratification. [53] Dr Beech thought that the fact that the respondent would be released without NDIS supports would make it more difficult for him to settle in, but “imagine[d]” that non- NDIS support would be put in place for him. The absence of NDIS or other supports did not change his risk assessment, but it would mean that (if he were released under a SO) the respondent’s curfews would not be relaxed until those supports were in place. Having said that, Dr Beech recognised that there was a dearth of (NGO) agencies available as supports for the respondent. And they did not provide the sort of support that the NDIS might provide. [54] Dr Beech explained that the Goserelin dealt with the sexualised element of the respondent’s potential offending. But it did not address his significant personality disturbance and his desire for institutional care. Even with Goserelin, there was a risk that the respondent could become overwhelmed. He might find that the Wacol Precinct did not meet his needs. He could blame others, but not tell them what was going on. He could then find a way of dealing with that. He may still get an urge to harm someone, not for sexual purposes, but so as to feel a sense of control. He may -- 18 of 33 -- 19 seek to return to prison and believe that, to do so, he would need to do something notorious – to escalate his previous offending. He might follow his previous pattern of attending at the Ipswich Hospital and committing an offence. Whilst he would not be pursuing sexual gratification, there was a behavioural driver for the commission of a sexual offence. He might fantasise about hurting someone – and he might do so in a sexual way because that was the pattern of behaviour he was used to. [55] Dr Beech considered the use of Goserelin essential to the respondent’s management in the community under a SO. Without it, there would be no effective reduction in his risk. It would be high, and to achieve adequate protection of the community, one would need to rely upon the respondent and Dr Madsen monitoring the respondent’s emotional state, sexual fantasies, and his response to the adversities of life. The problem with that was that the respondent was predisposed not to disclose those things, and to instead blame people for not picking up on matters he had not disclosed. Dr Beech acknowledged there had been modest progress in the respondent’s willingness to disclose and be open. But those supervising him from QCS would need to be hypervigilant to signs of his distress (like withdrawal). [56] Dr Beech acknowledged that, generally, risk decreases with age actuarially. [57] He confirmed that the respondent’s diagnoses of exhibitionism and frotteurism informed his prediction about how the respondent might re-offend (that is, it might include conduct of that kind). But the respondent had not engaged in exhibitionism or frotteurism for some time and his 2016 offence was his worst. His offending had escalated while he was under supervision, and that was the concern. He thought exhibitionism or frotteurism were much less likely now because before the 2016 offence the respondent had been ruminating on harming a woman – injuring and hurting them – and he had taken a knife to do so. Sexual component or not – he might “like” to scare and frighten women when he feels overwhelmed. [58] Dr Beech agreed that, for the respondent, living at the precinct under a Stage 1 curfew replicated institutionalised care outside of prison. He suspected it would be a long time before the Stage 1 curfew would be relaxed. He agreed that Goserelin “relatively significantly” reduced the respondent’s risk of sexually reoffending. -- 19 of 33 -- 20 But even on Goserelin, the respondent might want to harm people when he is distressed. [59] Dr Beech was asked to assume that the respondent could remain on the precinct for ten years – without NDIS support, but with management under a SO. He was asked whether the respondent’s risk remained moderate. Dr Beech said “yes” – if: he remained on Goserelin, he was monitored, his movements were restricted (including by way of exclusion zones) and everyone was vigilant to, and forever monitoring, the risk he posed were he to become distressed. From the evidence of Dr Brown [60] Dr Brown has assessed the respondent four times. Her 2025 report included a detailed review of the respondent’s sexual offending and previous reports about him. She noted the following – (a) in 2020, the respondent told Dr Jane Phillips (who had been engaged by the court to provide a risk assessment report for the review of the CDO) that he would be a “ticking time bomb” if he were to be released and required to live outside of the precinct; (b) in 2021, whilst undertaking the Inclusions Sexual Offending Program, he reported that he wanted to rape his psychologist and wrote “homicide” erratically in his workbook; (c) in February 2022, he accepted anti-libidinal treatment and reported a lower sex drive, but Dr Arthur speculated that he was engaging in positive impression management; (d) in July 2022, he reported feeling “tension” that he was not getting sex and said that he was still masturbating; (e) in July 2022, he externalised blame for his offending and requested a high level of care (the “right support”) upon his release; (f) in July 2022, he said he was not willing to live alone in the community – he wanted to live in secure, shared, supported accommodation after a period at the precinct; (g) in July 2022, he could not guarantee that he would not sexually reoffend; -- 20 of 33 -- 21 (h) in July 2022, he commenced fortnightly psychological treatment with Dr Lars Madsen; (i) in mid-November 2022, the respondent reported sexual arousal to “sexy advertisements” or television programs. He acknowledged having sexual fantasies but was not willing to explore their content. He admitted to “testing himself by masturbating”; (j) in December 2023, he reported a lower libido (after an increase in one of his medications); (k) in January 2023, he reported that he rarely experienced sexual thoughts – any he had were fleeting and non-specific. But he was not willing to discuss. (In her oral evidence, Dr Brown explained that the Goserelin takes some time to work and that the respondent no longer had a testosterone level to speak of); (l) in 2023 (in the context of Dr Brown’s risk assessment), the respondent presented with a pathological preference for institutional or high-level care and requested a higher level of care in the community (were he to be released to supervision) than that which could be reasonably and practicably provided; (m) in March 2023, he told Dr Arthur that he had no sexual urges; and he was unable to get an erection or to masturbate. He said he was accepting of his loss of sexual function – although there is also a report from the same year that he was frustrated that his sexual drive was absent; (n) in May 2023, noting that the respondent’s testosterone levels were near castration levels, Dr Arthur said “Effective anti-libidinal treatment is only one aspect of risk management, as there may be other non-testosterone related drivers for offending (such as intimacy seeking or power/control issues). However, whilst prisoner Bewert remains compliant with his monthly Zoladex injection, one can be confident that the testosterone driven aspects of his offending are being effectively managed”. (o) in August 2023, after his CDO was confirmed, the respondent acknowledged a level of frustration about his suppressed libido but reflected that it was beneficial in managing his risk; -- 21 of 33 -- 22 (p) in April 2024, he told Dr Arthur that he was unable to achieve or maintain an erection and he denied sexual fantasies or sexual preoccupation; (q) in 2024, he told Dr Brown that, if he had been permitted to live at the precinct indefinitely, the 2016 offence would not have been committed. He claimed that the professionals supervising him should have seen the warning signs. He told Dr Brown that he would not re-offend if he were to remain on his anti- libidinal medication and was permitted to reside at the precinct indefinitely. He was frustrated that his sexual drive was absent; (r) in July 2024, he told Dr Beech that he had no sex drive or sexual thoughts. He said he did not masturbate or look at pictures of women; (s) in March 2025, he told Dr Arthur that he had no sexual functioning; (t) in June 2025, he told Dr Arthur that not being able to masturbate was frustrating at times and he admitted to occasional sexual interest and arousal; and (u) in August 2025, he told Dr Brown he was unable to get an erection, and he accepted this. [61] Although it was not mentioned by Dr Beech or Brown, or either of the parties, I noted that the IOMS attached to the supplementary affidavit of Emma Wildermoth contained a detailed entry about a discussion between the Principal Advisor of the High-Risk Offender Management Unit and the respondent on 12 November 2025, during which the respondent said he would be interested in seeing a sex worker again in the community. At least on its face, the respondent’s stated interest in seeing a sexual worker if he were to be release was difficult to reconcile with the evidence to the effect that the ALM had effectively reduced his sex drive. [62] Dr Brown assessed the respondent’s risk using, in addition to her clinical judgment, the Static-99, PCL-R and RSVP – V2 instruments. I noted that on the PCL-R, the respondent scored just below the cut-off level for psychopathy. [63] She offered the following opinions in her written report – “[The respondent’s] sexual offending is associated with a number of rather diverse risk factors including sexual deviance, a severe personality disorder with psychopathic traits, a possible low level psychotic disorder, and a pathological preference for institutional living. The most recent -- 22 of 33 -- 23 sexual offence in 2016 occurred whilst on a supervision order and in the context of a comprehensive package of community care involving QCS case management, gradual exposure to the community (with placement at the Wacol Precinct for a lengthy period beforehand), fortnightly psychology sessions, regular review and treatment by a psychiatrist, engagement with an NGO (and other community mental health support services) and regular visits from a Jehovah’s witness. Mr Bewert also had considerable support from his brother and his partner who lived locally in Ipswich. Following his imprisonment, for the next 7 years (including during group sexual offender treatment programs), Mr Bewert gave conflicting and vague reasons as to why he had reoffended [in 2016] … In 2024, Mr Bewert reported that in fact his relationship with a particular sex worker was the reason for his offending … [after she rejected him and he saw another sex worker who was not to his satisfaction] … He very quickly deteriorated, used alcohol and then committed the [2016] sexual offence, he said to try and make the sex worker jealous and to achieve some form of retribution for her rejection of him, as well as to ensure his swift return to custody. He now denies that he was homicidal at the time of the incident. In my opinion, that narrative remains superficial and limited. Whilst some sort of perceived rejection by a sex worker may well have been a factor, the offending was also secondary to several other factors. Mr Bewert had been unstable for some months prior to the offending, reporting thoughts of harm to himself and others to the professionals involved in his care. He may well have had homicidal thoughts for months prior to the offending associated with thoughts of notoriety. He was sexually preoccupied, with paraphilic thoughts involving female health professionals. He was taking PRN quetiapine for psychotic-like symptoms on top of his regular medication. He was financially stressed (in part because he was spending money on sex workers). He expressed frustration and anxiety that his neighbours were targeting him because he was a sex offender. He disliked living on his own and repeatedly requested more supports indicating a pathological requirement for institutionalised status and care. (NB: This particular risk factor has been highlighted by assessing psychiatrists for many years. In 2011, Dr Lawrence advised, ‘the risk of offending will be high unless his dependency needs are met’.) Mr Bewert remains on depot anti-libidinal medication with confirmed low testosterone levels. He reports his sexual drive as lowered, but it may not be completely eliminated. Additionally, Mr Bewert has completed another year of individual therapy with Dr Madsen. He has addressed one aspect of his offending pathway (i.e. as a response to community stressors and to achieve incarceration). He has not addressed his paraphilic disorders or the factors underlying same, and he has not properly explored (in my opinion) his statements of homicidal intent made over many years associated with a desire to achieve infamy. His relapse prevention strategies include distress tolerance and other cognitive techniques but (sic) also an apparent newfound awareness that he can be honest with, and seek support from, his professional supports. I am hesitant to conclude this is a treatment gain, as Mr Bewert has historically readily reported his risks to his professional supports (including -- 23 of 33 -- 24 homicidal ideation) indicating a significant level of disclosure in the past. I think it likely that Mr Bewert is simply engaging in positive impression management and adhering to a rather facile narrative regarding his offending, so as to avoid more detailed exploration, including with regards to his paraphilic disorders and his history of homicidal ideation. Additionally, Mr Bewert has not made any changes to his custodial living arrangement or routine. He remains in a secure unit, he does not work (for unclear reasons) and [is] essentially idle during the day. He remains highly avoidant of any unregulated interpersonal contact (more likely to occur at work or in a residential unit) and so he has not had any opportunity to practice some of the techniques he may have learned in therapy. Mr Bewert is also adamant that if released to a supervision order he must stay at the Wacol Precinct for the duration of the order and that he requires QCS escorts when in the community. He does not have an NDIS package and at interview he appeared incredulous at the possibility of release without support workers. I thought it was salient when he remarked, ‘I could have a million supports and I would still feel abandoned’ indicating the reality that no amount of community supports will be sufficient. Longitudinally, Mr Bewert will continue to present with a need for institutionalised care, driven by his cluster B personality disorder, best conceptualised as a narcissistic entitlement to special treatment. This remains a risk factor for sexual reoffending even though his sexual drive is now suppressed. I agree with previous assessors that the unmodified high risk of sexual reoffending will be reduced to some extent by the anti-libidinal medication, but I agree with Dr Harden that it is difficult to quantify the extent of that risk reduction, in a man with so many other risk factors for sexual offending and with the type of offending that is difficult to manage with supervision, i.e. impulsive, unpredictable and high risk offending (with weapons and possible homicidal ideation) against stranger females in public places. I remain concerned that at the present time Mr Bewert continues to externalise responsibility for himself onto professional supports and services and requests community supports that cannot be provided to him (especially in the longer term). He has no personal supports and given his presentation to date he is extremely unlikely to seek out prosocial networks and a protective daily routine. My recommendation is the same as my previous report. Mr Bewert should continue to address his outstanding risk factors in psychological treatment … and create a detailed relapse prevention plan. He should progress to residential accommodation so as to demonstrate some capacity for self-management and an ability to tolerate others in a less controlled environment. He should try and establish a meaningful routine. It may also be helpful for the Prison Mental Health Service to consider gradual rationalisation/cessation of benzodiazepine medications which are not usually prescribed in the long term. The cessation of benzodiazepines in the community may result in problematic agitation or withdrawal effects which may in turn increase risk.” [64] Dr Brown maintained, if not strengthened, her written opinions in her oral evidence. -- 24 of 33 -- 25 [65] She confirmed that the relevant risk related to the respondent’s previous pattern of offending– that is, sexual assault, perhaps accompanied by a physical assault, on a woman stranger, in a public place and with a likely focus on nurses or hospital staff. [66] The role of his (perceived, which could include by nurses upon his discharge from hospital, or actual) rejection by women in his sexual offending was not well understood. He said recently that he felt rejected by a sex worker and went on to generalise that rejection and to act upon it by sexually offending in 2016. [67] Dr Brown could not say by how much the anti-libidinal medication reduced his risk of serious sexual offending because his offending was not well understood. The theme which came through the reports over the years was that unless the respondent’s dependency needs were met, he would remain at a high risk of reoffending. Nor was his likely offending something which could be easily managed. There had been a failed release on a SO when there were multiple supports in place. The 2016 offence was still poorly understood. He said so many different things to so many different people. It was not known whether it was a planned sexual homicide or an empty threat with a knife in an effort to return to prison. [68] Over many years, psychiatrists had recommended the respondent move into residential accommodation in prison – but he had not been able to tolerate it. If he moved to residential, then he might be able to demonstrate that he could cope with the stress of a less structured environment. If he were to be released, he would be released with less support than he had previously. He had an extreme need for attention – for care and containment (as a consequence of his personality structure and his institutionalisation) – and without it, he cannot function properly. And he would be motivated to offend to return to prison. [69] She acknowledged that a SO in combination with anti-libidinal medication would reduce the respondent’s unmodified high risk of serious sexual offending, but she could not say by how much. Without anti-libidinal medication, a SO would not be effective in reducing the risk at all – as had been shown in 2016. Dr Brown said it was very unusual for someone to commit a sexual offence, particularly of the magnitude of the 2016 offence, whilst on a SO. -- 25 of 33 -- 26 [70] While the respondent’s age was relevant (generally, risk decreases with age because it is associated with a reduced libido and more limited victim access), Dr Brown did not know how relevant. It came down to the individual. [71] Dr Brown thought that there were more than the two causative elements nominated by Dr Beech at play in this matter. There was also alcohol use; his narcissism and his wish for notoriety; and a wish to harm, which may or may not be part of the sexual offending. Anti-libidinal medication did not negate the respondent’s personality disturbance nor his dependency on institutionalisation. Also, there were still questions about the link between his (perceived or actual) rejection by women and his sexual offending, which meant it could not be known whether anti-libidinal medication would affect the risk arising out of rejection. [72] In her view, on anti-libidinal medication and under a SO, the risk of the respondent reoffending in a serious sexual way was high to moderately high. Other evidence [73] Other evidence of relevance included evidence from Ms Wildermoth, from the High- Risk Offender Management Unit (HROMU) of Corrective Services, confirming that the respondent was currently housed in the secure section of Wolston Correctional Centre (“WCC”). He was able to apply for a place in the residential section of WCC but had not done so. [74] The overall theme of the balance of her evidence was that QCS had concerns about their ability to manage the risks posed by the respondent, bearing in mind Dr Brown’s report in particular. She considered QCS’ ability to reasonably and practicably apply a supervision order which reflected the respondent’s risks and needs would be “limited”. She was not cross-examined about this aspect of her evidence. In other words, there was no challenge to it. Her evidence related to section 13(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, which requires the court to consider, among other things, whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order and that the section 16 requirements can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. [75] If the respondent were released to the precinct he would be placed on a ‘Stage 1’ curfew. Any reporting he was required to do would be on the grounds of the precinct. -- 26 of 33 -- 27 He would be tested for alcohol and drug consumption with limited warning. On a Stage 1 curfew, he would require leave to attend appointments as determined by those supervising him. He would not necessarily be escorted by Corrective Services staff if he were permitted to travel off the grounds of the precinct. Escorted leave might occur in the early weeks of release, progressing to unescorted, whilst still on a Stage 1 curfew. But he would be expected to carry out daily activities unescorted. [76] The respondent would likely be required to wear an “ankle bracelet” to allow for the monitoring of his location. He could be excluded from hospitals and an alert could sound if he were to approach or enter one. [77] According to Ms Wildermoth, Richmond Fellowship, an NGO which had supported the respondent in the past, no longer supports DPSOA released prisoners. Whilst Open Minds, another NGO, might be available to him for eligible programs, they were no longer funded for the supports or programs they provided to the respondent in 2016. [78] Regarding the possibility of the respondent remaining on the precinct for the duration of his order, with escorts and supports, Ms Wildermoth said: “Further, long term maintenance on 24-hour curfew is not considered conducive to the respondent’s reintegration needs. Should the respondent’s risk be such that he cannot be unescorted in the community, QCS advise this can only be achieved in a custodial correctional centre.” [79] Ms Jodie Mair, the respondent’s lawyer, contacted Open Minds on 3 December 2025. She was told that there were no inclusion criteria for access to services and no automatic exclusions: each application was considered on a case-by-case basis. Applications were determined within days and there was no limit on the length of time support would remain in place. Submissions after the evidence [80] The onus is on the applicant to displace the preference for a supervision order in any decision made under section 30(3) of the Act. [81] Having heard the evidence, the representative of the Attorney-General hardened her position in that she no longer suggested that there were cogent reasons for the respondent’s release. Rather, she submitted that she had so displaced the preference -- 27 of 33 -- 28 for his release on supervision. She contended that the evidence did not support a finding that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the respondent’s release on supervision. She argued that the administration of ALM would not ameliorate any stress or anxiety felt by the respondent in the community if he were released on a SO, which seemed to have played into his 2016 offending. ALM would not address the personality factors which contributed to the respondent’s risk. Nor would it address his desire to achieve notoriety (in the course of committing an offence which would see him again contained in an institution). Having regard to the respondent’s past conduct, the Attorney-General submitted that one would be circumspect about the suggestion that the respondent would utilise the supports available to him under a SO if he were to be released. QCS staff would need to be hypervigilant to the signs of elevated risk – but even then, if the respondent were determined to offend, there was little that could be done to stop him. [82] The respondent submitted that the court could not be satisfied that a SO which “regulates but does not compel” the administration of anti-libidinal medication to the respondent could not ensure adequate protection of the community from the risk posed by the respondent of committing a serious sexual offence. I will deal more directly with the respondent’s argument under the heading “Consideration” below. Consideration [83] I must consider whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order – having regard to its proposed conditions. [84] In this case, the relevant risk from which the community requires adequate protection is the risk posed by the respondent of committing a sexual offence, involving violence, against adult women. [85] I proceeded on the assumption that, if he were released, the respondent would be taking ALM. I proceeded on the assumption that, accordingly, his sexual urges would not be a risk factor for his serious sexual offending – although, I was very troubled by his indication in November 2025 that he was interested in seeing a sex worker upon his release, which is not consistent with castration levels of testosterone. Regardless, that left his other risk factors, including (but not only) his high dependency needs – which, if not met to his satisfaction, put him at risk of behaving -- 28 of 33 -- 29 in such a way as to secure a return to an “institution”. As the respondent said himself, if he did not get the support he “needed”, things might become “problematic”. Although the respondent told the Principal Advisor of the High-Risk Offender Management Unit on 12 November 2025 that he did not want “too much support” he could not elaborate further and, regardless, his saying he did not want too much support is inconsistent with the theme of his statements about his support needs over many years and his dependency needs. [86] In the past, including in 2016, the respondent has achieved institutionalisation by committing a serious sexual offence (that is, a sexual offence involving violence against adult women). On the evidence, the respondent might, if released, re-offend in that same way for the same reason – even where he has no sex drive – because he is behaviourally driven to do so. [87] In my view, it should go without saying that, at least for the purposes of the DPSOA, which includes achieving adequate protection of the community as its first object, a respondent’s reason for committing a serious sexual offence is irrelevant. As Dr Beech explained, sadism, rather than a desire for sexual gratification, may drive the commission of a serious sexual offence. In other words, in my view, at least for the purposes of the Act, an offence may be a serious sexual offence even if an offender was not driven to achieve sexual gratification thereby. [88] The experts were uncertain about the respondent’s motivation for his 2016 offending. It is very concerning that he told several people in the immediate aftermath of it that he had thoughts of killing a woman. I accept that he has been more open in therapy with Dr Madsen. But there is still a way to go. And unless the experts can accurately understand the motivation for, or the decision-making around, the serious sexual offence of 2016 – whilst he was under what was thought to have been a suitably conditioned supervision order – it is difficult to put in place risk management. [89] If the 2016 offence was driven by a desire to be re-institutionalised, then it is very difficult to guard against that risk. During his assessment by Dr Brown, the respondent was open about what he hoped for if he were to be released on supervision. He did not wish to ever leave the precinct. And he expected or hoped for escorts into the community – as I understood it – for the duration of the order. On the evidence, the intense support desired by the respondent is not available to the respondent under -- 29 of 33 -- 30 a supervision order. Something close to it might be in place during the initial period of the order, but it would not continue indefinitely. Supervision of a respondent at the precinct, whilst restrictive, cannot, nor is it meant to, replicate prison conditions. Whilst case management meetings are regular, and specialist appointments facilitated, the respondent would be expected to slowly engage with the community on his own. That is apparently not something the respondent wishes to do. The 2016 offence occurred when he was apparently and objectively reasonably well supported – but he was not happy about being moved from the precinct and, it may be inferred, not satisfied with the support provided (although I acknowledge support from an NGO was being wound down). It seemed to me that there was a risk that, as before, release on a supervision order might fall short of meeting the respondent’s dependency needs – thereby creating a risk of things becoming “problematic” and of his re-offending, in a way familiar to him, so as to achieve a return to custody. [90] Further, on the evidence, the respondent might act impulsively (including in a serious sexual way) if emotionally triggered and unable to otherwise cope. Impulsive criminal acts are difficult to guard against. The apparent emotional trigger for the 2016 offending was loneliness and the respondent’s inability to form connections with others – not something against which a supervision order may meaningfully guard. The impression I have from reading the IOMS is that, although surrounded by other prisoners, the respondent keeps to himself. He does not work. He has chosen not to apply to move to a residential unit, which might put him in closer contact with other prisoners. As Dr Brown explained, the theme of the reports over the years has been that, unless the respondent’s high dependency needs were met in the community, he would remain at high risk. However, I acknowledge that the ALM might reduce that risk to moderate or moderately high – although as above, I did not have the benefit of an examination of the respondent’s November 2025 statement that he intended to see a sex worker if he were released into the community. [91] As to whether his risk of committing a serious sexual offence might be detected and responded to under a SO – that risk had not been detected in 2016. Indeed, before its commission, the respondent denied sexual preoccupation and he denied that he was seeing or intended to see a sex worker. He remains an unreliable self-reporter. Any recent gains in his openness are tempered by his borderline intellectual functioning and his personality pathology. -- 30 of 33 -- 31 [92] It might be said that those supervising the respondent in the future would need to be more vigilant to his feelings of loneliness or anxiety. But what might they do if those feelings were detected? An answer might be to put the respondent on a 24-hour curfew, if he were still at the precinct. That was done in 2016 when some concerns were noted. But that begs the question: Until when? The respondent contends, in effect, that it would be possible for him to remain on the precinct for the duration of his order under curfew. Even if that were the case (and on the evidence it is not), it further begs the question: What if a 24-hour curfew does not meet the respondent’s dependency needs? Even on a 24-hour curfew, the respondent is expected to attend to his own needs – such as his need to purchase food – independently (with permission to leave the precinct to do so). [93] On the evidence, at best for the respondent, he is a moderate risk of committing a serious sexual offence were he to be released on a suitably conditioned supervision order – even with ALM. Against that background: I rejected outright the respondent’s submission that the risk he posed was not unacceptable because he was likely to offend as he had done in the past and none of his past offending fell into the category of “especially serious sexual offences”. It is trite to observe that the Act is concerned with serious sexual offending, not especially serious sexual offending – whatever that may mean. The seriousness of the respondent’s offending increased whilst he was under supervision previously. Any re-offending in the future would probably be at a similar level of seriousness. In my view, a moderate risk of the respondent re- offending at that level was not acceptable. I rejected outright the related submission of the respondent that, if he were to re-offend whilst on a supervision order, the likely gravity of his re-offending “was not such that a moderate level of risk [of it occurring] would nonetheless mean that the risk of committing a sexual offence could still be unacceptable”. In 2016, the respondent committed a more serious sexual offence than the sort of sexual offence he had committed prior to his release on supervision. Thus, one could not have predicted the nature of his re-offending whilst on a supervision order by reference to his past offending. But even if I were to assume that the respondent would offend at the same level of seriousness as his 2016 offending, it is important to note that the 2016 offending was contained to an armed, sexual assault only because the complainant was able to get to her phone and call for help and help came relatively quickly. Had the complainant not been able to reach her phone, it is -- 31 of 33 -- 32 not unreasonable to infer that she could have been raped by the respondent, if not killed. As noted, in the immediate aftermath of the offending, the respondent told more than one health professional that he had thoughts of killing a woman. [94] On the evidence, ALM reduced one of the risk factors for the respondent’s serious sexual offending (that is, his desire for sexual gratification) but it did not bear upon other relevant risk factors, such as alcohol consumption, a desire to achieve notoriety, or return to custody because of his high dependency needs. [95] The respondent remains highly dependent and, consistently with that trait, he made it plain to Dr Brown that his expectation or desire, were he to be released on a SO, was that he would receive high levels of support once released – including, for example, escorts off the precinct – for the duration of the order. He made it plain that he wishes to remain at the precinct for the entirety of his period of supervision. He has made it very plain that his goal is not to live independently at all. On the evidence, while he may be permitted to remain at the precinct for years, it is unlikely that his very high dependency needs will be met to his satisfaction upon his release on supervision. It is not reasonable or practicable for QCS officers to provide support to the respondent, akin to Support Worker support, whilst he is on a SO – at least not beyond the first few months of his release. [96] Further, if he were to seriously sexually re-offend, it is likely to be impulsive and public offending, which is difficult to guard against by way of supervision order conditions. [97] I have considered the impact on the respondent’s liberty of continuing his detention. But in my view, the relevant risk he poses is unacceptable when one considers not only its likelihood (at best for him, moderate) but also the way in which it is likely to materialise (offending involving serious, and perhaps armed, sexual violence). [98] For all of these reasons, I was persuaded that the adequate protection of the community cannot be ensured by the respondent’s release on supervision. Other matter -- 32 of 33 -- 33 [99] At the hearing, I raised the issue of the lawfulness of a supervision order which, in effect, compels a respondent to take ALM. I understand that I am not the first judge of this court to do so. I asked the parties for written submissions on the issue, and I am very grateful for the work they put into their submissions. I am also grateful for the research of my associate into this issue. However, because of the outcome of this application, it is not necessary for me to say anything more about this matter. -- 33 of 33 --