Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Allwood [2025] QSC 236

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Allwood [2025] QSC 236 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Applicant) v GORDON ANTHONY ALLWOOD (Respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 7178/17 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: 19 September 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 15 September 2025 JUDGE: Smith J ORDER: 1. Pursuant to s 30 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) the decision made on 24 May 2021 and most recently affirmed on 10 June 2024 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order is affirmed. 2. Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made originally on 24 May 2021. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – GENERALLY – where the respondent is subject to a continuing detention order – whether the respondent was proved to be an unacceptable risk of committing serious sexual offences – whether order affirming original decision should be made – whether a continuing detention order or supervision order should be made Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) ss 13, 16, 27, 29, 30 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 48 -- 1 of 16 -- 2 Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Allen [2019] QSC 56, considered Attorney-General v Allwood [2021] QSC 15; (2021) 7 QR 346, considered Attorney-General v Allwood [2021] QSC 139, cited 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 Van De Wetering v Attorney General [2024] QCA 222, applied COUNSEL: Mr J Tate for the Attorney General Mr C Reid for the Respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor for the Attorney General McKenzie Mitchell Solicitors for the respondent Introduction [1] This a review of a continuing detention order pursuant to s 27(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSOA). [2] For the reasons which follow I am satisfied to the high standard required that the respondent is an unacceptable risk of committing serious sexual offences if released in the absence of a Division 3 order. I am also satisfied that a continuing detention order should be made to ensure the adequate protection of the community. Background [3] The respondent was born 17 April 1969 and presently is 56 years of age. He has a relevant criminal history as follows1: Date Offence details Sentence 15/04/1987 Clermont Magistrates Court Convicted of indecent dealing in respect of a 10 year old female child. The respondent was babysitting the child and her younger brother. He touched her breasts and vaginal area. 12 months’ probation. 1 Attorney-General v Allwood [2021] QSC 15; (2021) 7 QR 346. -- 2 of 16 -- 3 15/12/1988 Clermont Magistrates Court Indecent dealing with a boy under 14. He assaulted the complainant in a public toilet twice. 3 years’ probation and to undergo medical, psychological, psychiatric or other counselling as directed. 2/09/1993 Ipswich District Court Indecent dealing with a child under 12. 2 years imprisonment with parole recommendation after 9 months. To undergo sexual offending course while in custody. 2/03/2009 Brisbane District Court The respondent was convicted of sexual offences in relation to a 12 year old female child. After befriending the child’s father, he posed as his 14-year-old nephew and sent pictures of his erect penis to the child’s phone and requested she sent explicit photos of herself to him. 18 months imprisonment suspended after serving 194 days with an operational period of 3 years. Three years’ probation. 11/05/2012 Ipswich District Court The respondent was convicted of unlawful stalking of a 15 year old girl and failing to comply with reporting conditions. During volunteer exercises to assist flood victims in Gatton, both the victim and the respondent attended. The respondent attempted to befriend the child and used a false name to text her and invite her to meetings. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment during which time he completed the inclusion sexual offending program. He refused to participate in the staying on track maintenance program. 2 years imprisonment with 363 days pre-sentence custody declared and parole eligibility date set at 14 July 2012. 21/10/2015 Ipswich District Court The respondent was convicted of a number of offences of using a carriage service to procure children and transmit indecent communication to a person under 16. He contacted eight children between the ages of 13 and 17 using a Facebook profile in the name of his brother. He also engaged in a sexualised chat with a 14 year old girl (who in fact was a police officer). He requested explicit photos from her and gave her instructions on how to masturbate. For the indictable offences, 3 years imprisonment to be released on recognisance of $500.00 after serving 12 months imprisonment. For the related summary offences (dealt with under s 651 of the Code), 6 months’ imprisonment. Sentences were concurrent and 331 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served under both sentences. Parole eligibility date 23 November 2015. -- 3 of 16 -- 4 6/04/2020 The respondent was released to a supervision order in 2017. He breached the conditions of this order in August 2018 and was returned to custody. He was convicted of additional sexual offences relating to sexualised message contact with a 13 year old girl in the Philippines associated with the transfer of money to the child’s mother. 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 593 days declared as time served under the sentence. [4] In 2017 he was released on a supervision order by Davis J. He breached this and in 2021 he was made the subject of a continuing detention order.2 He is currently incarcerated in the Wolston Correctional Centre. This is the third review of the continuing detention order. Attorney-General’s evidence Dr Brown [5] There is an affidavit from Dr Karen Brown.3 Dr Brown notes that the respondent has diagnoses of paedophilic disorder (nonexclusive type), mixed antisocial and narcissistic personality disorder with significant psychopathic traits and mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ 69).4 He has multiple convictions for breach offences including breaches of domestic violence orders, bail conditions, suspended sentences, a probation order and a supervision order. [6] Dr Brown notes in her report that the respondent has completed 17 sessions of treatment with a psychologist, Ms Ward. Ms Ward notes that he struggled with verbal comprehension, reasoning, and memory, and this impacted on his capacity to self- reflect. He denies sexual interest and preoccupation with children and sexual fantasies. Ms Ward noted that overall small gains were made in his behaviour during the sessions.5 [7] Dr Brown’s diagnoses are largely unchanged from her report in 2017. He has been diagnosed with a paedophilic disorder, a mixed personality disorder (anti-social and narcissistic) with significant psychopathic traits and mild intellectual disability. His risk level is largely unchanged from the previous interviews. On Static 99R, the risk of sexual reoffending is in the high or well above average range. On the PCL-R score he is 24 out of 40 which suggests psychopathic traits, but he is below the score for a diagnosis of psychopathy. On the RSVP he demonstrates 17 out of 22 risk factors.6 [8] Dr Brown’s opinion is that the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending is high due to his chronic and diverse history of offending, the diagnosis of a paraphilia and a severe personality disorder with psychopathic traits. There has been a long- standing resistance to all forms of sexual offender treatment, further complicated by 2 Attorney-General v Allwood [2021] QSC 139. 3 Affidavit of Dr Brown dated 25 August 2025 CFI 98. 4 Affidavit of Dr Brown dated 25 August 2025 CFI 98 Exhibit KB-2,page 4. 5 Affidavit of Dr Brown dated 25 August 2025 CFI 98 Exhibit KB-2, pages 34 – 35. 6 Affidavit of Dr Brown dated 25 August 2025 CFI 98 Exhibit KB-2, page 39. -- 4 of 16 -- 5 cognitive deficits.7 He also has no personal supports in the community, is institutionalised and appears ambivalent about release. His self-reporting regarding sexual drive and preferences remains inconsistent and unreliable. Although he engaged in psychological treatment in the past 12 months, this mostly has been spent on establishing a workable therapeutic relationship. His progress as regards sexual offender treatment has been very slow. His current relapse prevention strategies do not indicate any significant treatment gains and instead rely on self-isolation in a remote area, and general avoidance of people. These strategies are maladaptive, avoidant, unrealistic and unworkable.8 [9] He has been assessed on two occasions for anti-libidinal medication, but this has been dismissed. [10] She states: “It remains my view that if released to a supervision order at this stage, Mr Allwood will again present as disengaged and dismissive towards case management and his very limited gains made in psychological therapy will be lost as he encounters various challenges and stressors … in these circumstances he will be at a high risk of sexual reoffending, most likely online via social media with risk of progression to contact offending. There is also a risk of contact offending with or without grooming in shopping centres or public toilets. He may have unauthorised contact with a woman with a teenage daughter (believed to be his daughter) as it had occurred in the past.”9 [11] Dr Brown recommends the continuation of individual psychological treatment and over time he may better tolerate an assessment by a forensic psychiatrist regarding the anti-libidinal medication. Oral evidence of Dr Brown [12] Dr Brown said that anti-libidinal medication would reduce Mr Allwood’s sexual drive. This would be useful to reduce his risk of reoffending. It is not a 100 per cent cure but it would assist. He needs to be presented with informed consent but there also needs to be ongoing psychological treatment. However, there are barriers because of Mr Allwood’s personality and his ability to engage with professionals. The core issues here are paedophilia and the previous convictions. He has already had a lot of treatment but he finds it difficult to address the core issues. He is also difficult to treat because of his mental health disorder; personality disorder; paraphilia (paedophilia) and mild intellectual impairment. It would however be helpful if he establishes a therapeutic relationship. She accepted that he had made gains since 2017 but they were very slow. He can talk about the offences now. It is a real shame that Ms Ward cannot continue but Mr Hamilton is good. Long term treatment is required here, together with the medication. Mr Allwood needs to accept he is a paedophile. There needs to be an internal change to reduce his risk to then consider supervision. It is also difficult for QCS to manage his devices and internet use. Over the next 12 7 Affidavit of Dr Brown dated 25 August 2025 CFI 98 Exhibit KB-2, page 41. 8 Affidavit of Dr Brown dated 25 August 2025 CFI 98 Exhibit KB-2, page 42. 9 Affidavit of Dr Brown dated 25 August 2025 CFI 98 Exhibit KB-2, page 42. -- 5 of 16 -- 6 months he should continue his treatment with Mr Hamilton and reassess taking the medication at a suitable time. [13] In cross-examination Dr Brown said she had seen Mr Allwood on five occasions. She accepted he had made gains with Ms Ward, although limited. She had seen the case notes of Mr Hamilton and said it was early days but there is some engagement. Anti- libidinal mediation should be re-discussed with Mr Hamilton. She accepted there were side effects of anti-libidinal medication, but these can be mitigated. If he was to be placed on a supervision order there would need to be an extremely strict curfew and his risk of subverting an order is very high. He needs to be escorted in company to stop him meeting children and he should not have access to a smart phone or the internet. It is very difficult to design a supervision order to reduce risk at this time. Dr Arthur [14] Dr Ken Arthur has also provided an affidavit.10 Dr Arthur notes that there is a significant forensic history of sexual and nonsexual offending dating back to the age of 17.11 The previous sexual offences have included an aggravated sexual assault of a young girl; violent sexual assault of an eight year old boy in a public toilet on two occasions; two separate charges of indecent treatment of a child under 12 and unlawful stalking of a 15 year old girl. [15] Despite completing the Inclusions sexual offender program for the second time in September 2022, there has been little change in the respondent’s attitudes, insight, or willingness to cooperate with supervision and treatment. Since his last assessment, the respondent undertook 17 sessions with Ms Ward, and she was able to form some degree of therapeutic relationship despite his resistance to treatment. There was some mention of gradual gains, but the respondent continued to deny any sexual interest in children or sexual preoccupation. Mr Ward has not continued treatment as she is no longer available. [16] De Lenardon has found him highly resistant and avoidant of any discussion around treatment for his sexual offences. He continues to strenuously deny any sexual interest in the young girl involved in the contravention of his supervision order. The primary diagnosis is a mixed personality disorder with paranoid, antisocial and narcissistic features. Based on the nature of his offences, he fulfills the diagnostic criteria for a paedophilic paraphilia (non-exclusive) and he is sexually attracted to females but historically to both males and females. There is evidence of a mild intellectual impairment.12 [17] On the Static 99R his risk is well above average. On the PCL-R his score is 27 out of 40 which is below the cut off of 30 but highlights significant maladaptive personality traits. On the RSVP he displays a high number of dynamic risk factors. [18] Dr Arthur is of the opinion that the respondent remains at a high risk of sexual recidivism. There is a diverse pattern of offending which has included contact and non-contact offences with combinations of physical and phycological coercion. There is a variety of victim types regarding both age and gender. Whilst on supervision he 10 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101. 11 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101Exhibit KA-2, page 21. 12 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101 Exhibit KA-2, page 22. -- 6 of 16 -- 7 rapidly returned to online offending using grooming behaviours to engage with a vulnerable woman and teenage girls by misrepresenting himself online. There is no meaningful change in his attitudes or insight.13 [19] He states “I am of the opinion that his unmodified risk of further sexual offending if released to the community remains high or well above average.”14 [20] If released to supervision the most likely pathway to reoffending would involve the prisoner engaging in non-contact sexual offences via social media. Given the opportunity, it is not inconceivable that this might progress to contact sexual offences. Victims are likely to be children or adolescents that he accesses via social media.15 [21] He states “I maintain my opinion that prisoner Allwood’s risk of sexual recidivism cannot adequately be managed in the community at the current time even under a stringent supervision order.”16 [22] “Although it remains my opinion that a trial of anti-libidinal medication is indicated, at the current time [he] does not appear ready to give this due consideration.”17 [23] Dr Arthur says that individual therapy with a skilled forensic psychologist should continue. [24] He further states: “If the court sees fit to release prisoner Allwood to the community he will require stringent curfew conditions with no unescorted leave and severe restrictions placed on his use of electronic devices. Associations both in and out of the precinct should be subject to close scrutiny given his capacity for manipulation, collusion and deceit. He should continue with individual therapy with a plan to revisit anti- libidinal mediation in the future.” Oral evidence Dr Arthur [25] Dr Arthur gave evidence that Mr Allwood has a paedophilic paraphilia. He also has a mild intellectual impairment and a personality disorder. There are anti-social features to his personality, and he does not comply with orders. There are also narcissistic features. [26] He accepted that Mr Allwood had made some gains with Ms Ward however he denies having a sexual interest in children and he “chops and changes” concerning this matter. He has a sexual preference towards children which has been lifelong. Because of his intellectual disability, it is difficult for him to process information. Achieving a rapport with a psychologist is important. Ms Ward saw him over a period of 12 months, but the time frame depends on the capacity of Mr Hamilton to form a relationship with Mr Allwood. 13 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101 Exhibit KA-2, page 25. 14 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101 Exhibit KA-2, page 25. 15 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101 Exhibit KA-2, page 25. 16 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101 Exhibit KA-2, page 25. 17 Affidavit of Dr Arthur dated 5 September 2025 CFI 101 Exhibit KA-2, page 26. -- 7 of 16 -- 8 [27] Mr Allwood had a good relationship with Ms Ward. The risk of reoffending in this case relates to child sex offences. Mr Allwood does not have a level of moral and legal concerns regarding this. He also had pleasure circumventing the supervision order. The intellectual impairment is relevant to the risk factors. It is relevant that he breached the previous supervision order by similar offending and there is a pattern of online offending here which leads to the determination of a high risk of reoffending. The PCL-R score is also relevant to risk and makes it more likely that he will reoffend. [28] Dr Arthur was of the opinion that the risk here could not be managed under a supervision order based on his previous performance and the difficulties that QCS would have monitoring his online activity. It was important that Mr Allwood shows a capacity to change. At the moment we do not know of his sexual preoccupations. Anti-libidinal medication is recommended. It is important that he give informed consent because of the side effects of the medication. At this stage Mr Allwood is ambivalent about the medication. The anti-libidinal medication does not change sexual interest but lowers sexual preoccupation and leads to less sex drive and reduces deviancy. It is an effective adjunct to psychological therapy. [29] In the future, Dr Arthur would like the respondent to reconsider the anti-libidinal medication and he needs to engage with a psychologist and change his attitude. It is possible that the risk of reoffending in those circumstances would reduce. The risk here is offending against children both online and contact offences. It might involve boys and girls although more recent online activity was directed towards girls. [30] In cross examination Dr Arthur said that he had seen Mr Allwood on four occasions. He denied he ever said to Mr Allwood that it was his job to keep him in jail. He accepted that the pain from his scoliosis was of concern to him. He said that Mr Allwood needed to be more consistent in discussing his offences and his sexual life. This started to happen with Ms Ward, and this was positive. He has seen the summaries of the treatment from Mr Hamilton but Mr Allwood was still defensive and in denial, but it is positive there is a relationship, and it seems he is motivated to engage. There are issues with younger practitioners and Dr Lenardon. The problem is there are limited psychiatrists providing anti-libidinal treatment. [31] If he was to be released on a supervision order there would have to be a stringent curfew with no unescorted leave. There would need to be severe restrictions on his electronic devices and no internet access. Dr Lenardon [32] Dr Lenardon in her affidavit18 notes that she conducted an assessment concerning Mr Allwood’s suitability for anti-libidinal medication. In the attachment to her affidavit she thought the respondent engaged poorly in the assessment. He did not consent to start the anti-libidinal medication. She was happy to reassess him in case he changed his mind. [33] There was a reassessment in February 2025 and he declined to start treatment. 18 Affidavit of Dr Lenardon dated 2 June 2025 CFI 94. -- 8 of 16 -- 9 Ms Ward [34] Donna Ward has provided an affidavit.19 In her report she notes she has completed 17 individual sessions with the respondent. She notes that there were small gradual gains which occurred over the 17 sessions.20 The respondent gradually became more open to identifying and addressing pathway factors. However, the respondent consistently denied sexual interest or preoccupation with children. He has not reported any current sexual interest. Ms Wildermoth [35] Ms Emma Wildermoth in her affidavit21 produces the IOMS records concerning the prisoner. It may be thought that he has been of reasonable behaviour in custody. Ms Alderson [36] Ms Caitlin Alderson has provided an affidavit.22 She is the acting principal advisor of the High Risk Offender Management Unit (HROMU). She has read the various risk assessments. She says that based on the available psychiatric evidence, the respondent’s risk of sexual recidivism cannot reasonably and practicably be managed by QCS through the application of a supervision order. She notes that Mr Bruce Hamilton has commenced his treatment with him. This started on 9 July 2025 and there have been 5 sessions. She says that the HROMU will further engage with the respondent concerning medication in the future. She is also updated the IOMS material. [37] I note from the sessions with Mr Hamilton that the goal was to establish a reference treatment plan; he fluctuated between limited responsibility and denial;23 he denies sexual arousal and interest;24 he expressed willingness to engage in treatment25; Mr Hamilton continues to seek Mr Allwood’s understanding and rapport.26 Evidence of Ms Alderson [38] Ms Alderson accepted that Mr Allwood had progressed well with Ms Ward, and he had been transferred to Mr Hamilton for treatment. There is some hope for that relationship. She knows that Mr Alderson has a difficulty with younger people and women and QCS will look at all avenues. She is also aware that anti-libidinal medication has side effects. [39] She explained how there was no power for QCS to seize and inspect electronic devices but there can be a reasonable direction order made in a supervision order. Also, it should be noted that QCS is not trained to search devices. In re-examination, she said that the psychological treatment could continue over the next 12 months. Mr 19 Affidavit of Ms Ward dated 25 June 2025 CFI 95. 20 Affidavit of Ms Ward dated 25 June 2025 CFI 95 Exhibit DW-1,page 7. 21 Affidavit of Ms Wildermoth dated 20 May 2025 CFI 93. 22 Affidavit of Ms Alderson dated 8 September 2025 CFI 102. 23 Affidavit of Ms Alderson dated 8 September 2025 CFI 102 page 31. 24 Affidavit of Ms Alderson dated 8 September 2025 CFI 102 page 31. 25 Affidavit of Ms Alderson dated 8 September 2025 CFI 102 page 31. 26 Affidavit of Ms Alderson dated 8 September 2025 CFI 102 page 34 and 35. -- 9 of 16 -- 10 Hamilton was in his late 40’s. There would continue to be fortnightly visits and they would liaise with Mr Hamilton. Submissions [40] The Attorney points out the on 6 November 2017 Davis J declared the respondent to be a serious danger to the community and ordered the respondent be released under a supervision order for 10 years. This was breached in relation to procuring a child to engage in sexual activity outside of Australia. He was thereafter the subject of a continuing detention order made by Bradley J on 24 May 2021. The orders have been affirmed at two annual reviews. First before Sullivan J on 6 March 2023 and the second before Cooper J on 10 June 2024. [41] It is submitted by the Attorney that on the evidence the respondent is clearly a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order being made under Division 3. It is further submitted that on the evidence a continuing detention order should be preferred to supervision as he remains a high-risk recidivist partially treated sex offender with a diagnosis of a paedophilic paraphilia. [42] In oral submissions Mr Tate submitted: (a) That a continuing detention order should be made. (b) That all was not bleak – the respondent should continue his treatment with Mr Hamilton. (c) Mr Allwood needs to think about how he engages and if he does then some further gains may be made. (d) He also needs to consider the anti-libidinal medication. [43] The respondent accepts the risk in this case and did not submit that an order should not be made, but submitted for a supervision order. The legislation [44] Section 30 of DPSOA provides: “30 Review hearing (1) This section applies if, on the hearing of a review under section 27 or 28 and having regard to the required matters, the court affirms a decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order. (2) On the hearing of the review, the court may affirm the decision only if it is satisfied— (a) by acceptable, cogent evidence; and (b) to a high degree of probability; that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision. (3) If the court affirms the decision, the court may order that the prisoner— -- 10 of 16 -- 11 (a) continue to be subject to the continuing detention order; or (b) be released from custody subject to a supervision order. (4) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3)(a) or (b)— (a) the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and (b) the court must consider whether— (i) adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and (ii) requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. (5) If the court does not make the order under subsection (3)(a), the court must rescind the continuing detention order. (6) In this section— required matters means all of the following— (a) the matters mentioned in section 13(4); (b) any report produced under section 28A.” [45] This section involves a two-stage process. [46] 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. [47] 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 s 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective service officers. [48] 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. [49] 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.” [50] Serious sexual offence” is defined in schedule 1 to the DPSOA as: -- 11 of 16 -- 12 “serious sexual offence means an offence of a sexual nature, whether committed in Queensland or outside Queensland— (a) involving violence; or (b) against a child; or (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.” [51] In Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Allen27 it was held that the decision to make an order must be made on the evidence as it stands at the review hearing. [52] 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.28 [53] Risk means the possibility, chance29 or likelihood of the commission of such an offence. An unacceptable risk is one which does not ensure adequate protection of the community. [54] In Attorney General for the State of Queensland v DBJ30 Bowskill J (as her Honour then was) noted at [12-15]: “[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. [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 27 [2019] QSC 56 at [14]. 28 Fardon v Attorney General [2004] HCA 46; (2004) 223 CLR 575 at [22], [60] and [225]. 29 Oxford Australian Dictionary 2 nd edition. 30 [2017] QSC 302. -- 12 of 16 -- 13 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.” [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.” [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). [55] 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.31 31 Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Guy [2018] QSC 179 at [10]. -- 13 of 16 -- 14 [56] 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. [57] 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. The respondent is a high risk of reoffending. [58] 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. I have had regard to the reports of Ms Ward, Dr Lenardon and the notes of Mr Hamilton. [59] 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, based on the assessments conducted by the psychiatrists, I accept the unmodified risk of reoffending is high. [60] Section 13(4)(d) of the DPSOA concerns whether or not there is a pattern of offending and behaviour on the part of the prisoner. There is a pattern of sexual offending on the part of the respondent involving young children. [61] Sections 13(4)(e) and (f) of the DPSOA relate to rehabilitation courses. The respondent has not undertaken courses recently. [62] As to the respondent’s antecedents and criminal history (s 13(4)(g) of the DPSOA) they are covered in the reports of the psychiatrists. [63] The risk that he will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community (s 13(4)(h) of the DPSOA) is a critical consideration in this case. [64] The need to protect members of the community (s 13(4)(i) of the DPSOA) is also a very relevant consideration. Discussion [65] On all 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. [66] I have reached this conclusion for the following reasons: (a) The opinions of the psychiatrists are that he is at a high risk of reoffending. (b) He has been convicted of sexual offences against children in the past. (c) He has not been deterred by prison terms from reoffending. (d) He was convicted of a serious sexual offence which occurred whilst he was on the supervision order. (e) He is diagnosed as a paedophile with a personality disorder and a mild intellectual disability. -- 14 of 16 -- 15 (f) The greatest risk factor is his sexual interest in children. (g) There is a lack of insight in that he denies the offending at times and denies he has a sexual interest in children. (h) He has not yet made sufficient gains in the treatment. [67] I find the unmodified risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence is high. The risk is a diverse one. The potential victims, most likely children, are likely to be met on the internet and this could well progress to contact offences. Unfortunately, he has not taken sufficient steps to mitigate this risk and he remains a high risk of reoffending in the circumstances. [68] I have reached this conclusion based not just on the reports of the psychiatrists but on all the evidence. [69] In the circumstances I am satisfied that I should make an order confirming the decision of Bradley J on 24 May 2021 most recently affirmed by Cooper J on 10 June 2024. Continuing detention order or supervision? [70] In Attorney General v Francis32 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.33 [71] In this particular case, both psychiatrists do not support release on supervision. Of course, it is for the court to make this determination not the psychiatrists.34 [72] I am satisfied on all of the evidence that in light of the risk remaining at a high or well above average category, there is a significant risk of sexual offences against children including online offences, indecent dealing and sexual contact offences. [73] He is not yet a treated sex offender. He has refused anti-libidinal treatment. He has not addressed his offending behaviours. Until he does this there is a significant risk of sexual offending against children under a supervision order even with stringent conditions. At the moment there is a significant chance he will access the internet and engage in online sexual offending. Also there is a risk of offending at places like shopping centres and public toilets. I find that these risks cannot be adequately managed in the community at this time. [74] I find that a continuing detention order is the most apt way to ensure community protection in this matter. [75] I would encourage the respondent to continue his treatment with Mr Hamilton so that at the next review hopefully some progress will be made. I would also encourage the 32 [2006] QCA 324; [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at [39]. 33 Section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Attorney General v Grant (No 2) [2022] QSC 252; (2022) 12 QR 357. 34 Van De Wetering v Attorney General [2024] QCA 222. -- 15 of 16 -- 16 respondent to reconsider his position regarding the medication offered by Dr Lenardon because it may be that taking such medication would reduce the risk of reoffending here such that supervision may be more favourably considered. Orders [76] For the reasons given I make the following orders 1. Pursuant to s 30 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) the decision made on 24 May 2021 and most recently affirmed on 10 June 2024 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order is affirmed. 2. Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act the respondent continued to be subject to the continuing detention order made originally on 24 May 2021. -- 16 of 16 --