Attorney-General v McDonagh [2023] QSC 267

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General v McDonagh [2023] QSC 267 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Applicant) v ANDREW ROSS MCDONAGH (Respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 3196 of 2020 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application DELIVERED ON: 28 November 2023 DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court at Brisbane HEARING DATE: 27 November 2023 JUDGE: Bowskill CJ ORDERS: 1. Pursuant to s 30(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the decision made on 29 July 2020, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to division 3 of the Act, is affirmed. 2. Pursuant to s 30(5) of the Act, the continuing detention order made on 29 July 2020 and continued on 9 May 2022 is rescinded. 3. Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the Act, the respondent, Andrew Ross McDonagh, be released from custody and from that time be subject to the requirements of a supervision order, in the terms set out in the annexure to these reasons, for a period of 10 years, until 28 November 2033. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – review of a continuing detention order – where the respondent is a serious danger to the community – whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practically managed by a supervision order. -- 1 of 18 -- 2 COUNSEL: J Tate for the applicant C Reid for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent [1] On 29 July 2020, the Court found that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSOA). As the Court was also satisfied, on the evidence as it then stood, that adequate protection of the community could not be ensured if the respondent were released on a supervision order, the Court made an order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment: Attorney-General v McDonagh [2020] QSC 227. [2] The offending that saw the respondent come under the radar of the DPSOA regime comprised three offences of administering a drug for the purpose of a sexual act and 17 offences of indecent treatment of a child under 16. These offences were committed in 2002, and all involved a 13 year old boy the respondent met at a scout camp. The respondent gave the victim alcohol, and invited him to watch pornography, before offending against him on three separate occasions.1 A complaint of this offending was not made until 2015, and the respondent was convicted in November 2016. At the same time, he was also convicted of possessing and distributing child exploitation material, variously on dates in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016; and eight offences of failing to comply with a reporting obligation.2 He was sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was five years. The balance of a suspended sentence that had been imposed in 2012 (684 days) was also activated and ordered to be served concurrently. Taking into account presentence custody served from 31 July 2015, the respondent’s full time release date was 30 July 2020. [3] The respondent had a relevant earlier criminal history of serious sexual offending. In 2007, he was convicted of 18 offences, including multiple offences of indecent treatment of a child, involving two boys aged approximately 12 and 14 years old, as well as possession of child exploitation material.3 He received a partially suspended term of imprisonment for these offences – which was subsequently breached, by offending in 2012. In 2008 and 2011, the respondent was convicted of multiple offences of failing to comply with a reporting obligation. In 2012, he was convicted of further indecent treatment offences, this time involving a 14 year old boy the respondent met at the place he worked.4 [4] As required by s 27 of the DPSOA, the continuing detention order was first reviewed by the Court on 9 May 2022. The Court affirmed the decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community and ordered that the respondent continue to be subject to a continuing detention order. [5] One of the issues, relevant to the assessment of risk, that was central at the time the first order was made in July 2020, was that the respondent had not undergone adequate treatment whilst in custody, in part because he had refused to engage in group 1 Attorney-General v McDonagh [2020] QSC 227 at [4]-[9]. 2 Attorney-General v McDonagh [2020] QSC 227 at [10]. 3 Attorney-General v McDonagh [2020] QSC 227 at [16]-[20. 4 Attorney-General v McDonagh [2020] QSC 227 at [21]-[24]. -- 2 of 18 -- 3 treatment programs. His risk of sexual reoffending was said to be high. The risk, if it were to eventuate, involved serious sexual offending against children, the respondent having been diagnosed as suffering from a paedophilic disorder, as well as alcohol use disorder and an avoidant personality disorder. The expert psychiatrists expressed the opinion that a supervision order would not reduce that risk to an acceptable level, given that the respondent had not yet properly addressed the factors that make him vulnerable to offending, that he had limited insight into his sexual behaviour, his avoidances presented a barrier to effective management and he also had a history of non- compliance with reporting conditions and continued offending despite being subject to community release orders such as bail, probation or suspended sentences. It was particularly recommended that he should undertake the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program (HISOP), in custody, before any release on a supervision order. [6] By the time of the first review, there had been some promising progress in that regard, in the sense that the respondent had undertaken the Getting Started: Preparatory Program for Sexual Offending (GS:PP) and had indicated a preparedness to undertake the recommended HISOP as soon as possible. In those circumstances, the continuation of the continuing detention order was not opposed by the respondent.5 [7] This is the second annual review of the continuing detention order. [8] The respondent commenced the HISOP on 29 June 2022 and completed it on 13 September 2023. It took longer than usual to do so, as he had a number of medical issues, including hernia surgery, that saw him miss a number of sessions. However, he did undertake 161 sessions, which the psychiatrist, Dr Beech, said equates to nearly 500 hours of treatment. [9] As Dr Beech observes: “The completion report is mixed but ultimately, he showed progress, developed some insight, and produced a reasonable risk management plan. He has articulated a continuing willingness to engage with supports and further treatment in the community. He is also aware of the nature of a supervision order and its attendant conditions. Against this, are concerns that he had preyed on vulnerable younger male prisoners and attempted to manipulate them and facilitators.” [10] As to that, the completion report records that: “In June and again in August 2023, [the respondent] was identified to be engaging in offence paralleling behaviour in that he is alleged to have groomed two different prisoners, both considered to be young and vulnerable within the prisoner population. The prisoner engaged in behaviours at this time in which he was considered to attempt to manipulate staff through splitting, providing inconsistent information in addition to minimising, and externalising blame for his behaviours. Despite warnings provided in June the prisoner again engaged in the same behaviours in August resulting in him being moved from residential to secure.” 5 The ex tempore reasons of Freeburn J given on 9 May 2022 are exhibit SNH-2 to the affidavit of Hunter, filed 8 May 2023. -- 3 of 18 -- 4 [11] After outlining in some detail the “offence pathway” and details of the respondent’s earlier offending, the completion report continues: “During [the respondent’s] time on HISOP [the respondent] was alleged to have been engaged in grooming behaviours of two young vulnerable prisoner[s] indicative of parallel offending. It is the pattern observed within the offending was observed in the grooming behaviours within custody identifying young vulnerable prisoners who he perceived more [susceptible] to grooming, younger in appearance and normalising of sexualised discussions escalating to sexually explicit letters in place of pornography. At the time of the first allegations [the respondent] had three discussions with program staff relating to the allegations which occurred on 27 June 2023. He was spoken to again on 23 August 2023 and 29 August 2023 relating to further allegations made in respect of behaviour towards the same prisoner as discussed on 27 June 2023. On [the respondent’s] final day of program he was removed from the residential area following further allegations of sexually grooming behaviours towards the second prisoner. In the later conversations [the respondent] admitted to attraction to the prisoners, namely the first, and having sent sexually explicit letters though did so only having been presented with evidence to this effect having been dishonest in early conversations related to the allegations. [The respondent] highlighted the following high-risk factors as relevant to his offending pathway: low self-esteem/worth poor emotional management (avoidance coping management, substance abuse, no support seeking, sex as coping), sexual preoccupation (sexual suppression), attraction to male children (emotional identification), deviant sexual preference, poor problem solving (lack of consequential thinking). Overall [the respondent] was open to exploring the offending behaviour and developed increased insight into the grooming behaviour undertaken with victims and their families as well as the role of CEM [child exploitation material] use in motivating the offending behaviour. [The respondent] was resistant to acknowledge resistance from the victims, likely related to shame, and impacted by perception victims enjoyed the offending. He developed emerging insight into treatment needs significant social influences, capacity for relationship stability, emotional identification with children, general social rejection/ loneliness, sex as coping, sexual preoccupation and deviant sexual interest.” [12] The completion report recommended that, following the program, the respondent should engage with a forensic psychologist to address his outstanding treatment needs. In that regard, the report noted that: “Following his engagement in the program, [the respondent’s] identified treatment targets are considered to require ongoing treatment as well as ongoing work from [the respondent] to continue to challenge belief systems that have been unhelpful. It is recommended the [respondent] engages with a forensic psychologist to address his outstanding -- 4 of 18 -- 5 treatment needs with a particular focus on developing the [respondent’s] capacity for emotional regulation and coping strategies, negative views of self and others, ability to identify needs in respect of intimacy as well as sexual and communicate those within intimate relationships, improve his social network and work towards increased insight into the ongoing relevance of treatment need deviant sexual interest, sexual preoccupation and sex as coping and develop robust management strategies of same.” [13] The completion report noted that, should the respondent be released to a community- based supervision order, his supervision officer and professional support network should be aware of a number of “barriers” to the respondent’s engagement with authority figures, including his lack of trust in professional staff, particularly those connected with Queensland Corrective Services (QCS); “demonstrated manipulation”, through providing inconsistent information to staff, being resistant to redirection and engaging in “positive impression management”; and a “current lack of insight into the ongoing relevance of treatment needs that contributed to problematic sexual behaviour and offending behaviour”. [14] The report recommended: “… that [the respondent’s] supervising officer and professional support network be aware of the prisoner’s high-risk factors as outlined in this report. Should the prisoner be at an increased risk, professional officers may notice his increase[d] avoidant behaviours such as isolation, increasingly negative views related to himself, others or situations, rumination which he has identified for himself to [be] a sign of poor emotional management as well as increased interaction with younger vulnerable persons, including on the precinct and other DPSOA offenders…” [15] The report also recommended that the respondent complete the Staying on Track: Sexual Offending Maintenance Program (SOMP), noting that “[c]ompleting this within the community would afford him the opportunity to consolidate the skills he has learnt in the Crossroads program and to revise and amend his New Future Plan as necessary following application in the community environment”. [16] For the purposes of this review, arrangements were made for the respondent to be reassessed by two psychiatrists, Dr Beech and Dr Timmins. [17] Dr Timmins interviewed the respondent on 7 September 2023 and prepared a report dated 3 November 2023. Dr Timmins has prepared two previous reports in relation to the respondent: in June 2020 and March 2022. [18] Dr Timmins expressed concern about the respondent’s reported behaviour towards two vulnerable men in the custodial environment. In her most recent report, she observes that: “He has failed to realise this situation is similar to how he groomed his victims ie, presenting as a helpful paternal figure to start with. There is also a continued minimisation of his own intentions and behaviour, indicating a lack of insight and/or a deliberate non-disclosure of -- 5 of 18 -- 6 information. Being untruthful, manipulative with information and avoidant potentially points to his ability to comply with an order.” and also that: “He continues to be sexually preoccupied despite his reporting otherwise. He continues to be evasive and not truthful when questioned and continues to engage in secretive behaviours that have been unhelpful in the past.” [19] Dr Timmins confirms the diagnoses of paedophilia (attracted to males, non-exclusive), alcohol use disorder with likely dependence and avoidant personality disorder. She maintains the opinion that the respondent will be at high risk of reoffending in a sexual manner if released into the community without a supervision order. She goes on to say that: “Given [what] has occurred, it is difficult to assess whether [the respondent] has found the HISOP program helpful. He certainly has not had an opportunity to put any of the content into practice by a period in the community. His recent custodial behaviour is concerning as is his lack of insight into his recent behaviour. I believe that he requires a further period in custody engaging in individual sessions with an experienced forensic psychologist to address outstanding treatment needs in particular emotional dysregulation, sexual preoccupation and sexual deviancy as these are directly related to his sexual offending against young underage males.” [20] However, Dr Timmins goes on to say that if the court is considering ordering the respondent’s release, subject to a supervision order, he will require support from a forensic psychologist to treat his sexual deviance and would also benefit from a sexual offending maintenance program; he needs to abstain from alcohol and drugs – because his risk will escalate rapidly if intoxicated; he needs suitable accommodation and should engage in work; his social and work activities will need to be monitored, because these have been previous avenues to access victims; and his phone and internet activities will need to be closely monitored, given his history of not reporting phones, email and chat room accounts and his use of child exploitation material for himself and to groom victims. [21] In her report, Dr Timmins concludes by saying that she is “not sure that [the respondent’s] risk will be significantly modified” by a supervision order “given the current situation”. [22] If a supervision order is made, however, Dr Timmins says that: “the duration of a community order would need to be 10 years given that [the respondent] is a recidivist child sex offender, had a sexual deviance involving young underage males, has an ongoing sexual preoccupation, has probably only partially benefited from engagement in treatment to date and has difficulties with breaching previous community orders.” -- 6 of 18 -- 7 [23] In her oral evidence at the hearing Dr Timmins reiterated the view she expressed in her report, that she is not sure that a supervision order would significantly modify the risk posed by the respondent, because part of the reduction in risk relies on the respondent’s “internal ability to control himself” and Dr Timmins is not convinced he is able to do that “at this current time”. She is of the opinion that the respondent should undergo psychological sessions whilst in custody, in a contained environment, to address the risk factors that are outstanding from the HISOP report, come up with strategies to deal with them and implement those into a “behavioural change”. Dr Timmins’ view is that the respondent “needs to be able to show he can do that” in custody, before he is released on a supervision order. [24] Dr Beech interviewed the respondent on 15 September 2023, and prepared a report dated 1 November 2023 which is also before the court. Dr Beech had also seen the respondent previously, preparing a report in 2019. His diagnoses of the respondent are consistent with those of Dr Timmins, save that Dr Beech refers to “hebephilia6 (possibly paedophilia)”.7 [25] After referring to the updated information, in particular the respondent’s completion of, and behaviour during, the HISOP, Dr Beech expressed the following view: “In my opinion, [the respondent] remains at high risk of committing another serious sexual offence if released into the community without supervision. To be sure, he has completed the HISOP but his insight, risk management strategies and improved personality traits are yet to be tested in the community. He requires further treatment to address ongoing issues with unhelpful personality traits. Although he reports a much-reduced sexual libido, the sexual harassment of younger prisoners is a concern. In the community, the presence of children and other cues remain a likely risk factor for the resurgence of deviant thoughts and fantasies. He is yet to demonstrate that he could deal with the vicissitudes of living in the community without resorting to sexual preoccupation and sexual coping. The risk is that in the community, in the absence of personal supports, he will become anxious, depressed and stressed. He will return to alcohol use to cope. From there, he will return to child exploitation material. Deviant sexual fantasies will lead him to approach vulnerable young males and re-offend. The usual restrictions, including other mandatory supervision regimes, will not be sufficient because of his poor compliance with them. In my opinion, a supervision order would now reduce the risk of re- offending to below moderate. However, it will require vigilant supervision and monitoring by experienced QCS officers given [the respondent’s] past record of poor compliance and his recent history of deception or dishonest interactions and manipulative behaviours. 6 An attraction to underage pubescent males. 7 See also Attorney-General v McDonagh [2020] QSC 227 at [26]. -- 7 of 18 -- 8 Conditions of a supervision order should severely restrict his access to potential victims. It is essential that he remains abstinent if he is to comply with the other conditions of the order. Failure to comply with reporting conditions of the order should be seen as a significant concern. It is important that he engage with further treatment in the community. This should include engagement with a substance use program such as Alcoholics Anonymous. He should complete a sex offender maintenance program in the community. He should also engage in individual therapy with an experienced forensic psychologist to continue to address his risk factors. [The respondent] may wish to engage a psychologist to deal with past trauma or other issues. There is no problem with that, but he also needs a treatment provider who specifically deals with his risk of sexual offending. Given the nature of the offending, the presence of a sexual deviance, his recidivism, and persisting personality traits and risks, I believe that any supervision order should be for more than five years, and probably approaching 10 years.” [26] In further evidence given at the hearing, Dr Beech noted the shortcomings of the respondent’s level of insight – pointed out in the HISOP completion report – but reiterated that the respondent has had 161 sessions, amounting to nearly 500 hours of treatment, and did come up with a plan to manage his risk factors. As Dr Beech said, in his oral evidence: “The difficulty is, I think, that his behaviour outside the program shows that he still probably goes towards sex to cope with difficulties, and that when he’s confronted with this, he can be dishonest about it. He vacillates and I think tries to avoid being open and honest and direct about what he’s been doing. So ultimately, I think the risk is high that he will return to these behaviours if he’s unsupervised in the community, but I think supervision would act to reduce that risk…. [to] below moderate.” [27] In relation to further treatment, whilst Dr Beech agrees that the respondent still requires treatment, he said: “I don’t know that there’s much to be gained by having further treatment in prison after you’ve done 500 hours of a sex offender program, that’s the first thing. The second thing is he does require individual treatment, but if you’re thinking about changing a lifelong pattern of personality vulnerabilities, that’s not going to be achieved, I think, during a prison term. He does require a maintenance program, but I can’t see the benefit, after having a year of 500 hours in prison, of doing another maintenance program the following year in prison. The -- 8 of 18 -- 9 value of the maintenance program in the community is that they say, ‘Here’s your plan. How is this working out in real life now that you’ve been released?’ And the value of individual treatment in the community is – so you’re getting stressed, how are you going to manage this stress, how are you going to avoid going back to alcohol, child pornography, those type of … offending pathways, let us deal with that. So it needs to be – I think that intervention now needs to be done in the community where the real stressors occur, where the real problems with his emotional state and his behaviour and his personality come to the fore. But it needs to be done in place – where you know that he’s stably accommodated, you’re monitoring him so he doesn’t get onto alcohol, and you’re restricting him so that he’s not with children.” [28] Having had the opportunity to consider the reports from the psychiatrists, Ms Monson, who is the manager of the High Risk Offender Management Unit of QCS, which has responsibility for supervising offenders released on supervision orders, says that QCS “holds concerns regarding the respondent’s willingness to engage with QCS staff and to comply with a supervision order”. Nevertheless, Ms Monson also says that if the respondent is released subject to a supervision order, QCS will facilitate psychological treatment for the respondent and also facilitate his participation in the SOMP. Ms Monson notes that QCS has strategies for supervision of offenders under the DPSOA that are informed by the expert psychiatric reports relied on by the court, and which identify the nature of the offender’s risk and circumstances that might indicate when an offender poses a heightened risk. In the event the respondent is released, Ms Monson says that there will be a place for him to live in the contingency accommodation and QCS will also help him to make contact with other community supports, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and the Alcohol and Other Drugs Service. [29] Further evidence from the manager of the Offender Intervention Unit, Ms Kelly, provided at the hearing shows that whilst the SOMP is available in correctional centres, the next one scheduled in Wolston Correctional Centre is not until “late next year” (ie 2024) and there is one scheduled at Townsville Correctional centre in May 2024. SOMP is also facilitated in the community, and there are programs starting in February and April 2024. [30] On this, the second review of the continuing detention order, the court must first consider whether it is appropriate to affirm the decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order (s 30(1)) and, if that decision is affirmed, then consider whether to order that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or be released from custody subject to a supervision order (s 30(3)). [31] As to the first matter, the respondent accepts that the evidence supports a finding that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order. That concession is appropriately made, having regard to the evidence – there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody without a supervision order being made. I am satisfied it is appropriate to affirm the decision that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of such an order. -- 9 of 18 -- 10 [32] As to the next matter – whether to order that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or be released from custody subject to a supervision order – s 30(4) of the Act instructs that: (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 s 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. [33] With due respect to the contrary opinion of Dr Timmins, I am persuaded by the evidence of Dr Beech that it is appropriate to order that the respondent be released from custody subject to a supervision order. The evidence is consistent in supporting such an order remaining in place for 10 years. [34] I am satisfied that this would ensure adequate protection of the community, in circumstances where: (a) the respondent is expected to be closely and carefully supervised by corrective services staff, in accordance with the terms of the order; (b) those corrective services staff with responsibility for supervising the respondent will be aware of the issues that have been identified in the HISOP completion report and by the psychiatrists, Dr Beech and Dr Timmins, and can be expected to adapt their strategy for supervision of him accordingly; (c) among other things, they will be aware of the need to be particularly vigilant in terms of the warning signs of increased risk – identified in the HISOP completion report and set out above; (d) it is to be expected that the supervision order will operate in such a way that any signs of increased risk, likelihood of contravening the terms of the order or actual contravention of the order, will be detected and addressed before the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence (being a sexual offence against a child or involving violence) could eventuate – that is, the evidence does not support a finding that there is a risk the respondent would, in the context of a supervision order, without any warning, commit such an offence; (e) as a matter of principle, as the Court of Appeal noted in Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at [39] “the intrusions of the Act upon the liberty of the subject are exceptional, and the liberty of the subject should be constrained to no greater extent than is warranted by the statute which authorised such constraint”. Accordingly, if supervision of the respondent is apt to ensure adequate protection, then an order for supervised release should be preferred to a continuing detention order; (f) whilst the respondent requires further treatment, both through individual psychological intervention and through undertaking the SOMP, I prefer the opinion of Dr Beech that it is preferable that he undertake that further treatment -- 10 of 18 -- 11 in the community, where he is dealing with something closer to real life, than further treatment in custody; and (g) it is also relevant that there is quite a delay before the respondent could undertake the SOMP in custody – although had the evidence otherwise supported his detention in custody, this could not have been a decisive factor. [35] I record that counsel for the applicant whilst perhaps not going so far as to positively submit that it is appropriate to make a supervision order, did submit that, on the evidence, a supervision order “seems indicated”. [36] For those reasons, I will make a supervision order, in the terms set out in the annexure to these reasons. I am satisfied the many conditions of that order reflect the matters identified by each of the psychiatrists in their reports as necessary inclusions. -- 11 of 18 -- 12 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: Brisbane NUMBER: 3196/2020 Applicant ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND Respondent ANDREW ROSS MCDONAGH SUPERVISION ORDER Before: The Chief Justice Date: 28 November 2023 Initiating document: Application filed on 8 May 2023 (CFI No. 33) THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT: 1. Pursuant to s 30(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”), the decision made on 29 July 2020, 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. 2. Pursuant to s 30(5) of the Act, the continuing detention order made on 29 July 2020 and continued on 9 May 2022 be rescinded. 3. Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the Act, the respondent be released from custody and from that time be subject to the following requirements for a period of 10 years, until 28 November 2033: TO Andrew Ross McDonagh: 1. You are being released from prison but only if you obey the rules in this supervision order. 2. If you break any of the rules in this supervision order, the police or Queensland Corrective Services have the power to arrest you. Then the Court might order that you go back to prison. 3. You must obey these rules for the next 10 years. -- 12 of 18 -- 13 Reporting 4. On the day you are released from prison, you must report before 4 pm to a Corrective Services officer at the Community Corrections office closest to where you will live. You must tell the Corrective Services officer your name and the address where you will live. 5. A Corrective Services officer will tell you the times and dates when you must report to them. You must report to them at the times they tell you to report. A Corrective Services officer might visit you at your home. You must let the Corrective Services officer come into your house. To “report” means to visit a Corrective Services officer and talk to them face to face. Supervision 6. A Corrective Services officer will supervise you until this order is finished. This means you must obey any reasonable direction that a Corrective Services officer gives you about: (a) where you are allowed to live; and (b) rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and (c) using drugs and alcohol; and (d) who you may have contact with; and (e) anything else, except for instructions that mean you will break the rules in this supervision order. A “reasonable direction” is an instruction about what you must do, or what you must not do, that is reasonable in that situation. If you are not sure about a direction, you can ask a Corrective Services officer for more information, or talk to your lawyer about it. 7. You must answer and tell the truth if a Corrective Services officer asks you about where you are, what you have been doing or what you are planning to do, and who you are spending time with. 8. If you change your name, where you live or any employment, you must tell a Corrective Services officer at least two business days before the change will happen. A “business day” is a week day (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) that is not a public holiday. No offences 9. You must not break the law by committing an offence of a sexual nature, including offences involving child exploitation material. -- 13 of 18 -- 14 10. You must not break the law by committing an indictable offence involving a minor. Where you must live 11. You must live at a place approved by a Corrective Services officer. You must obey any rules that are made about people who live there. 12. You must not live at another place. If you want to live at another place, you must tell a Corrective Services officer the address of the place you want to live. The Corrective Services officer will decide if you are allowed to live at that place. You are allowed to change the place you live only when you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer to live at another place. This also means you must get written permission from a corrective service officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place. 13. You must not leave Queensland. If you want to leave Queensland, you must ask for written permission from a Corrective Services officer. You are allowed to leave Queensland only after you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. Curfew direction 14. A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to stay at a place (for example, the place you live) at particular times. This is called a curfew direction. You must obey a curfew direction. Monitoring direction 15. A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to: (a) wear a device that tracks your location; and (b) let them install a device or equipment at the place you live. This will monitor if you are there. This is called a monitoring direction. You must obey a monitoring direction. Employment or study 16. You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work. 17. When you ask for permission, you must tell the Corrective Services officer these things: (a) what the job is; (b) who you will work for; (c) what hours you will work each day; (d) the place or places where you will work; and -- 14 of 18 -- 15 (e) (if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study. 18. If a Corrective Services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you. Motor vehicles 19. You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, colour and registration number) about any vehicle you own, borrow or hire. You must tell the Corrective Services officer these details immediately (on the same day) you get the vehicle. A vehicle includes a car, motorbike, ute or truck. Mobile phone 20. You are only allowed to own or have (even if you do not own it) one mobile phone. You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, phone number and service provider) about any mobile phone you own or have within 24 hours of when you get the phone. 21. You must give a Corrective Services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phone you own or have. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone. Computers and internet 22. You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to use a computer, phone or other device to access the internet. 23. You must give a Corrective Services officer any password or other access code you know for the computer, phone or other device. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using the computer, phone or other device. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the computer, phone or other device and everything on it. 24. You must give a Corrective Services officer details (including usernames and passwords) about any email address, instant messaging service, chat rooms, or social networking sites that you use. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using any of these things. No contact within any victim 25. You must not contact or try to contact any victim(s) of a sexual offence committed by you. You must not ask someone else to do this for you. “Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way. -- 15 of 18 -- 16 Rules about alcohol and drugs 26. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, or sniff) any alcohol. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any alcohol. 27. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, smoke or sniff) any illegal drugs. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any illegal drugs. 28. A Corrective Services officer has the power to tell you to take a drug test or alcohol test. You must take the drug test or alcohol test when they tell you to. You must give them some of your breath, or pee (urine) when they tell you to do this. 29. You are not allowed to go to pubs, clubs, hotels or nightclubs which are licensed to supply or serve alcohol. If you want to go to one of these places, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to go. 30. You are not allowed to visit any business that is only licensed to supply alcohol. If you want to go to one of these places, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to go. Rules about medicine 31. You must tell a Corrective Services officer about any medicine that a doctor prescribes (tells you to buy). You must also tell a Corrective Services officer about any over the counter medicine that you buy or have with you. You must do this within 24 hours of seeing the doctor or buying the medicine. 32. You must take prescribed medicine only as directed by a doctor. You must not take any medicine (other than over the counter medicine) which has not been prescribed for you by a doctor. Rules about rehabilitation and counselling 33. You must obey any direction a Corrective Services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor. 34. You must attend, and participate, in any program, course, psychologist, social worker or counsellor, in a group or individual capacity (including the Sexual Offending Maintenance Program, and individual treatment with a psychologist), as directed by a Corrective Services officer. 35. You must let Corrective Services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program. Speaking to Corrective Services about what you plan to do 36. You must talk to a Corrective Services officer about what you plan to do each week. A Corrective Services officer will tell you how and when to do this (for example, face to face or in writing). -- 16 of 18 -- 17 37. You must also tell a Corrective Services officer the name of new persons you have met. This includes: people who you spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly. 38. You may need to tell new contacts about your supervision order and offending history. The Corrective Services officer will instruct you to tell those persons and the Corrective Services officer may speak to them to make sure you have given them all the information. Contact with children 39. You are not allowed to have any contact with children under 16 years of age. If you want to have supervised or unsupervised contact with a child under 16 years of age you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to have contact with the child. “Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking with them face to face, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting, using a telephone, computer, social media or in any other way. “Supervised” means having contact with the child while another person is with you and the child. “Unsupervised” means having contact with the child while there is no other person with you and the child. 40. If you have any repeated contact (that is, more than one time) with a parent, guardian or carer of a child under the age of 16, you must: (a) tell the person(s) about this supervision order; and (b) tell a Corrective Services officer the details of the person(s). You must do this immediately. This means you have to tell the person, and tell a Corrective Services officer, on the same day you have contact with the person. 41. Queensland Corrective Services has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to any parent, guardian or caregivers that you have contact with. 42. Queensland Corrective Services also has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to an external agency (such as the Department of Child Safety). 43. You must not: (a) be within 100 metres of any school or childcare centre; (b) be in a place where there is a children’s play area or child minding area; (c) go to a public park; -- 17 of 18 -- 18 (d) go to a shopping centre; (e) join any club or organisation in which children are involved; (f) participate in any club or organisation in which children are involved. If you want to do any of these things, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you cannot do any of these things. Offence Specific Requirements 44. You must not collect photos/ videos/ magazines which have images of children in them without prior approval of a Corrective Services officer. If you have any you may be asked to get rid of them by a Corrective Services officer. 45. You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet. 46. You cannot get or look at pornographic material of any type without written approval from a Corrective Services officer. Your treating psychologist may provide advice regarding this approval. This includes pictures on a computer, photographs, movies, or magazines. 47. You must develop a management plan with your psychologist or psychiatrist to address any risk of sexual re-offence. You must talk about this with a Corrective Services officer when asked. 48. You must advise a Corrective Services officer of any personal relationships you have started. 49. You must obtain the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer before possessing any equipment that enables you to take photographs or record moving images. “Equipment” means any type of devices, including things like mobile phones, digital or video cameras, computers, laptops, tablets, surveillance cameras including dashboard cameras and drones. Signed: Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland -- 18 of 18 --