Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Moxham [2022] QSC 225

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Moxham [2022] QSC 225 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v KRISTOPHER RICHARD JOSEPH MOXHAM (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 7402 of 2022 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 21 October 2022 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17 October 2022 JUDGE: Cooper J ORDER: Order that the respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule until 29 October 2027. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one count of carnal knowledge of children under 16 years, one count of rape, two counts of threatening violence and one count of breach of bail condition – where the Attorney-General applies for orders under s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where psychiatric evidence describes the respondent’s risk of further offending as ranging from moderately high or above average without a supervision order to below average or low with a supervision order – whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody without a supervision order being made – whether a supervision order should be made Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 3, s 5, s 11, s 13, s 16, Schedule 1 -- 1 of 17 -- 2 COUNSEL: M Maloney for the applicant S Robb for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent Application [1] The respondent is serving a sentence of imprisonment that will expire on 29 October 2022. This is an application by the Attorney-General for an order under s 13(5) in Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”), such an order being referred to in the Act as a “division 3 order”. [2] Section 13 applies if the court is satisfied that “the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order”.1 [3] A prisoner will be regarded as a serious danger to the community if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody or if released from custody without a supervision order being made.2 [4] The term “prisoner” is defined to include a person serving a period of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence.3 [5] A “serious sexual offence” is defined to include an offence of a sexual nature involving violence.4 [6] In deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order the court must have regard to a number of matters prescribed by the Act,5 and it may reach that conclusion only if satisfied, by acceptable cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify the decision.6 The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community.7 [7] If the court is satisfied that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order, a discretion is enlivened under s 13(5) of the Act to order that the prisoner be: (a) detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (“continuing detention order”); or (b) released from custody subject to the requirements the court considers appropriate (“supervision order”). [8] In deciding how to exercise the discretion conferred by s 13(5) the paramount consideration for the court is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.8 This reflects the objects of the Act.9 1 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13(1). 2 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13(2). 3 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 5(6). 4 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) sch 1. 5 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13(4). 6 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13(3). 7 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13(7). 8 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13(6)(a). 9 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 3(a). -- 2 of 17 -- 3 History [9] The respondent was born on 8 October 1986. [10] There was reference in a number of the psychiatric reports to a history suggestive of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that evolved to a conduct disorder within the context of family dysfunction, high mobility, and possible childhood sexual abuse. [11] The respondent was placed in residential care as an adolescent and remained there until he was 18 years old. He was able to complete year 12 for schooling but was accommodated in a special education unit because of behavioural difficulties and academic performance. [12] Psychometric testing places him in the low average to borderline intellectual functioning range but with particular difficulties with executive function, including impulsivity and poor judgement. [13] The respondent has struggled day to day in the community. He has found it difficult to find and maintain employment, make appropriate relationships, and secure appropriate accommodation. He has often resorted to alcohol abuse to deal with his difficulties, which has been problematic for him. [14] The respondent had not committed any sexual offences prior to the offending referred to below and had only a limited criminal history. He had not previously been incarcerated. Sexual offending [15] On 23 April 2015, the respondent was convicted upon his plea of guilty in the District Court at Brisbane for one count of carnal knowledge of children under 16 years, one count of rape, two counts of threatening violence and one count of breach of bail condition. [16] The offending comprised two separate events. [17] The victim of the unlawful carnal knowledge offence was 15 years of age at the time of the offending. The victim met the respondent via Facebook. He added her as a friend in around July 2013. During initial discussions the respondent advised the victim he was 19 years of age and later stated that he was 27 years of age. [18] On 10 September 2013 the respondent contacted the victim and told her to go away with him. The victim agreed. The respondent purchased train tickets for them both to travel from Gympie to Brisbane. Upon arriving in Brisbane, the respondent and the victim purchased a tent and camped in Spring Hill. [19] The victim’s parents listed her as a missing person and on 23 September 2013 police located the respondent and the victim at the camp site. The pair accompanied police to the Brisbane City police station. Both were interviewed. [20] The victim told the police that two days after they started camping together, the respondent removed his pants when in the tent. He asked the victim if it was ok, and she replied “yes”. The victim did not understand what the respondent intended to do until he removed the victim’s pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim recalls the act of sexual intercourse lasted for approximately ten minutes. The victim told the respondent to stop as she had stomach aches and he then stopped. The victim noted that the respondent wore a condom as she could “feel it”. -- 3 of 17 -- 4 [21] During the interview with police the respondent stated that he and the victim were in a relationship. He stated that he met the victim through Facebook and that initially she told him that she was 15 and a half years of age yet she had told some of his friends she was 16. The respondent advised police that he only learnt the victim’s actual age around 16 September 2013 when they attended the movies and he saw her student identification card. [22] The respondent admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim however he stated that she asked him to have sexual intercourse, she made him remove his pants and started playing with his “old fella”. He stated that the victim then commenced undressing herself and continued telling him how “horny” she was. The respondent stated that he penetrated the victim with his penis, but he did not ejaculate. He said that he did not wear a condom as the victim did not want him to. The respondent stated that he stopped having sexual intercourse as he was not in the mood although the victim tried to get him to continue. The respondent also stated that the victim had asked him for sexual intercourse the night before. [23] At the conclusion of the interview the respondent was arrested and charged with the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge. He was released on bail. Whilst he was on bail the respondent committed the rape offence. [24] The rape offence occurred on 17 February 2014. The female victim was 15 years of age. On the evening of the offence the victim and her male friend met the respondent in Brisbane where they walked around for a period. The respondent then invited the victim and her friend back to a friend’s vehicle. The vehicle was a station wagon which had the rear seats forwarded and doonas and pillows in the back. [25] Upon arrival at the vehicle the respondent attempted to give the victim a massage, but she did not want him to touch her. The victim then moved her chair to face the respondent to make him stop which he did. The three then lay down in the vehicle to sleep. The respondent did not have a shirt, but he was wearing pants. The victim was wearing a dress along with underwear and a bra. [26] After laying in the back of the vehicle for about 30 minutes to one hour the respondent grabbed the victim by her wrist and pulled her over to him. He then rolled her onto her back and sat on her legs. The respondent then pulled his shorts down to his thighs and put a condom on his penis. The victim called out to her friend who then told the respondent to stop as the victim did not like what he was doing. The respondent lifted the victims dress and moved her underwear to the side before inserting his penis into her vagina. [27] The victim told the respondent to stop, and she attempted to push him off her. The victim’s friend also tried to pull the respondent off the victim, but the respondent pushed him away. [28] After approximately 10 minutes the respondent pulled out a red knife from the ceiling area of the vehicle and put the knife against the victim’s friend’s throat. The respondent then threatened the victim and her friend and said, “If you fucking move or say a word, I’ll slit your throat or stab you”. The respondent then placed the knife against the victim’s throat and said, “If you scream or make any noise to get attention I’ll stab you”. In fear the victim ceased struggling and the respondent proceeded to insert his penis into the victim’s vagina. [29] During the assault the respondent attempted to kiss the victim. The victim resisted and turned her head away. The respondent then kissed the victim on the ear and neck -- 4 of 17 -- 5 and he attempted to touch her on the breasts by unzipping the front of the victim’s dress however the victim resisted and zipped her dress back up. [30] After approximately 10 minutes the respondent ceased having sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim and her friend then left the vehicle. Police were called and attended the scene to undertake a forensic examination. [31] The respondent was sentenced by Judge Devereaux to 8 years imprisonment for the rape offence. He was further sentenced to 1 year imprisonment for the offence of carnal knowledge of children under 16 years, 2 years imprisonment for the two counts of threatening violence and 2 months imprisonment for the breach of bail condition. The sentences were to be served concurrently. Pre-sentence custody in the order of 415 days was declared as time already served. [32] Accordingly, the respondent is currently serving a period of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence and is a prisoner for the purposes of s 13 of the Act. Events in prison [33] Between 1 June 2016 and 14 July 2016, the respondent participated in the “Getting Started: Preparatory Program” (“GSPP”) . It was noted that the respondent presented with cognitive, psychological and learning responsivity factors during the program. In an exit report detailing the respondent’s participation in the GSPP, program facilitators recommended he undertake the Stable 2007 and participate in the “Inclusion Sexual Offending Program” (“ISOP”). [34] Between 11 January 2018 and 28 June 2018, the respondent participated in the ISOP, completing a total of 49 sessions. In an exit report outlining the respondent’s participation in the ISOP program facilitators observed the respondent often sought reassurance and frequent affirmation regarding his individual work. The facilitators considered this to be linked to historical poor self-esteem and a lack of significant relationships. [35] When discussing his offending during participation in the ISOP the respondent acknowledged that, at the time of committing the unlawful carnal knowledge offence, he was looking for opportunities to offend. He was having thoughts including “I want sex” and “I feel alone”. He stated that the victim did not put up a fight whilst he was offending. After having sex, he stated that he felt “satisfied” and thought “I broke the drought”. [36] When discussing the rape offence, the respondent externalised blame and stated that his intoxication affected his ability to care about the victim’s reactions. The respondent was able to recall the victim trying to stop him by moving her body, zipping her dress back up and reaching out for her friend for help. He admitted to grabbing the victim’s leg to stop her from pulling away. He discussed a fantasy of having someone watching him have sex which he wanted to play out. At first the respondent stated he did not recall a knife. Later he admitted there was a knife however he denied using the knife during the offending. [37] Overall, the respondent engaged to a satisfactory standard during ISOP. He put in significant effort in his participation and was a supportive group member working well with fellow program participants. It was recommended the respondent engage in treatment with a psychologist or psychiatrist to continue to work on concepts learnt in the program. Program facilitators referred to the presentation throughout the program of a cognitive impairment which was identified as a responsivity factor in -- 5 of 17 -- 6 relation to engaging with his support network and any future programs. His cognitive impairment was also identified as a difficulty with respect to understanding the consequences of failure to comply with instructions. [38] Between 25 March 2019 and 28 May 2019, the respondent participated in the “Sexual Offending Maintenance Program” (“SOMP”), completing a total of nine sessions. Program facilitators noted he was a positive and engaged group member who completed all program tasks to a satisfactory level. [39] The respondent was released under a parole order on 10 September 2019. Whilst on parole, the respondent also engaged in sessions with a psychologist at the Logan Probation and Parole office. His sessions were focused on factors that led to his offending such as attachment, poor coping, poor role modelling from his parents, his inability to engage in a relationship and his lack of sexual experience. He engaged in 12 sessions, which exceeded his 10 session allocation, and his psychologist recommended the respondent be provided with further sessions to assist him in understanding his New Future Plans and reduce his risk of offending or engaging in high risk behaviour. The respondent also completed a Resilience program and Intervention program during this period. [40] On 27 July 2020, the parole board received information that the respondent was not residing at his approved residence and had failed to notify the chief executive/delegate of a change in residence. The respondent failed to report as directed on 23 July 2020 and 28 July 2020 in breach of his parole order. In addition, the parole board was advised by police that the respondent was wanted for questioning in relation to two further offences of failure to comply. On this basis the parole board suspended the respondent’s parole order for an indefinite period. A warrant was issued for respondent’s arrest on 29 July 2020 and he was returned to custody. [41] In addition to sexual offending programs, the respondent has completed the Choices; Recovery from Substance Abuse program in additional to various vocational programs during his time in custody. Psychiatric evidence Dr Arthur [42] Dr Kenneth Arthur prepared a report dated 7 April 2021 for the purpose of a risk assessment in relation to a potential application under the Act. [43] In that report, Dr Arthur stated that there was no evidence that the respondent suffers from a major mental illness. He said the respondent is likely to have an Autism Spectrum Disorder associated with a Mild Intellectual Disability and noted evidence of persistent deficits in social skills relating to non-verbal communication. He also diagnosed the respondent with Alcohol Misuse Disorder, currently in remission in a controlled environment. [44] Dr Arthur did not believe the respondent fulfils the criteria for an Antisocial Personality Disorder. He also stated that there was no compelling evidence to suggest the presence of a Paraphilic Disorder. [45] On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Arthur reported as follows:10 10 The risk statement in Dr Arthur’s report was presented in the form of a table. -- 6 of 17 -- 7 “RISK STATEMENT Propensity to reoffend Prisoner Moxham has been convicted for two sexual offences. The sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl relates to his desire for a partner to alleviate loneliness and isolation. The second was the rape of a 15 year old girl whilst intoxicated and in front of the victim’s male friend which involved the use of a knife. Prisoner Moxham has not been able to identify any particular drivers for the second sexual offence, although it appears to be mostly driven by a need for sexual gratification. Based on the static risk factors, he falls in the ‘above average risk’ group for sexual recidivism. He does not have any significant Psychopathic Personality traits. There are a number of dynamic risk factors for sexual recidivism relating to impairments in psychological adjustment, significant problems with social adjustment and manageability issues. At interview, prisoner Moxham was in denial regarding his intimacy needs and claims he manages sexual frustration via masturbation, which was an avenue open to him prior to the sexual offences. Pattern of offending There does not appear to by any clearly discernible pattern for his offences. His victims were similar in that they were both somewhat vulnerable 15 year old girls. For the offence of carnal knowledge, it appears that prisoner Moxham was seeking a relationship and did not seem particularly sexually preoccupied. The second offence appears motivated by a need for sexual gratification rather than any intimacy seeking. Whilst it appears opportunistic, there may have been some planning involved in that he appears to have invited the girl (and her friend) back to the car with the intention of having sex. Attempt to change Prisoner Moxham has willingly engaged in sexual offender treatment programs. Effects of treatment programs Exit reports from the Inclusions Program and Maintenance Program have generally been positive. He is more aware of the need for effective communication, has improved his level of sexual education and indicates a better understanding of consent issues. He was able to identify risk factors for sexual recidivism and formulate risk mitigation strategies. Whilst on parole, he was initially compliant with all conditions, engaged in outpatient treatment and was able to establish himself in the community with the assistance of a supportive friend. However, it appears that in the context of becoming frustrated with his lack of work he made a unilateral, somewhat impulsive decision to leave Brisbane and take a job in far North Queensland without considering the consequences. Once away from his supports he rapidly relapsed back into alcohol use, came up against the same -- 7 of 17 -- 8 social difficulties and found himself unemployed and itinerant. This suggests that whilst he may be able to identify potential risk factors, he did not have the capacity and/or motivation to address these effectively despite the professional and personal supports made available to him. It appears that he was unable to generalise what he had learnt in the programs into his life in the community. Utilising structured clinical judgement, I would estimate prisoner Moxham’s unmodified risk of sexual recidivism to be moderately high, or ‘above average.’ The major risk factors are a return to alcohol abuse, unmet sexual/intimacy needs, his impulsivity/lack of consequential thinking and chronic deficits in social skills relating to his underling Autism Spectrum Disorder and Mild Intellectual Disability. … His risk of sexual recidivism would be acutely increased by intoxication with alcohol, other factors that would increase his risk include social isolation or separation from his supports, an itinerant lifestyle which would bring him into contact with potential victims and mood states including loneliness and rejection. Prisoner Moxham is unlikely to offend soon after release. As he has shown whilst on parole in 2019/2020, he appears to function reasonably well whilst in a contained environment with readily available supports and a high level of structure. Unfortunately, once he is separated from these supports he appears to rapidly return to his previous level of functioning. RECOMMENDATIONS A supervision order would lower the risk of sexual recidivism to low, or ‘below average.’ It would be important for prisoner Moxham to remain abstinent from all drugs of abuse, particularly alcohol. This could be facilitated via avoidance of licensed premises or social activities that centre around alcohol, with the provision of regular urine analysis and breathalyser monitoring. Ongoing drug and alcohol counselling in the community would also be beneficial. … It appears that prisoner Moxham benefits from a high level of structure in his life which could be provided by the use of weekly planners and scheduled vocational and recreational activities. The provision of a curfew and monitoring device would ensure limited access to potential victims and that he remains close to supports. … Whilst prisoner Moxham does not appear to have a paedophilic paraphilia, given the ages of his victims it would not be unreasonable to ensure he does not have unsupervised contact with girls under the age of 16 years. There is no evidence that he represents a threat to -- 8 of 17 -- 9 underage boys, but given his history of homosexual activity caution is advised. I believe an order of 5 years’ duration would be sufficient to ensure that he gains maximum benefit from psychological therapy and is given an opportunity to develop a stable support network in the community and prove his ability to remain abstinent from alcohol.” [46] Dr Arthur provided a supplementary report dated 27 July 2022 after having considered a further brief of material. In that supplementary report, Dr Arthur confirmed his opinion that a supervision order would lower the risk of sexual recidivism to low, or “below average”, and that an order of 5 years’ duration would be sufficient. [47] Dr Arthur reviewed further updating material provided to him on 12 September 2022 and confirmed that further material did not change his earlier opinions. Dr Beech [48] Dr Michael Beech prepared a report dated 9 December 2021 for the purpose of a risk assessment pursuant to s 11 of the Act. In that report, Dr Beech diagnosed the respondent with: (a) low average to borderline intellectual functioning; (b) unhelpful personality traits of avoidance, impulsivity, difficulty coping with stressors, social anxiety, and poor judgement; (c) alcohol use disorder (currently in remission); (d) (possible) autism spectrum disorder. [49] On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Beech reported as follows: “In my opinion, the offending does not represent a paraphilia. Instead, I believe it is more likely that Mr Moxham has struggled to form appropriate adult relationships and so he has sought to have relationships and sexual relationships with minors. Intoxication may have played a substantial role for the second offending but the first was more his immature, deceitful possibly predatory attempt to form a relationship with the 15-year-old girl. There was a marked escalation in the offending and a particular concern that it occurred on bail. He was released to parole. He did well apparently with the initial period of supervision. After a few months though, when he could not find work, he travelled to Julie Creek and Mount Isa. He returned to circumstances similar to his offending episode — he was unemployed, homeless and abusing alcohol. He did not though form any relationships or offend otherwise. … Altogether, I believe the risk of re-offending is moderately high, in the above average risk group. A 2017 study of Australian sex offenders found that approximately 19% of them re-offended within five years of release. A supervision order would reduce the risk to low. I think he would be able to comply with the supervision order, as he did with -- 9 of 17 -- 10 the earlier stages of parole. If he is to be released to supervision, I would recommend: • Abstinence • Referral for ongoing alcohol rehabilitation counselling, and the possibility of disulfiram • Ongoing psychological counselling, with Shelley Jacks if this is possible • Appropriate residential placement with J if that can be assessed as suitable • Integration with community agencies including employment • A curfew that would preclude him from being out and about in the late hours of night or idle on the streets If he is released to parole I would recommend a five-year period.” [50] After reviewing further material, Dr Beech provided supplementary reports dated 2 August 2022 and 26 September 2022 which each confirmed that the additional material did not change his earlier opinions. Dr Sundin [51] Dr Josephine Sundin prepared a report dated 13 January 2022 for the purpose of a risk assessment pursuant to s 11 of the Act. In that report, Dr Sundin diagnosed the respondent with: (a) Autism Spectrum Disorder, accompanied by mild intellectual impairment; (b) Alcohol Use Disorder; binge pattern, in sustained remission whilst incarcerated. [52] Dr Sundin stated that it was possible the respondent suffers from a Paraphilia Disorder; specifically, Hebephilia - heterosexual type due to the respondent describing an ongoing sexual attraction to girls/women with an early post-pubertal body type. However, Dr Sundin also noted that it is possible that the respondent’s attraction to girls in this age group reflects his emotional, communication and intimacy deficits, which make relationships with adult women difficult for him. [53] On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Sundin reported as follows: “Mr Moxham’s two tranches of sexual offending involved 15-year-old girls and appear to have been driven by feelings of loneliness and isolation. Intoxication was an aggravating factor in the second offence. He has had longstanding difficulties with respect to psychological adjustment, poor social skills and difficulties in having his sexual and emotional intimacy needs met. He describes a previous high libido and has coped with this through demanding sex from partners and ongoing masturbation. Whilst he has expressed a desire for a future stable intimate partner relationship, he has no clear idea as to how to establish such a relationship. -- 10 of 17 -- 11 Future offending is likely to occur in the setting of Mr Moxham becoming overwhelmed, feeling increasingly isolated or alienated; with the risk of offending aggravated through increased engagement in pornography and/or reversion to use of intoxicants, particularly alcohol. Mr Moxham has deficits with respect to cognitive function and problem solving, which may potentially overwhelm him. Whilst he has a history of street smarts, he has struggled to sustain employment and has been vulnerable to impulsive abandonment of employment opportunities when he has felt denigrated or confronted by co-workers or bosses. He is more likely to seek out a youthful victim given his emotional identification with that age group, and his perception that they are less challenging to him. It is unlikely that he will re-offend precipitously or quickly after release to the community, but his risk of reoffending will rise without appropriate maintenance of supports, and a high level of oversight, structure and supervision. Overall, his risk assessment suggests that he is at above average risk for future sexual recidivism. In my opinion, the presence of a supervision order with the usual clauses has the capacity to lower his risk of sexual recidivism to below average or low. Abstinence from intoxicants, particularly alcohol, will be an essential part of supervision, as will close monitoring of his movements. He will benefit from ongoing interpersonal skills counselling, drug and alcohol counselling within the community. He will need a high level of structure and assistance in planning for daily activities as well as assistance in establishing vocational and recreational activities. … I would recommend that Mr Moxham should be subject to a five year supervision order to enable these various strategies to be consolidated.” [54] After reviewing further updating material, Dr Sundin confirmed that the material did not alter her earlier opinions. The parties’ respective positions [55] Ms Maloney, who appeared as counsel for the Attorney-General, acknowledged that the evidence supports a finding that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order. It was submitted that the term of a supervision order should be for five years. [56] The respondent, by his counsel, Ms Robb, expressly accepted that the court would find that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order but contended that the risk of him committing a serious sexual offence upon release could be adequately managed by compliance with the terms of a supervision order. -- 11 of 17 -- 12 The respondent contended that the appropriate duration of a supervision order is five years. Whether the discretion to make a division 3 order is enlivened [57] The evidence before me, including the evidence of the psychiatrists on the question of risk of sexual reoffending, is acceptable and cogent. On the basis of that evidence, and having regard to the matters set out in s 13(4) of the Act, I am satisfied that the concession made by Ms Robb that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order was properly made. [58] That finding engages the discretion to make a division 3 order under s 13(5) of the Act. The appropriate order [59] There are no factors in this case which would cause the court to permit the unsupervised release of the respondent. That is to say, adequate protection of the community would not be ensured by the exercise of the discretion to make no division 3 order. [60] I am, however, satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order. The concession made by Ms Maloney to that effect is supported by the evidence of the psychiatrists and, again, I consider that concession to have been properly made. [61] I am satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order which is to operate for a period of five years from the end of the respondent’s period of imprisonment. [62] The Attorney-General also read an affidavit sworn by Bruce Tannock, the Acting Manager of the High-Risk Offender Management Unit within Community Corrections, Queensland Corrective Services. That affidavit addressed the practical arrangements available for the supervision of the respondent and his reintegration into the community, including accommodation, supervision, psychological treatment and other community support services. On the basis of that evidence I consider that the requirements of s 16 of the Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. [63] The parties have agreed on the terms of the supervision order. I am satisfied that those terms are appropriate. Conclusion [64] I find that: (a) the respondent is a serious danger to the community if released from custody without a supervision order being made; and (b) adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order. [65] I order the respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule to these reasons until 29 October 2027. -- 12 of 17 -- 13 SCHEDULE The court is satisfied that Kristopher Richard Joseph Moxham is a serious danger to the community. The rules in this order are made according to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The court orders that Kristopher Richard Joseph Moxham be released from prison and must follow the rules in this supervision order for 5 years, until 29 October 2027. To Kristopher Richard Joseph Moxham: [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 5 years. 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 or may not 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. -- 13 of 17 -- 14 [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 [sexual] offences [9] You must not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order. Where you must live [10] 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. [11] 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. [12] 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 [13] 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 [14] 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 [15] You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work. [16] 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 17 -- 15 (e) (if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study. [17] If a corrective services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you. Motor vehicles [18] 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 [19] 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. [20] You must give a corrective services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phones you own or have. You must let a corrective services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone. Computers and internet [21] 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. [22] 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. [23] You must give a corrective services officer details (including user names 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 [24] 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. Rules about alcohol and drugs [25] 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. [26] 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. -- 15 of 17 -- 16 [27] 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. [28] 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. [29] 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 [30] 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. [31] 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 [32] You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor. [33] You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program. [34] 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 [35] You must talk to a corrective services officer about what you plan to do each week. A corrective services officer will tell you how to do this (for example, face to face or in writing). [36] You must also tell a corrective services officer the name of new persons you have met. This includes: spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly. [37] 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 [38] You are not allowed to have any contact with children under 16 years of age, other than incidental contact. 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 -- 16 of 17 -- 17 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. [39] 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. [40] 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. [41] 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). [42] You must not: (a) without reasonable excuse be within 100 metres of schools without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer; (b) go to a public park. 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 Conditions [43] You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet. This includes pictures on a computer, photographs, movies, or magazines. [44] 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. [45] You must advise your case manager of any personal relationships you have started. -- 17 of 17 --