Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Barnes [2022] QSC 177

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Barnes [2022] QSC 177 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v LIAM DERRICK BARNES (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 911 of 2022 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 2 September 2022 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 15 August 2022 JUDGE: Cooper J ORDER: Order that the respondent’s release from custody be subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule to these reasons until 21 July 2029 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 was released from prison subject to an interim supervision order – where the Attorney-General applies for final orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent was convicted and sentenced for sexual offending against three children including his infant biological daughter over an eight year period – where the respondent participated in programs in prison addressing substance abuse and sexual offending and since release from prison has commenced treatment with a psychologist – where expert evidence describes the respondent’s risk of further offending as ranging from high without a supervision order to low with a supervision order – where experts recommend the respondent be released to supervision for a period of between longer than five years and ten years – whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if -- 1 of 27 -- 2 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 9A(2)(a), s 11, s 13, s 16, Schedule 1 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v KAH [2019] 3 Qd R 329; [2019] QSC 36, cited COUNSEL: B Mumford for the applicant E Cooper for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor for the applicant Cridland & Hua Lawyers for the respondent Application [1] On 21 January 2022, the Attorney-General filed an application seeking an order under section 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] The respondent’s full time release date from prison was 22 July 2022. [3] On 14 July 2022, pursuant to s 9A(2)(a) of the Act, Boddice J ordered that the respondent be released on an interim supervision order pending the final hearing of the application on 15 August 2022. [4] The final hearing of the application proceeded before me on 15 August 2022. [5] 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 [6] 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 [7] The term “prisoner” is defined to include a person serving a period of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence.3 [8] A “serious sexual offence” is defined to include an offence of a sexual nature against a child.4 [9] 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 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). -- 2 of 27 -- 3 to justify the decision.6 The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community.7 [10] 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”). [11] 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 History [12] The respondent was born on 9 August 1990. He grew up in a strict and religious household, with his parents and three siblings. He attended church regularly but was rejected by the church community following the charges for the first sexual offences in 2015 (addressed below), and his failure to admit any wrongdoing. [13] The respondent has reported that he was sexually abused as a child. [14] The respondent has been in three significant relationships throughout his adulthood and reported that two of these relationships were marked by toxic and volatile behaviours. [15] The respondent completed Year 12 and has been employed continuously when in the community. He completed a Certificate 3 in Warehouse distribution at a TAFE and has worked in various construction and building supply businesses. Sexual offending [16] On 22 April 2015, the respondent was convicted and sentenced in the Townsville District Court for sexual offending against the eight-year-old daughter of one of his friends. The respondent was initially tried on a charge of rape but ultimately acquitted on that charge and found guilty of the statutory alternative charge of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12. [17] The offending occurred on 28 March 2012, when the respondent was staying overnight at the home of the victim’s parents. The respondent was sleeping in the bedroom of the victim and she had moved to her siblings’ room. During the night, the respondent took the victim to her bedroom and touched her genital area, but outside of the vulva or vagina. Over a short period of time, the respondent touched the victim three times. 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). -- 3 of 27 -- 4 [18] The victim’s father got up during the night and heard a moan, which he thought was his daughter. The father saw the victim run past his room from the direction of her room which the respondent was using. The victim disclosed to her father that the respondent had touched her private parts. [19] The respondent initially denied any wrongdoing to the victim’s father but then later said he had touched the victim two or three times during ‘playing around’ and didn’t mean for it to go as far as it did. In a subsequent interview with police, the respondent denied the offending and said he only admitted the offending because he wanted the victim’s father to stop harassing him. During the trial, the respondent gave evidence that he was pushed into confessing to the offending by a senior member of his church, and also accused the victim’s father of offering to take $10,000 to make the prosecution ‘go away’. [20] The respondent was sentenced to a period of nine months’ imprisonment. It was ordered that the term of imprisonment be suspended after serving a period of four and half month’s imprisonment, for an operational period of two years. [21] On 23 December 2016, the respondent was convicted and sentenced in the Brisbane District Court upon his guilty plea to the offence of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years who was his lineal descendent and the further offence of possessing child exploitation material. [22] The offences were committed in breach of the suspended sentence imposed on 22 April 2015. The respondent was alleged to have committed the indecent treatment offence very shortly after his release from custody on the suspended sentence imposed on 22 April 2015. It was alleged that he possessed the child exploitation material between 17 November 2015 and 19 March 2016. [23] Police had received images depicting an infant female child as part of another operation. These images were traced to the respondent’s address. On 18 March 2016, police executed a search warrant at the respondent’s residence, and they found his phone which contained photographs of his biological daughter, who was about three months old at the time, with her vagina and anus exposed in a sexualised fashion. In some of the images, an adult male penis, presumably the respondent’s penis, was placed next to the child’s vagina and anus. Metadata indicated that the photographs had been taken before 18 November 2015. [24] For the indecent treatment offence, the respondent was sentenced to a period of two years imprisonment, suspended after serving 279 days, for an operational period of three years. The respondent received a period of probation for the possession of child exploitation material. In respect of the suspended sentence, a finding was made that the respondent had been convicted of an indictable offence punishable by a period of imprisonment during the operational period of the suspended sentence. It was ordered that the operational period be extended by a period of six months. [25] On 12 November 2020, the respondent was convicted and sentenced upon his guilty plea in the Bundaberg District Court for offending including the indecent treatment and attempted indecent treatment of an 11-year-old male child, who was a friend of the respondent’s partner’s son. -- 4 of 27 -- 5 [26] On or about 3 January 2020, the victim was attending a sleepover at the residence of the respondent’s partner where the respondent was present. The respondent was playing video games with the victim. He asked the victim to come over and sit next to him on the couch. The victim did so. The respondent then guided the victim’s head to his bare chest and began massaging the victim’s shoulders and down the victim’s body, eventually massaging the base of the victim's penis over his clothes for about 5 seconds. The victim asked the respondent to stop and he did. The attempted indecent treatment involved the respondent massaging the victim’s shoulders again. The respondent’s hands moved down the victim’s body; however, the respondent got only to the victim’s waist before he said that he needed to go to the toilet, so he left. [27] For the indecent treatment offence, the respondent was sentenced to a period of two years and six months imprisonment. He received a lesser term of imprisonment, in the order of 12 months imprisonment for the attempted indecent treatment. [28] When he was sentenced on 23 December 2016 and on 12 November 2020, the respondent also pleaded guilty to numerous summary charges of failing to comply with the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld) (“CPOR”). These summary offences concerned failures to declare contact with children and failing to report social media use. [29] At the time the Attorney-General filed the application for a division 3 order, the respondent was serving his third custodial term for sexual offences committed against children. On that basis, when the application was filed the respondent was serving a period of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence and was a prisoner for the purposes of s 13 of the Act. Events in prison [30] In terms of substance abuse programs, the respondent completed the Low Intensity Substance Intervention Program (“LISI”) on 9 July 2020 and the Substance Abuse Maintenance Intervention Program (“SAMI”) between 24 November 2020 and 17 December 2020. His engagement in the SAMI was considered to be of a high standard, and he was able to identify pro-social goals and his personal triggers. [31] Between 15 March 2021 and 28 April 2021, the respondent participated in the Getting Started: Preparatory Program for Sexual Offending (“GSPP”) at Wolston Correctional Centre. [32] In a report detailing the respondent’s participation in the GSPP, program facilitators considered that he demonstrated limited insight into his offending behaviour, and only accepted limited responsibility for his offending. It was observed that the respondent had a tendency to externalise blame onto others, particularly his ex- partner, and presented with inconsistent information when compared to official records. Nevertheless, the facilitators considered that the respondent could demonstrate some empathy for his victim, a commitment to change and a willingness to participate in future programs. Ultimately, the facilitators recommended that the respondent participate in a Stable-2007 assessment and undergo a High Intensity Sexual Offending Program (“HISOP”). [33] On 28 May 2021, the respondent was interviewed regarding his willingness to undertake the HISOP. He expressed motivation to participate and accepted an offer -- 5 of 27 -- 6 for placement on the program. The respondent commenced that program on 8 June 2021 and completed it on 18 July 2022. In undertaking the HISOP, the respondent completed 342 hours of treatment, which included both group treatment and individual treatment. [34] The completion report for the HISOP records the level and quality of the respondent’s participation in that program as being “Excellent” in all respects. More detail of the respondent’s approach to the HISOP was set out in the body of the completion report: “Prisoner Barnes is considered motivated to engage in behavioural change which has been evidenced through his participation in the program. The prisoner has demonstrated his ability to use alternative healthy coping strategies which includes seeking support when required, expressing his emotions to others, thought challenging and core belief challenging, using positive affirmations, exercising and being able to sit within difficult emotions until they pass. Prisoner Barnes recognised the need to work on his assertive communication, whereby he recognised being a passive communicator historically and avoidant of conflict; he was able to see the benefit in addressing issues when they arise and demonstrated insight into this leading to bottling emotions if he were to avoid it. Prisoner Barnes has been observed to communicate assertively through his program participation and has practiced this skill with the use of role plays. He has also demonstrated this with custodial staff and program facilitators, whereby he has been observed to reach out for support when required. He is encouraged to continue practising these skills for them to become entrenched.” [35] The final section of the completion report, which addressed the effect of the intervention and recommendations, contained the following relevant statements: “Prisoner Barnes demonstrated motivation to reintegrate safely and responsibly into the community environment and has developed a realistic and achievable New Future Plan to support this. The prisoner demonstrated insight into the likely supervision conditions and demonstrated a willingness to develop a professional relationship with his supervision officer/s. Prisoner Barnes has three episodes of sexual offending behaviour. It is noted that he maintains his innocence in relation to the offences he was convicted of in 2015 (committed in 2012) against an eight-year-old female. Prisoner Barnes takes responsibility for the sexual offences he was sentenced for in 2016 against his biological daughter and 2020 against an 11-year-old male. Prisoner Barnes demonstrated a sound understanding of his high-risk factors and these were relevant to his offending pathway. The prisoner identified low self-esteem (putting other’s needs first), lack of intimacy (power and control), poor emotional management (avoidance coping), sex as coping, poor problem solving (distorted thinking) and hostility toward women (mistrust) as relevant high-risk factors to his offending. In terms of a pathway to offending, prisoner Barnes remained firm that his behaviour in both instances was a function of attempting to leave relationships due to his perception he had nil other avenues to do this. -- 6 of 27 -- 7 During his time in the program, prisoner Barnes identified appropriate risk mitigation strategies to manage himself following release. The prisoner discussed intentions of thought challenging and reaching out to his support people if he should struggle with emotional management and avoidance coping, further, he reported attending regular appointments with his psychologist and/or GP if he feels as though he is using sex to cope. Prisoner Barnes acknowledged that his need for power and control over circumstances in his life requires ongoing challenging, in which, he acknowledged recent behaviours within custody to manage himself when struggling to regulate his emotions, in particular, feelings such as entitlement, distrust, frustration, anger, hatred, victimisation, used, misunderstood and annoyed. The prisoner demonstrated insight into having manipulated situations to gain control and to achieve the outcome he desired. The prisoner reported the importance of consequential thinking and utilising a vision board to hold him accountable in achieving his goals. Further to this, the prisoner noted he wants to ensure his supports are aware of these behaviours so he can discuss them when needed. Prisoner Barnes is considered to have made shifts regarding his identified treatment needs including significant social influences, capacity for relationship stability, hostility towards women, general social rejection/loneliness, lack of concern for other, impulsive acts, poor problem solving, negative emotionality, sex drive/preoccupation, sex as coping, deviant sexual preference and co-operation with supervision. It is considered he lacked insight into the treatment need pertaining to emotional identification to children and deviant sexual interest. Given he has not yet had the opportunity to utilise these skills in the community, it is considered these treatment needs remain outstanding. He is encouraged to continue implementing the skills and strategies he has learnt within the program in order to continue working on the aforementioned treatment needs and he is encouraged to seek professional support to assist him in doing so.” [36] As to the outstanding treatment needs referred to in the final paragraph of the extract above, the completion report earlier stated: “… In terms of deviant interests regarding children, the prisoner denied having a sexual attraction to children, though acknowledges seeking sexual gratification from his second episode of offending. It is noted the prisoner experienced significant shame/guilt around acknowledging this and discussed attributing this to not wanting to be labelled as having an attraction to children. At this time, it is considered this treatment need remains outstanding, given the prisoner lacks insight around his motivations for offending, particularly in relation to his first episode of offending. It is recommended he seek further psychological intervention in the community to continue exploring and addressing this treatment need as required. … Prisoner Barnes demonstrated an emerging understanding of his treatment need pertaining to emotional identification with children. In which, the prisoner denied this as being applicable to him, however, -- 7 of 27 -- 8 throughout the program identified as connecting with his third victim of offending whereby he felt validated by the victim and as though he was a role model to him. However, through exploration it appears that this connection was more about meeting his needs, whereby if he felt powerless/lacked control, he could seek this through the victims. As a result, it is considered the prisoner has developed insight into the relevance of the treatment needs of sexual preoccupation and emotional identification with children, though would benefit from ongoing support in managing this risk moving forward.” Treatment since release [37] Since his release, and pursuant to the terms of the interim supervision order made on 14 July 2022, the respondent has commenced treatment with a psychologist, Dr Michelle Andrews. Psychiatric evidence [38] Dr Kenneth Arthur prepared a report dated 23 August 2021 for the purpose of a risk assessment in relation to a potential application under the Act. In that report, Dr Arthur diagnosed the respondent with: (a) Paedophilia, non exclusive; (b) a Substance Misuse Disorder, crystal methamphetamine, currently in remission in a controlled environment; and (c) an Avoidant Personality Disorder represented by the respondent’s pervasive pattern of social inhibition/inadequacy and hypersensitivity to negative evaluation associated with maladaptive coping strategies. [39] Dr Arthur also recorded that, on the respondent’s self-report, he would fulfil the criteria for chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder secondary to childhood trauma. [40] On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Arthur reported as follows:10 “RISK STATEMENT Propensity to reoffend Utilising the Static-99R, prisoner Barnes fell in the ‘well above average risk’ group when compared to the reference population of North American incarcerated sex offenders. There are a number of relevant dynamic risk factors as identified on the RSVP. His sexual violence is characterised by chronicity and diversity. His offending occurred over a period of 8 years, suggestive of enduring risk. The diversity of his offences makes it difficult to identify specific victim population. Whilst he has not used physical coercion, the two older child victims were known to him and raise the possibility of psychological coercion. He continues to deny any deviant sexual 10 The risk statement in Dr Arthur’s report was presented in the form of a table. -- 8 of 27 -- 9 interest in children and claims his innocence for the 2012 indecent dealing charge. There are ongoing issues with self-awareness and historically he has utilised maladaptive, avoidant coping strategies to deal with interpersonal problems and emotional distress. Based on his offences, there is a strong likelihood that he harbours a deviant sexual interest in children. There is a history of substance abuse which was associated with his second sexual offence. Prisoner Barnes has longstanding problems with intimate relationships which he claimed led to the later sexual offences. The fact that he reoffended twice whilst on a suspended sentence and following specialist psychological therapy raises concerns about his manageability in the community. Pattern of offending It is difficult to identify a clear pattern of offending based on the variable victim profile. Certainly, for the second and third offences, there is an association with his involvement in an unsatisfactory relationship. In regard to the victims, there were two female and one male. One was his biological daughter, the other two were prepubescent children known to him. The second and third offences were perpetrated against children in his care. Attempt to change Prisoner Barnes has availed himself of a number of treatment programs. He engaged in individual therapy and a parenting course whilst in the community, completed substance abuse courses in jail and is currently engaged in the HISOP. Effects of treatment programs The available exit reports suggest that prisoner Barnes engages well in treatment and is an active participant. At interview he displayed a limited retention of information from programs thus far. Whilst he claimed to have changed in his attitudes towards women and developed better self- awareness, he continues to engage in the projection of blame and portraying himself as the victim. … Prisoner Barnes grew up in a family where his father and brother were both angry and unpredictable individuals. It is likely that his mother also utilised avoidant and possibly passive-aggressive ways of coping with this. He wished to please his parents and became fearful of negative evaluation. His exposure to childhood sexual abuse increased his sense of fear and perhaps anger, but also reinforced his submissive tendencies within relationships. As an adult he developed avoidant coping mechanisms to manage feelings of inadequacy and mistrust, which included the abuse of drugs and alcohol. The trigger for his initial sexual offence is unclear. It is possible that this was his first expression of a deviant sexual interest in children associated with disturbed patterns of sexual arousal related to his own childhood sexual abuse, or alternatively driven by an urge to re-enact the abuse as a form of mastery. It is also possible that prisoner Barnes found -- 9 of 27 -- 10 children a safer target of his sexual desires based on his feelings of inadequacy around same-age peers. The subsequent rejection by the church may have led to his own defensive rejection of those values, escalating his use of substances and intensifying his sensitivity to negative evaluation and rejection. In this context, his choice of sexual partners served both as a form of self-punishment but also as a passive-aggressive rejection of the values held by the people who abandoned him. His offending against his infant daughter can be understood as a passive-aggressive expression of anger and hostility towards his partner and/or a further acting out of his evolving sexual interest in children exacerbated by the disinhibiting effects of methamphetamine. Further criminal charges acted to reinforce his sense of failure and rejection such that even after separating from an abusive relationship, he readily entered into another with very similar features. The index offences again occurred in the context of feeling disempowered, dominated and abused by his partner, possibly representing a passive- aggressive expression of anger and frustration as well as satisfying his deviant sexual interests. Given the age of the index victim, it is possible that prisoner Barnes identified with this child as he was also sexually abused around that age. The most relevant risk factors for sexual recidivism include a deviant sexual interest in children, engaging in dysfunctional intimate relationships, his personality dysfunction relating to the use of avoidant/passive-aggressive coping strategies and substance abuse. Were prisoner Barnes to reoffend, it would likely be against prepubescent children of either sex with whom he is already familiar with. His prior offences appear opportunistic although grooming cannot be ruled out; potential victims will most likely be under his care. Further offending will be driven by his deviant sexual interest and the use of sex to cope with feelings of anger, rejection and perhaps retribution in the context of engaging in further disturbed relationships. The offending will most likely consist of inappropriate touching; it may persist or escalate if the child does not actively resist. The risk of physical harm is low but any future offending is likely to be associated with significant psychological distress for the victim. It is unlikely that prisoner Barnes will reoffend soon after release. The risk of reoffending will be acutely intensified should he return to substance use, particularly crystal methamphetamine. Indicators of increasing risk of sexual recidivism would include his involvement in conflictual or abusive intimate relationships, ready access to prepubescent children of either sex and a return to substance abuse. Factors likely to moderate the risk of recidivism include maintaining professional and personal supports, maintaining abstinence and avoidance of abusive relationships. Based on structured clinical judgment, I would estimate his risk of sexual recidivism to be moderately high. RECOMMENDATIONS -- 10 of 27 -- 11 A supervision order would reduce the risk of recidivism from moderately high to low. This would predominantly be via the mechanisms of reducing victim access, ensuring he remains abstinent from drugs of abuse, the provision of high quality offence-specific psychological interventions and the close curation of both intimate and non-intimate relationships. The exit report from the HISOP will no doubt provide very important information relating to prisoner Barnes’ progress during the program, particularly any shifts in his understanding/attitudes and whether he develops further insight into the drivers for his sexual offending, as well as his capacity to formulate an effective relapse management plan. Given his relatively young age, chronicity of offending against children and his current stance of denial in regard to deviant sexual interests, I believe that a supervision order longer than 5 years would be required to effectively manage his risk to the community.” [41] On 6 June 2022, Dr Arthur prepared a supplementary report. In preparing that report, Dr Arthur had regard to information concerning the respondent’s participation in the HISOP up to 20 May 2022 as well as reports prepared by Dr Sundin and Dr Beech (addressed below). [42] In his supplemental report, Dr Arthur expressed the following opinions: “It is gratifying that prisoner Barnes now appears to be acknowledging some degree of sexual motivation for the offences, but concerning that he does not see an attraction to children as relevant for him and still appears to be minimising his deviant sexual interest. It is also concerning that the convenors have highlighted pervasive anti-system attitudes which, in the context of his prior failure to conform with ANCOR reporting requirements, has implications for his cooperation and supervision. Without reviewing the HISOP exit report (which would include prisoner Barnes’ relapse prevention plan), it is difficult to comment on the effects of this program on his risk of recidivism when released. I remain of the opinion that the most relevant risk factors for recidivism include a deviant sexual interest in children (which is not addressed in the HISOP), engaging in future dysfunctional relationships, his longstanding personality dysfunction relating to the use of avoidant/passive aggressive coping strategies and a return to substance abuse. I believe that all of these risk factors will require long term psychological interventions to address. Given his high Static-99R score, the presence of sexual deviancy and his relatively young age, I believe that despite treatment his risk of reoffending will persist for some time. A recent paper by Hanson et al estimated that an offender with a Static-99R score of 7 will require between 11-17 years offence- free in the community before dropping to the median risk category, and 17+ years offence-free in the community before transitioning into the below average category. -- 11 of 27 -- 12 Even accounting for treatment effects and the (relatively) low severity of his offending, I believe that a 10 year supervision order would be indicated to effectively manage prisoner Barnes’ risk.” [43] On 20 July 2022, after he had been provided with a copy of the respondent’s HISOP completion report, Dr Arthur prepared a further supplementary report in which he expressed the following opinions: “I remain concerned that he still does not wish to recognise an attraction to children and is minimising his deviant sexual interests. After reviewing his relapse prevention plan, I believe he will require significant ongoing psychological support to maintain and implement the cognitive and behavioural strategies he has identified. Furthermore, it is relevant that the course convenors highlight his ongoing mistrust of women and persistent anti-authoritarian attitudes. I remain of the opinion that the most relevant risk factors for sexual recidivism are his deviant sexual interest in children, the risk of future dysfunctional intimate relationships, longstanding personality dysfunction and the risk of returning to substance abuse. Even accounting for treatment effects and the relatively low severity of his offending, due to factors including his young age, the presence of sexual deviancy and his ongoing avoidance and denial, a supervision order of 10 years’ duration is required to ensure he develops and concretises the necessary attitudinal, behavioural and social changes required to manage his risk of recidivism.” [44] When giving oral evidence in chief about the outcome of the HISOP, Dr Arthur stated that it was encouraging that the respondent engaged so well in the treatment, that he was seen to be an active participant and that some gains had been made. Dr Arthur noted that he had not seen that in the respondent when he first assessed him. Nevertheless, he maintained the opinions set out in his further supplementary report which I have extracted in the preceding paragraph. [45] During cross-examination, Dr Arthur accepted that there had been progress insofar as the respondent had developed insight generally into his sexual offending, had shown a commitment to change within the HISOP and is now acknowledging to some degree a sexual arousal or sexual gratification from his behaviour. However, Dr Arthur noted that the respondent’s conduct in not admitting the first offence and not admitting that he has a deviant sexual interest in children demonstrated a degree of denial. [46] When it was suggested to Dr Arthur in cross-examination that a supervision order of seven or eight years duration would be appropriate in the circumstances he gave the following answer:11 “Well, I suppose when you’re thinking about the length of a supervision order, we – we need to think about what we know, what we do know. And again, you know, our – our understanding and our – the tools that we use to predict recidivism as far from perfect, but we – we have what we have. And when we look at that, when we look at 11 Transcript 1-14. -- 12 of 27 -- 13 – at risk factors that have shown to – you know, to be significant, a deviant sexual interest in children is certainly a significant risk factor. And what we find is that people who have a sexual deviancy, their risk of recidivism is certainly much longer than someone who doesn’t have a sexual deviancy. I think young age is also a – a significant risk factor because young – younger offenders tend to remain sexually active and sexually preoccupied for longer. And in the scheme of things Mr Barnes is still quite young. And I think the other thing that we need to consider is the risk factor of his personality functioning, which has been highlighted in all the assessment. His predominant personality is – is one of a passive aggressive avoidant personality. Some people have noted that he has some antiauthoritarian attitudes and that there – they were sill highlighted in the – in the HISOP. Now, you know, we can talk about the vernation or the reason that he’s developed those, but those personality traits and personality traits that he identifies himself, in part, led to the offending, they haven’t changed. They don’t change. Personalities don’t change very quickly. And so we don’t – what we don’t know is we know how Mr Barnes presents in jail. We know how he presents in – in a group treatment program. We don’t know how he presents in the community and what’s going to happen. So we have to think about these risk factors. We also have to look at the static risk facts. And again, they’re not perfect, but his Static-99R score puts him in the well above average risk range. And when you think about and what we know about people in that – that high risk range is that their risk does tender to persist longer than somebody in a lower risk range. And there was a paper by Hanson and colleagues in 2018 that looked at that and they looked at 7000 cases. And that showed that for someone with a Static-99R score of 7, to get just to average risk it takes 10 years or 11 years actually to get at the top level. I suppose when I talk about 10 years really what I’m saying is that these aren’t – these are really relevant risk factors that haven’t yet been addressed and hopefully will be addressed. But I think that a longer duration is necessary in order not just to cover that static factors but to acknowledge that the change for these core issues is going to take a longer time.” [47] Dr Arthur also expressed a concern that the respondent, if subject to supervision for an insufficient period of time, might engage in therapy but not necessarily take on what that therapy teaches. The concern was expressed as follows:12 “And so if he doesn’t have an adequate degree of time where he is supervised and – and ensured that he’s maintaining progress, then after five years he can go and do his own thing. Something can happen. He can engage in a relationship that fails. He can have access to a victim at the wrong time. And if he hasn’t internalised those management strategies, he’s likely to reoffend. And that’s what we know from his – his Static scores and also from his dynamic risk factors. So yes, absolutely his goals are going to be impacted by a supervision order. Does there need to be a longer supervision order to manage his risk? Absolutely.” 12 Transcript 1-15 – 1-16. -- 13 of 27 -- 14 [48] As to the prospect of the respondent not internalising the management strategies taught through therapy, Dr Arthur said this:13 “Your Honour, my experience in these cases is that when people get out of jail they’re very motivated to move on with their lives and that therapy initially is actually focused on them moving on with their lives. Now, Michelle Andrews isn’t here to comment on that, but when I read treatment reports what I hear is often the focus for the first six, sometimes 12 months, is on adjust: getting out of jail, coping with being on an order, all the hassles and all the problems that come along with that. And then in between there’s some – some sexual – you know, addressing the sexual deviancy side of things. But it’s a long process and it’s often an interrupted process because life stressors come along and they need to be dealt with in therapy. So yes, he’s engaged and yes, he has moved forward. But when I said ‘do nothing’ I suppose what I meant was, ‘You can avoid dealing with your sexual deviancy. You can find other things to deal with,’ and, in fact, often that’s the case. I’d almost say it’s almost always the case, particularly in the first 12 to 24 months. So the – the work on the sexual deviancy is a very long-term approach, and that – that does take a long time. And I have patients who are still working on that at the 10 year mark and not making a great deal of progress. Now, I’m not saying – I can’t generalise to Mr Barnes, but I my concern is when you look at the static risk factors, when you look at the – what we know about his risk, his risk is real and it is significant. This is a man who has offended over – on a number of occasions with a number of different victims despite sanctions. You know, this is a man who did not comply with reporting requirements when he was out. This is a man, you know, who – who did not regulate his behaviour. Now, yes, he didn’t have treatment and now he’s getting treatment, but we can’t ignore those concerns. [49] Dr Josephine Sundin prepared a report dated 5 May 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) Paedophilic Disorder – non-exclusive, not limited to incest; (b) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, chronic, childhood onset; (c) Substance Use Disorder – methamphetamine in sustained remission whilst incarcerated; and (d) Mixed Personality Disorder – avoidant, passive and borderline personality traits. [50] On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Sundin reported as follows: “Mr Barnes’ sexual offending history is characterised by both diversity and chronicity with the offences occurring over an eight year period. He has offended against both males and females, infants and 13 Transcript 1-16. -- 14 of 27 -- 15 older children. Despite now having three tranches of convictions, he continues to deny any deviant sexual interest in children, and continues to assert his innocence for the offences from 2012. He is highly preoccupied with the judgement of others, and is at risk of regression into maladaptive coping strategies. He has a longstanding pattern of passivity, which has contributed to his difficulties in managing interpersonal problems. His sexual offending has been aggravated by conflict within relationships, low self-esteem and substance abuse. He has a poor history of compliance with supervision orders, and has attracted multiple sanctions in response to poor compliance. The lack of compliance appears to have been avoidance arising from feelings of shame and fear of judgement rather than from an anti-authoritarian attitude. The risk to future victims is not imminent, but would arise in the setting of interpersonal conflict, reversion to avoidant/passive coping strategies, regression into substance abuse, and reversion to emotional identification with children. Any future offending will involve children and may progress from touching to more intrusive actions such as oral intercourse and potentially digital penetration. Whilst Mr Barnes was clearly putting the case for not being subject to a supervision order, I do not consider that such an assertion is sustainable given the chronicity of his sexual offending. Mr Barnes has a much better employment record than many of the other offenders I have assessed. He has good prospects for regaining employment, which will facilitate ease of access to private accommodation. I would anticipate that his parents are likely to be supportive in assisting him to find suitable private accommodation. I note that CREST has been unable to assist him in finding suitable accommodation. I would agree with Mr Barnes that the less times he spends at the Wacol Precinct, the better. In my opinion, taking all of the factors from both the collateral history and the interview with Mr Barnes, I would assess his unmodified risk of future sexual recidivism to be moderate to high. The presence of a supervision order would reduce the risk from moderate/high to moderate/low. A supervision order would provide oversight, reduce victim access, involve GPS monitoring and exclusion zones, require abstinence from drugs and require continuing engagement in psychological therapy. The latter in particular is necessary to assist Mr Barnes to overcome the shame/struggle he feels in not acknowledging his sexually deviant arousal so that he can be assisted to further address his potential for future paedophilic behaviour. I would recommend that Mr Barnes have a requirement for absolute abstinence. Whilst he does not consider that alcohol has been problematic for him, he has relied on substance misuse as a form of avoidance coping in the past. Alcohol could very readily be -- 15 of 27 -- 16 abused and, as a disinhibiting agent, could enable Mr Barnes acting on his sexual deviance. Mr Barnes is a relatively young man who has the future capacity to form a more satisfactory intimate partner relationship and to obtain and maintain employment. Whilst he has made good progress with the HISOP, his level of self-awareness is still suboptimal and he is still in denial of several key aspects of his offending history. I would therefore respectfully recommend to the Court that he be subject to supervision for a period of seven years, which would enable consolidation of risk management strategies and less maladaptive coping responses to life’s exigencies.” [51] On 19 July 2022, after reviewing the HISOP completion report, Dr Sundin described that report as “generally positive with a satisfactory relapse prevention plan” and stated that the report did not change her previous written advice. [52] When giving oral evidence in chief, Dr Sundin stated that the HISOP completion report had consolidated her earlier opinion. When asked if she had changed her view as to the length of the supervision order being in the order of seven years she acknowledged a discussion about a duration of 10 years but stated that, in view of the HISOP completion report and other protective factors in the respondent, she adhered to her earlier opinion that a period of seven years was appropriate.14 During cross- examination, Dr Sundin confirmed that the period of seven years she proposed would be appropriate to provide the respondent with access to therapy, to gain further insight and, most importantly, to actualise what he learns in a real world setting in order to reduce the risk of reoffending in the future.15 [53] Dr Michael Beech prepared a report dated 30 May 2022 for the purpose of a risk assessment pursuant to s 11 of the Act. In that report, Dr Beech diagnosed the respondent with: (a) Paedophilic Disorder – non-exclusive; (b) Substance Use Disorder (now in remission in an enforced environment); (c) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or a similar trauma-related disorder from childhood abuse; (d) Avoidant Personality Disorder. [54] On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Beech reported as follows: “… I do not believe that he has an anti-social personality disorder or psychopathy. The sexual offending aside, there are no indications he holds to anti-social attitudes but there is evidence of an anti-authority attitude, distrust, grievance, and entitlement, and an attitude that he has been unfairly treated. In my opinion, this acts to make him prone 14 Transcript 1-4. 15 Transcript 1-8. -- 16 of 27 -- 17 to believing he does not need to abide by reporting conditions. I agree with the facilitators of the HISOP that this is an area of treatment need. At this point, it is difficult to know to what extent the HISOP has reduced the risk. When I saw Mr Barnes, he had reasonably [sic] plans for his release but there were outstanding treatment needs in relation to sexual offending, paedophilia, and personality issues. He was able to articulate an understanding of the psychological and emotional factors that may have underpinned his offending, although I have a concern that he was able to use jargon too easily. Despite that, it is very likely he has benefited from the HISOP. The difficulty is that until he completes the HISOP, he will not have formulated and produced the relapse prevention plan that he will need to use on release. Taking that all into account, I believe that the risk of re-offending is in the much above average or high range. He has offended on three occasions against children. Two of the offending episodes have occurred on suspended sentences while subject to reporting conditions. One of the offending episodes occurred while he had engaged in over 30 sessions of psychological counselling with an experienced psychologist. The second offending had occurred within a relatively short periods [sic] of release. The last two offending episodes occurred because he continued to have contact with children. In the community, he has not complied with reporting conditions, especially reporting conditions in relation to contact with children. Instead, he had fallen into highly dysfunctional relationships and then blamed his offending on his inability to extricate himself from them. Substance use may have played some role in some of the offending. The offending would involve young children of either gender. It would mots [sic] likely entail indecent touching but there is a substantial risk it could progress. In answer to questions posed in the letter of commission, it is my opinion that: • Mr Barnes would be at much above average (HIGH) risk of committing another sexual offence against a child if released into the community without supervision • If he was released from custody with a supervision order, that risk would be reduced to BELOW MODERATE. A supervision order would act to reduce the risk by more stringent monitoring and supervision that is likely to more effectively restrict his access to children. It would also more effectively monitor his substance use. It would assist him to engage in and maintain counselling. A supervision order should require conditions that relate to contact with children, substance use testing, and psychological treatment. In my opinion, Mr Barnes would benefit from completing the HISOP prior to release so that he could develop an effective relapse prevention -- 17 of 27 -- 18 plan that those who supervise him could refer to, and that he could use day to day to self-manage his risk. If he is to be released to supervision, I would recommend ten years. This is a long period of supervision for someone who has committed what would probably be deemed as relatively low-level offences. I believe though that his risk factors of personality disturbance, PTSD, and limited awareness into how his anti-authority attitudes affect him means that the risk is more likely to continue for some time.” [55] On 26 July 2022, after reviewing the HISOP completion report, Dr Beech prepared a supplementary report in which he stated: “I note [the respondent] completed 342 hours of program. His participation throughout was excellent. He appears to have been an insightful group participant to [sic] was able to explore the antecedents to his offending. As he has done with others, he denied culpability for his first offending episode but was open to discussing the subsequent two. Although the New Future Plan is not included with this report, the facilitators thought he developed an appropriate risk-management plan. There are multiple high-risk factors that were canvassed during the program. Although Mr Barnes has likely learned strategies to deal with them, I agree with the facilitators that he will need to practise them on his release. I also agree that further interventions in the community would be beneficial. This is a very positive outcome and Mr Barnes should be congratulated for his successful participation in this course. It remains my view he is at much above average risk of committing another sexual offence against a child if he is released into the community without supervision, notwithstanding the positive results from this program. I also believe that he is suitable for a supervision order, which would reduce the risk to below moderate at least. That supervision order should include individual counselling and participation, where available, in a sexual offending maintenance program.” [56] Dr Beech was subsequently provided with a copy of the respondent’s relapse prevention plan which is referred to in the material as the New Future Plan. Having considered that document, Dr Beech prepared a further supplementary report in which he agreed that the New Future plan was an appropriate risk-management plan. He described the plan as more detailed than most and noted that the comments within the plan are insightful and appropriate. Dr Beech confirmed that the content of the New Future Plan did not affect the opinion he expressed in his supplementary report dated 26 July 2022. [57] Neither the supplementary report nor the further supplementary report prepared by Dr Beech addressed the appropriate duration of a supervision order. [58] Dr Beech did not give oral evidence at the hearing. -- 18 of 27 -- 19 The parties’ respective positions [59] In this case, the Attorney-General has applied in the alternative for a continuing detention order or a supervision order. However, while the application in the alternative for a continuing detention order is maintained, Mr Mumford, 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 ten years. [60] The respondent, by his counsel, Ms Cooper, 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. The respondent contends that the appropriate duration of a supervision order is seven years. Whether the discretion to make a division 3 order is enlivened [61] 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 Cooper that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order was properly made. [62] That finding engages the discretion to make a division 3 order under s 13(5) of the Act. The appropriate order [63] 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. [64] I am, however, satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order. The concession made by Mr Mumford to that effect is supported by the evidence of the psychiatrists and, again, I consider that concession to have been properly made. [65] I am satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order. [66] The real issue of contention between the parties on this application is as to the length of the supervision order. [67] As set out above, there is a difference in the opinions expressed by the psychiatrists. Dr Sundin thought a period of seven years would be appropriate. Dr Arthur and Dr Beech thought ten years, although, in circumstances where the supplementary report does not address the appropriate length of a supervision order, it is not clear to me whether Dr Beech’s opinion as to the appropriate duration of the order might have -- 19 of 27 -- 20 changed in light of what he described as the “very positive outcome” from the respondent’s completion of the HISOP. [68] A consideration which seems to explain the difference between the opinions of Dr Sundin and Dr Arthur concerns the effect of what is referred to in some of the material as the respondent’s anti-authoritarian views. As set out in the second paragraph of the opinions extracted in [50] above, Dr Sundin thought that the respondent’s poor history of compliance with supervision orders was due to avoidance arising from feelings of shame and fear of judgement rather than the result of an anti-authoritarian attitude. In contrast, Dr Arthur made a number of references to concerns raised by what he described as the respondent’s “pervasive anti-system attitudes” or his “persistent anti-authoritarian attitudes” (see the evidence extracted in [42], [43] and [46] above) and the implications this might have for the respondent’s cooperation and supervision. I understand this to underpin, at least in part, Dr Arthur’s expressed concern about how long it might take for the respondent to develop and internalise the necessary attitudinal, behavioural and social changes required to manage his risk of recidivism. [69] Although the HISOP completion report refers to the respondent having a history of anti-authoritarian views,16 and includes a comment encouraging future case managers and supervising officers to be mindful of the respondent’s distrust in authority,17 the facilitators referred specifically in the concluding section to the respondent having demonstrated insight into likely supervision conditions and a willingness to develop a professional relationship with his supervision officers, as well as having made a shift regarding his co-operation with supervision (extracted in [35] above).18 Reading the HISOP completion report as a whole, I do not consider that Dr Arthur’s concerns about the implications of the respondent’s anti-authoritarian views take full account of the shift which appears to already have occurred in the respondent’s attitude towards supervision as a consequence of his completion of the HISOP. [70] Likewise, I am not satisfied that Dr Beech’s opinion that a ten year supervision order would be appropriate (if that remains his opinion) takes full account of that attitudinal shift resulting from the respondent’s participation in the HISOP. [71] For those reasons, I prefer the evidence of Dr Sundin as to the time required for the respondent to continue his psychological therapy and any other interventions required during supervision so as to address the risk of his reoffending. [72] In fixing the period of the supervision order the court must predict the time in the future at which the respondent will present an acceptable risk of reoffending without a supervision order. Ultimately, assessment of the risk as acceptable or otherwise is a matter for the court not the psychiatrists, but the psychiatrist’s opinions are plainly relevant.19 [73] Having regard to all of the evidence, and taking account of the shift in the respondent’s attitude towards treatment and supervision demonstrated by his participation in the HISOP, I consider that the respondent will reach a point at which 16 See pages 2 and 3. 17 See page 5. 18 See page 5. 19 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v KAH [2019] 3 Qd R 329 at [56] – [57], [68]. -- 20 of 27 -- 21 he is an acceptable risk of reoffending without a supervision order after a period of seven years from his release to supervision. [74] Finally, I note that the Attorney-General read an affidavit sworn by Marissa Piat, 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, medical 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. [75] The parties have agreed on the terms of the supervision order, save for the question of the duration of the order. I am satisfied that those terms are appropriate. Conclusion [76] 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. [77] I order the respondent’s release from custody be subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule to these reasons until 21 July 2029. -- 21 of 27 -- 22 SCHEDULE The court is satisfied that Liam Derrick Barnes, 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 Liam Derrick Barnes must follow the rules in this supervision order for seven years, until 21 July 2029. To Liam Derrick Barnes: 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 seven years. Reporting 4. On the day this order is made, 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 office 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. -- 22 of 27 -- 23 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 sexual offences 9. You must not break the law by committing a sexual offence. 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 services 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 -- 23 of 27 -- 24 (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 (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 -- 24 of 27 -- 25 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. 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. Rules about medicine 29. 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. 30. 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 -- 25 of 27 -- 26 31. You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor. 32. You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program. 33. 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 34. 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). 35. You must also tell a corrective services officer the name of new persons you have met. This includes: people you spend time with, make friends with, work with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly. 36. 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 37. 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. 38. 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. -- 26 of 27 -- 27 39. 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. 40. 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). 41. You must not: (a) join any club or organisation in which children are involved; (b) 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. Other specific conditions 42. 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 43. You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet. 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. 46. 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. -- 27 of 27 --