Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2021] QSC 108

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2021] QSC 108 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v JEFFREY CHARLES HOLROYD (respondent) FILE NO: BS No 10567 of 2016 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: Orders made on 23 March 2021, reasons delivered on 28 May 2021 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 March 2021 JUDGE: Davis J ORDERS: THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Jeffrey Charles Holroyd, has contravened the order of Flanagan J dated 20 February 2017, amended by the order of Davis J made on 19 February 2019, ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the order made by Flanagan J on 20 February 2017, as amended, with the following further amendment. (a) amend order (2) by omitting the words “19 February 2024” curren 2. The respondent be subject to the following conditions until 23 as contained in the annexed Schedule of Requirements marked “A” 2. I declare that: (a) the respondent was in custody on remand for an offence other than an offence of a sexual nature between 19 December 2020 and 21 December 2020, a period of 3 days; (b) by force of section 24 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the supervision -- 1 of 19 -- 2 order has effect until 25 March 2026; (c) the respondent is subject to supervision until 25 March 2026. 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 admittedly contravened the supervision order made on 20 February 2017 under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) by consuming cannabis – where both psychiatrists assessed the respondent’s risk on the existing supervision order as low to moderate and manageable – where neither psychiatrist gave an opinion which would justify the continuing detention of the respondent – where the only issue remaining in contention is whether the supervision order ought to be extended - where the supervision order was extended Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 2, s 3, s 5, s 13, s 20, s 22, s 23, s 24, s 43AA Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, followed Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, followed Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, followed Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2012] QSC 275, followed Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2019] QSC 39, related Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2020] QSC 187, related Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2020] QSC 196, related Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, followed Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland (2020) 3 QR 449, followed Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, followed Kynuna v Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 172, cited LAB v Attorney-General [2011] QCA 230, followed Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54, cited COUNSEL: M Maloney for the applicant J Buckland for the respondent SOLICITORS: GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant McMillan Criminal Law for the respondent [1] The respondent has been the subject of orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) since 20 February 2017 when he was -- 2 of 19 -- 3 placed on a supervision order by Flanagan J.1 Breaches of the supervision order were alleged against him and it was also alleged that, as he was in custody between 19 December 2020 and 21 December 2020 for an offence other than an offence of a sexual nature, the supervision order was extended by three days by force of s 24 of the DPSOA. [2] On 23 March 2021, I made the following orders: “THE COURT, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Jeffrey Charles Holroyd, has contravened the order of Flanagan J dated 20 February 2017, amended by the order of Davis J made on 19 February 2019, ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the order made by Flanagan Jon 20 February 2017, as amended, with the following further amendment. (a) amend order (2) by omitting the words ‘19 February 2024’ currently in the amended supervision order and inserting the following underlined words to read: 2. The respondent be subject to the following conditions until 23 March 2026. as contained in the annexed Schedule of Requirements marked ‘A’. 2. I declare that: (a) the respondent was in custody on remand for an offence other than an offence of a sexual nature between 19 December 2020 and 21 December 2020, a period of 3 days; (b) by force of section 24 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the supervision order has effect until 25 March 2026; (c) the respondent is subject to supervision until 25 March 2026.” [3] These are my reasons for making the orders. History [4] Mr Holroyd is an Indigenous man born on 14 March 1975. He is now 46 years of age. In 2012, he was convicted in the Cairns District Court of rape and common assault. The particulars of that offending are explained in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd.2 He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and it was that offending which led to an application being made under the DPSOA. [5] On 20 February 2017, Mr Holroyd was released on a supervision order made by Flanagan J. However, there have been contraventions. 1 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13(5)(b). 2 [2019] QSC 39 at [16]. -- 3 of 19 -- 4 [6] On 25 September 2017, Mr Holroyd was arrested on a warrant issued pursuant to s 20 of the DPSOA. He was found to have breached condition 5 of the supervision order (comply with a curfew direction), condition 7 (comply with every reasonable direction of a Corrective Services officer), condition 22 (not visit public parks without the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer) and condition 24 (not to consume alcohol). [7] On 11 June 2018, Atkinson J ordered the release of Mr Holroyd back into the community on the supervision order. [8] On 11 October 2018, Mr Holroyd was again arrested and returned to custody for breaching the supervision order. He breached condition 5 (comply with a curfew direction) and condition 24 (not to consume alcohol and illicit substances). On 19 February 2019, I ordered that he be released back into the community on the supervision order but extended the order until 19 February 2024.3 [9] In November 2019, Mr Holroyd was arrested again. Again the contravention was the ingestion of alcohol and cannabis. He was released from custody on 15 June 2020 pending finalisation of the breach proceedings.4 On 26 June 2020, the breach was found to have been proved and final orders were made that he remain subject to the supervision order.5 [10] On 19 December 2020, Mr Holroyd was again arrested on a warrant issued pursuant to s 20 of the DPSOA as it was suspected that he had contravened the supervision order. The particulars of the contravention as stated in the application filed by the Attorney-General for orders under s 22 of the DPSOA are as follows: “Since his initial release to the supervision order in 2017, the respondent has demonstrated mixed compliance to the supervision order, and whilst the respondent engages well in the supervision process, he has been returned to custody on three occasions for failure to abstain from the use of alcohol and illicit drugs, namely cannabis. On 19 December 2020, QCS Surveillance officers obtained information from a source that the respondent was at the Townsville contingency accommodation precinct (‘Townsville precinct’) and that the respondent was under the influence of alcohol and engaging in a physical altercation with another male, who was also subject to a supervision order under the Act. As a result of the receipt of the above information by QCS, officers of Queensland Police Service (QPS) and Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) were deployed to the Townsville precinct. QCS and QPS officers located the respondent who was departing the Townsville precinct. The respondent was directed by QCS officers to supply a sample of his breath for testing, pursuant to requirement 25 of the supervision order and the sample of breath supplied by the respondent returned a positive reading to alcohol at 3 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2019] QSC 39. 4 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2020] QSC 187. 5 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2020] QSC 196. -- 4 of 19 -- 5 a blood alcohol concentration (‘BAC’) level of 0.19%. At the material time, the QCS officers were not able to complete a secondary test for the respondent’s BAC level. The respondent was duly arrested and charged with an offence of contravention of relevant order under s 43AA of the Act, namely contravention of requirement 24 of the supervision order. The respondent was arrested pursuant to the arrest warrant on 19 December 2020.” [11] Mr Holroyd was charged pursuant to s 43AA of the DPSOA with breaching the supervision order. He pleaded guilty to that offence in the Magistrates Court at Townsville on 21 December 2020 and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months wholly suspended for a period of 12 months. The three days in custody between 19 and 21 December was declared as time served under that sentence. Statutory context [12] The Act provides for the continued detention or supervised release of a “particular class of prisoner”.6 The prisoners the subject of the Act are those serving a term of imprisonment for a “serious sexual offence”7 which is “an offence of a sexual nature … involving violence” or “an offence of a sexual nature … against a child”.8 [13] The DPSOA provides that the Attorney-General may apply to the court for either a continuing detention order9 or a supervision order.10 A continuing detention order requires the detention in custody of the prisoner beyond the date of expiry of the sentence then being served. A supervision order provides for the release of the prisoner under supervision so that he is supervised in the community notwithstanding the expiry of the sentence. [14] Section 13 is a pivotal section of the DPSOA. It has significance to the present application as the provisions which deal with breaches of supervision orders11 adopt terms and concepts included in s 13. Section 13 is in these terms: “13 Division 3 orders (1) This section applies if, on the hearing of an application for a division 3 order, the court is satisfied the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order (a serious danger to the community). (2) A prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1) if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence— 6 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 3. 7 Section 5(6). 8 Section 2 and the Schedule (Dictionary). 9 Section 13(5)(a). 10 Section 13(5)(b). 11 Primarily see ss 20 and 22. -- 5 of 19 -- 6 (a) if the prisoner is released from custody; or (b) if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made. (3) On hearing the application, the court may decide that it is satisfied as required under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied— (a) by acceptable, cogent evidence; and (b) to a high degree of probability; that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify the decision. (4) In deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following— (aa) any report produced under section 8A; (a) the reports prepared by the psychiatrists under section 11 and the extent to which the prisoner cooperated in the examinations by the psychiatrists; (b) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the prisoner; (c) information indicating whether or not there is a propensity on the part of the prisoner to commit serious sexual offences in the future; (d) whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the prisoner; (e) efforts by the prisoner to address the cause or causes of the prisoner’s offending behaviour, including whether the prisoner participated in rehabilitation programs; (f) whether or not the prisoner’s participation in rehabilitation programs has had a positive effect on the prisoner; (g) the prisoner’s antecedents and criminal history; (h) the risk that the prisoner will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community; (i) the need to protect members of the community from that risk; (j) any other relevant matter. -- 6 of 19 -- 7 (5) If the court is satisfied as required under subsection (1), the court may order— (a) that the prisoner be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (continuing detention order); or (b) that the prisoner be released from custody subject to the requirements it considers appropriate that are stated in the order (supervision order). (6) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (5)(a) or (b)— (a) the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and (b) the court must consider whether— (i) adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and (ii) requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. (7) The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1).” [15] Section 13 operates in this way: (a) the test under s 13 is whether the prisoner is “a serious danger to the community”;12 (b) that initial question is answered by determining whether there is an “unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence”13 if no order is made; (c) if that conclusion is reached, then a supervision order (as opposed to a continuing detention order) can only be made where the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order;14 (d) where “adequate protection of the community” can be ensured by a supervision order, then the making of a supervision order ought to be preferred to the making of a continuing detention order.15 12 Section 13(1). 13 Section 13(1) and (2). 14 Section 13(6). 15 Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at [39]; Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115; Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505; LAB v Attorney-General [2011] QCA 230; Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182; Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64. -- 7 of 19 -- 8 [16] If the supervision order is breached or is likely to be breached, then a warrant for the prisoner’s arrest may be issued under s 20. Once he is brought before the court the prisoner is dealt with pursuant to s 22 which provides as follows: “22 Court may make further order (1) The following subsections apply if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the released prisoner is likely to contravene, is contravening, or has contravened, a requirement of the supervision order or interim supervision order (each the existing order). (2) Unless the released prisoner satisfies the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by the existing order as amended under subsection (7), the court must— (a) if the existing order is a supervision order, rescind it and make a continuing detention order; or (b) if the existing order is an interim supervision order, rescind it and make an order that the released prisoner be detained in custody for the period stated in the order. (3) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a continuing detention order as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the court may do any or all of the following— (a) act on any evidence before it or that was before the court when the existing order was made; (b) make any order necessary to enable evidence of a kind mentioned in section 13(4) to be brought before it, including, for example, an order— (i) in the nature of a risk assessment order, subject to the restriction under section 8(2); or (ii) for the revision of a report about the released prisoner produced under section 8A; (c) consider any further report or revised report in the nature of a report of a type mentioned in section 8A. (4) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the court need not make an order in the nature of a risk assessment order if the court is satisfied that the evidence otherwise available under subsection (3) is sufficient to make a decision under subsection (2)(a). -- 8 of 19 -- 9 (5) If the court makes an order in the nature of a risk assessment order, the psychiatrist or each psychiatrist examining the released prisoner must prepare a report about the released prisoner and, for that purpose, section 11 applies. (6) For applying section 11 to the preparation of the report— (a) section 11(2) applies with the necessary changes; and (b) section 11(3) only applies to the extent that a report or information mentioned in the subsection has not previously been given to the psychiatrist. (7) If the released prisoner satisfies the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by a supervision order or interim supervision order, the court— (a) must amend the existing order to include all of the requirements under section 16(1) if the order does not already include all of those requirements; and (b) may otherwise amend the existing order in a way the court considers appropriate— (i) to ensure adequate protection of the community; or (ii) for the prisoner’s rehabilitation or care or treatment. (8) The existing order may not be amended under subsection (7)(b) so as to remove any requirements mentioned in section 16(1).” [17] Once a contravention is proved, the court shall rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order16 unless the prisoner satisfies the court that his continuation on supervision in the community will ensure the adequate protection of the community.17 It is well-established that the concept of “the adequate protection of the community” in s 22(7) has the same meaning as it bears in s 13.18 Therefore, a prisoner facing an application under s 22 must prove that the supervision order will ensure adequate protection of the community by removing any unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence. 16 Section 22(2). 17 Section 22(7). 18 Kynuna v Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 172 at [60]; see also Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54 at [36]. -- 9 of 19 -- 10 [18] The issue under s 22 of the DPSOA is not whether there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will breach the supervision order. The issue is whether there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence.19 [19] As already observed, Mr Holroyd was in custody on remand for the offence against s 43AA of the DPSOA for a period of three days. That enlivens the operation of ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA which are as follows: “23 Application of division This division applies if, after being released from custody under a supervision order or interim supervision order, a released prisoner is sentenced to a term or period of imprisonment for any offence, other than an offence of a sexual nature. 24 Period in custody not counted (1) The released prisoner’s supervision order or interim supervision order is suspended for any period the released prisoner is detained in custody on remand or serving the term of imprisonment. (2) The period for which the released prisoner’s supervision order or interim supervision order has effect as stated in the order is extended by any period the released prisoner is detained in custody.” Expert evidence as to risk [20] Mr Holroyd was examined by two psychiatrists for the purposes of the current application. They are Dr Karen Brown and Dr Scott Harden. [21] Robert Walkley is a forensic psychologist engaged by the High Risk Offender Management Unit of Queensland Corrective Services to provide an evaluation of Mr Holroyd, to develop a treatment program, to provide individual counselling and treatment and to provide progress reports. [22] Admitted into evidence on the present application were reports of Drs Brown and Harden and of Mr Walkley. [23] Dr Brown diagnosed Mr Holroyd as follows: “Mr Holroyd meets criteria for a diagnosis of mixed antisocial and emotionally unstable personality disorder as evidenced by his profound disregard for rules, lack of empathy, irresponsible attitude (particularly with regards to the criminal justice system), low tolerance to frustration (associated in the past with impulsive violence), tendency to externalise blame for his situation onto others and inability to profit from punishment or rehabilitation. He presents with longstanding anxious dysphoric and angry affect, feelings of emptiness, impulsive engagement in idealised but 19 Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2012] QSC 275 at [64]-[67]. -- 10 of 19 -- 11 superficial relationships (which are subsequently devalued), and a tendency to use substances in order to seek immediate reward and to relieve the aforementioned symptoms with associated disinhibition and violent behaviours. He also has a diagnosis of substance use disorder (alcohol and cannabis) which is currently in enforced remission in a custodial environment. I do not consider that he meets criteria for sexual sadism disorder or any other paraphilic disorder.” [24] Dr Harden’s diagnosis is: “In my opinion he meets criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence In Remission Because Of Incarceration. It is still my opinion that he has a Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with antisocial features.” [25] Mr Walkley’s report on Mr Holroyd’s progress under treatment is as follows: “Over the time spent with Mr Holroyd, I formed the view he continues to represent a Low to Moderate risk of sexual recidivism mitigated by factors including:  his age,  ongoing community supervision and case management,  ongoing psychological treatment,  the provisions of his Supervision Order under the DPSO act,  maintaining a stable living environment,  a stable financial situation and  the avoidance of substances, particularly alcohol. He is a man of average intellect. From a treatment point of view, up until this juncture, treatment of Mr Holroyd seemed to be going well. Rapport was well-established, he seemed genuinely engaged and he had indicated sessions were both supportive and informative. He had achieved some of the goals set, had formulated and achieved others and until this episode, had been doing well. Trust had been established and he seemed willing to discuss aspects of his past offending and his sexuality. Over time it was hopeful a better understanding would be gained of his offence, his offending pathway and mitigants to recidivism. It is likely the confluence of factors which included:  pervasive alcohol abuse in his family,  an ever-present atmosphere of domestic violence, -- 11 of 19 -- 12  the loss of his mother at a impressionable age from a violent crime and a  failure to attach in any meaningful way to his parents all contributed to the development of his ASPD20 and to his inability to from meaningful positive relationships as well as his addiction to alcohol. His antisocial personality and innate approach towards authority, rules and convention, predisposes him to the likes of his present difficulty. His history, particularly his response to supervision and repetitive failures to comply with imposed conditions which previously resulted in a poor performance, always had the potential to reassert itself. It appears to have been the case on this occasion. From a therapeutic perspective, treatments using cognitive behavioural therapy, psycho-education and insight-directed therapy, seemed to be having a salutary impact with Mr Holroyd. I remain of the view, given his Antisocial Personality Disorder, that a more generalist approach involving supportive counselling, non- judgemental opportunities for expression and the provision of alternate views of his situation and what strategies he could employ to deal with conflicts or problems, may prove to be the most effective means of interaction and to ensure compliance with his Order. With regards his risk of sexual reoffending, his risk is adjudged to be Moderate but highly exacerbated by the presence of alcohol but which could be likely mitigated by community supervision - provided abstinence could be maintained. From a treatment perspective, of course, a return-to-custody is a major setback. This could, in fact, exacerbate his future approach to compliance on his Order. If upon release Mr Holroyd is returned to the Townsville locale, l would be happy to continue to treat him. The aims of therapy would be to build upon the trust already developed and to further assist him to better understand his behaviour and in so doing, afford him more self-control over how he acts.” [26] As to risk of Mr Holroyd committing a serious sexual offence, Dr Brown quantified the unmodified risk as “moderate to high”. However, she noted that Mr Holroyd was engaged in psychological therapy with indications of progress. She also observed that, notwithstanding the breaches of the supervision order, there was no suggestion of commission of a sexual offence of any kind. [27] Dr Brown was of the view that release on supervision would reduce Mr Holroyd’s risk to low, moderate and manageable. However, she opined that the supervision order ought to be extended: 20 Anti-Social Personality Disorder. -- 12 of 19 -- 13 “With regard to the length of the supervision order, it remains my view that, given Mr Holroyd’s high score on the PCL-R21 and his longstanding treatment resistance, a change in his core understanding about relationships, substance use and his risks to others will take a considerable period of time. The recent breach was more serious and although he did not sexually offend he did use alcohol and engage in aggressive behaviours. I do not consider that his risks will have significantly reduced at the end of the current order (in 2024) such that he will be able to self manage his risks. For that reason l recommend that the supervision order is extended to a period of five years from the date of release.” [28] Dr Brown was asked to provide clarification in relation to this aspect of her opinion which she did in an addendum report in these terms: “In my last report dated 28th February I stated my opinion that the supervision order should be extended to a period of five years from the date of release. At your request I have provided further details below. My opinion is based on the following: 1. Mr Holroyd has two main risk factors associated with his past sexual offending. These are antisocial (psychopathic) personality traits and alcohol use. 2. Over the past 8 years, Mr Holroyd has not managed to maintain release to the community for longer than a few months at a time. Most of his contraventions have been associated with substance (including alcohol) use. He continues to display antisocial personality traits, in particular he fails to profit from punishment or to take any sustained responsibility for his risks. The current supervision order therefore relies almost exclusively on external management strategies. 3. In December 2020, Mr Holroyd used alcohol on two occasions. The first time the alcohol was supplied by a co- resident. Mr Holroyd did not report his use of alcohol or seek any other help and instead he sourced more alcohol himself. He drank heavily and engaged in fighting behaviours. This state of being drunk and aggressive is similar to the circumstances of the index sexual offence. 4. In my view the recent heavy use of alcohol (associated with disinhibited violent behaviours) indicates that Mr Holroyd’s longer term risk of future sexual offending remains significant. It is a demonstration that, despite all of the legal sanctions and psychological treatment and supports in place, he still cannot, or will not, self regulate or take responsibility for his own risk management. In my view, without the supervision order he will return to regular and heavy alcohol use (and use of other drugs). He will seek to 21 A diagnostic tool for the assessment of risk of reoffending. -- 13 of 19 -- 14 establish a relationship or to use sex workers. He will become disinhibited and aggressive when drunk. His main two risk factors for reoffending (alcohol use and antisocial behaviours) are therefore still present. The only difference now, (compared to the time of the index sexual offence) is that he is older. His sex drive will be lower than it was in 2010 (aged 35) and some of his antisocial traits may have attenuated, however he still has a sexual drive and he still displays antisocial behaviours. I am therefore not convinced that his risks have significantly fallen at this stage. 5. The question of whether the risk will have sufficiently reduced after a period of three or five years is a difficult one. In general, the Static-99R22 supports the view that if a person is in the community for 5 years without committing a sexual offence, then their risk will be reduced by roughly half. This holds true for those on parole and most other types of community supervision. This is not the case though for those subject to very strict community supervision or those on day release from an institution. Given that Mr Holroyd has largely lived at managed precinct facilities and been subject to restrictive curfews, I would argue that this type of community release is fairly strict and that it cannot be concluded that his risk has substantially reduced, simply because he has not committed a sexual offence during the brief periods he has been in the community since 2010. 6. Based on his presentation to date, Mr Holroyd will most likely continue to intermittently use substances and periodically breach the supervision order when he does so. Additionally, based on his presentation to date, it is most likely that if not subject to supervision currently, Mr Holroyd would return to heavy polysubstance use. Therefore in order to be more confident that risks of sexual offending will have reduced, one needs to rely on factors related to age, namely reduction in sexual drive and general attenuation of antisocial behaviours as well as (as per the Static-99R) time offence free in the community. 7. In my opinion, in order to be confident that risk of sexual offending has significantly reduced, Mr Holroyd should demonstrate that he can maintain a longer period in the community when he is not subject to such strict monitoring. I would suggest that this period should be 5 years rather than 3 in order to better ensure that the risks are properly and sustainably reduced. Also, after 5 years Mr Holroyd will be over 50 years old, when age related reduction in risk becomes even more significant (associated with reduced sexual drive and attenuated antisocial personality traits).” 22 A diagnostic tool for the assessment of risk of reoffending. -- 14 of 19 -- 15 [29] Dr Harden considered risk of future sexual offending as moderate to high if released unsupervised. Dr Harden identified alcohol use in particular as a high risk factor and one that ought to be controlled. He opined that “A supervision order reduces his risk of sexual offending in the community to low”. Dr Harden did not recommend an extension of the supervision order. Position of the parties [30] Mr Holroyd accepts that he breached the supervision order as alleged. [31] He submitted that he had discharged the onus cast upon him by s 22(7) of the DPSOA, namely “that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention … of the existing order, be ensured by a supervision order”. He accepts the evidence of Dr Brown that the supervision order ought to be extended so that he be on supervision for a period of five years from his release. [32] Mr Holroyd accepted that his incarceration between 19 and 21 December 2020 meant that the supervision order was extended by three days pursuant to ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA. He did not oppose a declaration to that effect. [33] The Attorney-General accepted that Mr Holroyd had discharged the onus under s 22(7) of the DPSOA but pressed for an extension of the supervision order in reliance upon Dr Brown’s evidence. The Attorney-General submitted that the extension of the supervision order pursuant to ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA should be the subject of a declaration. Consideration [34] I am satisfied that Mr Holroyd contravened the supervision order as alleged. [35] I accept the evidence of Dr Brown, Dr Harden and Mr Walkley. [36] The adequate protection of the community can be ensured by Mr Holroyd’s release on supervision notwithstanding the contravention. He has discharged the onus placed upon him under s 22(7). I have come to that conclusion based, in particular, on the following: 1. Mr Holroyd has been on supervision since early 2017, and while he has spent some time in custody over that period, he has not committed a sexual offence let alone a serious sexual offence. 2. While the psychiatric evidence is to the effect that Mr Holroyd is a high risk of sexually reoffending if released without supervision, there is a strong body of evidence to the effect that the supervision order substantially reduces that risk. 3. The supervision order has operated as it should in that breaches have been identified quickly and action taken before any substantial risk of Mr Holroyd committing a serious sexual offence has developed. 4. Mr Holroyd is progressing with treatment, especially through Mr Walkley. [37] I accept Dr Brown’s evidence that the supervision order ought to be extended so that Mr Holroyd is on supervision for five years from now. In coming to that conclusion I have, in particular, considered the following: -- 15 of 19 -- 16 1. Without supervision Mr Holroyd poses a high risk of reoffending. 2. Mr Holroyd, while on supervision, has struggled to desist from consumption of alcohol and illicit substances. 3. The consumption of alcohol and illicit substances is a factor which increases risk of reoffending. [38] The parties agree that ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA operate so as to extend the supervision order by three days. Because the parties are in agreement, questions arise as to the utility of making a declaration. However, for the reasons I explained in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland,23 it is appropriate to make a declaration so that the parties are in no doubt as to the duration and operation of the supervision order. [39] For those reasons, I made the orders which I did. 23 (2020) 3 QR 449. -- 16 of 19 -- “A” SCHEDULE OF REQUIREMENTS AS AT 23 MARCH 2021 The respondent must: General terms 1. report to a corrective services officer at the Queensland Corrective Services Probation and Parole Office closest to his place of residence between 9 am and 4 pm on the day of release from custody and at that time advise the officer of the respondent’s current name and address; 2. report to, and receive visits from, a corrective services officer at such times and at such frequency as determined by Queensland Corrective Services; 3. notify a corrective services officer of every change of his name, place of residence or employment at least two business days before the change happens; 4. be under the supervision of a corrective services officer for the duration of this order; 5. comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction; 6. comply with any reasonable direction under section 16B of the Act given to him; 7. comply with every reasonable direction of a corrective services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of this order; 8. not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of this order; 9. not commit an indictable offence during the period of this order; Employment 10. seek permission and obtain approval from a corrective services officer prior to entering into an employment agreement or engaging in volunteer work or paid or unpaid employment; 11. notify a corrective services officer of the nature of his employment, or offers of employment, the hours of work each day, the name of his employer and the address of the premises where he is or will be employed at least two days prior to commencement or any change; Residence 12. not leave or stay out of Queensland without the permission of a corrective services officer; 13. reside at a place within the State of Queensland as approved by a corrective services officer by way of a suitability assessment and obtain written approval prior to any change of residence; 14. comply with any regulations or rules in place at the accommodation and demonstrate reasonable efforts to secure alternative, viable long term accommodation to be -- 17 of 19 -- 2 assessed for suitability by Queensland Corrective Services, if such accommodation is of a temporary or contingency nature; 15. not reside at a place by way of short term accommodation including overnight stays without the permission of a corrective services officer; Contact with victim(s) 16. not to have any direct or indirect contact with a victim of his sexual offences; Requests for information 17. respond truthfully to enquiries by a corrective services officer about his activities, whereabouts and movements generally; Disclosure of plans and associates 18. disclose to a corrective services officer upon request the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information from a corrective services officer about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior offending behaviour; 19. submit to and discuss with a corrective services officer a schedule of his planned and proposed activities on a weekly basis or as otherwise directed; 20. if directed by a corrective services officer, make complete disclosure of the terms of this order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by the corrective services officer, who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred; 21. notify a corrective services officer of all personal relationships entered into by him; 22. not visit public parks without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer; Motor Vehicles 23. notify a corrective services officer of the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle owned by or generally driven by him, whether hired or otherwise obtained for his use; Alcohol & other substances 24. abstain from the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of this order; 25. submit to any form of drug and alcohol testing including both random urinalysis and breath testing as directed by a corrective services officer; 26. disclose to a corrective services officer all prescription and over the counter medication that he obtains; 27. not visit premises licensed to supply or serve alcohol, without the prior written permission of a corrective services officer; Treatment and counselling -- 18 of 19 -- 3 28. attend upon and submit to assessment, treatment, and/or medical testing by a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional as directed by a corrective services officer at a frequency and duration which shall be recommended by the treating intervention specialist; 29. permit any medical, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional to disclose details of treatment, intervention and opinions relating to level of risk of re-offending and compliance with this order to Queensland Corrective Services if such a request is made for the purpose of updating or amending this order and/or ensuring compliance with this order; 30. attend any program, course, psychologist, social worker or counsellor, in a group or individual capacity, as directed by a corrective services officer in consultation with treating medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioners where appropriate; Mobile phones, computers and other devices 31. advise a corrective services officer of the make, model and phone number of any mobile phone owned, possessed or regularly utilised by him within 24 hours of connection or commencement of use and includes reporting any changes to mobile phone details; 32. allow any other device including a telephone or camera to be randomly examined. If applicable, the respondent must provide to a corrective services officer the respondent’s account details or phone bills, upon request; and Behaviour 33. not engage in or demonstrate interpersonal violence or aggression against any other person, excluding acts of self-defence. -- 19 of 19 --