Attorney General for the State of Queensland v FJA [2020] QSC 359

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney General for the State of Queensland v FJA [2020] QSC 359 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v FJA (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS No 10200 of 2018 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 1 December 2020 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 30 November 2020 JUDGE: Ryan J ORDER: That the respondent be released under supervision and on the conditions contained in the attached order. 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 has served terms of imprisonment for two sets of sexual offences against early to mid-adolescent boys  where Applegarth J, being satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order, made orders pursuant to s 13(5)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment – where this is the first review of the order for the respondent’s continuing detention  where the reason for the respondent’s detention in 2018 was treatment in the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program (HISOP)  where the respondent’s severe mixed personality disorder and social anxiety disorder conspired to prevent him from absorbing the contents of the program and interfered with his engagement in it  where the respondent is able to undertake one-on-one treatment in the community  whether the decision of Applegarth J, that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, ought to be affirmed  whether adequate -- 1 of 20 -- 2 protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the prisoner on a supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13(4), s 30(3), s 30(4) Attorney General for the State of Queensland v FJA [2018] QSC 291 COUNSEL: J Rolls for the applicant L Reece for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent [1] The respondent is a prisoner who is subject to a continuing detention order, having reached the full time release date of the period of imprisonment imposed upon him for sexual offences committed upon young boys. [2] The order for his continuing detention was made by Applegarth J on 6 December 2018, under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”) (see [2018] QSC 291). [3] This is the first review of his Honour’s order under Part 3 of the Act. [4] The review hearing itself is governed by section 30 of the Act. The operation of that section and the Act as a whole is well known. I will not rehearse its detail in these reasons. [5] Upon this review, I am required to decide first whether I am satisfied, by acceptable, cogent evidence, that Applegarth J’s previous decision, that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, ought to be affirmed. [6] And, if so affirmed, then I must consider whether “adequate” protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the prisoner on a supervision order. If not, then a continuing detention order ought to be made.1 [7] I must treat as paramount the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. I must also consider whether the requirements for a supervision order prescribed by section 16 of the Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by Corrective Services. [8] As I indicated to the parties at the hearing of this matter yesterday, I am persuaded on the evidence that the appropriate order now is an order for the release of the respondent prisoner on supervision for a period of seven years, on conditions designed to reduce his risk of further sexual offending. Implicit in that indication was the fact that I am persuaded that the decision of Applegarth J, that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, ought to be affirmed. 1 This is subject to the discretion to make no order – but that option is not something that requires consideration in this case. -- 2 of 20 -- 3 [9] So as to ensure that the respondent prisoner is not detained in custody any longer than necessary, these reasons for my being so persuaded (which must accompany my order) have been drafted quickly. I have drawn heavily upon the submissions of the applicant in these reasons – the respondent having accepted their accuracy in so far as they dealt with the background to the application, the case law, and the respondent’s criminal history; and in their summary of the relevant psychiatric and psychological evidence. [10] I will first explain my reasons for affirming the relevant decision of Applegarth J and then explain my reasons for making an order for the respondent’s release under supervision. Affirmation of the decision made on 6 December 2018 [11] In deciding whether to affirm the decision of Applegarth J, that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, I must consider whether I am satisfied that there is still an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence in the absence of a Division 3 order. A “serious sexual offence” is an offence of a sexual nature, involving violence, or against children. In making that decision, I am to have regard to the matters set out in section 13(4) of the Act. [12] In this case, the respondent concedes that there is before me acceptable, cogent evidence, which would satisfy me, to the requisite high degree of probability, that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. Such a concession is properly made. [13] The psychiatric and psychological evidence, considered in the context of all of the other evidence, points convincingly to that conclusion. The effect of the evidence is that the respondent has demonstrated a pattern of sexually offending against male children aged under 16. He has hebephilia (a paraphilia) – that is, an attraction to pubescent, young males. He has not yet completed a sexual offender treatment program and he has been assessed as presenting a high risk of sexually re-offending were he to be released from custody unsupervised. [14] I therefore affirm the decision of Applegarth J as required by section 30(2) of the Act. Division 3 order [15] The discretion conferred by section 30(3) of the Act is thus enlivened and I must consider which Division 3 order ought to be made to adequately protect the community from the relevant risk posed by the respondent. I am concerned with adequate protection of the community – not guaranteed protection. If a supervision order is in contemplation, then I must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with it, or at least that he is capable of complying with it. [16] For the reasons that follow, I am of the view that adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the respondent on supervision, subject to strict conditions. Broadly, I am of that view because the constraints of a supervision order will serve to significantly restrict, if not eliminate, the respondent’s access to potential victims while he undertakes appropriate treatment of his paraphilia and while he matures and his personality stabilises (thereby lowering risk). It may be hoped that, under supervision, his sexual identity will stabilise and he will be encouraged to form -- 3 of 20 -- 4 mature, adult relationships, which will also protect the community from the risk of re- offending into the future. Background [17] The respondent is 30 years old. He will turn 31 in January. [18] The decision of Applegarth J sets out in detail the facts of the respondent’s sexual offending; his criminal history; his sexual history; his educational history; his drug and alcohol history; his medical and psychiatric history; and his conduct in prison (up until November 2018). It also refers to his unsuccessful parole application. I will not repeat those details in these reasons, but note that I have considered them all. [19] I have also noted the aspects of the opinions of the expert psychiatrists and psychologists upon which his Honour placed particular weight, as set out in his Honour’s reasons. These included the risk assessments undertaken by Dr Josephine Sundin, Dr Scott Harden and Dr Andrew Aboud which identified the relevant risk as “high”. [20] The expert evidence before his Honour was to the effect that the respondent’s participation in a sexual offenders’ treatment program such as the HISOP [the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program] (which is only available in custody) was necessary to reduce the respondent’s risk of sexually re-offending to an acceptable level. [21] In finding that the respondent presented an unacceptable risk of serious sexual offending, in the absence of a Division 3 order, Applegarth J said (my emphasis) – [110] Having regard to each of the matters stated in s 13(4) and, in particular the risk assessments to which I have referred, I am satisfied to the high degree required that the respondent presents an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released from custody without an order being made under s 13. The evidence is cogent and satisfies me to a high degree of probability. [111] The respondent suffers from a paraphilia, namely hebephilia, being an attraction to pubescent males. The unmodified risk of offending has been assessed by the psychiatrists who prepared reports for the purposes of this application as high. [112] The respondent’s pattern of offending and the fact that he has not engaged in any sexual offender treatment program places him at a high risk of committing a serious sexual offence. A strict supervision order would reduce the level of risk somewhat. However, his past non-compliance with reporting conditions and lack of treatment provides limited assurance that he would comply with a supervision order sufficiently to reduce the risk of re- offending to an acceptably low level. Moreover, he would need to be subject to effective detention and curfews at a place such as The Precinct and would not receive the benefit of the HISOP group program [that is, the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program]. -- 4 of 20 -- 5 [113] The evidence is clear that participation in that program will better equip the respondent and those who supervise him upon his release to manage risk. Whilst the respondent retains the support of some family members, he has a limited number of pro- social relationships. As Dr Harden observed, the respondent is “effectively untreated and a recidivist sexual offender with a very rapid period of reinstatement associated probably with substance abuse”. The recommendation of each psychiatrist that the respondent undertake the HISOP prior to release from custody was well-explained in their evidence. [114] The evidence establishes that the applicant has discharged the onus of demonstrating that a supervision order will not adequately protect the community at this stage. Participation in the HISOP prior to release will assist the respondent to develop insight into the factors which led to his sexual offending in the past and to develop an individualised risk reduction plan, including counselling and treatment in the community. [115] The respondent’s developing insight into the psychological factors relevant to his offending and the consequences of his offending on his victims should be built upon as soon as possible in a HISOP. Any delay in the respondent receiving the required treatment by way of a HISOP may jeopardise his progress and the objective of community protection. [116] In the light of the psychiatric evidence about the need for the respondent to undertake the HISOP prior to release from custody, counsel for the respondent correctly conceded that she could not advance on the state of the evidence a submission for release on supervision at this time. [117] The respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a s 13 order. At this time, adequate protection of the community can only be ensured by a continuing detention order under s 13(5)(a) of the Act. The respondent is detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.” [22] His Honour explained that his order was made on the basis that the respondent would be offered a placed in the “Getting Started: Preparatory Program” to commence in January 2019 and thereafter, assuming his willingness to participate in HISOP, that he would be offered a place in the HISOP in April 2019. His Honour concluded his reasons with the following, “If the system had offered the respondent a much-needed HISOP place over the last 18 months and he had completed the program satisfactorily, he probably would have been released in late 2018 on a supervision order. The system having failed the respondent and the community in this way, regrettably he must be detained in custody for treatment”. Events in Custody since the making of the Continuing Detention Order on 6 December 2018 [23] On 14 January 2019, the respondent was offered and accepted a placement in the “Getting Started: Preparatory Program” (“GS:PP”). This program was offered at the -- 5 of 20 -- 6 Wolston Correctional Centre. The respondent, due to “safety issues”, did not commence participation in that program as scheduled on 5 February 2019. [24] In lieu thereof, Queensland Corrective Services arranged for an external psychologist, Ms Shelley Jacks, to treat the respondent one on one, with the goal of completing the material contained in the GS:PP. Ms Jacks engaged the respondent for a total of nine, one hour treatment sessions held in March and April 2019. On four of those occasions the respondent participated in sessions of two hours. [25] Ms Jacks noted that the respondent appeared to have a number of safety concerns which precluded him from either walking around the secure compound to the education area, where the HISOP was conducted, or being accommodated in the residential accommodation. [26] Ms Jacks, after treatment, considered the respondent had addressed the treatment needs identified in the GS:PP. He was then ready, willing and able to begin participation in the High Intensity Sexual Offender Treatment Program. The respondent’s safety issues also appeared to have been addressed, allowing him to be accommodated in the residential area. [27] Ms Jacks recommended ongoing treatment with herself until the respondent commenced HISOP. [28] Due to the respondent’s other continuing safety concerns, it was recommended the respondent participate in a HISOP in a closed format. A HISOP with a closed format means that participants enrolled in the program commence and complete the program at the same time. The HISOP in closed format is delivered over three sessions of three hours each week (that is, 351 hours of treatment). The respondent accepted a placement in a closed format HISOP, to commence on 16 July 2019. He commenced the program. [29] On about 22 November 2019, after participating in approximately 112 hours of treatment across 40 sessions, the respondent withdrew from the program. [30] On 28 November 2019, a conference was convened with officers of Corrective Services which considered the respondent’s withdrawal from the program. At the conclusion of the conference, it was recommended that the respondent be permitted to withdraw from the program. [31] The respondent has not returned and completed the program. [32] Since May 2020, the respondent has been engaged with Dr Ursula Oertel, a clinical psychologist. [33] The purpose of his sessions with Dr Oertel was to attempt to motivate the respondent to further engage in the High Intensity Sexual Offender Treatment Program. Sessions were conducted on 12 May 2020, 18 May 2020, 29 May 2020 and 3 June 2020. -- 6 of 20 -- 7 [34] Dr Oertel considered the respondent to have an interest in making changes in his life and the motivation to engage in treatment, however, that did not extend to engaging in further group treatment programs. [35] Dr Oertel noted the respondent had found participation in the program “quite challenging”. The respondent was identified as having a number of responsivity issues that impacted upon his ability to assess, attend and to learn and benefit from such treatment programs. The responsivity issues included mental health problems, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, trauma and abuse experiences, suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours, unsafe living conditions and a lack of educational skills. Dr Oertel considered the respondent would benefit from psychological intervention to improve his level of functioning. Medical intervention to identify any psychotropic medication that may assist was also recommended. [36] Dr Oertel recommended a neuropsychological assessment to clarify the respondent’s intellectual and cognitive functioning. Dr Oertel noted that this assessment may assist in identifying the type of treatment which was most appropriate for the respondent. [37] A neuropsychological assessment was undertaken. Report of Michelle Andrews, Neuropsychologist, dated 3 November 2020 [38] Dr Andrews assessed the respondent on 13 October 2020. [39] Her assessment revealed that the respondent was a person with weaker verbal skills than those demonstrated in the other domains of his functioning. She considered that he may suffer from a verbal learning disorder, but it was more likely that he had a weakness in verbal processing skills. [40] The respondent was not illiterate but he struggled with abstract verbal concepts or inferential thinking. Having said that, he possessed adequate intellectual, cognitive skills to enable him to engage in a group based program, such as the medium intensity sexual offenders (treatment) program (MISOP) or HISOP. However, his psychological vulnerabilities and personality disorder were his major “responsivity issues”. [41] Dr Andrews was of the opinion that the respondent would struggle to meaningfully engage upon his re-entry into group treatment: his engagement would be superficial and he would employ positive impression management. [42] Dr Andrews noted that the respondent had engaged well with individual intervention and, whilst this treatment is at a lower intensity than group treatment, it appeared to her to be the preferable way to address the respondent’s outstanding treatment needs. Further Psychiatric Reports Report, Dr Josephine Sundin, Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 9 October 2020 [43] Dr Sundin interviewed the respondent on 11 September 2020. She had previously interviewed the respondent in August 2018. -- 7 of 20 -- 8 [44] Dr Sundin acknowledged that she had previously recommended the respondent undertake a High Intensity Sexual Offender Program. However, in reviewing the respondent’s progress and his ultimate withdrawal from that program, Dr Sundin expressed the opinion that the respondent’s combination of a mixed personality disorder and a social anxiety disorder, coupled with his low IQ, made it highly unlikely that he would be capable of successfully completing such a program in the future. [45] The respondent appeared to be overwhelmed by the group setting. This setting brought out his borderline personality traits and his social anxiety, and thereby interfered with his ability to participate in the program. His inability to beneficially gain from such a program was compounded by his attentional deficits and learning difficulties. [46] Dr Sundin observed that the respondent appeared to have done better when programs were delivered on a one to one basis. [47] Whilst noting that the respondent had not previously demonstrated good compliance with community supervision orders, Dr Sundin considered that the imposition of a supervision order under the Act had the potential to reduce the respondent’s risk of sexual recidivism from “moderate to high” to “moderate”. In her evidence at the hearing, she explained, in effect, that it was the constraints imposed by a supervision order which acted to reduce the relevant risk. [48] Dr Sundin initially recommended that the respondent not only undergo individual counselling (with a view to further reducing his risk) but, at the same time, undertake the MISOP, which is available in the community. (A similar recommendation was made by Dr Andrews.) [49] Also, Dr Sundin considered that the respondent should undertake a drug and alcohol treatment program within the community. The respondent had refused participation in such programs whilst incarcerated but, in Dr Sundin’s opinion, intoxication has been highly significant in his offending. Relapse in the use of intoxicants would escalate the risk of sexual recidivism back to high. [50] Dr Sundin considered that, whilst under a supervision order and when participating in any MISOP program, the respondent would need to be under a close level of monitoring and supervision, given his potential for emotional dysregulation. [51] Dr Sundin also perceived a need in any supervision order for “all the usual clauses” which would include disclosure and association clauses, the use of electronic monitoring, absence from all intoxicants and a requirement to avoid places where adolescents are likely to engage with the respondent. [52] Initially, Dr Sundin considered that a supervision order ought to be in place for a period of seven to 10 years. In evidence at the hearing, she expressed the opinion that it ought to be in place for seven years. Addendum Report, Dr J Sundin, dated 12 November 2020 [53] Dr Sundin prepared this report after seeing the report of Dr Michelle Andrews. As a result of perusal of Dr Andrews’ report, Dr Sundin’s opinions did not change. -- 8 of 20 -- 9 Dr Sundin’s oral evidence and change in opinion [54] Dr Sundin explained, in evidence, that her view about the respondent’s risk of sexually re-offending was informed by his offending history, his youth, his severe personality disorder and the fluid nature of his account of his past. [55] The fact that he had “dropped out” of the HISOP also influenced her assessment of his risk. [56] A supervision order with appropriate conditions would decrease the respondent’s access to “victims” by way of denying him opportunities to offend. It was possible for the order to have that effect because the respondent’s victims were boys he knew. [57] The constraints imposed by a supervision order would reduce his risk to moderately low, or perhaps to low. [58] She also explained that – because the respondent was acknowledging his homosexuality – a stable, mature, homosexual relationship might operate as a protective factor for him, but only time would tell. I note that Dr Harden was of a similar view. [59] Importantly, Dr Sundin said that having considered the evidence further, she re- evaluated her position on the need or desirability of the respondent undertaking the MISOP in the community. [60] On reflection, Dr Sundin’s view was that it was unrealistic to expect the respondent to successfully engage in the MISOP. This was because of his low IQ, his severe personality disorder and his social anxiety. She considered one-on-one therapy to be the best way of addressing the respondent’s treatment needs. She considered that the respondent would require treatment with someone like Dr Oertel for about two years (which would be followed by another five years of supervision). Dr Sundin also thought that those supervising the respondent in the community ought to consider referring him to a private psychiatrist to investigate the possibility of medication to address his anxiety and brittle personality – so as to maximise his therapeutic gains. Report, Dr Scott Harden, Psychiatrist, dated 20 November 2020 [61] Dr Harden interviewed the respondent on 1 October 2020. He had previously examined the respondent in July 2018. [62] Dr Harden had administered, in 2018, a number of risk assessment instruments and the effluxion of time had not altered the outcomes that were then obtained. On the STATIC-99R, the respondent achieved a score of 7, which placed him in the high or well above average category relative to other adult male sex offenders. On the Stable- 2007, the respondent was placed in the high needs group. The respondent scored highly in the areas of capacity for relationship stability, lack of concern for others, impulsivity, poor problem solving skills, possible deviant sexual preference and cooperation with supervision. On the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, the respondent achieved a score of 32, which Dr Harden described as a “very high score”, placing him in category 9. People in this category, in the study populations, had a -- 9 of 20 -- 10 100% chance of violent reoffending over seven years. On the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, the respondent achieved a score of 28.4, which was close to the arbitrary cut off of 30, regarded as necessary for a diagnosis of psychopathy to be made. On the SVR-20, the respondent was placed in the medium to high risk category on this measure of sexual violence risk. [63] Dr Harden considered that the respondent met the diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol and polysubstance abuse, in remission due to intoxication. Further, he met the diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with mixed features. And there was some evidence of psychopathy. [64] The respondent also demonstrated a preference for post-pubertal males giving rise to a diagnosis of hebephilia. [65] Dr Harden considered the respondent’s future risk of sexual reoffending is high, or well above average, in the absence of a supervision order. [66] Dr Harden considered the respondent’s risk factors are his preference for early to mid- adolescent post-pubertal boys, his severe personality disorder and his substance abuse. Supervision, and intervention consistent with a supervision order, would reduce the risk posed by the respondent to “low to moderate” by decreasing the capacity for the use of substances and contact with young people. [67] Dr Harden recommended that the respondent be required to be abstinent from alcohol. Further the respondent should undertake individual psychological therapy to further reduce his treatment needs. He should undertake community based group treatment, if this is practical, given his severe personality disorder and learning issues. The respondent should have no unsupervised contact with males under the age of 16. [68] In his written report, Dr Harden recommended that, if the respondent were released from custody, he ought be placed on a supervision order for a period of seven to 10 years. Two of the risk factors being his personality disorder and hebephilia were likely to slow the reduction in any risk. In evidence before me, he said, in effect, that it would be sufficient were the order in place for seven years. (He explained that were it not for the respondent’s personality disorder and hebephilia, the expectation would be a sufficient reduction in risk after five years. Things were further complicated for the respondent by his mild learning and cognitive issues.) Other evidence [69] Affidavits by Ms Niclaire Byrne, and Acting Manager in the Offender Intervention Unit of Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) were in evidence. Ms Byrne explained that whilst the MISOP was available in a community setting (as well as in a custodial setting) QCS did not consider the respondent a suitable candidate for it, either in custody or in the community. She explained that the MISOP would not address the respondent’s level of risk, or need. [70] In his affidavit, Mr Daniel Bear, the Acting Manager of the High Risk Offender Management Unit within QCS explained that, in terms of suitable accommodation, there was likely to be a place available on a temporary basis at the Wacol Precinct. Also, he had made enquiries of Dr Oertel, who is willing to re-engage with the -- 10 of 20 -- 11 respondent and provide treatment to him if he is released on a supervision order. QCS would liaise with her (indeed, with any psychologist treating the respondent) about the nature and effectiveness of the treatment. QCS would also consider referrals to ATODS or another relevant service for the purposes of addressing the respondent’s misuse of alcohol or other drugs. Consideration of evidence [71] The reason for the respondent’s detention in 2018 was treatment. It was expected that he would undertake a High Intensity Sexual Offender Treatment Program. To his credit, the respondent endeavoured to undertake HISOP but was unable to complete it. [72] However, the respondent’s severe mixed personality disorder and social anxiety disorder conspired to prevent him from absorbing the contents of the program and interfered in his engagement with it. He struggled in groups. Further, his difficulties were compounded, as Dr Sundin observed, by the respondent’s attentional deficits and learning difficulties. [73] Under the one-on-one treatment of Ms Jacks and Dr Oertel, the respondent appears to have done, clinically, better. Indeed, his one-on-one treatment with Dr Oertel was the first time his vulnerable personality structure had been addressed. One would hope, with further treatment, the respondent would settle more comfortably into himself so as to be able to identify his own risk factors and his own dependency issues (which contributed to this offending). [74] In that context, both psychiatrists consider that the risk posed by the respondent to the community is able to be reduced to at least a “low to moderate” or “moderate” level, by way of his release on supervision, primarily by preventing his access to potential victims and by way of the provision of appropriate psychological treatment. [75] In my view, adopting such a means to reduce risk is appropriate, in the sense that I am persuaded on the evidence that the constraints of a supervision order will achieve adequate protection of the community, particularly when the respondent will also be required to participate in one-on-one individual counselling. [76] Indeed, whilst undertaking psychological treatment, the respondent’s movement within the community can be constrained by means of curfews, so that the consequences of any emotional dysregulation, caused by such treatments, do not give rise to any manifestation of risk. [77] Drs Sundin and Harden are of the view that the supervision order ought to be in place for seven years. After that time, assuming compliance with it, it could be expected that the respondent would have matured and settled and, I infer, established a well- understood relapse prevention plan. [78] Whilst infringement of the respondent’s liberties ought to be for no longer than is necessary, the paramount concern when fixing the duration of the order is to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The risk, in this case, is largely fuelled by the respondent’s own personality characteristics. These are permanent features and would ameliorate only slowly with the effluxion of time. The respondent is also relatively young. A seven year order will expire when the respondent is almost 40. It -- 11 of 20 -- 12 is to be hoped that by that age, his vulnerable personality will have stablised. And of course, the applicant has available to her the regime under Division 4A of the Act to apply to extend the supervision order if necessary. [79] A draft order was provided to the Court at the hearing (exhibit A for identification). [80] I consider it appropriate to make an order in terms of the draft, subject to the following –  to enhance clarity and ease of understanding, the exception contained in clause 6(e) has been removed from 6(e) and incorporated in the definition of “reasonable direction”;  clause 10 is to remain: on the evidence, the commission by the respondent of an indictable offence would likely indicate a significant change in the respondent’s behaviour such as to indicate emotional dysregulation, which would warrant a re-assessment of his risk;  to ensure that clauses 22 and 23 achieve their intended purpose, they have been amended so as to require the respondent to seek written permission from a corrective services officer before first accessing the internet; and to then, within 24 hours of receiving that permission, provide the information listed in clause 23 to a corrective services officer, so as to enable monitoring of the respondent’s internet access;  for clarity, clause 29 is to include “bottleshops” in the list of places the respondent may not attend without written permission;  for clarity, clause 30 is to be deleted;  the nature of the respondent’s risk means that clauses 43 (b), (c) and (d), 44 and 45 are not necessary;  the nature of the respondent’s risk means that it is unnecessary to include in his order a prohibition upon his accessing adult pornography. [81] Accordingly, I will make an order for the respondent’s release, under supervision and on the conditions contained in the attached order. -- 12 of 20 -- 13 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: Brisbane NUMBER: BS 10200/18 Applicant ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND Respondent [FJA] ORDER Before: Justice Ryan Date: 1 December 2020 Initiating document: Application filed 9 October 2020 [CFI 32] 1. Pursuant to s 30 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”), the decision made on 6 December 2018, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order, be affirmed. 2. Pursuant to s 30(5) of the Act, the continuing detention order made on 6 December 2018 be rescinded. 3. Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the Act, the respondent be released from custody subject to a supervision order for a period of 7 years until 30 November 2027, with the following requirements. TO [FJA]: 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 7 years. -- 13 of 20 -- 14 Reporting 4. On the day you are released from prison, you must report before 4 pm to a corrective services officer at the Community Corrections office closest to where you will live. You must tell the corrective services officer your name and the address where you will live. 5. A corrective services 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; d) who you may and may not have contact with; and e) anything else. A “reasonable direction” is an instruction about what you must do, or what you must not do, that is reasonable in that situation. An instruction that means that you will break the rules of this supervision order is not a “reasonable direction”. 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. -- 14 of 20 -- 15 No offences 9. You must not break the law by committing a sexual offence. 10. You must not break the law by committing an indictable offence. Where you must live 11. You must live at a place approved by a corrective services officer. You must obey any rules that are made about people who live there. 12. You must not live at another place. If you want to live at another place, you must tell a corrective services officer the address of the place you want to live. The corrective services officer will decide if you are allowed to live at that place. You are allowed to change the place you live only when you get written permission from a corrective services officer to live at another place. This also means you must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place. 13. You must not leave Queensland. If you want to leave Queensland, you must ask for written permission from a corrective services officer. You are allowed to leave Queensland only after you get written permission from a corrective services officer. Curfew direction 14. A corrective services officer has power to tell you to stay at a place (for example, the place you live) at particular times. This is called a curfew direction. You must obey a curfew direction. Monitoring direction 15. A corrective services officer has power to tell you to: a) wear a device that tracks your location; and b) let them install a device or equipment at the place you live. This will monitor if you are there. This is called a monitoring direction. You must obey a monitoring direction. Employment or study 16. You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work. -- 15 of 20 -- 16 17. When you ask for permission, you must tell the corrective services officer these things: a) what the job is; b) who you will work for; c) what hours you will work each day; d) the place or places where you will work; and e) (if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study. 18. If a corrective services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you. Motor vehicles 19. You must tell a corrective services officer the details (make, model, colour and registration number) about any vehicle you own, borrow or hire. You must tell the corrective services officer these details immediately (on the same day) you get the vehicle. A vehicle includes a car, motorbike, ute or truck. Mobile phone 20. You are only allowed to own, have or use (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, have or use within 24 hours of when you get the phone. 21. You must give a corrective services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phones you own, have or use. You must let a corrective services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone. Computers and internet 22. You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you use a computer, phone or other device to access the internet for the first time after your release from custody. 23. You must give a corrective services officer any password or other access code you know for the computer, phone or other device. You must do this within 24 hours of receiving written permission to access the internet using the computer, phone or -- 16 of 20 -- 17 other device. You must let a corrective services officer look at the computer, phone or other device and everything on it. 24. You must give a corrective services officer details (including 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 25. You must not contact or try to contact any victim(s) of a sexual offence committed by you. You must not ask someone else to do this for you. “Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way. Rules about alcohol and drugs 26. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, or sniff) any alcohol. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any alcohol. 27. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, smoke or sniff) any illegal drugs. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any illegal drugs. 28. A corrective services officer has the power to tell you to take a drug test or alcohol test. You must take the drug test or alcohol test when they tell you to. You must give them some of your breath, spit (saliva), pee (urine) or blood when they tell you to do this. 29. You are not allowed to go to pubs, clubs, hotels, nightclubs or bottleshops 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 30. You must tell a corrective services officer about any medicine that a doctor prescribes (tells you to buy). You must also tell a corrective services officer about any over the counter medicine that you buy or have with you. You must do this within 24 hours of seeing the doctor or buying the medicine. -- 17 of 20 -- 18 31. You must take prescribed medicine only as directed by a doctor. You must not take any medicine (other than over the counter medicine) which has not been prescribed for you by a doctor. Rules about rehabilitation and counselling 32. You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor. 33. You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program. 34. You must let corrective services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program. Speaking to corrective services about what you plan to do 35. Each week, you must talk to a corrective services officer about what you plan to do that week. A corrective services officer will tell you how to do this (for example, face to face or in writing). 36. You must also tell a corrective services officer the name of new persons you have met. This includes: people who you spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly. 37. You may need to tell new contacts about your supervision order and offending history. The corrective services officer will instruct you to tell those persons and the corrective services officer may speak to them to make sure you have given them all the information. Contact with children 38. You are not allowed to have any contact with children under 16 years of age. 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. -- 18 of 20 -- 19 “Supervised” means having contact with the child while another person is with you and the child. “Unsupervised” means having contact with the child while there is no other person with you and the child. 39. If you have any repeated contact (that is, more than one time) with a parent, guardian or carer of a child under the age of 16, you must: a) tell the person(s) about this supervision order; and b) tell a corrective services officer the details of the person(s). You must do this immediately. This means you have to tell the person, and tell a corrective services officer, on the same day you have contact with the person. 40. Queensland Corrective Services has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to any parent, guardian or caregivers that you have contact with. 41. Queensland Corrective Services also has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to an external agency (such as the Department of Child Safety). 42. You must not: a) attend any school or childcare centre; b) join any club or organisation in which children are involved; c) 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. 43. 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. 44. You must advise your case manager of any personal relationships you have started. Signed: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Registrar of the Brisbane Supreme Court -- 19 of 20 -- 20 -- 20 of 20 --