Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Nallajar [2020] QSC 351

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Nallajar [2020] QSC 351 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v EDWARD GEORGE NALLAJAR (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 6021 of 2016 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application filed 27 November 2019 ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: Ex tempore on 10 November 2020 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 10 November 2020 JUDGE: Jackson J ORDER: The order of the Court is that the respondent be released from custody subject to the supervision order made on 16 November 2016. 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 is the subject of a supervision order under s 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent contravened the order – whether, despite that contravention, the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the existing supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, Part 2 Division 3 COUNSEL: M Maloney for the applicant E Whitton for the respondent SOLICITORS: G R Cooper Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent -- 1 of 4 -- 2 HIS HONOUR: This is an application under section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, which I will refer to as “the Act”, for rescission of a supervision order made on 16 December 2016, or for an order that the respondent be released from detention on the supervision order. 5 The respondent was released from custody subject to a supervision order made on 16 December 2016. Conditions 5 and 23 of the supervision order are that the respondent must: “5 – comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction.” 10 and “23 – abstain from the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of this order.” 15 On 23 November 2019, the respondent gave a sample of his breath to Queensland Corrective Services staff for an alcohol test and returned a reading of a blood alcohol concentration of .183 per cent. On or about the same day, the respondent had attempted to remove his electronic monitoring device. 20 Accordingly, he breached condition 5 and condition 23. The respondent has previously breached the supervision order. In August 2018 he tampered with, and attempted to remove, the monitoring device in breach of condition 25 5. He was returned to custody and subsequently ordered to be detained in custody until the final decision under section 22 of the Act. On 5 February 2019, the final decision was that he was released from custody subject to the supervision order. The respondent is a 45-year-old indigenous man with no partner or children. After 30 release on the supervision order made on 16 December 2016, he lived in contingency accommodation in Townsville and then private accommodation. There were initial challenges in obtaining his compliance with the requirements of the order. In late 2017, he had an episode which was diagnosed as resulting from cerebrovascular 35 disease, after which his affect was marginally more aggressive, and he showed signs of paranoia and religiosity. He subsequently voiced paranoid ideations regarding other individuals subject to supervision orders, expressed grandiose religious beliefs, displayed affective lability and was non-compliant with medication prior to cutting off his GPS tracking device in August 2018. There was a possibility of an emerging 40 schizo-affective disorder or an organic psychosis secondary to the cerebrovascular disease. Prior to the current breaches, the respondent engaged in casual employment and was planning to enrol in a horticultural course. He reported increasing levels of tensions 45 within the precinct and claimed various other individuals were spreading lies about him in order to alienate him from his family on Palm Island. He withdrew from a men’s group because of his mistrust. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 He was unable to give a clear explanation for why he chose to consume alcohol, apart from seeking respite from his problems. He claims that the decision to cut off his monitoring device was impulsive and influenced by his state of intoxication. Since returning to custody in late 2019, the respondent has continued to display 5 abnormalities of speech, odd behaviour and at times, grandiosity. Despite this, his functioning has been reasonable, with no reports of violence or grossly disorganised behaviour. The most recent risk assessment report does not exclude the possibility that the 10 respondent is suffering from some form of psychotic disorder, but his idiosyncratic speech has been longstanding and not associated with any pervasive mood states or consistent psychotic symptoms, nor is there clinical or historical evidence of grossly disorganised or disinhibited behaviour. 15 It appears that the respondent’s breaches occurred in the context of increased interpersonal stresses and where he has limited coping strategies. The stresses are related to his difficulty in tolerating the restriction of the supervision order, conflict with other individuals, perception of isolation from his family and the community and frustration with the rate of his reintegration. 20 The risk assessment report agrees with an earlier assessment that the respondent would be better transitioned off the precinct as soon as practicable. The second risk assessment report opines that the respondent does not seem to have 25 regularly abused drugs or alcohol in the years spent to date on a supervision order and has not sexually re-offended. However, in other areas of his life he is confused, as he is alienated and does not understand that he is not forgiven and accepted back into his community. 30 Clinically, in interview, for the second risk assessment report, the respondent showed intermittent disturbances of thought processing that were triggered by emotions consistent with a severe personality disorder, but rapidly returned to normal. There is a question whether he has residual elements of a paranoid schizophrenic illness from prior years. 35 The summary of the diagnoses is that the respondent has derailed thinking of a person with paedophilia and a severe personality disorder with prominent borderline and paranoid schizoid and schizotypal elements. That makes it difficult for the respondent to form a therapeutic relationship with the psychologist, psychiatrist or other helper, 40 or for that matter, a working relationship with authority figures or others. Nevertheless, it must be observed that both the present contraventions and the 2018 contravention of the requirements of the supervision order are not direct indications of any step by the respondent towards serious sexual offending. 45 -- 3 of 4 -- 4 The applicant submits that the psychiatric evidence is clear and supports the finding that the respondent satisfies the Court on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the existing order, despite the contraventions. 5 I accept that submission which is also supported by the respondent. It is not necessary to amend the supervision order. And I have initialled the draft order. -- 4 of 4 --