Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fuller [2020] QSC 274

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fuller [2020] QSC 274 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v RYAN JAMES FULLER (respondent) FILE NO: BS No 3496 of 2009 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: Orders made on 4 September 2020, reasons delivered on 11 September 2020 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 4 September 2020 JUDGE: Davis J ORDERS: It is declared that pursuant to s 24(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003: 1. The period of the respondent’s supervision order made on 15 June 2009 and as amended on 6 July 2011 and on 30 May 2013 and on 26 May 2014 and on 28 September 2015 has been extended from 30 September 2020 to 11 August 2021. 2. The supervision order expires on 11 August 2021. 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 subject to a supervision order pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA)– where the respondent spent 315 days in custody for non-sexual offences during the order – where the applicant seeks an order declaring that the duration of the supervision order has been extended by a period equivalent to that during which the respondent was in custody – whether the supervision order has been extended by force of ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13, s 22, s 23, s 24, s 43AA Attorney-General (Qld) v Fuller [2015] QSC 280, cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland [2020] QSC 33, followed COUNSEL: M Maloney for the applicant N Boyd for the respondent SOLICITORS: GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant Fisher Dore Lawyers for the respondent [1] The respondent is subject to a supervision order which was made under s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA). [2] During the currency of the supervision order the respondent was held in custody for various periods serving terms of imprisonment. The applicant sought declarations that the duration of the supervision order has been extended by force of ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA by a period equivalent to that during which the respondent was held in custody. [3] On 4 September 2020 I made the following orders: 1. The period of the respondent’s supervision order made on 15 June 2009 and as amended on 6 July 2011 and on 30 May 2013 and on 26 May 2014 and on 28 September 2015 has been extended from 30 September 2020 to 11 August 2021. 2. The supervision order expires on 11 August 2021. History of the matter [4] On 15 June 2009, Martin J made an order pursuant to s 13(5)(b) of the DPSOA that the respondent be released to a supervision order effective until 15 June 2017. [5] On various occasions the respondent contravened the supervision order. Action was taken by the applicant pursuant to Division 5 of Part 2 of the DPSOA. Orders consequent upon contraventions of the supervision order were made pursuant to s 22 of the DPSOA by Acting Justice Dick on 6 July 2011, Justice A Lyons on 30 May 2013, Justice A Wilson on 26 May 2014 and Justice Bond on 28 September 2015.1 [6] The respondent’s history of contravening the supervision order is explained in detail by Bond J in his judgment, Attorney-General (Qld) v Fuller,2 and it is unnecessary to descend into any further detail here. As a result of orders made consequent upon contraventions, the supervision order was extended, such that it is now due to expire on 30 September 2020.3 1 Attorney-General (Qld) v Fuller [2015] QSC 280. 2 [2015] QSC 280. 3 Subject to the operation of ss 23 and 24 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [7] Some of the behaviour which constituted the contraventions were the subject of criminal proceedings.4 [8] As a result of criminal convictions, the respondent served the following periods in custody during the time of the operation of the supervision order:  Between 15 July 2010 and 21 January 2011, a period of 192 days in custody;  Between 28 October 2013 to 21 January 2014, a period of 86 days in custody; and  Between 25 March 2015 and 30 April 2015, a period of 37 days in custody. [9] The total time spent in custody by the respondent serving sentences during the period of the supervision order is 315 days. [10] The applicant seeks declarations to the effect that, by force of Division 6 of Part 2 of the DPSOA, the supervision order has been extended by 315 days, being a period equivalent to the time the respondent served in custody, and now expires on 11 August 2021. Determination [11] Sections 23 and 24 of the DPSOA provide 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.” [12] These sections operate so as to extend the term of the supervision order by a period equivalent to the time spent by a prisoner in custody serving sentences during the period of the supervision order. The extension of the order is not dependent on or effected by the exercise of judicial power.5 [13] Here, the supervision order has, by force of ss 23 and 24, been extended by 315 days and will expire on 11 August 2021. 4 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 43AA. 5 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland [2020] QSC 33. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [14] The only question is whether the discretionary jurisdiction ought to be exercised to declare that the supervision order has been extended as it clearly has been. The respondent agrees that the supervision order has been extended as the applicant asserts it has been. There is therefore no real controversy between the parties. [15] However, as I explained in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland,6 supervision orders under the DPSOA vest significant and important powers upon Corrective Services officers to control and manage respondents. There are serious consequences for a respondent upon a breach of the order. For those reasons, it is in the interests of the parties, Corrective Services and the public that the effect of the operation of ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA upon the supervision order be the subject of declaration. [16] For those reasons I made the orders which I did. 6 [2020] QSC 33. -- 4 of 4 --