Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2015] QSC 31

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2015] QSC 31 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v PETER SCOTT GRIFFIN (respondent) FILE NO/S: 1774 of 2011 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland DELIVERED ON: 27 January 2015 (ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 27 January 2015 JUDGE: Daubney J ORDER: Order as per draft. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – application by Attorney-General for an order pursuant to s 22 of the Act amending supervision order under warrant issued pursuant to s 20 of the Act – whether respondent contravened order – appropriateness of proposed amendments based on present evidence. Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 20, s 22. COUNSEL: A D Scott, for the applicant L Reece, for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Law, for the applicant LAQ, for the respondent -- 1 of 6 -- 2 [1] On 29 October 2012, Martin J. made a supervision order in relation to this respondent pursuant to the provisions of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”). On 21 July 2014, the respondent was brought before me under a warrant issued pursuant to section 20 of the Act. At that time, I made, inter alia, an order that the respondent be detained in custody until a final decision of the Court under section 22. This is now the final hearing of the section 22 contravention hearing. [2] For the reasons to which I will refer shortly, it is clear that the material before me raised the clear prospect of the respondent having committed a contravention in mid- 2014. However, as is properly acknowledged and conceded on behalf of the applicant Attorney-General, whilst the evidence indicates that, in mid-last year, the respondent was an unacceptable risk to remain in the community, the present evidence (as expressly acknowledged by the Attorney-General) indicates that: (a) the respondent is not now likely to contravene the supervision order; and (b) the evidence does not support any amendment of the supervision order. [3] In considering the proper disposition of the present application, I have been very considerably assisted by a comprehensive expert report prepared by Dr Harden, consultant psychiatrist. That report outlines the circumstances of the offending which gave rise to the necessity for the respondent to be dealt with under the terms of the Act and also the respondent’s personal sexual history. One of the matters noted by Dr Harden from his interview with the respondent was that the respondent’s initiation into sexual matters with other people was when he was 13 years of age and was abused by a female teacher over a period of months. The respondent admitted to Dr Harden that, while they were having sexual relations, he would feel very angry and often feel like he wanted to hurt the teacher, even though he was sexually aroused and would climax. The relevance of the reference to that woman will become apparent later in these reasons. [4] This is not the first occasion on which the respondent has been dealt with or brought before the Courts for contraventions of the supervision order. In May 2013 and again in May 2014, he was brought before me in respect of separate incidents. On each occasion, I ordered his return to supervision. The contravention which led to his appearance before me in May 2013 arose from some personal sexual activity by the respondent in a car park. The incident in 2014 involved a display of anger followed by obstruction of police officers. [5] Turning to the current contravention, the circumstances of the apprehension of the respondent under a warrant issued under the Act are set out at length in the complaint dated 17 July 2014. That complaint details a history of behaviour commencing in June 2014 when the respondent disclosed to his case manager a relationship (or a proposed relationship) with a woman with whom the respondent, it subsequently emerged, had been corresponding with online. Initially, the concern of the case manager was to ensure that the respondent made appropriate disclosure to this woman, as required under the conditions of his supervision order. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 [6] In the course of follow-up attendances and inquiries by Corrective Services Officers, the respondent became increasingly angry, confrontational and agitated. There was no contact from this woman for a period of about six or seven weeks between 10 June 2014 and 17 July 2014, and, during this period, the respondent’s behaviour clearly deteriorated. He made continuing threats of contravention to Corrective Services Officers, including threats of failing to comply with curfew and monitoring directions. He also at that time reported that he had ceased using anti- libidinal medication and antidepressant medication. [7] Those matters culminated on two occasions in July 2014, which are identified in the complaint, in which the respondent acted in a threatening manner towards Corrective Services staff. [8] The complaint refers to psychiatric evidence which was in the hands of Corrective Services which indicated at least the desirability of the respondent continuing his anti-libidinal and antidepressant medication. The complaint concluded with a statement of belief by the complainant that, based on the psychiatric evidence and the evidence of emotional turmoil resulting in directed anger, the respondent was likely to contravene conditions of his supervision order. As I have noted, he was then brought before me under a warrant issued pursuant to section 20 and has been detained in custody since being brought before me on 21 July 2014. [9] Dr Harden’s report details the respondent’s version of the events which led to him being detained in custody and, in particular, the respondent’s version of the relationship which he had established with this woman he had met online. Leaving aside the details of the contact that he might have had with this woman, in the course of which he says he did make full and proper disclosure to her, it is clear enough even from what the respondent said to Dr Harden that the situation with the supervising Queensland Corrective Services staff was becoming problematic. Dr Harden reports: He said [that is, the respondent] said that, in retrospect, the whole thing was a conflict with the supervising staff as, “I was being stubborn and pig- headed.” He said he defied the staff and said he would pick her up from the airport regardless of what they did to him. He said, as a result, they put him on a 24-hour curfew, which was effective in restricting his activity. [10] He told Dr Harden that after the woman told him that she wasn’t coming anyway, that he “lost it”. He also reported to Dr Harden that he was angry that staff kept talking to him about ceasing his medication when the use of the medication (particularly the anti-libidinous medication) was voluntary. His report to Dr Harden details other factors which he regarded as irritants in his ongoing relationship with Corrective Services Officers. Relevantly, Dr Harden records: Additionally, a particular Corrective staff member had taken over as his main liaison person from mid-June 2014. He said he had never really got on with her. When specifically asked in more detail, he eventually said that she reminded him a lot of the schoolteacher who sexually abused him when he was younger. He said that he had not told anybody about this, including supervising staff, his psychologist or his psychiatrist. He agreed that this led to an increase in his irritability and anger when dealing with this -- 3 of 6 -- 4 particular staff member, regardless of the reasonableness or otherwise of the staff member’s actions. [11] I will return shortly to Dr Harden’s report. But let me now record that the respondent, while in the community, was seen by the clinical psychologist Dr Ursula Oertel. I have before me two reports from Dr Oertel. The first, which is dated 15 June 2014, largely predates the circumstances relevant to the present proceedings. The second which was dated 29 July 2014 deals with the period between 15 June 2014 and the respondent’s return to custody on 17 July 2014. Dr Oertel noted that during this period, the respondent’s mood was “generally sullen and angry which was a result of his perceived treatment by QCS staff.” She noted that the respondent had reported that he had stopped taking the antilibidinal drug because of side effects that it was inducing. Dr Oertel concluded: It appears that Mr Griffin’s omission of aggressive behaviour towards QCS staff was the result of the presence of both environmental and cognitive characteristics. He seemed to be responding to frustration and perceived victimisation by QCS with aggression which was perpetuated by subsequent interactions with staff. His interpretation of such encounters with QCS staff has been hostile and goal blocking contributing to him behaving more aggressively. Mr Griffin described his dealings with QCS staff as frustrating, and it seemed each time he entered into a situation where he was required to interact with QCS staff, he was already in an aroused state with hostile feeling towards them. It is also likely that as a result of Mr Griffin entering these situations when highly aroused, he focused on just a few highly salient cues (eg “the enemy” driving him towards perceiving hostility when none was present) [12] The respondent was also seeing the psychiatrist Dr Ken Arthur while on release in the community. Dr Arthur’s role was particularly to supervise the respondent’s use of the antilibidinal medication. Dr Arthur has provided a report dated 25 July 2014 in which he recounts a fairly aggressive presentation by the respondent on 14 July 2014. Dr Arthur noted that the respondent was angry, aggrieved and expressed his intention to be non-compliant with aspects of the order relating to therapy. He noted that the respondent had ceased both antidepressants and antilibidinous medication making vague reference to side effects. Dr Arthur did not have sufficient data to perform a thorough risk assessment, but said that the respondent clearly appeared unstable in his emotional state and was angry and oppositional. The doctor said: Given the history of his offences and his underlying personality structure, I would consider him a significant risk for some form of aggressive action in the immediate future. [13] As noted, this was recorded in a report dated 25 July 2014 concerning an assessment made on 14 July 2014. [14] Returning then to Dr Harden’s extensive and helpful report, I note that Dr Harden has diagnosed the respondent with sexual sadism and a personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial, borderline and narcissistic features. Dr Harden assesses the respondent with a high future risk of sexual re-offence which would -- 4 of 6 -- 5 still be high if the respondent were to be released from custody without further monitoring or intervention. Dr Harden said: The nature of the current contravention as previously does not, in my opinion, substantially increase or change his risk profile, but does re- enforce his emotional vulnerability and his relationships with women. The supervising staff have in this most recent alleged contravention undertaken appropriate interventions, in my view, by increasing his psychological therapy and monitoring him closely as he became more and more angry and is regulated. Re-admission to custody was an appropriate step given the situation and the acute increase in risk at that time. [15] Dr Harden continued: High level compulsory supervision and treatment in the community consisted with the supervision order which still reviews his risk to moderate, in my opinion. [16] Dr Harden further expressed the opinion that he was not convinced that libido inhibiting medication was necessarily a critical part of the respondent’s management. Dr Harden emphasised that this did not mean that such medication could not be used, but said that it was not critical to the respondent’s management. Dr Harden said: In my view, his emotional instability and perception of rejection and threat are more central to his risk. It is likely that his antidepressant medication does in general contribute to maintaining his emotional stability and may be a useful part of his longer-term management. [17] I have also had the considerable benefit of a report by Dr Josie Sundin, psychiatrist, dated 8 October 2014. Dr Sundin interviewed the respondent on 2 October 2014. Dr Sundin’s opinion is essentially the same as that of Dr Harden. Dr Sundin said: While it seems undoubtedly clear that Mr Griffin is not the easiest prisoner to manage within the community, QCS appear to have been managing him in a manner that is protecting the community and managing his risk factors. It is quite positive that Mr Griffin has developed a positive relationship with Dr Oertel and despite his initial refusal to see Dr Arthur after that first appointment. I’m hopeful that he is capable of benefiting from input from Dr Arthur into the future. At this point, reintroduction of Androcur does not seem appropriate, but certainly, the antidepressant Paroxetine could be used both for its benefit with regard to effective regulation and its antilibidinal potency. Taking all of these factors globally, I respectfully recommend that Mr Griffin could be returned to the community under a supervision order similar to that which was managing his most recent release in 2013/14. [18] It was clear on the material before me when the respondent was brought before me on the warrant that it was appropriate for him to be detained in custody at that time. That view has only been confirmed by the psychiatric evidence subsequently obtained. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 [19] However, as is properly and frankly acknowledged on behalf of the applicant, the expert evidence now before me does not support a conclusion that the respondent is now likely to contravene a supervision order. Moreover, there is nothing in the material as it currently stands which indicates that the protection of the community requires that he be detained under a continuing detention order, nor are any amendments to the previous conditions of the supervision order required. [20] I note that the reports of both Dr Harden and Dr Sundin make reference to the appropriateness and potency of the various medication regimes to which the respondent might be subject, naming in particular, the observations that they have made in relation to the antilibidinous medication. It is unnecessary for me to say anything further about that because condition 23 of the supervision order to which the respondent was and will continue to be subject requires him in effect to submit to such treatment as he may be prescribed. If he is necessarily prescribed the antilibidinous medication, then he will need to pursue that course of medication for the purposes of complying with condition 23. It would be inappropriate, however, for me to pre-judge or express any view on the proper clinical decisions which might be made by the physicians and mental health professionals who are attending on Mr Griffin. [21] As I have said, the matter requires me now to make an assessment for the purposes of section 22 (1) as at today’s date and on the basis of the material presently before me. For the reasons and on the evidence to which I have referred, there is no proper basis for me to be satisfied that Mr Griffin is likely to contravene the existing supervision order. For those reasons, I made an order in terms of the draft which was presented to me by counsel for the parties at the hearing this morning. -- 6 of 6 --