Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Robinson [2012] QSC 154

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Robinson [2012] QSC 154 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Applicant) V NIGEL PATRICK ROBINSON (Respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 4096 of 2006 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court DELIVERED ON: 16 May 2012 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 16May 2012 JUDGE: McMurdo J ORDER: (1) The contravention hearing pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 be adjourned to a date to be fixed. (2) Pursuant to s21(4) and (6) of the Act, the respondent be released from custody subject to the existing supervision order made by Daubney J on 15 July 2009 and amended by Byrne SJA on 16 December 2011. 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 allegedly contravened a condition of a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 by making contact with a particular individual with whom he had previously been directed to have no contact – where the respondent, in compliance with another condition of his supervision order, informed Corrective Services of his association with the individual – where the individual has now left the State and no longer has -- 1 of 3 -- 2 the mobile phone number of the respondent - whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the respondent’s release Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s21, s22 COUNSEL: J M Horton for the applicant T Ryan for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Law for the applicant Howden Saggers Lawyers for the respondent [1] Nigel Patrick Robinson has been brought before the Court this afternoon, having been arrested in consequence of an alleged contravention of a condition of the supervision order made in his case under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. [2] Through his counsel, he applies for immediate release on the basis that his detention in custody pending the final decision upon the application is not justified because exceptional circumstances exist. [3] The application against him alleges that he breached that condition of his supervision order which required him to comply with every reasonable direction of a Corrective Services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of that supervision order. [4] On 28 March 2012, there was a direction of a Corrective Services officer that he have no contact at all with a certain person whom I will call AL, as she is described in the material. [5] It seems clear that he failed to comply with that direction. Ultimately, there may or may not be a question as to whether that direction was reasonable and therefore whether he breached a condition of his order. [6] The circumstances in which that direction was made were that the respondent, in compliance with another condition of his supervision order, informed Corrective Services of his association with AL. That was an association through the internet, AL living outside Queensland. He also informed Corrective Services of AL's imminent arrival in Queensland to meet him. [7] In consequence, it seems Corrective Services were concerned as to the risk that might come from this association in the circumstance where, at least on one view of the facts, AL is intellectually impaired. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [8] The direction was given and it seems that the respondent was under no misunderstanding as to its effect. However, what then occurred over the next two or three weeks was contact between him and AL, for the most part by messages on his mobile telephone and, on some occasions, by conversations with the use of that phone. However, more recently AL has left the State and the contact has ceased. In particular, the respondent has changed the SIM card within his phone and AL is unaware of the new number. Further, he has been under what is described in these cases as a 24 hour curfew. [9] In the circumstances where AL has left the State and the respondent has this new number, there does not seem to be any real prospect of this contact resuming between them or, at least, any prospect of any personal, that is face-to-face, contact between them. [10] The respondent has, since 2009, been subject to various supervision orders and although there has been at least once instance of a prior breach, the breach in this case does not appear to be particularly serious, notwithstanding the evidence of the intellectual impairment of AL. [11] The Attorney-General, through his counsel, fairly made no substantial submission against the respondent's argument that there were exceptional circumstances in this case. [12] I have concluded that exceptional circumstances exist warranting his immediate release and there will be an order in terms of the draft, which has been provided to me, which I have signed and placed with the file. -- 3 of 3 --