Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v PHG [2010] QSC 406

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v PHG [2010] QSC 406 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v PHG (respondent) FILE NO/S: 7913/08 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 28 October 2010 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 28 October 2010 JUDGE: Ann Lyons J ORDER: 1. The Court is satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, has contravened a requirement of the supervision order imposed by Mullins J on 18 December 2008. 2. The respondent continue to be subject to a supervision order as amended pursuant to s 22 (7) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) in the terms contained in the schedule attached hereto until 8 February 2024. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent was released pursuant to s 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) after serving a term of imprisonment for sexual offences committed against children – whether the respondent contravened the supervision order his release was subject to – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by a supervision order or a continuing detention order. COUNSEL: J Sharp for the applicant S Ryan for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Law for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent -- 1 of 15 -- 2 ANN LYONS J: [1] On 18 December 2008 an order was made by Mullins J that the respondent, was to be released pursuant to s 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) and that he be subject to a supervision order which contained forty two conditions, until 8 February 2024. [2] Condition (xxii) required that he not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order. Condition (xxiii) required that he not commit an indictable offence. Condition (xxxi) required that he not visit public parks without prior permission of a Corrective Service officer. Condition (xlii) required that he not collect or retain any material that contains images of children, and dispose of such material if directed to do so by a Corrective Services officer. [3] The respondent was released on 6 February 2009. On 15 June 2009 a warrant issued for his arrest as it was alleged that he had breached the four conditions set out above. [4] The respondent took a photograph using his mobile phone of a four-year-old girl as she sat naked on the beach at Southbank Parklands. She was with her family and she was not aware she was being photographed. There was no physical contact by the respondent. Police were called and the respondent told police he was subject to a supervision order. The police then discovered two other photographs in his mobile phone of female children apparently taken while he was on a train. [5] The taking of the photograph constituted the offence of indecent treatment and the possession of the photographs of children contravened the supervision order as did his presence at Southbank Parklands. [6] The respondent was arrested on 15 June 2009 and on 16 June 2009 Daubney J made orders that he be detained in custody pursuant to s 21(2) of the Act until the final decision of the Court pursuant to 22 of the Act. The contravention hearing pursuant to s 22 of the Act was adjourned to a date to be fixed. He has been in custody since that date. [7] On 15 April 2010 the respondent pleaded guilty to the offences of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years of age and two contraventions of a supervision order. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with parole eligibility after five months in relation to the indecent charge and concurrent four months' terms in relation to the breaches of the supervision order. Parole eligibility was fixed at 14 September 2010. [8] The respondent subsequently appealed those sentences on the basis that proper consideration had not been given by the sentencing judge to the fact that he had spent 10 months in custody since the breach of the supervision order. The sentences were set aside on 16 July 2010 and a parole eligibility date of 16 July 2010 was fixed. The reasons of the Court were set out by the Chief Justice who stated as follows. “[13] Whether or not the applicant might have applied for release is by the way. The fact is, the applicant did serve that period of 10 months and, of course, is still in custody three months later. -- 2 of 15 -- 3 [14] The Judge adopted the prosecution description of the offence of indecent treatment as offending ‘at the lower end of the scale,’ and it was, because there was no physical contact with the child and the child was completely unaware that the photograph was being taken. [15] Even allowing for the commission of the offence only some four months after the applicant's release from custody, it was a case where that 10 months actual imprisonment itself fell within an appropriate penalty range. [16] I would order that the application for leave to appeal against sentence be allowed, that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed for the offence of indecent treatment be set aside, and that in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to imprisonment for the period commencing on 15 April 2010 and expiring today, 16 July 2010. [17] The concurrent sentences of four months' imprisonment for breach of the supervision order should be set aside and no further penalty imposed for those contraventions. As to those contraventions the applicant was adequately punished by the 10 months' custody. Penalties in respect of this indecent treatment and those breaches of the order fell to be endured concurrently in a case like this. [18] The applicant's further fate will fall to be considered by reference to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act and proceedings taken under that legislation in respect of continuing detention which are set down for hearing on the 28th of October this year although there will now be the prospect of an earlier application.” [9] This is the adjourned hearing of the contravention hearing pursuant to s 22 of the Act no earlier application was made. [10] The applicant seeks orders for the respondent’s continuing detention or for an order that he be released subject to a supervision order with additional strict conditions. Background [11] The respondent’s background and past offending is summarised in the Court of Appeal decision. He was 25 years of age when sentenced on 15 April 2010 and his criminal history commenced on 12 November 2004 when he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years for a range of sexual offending in relation to four children aged five, seven and nine. The victims had been his five year old sister and later his five year old brother as well as seven and nine year old friends of his brother and sister. The charges included 3 charges of rape and 17 charges of indecent dealing with both male and female children. At the time of that sentence he was 19 years old. [12] After serving the entire five-year term he was released on the 6th of February 2009 subject to a 15 year supervision order under the Act. He participated in the High -- 3 of 15 -- 4 Intensity Sexual Offender Treatment Program (HISOP) whilst in custody but was excluded after 7 months after an altercation with a fellow prisoner. He subsequently successfully participated in 46 sessions in the Inclusion Sexual Offending Program (ISOP). As the Court of Appeal pointed out it was only four months after being released that he committed the offence of the indecent treatment of a child. The Reports of the Psychiatrists [13] The respondent was examined by two psychiatrists Dr Joan Lawrence and Dr Donald Grant. Dr Grant’s Report [14] Dr Grant considers that the respondent suffers from Paedophilia of bisexual non exclusive type and that he also has a past history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder which he considers is a persisting problem. He also considers that he has some intellectual deficits. Whilst he considered that when initially released on the supervision order his risk was at least ‘moderate to high’ he considers that with this breach that risk “remains moderate to high or even high, given his breach.” [15] Dr Grant considers that the respondent describes ongoing intrusive fantasies of young girls causing sexual arousal and that such fantasies are triggered by seeing young girls anywhere near him in the environment and that those fantasies intrude into his mind. Dr Grant stated that those fantasies and sexual arousal became more powerful in the period leading up to the offences and that that indicates that the treatment programs that the respondent has previously undergone and the ongoing individual treatment he was having were insufficient to deal with the problem and proved unsuccessful in containing the respondent’s impulses to offend. Dr Grant stated: “This would indicate to me that further treatment modalities need to be applied in [the respondent] case. In my opinion he fits the treatment criteria for the use of anti-androgen therapy. He is a young man with quite a high sex drive. This sex drive is directed primarily towards young females and the libido drives his fantasies and impulses to offend. Anti-androgen therapy is affective at reducing testosterone and thereby reducing sexual drive. Sexual fantasies are thereby reduced in both frequency and strength and the individual tends to find it much easier to control impulses to act on sexual fantasies. In my opinion [the respondent] requires this treatment to assist him controlling his offending behaviour. He has controlling his offending behaviour. He has expressed a strong willingness to commence the treatment as soon as possible. Anti-androgen therapy should therefore, in my opinion, be commenced forthwith and it is best accompanied by psychotherapeutic and psycho-educational measures to reinforce the control of aberrant sexual impulses. In my opinion [the respondent] would benefit from commencing a sexual offender maintenance program and he would also benefit from ongoing individual therapy to address his paedophilia. If he was to start anti-androgen therapy he would need to see a psychiatrist to commence and monitor the therapy. Psychological treatment could also be provided by the -- 4 of 15 -- 5 psychiatrist or alternatively he could see both a psychiatrist and a psychologist for comprehensive psychological therapy. Anti-androgen therapy is generally only given with the informed consent of the patient. This would appear to be available in [the respondent’s] case. I believe that this mode of therapy should be applied prior to [the respondent’s] release from prison and then continued in the long term after his release, with long term consistent monitoring and review of the treatment by a psychiatrist. I believe that [the respondent] would be more effectively managed in the community under a supervision order if he was on anti-androgen therapy. A supervision order would need to contain all of the clauses of his previous supervision order. It is difficult to see any additional clauses which could increase the safety of the community. However, some changes might be made to the way in which that order is monitored and supervised by community corrections. It is impossible for any supervision order to completely prevent [the respondent] having random contact with young females in public situations, but it may be possible to more closely monitor his use of mobile phones, cameras or computers to obtain or store images of children. In the light of this breach [the respondent’s] treating psychologist and psychiatrist would need to have a high level of vigilance in regard to possible re-offending and would need to try to ensure that they are obtaining full honesty and disclosure from [the respondent] during therapy sessions. Therapy can only be successful if the patient is fully engaged and open in his interactions with his therapists. Hopefully this breach will provide the appropriate wake-up call for [the respondent] in terms of his need to fully engage with treatment, to take ownership of the paedophilia and use appropriate therapeutic techniques to control it. In summary, in my opinion the risk of re-offending if [the respondent] is to be released from prison remains at least moderate to high. The risk could be mitigated by the re-application of a supervision order with close monitoring, particularly of any activities involving taking or collecting of photographs and more intensive treatment involving psychiatric treatment and the use of anti- androgen therapy. A maintenance sexual offender treatment program is also very important.” [16] Dr Grant outlined that the way in which anti-androgen therapy works is by lowering testosterone levels which in turn reduces the sexual thoughts and impulses a person has. He stated that when this is combined with psychotherapy it was a powerful treatment. A psychiatrist however needs to prescribe and monitor the treatment to ensure there are no side effects and to ascertain the appropriate dosage based on the testing of the chemical levels. [17] Dr Grant stated that it could take some 4 to 6 weeks for the testosterone levels to come down to a level which is of benefit. Dr Grant considered that the respondent was well motivated in relation to the treatment. -- 5 of 15 -- 6 [18] In relation to a submission from the applicant that a condition should be added which would require that the respondent report all sexual urges to a Corrective Services Officer, Dr Grant considered that such a condition would be problematic. He considered however that it was important that there be a relationship of such openness with his treating team. [19] Dr Grant stated that whilst he had considered that the anti-androgen treatment should ideally be commenced in prison he considered it would be an acceptable alternative for it to be commenced in the community if the respondent was subject to a curfew until his testosterone levels reduced. Dr Grant considered the treatment outlined by Dr Hannah in her affidavit was appropriate in this regard. Dr Lawrence’s report [20] Dr Lawrence in her report considered that the respondent still minimises and tries to excuse aspects of his offending behaviour. Dr Lawrence continued: “15.7 Concerningly, [the respondent] has received fairly extensive therapeutic interventions for his sexual offending behaviour since adolescence. He underwent an Adolescent Program at Griffith University whilst on probation at the age of 17/18. He re-offended towards the end of that program, leading to 5 years imprisonment. He failed to complete 1 Sexual Offender Treatment Program provided to him in prison, dropping out a considerable way through. He was offered and undertook an Inclusion Sexual Offender Treatment Program thereafter and successfully that program before his Supervision Order came into place. 15.8 Whilst on release and under the Supervision Order, he undertook weekly therapy with an experienced Forensic Psychologist. This therapy had probably been in place for some 12 sessions. His last session had been conducted 2 days before the offending behaviour occurred. His treating Psychologist has reported that there is no indication of concerns, stressors or precipitants to indicate that re- offending was imminent at that time. 15.9 [The respondent] has subsequently suggested that the offending behaviour was at least contributed to by the fact that his Psychologist was on holidays and thus not readily available to him. In my opinion, that is quite incorrect and serves as an extreme rationalisation on [the respondent] part. Though he claimed to accept responsibility for his behaviour and acknowledges this, it would seem that, in a defensive way, he seeks to partially shift responsibility to some outside therapeutic agency which has failed him in some way and thus to take some responsibility for his offending behaviour. 15.10 There was evidence; at interview, that such attitudes remain. These would be indicators of a poor prognosis with a -- 6 of 15 -- 7 continuing high risk of re-offending in the not too distant future. 15.11 His actuarial assessments, particularly the Static-99, would certainly confirm the clinical impression based on historical factors that [the respondent] is at high risk of re-offending sexually. Though the offences themselves might initially be regarded as of low impact type, it could be expected that, if undetected and allowed to continue, the offending behaviour could escalate to a more harmful kind. 15.12 [The respondent] has undoubtedly been exposed to considerable amounts of sexually offending type programs with apparently very limited benefit, as judged by this behaviour occurring within 4 months of his release on a Supervision Order. 15.13 In my opinion, this man is at least likely to benefit from an intervention such as the use of an antiandrogen medication. It would be warranted to decrease his sexual drive with the assistance of further strategies of a cognitive behavioural therapeutic kind. It could assist him in moderating his sexual preoccupations with children and hopefully then foster or promote his claimed adult sexual drive. 15.14 Other strategies which should also be encouraged and recommended are ongoing employment, with or without educational and training programs to enhance his employability. His history would support the fact that he is capable of productive and remunerative employment. Such employment would decrease the time which he recently, on release, failed to fill in any significantly productive way. The presence of large periods of time in which he is not engaged in productive activity is likely to enhance the destructive sexual drives which he shows. 15.15 In summary, [the respondent] suffers from Paedophilia non-exclusive. He has failed to benefit significantly from previous therapeutic interventions of a cognitive behavioural kind. In my opinion, he is likely to benefit from the use of antiandrogen medications to decrease his sexual drive, providing these continue in association with close monitoring, counselling and the ongoing therapeutic interventions along with the promotion of pro-social activities and attitudes and continuing monitoring conditions to protect potential victims as well as himself from the risk of engaging in further sexual offending behaviours. Without such interventions, the risk of him re-offending sexually is high. -- 7 of 15 -- 8 15.16 Any Supervision Order will need to remain in place for many years because of his young aged and the nature of his Paraphilia.” [21] In her evidence to the Court Dr Lawrence reiterated her view that the only realistic way of managing the high risk which the respondent posed was by the use of anti- androgen medication together with ongoing therapy and monitoring. [22] Dr Lawrence initially considered that the best option would be to commence the therapy whilst in custody. Dr Lawrence ultimately considered however that because the respondent’s motivation on release would be high and because it would be important to ensure continuity of treatment, the anti-androgen therapy could commence in the community if the respondent was subject to a curfew which would initially curtail his interaction with the community. She also considered the course of therapy outlined by Dr Hannah was appropriate. [23] Dr Lawrence also considered that whilst it was important that the treating practitioners be able to communicate about his sexual urges she did not think it was realistic or reasonable for him to reveal his sexual urges to Corrective Services Officers given they are in a position of authority over him and are responsible for his discipline. This Application [24] As I have indicated this is the final hearing of an application by the Attorney- General for the State of Queensland for relief pursuant to s.22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). Section 22 provides that if the court is satisfied “on the balance of probabilities” that the respondent has contravened a supervision order then unless the respondent satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that adequate protection of the community, despite the contravention, can be ensured, the court must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order. [25] I am satisfied on the balance if probabilities that the respondent has breached his supervision order. [26] The real question which needs to be addressed in this application is whether despite being satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has contravened the supervision order the Court is satisfied that adequate protection of the community, despite the contravention, can be ensured. If I am not so satisfied then I must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order. The Applicant’s submission. [27] Counsel for the applicant conceded that both psychiatrists indicate that the community can be adequately protected from the risk posed by the respondent if he is treated with anti-androgen medication to curb his sex drive. The respondent has expressed his willingness to engage in anti-androgen therapy and Dr Hannah is available to administer and monitor the anti-androgen therapy commencing 5 November 2010.1 Counsel also noted that both psychiatrists agree that the 1 Affidavit of Dr Hannah -- 8 of 15 -- 9 respondent needs to be closely monitored if released from custody on a supervision order. [28] Counsel submitted that the Act shifts the onus to the respondent to satisfy the Court that the community can be adequately protected by a supervision order, notwithstanding the contravention. Counsel conceded however that in this case, the applicant cannot point to any material supporting the respondent’s continued detention. [29] Counsel for the applicant however sought an amendment of the supervision order made on 18 December 2008 (pursuant to s22(7)(b) of the Act) to include a number of additional conditions including that he not deviate from his approved weekly schedule of activities, that he provide information about his use of public transport and that he advise a corrective services officer of all sexual urges. Counsel also submitted that the anti-androgen therapy was best commenced in custody and therefore the final determination of the application should be adjourned for 4 to 6 weeks to allow that therapy to commence. The respondent’s submission [30] Counsel for the respondent relied on the assessing psychiatrists indications that the respondent is well motivated to achieve rehabilitation and that he is willing to engage in anti-androgen therapy. Counsel also relied on the respondent’s affidavit to demonstrate that he has been motivated not only to seek treatment with an anti- androgen but to seek treatment of a broader nature. [31] It is clear that since July 2010 the respondent has sought assistance from corrective services on a number of occasions to commence anti-androgen medication whilst in custody. Despite the fact that that is also recommended by both Dr Grant and Dr Lawrence no steps were taken in this regard. [32] Counsel for the respondent submits that he has been honest with the psychiatrists and shows some insight into his offending behaviour. He is well aware of the consequences of further breach of the order and, since the suicide of his cell-mate, has been particularly keen to achieve a normal life outside of prison. Conclusion [33] I am satisfied that the respondent has satisfied the onus incumbent upon him to satisfy the Court that the community can be adequately protected by a supervision order, notwithstanding the contravention. The respondent is well aware of the consequences of a breach of a supervision order. His breach of his previous order by taking the photos has resulted in him being returned to custody for a period of some 16 months. [34] I consider that the existing supervision order together with some appropriate additional conditions will adequately address the risk. In particular the respondent’s release on the supervision order is conditional upon his continued consent to his participation in anti-androgen therapy. I do not consider however that it is either desirable or effective to require the respondent to report all his sexual urges to a corrective services officer. Whilst such reporting is appropriate within a therapeutic relationship I do not consider it is appropriate with respect to a corrective services officer. I am satisfied that ordering the respondent’s release now upon condition -- 9 of 15 -- 10 that he be treated with anti-androgen therapy, in conjunction with other therapies, achieves at least adequate protection of the community from the risk posed by the respondent, despite the contravention. [35] There will be an Order in the terms attached to these reasons. -- 10 of 15 -- 11 Schedule The respondent must: i be under the supervision of a Corrective Services officer for the duration of the order; ii report to a Corrective Services officer at the Queensland Corrective Services Probation and Parole Office closest to his place of residence between 9am and 4pm on the day of release from custody and at that time advise the officer of the respondent’s current name and address; iii report to, and receive visits from, a Corrective Services officer at such times and at such frequency as determined by Queensland Corrective Services; iv notify and obtain the approval of a Corrective Services officer for every change of the prisoners name at least two business days before the change occurs; v comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction; vi notify a Corrective Services officer of the nature of his employment, or offers of employment, the hours of work each day, the name of his employer and the address of the premises where he is or will be employed; vii seek permission and obtain approval from a Corrective Services officer prior to entering into an employment agreement or engaging in volunteer work or paid or unpaid employment; viii reside at a place within the State of Queensland as approved by a Corrective Services officer by way of a suitability assessment; ix not reside at a place by way of short term accommodation including overnight stays without the permission of a Corrective Services officer; x must seek permission and obtain the approval of a Corrective Services officer prior to any change of residence; xi not leave or stay out of Queensland without the written permission of a Corrective Services officer; xii not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order; xiii not commit an indictable offence during the period of the order; xiv must comply with every reasonable direction of a Corrective Services officer; -- 11 of 15 -- 12 xv respond truthfully to enquiries by Corrective Services officers about his whereabouts and movements generally; xvi not to have any direct or indirect contact with a complainant of his sexual offences unless authorised by a Corrective Services officer; xvii disclose to a Corrective Services officer upon request the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information from a Corrective Services officer about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate had knowledge of his prior offending behaviour; xviii notify a Corrective Services officer of the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle owned by or generally driven by him, whether hired or otherwise obtained for his use; xix submit to medical, psychiatric, psychological or other forms of assessment and/or treatment as directed by a Corrective Services officer in accordance with the recommendation or advice of a relevant treating professional; xx submit to and discuss with a Corrective Services officer a schedule of his planned and proposed activities on a weekly basis or as otherwise directed; xxi that for the first six months following his release from custody and subject to condition (xx), the Respondent not deviate from his approved weekly schedule of activities without reasonable excuse and without the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer; xxii when requested, provide an authorised Corrective Services Officer with information regarding his use of public transport; xxiii if directed by his supervising Corrective Services officer, make complete disclosure of the terms of this supervision order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by the supervising officer who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred; xxiv abstain from illicit drugs for the duration of this order; xxv take prescribed drugs as directed by a medical practitioner subject to (xxvii); xxvi disclose any sexual urges to an external treatment provider; xxvii having given consent to antiandrogen treatment, and with that consent continuing, undergo treatment by prescribed anti-androgen medication, as directed by a medical practitioner and disclose to an authorised corrective -- 12 of 15 -- 13 services officer details of all prescribed and over the counter medication that he obtains; xxviii agree to undergo medical testing or treatment (including the testing of testosterone levels by an endocrinologist) as deemed necessary by the treating psychiatrist and supervising Corrective Service officer, and permit the release of the results and details of the testing to Queensland Corrective Services and/or other external Treatment Provider, if such a request is made for the purposes of updating or amending the supervision order or for ensuring compliance with this order, the expense of which is to be met by Queensland Corrective Service; xxix submit to any form of drug testing including random urinalysis as directed by a Corrective Services officer; xxx attend upon and submit to assessment and/or treatment by a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional as directed by a Corrective Services officer at a frequency and duration which shall be recommended by the treating intervention specialist, the expense of which is to be met by Queensland Corrective Services; xxxi permit any medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioner to disclose details of treatment, intervention and opinions relating to level of risk of re-offending and compliance with this order to Queensland Corrective Services and/or other external treatment provider for the purposes of updating or amending the supervision order and/or ensuring compliance with this order and to facilitate treatment; xxxii attend any program, course, psychologist or counsellor, in a group or individual capacity, as directed by a Corrective Services officer in consultation with treating medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioners where appropriate; xxxiii not have any supervised or unsupervised contact with children under 16 years of age except with prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer. The respondent is required to fully disclose the terms of the order and nature of offences to the guardians and caregivers of the children before any such contact can take place; Queensland Corrective Services may disclose information pertaining to the offender to guardians or caregivers and external -- 13 of 15 -- 14 agencies (i.e. Department of Child Safety) in the interests of ensuring the safety of the children; xxxiv not without reasonable excuse be within 100 metres of schools or child care centres between 7.00am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4.30pm; xxxv not to access a school or child care centre at any time without prior written approval from a Corrective Services officer; xxxvi not visit public parks without prior written permission from a Corrective Services officer; xxxvii not establish and maintain contact with children under 16 years of age without written prior approval by a Corrective Services officer. The respondent is required to fully disclose the terms of the order and nature of offences to the guardians and caregivers of the children before any such contact can take place; Queensland Corrective Services may disclose information pertaining to the offender to guardians or caregivers and external agencies (i.e. Department of Child Safety); xxxviii seek written permission from a Corrective Services officer prior to joining, affiliating with or attending on the premises of any club, organisation or group; xxxix not be on the premises of any shopping centre, without reasonable excuse, between 8am to 9.30am and between 2.30pm and 4.30pm on school days other than for the purpose of: a. approved employment; b. attending an approved bona fide pre-arranged appointment with a Government agency, medical practitioner or the like; xl to advise a Corrective Services officer of any repeated contact with a parent of a child under the age of 16. The offender shall if directed by his supervising officer make complete disclosure of the terms of this supervision order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by the supervising officer who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred; xli not access pornographic images on a computer or on the internet or in any other format; xlii not access child pornographic images in any format; xliii obtain the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer before accessing a computer or the internet; -- 14 of 15 -- 15 xliv allow any device, email account and any other internet based electronic communications system accessible by him to be randomly examined by a Corrective Services officer, Queensland Police officer or any other agent engaged for this purpose by Queensland Corrective Services; xlv upon request of a Corrective Services officer to make available to such Corrective Services officer all necessary passwords and access codes that permit him to access items described in the preceding condition for purpose of such examinations; xlvi obtain the prior written approval of a Corrective Services officer before possessing any equipment that enables him to take photographs or record moving images; xlvii not collect or retain any material that contains images of children, and dispose of such material if directed to do so by a Corrective Services officer; xlviii except with prior written approval from an authorised Corrective Services officer, you are not to own, possess or regularly utilise more than one mobile telephone. -- 15 of 15 --