Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bickle [2006] QSC 130

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bickle [2006] QSC 130 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v STEVEN SHANE BICKLE (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS846 of 2006 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court, Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 2 June 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 18 May 2006 JUDGE: Moynihan J ORDER: 1. That the respondent is a serious risk to the community and that he be released into the community on the conditions set out in exhibit 3 modified in accordance with these reasons. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW- JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - OTHER MATTERS – where respondent finished sentence for sexual offences- where application made under s13 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) for a supervision order not opposed by respondent- whether respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order- whether conditions of the supervision order appropriate. Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). COUNSEL: B Butler & L Evans for the applicant T A Ryan for the respondent SOLICITORS: Crown Law for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent -- 1 of 4 -- 2 [1] MOYNIHAN J: This is an application by the Attorney-General pursuant to s13 of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders Act) 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’) for a Division 3 order that the respondent is a serious danger to the community and for consequential orders. The respondent is clearly a prisoner within the meaning of the Act.1 [2] The objects of the Act are: “(a) to provide for the continued detention custody or supervised release of a particular class of prisoner to ensure adequate protection of the community; and (b) to provide continuing control, care or treatment of a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation”.2 [3] If, on the hearing of such an application, the court is satisfied that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community3 the court may order that the prisoner be released from custody subject to the conditions it considers appropriate as stated in the order.4 [4] The respondent was born on 7 December 1955. His criminal history commenced with a conviction on 4 January 1974 for drug related offences and he thereafter built up a criminal history largely involving public order and traffic offences until the offences which give rise to this application. [5] The respondent is currently serving a cumulative term of 13 years and 9 months imprisonment for offences including rape, attempted rape, indecent dealing with a child under the age of 16, indecent assault and sodomy. He is due for release from custody on 16 June 2006 although, subject to s 83 of the Corrective Services Act 2000, he could be released earlier, as early as 2 June 2006. [6] The respondent is suffering from a personality disorder with narcissistic and anti social traits which is dealt with in detail in the reports from the examining psychiatrists and the other evidence. [7] There is a high risk of his re-offending if he is released into the community without appropriate constraints and support, particularly if he reverts to alcohol or substance abuse or experiences stress at a time when he has access to children, particularly pre pubertal girls in a family situation. That was the pattern of his previous offending behaviour. [8] The evidence does not however support the conclusion that the respondent is a predatory paedophile. The evidence is that he can choose to modify his paedophilic behaviour. [9] The respondent has completed a large number of courses designed to address the issues giving rise to his offending behaviour. His assessment for post-prison community based release indicates that he has completed all the programs the prison service has to offer and has done all he can to address his behaviour by completing those programs. 1 S5(6) of the Act 2 s3 of the Act 3 s13(1)-(4) of the Act 4 s13(5)(b) of the Act -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [10] The psychiatrist who gave evidence assessed the risk of re-offending to be moderate to light (FN Professor Nurcombe reviewed his assessment from moderate to light to moderate as a consequence of accepting that the respondent had given a satisfactory explanation for breach of bail some years ago). [11] There are a number of factors which would reduce the risk of the respondent re- offending if released into the community: • His personality traits were ameliorated during his time in custody by age and his successful participation in various programs and courses. The amelioration by his ageing will continue. • An effective relapse prevention plan, involving lack of opportunity for access to children particularly pre-pubertal girls in a family setting as a parental figure or as a friend. • By minimising his exposure to alcohol and managing his response to stress. These considerations can be accommodated by a supervised conditional release. [12] While in prison the respondent has formed an association with a woman he had met at primary school. The association was renewed while the respondent was in prison. He proposes to pursue developing the relationship on his release. The woman with whom he has taken up the association is supportive of this course and prepared to have him live with her. [13] This part of the respondent’s release into the community needs to be managed with considerable care. On the one hand it would be in his and in the community’s interest that he form a satisfying personal relationship. [14] On the other hand, given his long period of incarceration and his personality traits, this will not be easy for him or the woman. [15] The respondent has high expectations and hopes for the relationship. It will be stressful for him if it fails. That stress would increase the risk of his reverting to alcohol abuse or re-offending. [16] I am satisfied on the evidence that Steven Shane Bickle is a danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 s 13(2)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. [17] I have dealt with the need to manage the respondent moving into a relationship on his release into the community. That is something for the supervising Corrective Services officer, if necessary, acting in the light of appropriate professional advice. [18] The psychiatric evidence supports the conclusion that the respondent’s offences had a quality of imbalance reflecting the disinhibiting effect of alcohol or a response to stress. [19] As I have mentioned the offences were committed in circumstances where the accused had access to pre-pubertal females in a family situation as a parental figure or friend. These situations should be avoided. This can be dealt with by the conditions of his release and an appropriate management plan. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [20] These conclusions were not in contention. The draft supervision order, exhibit 3, was largely accepted as appropriate to deal with the situation. [21] Conditions (p) and (q) should be modified to contain an exception if the respondent is in transit travelling in a motor vehicle or a form of public transport. [22] Condition (o) requires that the respondent not be on the premises of a shopping centre, without reasonable excuse, other than for specified purposes between specified hours on school days. [23] It was generally conceded by the psychiatrists who gave evidence that in the absence of predatory conduct and in the light of the other provisions of the release order this provision may not be strictly necessary. [24] One view put forward was however that the requirement would provide a salutary reminder to the respondent that he was not to resume the offending behaviour. [25] Given the low risk involved and the other conditions of release I do not think the condition is necessary. [26] Condition (aa) requires the respondent to attend any program, course, counselling, therapy or treatment in a group or individual capacity as directed by the supervising corrective services officer in consultation with the treating psychiatrist or psychologist. [27] The respondent accepts the terms of the order in terms of his individual capacity but resists it insofar as it refers to a group. The weight of the evidence and the respondent’s wish not to participate in group sessions strongly supports the view that the group option should remain. [28] Condition (v) of exhibit 3 requires that the respondent refrain from illicit drugs and alcohol during the duration of the order. There is no question that he must abstain from illicit drugs. The position with respect to alcohol is more difficult. [29] The moderate use of alcohol in a social environment may be a useful step into the respondent’s re-integration into the community. The respondent has not however had lawful access to alcohol during the time of his incarceration. The disinhibiting effects of alcohol particularly taken in excess gives rise of a risk of relapse to offending behaviour. The weight of the psychiatric evidence5 makes prohibition the safest option. The condition should remain. [30] Finally it is relevant to note that the respondent has had the support of family members while in prison and their support will continue. That is of course a positive factor. [31] I am satisfied the respondent is a serious risk to the community. I order that he be released into the community on the conditions set out in exhibit 3 modified in accordance with these reasons. 5 Professor Nurcombe pp 16 and 27, Dr Grant pp 24 and 28 and Dr Whitefoot p 9 -- 4 of 4 --