A-G for the State of Qld v Gray - [2016] QSC 141

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G for the State of Qld v Gray [2016] QSC 141

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
MAXWELL EDWARD GRAY

(respondent )

FILE NO/S:

BS No 7877 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 June 2016

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Maxwell Edward Gray, has contravened requirements of the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010 ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent, Maxwell Edward Gray, be released from custody on 6 July 2016 and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010, with the following additional requirements:

   (xxxviii): comply with any reasonable direction under s16B of the Act given to the respondent; and

   (xxxix): not have any direct or indirect contact with either or both of the two persons named as aggrieved persons in the Protection Order made pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 on 6 January 2016;

2. The requirements of the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010 be amended as follows:

a. amend requirement (xiii) and insert the following underline words to read:

     “Comply with every reasonable direction of an authorised Corrective Services Officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of this Order”.

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 applicant makes an application for relief pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent has contravened a supervision order – whether the supervision order should be rescinded and a continuing detention order made or whether the adequate protection of the community can be insured with amendments to existing supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003

COUNSEL:

B H P Mumford for the applicant

C Morgan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

This application

On 2 December 2010 the respondent was placed on a Supervision Order pursuant to the provisions of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) by Peter Lyons J. The duration of that order was until 16 January 2021.
The respondent has breached that Supervision Order on a number of occasions by taking illicit drugs and breaching condition (xxiii) of the Order. He has been the subject of Contravention Proceeding on 23 November 2011, 22 October 2012, 7 April 2014 and 29 September 2014.
On 29 September 2014 the Court was satisfied that the respondent had breached Condition (xxiii) of that order which required that he abstain from illicit drugs for the term of the order when he tested positive for the presence of cannabis in his system on four occasions…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A-G for the State of Qld v Gray

Details

AGLC: A-G for the State of Qld v Gray [2016] QSC 141
Case: [2016] QSC 141
Decision Date: 20 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Maxwell Edward Gray, who had contravened a supervision order imposed under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The Attorney-General sought to rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order. Gray sought to convince the court that adequate protection of the community could be insured by the existing supervision order or with amendments to it. The court was tasked with determining whether Gray had contravened the supervision order and if the adequate protection of the community could be insured by the existing order or with amendments to it.

The court found that Gray had indeed contravened the supervision order. The law required the court to rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order, unless Gray could demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community could be insured by the existing order or with amendments to it. The court considered the psychiatrists' reports and the fact that this was the sixth time Gray had been subject to a contravention proceeding. While the psychiatrists found the contravention concerning due to the threatening conduct involved, they also noted that it did not result in a return to sexual reoffending and that the risk of Gray committing a sexual offence involving violence could be managed on the conditions of the supervision order.

The court concluded that Gray had satisfied the onus on him to establish that the adequate protection of the community could be insured by the existing order with appropriate amendments. The court decided to impose two additional conditions on Gray's supervision order: complying with any reasonable direction under s16B of the Act given to him and not having any direct or indirect contact with the aggrieved persons in the Protection Order made under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 on 6 January 2016. Additionally, the court amended the supervision order to require Gray to comply with every reasonable direction of an authorised Corrective Services Officer that was not directly inconsistent with a requirement of the order.

The court ordered that Gray be released from custody on 6 July 2016 and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice P Lyons on 2 December 2010, with the additional requirements. The court also ordered that the requirements of the supervision order be amended as specified.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Maxwell Edward Gray, has contravened requirements of the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010 ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent, Maxwell Edward Gray, be released from custody on 6 July 2016 and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010, with the following additional requirements:

(xxxviii): comply with any reasonable direction under s16B of the Act given to the respondent; and

(xxxix): not have any direct or indirect contact with either or both of the two persons named as aggrieved persons in the Protection Order made pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 on 6 January 2016;

2. The requirements of the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010 be amended as follows:

a. amend requirement (xiii) and insert the following underline words to read:

“Comply with every reasonable direction of an authorised Corrective Services Officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of this Order”.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Dr Madsen also recommends neuropsychological testing to clarify the nature and extent of his cognitive difficulties.Conclusion I am satisfied, as I have previously indicated, that Mr Gray has contravened the supervision order. As s 22 of the Act provides, in the circumstances the court must rescind a supervision order and make a continuing detention order unless the respondent can satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can be insured by the existing order or with amendments to the existing order. I note that this is the sixth time that the respondent has been subject to a contravention proceeding. It is clear however that the earlier contraventions involved the use of intoxicants, particularly the use of marijuana. I endorse the concerns of the reporting psychiatrists that this contravention is quite concerning and serious because it involved threatening conduct over a protracted period. It is clear however as both psychiatrists have noted that the present contravention did not result in a return to sexual reoffending. Both the psychiatrists consider that the risk that the respondent will commit a sexual offence involving violence can be managed on the conditions in the supervision order. I am satisfied that the respondent has satisfied the onus on him to establish that, on the balance of probabilities, the adequate protection of the community can be insured by the existing order with appropriate amendments. I consider that there should be two additional conditions:(xxxviii): comply with any reasonable direction under s16B of the Act given to the respondent; and (xxxix): not have any direct or indirect contact with either or both of the two persons named as aggrieved persons in the protection order made pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, on 6 January 2016. I also consider that the requirements of the supervision order made by Justice P Lyons on 2 December 2010 should be amended at condition (xv) and that the words underlined should be inserted. “Comply with every reasonable direction of an authorised corrective Services Officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of this Order.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	A-G for the State of Qld v Gray [2016] QSC 141
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v MAXWELL EDWARD GRAY (respondent )
FILE NO/S:	BS No 7877 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 June 2016
JUDGE:	Ann Lyons J
ORDER:	THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Maxwell Edward Gray, has contravened requirements of the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010 ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent, Maxwell Edward Gray, be released from custody on 6 July 2016 and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010, with the following additional requirements: (xxxviii): comply with any reasonable direction under s16B of the Act given to the respondent; and (xxxix): not have any direct or indirect contact with either or both of the two persons named as aggrieved persons in the Protection Order made pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 on 6 January 2016; 2. The requirements of the supervision order made by Justice P. Lyons on 2 December 2010 be amended as follows: a. amend requirement (xiii) and insert the following underline words to read: “Comply with every reasonable direction of an authorised Corrective Services Officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of this Order”.
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 applicant makes an application for relief pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent has contravened a supervision order – whether the supervision order should be rescinded and a continuing detention order made or whether the adequate protection of the community can be insured with amendments to existing supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003
COUNSEL:	B H P Mumford for the applicant C Morgan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent