A-G (Qld) v Jackway

[2016] QSC 74

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G (Qld) v Jackway [2016] QSC 74

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
DOUGLAS BRIAN JACKWAY

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 7422 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for periodic review

DELIVERED ON:

7 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2016

JUDGE:

Holmes CJ

ORDER:

1.   The decision of Acting Justice O’Brien made on 28 February 2012 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order is affirmed.

2.   It is ordered that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made by Acting Justice O’Brien.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DELCARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent is detained under a continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the applicant applied for the order to be reaffirmed under section 30 of the Act – where the reporting psychiatrists’ opinion was that the respondent remained given to impulsive behaviour with a risk of absconding, substance abuse and sexual offending – whether the respondent remains a serious danger to the community – whether the respondent should continue to be detained under the Act

COUNSEL:

P Davis QC, with AD Scott for the applicant

JJ Allen QC, with C Morgan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Legal Aid for the respondent

1. The respondent, Mr Jackway, is subject to a continuing detention order made on 28 February 2012 under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and twice continued upon annual reviews under s 30 of the Act.  Mr Jackway accepts that the evidence supports a conclusion that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of the Act.  In light of the evidence as to his history of offending and prison behaviour and the psychiatric opinion from Drs Grant and Beech, that concession is properly made. I will explore that evidence (which I find cogent and accept) in more detail subsequently, but its weight is sufficient to satisfy me to a high degree of probability that the original decision that Mr Jackway is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order should be affirmed.  The real contest is as to whether I should order that Mr Jackway continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or be released from custody under a supervision order.

2. Mr Jackway is 39 years old and has spent most of his adult life in prison.  He has a long history of offences of dishonesty, but the critical offences for present purposes are one of rape committed against a female child in 1991, when he was 14 years old, and a series of offences against a male child committed in 1995, when he was 18 years old.  The latter set…