A-G (Qld) v Lawrence

Case [2011] QCA 347

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G (Qld) v Lawrence [2011] QCA 347

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
v
MARK RICHARD LAWRENCE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9609 of 2011
SC No 7468 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2011

JUDGES:

Muir, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal be allowed.

2.   The order of Peter Lyons J at first instance be set aside.

3. The decision of Fryberg J that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) be affirmed.

4.   The respondent continues to be subject to the continuing detention order made by Fryberg J.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – GENERALLY –where the primary judge rescinded the respondent’s continuing detention order and made a supervision order against him – where a psychiatrist gave evidence that the respondent’s statements concerning his mental condition were unreliable – where there was other psychiatric evidence that the respondent would be at a high risk of re-offending upon release if his condition was presently dormant – whether the primary judge erred in accepting the respondent’s statements concerning his condition – whether the exercise of the primary judge’s discretion under s 30(4) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) miscarried in failing to take into account the qualified nature of the other psychiatric evidence – whether the primary judge sufficiently balanced the extent of the risk of the respondent re-offending with the serious consequences brought about should the risk materialise – whether a supervision order would ensure adequate protection of the community

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), Div 3, s 13(5), s 27, s 29, s 30, s 43

A-G (Qld) v Beattie[2007] QCA 96, considered
A-G (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, cited
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; [1993] HCA 78, considered
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, considered
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited

COUNSEL:

P J Davis SC, with J Rolls, for the appellant
P E Smith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

  1. MUIR JA:  Introduction On 3 October 2008, Fryberg J ordered that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control under s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”). The first review of the respondent’s continuing detention order, pursuant to s 27 of the Act, resulted in an order…

Continue reading A-G (Qld) v Lawrence

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
A-G (Qld) v Lawrence [2011] QCA 347
Case
[2011] QCA 347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the Attorney-General of Queensland and a respondent, Lawrence, who was under a continuing detention order due to his status as a dangerous sexual offender. The primary judge, Peter Lyons J, had rescinded the continuing detention order and replaced it with a supervision order. The Attorney-General contested this decision, arguing that the primary judge had erred in accepting the respondent’s statements regarding his mental condition without considering other psychiatric evidence that suggested a high risk of re-offending if his condition was dormant. The central legal issues were whether the primary judge correctly assessed the reliability of the respondent’s statements and whether the judge properly exercised his discretion under section 30(4) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) by not adequately considering the qualified psychiatric evidence and balancing the risks against community protection.

The court found that the primary judge had indeed erred in accepting the respondent’s statements uncritically. There was conflicting psychiatric evidence, and the judge should have considered the qualified nature of the evidence suggesting a high risk of re-offending. The primary judge’s exercise of discretion was also flawed as it failed to sufficiently balance the risk of re-offending against the serious consequences that could result if the risk materialised. The court held that the primary judge did not adequately consider whether a supervision order would provide sufficient protection for the community, given the high-risk nature of the respondent.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order made by Peter Lyons J was set aside, and the decision of Fryberg J affirming the respondent’s status as a serious danger to the community was affirmed. The court reinstated the continuing detention order made by Fryberg J, emphasising the need to ensure adequate protection of the community from the respondent’s potential to re-offend.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The order of Peter Lyons J at first instance be set aside.

3. The decision of Fryberg J that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) be affirmed.

4. The respondent continues to be subject to the continuing detention order made by Fryberg J.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.