A-G (Qld) v Sybenga

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G (Qld) v Sybenga [2010] QSC 348

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
DANIEL PHILIP SYBENGA
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS1206/08

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 September 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 – 2, 15 September 2010

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Order that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made by Martin J on 19 June 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING
ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING
TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR
DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS
SEXUAL OFFENDER – where the respondent was ordered to be detained in custody for an indefinite period under s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – where the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland seeks an annual review of the continuing detention order – where the parents of the respondent are willing to supervise the respondent as an alternative to his detention in custody – whether the respondent should remain subject to the continuing detention order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13

COUNSEL:

T A Ryan for the applicant

M A Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

[1]      This is an annual review under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 of the respondent, Mr Sybenga’s, continuing detention order made by Martin J on 19 June 2009[1] and confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2009.[2]  The main factual differences between the evidence considered by Martin J and the Court of Appeal and that before me are that the respondent is now back in prison rather than in the Wacol precinct and more emphasis has been placed for him on the possibility of his being supervised by his 63 and 69 year old parents as an alternative to his continued incarceration. 

[1]A-G (Qld) v Sybenga [2009] QSC 161.

[2]A-G (Qld) v Sybenga [2009] QCA 382.

[2]      He and his parents gave evidence about that possibility.  Otherwise the respondent has continued to refuse to participate in the treatment programs recommended for him and to express worrying attitudes about his attitude to sexual relations with very young girls, even in the evidence he gave under cross-examination.  The diagnoses of the psychiatrists remain similar to those they expressed earlier, that he poses a serious danger to the community if released, even with a supervision order, because of the high risk that he would offend again.  Dr Beech said, however, that, although his preference in terms of clinical therapy would be that the respondent undergo a high intensity sexual offender program, any therapy would be better than his sitting in prison and not receiving any therapeutic benefit from custody.[3] 

[3]See T1-36 ll 39-44.

[3]      That and other evidence laid the basis for the submissions by Mr Green for the respondent that the supervision offered by his parents provided a sufficient…