Attorney General for Queensland v. Francis

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney‑General for Queensland v Francis [2007] QSC 328

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY‑GENERAL FOR QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v

DARREN ANTHONY FRANCIS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 3069 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2, 3, 31 August, 13 September and 30 October 2007

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Order as contained in [39] of these reasons

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – OTHER MATTERS – the respondent was released from custody subject to conditions pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – the respondent committed breaches of some of those requirements – whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if released or if released without a supervision order – whether the requirements of the supervision order ought to be amended

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 11, s 13(5), s 22

COUNSEL:

M Hinson SC, with J Horton, for the applicant

N Cooke QC, with M Rinaudo Lewis, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Qld Sth) Ltd for the respondent

  1. PHILIPPIDES J:  The respondent, Darren Anthony Francis, was convicted of violent sexual offences against two women for which he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment in New South Wales and Queensland.  He was due for release on expiry of the Queensland sentence on 8 May 2004, but was detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) on 13 August 2004 when he was made the subject of a continuing detention order by Byrne J pursuant to s (13)(5)(a).[1]  

  1. On the annual review conducted pursuant to the Act on 21 December 2005, Mackenzie J ordered that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order.[2]  An appeal against that decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal, which set aside the decision of Mackenzie J[3] and on 26 September 2006 made a supervision order under s (13)(5)(b) of the Act, providing that the respondent be released from custody on 28 September 2006 subject to various conditions.[4]  The order provided that, for a period of six years until 28 September 2012, the respondent be subject to 25 conditions.

  1. The respondent was released from custody subject to the supervision order on 28 September 2007 and resided at boarding house accommodation in Fortitude Valley as required by the terms of the supervision order.

  1. The supervision order included the following conditions:

“The respondent must:

…

(xv)not enter into an intimate relationship within 12 months of the commencement of this order;

(xvi)notify the Supervising Corrective Services Officer of all personal relationships entered into by the respondent;

…

(xviii)abstain from illicit drugs for the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney General for Queensland v. Francis and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] QSC 328
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Attorney General for Queensland v. Francis, the court was presented with the task of determining whether the respondent, who had previously been released from custody under a supervision order, posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released or if released without a supervision order. The court was also required to consider whether the requirements of the supervision order should be amended. The respondent had been released pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) and had subsequently breached some of the conditions of his release. The legal issues at hand were whether the risk of reoffending was unacceptable, and if so, whether the terms of the supervision order should be altered.

The court examined the statutory framework and the criteria set out in the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) to assess the risk posed by the respondent. It considered the nature of the previous offences, the likelihood of reoffending, and the impact of any breaches of the supervision order on the respondent’s risk profile. The court also took into account expert evidence and the views of the respondent’s treating professionals. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the respondent continued to pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending and that the requirements of the supervision order needed to be amended to ensure adequate oversight and management of that risk.

The court found that the conditions of the supervision order were not sufficiently stringent to mitigate the risk of reoffending, and it ordered that the supervision order should be amended to include more stringent requirements. The specific changes ordered were detailed in [39] of the court’s reasons, which provided a comprehensive outline of the new conditions that the respondent must adhere to. These orders were made to balance the respondent's rights with the need to protect the public from the risk of serious sexual offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order as contained in [39] of these reasons

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.