Attorney-General for the State of Qld v Evans

The case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Evans involved the application by the Attorney-General for a detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to Glen Stewart Evans. The central issue was whether Evans posed a serious danger to the community and thus warranted indefinite detention under the provisions of the Act. The court had to determine if Evans, who was due for release from his current sentence on 12 December 2008, was likely to re-offend if not subject to continued detention. The assessment of the risk posed by Evans was based on expert opinions regarding his psychological condition and likelihood of re-offending without proper treatment and supervision.

The court examined the evidence from several experts who diagnosed Evans with varying degrees of risk and recommended specific treatments to mitigate these risks. Professor Basil James identified Evans as a non-exclusive paedophile, noting a need for intimacy rather than sexual gratification as the motive behind his crimes. He recommended completing a Sexual Offenders Treatment Programme (SOTP) and being subject to a supervision order post-release. Professor Barry Nurcombe and Dr Margaret Lawrence also highlighted the chronic risk of re-offending without adequate treatment, particularly if Evans had contact with female children. Their testimonies collectively supported the necessity for Evans to undergo a SOTP and be subject to strict post-release conditions.

In light of the expert evidence and the concession by Evans' counsel that without completing a SOTP, the risk of re-offending was too great, the court found sufficient grounds to order Evans' indefinite detention. The court noted that the Act included detailed procedures for such decisions, which should not be circumvented. Therefore, the court ordered Evans' detention under section 13(5)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), ensuring he would receive the necessary treatment and remain under supervision to mitigate the risk he posed to the community.

The court's order confirmed the serious danger posed by Evans and mandated his indefinite detention for control, care, or treatment. This decision was based on the substantial evidence presented by the experts and the clear risk of re-offending without appropriate measures. The order ensures that Evans will undergo the recommended treatment and be subject to stringent supervision upon his release, safeguarding the community from potential future offences.