Attorney-General for the State of Qld v Valence - [2012] QSC 310

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Qld v Valence [2012] QSC 310

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
KERRY PATRICK VALENCE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 2941/09

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

9 October 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 October 2012

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act, the court affirms the decision made by White J on 13 August 2009 and affirmed by Mullins J on 8 September 2010 and Dick AJ on 10 October 2011.

2. The court orders that the respondent, continue to be subject to a continuing detention order.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – OTHER – SEXUAL OFFENDERS – where application for periodic review of a continuing detention order under s 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – whether the respondent remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – whether the respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order

COUNSEL:

J M Horton for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf, via video link

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf, via video link

The Application

This is an application brought by the Attorney-General for a periodic review of a continuing detention order under s 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act).

The respondent was first made subject to the Act when, by order of White J on 13 August 2009, he was held to be a danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order and detained for control, care or treatment (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Valence [2009] QSC 255).

Subsequently that order has been twice affirmed, and continuing detention orders made, namely by Mullins J on 8 September 2010 ([2010] QSC 335) and by Dick AJ on 10 October 2011 ([2011] QSC 304).

The applicant seeks the following orders:

(a)pursuant to ss 30(1) and (2) of the Act, the Court affirm the decision of Dick AJ made on 10 October 2011 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order; and
(b)pursuant to s 30(3) of the Act, the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order.

Section 30 of the Act provides:

“Review hearing
(1)This section applies if, on the hearing of a review under section 27 or 28 and having regard to the required matters, the court affirms a decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.
(2)On the hearing of the review, the court may affirm the decision only if it is satisfied—
(a)by acceptable, cogent evidence; and
(b)to a high degree of probability;
that the evidence is of sufficient weight to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Attorney-General for the State of Qld v Valence

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General for the State of Qld v Valence [2012] QSC 310
Case: [2012] QSC 310
Decision Date: 9 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland against Valence, concerning the periodic review of a continuing detention order under section 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether Valence still represented a significant threat to the community, thus justifying the continuation of his detention under a Division 3 order. This involved an assessment of Valence's risk profile and any changes in his condition since the last review.

The court evaluated the evidence presented, including expert psychiatric assessments and the respondent's own statements. It examined whether Valence's risk of reoffending remained high and if his detention was necessary to protect public safety. The court found that Valence continued to pose a serious danger to the community, based on his history of sexual offences and the assessments provided by the experts. The evidence indicated that Valence had not made sufficient progress in his rehabilitation and remained a significant risk if released.

In light of the findings, the court upheld the previous decisions made by White J, Mullins J, and Dick AJ, affirming the need for Valence's continued detention. The court was satisfied that the respondent's risk to the community had not diminished, and therefore, the continuing detention order was appropriate. The final order was that Valence would remain subject to the continuing detention order, ensuring his continued confinement as a measure of public protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act, the court affirms the decision made by White J on 13 August 2009 and affirmed by Mullins J on 8 September 2010 and Dick AJ on 10 October 2011.

2. The court orders that the respondent, continue to be subject to a continuing detention order.

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.

CITATION:	Attorney-General for the State of Qld v Valence [2012] QSC 310
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v KERRY PATRICK VALENCE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 2941/09
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	9 October 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 October 2012
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	1. Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act, the court affirms the decision made by White J on 13 August 2009 and affirmed by Mullins J on 8 September 2010 and Dick AJ on 10 October 2011. 2. The court orders that the respondent, continue to be subject to a continuing detention order.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – OTHER – SEXUAL OFFENDERS – where application for periodic review of a continuing detention order under s 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – whether the respondent remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – whether the respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order
COUNSEL:	J M Horton for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf, via video link
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf, via video link