Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Allwood

[2009] QSC 296

[2009] QSC 296

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ATKINSON J

No 1750 of 2009

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND	Applicant
and
MICHAEL ALLWOOD	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/09/2009

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: This is an application by the Attorney-General under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act for the continuing detention or supervision of a person who falls within a particular class of offender. The purpose of the continuing orders over such an offender is the protection of the public.

Orders have been already fashioned as proposed by the applicant modified, very helpfully, by respondent's counsel and are in a form which is satisfactory to the Court and those will be the orders that will be made.

It should be said that the giving of these reasons serves a number of purposes.  One is to explain publicly why the order has been made.  The second reason is to explain to the respondent who will be the subject of the orders why the order has been made and the form of the order.

Because of the logistics of releasing the respondent from prison yesterday (it should be noted that he is past his
full-time release date) it was necessary to make the order and therefore give the reasons today.  As a result, I did not require Mr Allwood to attend today so that his release from prison could be done in an orderly fashion this morning from the prison where he is currently an inmate.

The respondent suffers from an intellectual disability and I doubt that the giving of reasons in the formal words which are used in the Court would have explained much to him.  I did endeavour to explain to him yesterday in words and concepts that he might understand that the orders wee being made, why they were being made and the sorts of orders and conditions that were being made in his case.

I'm not confident, given his intellectual deficits,that he did completely understand what I said to him and that will need to be reinforced by a full discussion of the conditions imposed upon him with his supervising corrective services officer.

The statutory scheme for prisoners who fall within the definition of those prisoners covered by the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) is to establish a scheme for the continued detention in custody or supervised release of prisoners who are deemed to be at risk of committing serious sexual offences if released whether at all or if released without appropriate supervision.

As I previously said, the primary purpose of the orders made under the Act are the protection of the public and that is, of course, a very important aim, particularly when the members of the public who need most protection are those vulnerable members who are children.

However, it's also important to note that an offender who has completed his or her term of imprisonment would otherwise be entitled to be released and the order made should be no more onerous than is required to protect members of the community from the risk posed by the respondent.

No order can be made unless the Court is satisfied that the respondent would be a serious danger to the community unless subject to an order.  I am so satisfied, indeed, counsel on behalf of the respondent conceded that I should be in his submissions.  That matter is not really controversial in this case.

What was of more concern was whether or not conditions could be set so that the risk to the public could be met by a supervision order rather than by continuing detention.  I have had regard to all of the matters set out in section 13 in coming to the view that the respondent would be a serious danger to the community unless a supervision order or a continuing detention order were made and in endeavouring to fashion the conditions which would mean that a continuing supervision order was adequate to deal with the risk.

I have been greatly assisted by the material filed in this matter and also by oral evidence given by two psychiatrists, Dr Beech and Dr James.  Both of them expressed the view that with adequate conditions a supervision order would adequately manage and guard against the risk that would otherwise apply to the community.

In particular, Dr Beech referred to the need for continuing supervision of the respondent, suitable accommodation, employment, participation in an ongoing sex offenders' program and, unusually, the taking of sexual suppressant medication.  Dr James agreed.

The only area of slight disagreement between them was whether or not the respondent had the intellectual capacity to internalise the need to change his behaviour and, therefore, learn from an ongoing sex offenders' program. 

Dr James was more optimistic than Dr Beech that he had that capacity and referred to the reasons why he had that view. 
Whether or not Dr James was too optimistic remains to be seen, but it is nevertheless important that the respondent undertake an ongoing sex offenders' program to help to manage his sexual urges.

So far as the other matters are concerned accommodation has been found for the respondent which has many advantages.  It is a privately owned supported accommodation facility with 60 bedrooms.  It is an accredited residential service tailored to accommodate individuals who require low to medium levels of support.  The residence provides all meals and does the washing and cleaning of the residence.  All residents must be in receipt of a Centrelink Disability Support pension and the rent is taken out of that pension leaving the residents with some money of their own.

The facility has liaison with various agencies, including Mental Health, Ozcare, Open Minds and Aftercare and a local doctor visits the residents weekly.  Each resident is assigned a case manager who assists with attending appointments.  The facility is locked down from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and closed circuit television cameras are in operation at all times.  No weapons are kept on the premises and alcohol and drugs are prohibited on the premises.

The facility is willing to take the respondent knowing of his situation and houses several vulnerable groups of individuals.  It is some distance from any childcare or school facility.  The only potential problem with the facility is that it is situated in a suburb where of course, as in any suburb, families reside.  It is, therefore, important in this case that extra protection should be offered to that community by ensuring that the respondent uses sexual suppressant medication.  He has done in the past and has had a significant period in his past where he did not offend.

Problems with compliance will be met in at least two ways.  Firstly, within the prison he has been a very compliant inmate, he's not been defiant or someone who was not prepared to follow instruction.  Secondly, he will be in a supported environment under the supervision of a case manager and, of course, a corrective services officer and subject to strict conditions with regard to the taking of medication and the capacity to test him to ensure that his medication is continuing.

He will be in receipt of closer one-on-one counselling than is possible in the group prison situation and Dr James was of the view that that would be particularly useful in helping him to learn to change his behaviour.

Those who have approached this matter are to be commended for the diligence and care they have put into where to place the respondent, what conditions he should live under and in managing the risk to the community.

The respondent, as I said, suffers from quite serious intellectual deficit.  He is in many ways a vulnerable member of the community himself, but his offending makes him a serious risk to children and those children in the community have a right to be protected from offending behaviour.

He is not, however, of the type of vicious predator that one sometimes sees in cases of this kind.  That is not to downplay the risk that he represents, but to put the respondent's offending in context.

He has some family support which will be useful to him in his future.  He has no psychological or psychiatric issues.  So if the conditions which have been put in place are adhered to then there will not be an unacceptable risk, if he is subject to those conditions, that he will commit a serious sexual offence.

Therefore, I am prepared to make an order that he be released subject to that supervision order.  As I've already said, the terms of that have been worked out between counsel for the applicant, counsel for the respondent and myself.  Counsel for the applicant has been in discussion with corrective services officers as to how his release will take place and the ways in which they will assist him initially to ensure that he can do all the things required of him to ensure that he can move to the supervised accommodation and I am grateful to him for telling me that those things would be done and am confident that that will take place. 

Of course, if it does not the supervision order will be bound to fail.  It requires the cooperation obviously of those who take the respondent to his appointments, et cetera, so that the appropriate conditions and medication can be put in place.

I will make the order as per draft, which I will initial and place with the file.

...

-----