Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Beattie

[2010] QSC 217

[2010] QSC 217

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ATKINSON J

No 4963 of 2006

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND	Applicant
and
KEITH ALBERT BEATTIE	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/06/2010

ORDER

HER HONOUR: This is the annual review of the detention of Keith Albert Beattie who has been the subject of the detention under a continuing detention order made pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act). Part 3 of the Act provides for annual reviews of the detention of a person in Mr Beattie's position.

As I recently observed in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn, such review is of course both desirable and necessary because of the constraints that ought to be placed on detaining a person who has completed his sentence of imprisonment for offences committed in the past.  I refer particularly to the decision of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in communication 1629 of 2007 which expressed the view that continuing detention under the Act was in breach of article 9, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that "everyone has the right to liberty and security as a person.  No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.  No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." 

While the decision of the committee is not binding on this court or on other Australian courts, it serves to emphasise the respect for human rights that ought be applied by this court when giving effect to the Act. 

Mr Beattie, as I have said, has previously been the subject of orders first made in 2006 for his detention under the Act.  That decision was affirmed in April 2009.  However, Mr Beattie, who is now 68 years old, has made a remarkable and in all the circumstances impressive effort to change his situation.  He has been assisted in that by receiving individual psychological treatment which was necessary because of the difficulties that he as an individual faced in the group therapy which is usually offered to prisoners in his situation and which is generally regarded as the best therapeutic model.  However, because of his own experiences as a child it was not suitable for Mr Beattie.

Fortunately, he received treatment from a psychologist in custody with whom he was able to establish rapport and trust and building on that he has developed a relapse prevention plan which is thorough and sophisticated and shows insight into his own situation.  As a result of that, and their own examination of the respondent, both Dr Barry Nurcombe and Professor Basil James have come to the conclusion that the risk that he, the respondent, presents to the community of reoffending is low and can now be adequately managed by a supervised release order. 

Under section 30 of the Act I may affirm the decision to maintain the detention order only if I'm satisfied by acceptable cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision.  I am satisfied that in the absence of any supervision order the respondent would represent an unacceptable risk to the community; but I am not satisfied that the respondent needs to continue to be subject to a continuing detention order because of that risk. 

In doing so, I am guided by the paramount consideration under the Act which is the need to ensure an adequate protection of the community.  With the onerous conditions in place which have been carefully explained to Mr Beattie by those representing him and which have been developed in consultation with the psychiatrists who have examined him, I am satisfied that I should order that Mr Beattie be released from custody subject to the supervision order in terms as discussed.  I will not read those terms into the record but initial the draft order which I will place with the file which will be the order of the court. 

-----