Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Brennan

In the case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Brennan, the respondent, a convicted sexual offender, had been released from custody under a supervision order made pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent had contravened the terms of his supervision order by possessing and using an unapproved gaming console, engaging in sexually harassing behaviour towards staff at a retail store, and having unauthorised contact with a couple and their young children at that store. These contraventions came after a previous contravention of his supervision order by possessing internet-capable devices and accessing a Facebook account to contact his family. The Attorney-General applied for the recission of the respondent’s supervision order or, alternatively, that the respondent be released subject to amended requirements of his existing supervision order. The central issue for the court was whether, despite the respondent’s contraventions, the existing supervision order would continue to ensure the adequate protection of the community.

The court considered the evidence of Dr Brown, who diagnosed the respondent with a full-scale IQ of 71, limited schooling, problems with verbal comprehension and working memory, autistic spectrum disorder traits, antisocial personality disorder, and a tendency to exaggerate his difficulties and claim physical illness or disability as a method of avoidance. The court also considered the respondent’s history of sexual offending against pubescent teenage girls, his poor adaptive functioning, and his resistance to treatment. The court noted that while the present contraventions indicated a higher risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence, this risk had not reached an unacceptable level such that the respondent should be made subject to a continuing detention order. The court was satisfied that the adequate protection of the community against the risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence could be ensured by the conditions of the existing supervision order.

The court ultimately ordered that the respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made on 18 January 2022. The court found that the existing supervision order, with its conditions, would still provide adequate protection to the community despite the respondent’s recent contraventions. The court did not see fit to reciss the supervision order or amend it significantly, opting instead to maintain the current conditions in place.