Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v. Bridson

[2008] QSC 281

[2008] QSC 281

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

MULLINS J

No BS5452 of 2007

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND	Applicant
and
WALTER FRANK BRIDSON	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/11/2008

ORDER

HER HONOUR:  On 26 October 2007 her Honour Justice White,

pursuant to section 13 subsection (5) paragraph (a) of the

Dangerous Prisoners Sexual Offenders Act 2003 ordered that at

the expiration of the sentences that the respondent was then

serving he be detained in custody for an indefinite period.

I have before me today the Attorney-General's application for

a periodic review of the continuing detention order.  That

application is made pursuant to section 27 subsection (2) of

the Act.

Pursuant to section 29 of the Act the respondent has been

examined by two psychiatrists, Doctors Beech and Sundin, for

the purpose of the application today.

When her Honour gave her reasons on 26 October 2007 for

ordering the respondent be detained in custody for an

indefinite term on the expiration of his imprisonment on

27 November 2007, her Honour observed:  "It is plain from the

many reports that have been prepared about the level of risk

[the respondent] presents to the community and the oral evidence of the three psychiatrists that until Mr Bridson participates in appropriate therapy to address the sexual and violent nature of his offending he is at risk of reoffending in the ways in which he has done in the past."

As a result of the psychiatric evidence that was put before

the Court in relation to the original application and the

decision of her Honour, Mr Bridson participated in a Getting

Started Program for sexual offenders.

He then was transferred to Brisbane to enable him to undertake

the High Intensity Sexual Offending Program.  He has

undertaken that course between 11 February and 28 October

2008.  It involved 102 sessions.

I have been provided with the Exit report from that program.

That report summarises the participation and contribution made

by the respondent to that program and gives some indication of

how the respondent has responded to the program.  The Exit

report also deals with the respondent's future plan.

The material that is before me on this application is very

different to that which was before her Honour Justice White.

In a period of 12 months the respondent has managed to come to

a realisation about himself and the causes of his offending,

which has given the psychiatrists material on which to

moderate their previous opinions about the high risk of

reoffending that he presented.

Before dealing with the opinions in the current reports I need

to refer a little to the respondent's antecedents.  They are

dealt with in detail in her Honour Justice White's reasons,

[2007] QSC 307.

The respondent was born in 1962.  His father appeared to have

an alcohol problem and was violent towards his mother.  His

mother left his father when he was aged seven years.  Her new

partner, however, was violent towards both the respondent's

mother and to the respondent.

The respondent left home at the age of 14 years.  During that

time he commenced abusing both alcohol and cannabis sativa.

He was introduced to sexual relations through group sex with

adults.

His childhood is described as problematic and dysfunctional

and a contributor to the problems that then plagued him as he

entered adulthood.

He committed a number of criminal offences.  Relevantly, he

was dealt with in 1984 for enter dwelling with intent and

assault occasioning bodily harm and was sentenced to four and

a half years' imprisonment.

He then was dealt with in the Supreme Court in Townsville for

rape.  He was sentenced in 1988 to seven years' imprisonment.

He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment in 1996 for

assault occasioning bodily harm.

By this stage his problems with alcohol and substance-abuse

were acute and his inability to form appropriate relationships

with women was apparent.

He did not undertake any programs that enabled him to have

insight into his criminal offending and his offending

escalated.

In 1997 he was convicted of enter dwelling with intent and

attempted indecent assault and was sentenced to five years'

imprisonment.

The details of each of these offences are set out in the

reasons for judgment of her Honour Justice White.

That offences, for which he was dealt with in November 1997,

were committed on 15 July 1997.  After he was convicted he was

then dealt with in June 1999 for offences that he had

committed earlier on 2 July 1997.  They were offences of

entering a dwelling in the night and robbery with violence.

He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment cumulative on the

sentence that was imposed in 1997 and a declaration that he

was convicted in respect of a serious violent offence was

made.  That was why the respondent's full-time discharge date

was not until 27 November 2007.

The respondent had refused to undertake a sexual offender

treatment program during his imprisonment before it was due to

expire in November 2007, hence the conclusion reached by her

Honour Justice White in reliance on the three reports from

psychiatrists that had been prepared in connection with the

application that was made under the Act at that time.

Dr Beech interviewed the respondent again on 4 July 2008.

Because he had done the report for the first application under

the Act involving the respondent, he was in a good position to

make comparisons between the respondent as he presented for

the purpose of the original application and how he presented

for the purpose of the review application.

Although Dr Beech is still guarded in his prognosis, he could

now see the respondent showing some insight into not only his

alcohol and cannabis sativa abuse, but his relationship

problems that contributed to his sexual offending in a violent

way in the past.  Dr Beech has noted in his report that the

respondent has had a positive attitude, and evinces a positive

attitude, to intervention that will assist him in coping on

his release.  Although Dr Beech expresses the opinion that if

the respondent were to be released at present he would still

present in the group at high risk of reoffending unless

certain conditions were placed around him, if the conditions

that Dr Beech recommends are imposed in a supervision order,

Dr Beech has expressed the opinion that the risk of

reoffending would be reduced from a high risk to a moderate

risk.

The conditions that Dr Beech recommends are the completion of

the High Intensity Sexual Offending Programme, which the

respondent has now completed.  Dr Beech suggests that it is

important that the respondent continue in the community with a

Maintenance Sexual Offender Programme.  Dr Beech considers it

is mandatory that the respondent remains abstinent from

alcohol and illicit substances, and that the respondent's

adherence to this condition should be monitored.  Dr Beech

considers that the respondent should participate in a Drug and

Alcohol Relapse Prevention Programme in the community, and

that it would be helpful for him to be assessed for medical

treatment that could assist such a programme.

Dr Beech also considers that the respondent would benefit from

individual psychological support and assistance in making the

transition to community living, and that he will need this

support to help him face a number of challenges on his

release.  The respondent himself recognises some of these

challenges, such as the care he will have to exercise in

contact with his family, because of his understanding now that

some of his family members themselves are abusing alcohol, and

that he cannot allow that to induce him to slip from his

resolve to avoid alcohol at any level.

Dr Sundin reviewed the psychiatric reports that had been

provided before Justice White, and also interviewed the

respondent for three hours on 4 July 2008.  Dr Sundin has

expressed the opinion that the respondent continues to show

features of an anti-social personality disorder, together with

alcohol and cannabis abuse dependence, which has been in full

remission whilst in prison.  These diagnoses had been made in

the earlier psychiatric reports and had not been departed from

by Dr Beech in his updated report.

Dr Sundin notes that the respondent's future in terms of

recidivism looks brighter because of his participation in a

positive way in the Getting Started Preparatory Programme and

the HISOP Programme.  Dr Sundin also supports supervision of

the respondent on conditions similar to those recommended by

Dr Beech.  Dr Sundin undertook formal risk assessment using

the instruments of assessment that had been applied by the

psychiatrists for the purpose of the original application.

These formal risk assessment results confirmed that the

respondent is at a high risk of reoffending, but Dr Sundin's

opinion is also positive in favour of a supervision order in

the light of the proposals for the conditions on which the

respondent could be released under a supervision order.

The respondent has instructed his counsel to concede that he

is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a

Division 3 order.  The respondent accepts that a supervision

order will be necessary to ensure adequate protection of the

community.  Dr Beech recommends that in the light of the

respondent's high risk of reoffending without monitoring in

the short-term, and without the continued observance by the

respondent of the conditions proposed for him as to complete

abstinence from alcohol and cannabis sativa, that a period of

ten years would be appropriate for the supervision order.  The

applicant does not oppose the release of the respondent on the

supervision order that is proposed, after consideration of the

psychiatric evidence.

Even though I have been provided with a form of supervision

order that the Attorney-General and the respondent consider is

appropriate in the light of the evidence that is before the

Court on this review, I am still required to have regard to

the matters prescribed in section 13 subsection 4 of the Act

in deciding whether the respondent is a serious danger to the

community.  The evidence of Doctors Beech and Sundin is

acceptable and cogent and satisfies me to the high degree of

probability that is required under the Act that the

respondent's high risk of sexual reoffending is an

unacceptable risk in terms of section 13 subsection 2 of the

Act.  It is therefore appropriate to affirm the decision that

the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the

absence of a Division 3 order.

I am satisfied, however, in the light of Doctors Beech and

Sundin's reports, and the material that is before me for the

purpose of this periodic review, that adequate protection of

the community can be ensured by the release of the respondent

on the supervision order on the conditions that are proposed,

for a period of ten years.  I am satisfied that the imposition

of the proposed conditions for that period of time, in a

supervision order that applies to the respondent, modifies the

risk of sexual reoffending by the respondent from a high risk

to a moderate to high risk.  I therefore make an order in

terms of the draft, initialled by me and placed with the file.

I should note that the formal order affirms the decision that

the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the

absence of a Division 3 order, and rescinds the continuing

detention order made by her Honour Justice White on 26

October 2007.  That will be order as per amended draft.  The draft order also sets out the conditions to which the respondent will be subject until 13 November 2008.

------