Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo

Case [2020] QSC 206

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2020] QSC 206

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
ADAM JOHN COBBO

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 282 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made 19 June 2020, reasons delivered on 15 July 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2020

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

The respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements of the supervision order of Bowskill J made on 28 May 2018, and to remain subject to those requirements until 28 May 2023.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent contravened the supervision order made on 28 May 2018 under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – where the respondent failed to comply with a reasonable direction of a corrective services officer – where the respondent failed to respond truthfully to enquires by corrective services officers – where the respondent failed to make disclosure to corrective services officers – where the respondent pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to breaching the supervision order – where the breaches were related to acts of domestic violence –– where the respondent has not committed a serious sexual offence while subject to the supervision order – where the evidence of the psychiatrists is that the risk the respondent poses to the community while subject to the existing supervision order is low or moderate – whether the respondent should be released subject to the requirements of the existing supervision order without amendment or extension

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 2, s 3, s 13, s 20, s 21, s 22, s 27, s 30, s 43AA, Schedule 1

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2014] QSC 150, cited
Attorney-General (Queensland) v Cobbo [2016] QSC 156, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2018] QSC 131, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2018] QSC 193, cited
Attorney-General v Fardon [2019] 2 Qd R 487, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Foy [2014] QSC 304, cited
Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, followed
Attorney-General v KAH [2019] 3 Qd R 329, cited
Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, cited
Attorney-General v Phineasa [2013] 1 Qd R 305, followed
Attorney-General (Qld) v Sands [2016] QSC 225, cited
Attorney-General v Van Dessel [2007] 2 Qd R 1, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, cited
Bickle v Attorney-General [2016] 2 Qd R 523, cited

LAB v A-G (Qld) [2011] QCA 230, cited

COUNSEL:

B H Mumford for the applicant

P Rennick (solicitor) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for…

Continue reading Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2020] QSC 206
Case
[2020] QSC 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo, the respondent, a person subject to a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, was alleged to have contravened several conditions of his supervision order, including failing to comply with reasonable directions from corrective services officers and failing to disclose contact with a specified person. The case involved a detailed examination of the respondent's compliance with his supervision order, particularly in relation to domestic violence incidents. The court had to determine whether the respondent should be released subject to the existing supervision order or if modifications were necessary to adequately protect the community.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, specifically sections 20 and 22, which pertain to the release and supervision of dangerous sexual offenders. The court needed to assess the risk posed by the respondent to the community, considering the psychiatric evidence provided, and decide if the existing supervision order was sufficient to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The court also had to consider the respondent's compliance history and the nature of the alleged contraventions.

The court concluded that despite the respondent's breaches of the supervision order, the existing order remained effective in containing the risk he posed to the community. The psychiatric evidence indicated that the respondent's risk of sexual recidivism was moderate, and the supervision order was deemed to be reducing this risk. The court found that the supervision order did not need to be amended or extended, and the respondent could be released back into the community under the existing terms of the supervision order. The court's decision was based on the assessment that the existing supervision order continued to serve its purpose in protecting the community.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be released from custody and be subject to the requirements of the supervision order made on 28 May 2018, to remain in force until 28 May 2023. The court mandated that the respondent not contact the specified person and that this condition be communicated to her. This decision underscores the court's approach to balancing the rights of the offender with the need to protect the community, ensuring that the supervision order remains a viable tool in managing the risk posed by dangerous sexual offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements of the supervision order of Bowskill J made on 28 May 2018, and to remain subject to those requirements until 28 May 2023.

Background

Background to the litigation

It is the practice of the applicant to file an application seeking orders under s 22 of the DPSOA upon an allegation of a contravention of a supervision order. While the filing of an application is not necessary to grant jurisdiction to the Court to make orders,[8] the procedure of filing a formal application was approved as a sensible one by Burns J in Attorney-General (Qld) v Sands.[9] The contraventions alleged here as appear in the application, are:[8]The jurisdiction arises upon the presentation of the prisoner pursuant to the warrant; see ss 20 and 22.[9][2016] QSC 225 at [4].“SUPERVISION ORDER REQUIREMENTSALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CONTRAVENED(7)comply with every reasonable direction of a corrective services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of this order;(16)respond truthfully to enquiries by a corrective services officer about his activities, whereabouts and movements generally; and(17)disclose to a corrective services officer upon request the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information from a corrective services officer about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior offending history.SUPERVISION ORDER REQUIREMENTSALLEGED LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN CONTRAVENED(8)not commit an offence of sexual nature during the period of this order.FACTUAL BASIS OF CONTRAVENTIONBackground:The respondent is an offender subject to a supervision order pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act).On 28 May 2018, Justice Bowskill ordered the respondent be released from custody and be subject to a supervision order under the Act. The supervision order contains 36 requirements to be in force until 28 May 2023.Since the making of the supervision order, the respondent has been found to have contravened the requirements of the supervision order on one occasion by Justice Martin on 25 September 2018. Alleged contraventions:In November 2018, the respondent commenced a relationship with a female, the identity of whom is known to QCS (‘Ms S’), and the respondent remained in the relationship with Ms S for the period from November 2018 to June 2019.Information from QCS indicates that the relationship between the respondent and Ms S was volatile and characterised by behaviours of domestic violence.On 5 April 2019, and as a result of ongoing concerns by QCS with domestic violence, Ms Kylie Fuller, Senior Case Manager of QCS, issued a verbal direction to the respondent to have no contact with Ms S.On 11 April 2019, the respondent was issued a written reasonable direction dated 11 April 2019, in accordance with requirement (7) of the supervision order, namely:-‘You are not permitted to have any contact, either direct or indirect with [Ms S], unless you have prior written approval from an authorised Corrective Services officer. Should [Ms S] attempt to contact you, notify an authorised Corrective Services officer as soon as possible.’On 6 June 2019, a QCS Senior Case Manager observed the respondent and Ms S having contact, which has not been approved by any Corrective Services officer and in breach of the written reasonable direction issued to the respondent on 11 April 2019, and the respondent was accordingly issued a warning for the breach of the written reasonable direction.On 7 August 2019, by way of a closed circuit television (‘CCTV’) footage provided to QCS by Queensland Police Services (‘QPS’), the respondent was identified to have contact with Ms S at Elizabeth Street Bus Stop outside of the Stockland Shopping Centre.On each day, between 7 August 2019 and 9 August 2019, the respondent was questioned and provided the opportunity to disclose his contact with Ms S, in accordance with requirement (18) of the supervision order, and the respondent failed to disclose his contact with Ms S, until the third occasion when he was questioned on 9 August 2019. On 9 September 2019, QCS received information from QPS in relation to respondent’s contact with Ms S on 7 September 2019 at Hotel Allen in Townsville (‘Hotel Allen’), in breach of the written reasonable direction issued to the respondent on 11 April 2019.On 10 September 2019, QPS Detective Senior Constable Kinbacher attended the office of HROMU and advised of CCTV footage which shows that the respondent and Ms S had unapproved contact at the Hotel Allen on 7 September 2019.QCS formed the view that the CCTV footage taken at the Hotel Allen on 7 September 2019 shows the respondent demonstrating aggressive behaviour towards Ms S, including forcefully pulling Ms S towards himself.Further, on 10 September 2019, the respondent was questioned in relation to his movements and associations and provided the opportunity to disclose his contact with Ms S, in accordance with requirement (18) of the supervision order, and the respondent failed to disclose his contact with Ms S on 7 September 2019.”

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The concepts of risk and adequate protection of the community are relevant to the determination of contravention proceedings brought under s 22 of the DPSOA. The psychiatric evidence Doctor Sundin diagnosed the respondent as follows:“Using the classificatory system of the American Psychiatric Association, DSM-V, I consider that Mr Cobbo meets diagnostic criteria for:1.Anti-social Personality Disorder, meets criteria for Psychopathy2.Substance use Disorder - currently in remission on therapeutic replacement programme3.Generalised Anxiety Disorder.” Doctor McVie’s diagnosis was:“Given his history, Mr Cobbo would meet criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. His mistrust of authority figures no doubt contributes to his continuing presentation. He also meets criteria for a polysubstance use disorder.There is no evidence to make any diagnosis of any paraphilia in this man.” As to risk, Dr Sundin opined:“Mr Cobbo is an individual whose general anti-authoritarian attitudes and ongoing perception of himself as the victim of the white judicial system decreases his inclination to be readily compliant with the necessities of his supervision order. Nonetheless, he has made some progress over the last 12 months and appears to have been doing better when in the more positive relationship with his new partner, AD, than when caught up in the volatility of his relationship with SDS.Overall, my impression is that the supervision order is serving its purpose in containing the risk that Mr Cobbo poses to the community. The supervision order is reducing his risk of sexual recidivism to moderate/average.In my opinion, the supervision order does not need to be modified. I recommend that he continue to be engaged with his psychologist, progress through stages as progress is made, and that efforts continue to be made to engage him in a range of pro-social activities such as employment that have the potential to improve his self-esteem and self-confidence.I therefore respectfully recommend to the Court that Mr Cobbo can be released again into the community under the auspices of the existing supervision order.” Doctor McVie’s view of risk was:“I would consider that based on my assessment and the history of his sexual offences, the fact he was aged 19 years at the time of commission of the offences and the lack of any clear evidence of other sexual offending or sexual preoccupation, his risk of re‑offending sexually is low to moderate. The supervision order would reduce his risk to low.His risk of general re-offending and of violent re-offending would be at least moderate.My overall recommendation is that he be returned to his supervision order with strict conditions that he not contact Ms SS and that she be informed of this condition as well.”The position of the respective parties As the contravention was admitted, and therefore proved, the onus fell upon the respondent under s 22(7) of the DPSOA to establish “that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention … of the [supervision order], be ensured by a supervision order …” in its existing or amended terms.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.