Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo - [2018] QSC 131

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2018] QSC 131

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
ADAM JOHN COBBO

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 282 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2018, ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2018

JUDGE:

Bowskill J

ORDER:

Supervision order made, as per the schedule to these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – application for review of a continuing detention order first made on 11 July 2014 – where a significant factor contributing to the respondent’s continued detention has been his refusal to undertake a sexual offender treatment program in custody – where there is evidence that requiring the respondent to continue to be detained for that purpose has the potential to be counter-therapeutic – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by a supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

B Mumford for the applicant

L C Falcongreen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the respondent

This is a review of the continuing detention order made in relation to Mr Adam Cobbo. The order was first made on 11 July 2014 by Daubney J: see Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2014] QSC 150. It was continued by order of Burns J made on 13 June 2016: see Attorney-General (Queensland) v Cobbo [2016] QSC 156. It was continued again by order of Brown J made on 12 June 2017, for oral reasons given on that day.

Mr Cobbo has been in custody since late 2006 serving a sentence for offences including rape and unlawful carnal knowledge, of which he was convicted in August 2008. The factual context of these offences is summarised in the reasons of Daubney J at paragraphs [8] to [12]. Relevantly, at the time Mr Cobbo was aged 19. The female victim of the offences was 13 years of age at the time of the unlawful carnal knowledge offence, and 14 years of age at the time of the rape offence.

Mr Cobbo has at all times and continues to maintain his innocence of these sexual offences. On the basis of the psychiatrists’ reports of what Mr Cobbo has told them he does not dispute the factual circumstances of the offences, but says that he did not know that the girl was 13 and also that the sexual contact between them was consensual. For that reason, whilst in custody he has refused to participate in any sex offender rehabilitation programs. That has been a significant factor, but not the only factor, in the Court’s consideration of the original application by the Attorney-General for a continuing detention order and the subsequent confirmation of that order. For example, at the time of the review by Burns…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

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

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2018] QSC 131
Case: [2018] QSC 131
Decision Date: 28 May 2018, ex tempore

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, who sought a review of a continuing detention order made in relation to a respondent, Cobbo. The primary issue in this case was whether the detention of the respondent, who had refused to participate in a sexual offender treatment program in custody, could be justified. A significant factor contributing to his continued detention was his refusal to engage in the treatment program, which was considered essential for his rehabilitation and the protection of the community. The court was required to determine whether the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by a supervision order instead of continued detention.

The court considered the evidence that requiring the respondent to remain detained for the purpose of compelling his participation in the treatment program might be counter-therapeutic. It was acknowledged that the respondent's refusal to engage in the treatment program was a significant factor in his detention. However, the court had to weigh this against the potential risks that his continued detention might pose if he were to be compelled to participate in the treatment. The court also had to determine whether the community could be adequately protected through a supervision order, which would allow for the respondent to be monitored and supported in a less restrictive environment.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that a supervision order would be sufficient to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The court found that continuing to detain the respondent solely to compel his participation in the treatment program was not in his best interests and might be counter-therapeutic. The court recognised that the respondent's refusal to engage in the treatment program was a significant factor in his detention but determined that this could be addressed through a supervision order. The court was satisfied that the respondent could be adequately supervised and supported in a less restrictive environment, thereby ensuring the protection of the community while also promoting the respondent's rehabilitation.

The court made a supervision order, as detailed in the schedule to the reasons. This order aimed to provide the necessary support and monitoring to the respondent while allowing him the opportunity to engage in the treatment program on a voluntary basis. The supervision order included conditions designed to ensure the respondent's compliance with treatment and to protect the community. The court's decision reflects a balanced approach that considers the respondent's rights and the need to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Supervision order made, as per the schedule to these reasons.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2018] QSC 131
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v ADAM JOHN COBBO (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 282 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2018, ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 May 2018
JUDGE:	Bowskill J
ORDER:	Supervision order made, as per the schedule to these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – application for review of a continuing detention order first made on 11 July 2014 – where a significant factor contributing to the respondent’s continued detention has been his refusal to undertake a sexual offender treatment program in custody – where there is evidence that requiring the respondent to continue to be detained for that purpose has the potential to be counter-therapeutic – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by a supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)
COUNSEL:	B Mumford for the applicant L C Falcongreen for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant Fisher Dore Lawyers for the respondent