Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo

[2014] QSC 150

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cobbo [2014] QSC 150

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

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 July 2014

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

The Court, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Adam John Cobbo is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, orders that:

1.   The respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.

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 applicant seeks a Division 3 order under the Dangerous Prisoner (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the court may order a continuing detention order or a supervision order pursuant to s 13(5) - whether a supervision order would ensure the adequate protection of the community pursuant to s 13(6) of the Dangerous Prisoner (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13, s16

Fardon v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46, cited

Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, cited

COUNSEL:

B H Mumford for the applicant
J Fenton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Fisher Dore for the respondent

1. This is an application by the Attorney-General for a Division 3 order to be made pursuant to s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”).

1. The applicant contends that:

(a)the Court should be satisfied to a high degree of probability, by acceptable, cogent evidence, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order; and

(b)On the evidence, and having regard to s 13(4) and s 13(6) of the Act, the Court ought conclude that adequate protection of the community cannot be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order, and that a continuing detention order should be made.

1. It was argued for the respondent that:

(a)the evidence was not such as to be acceptable cogent evidence, to a high degree of probability, justifying a conclusion that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order;

(b)alternatively there is no reason to believe that a supervision order will not be effective to manage any risk, the respondent having deposed that he will abide by any supervision order. 

1. The following summary of the respondent’s background, his criminal history, the circumstances of the index sexual offences, his drug and alcohol history, the background of events during his time in prison and his limited participation in programs…