Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cooney

[2017] QSC 291

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Cooney [2017] QSC 291

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
PETER RAYMOND COONEY

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 6776 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2017  (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

JUDGE:

27 November 2017

Atkinson J

ORDERS:

Order as per the annexure 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 – where the respondent is serving a term of imprisonment for sexual offences – where the applicant seeks an order pursuant to s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 that the respondent be released from custody subject to a supervision order – where evidence was given by three psychiatrists – where two of the psychiatrists considered that the respondent should be released subject to a supervision order and one psychiatrist considered that the respondent should be detained in custody – whether the respondent should be detained in custody or released subject to a supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13(5)

COUNSEL:

J Tate for the applicant
K McGree for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
Anderson Fredericks Turner for the respondent

1. This is an application under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”) with regard to Peter Raymond Cooney, who is currently in custody. There is no dispute that Mr Cooney falls within the provisions of the Act. And, indeed, there is no dispute that he satisfies section 13(3) and (4) of the Act; that is, that the evidence justifies a finding that he would be a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under that Act.

2. The real question to be determined in this case is under subsection 13(5) of the Act, that is, whether the court should make a continuing detention order under subparagraph (1) or a supervision order under subparagraph (b). The cases show, and it is consistent with common law presumptions in favour of the liberty of the individual, that if a supervision order is adequate to manage the risk, then a supervision order ought to be preferred to a continuing detention order. However, of course, all of that must take into account the safety of the community, which is a paramount concern of the Act.

3. Both the applicant Attorney-General and the respondent have submitted that a supervision order is adequate to manage the risk posed to the community. 

4. I have had the advantage of a great deal of evidence, including written reports from three psychiatrists, Dr Timmins, Dr Arthur and Dr Harden, each of which has given oral evidence before me which has been useful in determining what decision should be made in this case.  I have determined that a supervision order should be made, and I will briefly give my reasons for doing…