Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Currie

In the matter of the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland versus Joel George Currie, the respondent was subject to a supervision order, which he subsequently contravened. The applicant sought an order to rescind the supervision order and a continuing detention order under section 22(2)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The central issue for the court was whether the respondent had satisfied it on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured, despite the contravention or contraventions, and whether the court should rescind the order and make a continuing detention order.

The court considered the evidence presented by the acting manager of the High Risk Offenders Management Unit and the forensic psychologist, Dr Nathan Brooks. The respondent had been breath tested regularly, and there had been no suggestion of alcohol abuse or misuse. The court acknowledged the importance of the respondent's ongoing psychological treatment, which could be arranged if he were detained in custody. The notebooks found in the respondent's possession contained references to pornography, sexualised references, and lists referencing illicit substances and weapons, raising concerns about the adequacy of the supervision order. Dr Brooks' evidence highlighted the respondent's respectful and engaged demeanour during treatment sessions, as well as the respondent's interest in medicinal cannabis to manage his anxiety and intrusive thoughts. Dr Brooks also discussed the need for other strategies to manage the respondent's emotions and the formulation of a relapse prevention plan. The court found that the preparation of the draft relapse prevention plan was a positive step, but it was disjointed and lacked clarity.

The court concluded that the respondent had not satisfied it on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured, despite the contravention or contraventions. The court rescinded the supervision order and ordered the respondent to be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment.