Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Dooley

In the matter of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Dooley, the court was tasked with determining whether the respondent, a prisoner due for release, poses a serious danger to the community and whether a risk assessment should be conducted under section 8 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent, who has a significant criminal history including convictions for sexual offences, opposes the application for the assessment and subsequent Division 3 orders that would require him to undergo treatment before his release. The court must assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent, without such orders, would pose a serious danger to the community.

The central legal issue was whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent, who is due for release, would pose a serious danger to the community if not subjected to a risk assessment and potential Division 3 orders. The court had to weigh the respondent’s criminal history, the nature of his offences, his behaviour during incarceration, and his participation in rehabilitation programs against the likelihood of future dangerous conduct. The court also considered the respondent’s denial of risk and his opposition to the application.

The court concluded that the respondent’s criminal history, particularly his sexual offences, and his behaviour in custody, including breaches for drug use and inappropriate conduct, provided sufficient grounds to believe that he poses a serious danger to the community. The court found that the respondent’s denial of risk and opposition to the application did not outweigh the evidence of his past conduct and the potential for reoffending. Consequently, the court ordered that a risk assessment be conducted, and that the respondent be subject to a Division 3 order pending the outcome of that assessment.

The court’s orders included a direction for the respondent to undergo a risk assessment to determine if he should be subject to a Division 3 order. The orders also provided for the respondent to be detained until the assessment is completed and a decision is made regarding the imposition of the Division 3 order.