Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Doyle

[2010] QSC 207

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Doyle [2010] QSC 207

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Applicant

and

JOHN ALEXANDER DOYLE
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

2454/10

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 June 2010

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent was sentenced in 1987 to 10 years imprisonment for various offences including sexual offences against males under the age of 17 – where the respondent was released on parole in 1992 and where parole was to expire in 1997 – where during a six month period between 1996 and 1997 the respondent committed further offences including 36 offences of supplying a dangerous drug to a minor – where the respondent was sentenced for those offences in 1999 to 12 years and seven months imprisonment – where the respondent’s application for parole was declined in 2009 – where the Attorney-General seeks orders pursuant to s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) for the respondent’s continued detention or release subject to supervision order – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order – whether a supervision order can ensure adequate protection of the community

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant
K Prskalo for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

ANN LYONS J:

1. The Attorney-General seeks orders pursuant to s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act). The Attorney-General seeks orders for the respondent’s continued detention or release subject to supervision orders under the Act.

Background

1. Mr Doyle was born on 27 October 1960 at Gladstone and is presently 49 years of age.  He is currently serving a period of twelve years and seven months imprisonment which includes a term of imprisonment for breaching parole.

1. Mr Doyle’s full-time discharge date is 20 July 2010.

Previous offences of a sexual nature

1. On 20 February 1987 Mr Doyle was sentenced in the Supreme Court at Cairns for the following offences:

-One offence of enter dwelling house with intent and then broke out;

-Seven offences of deprivation of liberty;

-One offence of indecent assault;

-Four offences of break and enter dwelling house with intent in the night-time;

-Three offences of indecent dealing with a boy under the age of seventeen years;

-One offence of enter dwelling house with intent in the night time and then break out;

-Three offences of indecent dealing with a boy under the age of fourteen years; and

-One offence of stealing.

1. Mr Doyle was given a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment by Vasta J who recommended that he be considered for parole after serving four years. The offences involved seven male complainants between ten and twenty years of age. In short, the offences, which occurred in Cairns, consisted of Mr Doyle disguising himself and breaking into the homes of young males in the early hours of the morning, binding the complainants and sexually assaulting them.

1. Mr Doyle was released on parole on 24 July 1992.  The parole order was to expire on 19 February 1997.

The current offences

1. On 17 June 1999 Mr Doyle was sentenced in the Supreme Court at Cairns for the following offences:

-Thirty-six offences of supplying a dangerous drug to a minor;

-One offence of deprivation of liberty;

-One offence of entering a dwelling house and stealing;

-Three offences of permitting place to be used for the commission of a crime;

-One offence of stealing as a servant;

-Three offences of possessing dangerous drugs;

-One offence of common assault;

-One offence of false declaration;

-One offence of fraud; and

-Breach of parole.

1. The offences were committed on various dates between June 1996 and January 1997, approximately four years into Mr Doyle’s parole order (which commenced on 24 July 1992 and expired on 19 February 1997).  On frequent occasions, Mr Doyle supplied cannabis to young teenage boys, aged between fourteen and sixteen years who he had befriended, offering his residence as a place to use for drug smoking

1. In sentencing, Jones J observed that Mr Doyle befriended the boys for personal gratification and for some social support but noted that the conduct was quite predatory and he was seeking opportunities for sexual gratification from the youths.  His Honour considered the offences quite serious and, to the average member of the community, quite revolting.  However, he noted that the offending stemmed from Mr Doyle’s affliction diagnosed by Professor Basil James, who prepared a report at the time of sentence, as a lifelong paraphilia, the essential features of which are “recurrent, intense sexual arousing fantasies, urges and behaviours involving fetishism and the subjection of partners to your control through the use of physical restraint”. 

Drug and alcohol history

1. Mr Doyle started consuming alcohol by the age of eleven and considers that he was a true alcoholic by the age of twenty-two.

1. Mr Doyle has held a number of jobs while incarcerated but his main occupation has been as a cleaner.  He is currently working as a cleaner in the prison hospital which is considered to be a position of trust.

1. While in prison Mr Doyle completed the following programs:

-Cognitive Skills Program (1998 and 2000);

-Substance Abuse Program (2000);

-Substance Abuse Relapse Prevention (2000);

-Getting Started Sex Offenders Program (2005);

-Transitions Program (2009); and

-High Intensity Sexual Offending Program.

1. Mr Doyle was eligible to apply for parole on 17 December 2005 but did not make an application until 24 April 2009.  The application was declined as the Parole Board considered that his mother, with whom he proposed to live, was reluctant to acknowledge his offending which would impact on her ability to actively assist his reintegration into the community.

Experts’ Reports

1. Three expert reports have been prepared.  All the psychiatrists’ reports support the making of a supervision order rather than a detention order.  Those views are set out in their reports and are summarised below.

Report of Professor James, dated 11 October 2009

“Mr John Alexander Doyle is a man aged forty-eight years and eleven months at the time of examination on 01/09/2009.

It is clear that his past behaviours and his self-reported subjective experiences justify a diagnosis of:

●     Complex Paraphilia involving Fetishism, and elements of Paedophilia and of Sexual Sadism.  These disorders appear to have been persistent since the first emergence of sexuality in middle childhood (please see Appendices 7(A) through (D).

Mr Doyle does not have any other formal psychiatric disorder.

Mr Doyle is an intelligent and articulate man, who appears to have been very compliant with a variety of recommendations for therapeutic programmes during the eighteen years he has spent in prison since 1986. 

…

In my opinion it is very unlikely that Mr Doyle will gain any benefit from further treatment within prison; and although I would judge that the risk of recidivism would be high were Mr Doyle to be discharged without further restriction, given what is known of his modus operandi, it appears reasonable to consider that this could be managed in the community by means of an appropriate Supervision Order.

It would be very important for such a Supervision Order to contain provisions to:

-     very markedly restrict his access to young males in the early adolescent age group;

-     absolutely prohibit the use of alcohol, marijuana and other intoxicants;

-     require attendance at an organisation such as Alcoholics Anonymous;

-     require ongoing psychiatric or psychological monitoring;

-     include a requirement for electronic monitoring and night time curfew.

In my opinion this Supervision Order should be in place for at least ten years.”

Report of Dr S Harden, dated 14 May 2010

“At the time of review John DOYLE is a 59-year-old indigenous man who has committed two groups of sexual offences with the second set of offences occurring despite previous attempted therapeutic intervention and monitoring by the probation and parole system.

…

In my opinion he would clearly meet a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse and dependence and Marijuana abuse, both in remission because of incarceration.  He also in my opinion met criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

I suspect that he most likely meets diagnostic criteria for the Paraphilias of paedophilia, fetishism and probably sexual sadism which most likely continue to be present even following treatment in two separate sexual offender programs while incarcerated.

The actuarial and structured professional judgement measures I administered would suggest that his future risk of sexual reoffence is high.  My assessment of this risk is based on the combined clinical and actuarial assessment.  This assessment takes into account all information made available to myself.

Attempts to reduce this risk should take the form of continued close monitoring and continued attempts to address ongoing criminogenic needs via appropriate maintenance treatment with regard to sexual offending and aggressive treatment of his alcohol and substance use as well as attention to support in the critical areas of vocation and relationships.

It is my opinion based on the current information that I have available that his risk of sexual reoffence would be unacceptably high if he were to be released from custody without further monitoring or intervention.

High level compulsory supervision and treatment consistent with a supervision order being made might reduce his risk to some extent but he would remain at a moderately high risk of recidivism.

This is despite the fact that he appears to making a genuine attempt to reduce his risk and better understand his behaviour and has a glowing outcome report from the sex offenders program.  This motivation and participation alone does not reduce his actuarial risk given the high level of his other risk factors and his poor compliance with supervision in the community previously.

This man appears to genuinely want to not offend again, however in order to succeed at this in the community he is going to have to live an extremely disciplined and virtually monastic existence as in my opinion it is extremely unlikely that his deviant sexual arousal is going to change and he will need to continue to struggle against it for the rest of his life.

Recommendations

I would respectfully recommend that he be monitored in the community by means of a supervision order if he were to be released from detention.  I would recommend that this order be in place for a minimum period of 10 years and preferably for longer if he were to be released.

I would recommend that he continue to be required to be abstinent from alcohol and drug use and undergo an appropriate random testing regime.

I would recommend that if he were released into the community that he participate in a group and individual maintenance program for sex offender treatment.

I would recommend that he be involved in group and individual maintenance therapy regarding substance abuse in the community.

He must on no account have any significant contact with males under the age of 18 years.”

Report of Dr J Sundin, dated 30 March 2010

“Since this most recent period of incarceration, he has made a significant advance in that he reports developing the capacity for more open and honest adult interpersonal relationships in which he feels better able to express himself and less required to hide his history and fantasies.  It is of a serious concern, however, that he has attached himself and now strongly identifies with a religious faith, which views his homosexuality as repugnant and unacceptable.  This creates the environment in which once again Mr Doyle is at risk for feeling low self-esteem, perceiving himself as humiliated and rejected, and once again sliding back into acting out his sexual fantasies in order to achieve a sense of control and personal efficacy.
…

Section E: Recommendations

Given the length of time and the breadth of Mr Doyle’s sexual offending history and the ongoing persistence of his sexually deviant fantasies, I consider that he is a person of risk of committing a future serious sexual offence if released from custody without a supervision order being made.  I consider that he has made sufficient gains in the Indigenous High Intensity Sexual Offenders Programme, to be able to be safely supervised within the community, under a supervision order which requires him to participate in a Sexual Offenders Maintenance Programme, attend a psychiatrist/clinical psychologist for individual counselling and psychotherapy, abstain from alcohol, abstain from licit and illicit substances which have a disinhibiting action, abstain from any activity which leaves him exposed to unsupervised access to young males under the age of 18.

I consider that given the persistence of Mr Doyle’s sexual acting out behaviour that any supervision order should be in place for a period of 15 years.

As is evident from my report, I remain deeply cautious as to his ongoing emotional/spiritual identification with a religious group that rejects homosexuality, as I consider that therein lies the potential seeds for Mr Doyle to feel rejected and slide back into recidivistic behaviour into the future.  This will need to be very carefully monitored by his Corrective Services Officer.”

Statutory scheme

1. Section 13 of the Act provides that the Court may decide a prisoner poses a serious danger to the community only if satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify the decision.

1. A prisoner is a serious danger to the community if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody; or if released from custody without a supervision order being made.

1. A ‘serious sexual offence’ is an offence of a sexual nature, whether committed in Queensland or outside Queensland, involving violence or committed against children.

1. Section 13(4) of the Act provides a list of factors to which the Court must have regard when deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community. These include:

-reports prepared by psychiatrists under s 11 and the extent of prisoner co-operation during the examination;

-other medical, psychiatric, psychological assessments relating to the prisoner;

-information indicating whether or not there is a propensity on the part of the prisoner to commit serious sexual offences in the future;

-the pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the prisoner;

-efforts by the prisoner to address the cause or causes of the offending behaviour and his participation in rehabilitation programs;

-whether or not the prisoner’s participation in rehabilitation programs has had a positive effect on him or her;

-the prisoner’s antecedents and criminal history;

-the risk of the prisoner committing another serious sexual offence if released into the community;

-the need to protect members of the community from that risk;

-any other relevant matter.

Is a Continuing detention Order Required?

1. It is clear that the offences for which Mr Doyle has been sentenced represent bold predatory and premeditated conduct targeting vulnerable youthful victims.  The psychiatric evidence indicates that Mr Doyle has a longstanding paraphilia which requires ongoing treatment and monitoring if he is to safely transition into the community.

1. All three psychiatrists who have assessed Mr Doyle and provided risk assessment reports for these proceedings assess him as having a high risk of sexually re-offending if no order were to be made.  All three are also of the opinion that the level of risk could be adequately addressed if a supervision order were to be imposed.

1. Counsel for the respondent in her submissions conceded that there is acceptable and cogent evidence of sufficient weight which would satisfy the Court that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order. Counsel submits however that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by a supervision order.

1. On the psychiatric evidence available, I am satisfied that a supervision order would be the appropriate order to adequately protect the community from the level of risk of sexually re-offending presented by Mr Doyle.

Duration of the Order

1. In relation to duration of a supervision order the psychiatrists express the following views in their reports - Dr Sundin recommends that the order should be for a period of 15 years; Dr Harden recommends a minimum period of 10 years while Professor James recommends at least 10 years.  Given the seriousness of the offending conduct and Mr Doyle’s diagnosis of Complex Paraphilia involving Fetishism, and elements of Paedophilia and of Sexual Sadism I consider that the term of the Supervision Order should be 15 years to ensure the adequate protection of the community.  I note in particular Dr Sundin’s view that an order of this duration is essentially required because of the duration of Mr Doyle’s fetishes which commenced in childhood.  Dr Sundin considers that they are “enduring paraphilias” and that this means that considerable caution should be exercised.  This view was endorsed by Dr Harden who indicated that he had “longstanding and persistent behaviours.” 

The conditions of the Supervision Order

1. In terms of what conditions should be imposed in the Supervision Order I agree with the submissions of Counsel for Mr Doyle that the discretionary conditions under s16(2) should be no more onerous than necessary to ensure the adequate protection of the community.  Considerable work has been put in by both Counsel in ensuring that the conditions imposed are appropriate and a draft Supervision Order[1] has been submitted which contains 48 conditions which are designed to address the risk.  Five of the draft conditions are subject to a dispute namely conditions 37 (xxvii), 40 (xl), 41 (xli), 42 (xlii) and 45 (xlv).  Ms Prskalo for Mr Doyle argues that these conditions are either not necessary or they place Mr Doyle at risk of inadvertently breaching his order.  It is also argued that the absence of those conditions would not increase the risk of re-offending.

   [1]Exhibit 1.

1. Condition 37 (xxxvii) requires that Mr Doyle not visit public parks without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer.  At the hearing the views of the three psychiatrists were obtained in relation to this condition and all considered that such a condition was appropriate given Mr Doyle’s history of offending against young males.  Given the condition does not prevent Mr Doyle going to parks but rather he gets permission before he goes I consider that the condition is appropriate given that it is well known that young men congregate in parks. As Dr Sundin noted a requirement  that he obtain permission acts as a ‘gate’ or an ‘inhibitor’ to him reverting to ‘grooming’ behaviour.  Condition 37 (xxxvii) should therefore be in the terms as set out in Exhibit 1.

1. Condition 40 (xl) requires that Mr Doyle not collect or retain any material that contains images of children and dispose of such material if directed to do so by a corrective services officer.  The concern of Counsel for the respondent is that this condition covers material which Mr Doyle would commonly have in his possession including a broad range of newspapers magazines and Mr Doyle would be in danger of inadvertently breaching this condition.  Counsel submitted that the condition should simply require that Mr Doyle should dispose of such material if directed by a corrective services officer.  Whilst conceding that the condition was onerous both Professor James and Dr Harden considered that it was important that the onus was on Mr Doyle to dispose if such images and that the decision to dispose of such images was something Mr Doyle was in control of.  Dr Harden considered that it was important to “err on the side of safety.”  Given Mr Doyle’s longstanding fetishes and the uncertainty as to the triggers I consider that such a condition should be imposed. Whilst it may be difficult to determine when something has been retained such that it constitutes a breach it is clear that the breach would clearly occur if the direction to dispose of is not complied with. I consider that a common sense approach will prevail and the condition will clearly require Mr Doyle not to retain such material and such retention would be proved if the direction is not followed.  I consider therefore that condition 40 (xl) should be in the terms set out in Exhibit 1.

1. Condition 41(xli) requires that Mr Doyle not associate or have contact with any one convicted of a sexual offence against children.  All the psychiatrists considered that that was an appropriate condition and would not leave Mr Doyle isolated.    It is clear that Mr Doyle does have good social skills and that he does have the support of his church community which is a good social network for him.  Given the nature of his offending it is clear that it is not helpful for Mr Doyle to associate with other offenders and may in fact increase the risk of offending.

1. Condition 42(xlii) requires Mr Doyle to obtain the approval of a corrective services officer before accessing a computer or the internet.  Given the extent to which computers are an everyday necessity I consider it would be unduly onerous for Mr Doyle to advise in advance very time he wished to use a computer or access the internet.  I consider it should be accepted that he will be accessing his computer and the internet.  The adequate protection of the community is ensured by the conditions in current conditions 43 (xliii), 44 (xliv) and 45 (xlvi) which require that he supply any password and permit access to each computer or device he uses, that he not access pornographic images of children and that he allows any device to be randomly examined.  He should however, notify the authorised Corrective Services officer of any use of a computer or the internet.

1. I consider that given Mr Doyle’s past history he should obtain permission from an officer before he possesses any equipment that enables him to take photographs.  I do not consider that such a restriction would be unduly restrictive and once again is important to ensure Mr Doyle does not relapse into grooming behaviour.

1. Accordingly, I consider all the contested conditions are required except for condition 42(xlii), which is to be reworded to indicate that Mr Doyle must advise of any use of a computer or the internet.

1. Accordingly, there will be a supervision order, pursuant to s 13(5)(b) of the Act, in the terms set out in Schedule A to this judgment.

Schedule

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

The Court, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, John Alexander Doyle, 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 released from custody on 20 July 2010 and be subject to the following requirements until 20 July 2025, or further order of the Court:

The respondent must:

1. be under the supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for the duration of the order;

2. report to an authorised Corrective Services officer at the Queensland Corrective Services Probation and Parole Office closest to his place of residence between 9am and 4pm on the day of release from custody and at that time advise the officer of the respondent’s current name and address;

3. report to, and receive visits from, an authorised Corrective Services officer at such times and at such frequency as determined by Queensland Corrective Services;

4. notify and obtain the approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer for every change of the respondent’s name at least two business days before the change occurs;

5. comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction;

6. seek permission and obtain approval from an authorised Corrective Services officer prior to entering into an employment agreement or engaging in volunteer work or paid or unpaid employment;

7. notify an authorised Corrective Services officer of the nature of his employment, or offers of employment, the hours of work each day, the name of his employer and the address of the premises where he is or will be employed at least two days prior to commencement or any change;

8. reside at a place within the State of Queensland as approved by an authorised Corrective Services officer by way of a suitability assessment;

9. seek permission and obtain the approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer prior to any change of residence;

10. if this accommodation is of a temporary or contingency nature, reasonable efforts must be demonstrated to secure alternative, viable long term accommodation to be assessed for suitability by Queensland Corrective Services;

11. whilst housed at any contingency or temporary accommodation you must comply with any regulations or rules in place at this accommodation;

12. not reside at a place by way of short term accommodation including overnight stays without the permission of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

13. not leave or stay out of Queensland without the written permission of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

14. not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order;

15. not commit an indictable offence during the period of the order;

16. not commit an offence involving unlawful entry onto a residential property during the period of this order;

17. comply with every reasonable direction of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

18. respond truthfully to inquiries by an authorised Corrective Services officer about his whereabouts and movements generally;

19. not have any direct or indirect contact with a victim of his sexual offences;

20. disclose to an authorised Corrective Services officer upon request the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information from an authorised Corrective Services officer about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior offending behaviour;

21. notify an authorised Corrective Services officer of the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle owned by or generally driven by him, whether hired or otherwise obtained for his use;

22. submit to and discuss with an authorised Corrective Services officer a schedule of his planned and proposed activities on a weekly basis or as otherwise directed;

23. if directed by an authorised Corrective Services officer, make complete disclosure of the terms of this supervision order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by an authorised Corrective Services officer who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred;

24. abstain from the consumption of alcohol for the duration of this order;

25. abstain from illicit drugs for the duration of this order;

26. submit to any form of drug and alcohol testing including both random urinalysis and breath testing as directed by an authorised Corrective Services officer;

27. disclose to an authorised Corrective Services officer all prescription and over the counter medication that he obtains;

28. not visit premises licensed to supply or serve alcohol, without the prior written permission of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

29. attend upon and submit to assessment, treatment, and/or medical testing by a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional as directed by an authorised Corrective Services officer at a frequency and duration which shall be recommended by the treating intervention specialist;

30. permit any medical, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional to disclose details of treatment, intervention and opinions relating to level of risk of re-offending and compliance with this order to Queensland Corrective Services if such a request is made for the purposes of updating or amending the supervision order and/or ensuring compliance with this order;

31. attend any program, course, psychologist, social worker or counsellor, in a group or individual capacity, as directed by an authorised Corrective Services officer in consultation with treating medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioners where appropriate;

32. not establish or maintain any supervised or unsupervised contact with male children under 18 years of age except with prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer.  The respondent is required to fully disclose the terms of the order and nature of offences to the guardians and caregivers of the children before any such contact can take place; Queensland Corrective Services may disclose information pertaining to the offender to guardians or caregivers and external agencies (i.e. Department of Communities (Child Safety Services)) in the interests of ensuring the safety of the children;

33. not undertake any care of children without the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

34. advise an authorised Corrective Services officer of any repeated contact with a parent of a male child under the age of 18.  The respondent shall if directed by an authorised Corrective Services officer make complete disclosure of the terms of this supervision order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by an authorised Corrective Services officer who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred;

35. not without reasonable excuse be within 100 metres of schools or child care centres without the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

36. not visit or attend on the premises of any establishment where there is a dedicated children’s play area or child minding area without the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

37. not visit public parks without the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

xxxviiinot be on the premises of any shopping centre, without reasonable excuse, between 8am to 9.30am and between 2.30pm and 4.30pm on school days other than for the purpose of:-

a.       approved employment

b.       attending an approved bona fide pre-arranged appointment with a Government agency, medical practitioner or the like without the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

1. not join, affiliate with, attend on the premises of or attend at the activities carried on by any club or organisation in respect of which there are reasonable grounds for believing there is either child membership or child participation without the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

2. not collect or retain any material that contains images of children, and dispose of such material if directed to do so by an authorised Corrective Services officer;

3. not knowingly associate or have any contact with anyone convicted of a sexual offence against children, except for incidental contact with others during the course of fulfilling order requirements;

4. notify the authorised Corrective Services officer of his use of a computer or any other device;

5. supply to an authorised Corrective Services officer any password or other access code known to him to permit access to such computer or other device or content accessible through such computer or other device;

6. not access pornographic images that display photographs or images of children on a computer or on the internet or in any other format;

7. obtain the prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer before possessing any equipment that enables him to take photographs or record moving images;

8. allow any device where the internet is accessible to be randomly examined using a data exploitation tool to extract digital information or any other recognised forensic examination process;

9. allow any other device including a telephone or camera to be randomly examined.  If applicable, account details and/or telephone bills are to be provided upon request of an authorised Corrective Services officer;

10. advise an authorised Corrective Services officer of the make, model and phone number of any mobile telephone owned, possessed or regularly utilised by the Respondent within 24 hours of connection or commencement of use and includes reporting any changes to mobile telephone details.