Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Dunlop
Case
•
[2016] QSC 85
•12 April 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Dunlop [2016] QSC 85
[2016] QSC 85
12 April 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Attorney General for the State of Queensland has applied for a declaration that Dunlop is a dangerous sexual offender. Dunlop was convicted of sexual offences, in concert with her husband, against two female children under the age of 12. The applicant submitted that the danger to the community arose from the risk of Dunlop falling into another relationship where she will act to offend sexually in order to obviate the risk of abandonment by her partner. Dunlop has divorced her husband and has no ongoing contact with him. The applicant submitted that the likelihood of Dunlop reoffending in the next five years in the community would be in the 1-3% range. Dunlop has been undertaking courses while in prison and a psychiatrist opined this should continue when released into the community.
The court was required to decide whether there were reasonable grounds for believing Dunlop was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order. The court was also required to decide whether that threshold was met because it was desirable to ensure that Dunlop be subject to a supervision order and continue with the beneficial programs that protect against the risk of her forming another dysfunctional relationship. The court found that there were no reasonable grounds for believing Dunlop was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order. The court was not satisfied that it was desirable to ensure that Dunlop be subject to a supervision order and continue with the beneficial programs that protect against the risk of her forming another dysfunctional relationship.
The court dismissed the application to set a date for the hearing of an application for an order under division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld).
The court was required to decide whether there were reasonable grounds for believing Dunlop was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order. The court was also required to decide whether that threshold was met because it was desirable to ensure that Dunlop be subject to a supervision order and continue with the beneficial programs that protect against the risk of her forming another dysfunctional relationship. The court found that there were no reasonable grounds for believing Dunlop was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order. The court was not satisfied that it was desirable to ensure that Dunlop be subject to a supervision order and continue with the beneficial programs that protect against the risk of her forming another dysfunctional relationship.
The court dismissed the application to set a date for the hearing of an application for an order under division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Sentencing
-
Dangerous Offenders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
R v Farrenkothen and Farrenkothen; ex parte
[2003] QCA 313
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v SBD
[2010] QSC 104
Attorney General for State of Queensland v Solomon
[2015] QSC 199