Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon

In the case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon, the respondent, who had previously been convicted of serious sexual offences in 1978 and 1989, was the subject of an application by the Attorney-General for a further supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. The respondent had been subject to and complied with a supervision order for five years and had been subject to various orders for detention and supervision for the past 15 years. At the time of the application, the respondent was 70 years of age and had not been convicted of any criminal offences for the past 30 years. The primary basis of the application was that the respondent presented an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence due to the potentially stressful and destabilising effect on him of trying to find independent accommodation absent a supervision order, and dealing with media scrutiny and attendant community vigilantism as a result of his notoriety.

The court was required to determine whether the Attorney-General had established, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a further supervision order. The court considered the evidence of three psychiatrists who were of the opinion that even in the face of stressful circumstances, the risk of the respondent sexually reoffending was low. The psychiatrists took into account the respondent’s age, objective data supporting the significant reduction in risks of reoffending by sexual offenders over the age of 65, the 30 years that had passed since his last sexual offence, his compliance with a supervision order for the last five years, the significant lessening of the respondent’s anti-social and psychopathic personality traits, his demonstrated abstinence from alcohol and drugs for many years, the absence of evidence of a sexual paraphilia, and the absence of evidence of ongoing sexual preoccupation.

The court was satisfied, on the evidence, to the requisite degree of probability, that the respondent was not a serious danger to the community in the absence of a further supervision order. The court accepted the opinion of the psychiatrists that the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending was low, and that the respondent’s age, period of abstinence from substance misuse, and other factors significantly reduced his risk of recidivism. The court also noted the respondent’s compliance with a supervision order for five years, and his positive and sustained engagement with his treating psychologist. The application for a further supervision order was dismissed.

The court made an order for non-publication of this decision for a period of seven days to be made.