Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fja

The Attorney-General for the State of Queensland brought proceedings against the respondent, Fja, alleging that he contravened certain conditions of a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The supervision order, issued on 1 December 2020, imposed several conditions on Fja, including a prohibition on ingesting illegal drugs or prescription drugs not prescribed to him. The court was tasked with determining whether Fja had indeed contravened these conditions and, if so, whether the adequate protection of the community could still be ensured by releasing him on supervision.

The key legal issues before the court were whether Fja had contravened the conditions of his supervision order and whether, despite any contravention, the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by releasing him on supervision. The court had to weigh the evidence presented, including expert psychiatric opinions, to determine the risk Fja posed to the community and whether the conditions of his supervision were sufficient to mitigate that risk.

In making its decision, the court found that Fja had indeed contravened the supervision order by ingesting methylamphetamine and the prescription drug Lyrica. However, the court also found that the adequate protection of the community could still be ensured by releasing Fja on supervision. This conclusion was based on several factors, including the absence of any new sexual offences committed by Fja while on supervision, the effectiveness of the supervision order in quickly detecting his consumption of alcohol and other substances, and the significant progress Fja had made since being placed on the continuing detention order. The court accepted the psychiatric evidence that the supervision order would reduce the relevant risk to low-moderate. Therefore, the court favoured the making of a supervision order rather than a continuing detention order.

The court ordered that Fja be released from custody and continue to be subject to the requirements of the supervision order. This decision was based on the finding that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by releasing Fja on supervision despite the contravention of the order.