Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin

[2023] QSC 17

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2023] QSC 17

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
PAUL MARK GRIFFIN

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 1674 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

6 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2023

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDER:

The respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Applegarth J on 9 July 2018.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent was released from custody pursuant to a supervision order under s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent was returned to custody after breaching the supervision order – where the respondent was released from custody subject to the continued supervision order – where the respondent since pleaded guilty to breaching the supervision order – whether an order should be made rescinding the supervision order pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – whether an order should be made amending the supervision order pursuant to s 22(7) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – whether the protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by the respondent being returned to the existing supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 22

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant

G Churchill for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

1. This is an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland in respect of the respondent, Paul Mark Griffin.

2. Mr Griffin was previously released from custody subject to a supervision order made by Applegarth J on 9 July 2018. That order provided that it would expire on 20 July 2028.

3. Mr Griffin was returned to custody in March 2020 after allegedly breaching the requirement of the supervision order for possession and use of more than one mobile phone, as well as accessing pornography and child exploitation material on that phone.

4. That breach was found to be proved at a hearing before Davis J on 4 September 2020. Davis J ordered that Mr Griffin be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order.

5. This application arises as a result of a further alleged contravention of the supervision order. The application is brought pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (Act) for an order for recission of the supervision order of Applegarth J made on 9 July 2018, and that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite period of care, control or treatment or alternatively, that pursuant to s 22(7) of the Act, the supervision order be amended.

   The statutory scheme

6. The process under s 22 of the Act is a two-part process.

7. The first requirement is that the court make a determination of a contravention of the supervision order. The applicant bears the onus on this first question.

8. The second step is, in the event that a contravention is proved, the discretion then arises for the court to rescind or amend the supervision order as appropriate. On this second stage, the onus shifts to Mr Griffin to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by the supervision order in its existing form or with some amendment.

   Alleged contravention

9. The circumstances of the alleged contravention are that during a meeting with his senior case manager on 21 November 2022, Mr Griffin was informed that the curfew to which he was subject was being reduced to a more restrictive level due to persistent and ongoing deviations from his pre-planned movements in the community. Mr Griffin became angry and left the meeting.

10. Shortly afterwards, Mr Griffin sought to confront his senior case manager as that manager attempted to leave the precinct in his vehicle. During this incident, Mr Griffin kicked the back of the vehicle and threw his mobile phone into the back windscreen causing damage to the vehicle.

11. It is alleged that this contravention contravenes the Wacol Precinct Rules and, consequently, requirement 13 of the supervision order.

12. Following this incident, Mr Griffin’s curfew was reduced to stage 1, being the most restrictive level of curfew. That required him to return to his house immediately. It is alleged that he did not do so but remained outside of his house at the precinct for a period of approximately two hours, and thereby contravened requirement 5 of the supervision order.

13. The next day, during a meeting with the Acting Manager of Operations for the High Risk Offender Management Unit, Mr Griffin is alleged to have said words to the effect that if corrective services did not take him into custody, he would walk off the precinct.

14. The respondent’s submissions accept the contravention as alleged against him. This is consistent with Mr Griffin having pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at Richlands on 25 January 2023 to breaching the supervision order.

15. In the circumstances, I am satisfied to the required standard that Mr Griffin has contravened requirements 5 and 13 in the supervision order.

    Whether to rescind or amend the supervision order

16. In relation to the second step of whether it is appropriate to rescind or amend the supervision order, further psychiatric and psychological evidence was adduced. This is relevant to the consideration of whether I am satisfied that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by Mr Griffin’s return to a supervision order.

17. Pursuant to s 22(2) of the Act, upon being satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Griffin has contravened a requirement of a supervision order, then unless Mr Griffin satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured, the court must, in the case of an existing supervision order, rescind it and make a continuing detention order.

18. As to the relevant psychological evidence, Mind Wise Psychology was engaged by Queensland Corrective Services to provide treatment to Mr Griffin on 27 February 2018. He was initially seen by Michelle Andrews up to May 2019. The respondent was then transferred to Dr Ursula Ortell for treatment and participated in sessions with her from July 2019 and February 2020. Following a period of imprisonment, the respondent participated in 23 sessions with Dr Ortell between 25 September 2020 and 8 November 2022. Dr Ortell provided a progress report dated 7 December 2022 for the purpose of this application. She sets out her clinical observations and mental state examination, summary of treatment and recommendations from page 2, paragraph 5 of her report as follows:[1]

    [1]The numbering of the paragraphs of Dr Ortell’s report are omitted.

    CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS AND MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION

    Mr Griffin presented as cooperative and pleasant. In general, he maintained stable adjustment with respect to affective functioning. He admitted to one incident where he exhibited a verbal outburst towards his case manager and another incident entailing a verbal altercation with another individual residing on the Wacol Precinct in April 2021. With respect to the verbal outburst towards his case manager, he reported feeling frustrated as he had been experiencing problems with receiving passes for pre-planned movements and obtaining approval participating in certain requested recreational activities. With regards to the verbal altercation with another individual residing on the precinct, Mr Griffin reported that this had occurred following the verbal outburst towards his case manager and was in response to this individual laughing at him. Mr Griffin exhibited periodic problems with respect to his behavioural and cognitive functioning (e.g. impulsivity, giving little forethought to decisions, acting without considering alternatives to or consequences of actions) resulting in Mr Griffin receiving multiple contraventions of his Supervision Order. While he demonstrated some poorly considered decisions, he was receptive to assistance with problem solving (e.g. problem identification, generating potential solutions, implementing appropriate solutions).

    There were no indications that Mr Griffin presented with perceptual disturbances such as hallucinations. He denied the presence of suicidal thoughts or violent ideation. There were no problems or incidents with the use of alcohol or illicit substances. Mr Griffin demonstrated problems with sexual self-regulation, namely sexual preoccupation or high sex drive and sex as coping, around October 2020. He disclosed the presence of fleeting urges to access child pornography around December 2020 and the presence of infrequent sexual thoughts regarding female adolescents aged between 13 and 16 years around February 2021. He denied the presence of sexual preoccupation, sex as coping and deviant sexual interests over the past 20 months. Mr Griffin appeared to be of borderline intellectual functioning. He demonstrated a fair understanding or appreciation of the factors and processes that place him at risk for recidivism. He also demonstrated fair abilities with forming and implementing prosocial life plans.

    SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT SESSIONS

    Treatment sessions with Mr Griffin adopted a cognitive and behavioural model approach targeting his dynamic risk factors and criminogenic needs in relation to his risk of sexual violence. Psychological intervention with Mr Griffin was adapted to take into account his learning difficulties and borderline intellectual functioning. In particular, treatment focused on enhancing his general self-regulation skills (e.g. problem solving, perspective taking, recognising chains of behaviour that have led to problems in the past), enhancing sexual self-regulation skills (e.g. effective coping strategies, participating in enjoyable leisure activities, healthy sexual fantasies), enhancing compliance with his Supervision Order requirements (e.g. pre-planned movements) and relapse prevention and self-management. Mr Griffin was noted to actively engage in his treatment sessions and appeared motivated to address the criminogenic factors associated with his risk of sexual violence. He was observed to actively collaborate with the development of strategies to enhance his compliance with respect to pre-planned movements and manage thoughts or urges to access child pornography. He was able to demonstrate periods of stable psychosocial adjustment. It was considered that Mr Griffin’s awareness, understanding and appreciation of the factors and processes that place him at risk for sexual violence improved over the course of treatment.

    RECOMMENDATIONS

    Mr Griffin seems to benefit from and respond to treatment designed to reduce his risk for sexual violence. However, it is apparent that he continues to exhibit problems with respect to general self-regulation and being compliant with his Supervision Order. As such, Mr Griffin would benefit from ongoing intervention targeting his dynamic risk factors and criminogenic needs with respect to:

    ·General self-regulation

    ·Compliance with his Supervision Order requirements

19. In addition to his psychological evidence, a further psychiatric risk assessment was obtained following the contravention. In that respect, Mr Griffin was interviewed by Dr Andrew Aboud, consultant forensic psychiatrist at the Brisbane Correctional Centre for the purpose of preparing a report. That interview occurred on 9 December 2022. Dr Aboud’s report is dated 29 December 2022. Dr Aboud sets out his assessment and opinions in this report as follows:[2]

    [2]Emphasis in original omitted.

    CASE SUMMARY, DIAGNOSTIC ISSUES & CLINICAL FORMULATION

    Paul Griffin is a 36-year-old Caucasian man who is currently housed in Brisbane Correctional Centre, having been returned to custody on 22 November 2022, after residing in the community for just over 2 years subject to a supervision order pursuant to the [Act], due to a breach of his order in the context of an incident at the Wacol Contingency Precinct, when he reacted angrily and violently to having his curfew reduced due to repeated deviations from his pre-planned community movements. When meeting with his case manager on 21 November 2022, and informed that his curfew was being reduced ‘due to persistent and ongoing deviations from his pre-planned movements in the community’, Mr Griffin is said to have become angry and stated, ‘You might as well put me on Stage 1 or in jail, cos I’m done’, and he promptly left the interview. He is said to have stood in the road in front of his case manager’s moving vehicle to block its progress, shouted and gesticulated in a hostile manner at his case manager, kicked at the vehicle and threw his mobile phone at the vehicle causing damage to its rear windscreen. Following this, and a decision to further regress him to Stage 1 curfew, he became angry in the Wacol Reporting Centre office, declared, ‘Come and get me now!’, kicked the door several times and failed to comply with his curfew, remaining outside of his house unauthorized for a period of time (almost 2 hours). The next day, when discussing the prior incident with a senior member of staff, Mr Griffin apologised for kicking the door but stood by his other behaviour, stating, ‘All he had to do was tell me he didn’t wanna talk to me.’ He did not accept that his behaviour was inappropriate, saying, ‘When are you gunna arrest me? It’s in your hands ... either you arrest me or I’ll walk (off the precinct)’. The QCS staff responsible for his management and supervision then made the decision that ‘when considering the adequate protection of the community, and safety the safety of QCS staff members, QCS cannot reasonably and practicably manage Mr Griffin’s risk through application of the supervision order’.

    Mr Griffin had originally been made subject to the supervision order (for a period of 10 years) by Justice Applegarth on 9 July 2018, after serving a [three and a half] year prison sentence for digital rape of an 8-year-old girl, who he had groomed over a period of time, and then offended against when the opportunity arose. At the time of the offence, he had only been back in Queensland for just over a year, having been deported from New Zealand after serving a 5-year prison sentence for a sexual offence against a 6-year-old girl, whom he had attempted to rape with his penis, again after a period of grooming. He has also disclosed other sexual offending involving attempted rape of a 15-year-old girl who was asleep, when he was 16, and indecent sexual contact of a 4-year-old girl, when he was around 19. It would seem that neither of these latter incidents led to police involvement or charges.

    Having been released to the supervision order on 20 July 2018, to reside at the Wacol Contingency Precinct, he was returned to custody just under 2 years later, on 7 March 2020, when he contravened the supervision order by being in possession of child exploitation material (child pornography) and two contraband mobile phone devices, and also driving unlicensed. He pleaded guilty to 5 counts of Contravene a relevant order and 1 count of Unlicensed driving in the Richland Magistrates Court on 17 April 2020 and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment (suspended for 18 months) and 2 years disqualification from driving. He was re-released to the order on 4 September 2020 by Justice Davis.

    Mr Griffin suffered a difficult childhood, being raised by his grandparents, on account of his mother having a brain injury and associated severe cognitive deficits. He was bullied at school due to being intellectually ‘slow’ and having ‘bowlegs’, causing an unusual gait. He left school early, at age 13, and occupied himself at home with his interest in restoring bikes and tinkering with engines. He was lonely and had few, if any, friends. At age 15 or 16 he began smoking cannabis and consuming alcohol. Over the next 2 years he incurred some 15 traffic offences, primarily associated with his desire to drive when he did not hold a license. He migrated to New Zealand with his family in 2005, and while he had ceased smoking cannabis, his alcohol consumption increased to every second day. By now he was feeling sexually frustrated, unable to forge a relationship with an age-appropriate female, on account of his poor social skills and poor interpersonal skills, as well as his chronic low self-esteem. He would frequent shopping centres to ‘watch’ women but did not have the confidence to approach them. He was masturbating regularly. In his mid-teens he had also started entertaining masturbatory fantasies of underage girls, as young as 10 years old, by his self-report. He was attracted to their innocence, and he found them less threatening and anxiety-provoking than adult women. At age 21, he engaged in grooming behaviours of the 6-year-old daughter of a work mate, having ingratiated himself into a position of trust within the family. His sexual offending was the culmination of this grooming, which was closely associated with his emotional congruence towards her and her 10-year-old sister, together with his deviant sexual preoccupation and feelings of sexual frustration. He had been drinking alcohol prior to going to her house, and on finding only a babysitter with the children, used the cover of play and trust, to encourage her to a secluded place in the backyard, where he indecently touched her vagina and attempted to penetrate her with his penis. He pleaded guilty, on 12 September 2008, to one count of Attempt to rape a female under 12. During the 5 years he subsequently spent in prison, he participated in an adapted group sex offender program. When released from prison, in 2013, he was deported back to Australia. In 2014 he again began to groom a female child, this time the 8-year-old granddaughter of his grandfather’s partner. He again engaged in grooming behaviours, having experienced sexual attraction for her when he saw her in a swimsuit at a waterpark. Again, he engaged in frequent masturbatory fantasy, with her as his subject. He offended against her in late 2014, as the opportunity arose when she visited her grandmother, and he secluded her in his bedroom, ostensibly to watch television. He digitally raped her; it would seem in close proximity to her sister. It would appear that alcohol was not a contributing factor on this occasion, but he was again feeling sexually frustrated, angry, lonely and somewhat socially isolated. He has admitted to regularly using child pornography, sometimes viewing it as much as an hour or two at a time and has acknowledged that this also drove his untoward sexual preoccupation.

    In respect of his index offending, Mr Griffin’s custodial term commenced on 21 January 2015. On 13 August 2015, he pleaded guilty to one count of Rape, and was sentenced to 3 ½ years’ imprisonment. While in custody, in 2016, he undertook the recommended group sexual offending programs, namely the Getting Started Preparatory Program and then the Inclusion Sexual Offending Program. He became eligible for parole on 21 April 2016, but his application was not granted. His fulltime release date was set as 20 July 2018. In June 2017 he was assessed by psychiatrist Dr Michael Beech at the request of Crown Law in relation to a possible application pursuant to the [Act]. In early 2018, he was assessed by two other psychiatrists, Dr Andrew Aboud and then Dr Jane Phillips. He has been assessed as suffering from borderline intellectual impairment and an avoidant personality disorder, as well as paedophilia, non-exclusive type, sexually attracted to females. He was subsequently released to a supervision order (for a period of 10 years) on 20 July 2018, following a hearing in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 9 July 2018. While residing in the community, he has been supported by intensive case management and regular attendance by a psychologist, as well as ongoing contact with his grandfather, part-time employment opportunities at a car wrecking yard and receipt of a Disability Support Pension.

    His recent breach behaviour appears to have arisen due to his frustration with his new case manager enforcing rules and consequences for his failure to comply with requirements regarding his whereabouts in the community. After being regressed from Stage 5 to 4 and then to 3 curfew in a short time frame, Mt [sic] Griffin became angry and behaved in an aggressive manner. He also became defeatist in attitude and escalated emotionally driven requests to be breached and reincarcerated. It appears to me that this occurred somewhat impulsively and in the context of heightened emotions on Mr Griffin’s part and reflecting his poor ability to tolerate stress, adaptively cope and problem-solve. At the time of his return to custody, he had quite evidently become unmanageable in the community as he was no longer able to listen to and take reasonable direction and had developed a concerning defeatist mindset. Subsequently, once returned to custody, he has calmed down and has reflected on his behaviour. He is now expressing regret and wishes to apologise to his case manager.

    From a diagnostic perspective, Mr Griffin meets criteria for paedophilia, non-exclusive type, sexually attracted to females. There is evidence that he has harboured deviant sexual thoughts and masturbatory fantasies regarding pubescent and prepubescent girls. While he maintains that these thoughts have diminished, it is likely that they persist. His intellectual difficulties most reasonably can be formulated by way of a diagnosis of borderline intellectual impairment. In addition, it is my view that he suffers from an avoidant personality disorder. Taken together, his intellectual difficulties and personality vulnerabilities, most likely give rise to his social skills and interpersonal communication deficits, low self esteem, poor problem solving and adaptive coping skills. These problems have most likely underpinned his lack of self confidence and anxiety in respect of engaging age-appropriate females and have thus driven his emotional congruence for children and perhaps in turn his deviant sexual interests. His tendency toward avoidant coping, also lends itself to his use of sex as coping and sexual preoccupation as a means of maladaptive emotional management of negative affect, such as when he feels angry, rejected, isolated and sad.

    RISK ASSESSMENT

    I used six instruments to underpin the assessment of reoffending risk: Static-99R, Risk Matrix 2000. S, Risk Matrix 2000/V, PCL-R, HCR-20 and RSVP.

    1.   Static 99R

    This is an actuarial risk assessment instrument used to predict risk of sexual and violent recidivism in adult males, using ten static variables.

    In 2020, I gave Mr Griffin a score of 5, which placed him in the group regarded as moderate-high risk of reoffending. His score is now 4, due to his age being between 35-39.9, placing him in the Above average risk group.

    2.   Risk Matrix 2000/S

    This is an actuarial risk assessment instrument used to predict risk of sexual recidivism in adult males, using seven static variables (broken down into a two-step process).

    I previously gave Mr Griffin a score of 3 for Step 1 with 1 ‘aggravating factor’ for Step 2, which placed him in the group regarded as high risk of reoffending. This evaluation has changed due to his age being above 34, giving him a score of 2 for Step 1 with 1 ‘aggravating factor’, placing him in the medium risk group

    3.   Risk Matrix 2000/V

    This is an actuarial risk assessment instrument used to predict risk of violent recidivism in adult males, using three static variables.

    I previously gave Mr Griffin a score of 2, which placed him in the group regarded as medium risk of reoffending. This evaluation is changed, due to his age being in the 35-44 band, and placing him in the low risk group.

    4.   Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R)

    This is an instrument that measures traits indicating psychopathic personality, with 20 items and a maximum possible score of 40. Higher scores have been shown to be associated with increased risk for offending and reoffending.

    I previously gave Mr Griffin a score of 16/40, which is below the cut-off point for diagnosing psychopathy. This evaluation is unchanged.

    5.   HCR-20

    This instrument uses both static and dynamic variables to structure assessment and assist professional clinical judgement in estimating future general violence risk and how to best manage that risk. It incorporates 10 Historical (static), 5 Clinical (current dynamic) & 5 Risk Management (future dynamic) items and leads to scores ranging from 0 to 40. Professional judgment is then used to place the subject at low, moderate or high risk.

    According to my previous assessment, Mr Griffin scored 14/20 for Historical items, 5/10 for Clinical items and 8/10 for Risk Management items. His overall score was 27/40. I deemed his overall risk to be moderate, with a relative loading for both static and future dynamic risk factors. This evaluation is unchanged, and the profile suggests that his risk would be escalated in the absence of a structured plan for ongoing management, and that it could be reduced by an external framework of monitoring, supervision and control. His future risk of instability post-release requires attention, and pre-release planning is indicated, and particular attention should be placed on the potential for destabilisers and contextual factors which might destabilise him in the future (such as relationship difficulties, loneliness, negative affective states, sexual preoccupation, using sex as a coping mechanism to regulate emotions and manage stressors, contact with female children given his emotional congruence and sexual deviance).

    6.   Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP)

    This is an instrument uses [sic] both static and dynamic variables, that have been specifically demonstrated to be associated with risk of sexual violence, to structure assessment and assist professional clinical judgement in estimating future sexual violence risk and how to best manage that risk. The instrument incorporates 22 items to look at sexual violence history, psychological adjustment, mental disorder, social adjustment and manageability.

    I consider Mr Griffin to have positive scores for the following items:

    ·Chronicity of sexual violence

    ·Psychological coercion of sexual violence

    ·Extreme minimisation or denial of sexual violence

    ·Attitudes that support or condone sexual violence

    ·Problems with self-awareness

    ·Problems with stress or coping

    ·Sexual deviance

    ·Problems with intimate relationships

    ·Problems with non-intimate relationships

    ·Problems with employment

    ·Problems with planning

    ·Problems with treatment

    I consider him to have partial, possible scores for the following items:

    ·Diversity of sexual violence

    ·Physical coercion of sexual violence

    ·Problems with substance use

    ·Non-sexual criminality

    ·Problems with supervision

    Should he reoffend sexually, one would speculate that it would take the form of opportunistic or more likely planned sexual behaviour with a female child. The victim could be prepubescent, and as young as 4 years old, or adolescent, and up to 14 or 15 years old. He will most probably attempt to groom his victim by befriending her and her parents (or carers). He will likely engage his victim in a ‘special’ relationship, and play games, in keeping with his strong emotional congruence with children and familiarity with children’s interests. His sexual offending will most likely include attempts to isolate his victim and attempt to indecently touch her vaginal area. He may try to digitally penetrate her. He may try to penetrate her vagina with his penis. His other pathway to reoffending will involve the use of pornographic material depicting underage girls, which he may procure from the internet. While he may manipulate his victim and engage in psychological coercion, it is highly unlikely that he would resort to physical force or threat of violence or other retribution. High risk scenarios will include times when he is feeling lonely or experiencing negative affective states due to psychosocial stressors. He may use sexual behaviour to regulate emotions and may become sexually preoccupied. This will be fueled by use of child pornography over the internet or otherwise. The main driver of his risk, however, is likely to be that of contact (especially if unsupervised) with a potential victim. This contact will lead to preoccupation and masturbatory fantasy and attempts to increase access. This relates to his underlying sexually deviant drive.

    OVERALL RISK LEVEL & RECOMMENDATIONS

    Paul Griffin has a range of vulnerability factors associated with future offending. He is impulsive, somewhat avoidant and sexually deviant, with a strong paedophile drive. He has previously tended to cope with psychosocial stressors by becoming sexually preoccupied. He has demonstrated a deep-seated emotional congruence with children and enjoys their company and their interests. He has developed infatuations with female children who he has had close contact with, and he has used grooming behaviours (of both the child and their parents) to further that contact. He appears to have previously used sexual behaviour as a means with which to cope with emotional difficulties, negative affect, and stress, and also in the context of paraphilic urge in respect of masturbatory behaviour associated with fantasy regarding female children with whom he has become familiar. This has been further driven by his use of child pornography. He has been more vulnerable to offending when experiencing relationship and sexual frustration, feeling lonely and isolated, experiencing low self-regard, and especially when he has access to potential female child victims. He has participated in adapted sexual offender treatment programs in custody in both New Zealand (2012) and Queensland (2016). He reoffended in 2014, following deportation from New Zealand, and after participating in his first treatment program. More recently, he breached conditions of his supervision order, by acquiring contraband mobile phone devices and using them to access pornography, including, it would seem, child exploitation material. It appears that in the latter part of 2019, and likely until the time of his return to custody in March 2020, he was possibly becoming more sexually preoccupied.

    Having been re-released in 2020, he again breached his supervision order in November 2022, when he escalated to anger and poor behavioural control, when frustrated at his curfew being regressed due to not complying with conditions that he should not deviate from his prearranged and agreed travel. At this time, he became so emotionally uncontrolled that staff considered he could no longer be safely managed in the community due to likely non-adherence to their direction.

    Taking into consideration the various actuarial and dynamic assessments of future violence and sexual violence risk that have been applied, it is my view that Mr Griffin’s current unmodified risk would be moderate to high in respect of sexual reoffending. If he was released into the community without any supervision, monitoring or support, I would be concerned that he would be vulnerable to encountering high risk situations, such as those associated with his experiences of psychosocial problems (such as intimate and non-intimate relationship difficulties, loneliness and isolation, interpersonal conflict, financial hardship) which cause negative affect or any contact with female children living in his vicinity. In my opinion, the supervision, monitoring and supportive measures available under the provisions of a supervision order would reduce his risk of sexual reoffending to between moderate and low.

    If he was released to the community, management considerations would include: re-engagement with a psychologist (with emphasis on motivational work in respect of compliance with conditions/requirements of the order, while continuing to address sexual deviance, problem solving, maladaptive coping, avoidant coping, intimacy deficits, low self esteem, management of negative affective states, emotional congruence with children); possible assessment by a private psychiatrist, with a view to considering the benefits of antilibidinal hormonal medication; assistance to develop a social support network and to re-establish useful employment. It will be important to ensure appropriate accommodation, curfew arrangements, abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances, and no access to public places or public transport at times when there is a high likelihood of the presence of young girls (ie school children). However, given his history, it would be important that he should have no unsupervised access to children into the future. Also, given his previous history of escalating sexual preoccupation in the context of using child pornography, he should have no unmonitored access to the internet.

    It is my recommendation that if Mr Griffin was re-released to the community, his supervision order would not need to be subject to an unamended supervision order.

1. I was initially puzzled by the use of the word “unamended” in the final sentence of the extract set out above. However, Ms Maloney, who appeared for the applicant confirmed that issue had been raised with Dr Aboud who had confirmed that what he intended to convey by that final sentence was that no amendment was required to the existing supervision order in order to reduce the risk of further sexual offending to the level he refers to in his report.

2. The psychiatric and psychological evidence supports the conclusion that Mr Griffin’s risk of sexual recidivism can be appropriately managed by the existing supervision order.

3. Importantly, despite the current contraventions, there is no evidence that Mr Griffin, on this occasion, has engaged in any offence of a sexual nature or any further use of the internet to access child exploitation material since his rerelease under the supervision order pursuant to the order of Davis J. In that respect, the supervision order has been successful thus far in managing the risk of Mr Griffin committing further serious sexual offences whilst in the community.

4. The applicant’s submissions accept it is open to the court to be satisfied on the evidence that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by the respondent returning to the existing supervision order.

   Conclusion

5. I am satisfied, to the necessary level of satisfaction, that on the evidence the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by Mr Griffin’s return to the existing supervision order.

6. The order I made on 6 February 2023 is that the respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Applegarth J on 9 July 2018.