Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin - [2020] QSC 285

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2020] QSC 285

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
PAUL MARK GRIFFIN

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 1647 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made on 4 September 2020, reasons delivered on 18 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2020

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

The Court, being satisfied pursuant to section 22(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) that Paul Mark Griffin, the respondent, has contravened requirements 15, 40, 42 and 43 of the supervision order made on 9 July 2018, orders that:

1. The respondent be released from custody and be subject to the supervision order made on 9 July 2018.

2. The hearing date of 21 September 2020 be vacated.

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 contravened the supervision order made on 9 July 2018 under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – where the respondent used an unauthorised mobile phone to view pornographic material, including images containing child exploitation material – where the respondent pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to breaching the supervision order –where the evidence of the psychiatrists is that the risk the respondent poses to the community while subject to the existing supervision order is moderate to low – where the supervision order will operate so as to restrict the respondent’s access to children and to generally restrict his activities in such a way as to significantly lower the risk of sexual reoffending – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the respondent on the existing supervision order – whether the respondent should be released subject to the requirements of the existing supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 20, s 21, s 22, s 43AA

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2018] QSC 193, followed
Attorney-General v Fardon [2019] 2 Qd R 487, cited
Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, cited
Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2018] QSC 157, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Sands [2016] QSC 225, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, cited
LAB v Attorney-General [2011] QCA 230, cited

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant

C Smith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

The respondent has been the subject of a supervision order made by Applegarth J on 9 July 2018 pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA). The applicant alleges that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2020] QSC 285
Case: [2020] QSC 285
Decision Date: 18 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin, the central issue before the court was whether the respondent, who had contravened his supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, could be released back into the community under the existing supervision conditions. The respondent, who had a history of child sexual offences, was subject to a supervision order which, if adhered to, was expected to significantly reduce his risk of sexual reoffending. The court had to determine if, despite the recent contraventions, the adequate protection of the community could still be ensured by the respondent's release under the current supervision order.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the risk posed by the respondent to the community could be deemed moderate to low under the existing supervision conditions, and whether the contraventions negated the effectiveness of the supervision order in protecting the community. The court also had to consider the psychiatric evidence provided by three psychiatrists, who unanimously agreed that the respondent's risk of sexual reoffending would be significantly lower if he adhered to the supervision order. The court was required to balance the respondent's rights with the need to protect the community from potential harm.

The court, after considering the psychiatric evidence and the applicant's concession that the adequate protection of the community could still be assured by the respondent's release under the existing supervision order, decided to release the respondent. The court found that the supervision order, despite the respondent's contraventions, would effectively restrict his access to children and limit his activities to significantly lower the risk of sexual reoffending. Therefore, the court concluded that the adequate protection of the community could indeed be ensured by the respondent's release under the existing supervision conditions.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be released from custody and be subject to the supervision order made on 9 July 2018, and that the hearing date of 21 September 2020 be vacated. This decision highlights the court's focus on both the rights of the individual and the paramount need to protect the community from potential harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court, being satisfied pursuant to section 22(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) that Paul Mark Griffin, the respondent, has contravened requirements 15, 40, 42 and 43 of the supervision order made on 9 July 2018, orders that:

1. The respondent be released from custody and be subject to the supervision order made on 9 July 2018.

2. The hearing date of 21 September 2020 be vacated.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

On 4 September 2020, the matter came before me. I was advised that no witnesses were required for cross-examination, that the parties had agreed on a bundle of documents to be tendered and that the applicant conceded that the respondent had shown that the adequate protection of the community could, despite the contraventions, be assured by his release back on the supervision order without amendment.[7] After consideration, I accepted that concession was properly made and I made the orders.[7]Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 21(7).Psychiatric evidence On the hearing of the original application, Applegarth J received evidence from three psychiatrists, Dr Michael Beech, Dr Jane Phillips and Dr Andrew Aboud. Those doctors opined:(a)Dr Beech: “In my opinion, these fantasies[8] and his own offending indicate that he has Paedophilia, with an attraction to female children.”[9][8]Of sexual activity with children.[9]At [70]. (b)Dr Phillips: “— Mr Griffin meets diagnostic criteria for Pedophilic Disorder (sexually attracted to females). This diagnosis is supported by the convictions for child sexual offences; his admission to sexually deviant fantasies involving children; use of child exploitation materials; results of the Sexual Adjustment Inventory; and previous penile plethysmography.— I have not found evidence to suggest that Mr Griffin meets criteria for any additional paraphilic disorders, in particular there is no evidence of sexual sadism disorder.— Mr Griffin has borderline intellectual functioning. He has a history of learning difficulties; attended special classes; and has limited literacy and numeracy. A WAIS-IV conducted on the 18/02/2016 showed a full scale IQ of 77.— I have found no evidence that Mr Griffin has ever suffered from a mental illness, including no previous episodes of depression, hypomania, mania, psychosis or post- traumatic stress disorder.— There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Griffin has ever suffered from alcohol or illicit substance abuse or dependence.— Mr Griffin does not meet criteria for a diagnosis of a co-morbid personality disorder. In particular he does not present with borderline or anti-social personality disorder, nor does he meet criteria for a diagnosis of psychopathy.”[10](c)Dr Aboud:“From a diagnostic perspective, Mr Griffin meets criteria for paedophilia, nonexclusive type, sexually attracted to females. He appears to have harboured sexually deviant thoughts and masturbatory fantasies regarding pubescent and prepubescent girls. While he claims that these thoughts have diminished, it is likely that they persist as problematically as has been the case throughout his adult life. His intellectual difficulties most reasonably can be formulated by way of a diagnosis of borderline intellectual impairment. Further I am of the view that he also suffers from an avoidant personality disorder.”[11][10]At [71]. [11]At [73]. All three doctors assessed the respondent’s risk of sexual re-offending against children without supervision as high but reduced significantly if on supervision.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2020] QSC 285
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v PAUL MARK GRIFFIN (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS No 1647 of 2018
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Orders made on 4 September 2020, reasons delivered on 18 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 September 2020
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	The Court, being satisfied pursuant to section 22(1) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) that Paul Mark Griffin, the respondent, has contravened requirements 15, 40, 42 and 43 of the supervision order made on 9 July 2018, orders that: 1. The respondent be released from custody and be subject to the supervision order made on 9 July 2018. 2. The hearing date of 21 September 2020 be vacated.
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 contravened the supervision order made on 9 July 2018 under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – where the respondent used an unauthorised mobile phone to view pornographic material, including images containing child exploitation material – where the respondent pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to breaching the supervision order –where the evidence of the psychiatrists is that the risk the respondent poses to the community while subject to the existing supervision order is moderate to low – where the supervision order will operate so as to restrict the respondent’s access to children and to generally restrict his activities in such a way as to significantly lower the risk of sexual reoffending – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the respondent on the existing supervision order – whether the respondent should be released subject to the requirements of the existing supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 20, s 21, s 22, s 43AA Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2018] QSC 193, followed Attorney-General v Fardon [2019] 2 Qd R 487, cited Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, cited Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2018] QSC 157, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Sands [2016] QSC 225, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, cited LAB v Attorney-General [2011] QCA 230, cited
COUNSEL:	M Maloney for the applicant C Smith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent