Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Guy

In this case, the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland brought an application against Guy, who has been subject to a continuing detention order since March 2017 due to his status as a dangerous sexual offender. The central issue was whether Guy should continue to be held under a continuing detention order, given his high care needs and the absence of suitable accommodation outside of prison. The case raised questions about the availability of adequate community support and accommodation for individuals with such high care needs, and whether these factors could mitigate the risk of Guy reoffending.

The court had to determine whether Guy still posed an unacceptable risk to the community, despite his participation in sexual offender treatment programs while in custody. The court noted that Guy lacked insight into his offending, had low intelligence, and struggled to cope outside of an institutionalised setting. Although his unmodified risk of sexual offending was moderate or below, the lack of community support and suitable accommodation meant that this risk could not be reasonably managed. The court also highlighted that Corrective Services had not developed any form of accommodation suitable for individuals like Guy, further complicating the situation.

The court concluded that Guy's high care needs and lack of community support meant that he continued to present an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence in the absence of a supervision order. Given these circumstances, the court affirmed the decision made on 27 March 2017 that Guy is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The court ordered that Guy continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on that date.

ORDERS:
1. The decision made on 27 March 2017, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed.
2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 27 March 2017.