Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley
[2022] QSC 196
•29 August 2022
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2022] QSC 196
PARTIES:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
KIRK ANDREW HAIDLEY(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BS No 9206 of 2020
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
Orders made: 29 August 2022
Date of Publication of Reasons: 19 September 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
29 August 2022
JUDGE:
Williams J
ORDER:
Date of Orders: 29 August 2022
1. Pursuant to s 30(1) of the DPSO Act, the decision made on 10 December 2020 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, be affirmed.
2. Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the DPSO Act, the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 10 December 2020.
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 has been the subject of a continuing detention order since February 2017 – where the applicant makes an application for a review of the continuing detention order pursuant to Part 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSO Act) – where the respondent was assessed by two psychiatrists for the purpose of the review – where the respondent has not undertaken the Getting Started: Preparatory Program – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – whether adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order – whether the respondent should remain subject to a continuing detention order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13, s 27, s 30,
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368
COUNSEL:
J Tate for the Applicant
E J Cooper for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:
Crown Law for the Applicant
Legal Aid for the Respondent
This is an application pursuant to s 27(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSO Act) for review of the continuing detention order made in respect of the respondent by Justice Ryan on 10 December 2020 (First Annual Review).
Justice Ryan declared the respondent to be a “serious danger to the community” and ordered that he remain in custody for an indefinite term under a continuing detention order for control, care and treatment.
Since that time, the respondent has not been willing to undertake the Getting Started: Preparatory Program (GS:PP). He has been offered the opportunity to undertake the program on six occasions, being 21 January 2021, 8 June 2021, 2 February 2022, 3 June 2022, 13 June 2022 and 25 July 2022.
Completion of the GS:PP is a prerequisite to undertaking a sex offender program, such as the Medium Intensity Sex Offending Program (MISOP).
For the purposes of the First Annual Review, further reports were obtained from Dr Sundin[1] and Dr Arthur.[2]
[1]Affidavit of Dr Josephine Sundin sworn 15 July 2022, Exhibit JS-2.
[2]Affidavit of Ken Arthur affirmed 4 July 2022, Exhibit KA-2.
The updated psychiatric evidence supports the finding that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Part 2 Division 3 order. The psychiatric assessment remains that the respondent’s unmodified risk of serious sexual offending remains at the “moderate to high” range for Dr Sundin and “moderately high or above average” for Dr Arthur.
The applicant contended that the clinical evidence supports the conclusion that the respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order.
The respondent accepted that the current state of the evidence supports a finding that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. Further, it is accepted that without his completion of the GS:PP, the adequate protection of the community cannot be ensured by the making of a supervision order in accordance with s 13(5)(b) of the DPSO Act.
Just prior to the hearing, the respondent confirmed that he did not want to undertake the GS:PP at this stage and in the circumstances, he did not oppose the continuing detention order being affirmed.
On 29 August 2022 I made the following orders, with my reasons to be published on a later date:
“The order of the Court is that:
1. Pursuant to section 30(1) of the [DPSO Act] the decision made on 10 December 2020, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, be affirmed.
2. Pursuant to section 30(3)(a) of the [DPSO Act] the respondent continue to be the subject to the continuing detention order made on 10 December 2020.”
Following are my reasons for making the orders.
Background
Justice Ryan in her reasons for making the continuing detention order[3] recognised:
“[49] In my view, and it has not been challenged, the respondent is clearly a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.
[50] The psychiatric assessments undertaken indicate the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual re-offence is ‘moderately high’ or ‘moderate to high’.
[51] Were the respondent to re-offend, it would likely be by way of a serious offence involving a young girl with, it is reasonable to assume, the very real potential for psychological harm.
[52] The respondent has not completed a sexual offenders’ treatment program. Nor has he accepted responsibility for his offending in any mature way. His has at least a provisional diagnosis of Paedophilia as well as anti-social personality disorder, Substance Misuse Disorder and Alcohol Misuse Disorder.”
[3]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368.
Further, Justice Ryan summarised the respondent’s history of serious sexual offending and relevant background as follows:
“[1] The respondent is a prisoner, serving a sentence for three sexual offences committed upon three children, on three separate occasions. In 2006, he committed a non-penetrative sexual offence upon a 10 year old girl. In 2011, he committed a non-penetrative sexual offence upon a five year old girl. And in 2012, he committed a penetrative sexual offence upon a 13 year old girl. He had a connection to each of the children and was in their household, or had access to their household, when the offences were committed.
[2] For his offending, he was sentenced in 2013 to imprisonment for seven years and six months. His full time release date is 19 December 2020.
[3] His attitude towards his offending is one of minimalisation, denial, or denial of responsibility. During his time in custody, he has engaged minimally in group therapy. Although he has engaged in individual therapy, it seems that he has retained little of what he was taught.”[4]
[4]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368.
A summary of the circumstances of the offending are set out at paragraphs [21] to [35] of her Honour’s reasons.
The psychiatric evidence at the Division 3 hearing included reports from Dr Sundin, Dr Harden and Dr Arthur. The respondent’s diagnosis included Paedophilia (heterosexual and non-exclusive), Anti-social Personality Disorder, Substance Misuse Disorder (methylamphetamine and cannabis) and Alcohol Misuse Disorder.
Dr Sundin voiced particular concern about the respondent’s minimisation of the seriousness of his offending. She stated that he appeared to present in a “somewhat chameleon-like fashion to different interviewers”. Her view was he ought to complete the MISOP, which had the advantage of being a program of such length and intensity as to reduce his risk, especially when combined with one-on-one therapy.
Dr Sundin also identified that without completing the MISOP, those supervising him would not have a good understanding of his risk, triggers and pathways. Dr Sundin expressed the view that completing the MISOP would reduce his risk from moderate to high to moderate.[5]
[5]Dr Sundin’s report as summarised in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368, 14-15 [56]-[60].
Dr Harden also expressed the view that having the respondent undertake the MISOP would provide information to those supervising him which would assist them to understand his risk factors and pathways. It would also enable the opportunity to develop a relapse prevention plan.[6]
[6]As summarised in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368, 15 [62]-[65].
Additionally, Dr Arthur recognised that there were a number of unknowns about the respondent’s offending. Dr Arthur expressed the view that he found it difficult to understand the respondent’s sexual preferences and his drivers and the respondent showed a high degree of denial.
From a clinical perspective, Dr Harden expressed the opinion that it was better for the respondent to complete the MISOP in the contained environment in custody as the respondent would have no external stressors and any decompensation could be managed effectively and in a timely manner.[7]
[7]As summarised in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368, 15-16 [66]-[68].
In this regard, Justice Ryan concluded:
“[71] I am not confident that the respondent’s reintegration will be successful without his undergoing some internal change. On the evidence, the MISOP creates the best opportunity for such a change. On the evidence, the respondent undertaking MISOP in custody will mean that he is able to give his full attention to it and thereby maximise the benefit from it. Also, on the evidence, the product of the MISOP will allow those supervising the respondent upon his release to better understand his risk factors etcetera.”[8]
[8]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368, 15-16 [69]-[71].
Updated psychiatric reports
Updated reports were prepared by Dr Sundin and Dr Arthur for the First Annual Review. The opinions of Dr Sundin and Dr Arthur have not materially changed.
Dr Sundin states in her report:
“I remain of the opinion that it would be preferable for Mr Haidley to complete a Medium Intensity Sexual Offenders Programme prior to release. Participation in such a programme would build upon and consolidate some of the progress Mr Haidley has made in the last two years but, more importantly, would help him to better understand his triggers and help him to develop a more detailed relapse prevention plan into the future.
However, I note that Mr Haidley has consistently refused any form of active programme participation since his last appearance before Justice Ryan, and it seems unlikely that his attitude will change in the near future. There is a risk that he will become quite institutionalised if his incarceration is extended.
Management of his risk for sexual recidivism into the future continues to require both prevention of use of disinhibiting substances and for him to engage in a treatment programme that better clarifies the nature of his sexual interest in children, with the ultimate goal of him developing a robust relapse prevention plan that ensures that he does not offend again into the future.
Given his fearfulness regarding treatment within the institution, the only other alternative that seems possible is for him to have a further period of one on one treatment with a suitably qualified forensic psychologist, with that treatment commencing before he leaves prison and continuing after he leaves prison. The minimum requirement prior to release would be for Mr Haidley to complete the equivalent of the Getting Started: Preparatory Programme so that he could then engage with the Medium Intensity Sexual Offenders Programme within the community.”[9]
[9]Affidavit of Dr Josephine Sundin sworn 15 July 2022, Exhibit JS-2, 10.
Dr Sundin had previously identified the risk in respect of the respondent as follows:
“The likely risk scenario is one of Mr Haidley opportunistically offending against a pre-pubescent female to whom he has easy access, in a situation where he has a place of trust within the family. There is a high likelihood of psychological or physical coercion but little likelihood of violence.
I concur with the opinion of Ms Johnstone that the risk is not imminent but would be present over time and influenced by his capacity to access potential victims.
He is more likely to offend at times of emotional instability. His risk of offending significantly escalates with the use of intoxicants such as alcohol or methamphetamine.
His risk is maintained by his continued minimisation of the seriousness of his offending, deviant sexual preference and displacement of responsibility onto the victims and his state of intoxication at the time.”[10]
[10]As summarised in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haidley [2020] QSC 368, 12 [46].
Overall, Dr Sundin concludes there has been no change to her risk assessment from 2020 to present, that is, the respondent remains at the “moderate to high” risk group.
Dr Arthur also provides an opinion that there has been no material change in the diagnosis in respect of the respondent.
In relation to the presence of Paedophilia, Dr Arthur relevantly states:
“[79] Whilst he continues to deny deviant sexual interest in children, his offences suggest otherwise and there remains a provisional diagnosis of Paedophilia, heterosexual and non-exclusive. Due to his minimisation and denial it is difficult to gain a clear understanding of his arousal patterns or sexual attitudes towards children.”[11]
[11]Affidavit of Dr Ken Arthur affirmed 4 July 2022, Exhibit KA-2, 17 [79].
Further, Dr Arthur in his report states as follows:
“[96]I remain of the opinion that prisoner Haidley should complete a group Sexual Offender Treatment Program. His ongoing stance of denial and minimisation would benefit from peer challenge and he needs to develop a better understanding of his pathway to offending and relevant risk factors in order to develop a more comprehensive risk management plan. Whilst I acknowledge his concerns regarding the possible lack of confidentiality within the treatment group and the consequences of this, the benefits of such programs far outweigh the risks.”
In respect of risk, Dr Arthur comments:[12]
(a)In respect to the propensity to re-offend, the respondent falls in the “above average risk” group. Further, the most relevant risk factors appear to be a deviant sexual interest in children, substance abuse, minimisation/denial, problems with self-awareness and problems with stress/coping. Further, Dr Arthur recognises that the respondent does acknowledge the potential role of substances but appears to rely on avoidance strategies and is dismissive of his sexual needs.
(b)In respect to any pattern of offending, Dr Arthur comments that there does not appear to be any clear pattern of offending based on the past offences. Further, the offending appears opportunistic.
(c)In respect to attempts to change, Dr Arthur notes that previously the respondent has completed the GS:PP but his engagement was superficial, with the respondent maintaining a stance of denial/minimalization. The respondent has previously commenced the MISOP but did not complete the program. The respondent has engaged with individual therapy with an external psychologist.
(d)In respect of effects of treatment programs, Dr Arthur comments that these remain unchanged from the previous assessment, and the respondent still does not accept responsibility for his offences and is yet to gain a sophisticated understanding of his risk factors or develop effective risk management strategies.
[12]Affidavit of Dr Ken Arthur affirmed 4 July 2022, Exhibit KA-2, 19-20 [86].
In respect of his risk assessment, Dr Arthur provides the following opinion:
“Based on the available history, it does not appear that there is an imminent risk of prisoner Haidley offending soon after release from jail. Future victims are likely to be prepubescent girls or young teenagers that are known to him, most likely through contact with their friends or family. He will have formed some relationship with the victim prior to the offending. It is likely that prisoner Haidley will offend in a somewhat opportunistic way, isolating the victim before exposing his genitals, fondling the child and engaging in simulated or penetrative sex. He may use physical and possibly psychological coercion.
Future offending is likely to be driven by deviant sexual interest, sexual preoccupation and perhaps sex as coping. Future victims would be at risk of psychological harm; whilst this has not yet caused significant physical harm, there appears to be an escalation in his offending and it is possible that if the victim struggled or did not comply, he may respond with excessive force.
Being in a sexual relationship does not appear to be a protective factor against future sexual recidivism. The risk of offending would be increased by the use of substances, which may act as a disinhibitor. He may also be influenced by social situations such as parties where there is a loosening of social boundaries and involvement of physical play which may arouse his deviant sexual interest.
Indicators of an acute escalation in risk would include negative emotional states (loneliness, feeling rejected or the failure of a relationship), evidence of sexual preoccupation, a return to substance use and victim access.”[13]
[13]Affidavit of Dr Ken Arthur affirmed 4 July 2022, Exhibit KA-2, 20 [88]-[91].
First Annual Review
Section 30 of the DPSO Act provides for an annual review. Section 30 provides as follows:
“30 Review hearing
(1) This section applies if, on the hearing of a review under section 27 or 28 and having regard to the required matters, the court affirms a decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.
(2) On the hearing of the review, the court may affirm the decision only if it is satisfied—
(a) by acceptable, cogent evidence; and
(b) to a high degree of probability;
that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision.
(3) If the court affirms the decision, the court may order that the prisoner—
(a) continue to be subject to the continuing detention order; or
(b) be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
(4) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3)(a) or (b)—
(a) the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
(b) the court must consider whether—
(i) adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and
(ii) requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.
(5) If the court does not make the order under subsection (3)(a), the court must rescind the continuing detention order.
(6) In this section—
required matters means all of the following—
(a) the matters mentioned in section 13(4);
(b) any report produced under section 28A.”
The applicant contends that the respondent clearly presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. Based on the psychiatric assessments of Dr Sundin and Dr Arthur, the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual re-offending remains at the moderate to high, or moderately high or above average category.
In the circumstances, the applicant submits that the index offences, the clinical opinions of the reporting psychiatrists and the longitudinal evidence provide acceptable and cogent evidence of sufficient weight to justify the continuation of the continuing detention order.
The applicant contends that the respondent is currently a moderate to high risk untreated sex offender, with a diagnosis of Paedophilia, and is in denial.
The central issue to be considered on the review is whether the respondent should be required to complete the MISOP in custody, before being released to the community under a supervision order.
Further, both Dr Sundin and Dr Arthur are of the opinion that the respondent should undertake the MISOP in custody before consideration is given to release to the community under a supervision order.
It is acknowledged that the respondent’s refusal to participate in any programs needs to be balanced against the possibility of institutionalisation. Further, there is the issue that little is known about the respondent’s sexual motivations and his pathways to re-offending.
It is in these circumstances that the applicant contends that there is sufficient cogent evidence, considering the matters required to be taken into account under s 13(4) of the DPSO Act to satisfy a Court to the high degree of probability necessary, that if released without a Division 3 order, the respondent presents an unacceptable risk of committing a “serious sexual offence” as defined by the DPSO Act.
Pursuant to s 30(2) of the DPSO Act, the Court may affirm the decision if it is satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence, to a high degree of probability, that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.
Further, if the Court affirms the decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, then the discretion in s 30(3) of the DPSO Act is enlivened.
By s 30(3) of the DPSO Act, the Court is able to order that the respondent be subject to a continuing detention order or be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
The applicant’s contention is that there are no factors which would cause the Court to permit the supervised release of the respondent in the current case. This is not a situation where the protection of the community would be assured by the Court exercising its discretion to make an order under s 30(3)(b) of the DPSO Act releasing the respondent from custody on a supervision order.
The reports of Dr Sundin and Dr Arthur consider what may be appropriate ongoing care and treatment of the respondent. Their opinions include as follows:
(a)Dr Sundin states:
“I remain of the opinion that it would be preferable for Mr Haidley to complete a Medium Intensity Sexual Offenders Programme prior to release. Participation in such a programme would build upon and consolidate some of the progress Mr Haidley has made in the last two years but, more importantly, would help him to better understand his triggers and help him to develop a more detailed relapse prevention plan into the future.
…
Management of his risk for sexual recidivism into the future continues to require both prevention of use of disinhibiting substances and for him to engage in a treatment programme that better clarifies the nature of his sexual interest in children, with the ultimate goal of him developing a robust relapse prevention plan that ensures that he does not offend again into the future.”[14]
(b)Dr Arthur states:
“Despite the reasons given for his non-engagement in group treatment, his avoidance of these programs raises the possibility that he is using this as a mechanism to remain in jail due to anxieties around release. As such, prisoner Haidley may require some further individual psychological therapy with a focus on motivational interviewing and anxiety management to address this issue.
Given concerns regarding institutionalisation and the fact that I believe the relevant risk factors could be managed successfully in the community under a supervision order, I would respectfully recommend that the court consider allowing prisoner Haidley to complete the MISOP in the community after completing the GS:PP whilst in custody.
In addition to group programs he will also require ongoing psychological therapy with a forensic psychologist to address issues around deviant sexual interests, cognitive distortions and maladaptive coping strategies.
Based on the statistical analysis of Hanson et al, if prisoner Haidley does not commit another sexual offence for 5 years post-release, his risk will reduce from ‘above average’ to ‘average’, but will not reduce to ‘below average’ until he has been in the community offence free for 10 years.
When considering the duration of a supervision order, relevant factors include the presence of sexual deviancy (assumed but unconfirmed), his relatively young age and his high degree of denial/avoidance. In his favour, prisoner Haidley does not have a Psychopathic Personality, has a reasonable employment record and a history of good behaviour in custody.
After considering these factors, I would recommend a supervision order of 7 years’ duration.”[15]
[14]Affidavit of Dr Josephine Sundin sworn 15 July 2022, Exhibit JS-2, 10.
[15]Affidavit of Dr Ken Arthur affirmed 4 July 2022, Exhibit KA-2, 21-2.
In response, the respondent:
(a)acknowledges that the current state of the evidence supports a finding that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.
(b)acknowledges that, without having completed the required GS:PP, or equivalent in custody, this significantly limits the ability of the Court to be satisfied that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order.
(c)Queensland Corrective Services have advised that it will not be offering a closed GS:PP course to the respondent.
(d)the GS:PP in its usual format is a roll in course and can be commenced in any given week depending on availability.
(e)in the absence of the respondent having completed the GS:PP, it is accepted that the current state of the evidence supports the respondent remaining subject to the continuing detention order.
In respect of the psychiatric evidence prepared for the first annual review, the respondent acknowledges:
(a)Dr Arthur remains of the opinion that the respondent should complete a group sexual offender treatment program. Even if he was allowed to complete the MISOP in the community, he would still need to complete the GS:PP first, whilst he is in custody.
(b)In response to the concerns about the respondent becoming institutionalised, Dr Arthur recommends that consideration be given to allowing the respondent to complete the MISOP in the community after completing the GS:PP in custody.
(c)Dr Sundin remains of the opinion that it would be preferrable for the respondent to complete the MISOP prior to his release from custody. However, Dr Sundin also recognises the risk of the respondent becoming “quite institutionalised” if his incarceration is extended.
(d)Dr Sundin’s view is that the minimum requirement prior to the respondent’s release would be completion of the GS:PP, or something equivalent to that, so that he could then engage with the MISOP within the community.
Ultimately, the respondent accepts that the current state of the evidence supports the finding that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order and that without his completion of the GS:PP, the adequate protection of the community cannot be ensured by the making of a supervision order under s 30(5)(b) of the DPSO Act.
The respondent has a distrust, fear and lack of confidence in the manner in which the GS:PP is routinely conducted in custody. As a result, the respondent requested consideration of alternative options for him to undertake the GS:PP in a modified way. This alternative option has not been approved by Queensland Corrective Services.
The respondent has confirmed that he does not want to undertake the GS:PP at this stage and consequently, he does not oppose the continuing detention order being affirmed.
Whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order?
This question is not contentious between the parties or between the psychiatrists.
On all of the evidence, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order under the DPSO Act and that the decision made by Ryan J on 10 December 2020 be affirmed.
Whether adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order?
The evidence supports the conclusion that the respondent is currently a moderate to high risk untreated sex offender, with a diagnosis of Paedophilia, and who is in denial.
Whilst it is ultimately a value judgment for the Court, in the circumstances of this case I accept and rely upon the psychiatric evidence in respect of the particular risks and management needs in respect of the respondent.
The respondent has indicated that he is not willing to undertake the GS:PP, which is a prerequisite to undertaking a sex offending program such as the MISOP. The GS:PP is only offered in custody. Even if consideration could be given to the respondent undertaking the MISOP in the community, it is a necessary step that he complete the GS:PP in custody.
The benefits of the respondent completing the MISOP prior to release are that he would be required to prepare a detailed relapse prevention plan and it also would provide insight into his pathways to offending and relevant risk factors. This would enable those supervising the respondent to develop a more comprehensive risk management plan.
The paramount consideration under s 30(4)(a) of the DPSO Act is the adequate protection of the community
On all the evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the adequate protection of the community could be reasonably and practicably ensured by a supervision order.
The continuing detention order to be maintained
In these circumstances, I am satisfied that an order pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the DPSO Act ought to be made that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 10 December 2020 by her Honour Justice Ryan.
Orders
Accordingly, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the DPSO Act on 29 August 2022 the Court ordered that:
1.Pursuant to s 30(1) of the DPSO Act, the decision made on 10 December 2020 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, be affirmed.
2.Pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the DPSO Act, the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 10 December 2020.
0
1
1