Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Hancock

[2008] QSC 338

[2008] QSC 338

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

MULLINS J

No 7913 of 2008

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND	Applicant
and
GRAEME PAUL HANCOCK	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 18/12/2008

ORDER

HER HONOUR:  This is an application by the Attorney-General

for the State of Queensland for a division 3 order under the

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 against the

respondent.  Although the application as filed sought either a

detention order or a supervision order, Ms Maloney, of

counsel, who appears for the Attorney-General, has informed

the Court that in light of the psychiatric evidence placed

before the Court, the Attorney-General does not oppose the

making of a supervision order on the strict terms that have

been proposed in the draft order that has been the subject of

discussions between representatives of the Attorney-General

and the representatives of the respondent.

Mr Briggs, of counsel, who appears on behalf of the

respondent, has discussed the terms of the proposed

supervision order with the respondent and advises the Court

that the respondent has instructed his lawyers that he accepts

the need for an appropriately structured supervision order to

facilitate both his reintegration into the community and his

ongoing rehabilitation.  From the Attorney-General's point of

view the supervision order is essential to addressing the

risks of re-offending.

The respondent has also instructed his lawyers that should he

be released under the supervision order on the terms proposed,

he is prepared to observe the conditions of the supervision

order.  There is reference in the psychiatric evidence to the

insight that the respondent has developed during the course of

his imprisonment as to his risk factors for offending against

young children and the need for structures by way of

supervision and other controls to be in place to assist him in

his endeavour not to re-offend.

The respondent is a relatively young man.  He was born in

1984.  He therefore is 24 years old.

He committed sexual offences in 2000 that resulted in Court

action.  He was only 16 years old.  He was placed on probation for two years.  He was required, as a condition of probation, to undergo medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment.  The respondent attended for 39 appointments at Griffith Adolescent Forensic Assessment and Treatment Centre.  Unfortunately, soon after the end of this supervision, he committed the offences in January and February 2004 that have resulted in his present imprisonment.  The victims were two young boys and a young girl.

In general terms the offences involved showing pornographic

material, oral sex, touching of a sexual nature, photographing

genitalia and what is referred to as technically rape.  The

respondent pleaded guilty to 26 charges in total.  There were

three charges of rape for each of which offence the respondent

was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

There were multiple charges of indecent dealing or treatment

of a child under 16 years with a circumstance of aggravation.

On each of those charges the respondent was sentenced to four

years' imprisonment.  He was sentenced to 12 months'

imprisonment for a charge of possession of an objectionable

computer game.  Each of the sentences was concurrent with the

other sentences.

His period of imprisonment commenced from the time he was

arrested on 9 February 2004.  The respondent's full-time

discharge date is 8 February 2009.

I will now refer to some of the personal details relating to

the respondent.  He was raped by an adult male at about the

age of 10 years.  He was sexually active with girls from about

the age of 13 years.  At age 15 the respondent has identified

that he became aware of a strong sexual attraction towards

children.  It appears he was diagnosed as suffering from ADHD

as a child and was treated for that condition until the age of

16 years.  Although he was diagnosed as a child with a mild

intellectual impairment the psychiatrists who have examined

him for the purpose of this application note that he is

functioning at a level above his noted IQ of 70.  The

respondent was a heavy user of cannabis sativa between the

ages of 16 and 18 years.

Whilst in prison he commenced the high intensity sexual

offender treatment program in October 2005 but was excluded

from that program in February 2006 because of behavioural

problems.

He was subsequently accepted in the Inclusion Sexual Offender

Treatment Program which was completed over a period of six

months, finishing in December 2007.  Whilst in custody he has

also undertaken the Transitions Program to assist him in

moving from the institutional environment to a community

environment.

Psychiatrist, Dr Grant, interviewed the respondent in prison

on 28 March 2008 for two hours for the purpose of a potential

application under the Act.  Dr Grant diagnosed the respondent

as having paedophilia, bisexual type non-exclusive, and noted

that the respondent experiences strong sexual attractions to

young girls and boys generally between the ages of seven years

and 10 years.  Dr Grant assessed the respondent using a number

of formal risk assessment instruments.  They indicated that he

was a moderate to high risk of sexually re-offending.

Dr Grant noted that the respondent was able to express empathy

for his victims and had showed willingness to receive

treatment and assessment by his positive participation in

ISOP.  The respondent also expressed willingness to Dr Grant

to undergo chemical treatment to control his paedophilic

behaviour if that was what was recommended as treatment for

him by appropriately qualified medical practitioners.

Dr Grant noted that the respondent has yet to demonstrate that

he can establish appropriate adult sexual relationships

outside of prison and his ability to control his strong

paedophilic drives, which Dr Grant considers are still

present, has yet to be demonstrated outside the prison environment.  Dr Grant identified as a negative factor for re-offending that the respondent is still of a relatively young age and that he had offended against both young boys and girls.

Dr Grant rated the respondent's risk of re-offending against

young children to be at least moderately high.  Because of the

respondent's age, Dr Grant recommended that the respondent's

release from prison be under a supervision order but

preferably for 15 years.  The applicant relied on Dr Grant's

report for the making of the application under the Act.  It

was ordered in this Court that the respondent undergo

examinations by psychiatrists Professor James and Dr Lawrence.

Those psychiatrists were requested to prepare independent

reports in accordance with section 11 of the Act.

Dr Lawrence examined the respondent for two and a-half hours

on 17 October 2008.  Dr Lawrence applied a number of risk

assessment tools that confirmed Dr Lawrence's clinical

impression that the respondent has a moderate to high risk of

re-offending.  Dr Lawrence diagnosed paedophilia, primarily

female but non-exclusive, and noted the respondent is of

bisexual orientation.  Dr Lawrence also noted evidence of the

respondent's impulsivity, possible manipulativeness and some

antisocial traits, including some diminished ability to

control aggression at times and problems in inhibiting

behaviours.

Dr Lawrence considered it was of concern that the respondent

had received extensive psychological, psychiatric and specific

interventions in regards to his offending as a teenager before

the offences for which he is currently imprisoned were

committed.  Dr Lawrence considered that the respondent's risk

of re-offending is moderate to high and suggests that it may

even be able to be characterised as a high risk in the longer

term.  Therefore, Dr Lawrence recommended close supervision

and monitoring by Corrective Services to mitigate the moderate

to high risk of re-offending.

Professor James also examined the respondent for in excess of

two hours.  This examination took place on 24 October 2008.

Professor James obtained similar results to the other

psychiatrists on his assessment using various actuarial

instruments.  In reliance on those results and his clinical

examination, Professor James concluded that the respondent was

a moderately high risk of repetition of paedophilic behaviour.

Professor James also recommended release subject to a

supervision order that addressed the risk factors applying to

the respondent's risk of re-offending.  Because of the

respondent's age, Professor James also supported a supervision

order for a lengthy period such as 15 years.

The evidence of Dr Grant, Dr Lawrence and Professor James is

acceptable and cogent and satisfies me to the high degree of

probability that is required under the Act that the

respondent's moderate to high risk of sexual re-offending,

unless appropriately supervised, is an unacceptable risk in

terms of section 13(2) of the Act.  In light of the

psychiatric evidence and the recommendations made by the

psychiatrists, which are supported on this application by both

the Attorney-General and the respondent, I am satisfied that

appropriate conditions can be formulated for a supervision

order that will address the need to ensure the adequate

protection of the community and that a supervision order

should be made for a period of 15 years.

...

HER HONOUR:  Order as per amended draft, initialled by me and

placed with the file.

------