Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Howard Benjamin Charles Wano

The case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Howard Benjamin Charles Wano involved the respondent, who was previously released to the community under a supervision order. The applicant sought to rescind the supervision order and impose a continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, or alternatively, amend the supervision order. The primary issue before the court was whether the protection of the community could be ensured by the respondent being returned to the existing supervision order or an amended supervision order, despite the alleged contravention of the order's requirements.

The court considered the risk assessments provided by Dr Eve Timmins and Dr Claire Wolfenden. Dr Wolfenden assessed the respondent's unmodified risk as moderate to high, but concluded that under the supervision order, his risk of recidivist sexual offending would be reduced to below moderate. Dr Wolfenden agreed that the respondent needed to engage in and benefit from significant psychological treatment. Dr Timmins believed that the supervision order was assisting in containing the respondent's risk of serious sexual re-offending, but recommended that he continue to engage with a forensic psychologist, cease substance use, engage in work, build his support network, and have his internet usage monitored. Dr Timmins concluded that under the supervision order, the respondent's risk was modified to fall into the moderate category, and he needed a further five years to manage those internal factors that raise his risk to the community.

The court found that the evidence of Dr Timmins and Dr Wolfenden supported the conclusion that adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the respondent's release on a supervision order, even despite the contravention. The court was satisfied that the respondent had discharged the onus upon him under s 22(7) of the Act, and accordingly, the court amended the existing supervision order to extend its duration by five years from the date of the hearing on 18 February 2025.

The court ordered that the respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made on 22 August 2022, with the amendment that the duration of the order be changed to until 18 February 2030. This decision was based on the evidence provided by the expert witnesses, which demonstrated that the supervision order was effective in managing the respondent's risk and ensuring the safety of the community.