Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob - [2020] QSC 299

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2020] QSC 299

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
RAYNARD SMITH JACOB

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 5548 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made on 18 September 2020, reasons delivered on 25 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 September 2020

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

It is declared that pursuant to s 24(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003:

1. The period of the respondent’s supervision order made on 22 September 2015 (CFI 18) and amended on 28 February 2019 (CFI 35) has been extended from 22 September 2020 to 26 September 2020.

2. The supervision order expires on 26 September 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 is subject to a supervision order pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) – where the respondent spent four days in custody for non-sexual offences during the order – where the applicant seeks an order declaring that the duration of the supervision order has been extended by a period equivalent to that during which the respondent was in custody – whether the supervision order has been extended by force of ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 23, s 24, s 43AA

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2015] QSC 273, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2019] QSC 289, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland [2020] QSC 33, followed

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 is subject to a supervision order made on 22 September 2015 by Lyons SJA (the supervision order) under the provisions of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA).
The term of the supervision order[1] was five years ending on 22 September 2020.[2]
[1]Made pursuant to Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13A.
[2]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2015] QSC 273 and as to the respondent’s contravention history see: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2019] QSC 289.
On 15 August 2019, while subject to the supervision order, the respondent was convicted of one count of possessing dangerous drugs[3] and two counts of contravening the supervision order.[4] The acts which contravened the supervision order were not of a sexual nature.
[3]Drugs Misuse Act 1986, s 9(1).
[4]Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 43AA(1).
The respondent was fined $100 on the charge of possession and on the charges of contravention of the supervision order, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and…

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 Jacob

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2020] QSC 299
Case: [2020] QSC 299
Decision Date: 25 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob, the dispute arose from the interpretation of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA). The respondent, Jacob, is a person subject to a supervision order under the DPSOA. During a period when Jacob was in custody for non-sexual offences, the applicant, the Attorney-General, sought to have the duration of the supervision order extended by the length of time Jacob was in custody. This matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the supervision order imposed on Jacob had been extended by the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the DPSOA. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the period Jacob spent in custody for non-sexual offences should be considered as part of the duration of his supervision order. The interpretation of these sections was crucial, as it would determine the exact date on which Jacob's supervision order would expire.

The court examined the language and intent of sections 23 and 24 of the DPSOA. It held that these sections were clear and unambiguous, indicating that the period of imprisonment for non-sexual offences should indeed extend the duration of the supervision order. Consequently, the court declared that Jacob's supervision order had been extended by the four days he spent in custody. This decision was made pursuant to section 24(2) of the DPSOA. The court further declared that Jacob's supervision order would expire on 26 September 2020, extending it from 22 September 2020.

In conclusion, the court's decision was grounded in the statutory language and the legislative intent behind the DPSOA. By extending the supervision order by the period Jacob spent in custody, the court ensured that the provisions of the DPSOA were applied correctly. This outcome was in line with the legislative framework designed to manage the supervision of dangerous sexual offenders in Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is declared that pursuant to s 24(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003:

1. The period of the respondent’s supervision order made on 22 September 2015 (CFI 18) and amended on 28 February 2019 (CFI 35) has been extended from 22 September 2020 to 26 September 2020.

2. The supervision order expires on 26 September 2020.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

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 Jacob [2020] QSC 299
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v RAYNARD SMITH JACOB (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS No 5548 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Orders made on 18 September 2020, reasons delivered on 25 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 September 2020
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	It is declared that pursuant to s 24(2) of the *Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act* 2003: 1. The period of the respondent’s supervision order made on 22 September 2015 (CFI 18) and amended on 28 February 2019 (CFI 35) has been extended from 22 September 2020 to 26 September 2020. 2. The supervision order expires on 26 September 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 is subject to a supervision order pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) – where the respondent spent four days in custody for non-sexual offences during the order – where the applicant seeks an order declaring that the duration of the supervision order has been extended by a period equivalent to that during which the respondent was in custody – whether the supervision order has been extended by force of ss 23 and 24 of the DPSOA Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 23, s 24, s 43AA Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2015] QSC 273, cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Jacob [2019] QSC 289, cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ruhland [2020] QSC 33, followed
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