Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Miskin
Case
•
[2019] QSC 330
•9 November 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Miskin [2019] QSC 330
[2019] QSC 330
9 November 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Miskin, the respondent, Allan Peter Frank Miskin, is serving a sentence for a serious sexual offence involving violence. The Attorney-General sought a continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, to ensure that Miskin undergoes treatment for substance abuse and sexual offending, and to protect the community from the risk of Miskin reoffending. The court was required to determine whether Miskin posed a serious danger to the community and whether he needed to be detained indefinitely for control, care, or treatment.
The court considered evidence from three psychiatrists, Dr Sundin, Dr Moyle, and Dr Arthur, who assessed Miskin's risk of reoffending and his need for treatment. The psychiatrists' evidence was accepted as cogent and of weight. The court also considered evidence from correctional officers and Miskin's acceptance of responsibility for his actions by undertaking a program while in custody. The court concluded that Miskin needed to complete two programs, one for substance abuse and the other for sexual offending, before it could be determined whether he should undergo a high-intensity or a medium-intensity sexual offender rehabilitation course.
The court found that Miskin posed a moderate to high risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released without undergoing treatment. The court considered the severity of Miskin's offending conduct and its consequences for the community if the risk was realised. The court concluded that to ensure the adequate protection of the community, a continuing detention order should be made. The court also noted that the order would facilitate Miskin's rehabilitation, as some forms of treatment were only available to persons in custody.
The court made a continuing detention order under s 13(5)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, which orders that Miskin be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment. The order was made in the interests of ensuring adequate protection for the community and facilitating Miskin's rehabilitation.
The court considered evidence from three psychiatrists, Dr Sundin, Dr Moyle, and Dr Arthur, who assessed Miskin's risk of reoffending and his need for treatment. The psychiatrists' evidence was accepted as cogent and of weight. The court also considered evidence from correctional officers and Miskin's acceptance of responsibility for his actions by undertaking a program while in custody. The court concluded that Miskin needed to complete two programs, one for substance abuse and the other for sexual offending, before it could be determined whether he should undergo a high-intensity or a medium-intensity sexual offender rehabilitation course.
The court found that Miskin posed a moderate to high risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released without undergoing treatment. The court considered the severity of Miskin's offending conduct and its consequences for the community if the risk was realised. The court concluded that to ensure the adequate protection of the community, a continuing detention order should be made. The court also noted that the order would facilitate Miskin's rehabilitation, as some forms of treatment were only available to persons in custody.
The court made a continuing detention order under s 13(5)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, which orders that Miskin be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment. The order was made in the interests of ensuring adequate protection for the community and facilitating Miskin's rehabilitation.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Sentencing
-
Dangerous Offenders
-
Risk Assessment
-
Rehabilitation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Miskin [2021] QSC 298
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Miskin
[2021] QSC 298
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Miskin
[2021] QSC 298
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1
Attorney-General v Sutherland
[2006] QSC 268
Attorney-General v Sutherland
[2006] QSC 268