Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Mow

In this case, the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland sought to have the respondent, a convicted sexual offender, continue to be subject to a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent had previously breached his supervision order by using cannabis, which led to his return to custody. The primary issue for the court was whether the respondent could be released from custody and placed under a supervision order that would ensure adequate protection of the community. The court had to consider the respondent's history of offending, the nature of the risk he posed to the community, and whether the supervision order would be sufficient to prevent any future offending.

The court examined the evidence provided by experts, including Dr Michael Beech and Dr Scott Harden, who provided reports on the respondent's history, personality, and likelihood of reoffending. The court also considered the respondent's participation in rehabilitation programs while in custody and his compliance with the supervision order. The court concluded that the supervision order had been effective in preventing the respondent from committing a serious sexual offence and that continued supervision, along with counseling and regular testing, would likely prevent any future offending. The court also noted that the respondent had completed a substance abuse program in the past and that there were other programs available in the community to address any substance abuse issues.

Based on the evidence, the court found that the supervision order would ensure adequate protection of the community if the respondent were released from custody. The court rejected the recommendation of Dr Sundin that the respondent undergo a substance abuse program in custody before being released. The court held that the respondent had established that a supervision order would be sufficient to prevent any future offending and that the risk of intoxication from cannabis use was not likely to substantially elevate the risk of committing a serious sexual offence. The court concluded that the respondent could be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made on 15 December 2014.

In conclusion, the court found that the supervision order would be sufficient to prevent any future offending by the respondent and that the risk of intoxication from cannabis use was not likely to substantially elevate the risk of committing a serious sexual offence. The court rejected the recommendation of Dr Sundin that the respondent undergo a substance abuse program in custody before being released. The court held that the respondent had established that a supervision order would be sufficient to prevent any future offending and that the risk of intoxication from cannabis use was not likely to substantially elevate the risk of committing a serious sexual offence. The court ordered that the respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made on 15 December 2014.