Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Murry

In the matter of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Murry, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the circumstances under which a convicted sexual offender, who had completed their custodial sentence, might be released under conditional supervision. The respondent, having been convicted of aggravated indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16, was initially sentenced to three years imprisonment, to be released on parole after serving 12 months. However, the respondent served the full three years and remains in custody beyond the term of their imprisonment. The applicant, the Attorney-General, sought an order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders Act) 2003 for the respondent's release on conditions relating to supervision, arguing that there existed an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence if released unconditionally.

The central legal issues addressed by the Court were whether there existed an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence if released unconditionally, and whether the proposed order appropriately addressed the need to protect the community. The Court considered the respondent's extensive criminal history of sexual offences and the risk they posed to the community. The Court also examined the proposed conditions of release, including electronic monitoring, residence restrictions, and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16. The Court was required to balance the respondent's right to liberty against the need to protect the community from the risk of serious sexual offending.

The Court found that, while the respondent's criminal history was concerning, there was no evidence that they posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released unconditionally. However, the Court determined that the proposed conditions of release appropriately addressed the need to protect the community and were proportionate to the risk posed by the respondent. The Court noted that the conditions of release were designed to provide a high level of surveillance and control, and to restrict the respondent's access to potential victims. The Court concluded that the proposed order was appropriate and made an order for the respondent's release from custody subject to the conditions set out in the judgement.