Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Musso

The Attorney-General for the State of Queensland brought proceedings against Filippo James Musso, seeking to rescind a supervision order and impose a continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA) due to alleged breaches by Musso. The respondent admitted the breaches, so the court's task was to decide whether the supervision order should be rescinded and replaced with a continuing detention order or if the supervision order could be reinstated, possibly with amendments. The court was required to determine whether the respondent had demonstrated that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the supervision order, either in its current form or amended.

The court considered the psychiatric evidence provided by Dr Karen Brown and Dr Kenneth Arthur, both experienced psychiatrists dealing with dangerous sexual offenders. Both psychiatrists opined that the respondent should remain in custody until he received further treatment and made further progress, which was crucial in determining whether the respondent could discharge the onus under s 22 of the DPSOA. The court also considered the treatment progress reported by the psychologist, Shay Addison, who noted that while there had been some progress in custody, the respondent struggled in community settings and faced many triggers and acute risk issues. The applicant suggested adjourning the application to allow the respondent to obtain further treatment, but the respondent's counsel argued against this, stating that the statutory scheme did not allow the court to dictate treatment conditions to the executive.

The court concluded that while it might be appropriate in some cases to adjourn an application under Division 5 of Part 2 of the DPSOA to enable a prisoner to undergo further treatment, it was generally inappropriate for the court to do so. The statutory scheme intended the court to determine whether the breach had been proved and if so, whether the supervision order should be rescinded unless the prisoner could discharge the onus cast by s 22. If the respondent could not discharge this onus, the supervision order should be rescinded, and a continuing detention order made.

The court rescinded the supervision order made by Wilson J on 20 August 2021, as amended by Cooper J on 8 September 2022 and Crowley J on 25 March 2024, and ordered that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.