Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Nemo
Case
•
[2020] QSC 140
•29 May 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Nemo [2020] QSC 140
[2020] QSC 140
29 May 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Nemo concerned the supervision order made on the respondent under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. The primary issue for the court was whether the respondent had shown cause under section 22(7) of the Act, warranting his release back into the community under the supervision order. The respondent had breached the supervision order by consuming and possessing illicit drugs but had not committed a serious sexual offence during the period of supervision. The court had to consider the evidence of the psychiatrists and the statutory tests prescribed by the Act in determining the appropriate sentence.
The court addressed the statutory tests outlined in section 22(6) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. It was necessary to consider whether there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence. The evidence of psychiatrists Drs Sundin, McVie, and Beech indicated that the respondent's risk of committing a serious sexual offence while on supervision was low, even considering his breach of the supervision order. The court accepted this evidence and found that the respondent's risk for future sexual violence was in the moderate to high range, but not unacceptable. The court concluded that no variation of the conditions or extension of the supervision order was warranted.
In light of the evidence and statutory tests, Jackson J determined that the respondent had shown cause under section 22(7) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and ordered the release of the respondent from custody on 22 May 2020. The respondent, Winston John Nemo, would continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Bowskill J on 16 July 2018. The court accepted the evidence of the psychiatrists and found that the respondent's risk of committing a serious sexual offence while on supervision was low. Therefore, the respondent would remain subject to the existing supervision order without any variations or extensions.
The final orders of the court were that the respondent, Winston John Nemo, be released from custody on 22 May 2020 and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Bowskill J on 16 July 2018. The court found that the respondent had shown cause under section 22(7) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and that his risk of committing a serious sexual offence while on supervision was low. The evidence of the psychiatrists supported this finding, and no variation of the conditions or extension of the supervision order was warranted.
The court addressed the statutory tests outlined in section 22(6) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. It was necessary to consider whether there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence. The evidence of psychiatrists Drs Sundin, McVie, and Beech indicated that the respondent's risk of committing a serious sexual offence while on supervision was low, even considering his breach of the supervision order. The court accepted this evidence and found that the respondent's risk for future sexual violence was in the moderate to high range, but not unacceptable. The court concluded that no variation of the conditions or extension of the supervision order was warranted.
In light of the evidence and statutory tests, Jackson J determined that the respondent had shown cause under section 22(7) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and ordered the release of the respondent from custody on 22 May 2020. The respondent, Winston John Nemo, would continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Bowskill J on 16 July 2018. The court accepted the evidence of the psychiatrists and found that the respondent's risk of committing a serious sexual offence while on supervision was low. Therefore, the respondent would remain subject to the existing supervision order without any variations or extensions.
The final orders of the court were that the respondent, Winston John Nemo, be released from custody on 22 May 2020 and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Bowskill J on 16 July 2018. The court found that the respondent had shown cause under section 22(7) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and that his risk of committing a serious sexual offence while on supervision was low. The evidence of the psychiatrists supported this finding, and no variation of the conditions or extension of the supervision order was warranted.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Sentencing
-
Criminal Liability
-
Limitation Periods
-
Dangerous Sexual Offender
-
Supervision Order
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Van De Wetering v Attorney-General (Qld) [2024] QCA 222
Cases Citing This Decision
20
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Brennan
[2024] QSC 248
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Brown
[2024] QSC 118
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Possum
[2024] QSC 29
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
R v Stevenson
[2016] QCA 162
Turnbull v Attorney-General
[2015] QCA 54
Attorney-General v Fardon
[2011] QCA 155