Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sagiba

[2009] QSC 439

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sagiba [2009] QSC 439

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
FRANK SAGIBA
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 10429 of 2009

DIVISION

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Applications

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 December 2009

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDERS:

Order that pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 the respondent be released subject to the terms of the supervision order.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Orders and declarations relating to serious or violent offenders or dangerous sexual offenders – Dangerous sexual offenders –  Generally – Continued supervision after release from prison

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13(4)

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant
B H Mumford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

HIS HONOUR:  In this application the Attorney-General seeks an

order pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders)

Act 2003 for the supervision of the respondent Frank Cyril

Sagiba upon his release, which is due to occur on the 13th

of January 2010.

Such an order can be made if the Court is satisfied that the

prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence

of a supervision order or a continuing detention order.  The

prisoner is a serious danger to the community if there is an

unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence

if released from custody without a supervision order being

made, as far as is relevant in the present case.

The evidence before the Court on that issue is all one way.

Two of the psychiatrists who have examined Mr Sagiba report

that he presents a moderate risk of re-offending, a third

psychiatrist, Dr Harden, that he presents a high risk of

re-offending if released in the absence of any order.

Mr Sagiba himself accepts that the conclusion that he would be

a serious danger to the community is correct and does not

contest the appropriateness of making a supervision order.

Section 13(4) of the Act sets out a number of considerations

which are relevant in making an assessment of the matter.

They have been helpfully listed by Mr Mumford in his outline

of argument, which I will have marked "A" for identification

and I will have the outline on behalf of the Attorney marked

"B" for identification.

MARKED "A" AND "B" FOR IDENTIFICATION

HIS HONOUR:  I see no need to go through all of those matters,

they demonstrate the conclusion by reference to the matters in

the Act.

The psychiatrists have a surprising level of unanimity in

their viewpoint and that strengthens the evidence in this

case.

I am particularly impressed by the way that Mr Sagiba has

reacted very positively during his time in prison and has

clearly learned and matured in many positive ways.  I think

that is greatly to his credit and he deserves to be

congratulated for the advances which he has made during this

time.

Some conditions have been proposed in the psychiatric

evidence, others are matters of commonsense, and they have

been incorporated into a supervision order, a draft of which

has been provided to me. I have discussed that draft with

the parties and, with some small amendments, I am satisfied

that the provisions of that draft are such that it would be

appropriate to make an order in that form.

An important aspect of the supervision order will be

abstention from alcohol or drugs.  It is fairly clear that

Mr Sagiba's history was dominated by excessive use of alcohol

and drugs and that these substances led him to behave in a

way which he now recognises as not acceptable and which he

would not want to be left to his own devices.

Sometimes it is thought that conditions in supervision orders

regarding abstinence from substances like these are mere

formalities.  I would like to emphasise in this case, these

conditions are not mere formalities, they are at the very

heart of the supervision order and it is most important that

Mr Sagiba is very strict with himself and ensures that there

is complete compliance with the abstinence provisions.  Any

deviation is liable to produce serious adverse effects, both

in terms of the risk of offending and in terms of what is

likely to happen with regard to Mr Sagiba's future.  It would

be a great pity if there were breaches of the order which

resulted in his return to prison.  Nobody wants to see that.

In the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the

order as drafted is consonant with the psychiatric reports,

Exhibits 1 and 2, and the report of Dr Sundin, exhibited to

her affidavit.

I will make an order in accordance with the draft, initialled

by me and placed with the papers.

-----