Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v SLS (No 2)

The case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v SLS (No 2) was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the court was required to determine whether the respondent, an Indigenous man with a history of serious sexual offending, remained a serious danger to the community and whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the respondent's release on a supervision order. The respondent had been detained in custody for an indefinite term under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSO Act) since September 2019, following an order made by Burns J.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order and whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the respondent's release on a supervision order. These issues were determined based on the evidence presented by the parties, including psychiatric reports and assessments of the respondent's mental health and treatment needs.

In its reasoning, the court found that there was acceptable, cogent evidence, which satisfied it to the high degree of probability required pursuant to s 30(2) of the DPSO Act that the respondent remained a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under Division 3 of the DPSO Act. The court also noted that the respondent presented with a complex mix of factors, including a lifelong mental illness (Paranoid Schizophrenia) and a mild cognitive impairment, as well as other diagnoses including Antisocial Personality Disorder, Paedophilia, and Drug and Alcohol Use/Polysubstance Abuse. The court concluded that the respondent's unmodified risk of sexual reoffence was at the high or well above average (high) range.

Based on these findings, the court affirmed the decision made by Burns J that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the DPSO Act and ordered that the respondent continue to be subject to the Continuing Detention Order made by Burns J on 18 September 2019.