Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson
[2021] QSC 14
•12 February 2021
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2021] QSC 14
PARTIES:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
SHANE LACHLAN SORRENSON(respondent)
FILE NO:
BS No 2946 of 2019
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
Orders made on 17 November 2020
Reasons delivered on 12 February 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 November 2020
JUDGE:
Davis J
ORDER:
The Court being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Shane Lachlan Sorrenson, has contravened the requirements of the supervision order made by Justice Davis on 16 August 2019, orders that:
1. Pursuant to s 22(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the respondent be released from custody on 17 November 2020 and continues to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Davis on 16 August 2019.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER - GENERALLY - where the respondent is subject to a supervision order made on 16 August 2019 pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) - where the respondent contravened a requirement of the supervision order by consuming cannabis - where the applicant sought orders under s 22 of the DPSOA - whether the adequate protection of the community could, despite the contravention of the supervision order, be ensured by the existing supervision order.
Corrective Services Act 2006, s 209
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 2, s 5, s 6, s 8, s 13, s 20, s 22Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2019] 2 Qd R 57, related
COUNSEL:
J Tate for the applicant
J Fenton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant
Cridland & Hua Solicitors for the respondent
Shane Lachlan Sorrenson has been the subject of a supervision order under provisions of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) since 25 August 2019.[1] The Attorney-General alleges contraventions of the supervision order and seeks orders under s 22 of the DPSOA.
[1]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2019] 2 Qd R 57.
On 17 November 2020, I heard the contravention application and made the following order:
“Pursuant to s 22(2) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the respondent be released from custody on 17 November 2020 and continues to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Davis on 16 August 2019.”
These are my reasons for making that order.
History
Mr Sorrenson was born on 24 February 1971. He is presently 49 years of age and has a significant criminal history. His first convictions were suffered in 1991 when he was 20 years of age.
On 6 January 2008, Mr Sorrenson committed the offences of burglary, rape, deprivation of liberty and stealing (the 2008 offences). The 2008 offences were committed in the one incident. The complainant was a 77 year old woman. When making the supervision order under the DPSOA, I described the 2008 offences as:
“[22] The complainant, a 77 year old woman, was in her home unit in which she lived when the respondent broke in. He threatened her and tied her wrists together with string. He threatened and sexually assaulted her including forcing his penis into her mouth. While in the unit he rummaged through the complainant’s belongings and stole some things.”[2]
[2]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2019] 2 Qd R 57 at [22].
On 11 June 2010, Mr Sorrenson was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment with an effective head term of nine years with 355 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served on those sentences.
Parole was granted to Mr Sorrenson in 2014. His history on parole is complicated[3] but in August 2015 he was charged with various offences including rape and deprivation of liberty where the complainant was a woman known to him. In 2017, Mr Sorrenson pleaded guilty to the offence of deprivation of liberty and was ultimately acquitted of the counts of rape. He was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the sentences for the 2008 offences. His parole on the 2008 offences was cancelled by force of s 209(1) of the Corrective Services Act 2006.
[3]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2019] 2 Qd R 57 at [21].
While there was doubt as to whether the 2017 conviction was one for a “serious sexual offence”,[4] the Attorney-General filed an application for orders under the DPSOA[5] shortly before the expiry of the cumulated terms being served by Mr Sorrenson. I held that the application was duly made within the time prescribed by the DPSOA.[6]
[4]Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 2 and Schedule, Dictionary.
[5]Sections 5, 8, 13.
[6]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2019] 2 Qd R 57 at [78]-[80].
Evidence of forensic psychiatrists, Drs Brown, Sundin and Beech, was relied upon by the Attorney-General upon the application for orders under the DPSOA. There is no need to analyse that evidence.[7]
[7]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2019] 2 Qd R 57 at [81]-[86].
On 16 August 2019, I found that Mr Sorrenson was a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under the DPSOA.[8] I held that a supervision order containing appropriate conditions would ensure adequate protection of the community by removing any unacceptable risk that he would commit a serious sexual offence.[9] I ordered he be released on a supervision order for five years, expiring on 25 August 2024.[10]
[8]Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13(1).
[9]Section 13(5)(b) and s 6.
[10]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sorrenson [2019] 2 Qd R 57 at [89]-[94].
On 10 March 2020 Mr Sorrenson was arrested on a warrant pursuant to s 20 of the DPSOA. On 12 March 2020 he came before this court and Brown J ordered that he be detained until a final order of the court under s 22 of the DPSOA.
The contravention is particularised in the application as follows:
“Alleged contravention
On 9 March 2020 the respondent was observed to be parked in a motor vehicle at the Mt Ommaney shopping centre. He was positioned adjacent to a child care playground and was observed to be performing an indecent act, namely masturbation.
Two witnesses allege that the respondent was parked in a motor vehicle and the witnesses observed the respondent partaking in the motions of masturbation. A male witness observed the respondent’s genitals and saw him performing an indecent act, namely masturbation.
The Queensland Police Service was contacted and intercepted the respondent at the scene, after which he was detained for questioning. Several items of material and waste paper were seized from the vehicle and retained for DNA testing. The respondent denied the allegations to police.
On 10 March 2020, the respondent was arrested and charged by the QPS[11] with the offence of indecent act pursuant to s 227 of the Criminal Code 1889.
Whilst the respondent was being arrested by the QPS in relation to the indecent act offence, two mobile phones were located in the respondent’s belongings. Both devices remain in the custody of the QPS pending further forensic examination.
QCS[12] records indicate that the respondent had disclosed to QCS the use of only one (1) personal mobile phone, namely an Optus X view device.”[13]
[11]A reference to Queensland Police Service.
[12]A reference to Queensland Corrective Services.
[13]Application, CFI 26.
On 20 July 2020, Mr Sorrenson pleaded guilty in the Richlands Magistrates Court to one count of committing an indecent act in a public place. He was sentenced to eight months imprisonment and given a parole release date of 20 July 2020.
The conduct alleged in the contravention application constituted contravention of conditions 8, 9, 30 and 33 of the supervision order. Those conditions are:
“(8.)not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order;
(9.)not commit an indictable offence during the period of the order;
(30.)notify a Corrective Services officer of any computer or other device connected to the internet that he regularly uses or has used;
(33.)advise a Corrective Services officer of the make, model and phone number of any mobile phone owned, possessed or regularly utilised by him within 24 hours of connection or commencement of use, including reporting any changes to mobile phone details;”
Mr Sorrenson admitted the contraventions.
Psychiatric evidence
Dr Sundin and Dr Brown were engaged by the Attorney-General to prepare risk assessment reports for the purposes of the contravention proceedings.
Dr Sundin provided the following opinion:
“…Mr Sorenson’s Static-99R score rises to 6, placing him in a group of offenders considered to be at well above average risk for future sexual recidivism. Previously he scored 5 placing him in the moderate to high risk group.
The other risk assessments have not changed since my 2019 report.
In my opinion he represents a moderate unmodified risk for sexual recidivism. His risk is reduced to moderate to low with the presence of the current supervision order.
…
Like Dr Andrews,[14] I was left with the impression that Mr Sorenson’s indecent act reflected his dull IQ and poor judgement in engaging in an activity that was designed to relieve his sexual needs in a place that he perceived to be a more private space (i.e. within his car).
I consider that the proximity of his vehicle to a childcare centre reflects his general lack of self-awareness and very poor judgement, rather than any deviant paraphilic drive.
Mr Sorenson’s denial of the offence at interview, even after having pled guilty before the Magistrate; is congruent with his pattern of minimisation and a desire to distance himself from his previous sexual offences.
Overall, I consider that Mr Sorenson’s unmodified risk for sexual recidivism is moderate and has been reduced to moderate to low by the imposition of a supervision order.
…
In my opinion, Mr Sorenson needs further treatment with Dr Andrews and would benefit from participation in a Sexual Offenders Maintenance programme (SOMP) within the community.
I consider it positive that he was engaged with his family, engaged in vocational study, was looking to re-engage with employment and was attending his appointments with Dr Andrews. It is also positive that he did not breach by way of use of intoxicants.
In my opinion, this breach reflected his dull intellect, impulsivity and lack of consequential thinking.
I respectfully recommend to the Court that Mr Sorenson could be returned to the community under the supervision order of Justice Davis made on 16th August 2019.”[15] (emphasis added)
[14]A neuro psychologist.
[15]Report of Dr Sundin, 23 October 2020, page 10-11.
In relation to the indecent act, Dr Brown opined that: “as per his earlier offending, the recent offence of indecent behaviour is probably best conceptualised as secondary to chronic sexual frustration and poor judgment”.[16] In relation to Mr Sorrenson’s risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released, Dr Brown concluded that a supervision order would reduce his risk to a “moderate and manageable level”.[17]
[16]Report of Dr Brown, 12 November 2020, page 32.
[17]Report of Dr Brown, 12 November 2020, page 33.
Dr Andrews, Mr Sorrenson’s treating psychologist, also provided a report:
“Mr Sorrenson appeared to be progressing well in therapy sessions. He was willing to engage and was open to intervention. He did present with an overly positive presentation at times however, he was able to identify worries and stressors when directly addressed. He did not appear deceptive and his positive self-presentation appeared to be secondary to a lack of insight and the need to be perceived as doing well and distancing himself from his past offending.
Whilst there were several areas of potential risk which required addressing and monitoring, such as his relationship with partner and issues around rejection and trust, it appeared that Mr Sorrenson responded well to intervention. He had taken on advice around changing communication patterns with his partner, and had taken on advice with respect to compliance with pre-planned movements. Based on the information available Mr Sorrenson appeared to adjust relatively well to the community and was keen to abide by his order.”[18]
[18]Report of Dr Andrews, dated 22 June 2020.
Statutory context
Section 22 of the DPSOA concerns the hearing of an application for orders consequent upon a contravention of a supervision order. It provides, relevantly:
“22 Court may make further order
(1)The following subsections apply if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the released prisoner is likely to contravene, is contravening, or has contravened, a requirement of the supervision order or interim supervision order (each the existing order).
(2)Unless the released prisoner satisfies the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by the existing order as amended under subsection (7), the court must—
(a) if the existing order is a supervision order, rescind it and make a continuing detention order; or
(b) if the existing order is an interim supervision order, rescind it and make an order that the released prisoner be detained in custody for the period stated in the order. …
(7)If the released prisoner satisfies the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by a supervision order or interim supervision order, the court—
(a) must amend the existing order to include all of the requirements under section 16(1) if the order does not already include all of those requirements; and
(b) may otherwise amend the existing order in a way the court considers appropriate—
(i)to ensure adequate protection of the community; or
(ii)for the prisoner’s rehabilitation or care or treatment.
(8)The existing order may not be amended under subsection (7)(b) so as to remove any requirements mentioned in section 16(1).”
Consideration and conclusions
I found that Mr Sorrenson had contravened the supervision order as particularised in the contravention application.[19] Such a finding was inevitable. Mr Sorrenson admitted the contraventions.
[19]Section 22(1).
I accepted the opinions of Drs Sundin, Brown and Andrews. From those opinions, I found that:
(a)the contravening conduct did not indicate an increase in the risk of commission of a serious sexual offence;
(b)Mr Sorrenson’s relevant risk of reoffending is reduced to, at worst, moderate levels if he is released subject to the supervision order;
(c)no variation or extension of the supervision order was necessary.
I therefore concluded that:
(a)Mr Sorrenson had discharged the onus placed upon him by s 22(7) of the DPSOA and proved that, despite the proven contraventions of the supervision order, adequate protection of the community could be ensured by his release back on the supervision order;
(b)the supervision order should not be amended or extended.
For those reasons, I made the orders that I did.
0
0
2