Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v SRD

The respondent, SRD, was subject to an examination by psychiatrists for the purposes of an application under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) ("the Act"). The application was brought by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland. The court was required to determine whether the respondent, if released without a Division 3 Part 2 order under the Act, presented an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence. The court was also required to decide whether adequate protection of the community could only be ensured by the making of a continuing detention order under s 13(5)(a) of the Act.

The court considered the evidence of two psychiatrists who examined the respondent. Both psychiatrists were of the view that the respondent presented an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released without a Division 3 Part 2 order. The court noted that the respondent had a history of sexual offending behaviour and that his risk of reoffending was high. The court also considered the evidence of the respondent's counsel who argued that the respondent had made significant progress in his treatment and that he was no longer a risk to the community. However, the court was not satisfied that the respondent's risk of reoffending had been sufficiently reduced to justify his release without a Division 3 Part 2 order.

The court concluded that the respondent, if released without a Division 3 Part 2 order, presented an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence. The court was satisfied that adequate protection of the community could only be ensured by the making of a continuing detention order under s 13(5)(a) of the Act. The court made an order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.

The court also made two other orders. Firstly, pursuant to s 8(2) of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, any report of today’s proceeding was not to identify the respondent by name. Secondly, access to the court file by any member of the public was to be restricted until the completion of the trial of the proceedings upon indictment 2938/18 in the District Court at Brisbane.