Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Valence

[2010] QSC 335

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Valence [2010] QSC 335

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
KERRY PATRICK VALENCE

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS2941 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for review

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2010 (ex tempore reasons)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 September 2010

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Order as per draft initialled by Mullins J and placed with the file

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – OTHER MATTERS – where respondent has served a term of imprisonment for sexual offences – where respondent currently under a continuing detention order – application for review of continuing detention order by Attorney-General under s 27 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) – where applicant sought an order pursuant to s 30 of the Act affirming the original decision that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order – whether evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision – where decision was affirmed

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 27, s 30

COUNSEL:

J B Rolls for the applicant

K Prskalo for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

HER HONOUR:  The applicant has made application pursuant to
section 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act
2003 (the Act) that the continuing detention of the
respondent, Mr Valence, be reviewed.

On 13 August 2009 her Honour Justice White ordered that the
respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term of
care, treatment and control (Attorney-General for the State of
Queensland v. Valence [2009] QSC 255).

Mr Valence is currently 53 years old.  His history of sexual
offending is summarised in Justice White's decision, including
the offences that resulted in his imprisonment for four years
with a full-time discharge date of 29 August 2009.  He remains
in prison, having completed those sentences, because of the
continuing detention order made by her Honour Justice White.
That order was made because the applicant made an application
under the Act that the respondent be dealt with under the Act.

Justice White in her decision summarised the psychiatric
assessments that were relied on for the purpose of that
application that were provided by Dr Moyle, Dr Beech and
Professor James.  Dr Beech had concluded that Mr Valence is an
“insightless recidivist sex offender with a poor attitude to
treatment and no reasonable plans to limit his risk.”  Dr Beech noted that the respondent has very few supports and
significant substance abuse problems.  Dr Beech expressed the
opinion that the respondent's risk of reoffending could be
reduced by his participation in a high intensity sexual
offender program with a subsequent development of a robust
relapse prevention plan that could, with supervision, be
monitored in the community.

Professor James' opinion concurred with that of Dr Beech.  It
is…