Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v. Valence - [2009] QSC 255

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Valence [2009] QSC 255

PARTIES:

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

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 2941 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

13 August 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 August 2009

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

As per the draft

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 Attorney-General applies for an order under Division 3 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of such an order

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

COUNSEL:

J B Rolls for the applicant

J M Sharp for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

WHITE J

SC No 2941 of 2009

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND	Applicant
and
KERRY PATRICK VALENCE	Respondent

BRISBANE

DATE 13/08/2009

ORDER

HER HONOUR: The Attorney-General has applied for an order under Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 that the respondent, Kerry Patrick Valence, be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment or subject to a supervision order, on the ground that without such an order he constitutes a serious danger to the community.

Mr Rolls appears for the Attorney-General and has submitted that the appropriate order necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community is a continuing detention order. Ms Sharp, for the respondent, concedes on behalf of her client that the Court would make such an order.

On the 10th of March 2006, the respondent was convicted of three counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 years; they were under 12. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the greatest of which was four years. His release date, taking into account pre-sentence custody is the 29th of August 2009.
The Chief Justice ordered reports to be prepared by Professor Basil James and Dr Michael Beech, both psychiatrists with appropriate expertise in risk assessment. Those reports have been prepared and neither is required to give oral evidence. There is other extensive material about the respondent, including a lengthy report by Dr Robert Moyle, psychiatrist, who saw the respondent in September 2008.

The respondent is present at the hearing by video link from his Corrections facility. No eligible person pursuant to section 21A of the Act has been identified.

A prisoner is a serious danger to the community if there is a serious risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence, either if he is released from custody or released from custody without a supervision order being made.

Section 13 sets out the matters to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v. Valence

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Valence [2009] QSC 255
Case: [2009] QSC 255
Decision Date: 13 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland versus Valence, the Queensland Court of Appeal was presented with a case concerning sentencing. The defendant, Valence, had been convicted of multiple serious offences and was subject to a sentence determined by the lower court. The Attorney-General sought to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. Valence, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and within the bounds of judicial discretion.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly inadequate, and if so, what appropriate sentence should be imposed. The Court was tasked with considering the principles of sentencing, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. Additionally, the Court had to examine whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to the sentencing decision.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The Court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately account for the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the crime. It was noted that the offences committed by Valence involved significant harm to victims and a breach of public trust. The Court concluded that a longer custodial sentence was warranted to achieve the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community. Consequently, the Court varied the sentence, imposing a longer term of imprisonment. The decision underscores the importance of a balanced and proportionate approach to sentencing, ensuring that the punishment reflects the severity of the crime and serves the broader interests of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

As per the draft

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Valence [2009] QSC 255
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v KERRY PATRICK VALENCE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 2941 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	13 August 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 August 2009
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	As per the draft
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 Attorney-General applies for an order under Division 3 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of such an order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13
COUNSEL:	J B Rolls for the applicant J M Sharp for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent