Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Van De Wetering

The case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Van De Wetering involved an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland for an order under Part 2, Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The application sought either the continuing detention of the respondent or his release subject to a supervision order on certain conditions. The respondent, a 56-year-old man, was due for full-time release on 6 October 2023 after serving a sentence for sexual offences. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent posed a serious danger to the community if released without a Division 3 order, and if not, whether his release could be adequately supervised to protect the community.

The court had to determine if the Attorney-General had demonstrated, on a high degree of probability, that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence without a continuing detention order. The court considered the statutory factors outlined in s 13(4) of the Act, including the respondent's criminal history, psychological and psychiatric reports, and other relevant evidence. The respondent had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal activities, and a lack of engagement in treatment programs. His denial of the sexual nature of his offending and refusal to participate in necessary treatment programs further complicated the assessment. The court also had to weigh the admissibility of certain evidence, such as allegations from the respondent's former wife, which were not relied upon for their truth but were considered for context and relevance.

After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the Attorney-General had discharged the burden of proving that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. The court found that the respondent's criminal history, psychological profile, and lack of rehabilitation efforts indicated a high likelihood of reoffending. Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment under s 13(5)(a) of the Act. The court’s decision was based on the unacceptable risk the respondent posed to the community and the need for continued detention to ensure public safety.