Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn

The applicant, the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, sought a Division 3 order under the Dangerous Prisoner (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) against the respondent, Waghorn. The court was required to decide whether a supervision order would ensure the adequate protection of the community as required by s 13(6) of the Act. The court considered the respondent's persistent access to pornographic material, despite his contraventions of the existing supervision order, and the grave concern arising from the nature of his previous sexual offences, including his consideration to kill a victim. The court also considered the respondent's positive approach to therapy and his decision to undertake treatment using Androcur.

The court concluded that the evidence did not presently support the release of the respondent on a supervision order, and that the adequate protection of the community could not be ensured by the existing supervision order, whether or not it was amended. The court granted the application and rescinded the existing supervision order, making a continuing detention order. The court found that the respondent's persistent access to pornographic material, his deliberate decision not to discuss this conduct with his therapist, and the substantial risk that he would commit further sexual offences, even with the safeguards of a supervision order, were matters of considerable concern. The court also found that the respondent's relationship with his therapist and his positive approach to therapy provided some encouragement. However, the court was not satisfied that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by a supervision order.

The court made two orders: (1) that the supervision order made on 22 December 2011 be rescinded, and (2) that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment. The court found that the respondent's persistent access to pornographic material, his deliberate decision not to discuss this conduct with his therapist, and the substantial risk that he would commit further sexual offences, even with the safeguards of a supervision order, were matters of considerable concern. The court was not satisfied that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by a supervision order.