Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Watt
[2024] QSC 208
•23 September 2024
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Watt [2024] QSC 208
PARTIES:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
ROWLAND ARNOLD WATT(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BS No 1824 of 2021
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
23 September 2024
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
2 and 23 September 2024
JUDGE:
Treston J
ORDER:
1. Pursuant to s 30(l) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the decision made on 6 May 2021, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed;
2. Pursuant to s 30(5) of the Act, the continuing detention order made on 15 February 2023 be rescinded;
3. Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the Act, the respondent be released from custody and from that time be subject to the following requirements for a period of 10 years, until 23 September 2034.
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 respondent was subject to a supervision order spanning from 06 May 2024 until 9 May 2031 – where the respondent contravened that supervision order twice – where the Attorney-General applied for an annual review of that order – where the Attorney-General originally submitted that a continuing detention order was appropriate – where, following the respondent’s commencement of anti-libidinal treatment, the Attorney-General and respondent are in agreement that the respondent ought to be released subject to a supervision order – whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act2003 (Qld) s 13, s 16, s 28A, s 30
Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld)
COUNSEL:
A Tate for the applicant
R Hew for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Crown Law for the applicant
Guest Lawyers for the respondentProcedural background
On 6 May 2021, Justice Davis was satisfied that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order and ordered that he be released from custody to be subject to a supervision order for a period of 10 years until 9 May 2031.
Mr Watt first contravened the requirements of that supervision order on 18 May 2021 less than two weeks after his initial release when he tested positive for the use of methylamphetamine. He was returned to custody on 20 May 2021.
Williams J heard the contravention hearing on 12 July 2021, and released him back on the same supervision order.
On 7 May 2022, police conducted surveillance on Mr Watt as a consequence of which he was apprehended, with 10 Subutex strips in excess of his prescribed dose.
A contravention hearing proceeded before Cooper J on 30 January 2023. The supervision order was rescinded, and the respondent was detained in custody on a continuing detention order.
The hearing of the annual review was listed on 19 February 2024 but for administrative reasons could not be facilitated on that date.
A fresh date of 18 March 2024 was allocated but later vacated by agreement of the parties to allow the respondent to commence anti-libidinal treatment.
It was originally the submission of the Attorney-General that the decision made on 15 February 2023, that the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order under the Act, ought to be affirmed.
The circumstances have now changed, for reasons I will set out below, and the position of both the Attorney-General and Mr Watt is that he ought to be released subject to a supervision order.
Review test
The process for the review hearing is contained in s 30 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act2003 (Qld) (“the Act”). Pursuant to s 30(1), the question I must consider is whether, having regard to the required matters, I should affirm the decision that the prisoner is a “serious danger to the community” in the absence of a division 3 order.
Pursuant to s 13(2), a person is a serious danger to the community if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence—
“(a)if the prisoner is released from custody; or
(b)if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made.”
At the review hearing, the court has regard to the ‘required matters’ as defined in s 30(6), being the matters mentioned in s 13(4) and any report produced under s 28A of the Act.
On the hearing of the review, the court may affirm the decision only if it is satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision.
If the court affirms the decision, then pursuant to s 30(3), the court may order that the prisoner continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or, alternatively, be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
In deciding whether to make an order under ss 30(3)(a) or (b), the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. Separately, the court must consider whether, first, adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order, and second, the requirements under s 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by Corrective Services.
Respondent’s background, antecedents and criminal history
With respect to the required matters to which I must have regard in this case, I note the following matters with respect to the respondent’s background, antecedents and criminal history.
Mr Watt was born on 25 February 1987. He was an only child although each of his parents had a child from an earlier relationship. His mother committed suicide in 2010 and his father died in 2017. His father as a bus driver who was also an alcoholic. His parents fostered many children as he was growing up. He claims to have been sexually abused on a number of occasions whilst he was a child. He has an extensive criminal history dating back to convictions for sexual offending in 2005 when he was aged 18 years for which he was sentenced in 2006. He thereafter received further convictions in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019.
The detail of his history of sexual offending has been sent out previously in the numerous sentencing remarks, but also in the decision of Davis J when the original supervision order was made, and in the contravention hearing before Cooper J. Both are referred to above.
Most recently (19 Sept 2024), Mr Watt was sentence for further sexual offences committed between 22 December 2001 and 23 January 2002. He was given a head sentence of 18 months imprisonment and 549 days of pre-sentence custody was declared as time served under the sentence. He was given an immediate Parole Eligibility Date. The effect of that order is that the sentence expired on 20 September 2024, so he is now in custody solely on the Continuing Detention Order.
Mr Watt has been examined extensively by psychiatrists and psychologists over the years. I will not repeat the summary of the evidence contained in the decisions of Justice Davis and Justice Cooper. For the purposes of this application, I accept their summaries as accurate and rely upon them for the purposes of my reasoning. Of particular relevance, however, to this application is the more recent evidence of Drs Brown and Arthur, which I have set out in some detail below.
Position of each party
The respondent does not dispute that the evidence before the court supports a finding that he presents a “serious danger to the community” in the absence of a division 3 order. The live issue in this application remains how the discretion conferred by s 30(3) of the Act should be exercised, that is, firstly, whether the respondent should be subject to a continuing detention order or, secondly, whether he should be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
The Attorney-General’s position was originally that Mr Watt should be the subject of a continuing detention order. However, after receiving a supplementary report of Mr Watt’s treating consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr Lenardon, and hearing the evidence of the two psychiatrists set out below, the Attorney-General expressed the view, supported by Mr Watt’s counsel, that Mr Watt ought to be released from custody subject to a supervision order.
Psychiatrist reports
Dr Lenardon’s opinion is contained in her supplementary report dated 30 August 2024, which is exhibit one in the current proceedings. Dr Lenardon was not required for cross-examination.
That report demonstrates that Mr Watt has now commenced taking an anti-libidinal medication, Zoladex. This is the primary factor causing Dr Lenardon to alter her view about whether the danger to the community could be ameliorated by a supervision order.
The evidence demonstrates that Mr Watt had indicated willingness to commence on anti-libidinal medication some time ago but for reasons not attributable to his own fault, he was not able to commence on that medication any earlier than June of this year. He took the drug orally in June 2024. Since then, he has received it intravenously on 22 August 2024.
There is no pathology that has been undertaken to demonstrate the biological effect on his testosterone levels during the period of the oral medication. It can be accepted, however, that he has been compliant with the injection regime. Drs Arthur and Brown, the psychiatrists who have previously given evidence in relation to Mr Watt, both noted that although there is no blood testing to demonstrate his actual testosterone levels, their experience in clinical practice suggested that the injections of Zoladex generally lead to a chemical level of castration so that testosterone levels are reduced to below a level of one.
Mr Watt has advised Dr Lenardon that he is willing to continue to take anti-libidinal medication and is in fact happy to do so. He has told Dr Lenardon that he felt he had had positive changes since he commenced that medication; in particular, the medication was helping him control his sexual preoccupation with young women. Mr Watt told Dr Lenardon that since commencing the medications, he has not had any severe side effects and that he wished to continue with treatment so that would help with his risk of re-offending. Dr Lenardon suggested that Mr Watt be reviewed in two months’ time for follow-up blood tests for his testosterone levels, kidney and liver function, full blood count, lipids, glucose and bone profile.
Additionally, the court had further evidence from Ms Shay Addison, psychologist, who has been treating Mr Watt. Ms Addison has seen Mr Watt nine times since October 2023 when her last treatment summary was provided. Ms Addison recorded that Mr Watt:
(a)was consistently well-regulated, and had engaged in sessions to a good standard;
(b)showed improved motivation to manage his distress and tolerate difficult feelings;
(c)was more open about his paedophilic interest, motivation, preoccupation and arousal processes;
(d)had consented to anti-libidinal treatment and had noticed a significant reduction in preoccupation with deviant themes; and
(e)was willing to continue behavioural aversion therapy.
Ms Addison was not required for cross-examination.
The two psychiatrists who gave evidence before me, Drs Arthur and Brown, both have now changed their views expressed in their previous reports.
Dr Brown originally provided a report dated 11 January 2024. Her report was for the purpose of a risk assessment pursuant to s 11 of the Act for the first annual review of the continuing detention order. Her report was based on an interview with Mr Watt on 16 November 2023 at the Wolston Correctional Centre.
Dr Brown observed that Mr Watt had consistently reported sexual attraction to, and sexual fantasies involving, prepubescent female children and that he had numerous convictions for sexual offences against female children in that age range. Dr Brown also noted that he had a diagnosis of a substance use disorder for which he was currently in remission, that he had been sexually abused during his childhood, and that his presentation was consistent with a diagnosis of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, he had had a mixed cluster B personality disorder with antisocial, emotionally unstable and narcissistic traits.
Dr Brown had assessed Mr Watt’s risk profile, and the details of her earlier assessments are set out by Davis J and Cooper J in their earlier judgments. Importantly for the purposes of the review, Dr Brown explained that she had now changed her position because she had now received the report of Dr Lenardon, Mr Watt’s treating psychiatrist. Dr Brown now considered that Mr Watt’s risk profile had reduced to moderate after he had commenced on the course of anti-libidinal injections. Dr Brown noted that he was tolerating the drug well, his adherence to it was sustained (although with the obvious reservation that his adherence is being supervised whilst in custody), he had a positive treatment response to it, and based on clinical experience rather than on any particular individual testing, Dr Brown had an expectation that Mr Watt’s testosterone levels had reduced significantly to a level below one — effectively chemical castration.
Additionally, Dr Brown observed that Mr Watt had both a good therapeutic relationship with his treating psychologist, Ms Addison, and his treating psychiatrist, Dr Lenardon. Dr Brown expressed the view that if his treatment was able to continue to be managed in the community, such that he would continue to receive the anti-libidinal injections, she considered that his risk was reduced to moderate or perhaps even to a lower level. Dr Brown stressed the importance of ongoing testing in relation to his testosterone levels. Dr Brown also noted that Mr Watt was to be sentenced on 20 September 2024 for some historical charges and therefore considered that the continued period of time that he would remain in custody would help manage the intake of the anti-libidinal medication. When he was ultimately released, whenever that may be subject to his future sentencing, his procedural compliance would also be enforced by a supervision order. Dr Brown considered Mr Watt ought to remain on a supervision order for 10 years.
Dr Brown’s evidence was that although she had not seen Mr Watt and reviewed him recently, she detected that Mr Watt had a positive therapeutic relationship with his treating doctor, Ms Addison. Dr Brown described that it was clear that the therapy had had a considerable impact upon Mr Watt. Dr Brown also observed that Ms Addison’s evidence was that Ms Addison could not go much further with treatment with Mr Watt in the custodial setting and that he needed to practice his skills in the community setting.
Dr Brown expressed the view that it was in her opinion, appropriate to test Mr Watt in the community provided that the anti-libidinal medication was in place.
Further, in relation to the question of risk, Dr Brown agreed in cross-examination that Mr Watt had never expressed to her reluctance to take the medication, and indeed most recently had indicated a willingness to take it. Dr Brown agreed that the only difficulties with the commencement of the anti-libidinal medication were ones which had arisen because Mr Watt was in custody, and not because of any reluctance on his part to take it.
As to the static factors identified in her reports, whilst Dr Brown agreed those factors would never change, she did consider that the dynamic factors demonstrated that he was cooperating with Ms Addison, who saw him regularly, and given the positive changes that he was demonstrating through the course of his treatment with Ms Addison, and his compliance with injections, she considered his risk had been reduced to an acceptable level, probably described as moderate or even lower.
Dr Arthur was present when Dr Brown gave evidence. He agreed with Dr Brown’s evidence.
Dr Arthur had previously expressed reservations about Mr Watt being released to the community. He had been concerned that he had not seen any improvement in insight nor any agreement to take anti-libidinal medication, which he considered to be most significant in the context of a person who is a recidivist child sex offender.
Dr Arthur observed that on the basis of Dr Lenardon’s report, he could conclude that Mr Watt had commenced taking anti-libidinal medication in either May or June of this year at a starting dose of 50 mg up to 100 mg. That medication, in conjunction with the injection on 22 August 2024, suggested that the anti-libidinal treatment should have substantially reduced Mr Watt’s sexual preoccupation and in fact his sexual appetite as well as led to a reduction in his deviant sexual fantasies and patterns.
Dr Arthur noted that Mr Watt reported benefit from the anti-libidinal medication. In the community, he accepted that that medication would be administered intravenously by a general practitioner, and in his opinion the general practitioner needed to be able to let someone know if Mr Watt missed that medication. Dr Arthur agreed that the intravenous injections of Zoladex would result in close to chemical castration which was extremely important because it would be highly effective to help reduce Mr Watt’s sexual appetite. Dr Arthur considered that that medication in conjunction with the security of a supervision order would give him confidence that Mr Watt could be released into the community. Dr Arthur agreed that Mr Watt needed to be subject to a supervision order for 10 years. Dr Arthur described that that 10 year requirement was because of the substantial evidence of deviant sexual behaviour which meant that a long order was required.
Parties’ approach after further evidence
Here, the Attorney-General accepts that the further evidence demonstrates that Mr Watt’s compliance with the anti-libidinal medication, in conjunction with a supervision order, are such that his risk is no longer unacceptable. Indeed, the Attorney-General submits that the risk is significantly ameliorated by the combination of the medication and the supervision order. In the circumstances, the Attorney-General submits in fact that Mr Watt ought to be released subject to the draft supervision order which has been submitted.
On behalf of Mr Watt, it is submitted that the supervision order provides extensive oversight of Mr Watt. It is contended that the order ought to be made because firstly, both psychiatrists are entirely supportive of that approach. Secondly, Mr Watt has demonstrated to have made a considerable and positive progress, and thirdly, Mr Watt is unable to progress his further treatment with Ms Addison in a custodial setting. That is, Ms Addison is now at a point in therapy with Mr Watt where behavioural techniques used to treat deviancy (i.e. ammonia aversion therapy and minimal arousal conditioning) would ordinarily be implemented, but these cannot be done whilst he is in custody due to operational restrictions. As such, that part of his therapy remains on hold until he is released to the community. In her supplementary report of 30 July 2024, Ms Addison further observed that the script for the ammonia therapy was unable to be used whilst he was in a custodial environment.
It was submitted that the continuation and progression of Mr Watt’s psychological treatment would in turn reduce his risk of sexual reoffending and would thus enhance community protection.
Fourthly, the anti-libidinal medication which has been taken orally since June and in injectable form from 22 August all demonstrate Mr Watt’s commitment to continuing with that medication.
Fifthly, Mr Watt’s treating psychiatrist, Dr Lenardon, is supportive of his release under a supervision order on the basis that he will continue to take the anti-libidinal medication.
Conclusion
The phrase “unacceptable risk” is not defined by the Act and is incapable of precise definition. It is an expression which requires striking a balance that takes into account considerations including the likelihood of a person reoffending, the type of offence the person will commit, and the consequences to any victim of the commission of that offence.
When considering whether a risk is unacceptable, the court may take into account treatment, therapy or other rehabilitative measures that the offender might engage in. However, it is important to remember that whilst those matters might be taken into account, the primary focus of the Act is not on rehabilitation but on ensuring the protection of the community from those at risk of committing a serious sexual offence.
I am satisfied by acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, that adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practically managed by supervision order in this case.
Mr Watt will have to continue to take the prescribed anti-libidinal medication at the dosage and frequency prescribed by his treating psychiatrist or doctor. He must not change that type of medication, or the dosage or frequency of it, unless that change is approved by his treating psychiatrist and a corrective services officer is advised. That is addressed in the supervision order.
Both counsel drew to my attention the tension between this court’s ability to direct Mr Watt to take the anti-libidinal medication pursuant to the provisions of the Act as opposed to the ability to make such orders, for example, under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld). The tensions arise in the context of Mr Watt’s human rights. Nevertheless, compliance with the anti-libidinal medication regime is a precondition to Mr Watt’s release on the supervision order.
Furthermore, the fact that the supervision order will be in place for a period of 10 years is a significant issue in favour of the grant of the order because Mr Watt will continue to be closely supervised by Corrective Services, and his ongoing compliance with anti-libidinal medication will equally be so monitored. If necessary, there is power for the supervision order to be amended (see Division 4 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)).
It is therefore the appropriate to order that the prisoner be released subject to a supervision order.
The paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community. I am satisfied on the evidence that that protection is afforded by the supervision order which has been provided to me. That supervision order is attached hereto and marked Annexure A.
ANNEXURE A
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
REGISTRY: Brisbane
NUMBER: 1824/21
Applicant:ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
QUEENSLAND
AND
RespondentROWLAND ARNOLD WATT
SUPERVISION ORDER
Before:Justice Treston
Date:23 September 2024
Initiating document: Application filed 5 December 2023 (CFI No. 72)
THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:
Pursuant to s 30(l) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”), the decision made on 6 May 2021, that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed;
Pursuant to s 30(5) of the Act, the continuing detention order made on 15 February 2023 be rescinded;
Pursuant to s 30(3)(b) of the Act, the respondent be released from custody and from that time be subject to the following requirements for a period of 10 years, until 23 September 2034;
Supervision Order GR Cooper
CROWN SOLICITOR
Filed on behalf of the applicant 11th Floor, State Law Building
Form 59 R. 661 50 Ann Street
Brisbane Qld 4000
Per Stephanie Hunter Telephone 07 3031 5797
PL4/ATT110/3996/CST E: [email protected]
TO Rowland Arnold Watt:
You are being released from prison but only if you obey the rules in this supervision order.
If you break any of the rules in this supervision order, the police or Queensland Corrective Services have the power to arrest you. Then the Court might order that you go back to prison.
You must obey these rules for the next 10 years.
Reporting
On the day you are released from prison, you must report before 4 pm to a Corrective Services officer at the Community Corrections office closest to where you will live. You must tell the Corrective Services officer your name and the address where you will live.
A Corrective Services officer will tell you the times and dates when you must report to them. You must report to them at the times they tell you to report. A Corrective Services officer might visit you at your home. You must let the Corrective Services officer come into your house.
To “report” means to visit a Corrective Services officer and talk to them face to face.
Supervision
A Corrective Services officer will supervise you until this order is finished. This means you must obey any reasonable direction that a Corrective Services officer gives you about:
(a)where you are allowed to live; and
(b)rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and
(c)using drugs and alcohol; and
(d)who you may have contact with; and
(e)anything else, except for instructions that mean you will break the rules in this supervision order.
A “reasonable direction” is an instruction about what you must do, or what you must not do, that is reasonable in that situation.
If you are not sure about a direction, you can ask a Corrective Services officer for more information, or talk to your lawyer about it.
You must answer and tell the truth if a Corrective Services officer asks you about where you are, what you have been doing or what you are planning to do, and who you are spending time with.
If you change your name, where you live or any employment, you must tell a Corrective Services officer at least two business days before the change will happen.
A “business day” is a week day (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) that is not a public holiday.
No offences
You must not break the law by committing an offence of a sexual nature.
You must not break the law by committing an indictable offence.
Where you must live
You must live at a place approved by a Corrective Services officer. You must obey any rules that are made about people who live there.
You must not live at another place. If you want to live at another place, you must tell a Corrective Services officer the address of the place you want to live. The Corrective Services officer will decide if you are allowed to live at that place. You are allowed to change the place you live only when you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer to live at another place.
This also means you must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place.
You must not leave Queensland. If you want to leave Queensland, you must ask for written permission from a Corrective Services officer. You are allowed to leave Queensland only after you get written permission from a Corrective Services officer.
Curfew direction
A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to stay at a place (for example, the place you live) at particular times. This is called a curfew direction. You must obey a curfew direction.
Monitoring direction
A Corrective Services officer has power to tell you to:
(a)wear a device that tracks your location; and
(b)let them install a device or equipment at the place you live. This will monitor if you are there.
This is called a monitoring direction. You must obey a monitoring direction.
Employment or study
You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work,
When you ask for permission, you must tell the Corrective Services officer these things:
(a)what the job is;
(b)who you will work for;
(c)what hours you will work each day;
(d)the place or places where you will work; and
(e)(if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study.
If a Corrective Services officer tells you to stop working or studying, you must obey what they tell you.
Motor vehicles
You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, colour and registration number) about any vehicle you own, borrow or hire. You must tell the Corrective Services officer these details immediately (on the same day) you get the vehicle.
A vehicle includes a car, motorbike, ute or truck.
Mobile phone
You are only allowed to own or have (even if you do not own it) one mobile phone. You must tell a Corrective Services officer the details (make, model, phone number and service provider) about any mobile phone you own or have within 24 hours of when you get the phone.
You must give a Corrective Services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phone you own or have. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone.
Computers and internet
You must get written permission from a Corrective Services officer before you are allowed to use a computer, phone or other device to access the internet.
You must give a Corrective Services officer any password or other access code you know for the computer, phone or other device. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using the computer, phone or other device. You must let a Corrective Services officer look at the computer, phone or other device and everything on it.
You must give a Corrective Services officer details (including usernames and passwords) about any email address, instant messaging service, chat rooms, or social networking sites that you use. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using any of these things.
No contact with any victim
You must not contact or try to contact any victim(s) of a sexual offence committed by you. You must not ask someone else to do this for you.
“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
Rules about alcohol and drugs
You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, or sniff) any alcohol. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any alcohol.
You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, smoke or sniff) any illegal drugs. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any illegal drugs.
You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, vape, smoke or sniff) tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in any form, prescribed or non-prescribed. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any of any products / substances that contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
A Corrective Services officer has the power to tell you to take a drug test or alcohol test. You must take the drug test or alcohol test when they tell you to. You must give them some of your breath, or pee (urine) when they tell you to do this.
You are not allowed to go to pubs, clubs, hotels or nightclubs which are licensed to supply or serve alcohol. If you want to go to one of these places, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to go.
Rules about medicine
You must tell a Corrective Services officer about any medicine that a doctor prescribes (tells you to buy). You must also tell a Corrective Services officer about any over the counter medicine that you buy or have with you. You must do this within 24 hours of seeing the doctor or buying the medicine.
You must take prescribed medicine only as directed by a doctor. You must not take any medicine (other than over the counter medicine) which has not been prescribed for you by a doctor.
Rules about medicine - anti libidinal
If prescribed the anti-libidinal medication (Goserelin Acetate) by your treating psychiatrist or doctor, you must receive injections of the anti-libidinal medication (Goserelin Acetate), at the dosage and the frequency as prescribed to you by your treating psychiatrist or doctor.
You must not change the type of anti-libidinal medication, or the dosage or frequency it is given to you, unless that is approved by your treating psychiatrist and advised to a Corrective Services officer.
If prescribed the anti-libidinal medication (Goserelin Acetate) by your treating psychiatrist or doctor, you must receive injections of the anti-libidinal medication from your treating psychiatrist or your general practitioner. You must let your treating psychiatrist and your general practitioner provide information to a Corrective Services officer about the administration of the anti-libidinal medication to you.
You must consult with your treating psychiatrist before changing or ceasing your anti-libidinal mediation.
Rules about rehabilitation and counselling
You must obey any direction a Corrective Services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor.
You must obey any direction a Corrective Services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program.
You must let Corrective Services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program.
Speaking to Corrective Services about what you plan to do
You must talk to a Corrective Services officer about what you plan to do each week. A Corrective Services officer will tell you how and when to do this (for example, face to face or in writing).
You must also tell a Corrective Services officer the name of new persons you have met.
This includes: people who you spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly.
You may need to tell new contacts about your supervision order and offending history. The Corrective Services officer will instruct you to tell those persons and the corrective services officer may speak to them to make sure you have given them all the information.
Contact with children
You are not allowed to have any unsupervised contact with children under 18 years of age. If you want to have supervised contact with a child under 18 years of age you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to have contact with the child.
“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking with them face to face, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting, using a telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
“Supervised” means having contact with the child while another person is with you and the child.
“Unsupervised” means having contact with the child while there is no other person with you and the child.
If you have any repeated contact (that is, more than one time) with a parent, guardian or carer of a child under the age of 18, you must:
(a) tell the person(s) about this supervision order; and
(b) tell a corrective services officer the details of the person(s).
You must do this immediately. This means you have to tell the person, and tell a Corrective Services officer, on the same day you have contact with the person.
45. Queensland Corrective Services has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to any parent, guardian or caregivers that you have contact with.
46. Queensland Corrective Services also has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to an external agency (such as the Department of Child Safety).
47. You must not:
(a) be within 100 metres of any school or childcare centre;
(b) be in a place where there is a children’s play area or child minding area;
(c) go to a public park;
(d) go to a shopping centre;
(e) join any club or organisation in which children are involved;(f) participate in any club or organisation in which children are involved.
If you want to do any of these things, you must first get written permission from a Corrective Services officer. If you do not get written permission, you cannot do any of these things.
Offence Specific Requirements
48. You must not collect photos/videos/magazines which have images of children in them without prior approval of a Corrective Services officer.
If you have any you may be asked to get rid of them by a Corrective Services officer.
49. You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet.
50. You cannot get or look at pornographic material of any type without written approval from a Corrective Services officer. Your treating psychologist may provide advice regarding this approval.
This includes pictures on a computer, photographs, movies, or magazines.
51. You must develop a management plan with your psychologist or psychiatrist to address any risk of sexual re-offence. You must talk about this with a Corrective Services officer when asked.
52. You must advise a Corrective Services officer of any personal relationships you have started.
Signed: _________________________
Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland
0
0
1