Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams
[2019] QSC 328
•9 November 2020
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams
[2019] QSC 328PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
TREVOR GEORGE WILLIAMS
(respondent)FILE NO/S: BS No 143 of 2019 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING
COURT:Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: Delivered ex tempore on 27 May 2019
Reasons published on 9 November 2020DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 27 May 2019 JUDGE: Bradley J ORDER: The Court, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Trevor George Williams, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), orders that Trevor George Williams be subject to the conditions in the supervision order which is attached as Schedule A of these reasons until 19 June 2029. 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 is serving a sentence of imprisonment for indecent treatment of a child under 12 years – where the respondent has previous convictions for indecent treatment of other children, as well as for rape, maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child and failing to comply with reporting conditions under child protection legislation – where the evidence is that the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending is between “moderate” and “high” – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under division 3 of part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) – whether the respondent should be the subject of a supervision order under s 13 (5)(b) of the Act which includes conditions restricting his ability to attend licenced venues and visit places where he may identify potential victims and their associated adult carers Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13 COUNSEL: J Tate for the applicant
T Ryan for the respondentSOLICITORS: Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
This is an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland in which an order (a division 3 order) is sought under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) in relation to the respondent.
The statutory objects of the Act are set out in s 3, namely:
“(a) to provide for the continued detention in custody or supervised release of a particular class of prisoner to ensure adequate protection of the community; (b) to provide continuing control, care or treatment of a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation.”
In an application such as this, the first inquiry that the Court must make is whether or not the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order. The statutory test is whether there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if released without a division 3 order.
In Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn,[1] McMurdo J observed:
“In deciding whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection for the community. The purpose of orders under section 13 is not punishment but the protection of the community. The existence of some risk of reoffending is not sufficient: the risk must be of an unacceptable order.”
[1] [2006] QSC 171 at [24].
It follows it is necessary for the Court to be able to conclude on all the evidence that a supervision order would be “efficacious in constraining the respondent’s behaviour by preventing the opportunity for the commission of sexual offences”.[2] As Keane JA said in A-G (Qld) v Beattie:[3]
“The focus of consideration must, therefore, be upon the likely effect of a supervision order in terms of reducing the opportunities for the [respondent] to engage in acts of seduction of children to an acceptably low level.”
[2] Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111 at [29] (Chesterman JA).
[3] [2007] QCA 96 at [19] (Holmes JA and Douglas J agreeing).
The respondent’s criminal history
The respondent was born on 22 March 1948. He is 71 years of age.
On 18 June 2008, he was sentenced by Dearden DCJ to a term of nine years imprisonment in relation to multiple offences against children.
He is currently serving a period of 23 months imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to one count of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years. This sentence was imposed by Richards DCJ on 20 July 2017. The respondent was 68 years when that offence was committed.
Counsel for the applicant has set out in a written outline of submission the respondent’s relevant Queensland criminal history. It involves offences of rape; indecent treatment of child under 16; indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 being a lineal descendent guardian or carer;[4] the maintenance of an unlawful relationship with a child; seven counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 who is under 12 being a lineal descendant guardian or carer; and indecent treatment of a child under 16 by exposure, the child being under 12 and being a lineal descendant guardian or carer; indecent treatment of a child under 12; and, most recently, 21 counts of failing to comply with reporting conditions under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld).
[4] A procure to commit offence.
This criminal record and the information extracted from the relevant historical documents by the three psychiatrists, who have provided evidence in the form of written reports, indicates the respondent has a longitudinal pattern of offending that demonstrates a significant and high risk of future reoffending.
Briefly, the respondent’s relevant criminal history only began in 2008 when he was first convicted for serious sexual offences against children which were of a somewhat historical nature. His most recent offending, dealt with by Richards DCJ in 2017, was again against a young child and occurred when he was 68 years of age. The details of the respondent’s offending in each case are set out in the applicant’s outline of submissions and I note that it does not appear to be contested to any extent on the part of the respondent.
It follows that I can be satisfied, firstly, that the respondent is a prisoner currently serving a period of imprisonment for serious sexual offences against a child. Secondly, I can be satisfied that he is a prisoner relevantly defined by s 5(6) of the Act. He is currently serving a term of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence.
Psychiatric evidence
Reports by Dr Elizabeth McVie, Dr Kenneth Arthur and Dr Jane Phillips have been provided to the Court. All three specialists have diagnosed the respondent as suffering from paedophilia. Dr Arthur further classifies the disorder as paedophilia (heterosexual, non-exclusive, pre-pubescent girls), Dr Phillips describes the condition as paedophilia (non-exclusive type, sexually attracted to females) and Dr McVie simply characterises it as paedophilia (heterosexual). In the detail of their diagnosis, in this respect, the three specialists do not differ.
They have also diagnosed the respondent as having alcohol use disorder which is currently in remission. Dr Arthur, alone among the three, also diagnosed the respondent as having cluster c personality disorder features (avoidant and dependent traits) which do not meet the diagnostic threshold for a formal personality disorder. The specialists’ opinions on the unmodified risk of the respondent reoffending are as follows.
Dr McVie says:
“ Actuarial risk assessment indicates he is in the lower end of the average range for recidivism for sexual offenders in general. In terms of dynamic factors, his advancing age could be seen as a protective factor. Having regard to the nature of his paraphilia and his behaviour through a period when he was required to report contact with children yet chose not to do so, then being convicted of a further offence, his risk of recidivism unsupervised is at least moderate and possibly high.
…
I would consider Mr Williams’ risk of reoffending sexually would be reduced to low with a supervision order under the [Act].
He clearly needs closer supervision and monitoring to prevent a recurrence of the 2016 events.”
In Dr Arthur’s report, he records:
“It appears the main driver for prisoner Williams’ offending is his deviant sexual interest. His denial of a specific attraction to young girls or the presence of sexual fantasies or sexual preoccupation is not consistent with his offending behaviour.
…
Whilst he appeared to engage successfully in a sexual offender treatment program and developed a risk management plan this did not stop him reoffending.
Were the prisoner Williams to reoffend, it would most likely be against pre-pubescent girls and involve touching and fondling of the genitals, exposing himself and engaging in penile to genital conduct. His victims are likely to be children that he has known for some time. He is likely to have met these children through associations with their parents or via other adults who have children. He may use grooming techniques and psychological coercion to encourage the children to engage in sexual activity. Whilst his initial offences involved physical coercion there was no evidence of this in 2006 and 2016 offences. The motivation of further offending would be the gratification of deviant sexual interests.
Further sexual offending would cause predominantly psychological harm to the victim although there is a chance of physical harm if he progresses to penetrative sex.
…
Although prisoner Williams is now 70 years of age, the fact that he reoffended at the age of 68 is cause for concern. Despite his age he represents a chronic risk of reoffending.
Once started it is likely that he will continue to offend until he is caught.
…
Based on my assessment I would consider prisoner Williams’ unmodified risk of further sexual violence to be high. A supervision order would reduce his risk to moderate.”
Finally, Dr Phillips, in her report, records:
“Taking into account the results of the above risk assessment tools, it is my opinion that Mr Williams’ risk of future sexual re-offending falls in the moderate range, if released from custody without a supervision order. His most notable risk factors for sexual re-offending are his sexual deviance; the chronicity of his sexual offending (5 prepubescent females, with sexual offending occurring since 1989); use of grooming behaviours/psychological coercion; history of substance use; history of sexual re-offending despite previous engagement in sexual offending treatment program, being on parole and on the ANCOR registrar; and his outstanding treatment needs, in particular addressing his Pedophilic Disorder.
It is my opinion that a supervision order would assist in reducing the risk of re-offending by offering assertive monitoring and interventions to target dynamic risk factors for sexual violence. It is my opinion that if he were to be released from custody with a supervision order, in the context of a sexual offending maintenance program, individual psychological interventions, abstinence from alcohol and robust supervision in the community, that his risk of sexually re-offending would be in the low range. Mr Williams did not present as being at imminent risk of sexual re-offending.
…
The victim of future sexual offending would likely be a pre-pubescent female who is known to Mr Williams, for example, by him fostering a relationship with vulnerable adults in order to gain access to their children or grandchildren, followed by grooming of the child victim. Impulsive sexual offending without prior grooming of the child is less likely. Future sexual offending is likely to mirror the pattern of previous sexual offending and may involve touching of the child’s genitals, oral sex, digital rape or penile-vaginal rape. It is unlikely that future sexual offending would involve non-sexual physical violence against the child victim. There is a potential for serious psychological harm to future victims.”
None of this specialist evidence is challenged.
Consideration
In deciding whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community, I have therefore had regard to the three psychiatrist reports. This includes the specialists’ various assessments relating to the respondent which I have summarised in the extracts above. These are based on a range of risk assessment tools including Static- 99R, Psychopathy Checklist PCL-R, Stable 2007, the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol and the Historical Clinical Risk Management Tool HCR-20. I have also considered their opinions about any propensity on the part of the respondent to commit serious sexual offences in the future which as I have noted have been assessed by Dr McVie as at least moderate and possibly high, by Dr Arthur as a chronic risk and by Dr Phillips as falling in the moderate range. It also includes consideration of the specialists’ views on the extent to which there has been a pattern to the respondent’s offending behaviour which I am satisfied involves the grooming of a potential child victim over time through contact made possible by fostering social relationships with vulnerable adults in order to gain access to their children or grandchildren.
I have also considered the respondent’s efforts to address the cause or causes of his offending. The respondent undertook various sex offender treatment programs during his 2008 sentence relevantly including the Sexual Offending Program Assessment, Getting Started Preparatory Program and Medium Intensity Sexual Offending Program. I have noted that the respondent declined an offer to take the Staying on Track Maintenance Program in January 2018 but that the respondent commenced that program earlier this year and is due to or has completed this program by the time of this hearing. The assessments made by the three psychiatrists were undertaken with the knowledge that the respondent had completed all but the most recent of these courses. Their assessments indicate their opinions of the respondent after participating in those courses.
I have also taken into account the respondent’s antecedents and his criminal history noted above and I have had regard to the risk that he will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community and the need to protect members of the community from that risk.
In the circumstances, I have concluded that I am satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.
Those advising the applicant and the respondent have considered a set of draft terms and conditions that might form the content of such an order. With the benefit of that advice, including, no doubt, the advice taken from the three identified psychiatrists, all but four of the proposed conditions are agreed.
Draft condition 25 is the first of the conditions in contention. It would prevent the respondent from visiting hotels, clubs or nightclubs licenced to supply or serve alcohol without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer. The reasoning behind this condition is a concern that the respondent has in the past resorted to alcohol as a means of negativing, perhaps, feelings of guilt that he may have had about his offending in other times.
It seems to be accepted from all of the evidence that the respondent has been abstinent from alcohol for a considerable period of time. It also seems to be accepted that for much of his life he did have a disorder related to the use of alcohol. Other provisions in the proposed order could operate in a way that would address this concern, in particular those proposed conditions dealing with treatment and counselling. Relevantly, the proposed order would also contain a condition that the respondent submit to and discuss with a corrective services officer a schedule of his plan and proposed activities on a weekly basis, or as otherwise directed.
A particular concern raised on behalf of the applicant is that the respondent ought to have, as a matter of fairness, clarity as to the things that the respondent may or may not do within the terms of the order. It was submitted that the general prohibition on visiting hotels, clubs and other licences premises would provide such clarity.
Given the views expressed by the psychiatrists as to the varying importance of this condition, I am content to make an order containing a modified version of condition 25 to this effect, that it will read such that the respondent must:
“Not visit hotels, clubs or nightclubs licenced to supply or serve alcohol that have not been included in the schedule submitted to a corrective services officer pursuant to condition 18, without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer.”
I consider that such a modified condition would be clear. It would facilitate a more detailed discussion of the respondent’s planned and proposed weekly activities with the Corrective Services officer, and would give the relevant Corrective Services officer a more detailed insight into the respondent’s planned and proposed weekly activities in this respect.
The second, third and fourth conditions that are proposed and are in dispute address a different subject matter, which is a concern that the respondent might attend or visit places where he may identify potential victims and their associated adult carers.
Condition 32, as proposed, was in these terms:
“Not visit or attend on the premises of any establishment where there is a dedicated children’s play area or child minding area without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer.”
I note that Dr Phillips expressed a clinical concern arising from the respondent’s opposition to this proposed term, in that it indicated to Dr Phillips that the respondent had in mind that he would undertake such conduct and wished to do so without the need for any prior approval of a Corrective Services officer. Conduct of this kind is plainly within the scope of one of the highest risk activities that the respondent might undertake, which could adversely affect him in terms of recidivism, but also place at risk members of the community. In the circumstances, I propose that a condition in terms of condition 32 ought to be included within the division 3 order.
Proposed condition 33 is in these terms:
“Not visit public parks without the prior written approval of a
corrective services officer.”With the benefit of the further oral evidence given by the three psychiatrists, it appears that this prohibition could be reformulated in a way which would more directly address the concerns expressed by two of the psychiatrists. That is, it might read:
“Not visit public parks where there is a dedicated children’s play area
without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer.”I note that such a modification would still not have satisfied the concerns expressed by Dr Arthur. Dr Arthur’s concerns were based on a view that the opportunity for the respondent to access potential victims in such circumstances would be quite high. He observed that the respondent is intelligent, socially adept and has little difficulty in meeting with people.
In order to address this further concern identified by Dr Arthur, it appears to me that the resolution of the form of condition 33 could be to frame a further provision within it in a similar style to the modified condition 25, so that the effect of condition 33 would be firstly a prohibition on the respondent visiting public parks where there is a dedicated children’s play area without the prior written approval of the Corrective Services officer and then, secondly, to prohibit the respondent from visiting other public parks which have not been included in the schedule of his planned and proposed activities submitted to a Corrective Services officer, pursuant to condition 18.
The final proposed condition in contention is condition 34, which is:
“Obtain the prior approval of a Corrective Services officer before
attending the premises of any shopping centre.”This proposed condition was not the subject of much direct further oral evidence from the three psychiatrists. However, Dr Arthur did express the view that it would be possible to formulate some control on this such that the respondent would be authorised by the relevant Corrective Services officer to undertake his shopping activities at some regular times and places, and that outside of those times then approval might be required.
It seems to me that this is a sensible approach to this condition, and therefore a modified form of condition 34 should be imposed, perhaps, in these terms that the requiring the respondent to:
“Obtain the prior approval of a Corrective Services officer before attending the premises of any shopping centre outside of the times and places that have been included in the schedule of the respondent’s planned and proposed weekly activities submitted to a Corrective Services officer.”
Disposition
With those modifications, I propose to make an order pursuant to s 13 of the Act in those terms. I propose to fix the period of the supervision order at 10 years. This period of supervision is one which is recommended by each of the specialist witnesses, and has not been opposed by the respondent. It follows that I will make an order in terms of the draft supervision order submitted by the applicant with those four modified terms, as indicated in these reasons.
Schedule A
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
REGISTRY: Brisbane
NUMBER: BS 143/19
Applicant ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
QUEENSLANDAND
Respondent TREVOR GEORGE WILLIAMS SUPERVISION ORDER Before: Bradley J Date: 27 May 2019 Initiating document: Originating Application filed 7 January 2019 (CFI 1) THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:
1. The Court is satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Trevor George Williams, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.
2. The respondent be subject to the following conditions until 19 June 2029:
The respondent must:
General terms
1. report to a corrective services officer at the Queensland Corrective Services Probation and Parole Office closest to his place of residence between 9am and 4pm on the day of release from custody and at that time advise the officer of his current name and address;
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 4000Per Margaret Maloney
Telephone 07 3031 5851 PL4/ATT110/3761/MAM
Facsimile 07 3031 5998 Document No: 9122629 v2 2. report to, and receive visits from, a corrective services officer at such times and at such frequency as determined by Queensland Corrective Services;
3. notify a corrective services officer of every change of his name, place of residence or employment at least two business days before the change happens;
4. be under the supervision of a corrective services officer for the duration of his order;
5. comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction;
6. comply with any reasonable direction under section 16B of the Act given to him;
7. comply with every reasonable direction of a corrective services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of this order;
8. not leave or stay out of Queensland without the permission of a corrective services officer;
9. not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of this order;
Employment
10. seek permission and obtain written approval from a corrective services officer prior to entering into an employment agreement or engaging in volunteer work or paid or unpaid employment;
11. notify a corrective services officer of the nature of his employment, or offers of employment, the hours of work each day, the name of his employer and the address of the premises where he is or will be employed at least two days prior to commencement or any change;
Residence
12. reside at a place within the State of Queensland as approved by a corrective services officer by way of a suitability assessment and obtain written approval prior to any change of residence;
Document No: 9122629 v4 2 13. if this accommodation is of a temporary or contingency nature, comply with any regulations or rules in place at the accommodation and demonstrate reasonable efforts to secure alternative, viable long term accommodation to be assessed for suitability by Queensland Corrective Services;
14. not reside at a place by way of short term accommodation including overnight stays without the permission of a corrective services officer;
Contact with victims
15. not have any direct or indirect contact with a victim of his sexual offences;
Requests for information
16. respond truthfully to enquiries by a corrective services officer about his activities, whereabouts and movements generally;
Disclosure of plans and associates
17. disclose to a corrective services officer the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information from a corrective services officer about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known,
the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior
offending behaviour;18. submit to and discuss with a corrective services officer a schedule of his planned and proposed activities on a weekly basis or as otherwise directed;
19. if directed by a corrective services officer, make complete disclosure of the terms of this order and the nature of his past offences to any person as nominated by the corrective services officer, who may contact such persons to verify that full disclosure has occurred;
20. notify a corrective services officer of all personal relationships entered into by him;
Document No: 9122629 v4 3 Motor vehicles 21. notify a corrective services officer of the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle owned by or generally driven by him, whether hired or otherwise obtained for his use;
Alcohol and other substances
22. abstain from the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of this order;
23. submit to any form of drug and alcohol testing including both random urinalysis and breath testing as directed by a corrective services officer;
24. disclose to a corrective services officer all prescription and over the counter medication that he obtains;
25. not visit hotels, clubs and/or nightclubs licensed to supply or serve alcohol, that have not been included in the schedule of his planned and proposed activities submitted to a corrective services officer pursuant to condition 18 of this order, without the prior
written approval of a corrective services officer;
Treatment and counselling
26. attend upon and submit to assessment, treatment, and/or medical testing by a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional as directed by a corrective services officer at a frequency and duration which shall be recommended by the treating intervention specialist;
27. permit any medical, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other mental health professional to disclose details of treatment, intervention and opinions relating to level of risk of re-offending and compliance with this order to Queensland Corrective Services if a request is made for the purpose of updating or amending this order and/or ensuring compliance with this order;
28. attend any program, course, psychologist, social worker or counsellor, in a group or individual capacity, as directed by a corrective services officer in consultation with
Document No: 9122629 v4 4 treating medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioners
where appropriate;
Contact with children
29. not establish or maintain any supervised or unsupervised contact including undertaking any care of children under 16 years of age without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer. The respondent is required to fully disclose the terms of this order and nature of his past offences to the guardians and caregivers of the children before any such contact can take place. Queensland Corrective Services may disclose information pertaining to the respondent to guardians or caregivers and external agencies (i.e. the department responsible for child safety services) in the interests of ensuring the safety of the children;
30. advise a corrective services officer of any repeated contact with an adult that he knows has care of a child under 16 years of age;
31. not be, without reasonable excuse, within 100 metres of schools or child care centres without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer;
32. not visit or attend on the premises of any establishment where there is a dedicated children's play area or child minding area without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer;
33. prior written approval of a corrective services officer; and
(a) not visit public parks where there is a dedicated children’s play area, without the planned and proposed activities submitted to a corrective services officer pursuant to condition 18 of this order, without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer;
34. obtain the prior approval of a corrective services officer before attending the premises of any shopping centre outside of the times and places that have been included in the schedule of his planned and proposed activities submitted to a corrective services officer pursuant to condition 18 of this order;
Document No: 9122629 v4 5 35. not join, affiliate with, attend on the premises of or attend at the activities carried on by any club or organisation in respect of which there are reasonable grounds for believing there are children who are members or children who are participants, without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer;
Technology, telephones and other devices
36. notify a corrective services officer of each computer or device which can use or access the internet;
37. supply to a corrective services officer any password or other access code known to him to permit access to such computer or other device or content accessible through such computer or other device and allow any device where the internet is accessible to be randomly examined using a data exploitation tool to extract digital information or any other recognised forensic examination process;
38. supply to a corrective services officer the details of any email address, instant messaging service, chat rooms, or social networking sites including user names and passwords;
39. notify a corrective services officer before possessing any equipment that enables him to take photographs or record moving images;
40. allow any other device including a telephone or camera to be randomly examined. If applicable, account details and/or phone bills are to be provided upon request of a corrective services officer;
41. advise a corrective services officer of the make, model and phone number of any mobile phone owned, possessed or regularly utilised by him within 24 hours of connection or commencement of use, including reporting any changes to mobile phone details;
Document No: 9122629 v4 6 42. not own, possess or regularly utilise more than one mobile phone without the prior written approval of a corrective services officer.
Signed:
Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland
Document No: 9122629 v4 7
0
3
0