Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v YCJ - [2020] QSC 237

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v YCJ [2020] QSC 237

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
YCJ

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 10343 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made on 26 June 2020, reasons delivered on 21 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 June 2020

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDERS:

1. Order (3) of the order of North J made on 18 December 2019 be rescinded.

2. Pursuant to s 21(2)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the respondent be released from custody between 9.00 am and 11.00 am on 29 June 2020 and be subject to supervision on the requirements of the supervision order of Chief Justice Holmes on 4 April 2016, until the application filed on 18 December 2019 is finally decided.

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 contravened the supervision order made on 4 April 2016 pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) – where this is the first contravention of the supervision order – where the contraventions were undisclosed contact with children under 16, including the respondent’s daughter, without the prior approval of correctives services – where both psychiatrists assessed the respondent’s risk on supervision as moderate or below – where neither psychiatrist gave an opinion which would justify the continuing detention of the respondent – where the only issue which remained in contention was whether the supervision order ought to be extended – where the final hearing of the application was set for 13 July 2020 – whether there was “exceptional circumstances” pursuant to s 21(4) of the DPSOA justifying release of the respondent pending final hearing of the application

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13, s 20, s 21, s 22, s 43AA

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited
Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, followed
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2020] QSC 187, followed
Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Sands [2016] QSC 225, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, cited
LAB v Attorney-General [2011] QCA 230, cited

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant

J Lodziak for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

On 4 April 2016, Holmes CJ ordered that the respondent be released from custody on a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA).[1] Breaches of the supervision order were alleged against the respondent. When the matter came before me on 26 June 2020 the application for orders consequent upon the breaches[2] was due to be…

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 YCJ

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v YCJ [2020] QSC 237
Case: [2020] QSC 237
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland against YCJ, a respondent who had contravened a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA). The contraventions included undisclosed contact with children under 16, including the respondent's daughter, without the approval of corrective services. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court were whether the supervision order should be extended and whether there were exceptional circumstances under s 21(4) of the DPSOA justifying the release of the respondent pending the final hearing of the application.

The court considered the risk assessment of the respondent, which was determined to be moderate or below by both psychiatrists. Neither psychiatrist gave an opinion that would justify the continuing detention of the respondent. The only issue in contention was whether the supervision order ought to be extended. The court held that the only issue in contention was whether the supervision order ought to be extended. The court noted that the final hearing of the application was set for 13 July 2020, and that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the release of the respondent pending the final hearing of the application.

The court rescinded Order (3) of the order of North J made on 18 December 2019 and ordered the respondent to be released from custody between 9.00 am and 11.00 am on 29 June 2020, subject to the supervision requirements of the supervision order of Chief Justice Holmes on 4 April 2016, until the application filed on 18 December 2019 is finally decided.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order (3) of the order of North J made on 18 December 2019 be rescinded.

2. Pursuant to s 21(2)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the respondent be released from custody between 9.00 am and 11.00 am on 29 June 2020 and be subject to supervision on the requirements of the supervision order of Chief Justice Holmes on 4 April 2016, until the application filed on 18 December 2019 is finally decided.

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 YCJ [2020] QSC 237
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v YCJ (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS No 10343 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Orders made on 26 June 2020, reasons delivered on 21 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 June 2020
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDERS:	1. Order (3) of the order of North J made on 18 December 2019 be rescinded. 2. Pursuant to s 21(2)(b) of the *Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act* 2003, the respondent be released from custody between 9.00 am and 11.00 am on 29 June 2020 and be subject to supervision on the requirements of the supervision order of Chief Justice Holmes on 4 April 2016, until the application filed on 18 December 2019 is finally decided.
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 contravened the supervision order made on 4 April 2016 pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the DPSOA) – where this is the first contravention of the supervision order – where the contraventions were undisclosed contact with children under 16, including the respondent’s daughter, without the prior approval of correctives services – where both psychiatrists assessed the respondent’s risk on supervision as moderate or below – where neither psychiatrist gave an opinion which would justify the continuing detention of the respondent – where the only issue which remained in contention was whether the supervision order ought to be extended – where the final hearing of the application was set for 13 July 2020 – whether there was “exceptional circumstances” pursuant to s 21(4) of the DPSOA justifying release of the respondent pending final hearing of the application Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13, s 20, s 21, s 22, s 43AA Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, followed Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Holroyd [2020] QSC 187, followed Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Sands [2016] QSC 225, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, cited LAB v Attorney-General [2011] QCA 230, cited
COUNSEL:	M Maloney for the applicant J Lodziak for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent