Attorney-General (Qld) v Allen

In the case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Allen, the court was tasked with determining whether the respondent, who was serving a sentence for the offence of carnal knowledge of a child under the age of 16 years, posed an unacceptable risk to the community that he would commit a serious sexual offence. The court was asked to consider making orders under section 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and had been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathic personality disorder. He had not completed a sexual offender treatment program while in prison, but was willing to participate in the High Intensity Sexual Offender Program, which is only delivered in prison.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the respondent posed an unacceptable risk to the community that he would commit a serious sexual offence, and whether an order for continuing detention should be made. The court considered the respondent’s history of drug and alcohol abuse, his diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathic personality disorder, and his willingness to participate in the High Intensity Sexual Offender Program. The court also considered the risk that the respondent would reoffend, and the need to protect the community.

The court found that the respondent posed an unacceptable risk to the community that he would commit a serious sexual offence, and made an order for continuing detention. The court noted that the respondent had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and had not completed a sexual offender treatment program while in prison. The court also noted that the respondent was willing to participate in the High Intensity Sexual Offender Program, but that this program was only delivered in prison. The court found that the risk that the respondent would reoffend was high, and that the need to protect the community outweighed the respondent’s right to freedom. The court made an order for continuing detention, which was to remain in effect until the respondent was no longer considered to pose an unacceptable risk to the community.