Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie - [2006] QSC 322

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v. Beattie [2006] QSC 322

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v.
KEITH ALBERT BEATTIE
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 4963 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 October 2006

JUDGE:

Helman J.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROBATION, PAROLE, RELEASE ON LICENCE AND REMISSIONS – QUEENSLAND – Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – application by Attorney-General for an order pursuant to s 13(5)(a) of the Act that the respondent be detained for an indefinite term or alternatively under s 13(5)(b) that the respondent be released on conditions – whether the applicant a serious danger to the community – where an unacceptable risk exists that the applicant will commit an offence of a sexual nature against children

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 s 13

Attorney-General (Qld) v. Francis [2006] Q.C.A. 324, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr B.H. Mumford for the applicant
Mr R. East for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mr C.W. Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

In
an originating application filed on 15 June 2006 the applicant applied to the court for an order pursuant to s. 8(2)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 that the respondent, a prisoner at the Wolston Correctional Centre, undergo examinations by two psychiatrists named by the court who were to prepare independent reports in accordance with s. 11 of the Act. That order was made by Wilson J. on 7 July 2006, and the respondent has undergone examinations by

Drs Basil James and Ian Colls who prepared reports dated 21 August 2006 and

12 September 2006 respectively. Professor Barry Nurcombe, psychiatrist, had prepared a report dated 20 November 2005. Professor Nurcombe interviewed the respondent on 18 November 2005 and Drs James and Colls on 7 August 2006 and 25 August 2006 respectively. Professor Nurcombe and Drs James and Colls gave oral evidence at the hearing of the application.

Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the Attorney-General may apply to the court for an order or orders under s. 8 (preliminary hearing) and a Division 3 (final orders) order in relation to a prisoner. Prisoner, as the word is used in s. 5, is defined in s. 5(6):

prisoner means a prisoner detained in custody who is serving a period of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence, or serving a period of imprisonment that includes a term of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence, whether the person was sentenced to the term or period of imprisonment before or after the commencement of this section.

Section 2 provides that the dictionary in the schedule defines particular words used in the Act. The expression ‘serious sexual offence’ is defined in the schedule as follows:

serious sexual offence means an offence of a sexual nature, whether committed in Queensland or outside Queensland –
(a) involving violence; or
(b) against children.

The respondent is serving a period…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QSC 322
Decision Date: 26 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application by the Attorney-General for an order that the respondent be detained for an indefinite term under section 13(5)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, or alternatively, that the respondent be released on conditions under section 13(5)(b) of the Act. The respondent had been convicted of sexual offences against children and was currently serving a sentence for these crimes. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent posed a serious danger to the community and whether there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit further sexual offences against children. The court had to weigh the risk to the community against the rights of the respondent and determine whether there were conditions that could be imposed that would mitigate this risk.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding the respondent's criminal history, psychological assessments, and the potential for rehabilitation. The Attorney-General argued that the respondent posed a serious danger to the community and that the risk of reoffending was high. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that he had undergone extensive rehabilitation and that the risk of reoffending was low. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the respondent did indeed pose a serious danger to the community and that there was an unacceptable risk that he would commit further sexual offences against children. The court was particularly influenced by the nature and severity of the respondent's previous offences and the likelihood of reoffending.

The court concluded that the respondent should be detained for an indefinite term under section 13(5)(a) of the Act. The court found that the risk to the community was too high to allow for the respondent's release, even on stringent conditions. The court noted that the respondent's previous convictions and the nature of his offences demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that posed a significant risk to children. The court ordered that the respondent be detained for an indefinite term and that he be subject to regular reviews to assess whether conditions for release could be imposed in the future. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community and ensuring that individuals who pose a serious risk to children are appropriately managed.

Orders