Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G (Qld) v Beattie [2007] QCA 96

PARTIES:

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

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9990 of 2006
SC No 4963 of 2006 

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2007

JUDGES:

Keane and Holmes JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION – ADEQUACY OF REASONS – where order made for continued detention of appellant pursuant to s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – whether decision to make detention order rather than supervision order supported by adequate reasons – whether supervision order could have provided adequate protection to the community

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13

Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2006] QCA 324, Appeal No 452 of 2006, 30 August 2006, applied

COUNSEL:

R A East for the appellant
B H P Mumford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Crown Law for the respondent 

1. KEANE JA:  The appellant has been imprisoned since 20 July 1996 for sexual offences against pre-pubertal and pubescent boys.  On 15 June 2006, the respondent instituted proceedings against the appellant under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) ("the Act"). The appellant was due for release from detention on 3 November 2006 unless an order for his continued detention was made under the Act. On 26 October 2006, the learned primary judge ordered that: "[p]ursuant to Section 13(5)(a) of [the Act] … the Respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment."

1. The appellant contends that the learned primary judge erred in law in making this order, principally because his Honour did not properly consider whether a supervision order, rather than a detention order, would have provided adequate protection to the community pursuant to s 13(6) of the Act. I will discuss the appellant's argument on the appeal after summarising the relevant provisions of the Act and setting out the findings and conclusions of the learned primary judge.

The Act

1. Section 13 of the Act applies if the court is satisfied that the prisoner is "a serious danger to the community" in the absence of an order. A prisoner is "a serious danger to the community" by reason of s 13(2) of the Act if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody, or if released from custody without a supervision order being made. In this regard, s 13(3) provides that the court must be satisfied by "acceptable, cogent evidence; and…