Attorney-General (Qld) v Brady

Case [2016] QSC 303

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Brady [2016] QSC 303

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
CLINTON JAMES BRADY

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 11179 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2016

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

The Orders of the court are that:

1.    The supervision order made on 14 April 2007 with respect to the respondent, Clinton James Brady, is rescinded.

2.    The respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control and treatment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where a supervision order was made with respect to the respondent under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where it was alleged that the respondent had contravened a requirement of the supervision order – where a warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent pursuant to s 20 of the Act – where the applicant also sought orders with respect to the respondent under s 22 of the Act – whether the respondent contravened a requirement of the supervision order – whether the adequate protection of the community could, despite any contravention of the order, be ensured by the existing supervision order – whether the court was obliged to rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 20, s 21, s 21A, s 22

Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie [2007] QCA 96, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Brady (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, White J, 16 April 2007), related
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2011] QCA 111, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2012] QSC 275, followed
Attorney-General (Qld) v Sands [2016] QSC 225, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Tiers (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Douglas J, 14 November 2014), cited
Bickle v The Attorney General (Qld) [2015] QCA 263, considered

COUNSEL:

J Rolls for the applicant

B Mumford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

  1. On 16 April 2007, the respondent, Clinton James Brady, was made the subject of a supervision order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). He is now before the court pursuant to a warrant issued on 19 February 2014 under s 20 of the Act by which it is alleged that he contravened that order. The Honourable Attorney-General for the State of Queensland has also brought application for relief pursuant to s 22 of the Act. By that provision, if the court is satisfied that Mr Brady has contravened the order then, unless he satisfies the court that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be…

Continue reading Attorney-General (Qld) v Brady

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General (Qld) v Brady [2016] QSC 303
Case
[2016] QSC 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Brady involved the respondent, Clinton James Brady, who was subject to a supervision order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant, the Attorney-General for Queensland, sought to have the supervision order rescinded and to make a continuing detention order for Mr Brady due to his alleged contravention of the supervision order. The court had to decide whether Mr Brady had indeed contravened the supervision order, and if so, whether the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the existing supervision order or if the court was obliged to rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order.

The court found that Mr Brady had contravened a requirement of the supervision order, based on his plea of guilty and overwhelming evidence. The court considered the reports of two psychiatrists who assessed Mr Brady, who expressed reservations about the extent of his response to treatment within the prison system. The court also took into account the completion report of the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program, which highlighted Mr Brady's lack of engagement, negative attitudes towards Corrective Services, and limited insight into his offending. The court found that Mr Brady had not sufficiently responded to treatment and had outstanding treatment needs in relation to deviant sexual interests.

In light of the evidence and the findings, the court rescinded the supervision order made on 14 April 2007 and ordered that Mr Brady be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control, and treatment. The court determined that the adequate protection of the community could not be ensured by the existing supervision order, and it was necessary to rescind the order and make a continuing detention order to address Mr Brady's ongoing risk to the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Orders of the court are that:

1. The supervision order made on 14 April 2007 with respect to the respondent, Clinton James Brady, is rescinded.

2. The respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control and treatment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

On the hearing of this application it was conceded on behalf of Mr Brady that, by his plea of guilty, the court should be satisfied that he breached a requirement of his supervision order. The evidence is in any event overwhelmingly in favour of a proved contravention of the condition of his supervision order to which I have referred. I therefore find that Mr Brady contravened that condition. The evidence Following the issue of the warrant pursuant to s 20 of the Act, Mr Brady was brought before the court and then detained in custody. He has remained in custody ever since although, from 17 February 2015, he has of course been serving the term of imprisonment imposed in the District Court at Maryborough that day. This contravention hearing was originally set down for 25 May 2015. For that purpose, Mr Brady was assessed by two psychiatrists, Prof Nurcombe and Dr Beech. In their written reports,[11] each expressed reservations about the extent to which Mr Brady had responded to attempts to treat him within the prison system. Dr Beech, in particular, expressed the opinion that Mr Brady would benefit from undertaking the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program. Accordingly, when the matter came on for hearing on 25 May 2015, an application for an adjournment was successfully made so as to enable Mr Brady to undertake that program. [11]Prof Nurcombe (5 April 2015); Dr Beech (26 April 2015). Subsequently, between 28 August 2015 and 29 August 2016, Mr Brady undertook the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program. In total, he received 348 hours of treatment over 129 sessions and a completion report dated 13 September 2016 was produced in relation to his participation in the program by the Program Delivery Officer from the Wolston Correctional Centre. According to the completion report, Mr Brady was initially reluctant to engage with the program. He had negative attitudes towards Corrective Services and specifically with respect to his management under the supervision order. He “externalized responsibility” for his situation and his offending but, over time, he became slightly more open and reflective about his goals. Mr Brady eventually began to talk more openly about his thoughts and feelings in relation to his offending but, it must be said, not to any great degree. Mr Brady did, however, speak at length about his resentment towards his ex-wife for what he perceived was her control over him. Mr Brady said that he hoped that his marriage would end as a result of the offence. He said that he had planned to commit it about two months before it happened. Mr Brady found it difficult to discuss the 2013 offence. He was highly resentful towards Corrective Services and considered that he had received limited opportunities due to the strictures of the supervision order. He said that he had purchased a video camera with the intent of filming his adult cousin (a 50-year-old woman) undressing, and he maintained that it was she who was the intended victim. He did not identify any sexual attraction to children. He gave vague, defensive answers when discussing the 2013 offence, taking little responsibility and appearing to have little insight into his thoughts and feelings associated with this offending. At times, Mr Brady also spoke disparagingly about previous program facilitators and other female staff with whom he has interacted in prison. He regarded the supervision order as having created a great deal of stress for him and identified numerous examples of what he perceived to be injustices in case management. His lack of trust in others was thought by the facilitators to be a barrier during most of his verbal presentations. Mr Brady identified his high risk factors as isolation, lack of control, avoidance coping, and unmet sexual needs. He had little ability to discuss what he would do about these matters. He planned to start his business again, obtain a car, engage in online gaming, and join a community group to expand his social network. He said that he would engage with a psychologist following release to the community, but thought that there would be little confidentiality in such a relationship. Lastly, on exit, Mr Brady was regarded by the program facilitators as having outstanding treatment needs in relation to deviant sexual interests.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.