Attorney-General (Qld) v Bugler - [2017] QSC 261

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Bugler [2017] QSC 261

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Applicant)

v
GREGORY ERNEST BUGLER

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 5878 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 November 2017

JUDGE:

A Lyons SJA

ORDER:

The Court makes Orders in terms of Schedule 1 attached to these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT SEXUAL OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks orders pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term of care, control or treatment or alternatively that the respondent is released from custody subject to a Supervision Order – whether the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order – whether the respondent should be subject to a Division 3 Order

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

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn [2006] QSC 171
Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) ALJR 1519; [2004] HCA 46

COUNSEL:

A Meisenhelter for the applicant

J Horne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
GR Cooper Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

The current application

On 10 October 2013 the respondent was sentenced to a period of five years imprisonment for attempted rape with 318 days were declared as pre-sentence custody. His full-time discharge date is 25 November 2017.
The applicant, the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland seeks orders pursuant to s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”). The applicant seeks orders either that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, treatment or control or alternatively, that he be released from custody subject to a supervision order on conditions which the court considers appropriate.

Background

The respondent’s criminal history is as follows:

Date

Description of Offence

Sentence

15/03/1999

Gladstone District Court

Indecent treatment of children under 16 (under 12 years) between 1/10/98 and 3/11/98.

Conviction recorded.

Imprisonment 12 months wholly suspended for a period of 5 years.

27/02/2001

Gladstone District Court

Indecent treatment of children under 16 (under 12 years) on or about 17 October 1998.

Conviction recorded.

Probation 3 years.

10/10/2013

Ipswich District Court

Attempted rape between 23/11/12 and 26/11/12.

Conviction recorded.

Imprisonment 5 years.

318 days pre-sentence custody declared.

Parole eligibility date:

27/05/2015

The respondent is currently 51 years of age. As the criminal history notes, he has previous convictions for offences of a sexual nature. In 1999 he was convicted after a trial of indecently dealing with a child. The complainant was a 10 year old boy and the respondent had placed the child…

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 Bugler 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: [2017] QSC 261
Decision Date: 13 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Bugler was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the Attorney-General of Queensland sought orders under Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The central dispute involved whether the respondent, Bugler, should be detained indefinitely under the provisions of the Act, or alternatively, whether he should be released from custody under a Supervision Order. The applicant argued that Bugler posed a significant danger to the community if not subject to an indefinite detention order.

The court was tasked with determining two primary issues: firstly, whether Bugler presented a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3; and secondly, whether such an order should be made given the potential risk he posed. The court considered expert evidence and psychiatric evaluations in making its determination. The applicant's case was built on the premise that Bugler's history of sexual offences, coupled with his diagnosed personality disorders, made him a significant risk to the community if not properly managed.

The Supreme Court concluded that Bugler did indeed present a serious danger to the community without appropriate measures in place. The court found that his extensive history of sexual offending, combined with his diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, made it highly likely that he would reoffend if released without stringent supervision. Consequently, the Court ordered that Bugler be detained under a Division 3 Order for an indefinite term of care, control, and treatment. This decision was made in the interest of public safety and to protect potential victims from future harm.

In light of the findings, the Court made specific orders that Bugler be detained under the provisions of Division 3 of the Act. The orders also included provisions for periodic reviews to assess his suitability for conditional release in the future. The detailed terms of these orders are outlined in Schedule 1, which accompanies the Court’s reasons for the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court makes Orders in terms of Schedule 1 attached to these reasons.

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 Bugler [2017] QSC 261
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Applicant) v GREGORY ERNEST BUGLER (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 5878 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 November 2017
JUDGE:	A Lyons SJA
ORDER:	The Court makes Orders in terms of Schedule 1 attached to these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT SEXUAL OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks orders pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term of care, control or treatment or alternatively that the respondent is released from custody subject to a Supervision Order – whether the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 Order – whether the respondent should be subject to a Division 3 Order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn [2006] QSC 171 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) ALJR 1519; [2004] HCA 46
COUNSEL:	A Meisenhelter for the applicant J Horne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	GR Cooper Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

Date	Description of Offence	Sentence
15/03/1999 Gladstone District Court	Indecent treatment of children under 16 (under 12 years) between 1/10/98 and 3/11/98.	Conviction recorded. Imprisonment 12 months wholly suspended for a period of 5 years.
27/02/2001 Gladstone District Court	Indecent treatment of children under 16 (under 12 years) on or about 17 October 1998.	Conviction recorded. Probation 3 years.
10/10/2013 Ipswich District Court	Attempted rape between 23/11/12 and 26/11/12.	Conviction recorded. Imprisonment 5 years. 318 days pre-sentence custody declared. Parole eligibility date: 27/05/2015