Attorney-General (Qld) v Cooney

The case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Cooney involved a challenge by the Attorney-General of Queensland to a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal that had reduced the supervision order imposed on the respondent, Peter Raymond Cooney, a convicted dangerous sexual offender. The court was asked to determine whether the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the existing supervision order, despite the respondent's contravention of certain requirements. The respondent had a history of unlawful stalking and had breached his supervision order by using his mobile phone to access the Internet without permission.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the contravention of the supervision order by the respondent posed an unacceptable risk of him committing a serious sexual offence, despite his admission of the contravention and the absence of any further serious sexual offences committed by him. This issue was determined by assessing the psychiatric evidence provided by Dr Timmins and Dr Harden, who had evaluated the respondent's risk of sexual reoffending. The court considered the diagnoses of paedophilia, personality disorder, polysubstance abuse, and likely borderline intellectual impairment, as well as the high risk of sexual reoffending identified by the psychiatrists.

The court concluded that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the existing supervision order, despite the contravention by the respondent. The court found that the respondent's risk of sexual reoffending was high, and that the supervision order, while not effectively controlling the particular issue of internet use, was likely to limit his offending behaviour. The court modified requirement 38 of the supervision order to require the respondent to obtain prior written approval from a Corrective Services officer before accessing a computer or the internet or internet-capable device. The court ordered the respondent's release from custody and his continued subjection to the supervision order, as amended.

The final orders of the court included the amendment of requirement 38 of the supervision order to require prior written approval from a Corrective Services officer before accessing a computer or the internet or internet-capable device, and the release of the respondent from custody and his continued subjection to the supervision order, as amended. These orders ensured that the adequate protection of the community was maintained, while also taking into account the respondent's contravention of the supervision order and the psychiatric evidence provided regarding his risk of sexual reoffending.