Attorney-General (Qld) v Currie

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

 Attorney-General (Qld) v Currie [2018] QSC 318

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

JOEL GEORGE CURRIE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 10864 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 December 2018

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

Order as per draft

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent is subject to a continuing detention order pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the applicant applied for a review of the continuing detention order – whether the continuing detention order should be affirmed to ensure the adequate protection of the community

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), ss 13, 27, 30

Attorney-General v Francis [2006] QCA 324

Attorney-General (Qld) v Kennedy [2016] QSC 287

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Currie [2016] QSC 48

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Currie [2017] QSC 318

Fardonv Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 78 ALJR 1519

COUNSEL:

J Tate for the applicant

P Wilson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Fisher Dore for the respondent

  1. This is an application pursuant to section 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”) for a review of the continuing detention of the Respondent, Mr Currie. The Applicant seeks to have the decision made on 11 March 2016 by Justice Byrne, which was affirmed in a review of 21 December 2017 by Justice Mullins, that the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order under the Act affirmed, and that a continuing detention order consequentially be made, pursuant to s 30(3)(a) of the Act.

  2. This is the second review of the continuing detention order. 

  3. The applicant contends that the continuing detention order should be confirmed to ensure the adequate protection of the community.  The Respondent contends that he should be released from custody under a supervision order. 

  4. The circumstances surrounding the making of the first order were summarised in the decision of Justice Byrne in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Currie [2016] QSC 48. At that time, his Honour indicated that the Respondent needed to complete satisfactorily a High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program to protect females from serious sexual offending at his hands and considered that a supervision order could not adequately address the high risk that the Respondent would, if released, commit a serious sexual offence.[1] 

  5. At the first annual review, the Court found that the preponderance of evidence then before the Court did not support Mr Currie’s preferred option of receiving individual treatment and counselling in the community.[2] 

  6. In…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Currie 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
[2018] QSC 318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Attorney-General (Qld) v Currie involved the Attorney-General seeking a review of a continuing detention order imposed on the respondent, Mr Currie, under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The primary issue before the court was whether the continuing detention order should be affirmed to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The court needed to assess the risk posed by Mr Currie to the community, particularly his risk of committing serious sexual offences if released, and determine whether the risk could be adequately managed through a supervision order.

The court considered various factors, including the psychiatric evidence and the progress Mr Currie had made in his individual treatment program with Dr Madsen. The court found that Mr Currie continued to pose an unacceptable risk of sexual recidivism, as evidenced by the psychiatric assessments and his ongoing sexual preoccupation and lack of insight into his behaviour. While acknowledging the positive developments in Mr Currie's treatment, the court was not convinced that the risk could be adequately managed through a supervision order, particularly in light of his antisocial personality and psychopathic traits. The court concluded that the risk to the community would remain too high if Mr Currie were released on a supervision order.

Accordingly, the court decided to affirm the continuing detention order, finding that it was necessary to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The court emphasised that the paramount consideration was the protection of the community and that the risk posed by Mr Currie was too significant to be managed through a supervision order.

ORDER: The Court affirms the continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) to ensure the adequate protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order as per draft

Background

Background to the litigation

Similar comments have been made recently, in the decision of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v FJA [2018] QSC 291.Background Mr Currie is a 34 year old man. He has spent considerable time in custody from a young age. He had a childhood where he was exposed to abuse and to drugs and alcohol. He had a very limited education, reporting to Dr Harden that he had stopped going to school when he was seven. Dr Madsen, however, notes that Mr Currie is a highly intelligent man, despite his limited education. The history of the Respondent’s sexual offending is set out in the decision of Justice Byrne at paragraphs 2 to 8 of his reasons.[11] It is unnecessary for me to repeat that history.[11]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Currie [2016] QSC 48. The Respondent is reported as having longstanding substance abuse problems predominantly associated with alcohol and marijuana. Dr Sundin and Dr Harden, who gave evidence in this matter, both indicate that is in remission in the present custodial setting. Further Psychiatric Reports Two reports were prepared and obtained pursuant to section 29 of the Act by Dr Sundin and Dr Harden. Both had previously assessed Mr Currie. Dr Sundin has provided a report dated 12 November 2018. She interviewed the Respondent on 29 September 2018. Her review of the Respondent has resulted in her providing an opinion as to his risk and future care, control and treatment that:I continue to be of the opinion that Mr Currie’s risk for general recidivism and violence is extremely high and his risk for sexual recidivism is high. Over the last 12 months, he has demonstrated a continuing level of sexual preoccupation, a lack of insight into his own offending behaviour, and continues to displace responsibility for the index offence, in part, onto the victim. He has made only small gains with respect to accepting responsibility for his own contribution to the offences. This, despite multiple sessions with an extremely skilled forensic psychologist in Dr Madsen. Dr Sundin stated that Mr Currie’s risk of sexual recidivism is high according to various instruments she used to assess risk, including that:He has elevated levels on the Hare psychopathy rating scales. All of these scales indicate that his risk for future sexual recidivism is high. Material obtained in August and again in October 2018 indicate that his level of sexual preoccupation remains high, which is of concern, given his offence history. Dr Sundin concludes that he continues to pose an unacceptable risk for future sexual recidivism to the community and that she continues to recommend that he should be detained in prison for ongoing treatment. In her report, Dr Sundin states that Mr Currie meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder and meets the criteria for psychopathy. She also considers his diagnosis for Substance Abuse Disorder has remained in remission. In her report, Dr Sundin stated that she considered that until Mr Currie is able to regulate his emotions and his behaviour improves, he is not a suitable person to participate in any form of sexual offender’s treatment program, which she considers would be warranted, given his history. However, when she gave evidence in this Court she noted that when she prepared her reports, she did not have the benefit of the more recent reports of Dr Madsen.

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

However, the Attorney-General does not submit that Mr Currie would have to undertake the HISOP program in order for his risk to be adequately addressed, and the risk to be reduced to an acceptable level to allow release on a supervision order. The Attorney-General acknowledges that Mr Currie’s progress on the individual treatment program indicates that it appears to be the best mechanism to address his risks of sexual reoffending.Consideration The first question is whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order under the Act, having regard to the “required matters” as provided in section 30 of the Act. I am satisfied to a level of high degree of probability that there is acceptable cogent evidence that has been presented to me, particularly the psychiatric evidence which I accept, of sufficient weight to affirm the decision that the respondent continues to be a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order under the Act. Having regard to the matters which I am required to consider, I am satisfied that the Court should affirm the decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. The respondent’s offending behaviour in the past in relation to sexual offences, his antisocial personality and the fact that he has psychopathic traits, his history and the psychiatric evidence, lead me to be satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence if released without a Division 3 order. The psychiatric opinions provided, which I accept, consider that the respondent’s unsupervised risk of reoffending, such that he is a serious danger to the community within the meaning of the Act is high. As to the appropriate order to be made consequential upon that, the paramount consideration in making any order is, as I have stated, to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The Court must also be satisfied in relation to a supervision order that the adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed. The respondent contends that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by placing the respondent on a supervision order with appropriate conditions, particularly if his individual treatment with Dr Madsen continues as is envisaged. There has been significant and positive development since the last review, with Mr Currie’s engagement with Dr Madsen and the work that has been done with one-on-one treatment. Based upon Dr Madsen’s report and the psychiatrists’ evidence, the work Dr Madsen and Mr Currie have been doing together has set Mr Currie on a pathway to being released under a supervision order, but I am not satisfied that he can presently be released on such an order even with that treatment continuing. The suggestion that it could be combined with his undertaking the MISOP program in the community would in my view condemn Mr Currie to failure, based on the psychiatric evidence, the observations of Dr Madsen and Mr Currie’s antisocial personality and psychopathy.