Attorney-General (Qld) v Currie - [2017] QSC 318

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Currie [2017] QSC 318

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
JOEL GEORGE CURRIE

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS10864 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Review of continuing detention order

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 and 21 December 2017

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

1. The decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order is affirmed.

2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made by Byrne SJA on 11 March 2016 for control, care 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 continuing detention order had been made in respect of the respondent – where first review of the continuing detention order required – whether decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order should be affirmed – whether respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or be released from custody subject to a supervision order

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

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

COUNSEL:

J Tate for the applicant

The respondent appeared in person

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

This is the first review under s 27(1A) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) of the continuing detention order made by Byrne SJA on 11 March 2016 in respect of the respondent Mr Currie: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Currie [2016] QSC 48 (the reasons). Mr Currie was not represented by lawyers when the oral evidence was adduced and submissions were made on 11 December 2017. Mr Currie conducted the cross-examination of the witnesses himself.
Why the continuing detention order was made
Mr Currie is a 33 year old indigenous man. The history of Mr Currie’s sexual offending is set out in [3] to [8] of the reasons.
Mr Currie was assessed by three psychiatrists, Dr Beech who interviewed him in June 2015, Dr Harden who interviewed him in September 2015, and Dr Sundin who interviewed him in December 2015, each of whom diagnosed Mr Currie with an antisocial personality disorder with psychopathy and at a high risk of violent sexual offending. Both Dr Beech and Dr Sundin anticipated that Mr Currie was likely to need individual therapy before undertaking an intensive sexual offender program. Both Dr Sundin and Dr Harden recommended that Mr Currie undertake the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Treatment Program (HISOP) before release from custody.
Byrne SJA at [25] of the reasons summarised the effect of Mr Currie’s evidence on the application:
“The material which the respondent himself adduced in evidence confirms the assessments of the psychiatrists that he minimises his…

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 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: [2017] QSC 318
Decision Date: 21 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Currie, the primary focus was on the respondent's fitness for release and the ongoing necessity for his detention under the Dangerous Persons Act 2009 (Qld). The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the decision of the first review tribunal, which had upheld a finding that the respondent, Mr Currie, remained a serious danger to the community, warranting his continued detention. This review was required under the statutory framework governing the detention of dangerous individuals. The central legal issues revolved around whether the tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence and whether Mr Currie should continue to be detained under a continuing detention order or if he should be released under a supervision order.

The Court of Appeal examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the psychiatric evaluations and institutional behavior records. It was noted that Mr Currie had not demonstrated sufficient capacity to manage his emotions and behavior, a critical factor in his potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. His inability to complete recommended low-intensity programs and his poor institutional conduct highlighted his ongoing risk. The psychiatric evidence, while indicating that Mr Currie was respectful during the interview, did not negate the broader risk assessments based on his history and current behavior. The Court found that the tribunal's decision was well-supported by the evidence, affirming the assessment that Mr Currie remained a serious danger to the community.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal's decision, affirming the continuation of Mr Currie's detention under the continuing detention order. This decision underscored the importance of careful and thorough assessments in determining the ongoing risk posed by individuals classified as dangerous sexual offenders. The orders of the Court affirmed the tribunal's findings and maintained the status quo in terms of Mr Currie's detention, ensuring that the community's safety was prioritised based on the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order is affirmed.

2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made by Byrne SJA on 11 March 2016 for control, care and treatment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

On 23 November 2017 a case conference was undertaken to review and update Mr Currie’s program recommendations. This involved representatives from OIU, Specialised Clinical Services and the High Risk Offender Management Unit (HROMU). A report of that case conference was prepared. Relevantly, the summary of the outcome of that case conference and the decision was recorded as:“Prisoner Currie has been unable to demonstrate the capacity to manage his emotions and behaviour in a way that is conducive to inclusion in more challenging and intensive programs by failing to complete recommended low intensity programs. As such, OIU considers him presently unsuitable for sexual offending programs. Until such time that prisoner Currie can participate in and complete the recommended low intensity interventions, he will not be offered a place on the GSPP. Taking into consideration prisoner Currie’s consistently poor institutional conduct, with his last recorded incident being as recent as 14 November 2017, OIU considers him to pose too great a risk to the safety of both programs staff and fellow group participants. Until such time that prisoner Currie can demonstrate a reasonable period of stability in this regard, he will not be offered a place on the GSPP.HROMU have advised OIU that given prisoner Currie is yet to meet the requirements for inclusion in sexual offending programs, he will continue to engage with Dr Madsen for the purposes of providing individual intervention. OIU supports this decision.Should prisoner Currie demonstrate a willingness to engage in and complete low intensity group-based programs, he will again be afforded the opportunity to participate in the LISI and the Resilience program to support his progression towards his recommended sexual offending programs. However, any future decision relating to program offers or participation in group-based intervention will invariably need to consider his institutional conduct in the preceding period as well as his immediate risk to others.OIU will conduct a further review of prisoner Currie’s program recommendations at a suitable time to ensure fair consideration is given to his referral for and access to sexual offending intervention. As per the process for the current case conference, such a review will encompass his institutional behaviour and other responsivity factors, his participation in low intensity programs, and his progress with individual intervention.” The psychiatric evidence For the purpose of this first review, Dr Sundin interviewed Mr Currie on 3 August 2017 and provided a written risk assessment report dated 20 August 2017. Although Dr Sundin had been informed by a female staff member that no female staff were allowed to be alone with Mr Currie, Dr Sundin interviewed Mr Currie for two hours in an interview room in the protection unit where they were both present in the same room without any intervention of any corrective services staff and there were no problems, with Dr Sundin describing Mr Currie in these terms:“Throughout the two hour interview, Mr Currie behaved in an appropriate manner towards me. Whilst he was his usual narcissistic and verbose self, keen to hold the floor and delineate in detail all the ways in which he has been victimised; he was nonetheless respectful and even when angry and animated did not behave in a threatening manner.”

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 (Qld) v Currie [2017] QSC 318
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v JOEL GEORGE CURRIE (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS10864 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Review of continuing detention order
DELIVERED ON:	21 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 and 21 December 2017
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	1. The decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order is affirmed. 2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made by Byrne SJA on 11 March 2016 for control, care 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 continuing detention order had been made in respect of the respondent – where first review of the continuing detention order required – whether decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order should be affirmed – whether respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or be released from custody subject to a supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 27, s 30 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Currie [2016] QSC 48, related
COUNSEL:	J Tate for the applicant The respondent appeared in person
SOLICITORS:	G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant