Attorney-General (Qld) v Dawson

[2016] QSC 308

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Dawson [2016] QSC 308

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
STEWART JAMES DAWSON

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS10682 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for contravention of supervision order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2016 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 December 2016

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Order in terms of the amended draft initialled by Mullins J and placed with the file

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER - GENERALLY – where respondent was under a supervision order made under Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where sample of respondent’s urine tested positive for methylamphetamine – where respondent swore that he did not ingest the methylamphetamine intentionally and acknowledged he was careless in drinking from an opened bottle of soft drink that belonged to a relation who had a drug problem – where contravention of supervision order proved – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the conditions of the supervision order

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

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Dawson [2015] QSC 291, related

COUNSEL:

J B Rolls for the applicant

S M Ryan QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

HER HONOUR: This is a contravention hearing in respect of Mr Dawson, who has been under a supervision order that was imposed under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) on 24 December 2009 for a period of 10 years. The contravention is breaching the requirement of the supervision order that requires Mr Dawson to abstain from use of illicit substances. On 14 June 2016, Mr Dawson provided a urine sample to the supervising Corrective Services officer, which tested positive for methylamphetamine. Further analysis of that sample has confirmed the positive test.

Mr Dawson has filed an affidavit in this proceeding in which he identifies the circumstances in which he believes he inadvertently ingested the methylamphetamine.  Ultimately, Mr Dawson was not cross-examined, as whether the ingestion of the methylamphetamine was intentional or unintentional, the fact remains that he was in breach of the supervision order.  He was returned to custody on 16 June 2016, and the hearing today is in relation to whether or not he should remain in custody or be released again under the supervision order.  The position of the applicant was consistent with the psychiatric evidence, that even finding the contravention proved did not preclude the release of Mr Dawson, again, on the supervision order. 

Mr Dawson is now 47 years old.  Last year on 6 October 2015, I dealt with a contravention application made against Mr Dawson as a result of the breach, then, of the curfew direction in circumstances where Mr Dawson was suicidal and at a time when he was suffering from depression.  As a result of finding the contravention proved, I released Mr Dawson again on the supervision.  In light of the psychiatric evidence at the time of the hearing, I also varied the supervision order by deleting the monitoring requirement. 

Mr Dawson’s history of sexual offences in 1986 and 1990, which brought him under the regime of the Act initially, and the detailed circumstances of the contravention in April 2014, are set out in the reasons which I gave on 6 October 2015: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Dawson [2015] QSC 291. The contravention for which I am dealing with Mr Dawson today was the first contravention, after the release again on the amended supervision order on 6 October 2015.

The chain of custody of the urine sample, which tested positive for methylamphetamine has been proved, and I am satisfied that the applicant can show that Mr Dawson had consumed methylamphetamine prior to giving the urine sample on 14 June 2016. 

Although there is some scepticism by psychiatric Dr McVie of the circumstances in which Mr Dawson believes he inadvertently ingested the methylamphetamine, there is no reason not to accept Mr Dawson’s version of how he came to drink a half-consumed, opened bottle of Coca-Cola in the refrigerator of one of his relatives.  The Coca-Cola bottle belonged to a sister who has issues with illicit substances.  Although Mr Dawson did not report feeling any differently after ingesting the methylamphetamine that he believes was within the Coca-Cola, he could not recall

any other instance where he was in a position where he would have somehow taken the methylamphetamine.  Mr Dawson has responded well to the Narcotics Anonymous Program in which he has participated whilst under the supervision order, and there were no other indications in the material that he had shown signs of resorting to use of illicit substances.  I therefore find that the contravention has been proved. 

Dr Sundin, who is the psychiatrist who has interviewed Mr Dawson on previous occasions, interviewed him again on 8 September 2016.  She has previously diagnosed Mr Dawson with an antisocial personality disorder, and polysubstance use disorder, and, more recently, as suffering from a major depressive disorder.  Dr Sundin has had the advantage of seeing Mr Dawson over a number of years and considers that what, on an historical actuarial risk analysis, would be a moderate to high risk of sexual reoffending, with the passage of time, maturity and the acquisition of both greater levels of personal insight and the development of more pro-social strategies for resolving problem situations, makes Mr Dawson’s current risk for future sexual recidivism low.

Dr Sundin is of the opinion that Mr Dawson is a person who can be released back into the community under the supervision order.  Dr Sundin stresses the importance of Mr Dawson continuing to remain abstinent from alcohol and illicit substances, and the importance to his risk of sexual reoffending remaining low, of gaining employment, and remaining engaged with men’s groups and Narcotic Anonymous, as well as regular counselling with his psychologist. 

Dr McVie had not examined Mr Dawson previously and was sceptical about his consumption of methylamphetamine without any indication or report of psychoactive or physiological side effects from the drug.  But that said, Dr McVie considers that, despite the contravention, there is no evidence that Mr Dawson represents any increased risk to the community, and that he should be able to recommence under the supervision order.  Dr McVee encourages Mr Dawson to see a psychiatrist for assessment of his depressive and anxiety symptoms.

The amendment that will be made to the supervision order as a result of the contravention is the addition of the monitoring requirement that is the inevitable result of the contravention.  I am satisfied that with that amendment, the reinstated supervision order will ensure the adequate protection of the community.  I am fortified in reaching this conclusion despite the contravention, by the evidence of both psychiatrists - Drs Sundin and McVie - which satisfies me that it is appropriate for Mr Dawson to be returned to the community under the supervision order.  Mr Dawson has discharged the onus that he bears on this contravention application.  I therefore make an order in terms of the amended draft, initialled by me and placed with the file. 

______________________