Attorney-General (Qld) v Flenady

Case [2020] QSC 44

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Flenady [2020] QSC 44

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
JAMES BRIAN ROBERT FLENADY

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 10062 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

13 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2020

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

Being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, James Brian Robert Flenady, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the order of the court is that the respondent is detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or 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 there is an application pursuant to s 5 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 for an order pursuant to Division 3 of Part 2 of that Act – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – where the court may order a continuing detention order or a supervision

order pursuant to s 13(5) of the Act – whether the adequate protection of the community could be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order – whether the requirements under s 16 of the Act could be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act2003 (Qld), s 13, s 16, 27

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Beattie [2007] QCA 96, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 155, cited
Attorney-General v Francis [2006] QCA 324, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Waghorn [2006] QSC 171, cited

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant

L Dollar for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid (Qld) for the respondent

  1. The Attorney-General for the State of Queensland applies for an order pursuant to s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) to detain the respondent, James Brian Robert Flenady, in custody for an indefinite term for care, treatment or control or, in the alternative, that he be released from custody subject to a supervision order.

  2. The statutory premise for the making of either form of order is that there is evidence on which the court can be satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community, that is to say, that there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit, relevantly, a sexual offence against children if released into the community. The respondent concedes, through his counsel, that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order but contends that the adequate protection of…

Continue reading Attorney-General (Qld) v Flenady

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General (Qld) v Flenady [2020] QSC 44
Case
[2020] QSC 44
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Flenady was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the primary legal issue was whether the respondent, James Brian Robert Flenady, posed a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The court needed to determine whether the adequate protection of the community could be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order and whether the requirements under s 16 of the Act could be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. This decision was based on a detailed assessment of the respondent's criminal history, psychiatric conditions, and potential risk to the community.

The court considered the respondent's criminal history, which included convictions for stalking and using the internet to expose indecent material to a child under 16 years of age. Additionally, the court examined the respondent's psychiatric conditions, including Schizotypal Personality Disorder, Anxiety, and Agoraphobia. The court also considered the respondent's history of alcohol abuse, misuse of prescription drugs, and cannabis use, although the respondent denied any such use. The court concluded that the respondent's psychiatric history and criminal history demonstrated a pattern of dangerous and violent behaviour, which posed a significant risk to the community.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the respondent was a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The court was not satisfied that adequate protection of the community could be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order, and therefore, the respondent must be placed on a continuing detention order. The court ordered that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment, with a mandatory review of the order within two years as required by s 27(1A) of the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, James Brian Robert Flenady, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the order of the court is that the respondent is detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow, the respondent will be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment. Background The respondent is a 38 year old divorced man, and father to three daughters from two relationships. He was born in Brisbane and raised around Queensland. He had a complicated and quite deprived childhood, having been placed in foster care at a young age. He left school when he was about 14 years of age and moved out of home when he was 18 (by this time, he was living with his maternal grandmother and mother). Thereafter, his employment history was patchy, although he worked casually with his grandfather as a cleaner for a period of time along with some seasonal work. The respondent also attempted to complete his secondary schooling at one stage and was, according to him, accepted into a degree course in Theology, but dropped out after approximately 12 months. He was placed on a disability pension around 2005 after he was diagnosed with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, Anxiety and Agoraphobia. Apart from some stints at a call centre in 2011 or 2012, he has not worked much ever since. There is evidence before the court to the effect that the respondent has an established history of alcohol abuse. There are also some reports to the effect that he misused prescription drugs and cannabis although, to some who have asked him questions about that, the respondent has denied any such use. He has significant psychiatric issues, commencing with the diagnosis just mentioned when he was a teenager, and he has been medicated for his conditions. The respondent appears to accept that he has suffered from anxiety type symptoms in the past but denies that he has been depressed. My overall impression is that the respondent is not a particularly reliable historian so far as his psychiatric history is concerned. In around 2000, the respondent formed a relationship with a woman with whom he lived for five or six years. During that time, their union produced two daughters. After separating, he formed another relationship about a year later. That woman had two children from a previous relationship and, eventually, a child to the respondent. He remained with her until July 2014 when police became aware of allegations made by one of her children (then nine years of age) to the effect that the respondent had attacked her in a bathroom. I will come to that episode in a moment. The respondent has a concerning, and relevant, criminal history. On 23 July 2003, he pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane to one count of stalking. At the time of this offence, he was aged between 21 and 22 years and was 22 at the time of sentencing. The offence involved sending numerous letters containing obscene material to his 32 year old female neighbour. He was placed on two years’ probation. The order contained a condition requiring him to submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment. On 3 April 2006, the respondent again appeared in the District Court at Brisbane. He pleaded guilty to one count of using the internet to expose indecent material to a child under the age of 16 years. He was 23 at the time of this offence. The circumstances of this offending were that he engaged in a sexually explicit conversation on an internet chat site with a police officer posing as a 14 year old boy. Amongst other things, the respondent sent photographs of his genitals. He was sentenced to a period of 12 months imprisonment to be served as an Intensive Correction Order. Again, the order contained a condition requiring him to submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I am satisfied that that the community cannot be adequately protected by a supervision order. He must be placed on a continuing detention order.Conclusion The respondent will be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment. By s 27(1A) of the Act, this order must be reviewed within two years.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.