Attorney-General (Qld) v Griffin

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Griffin [2018] QSC 260

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
PETER SCOTT GRIFFIN

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No 1774 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2018

Orders made 5 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2018

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

Orders made 5 November 2018:

THE COURT, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent has contravened requirements of his supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, ORDERS THAT:

1.   The respondent be released from custody to be subject to the supervision order of Martin J dated 29 October 2012, with the following amendments.

(a)          Insert the following additional requirements:

28.   disclose the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior offending behaviour;

29.   notify the supervising officer of all personal relationships entered into by him;

30.   obtain prior approval before attending the premises of any shopping centre;

31.   supply any details of any email address, instant messaging services, chat rooms or social networking site including user names and passwords;

32.   allow any device to be randomly examined and, if applicable, account bills are to be provided upon request;

33.   not own, possess or regularly utilise more than one mobile telephone; and

34.   abstain from the consumption of alcohol whilst subject to contingency accommodation and subsequently not exceed 0.05 alcohol breath reading.

(b)     Amend requirement (xx) as follows:

20.   Abstain from the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of this order;

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 supervision order was made with respect to the respondent under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where it was alleged that the respondent had contravened a requirement of the supervision order – where a warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent pursuant to the Act and the respondent was detained in custody – where the applicant sought orders with respect to the respondent under s 22 of the Act – where the contravention was partly admitted by the respondent – where the contravention, to the extent not admitted, was found to have occurred as alleged – where the applicant had not committed any further serious sexual offences – whether the adequate protection of the community could, despite the contravention of the order, be ensured by the existing supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 3, s 5, s 13, s 22

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited

Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited

Attorney-General v Francis [2007]…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Griffin 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 260
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Griffin involved an application under section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) to determine whether the respondent, a dangerous sexual offender, could be released from custody under a supervision order. The respondent had a history of serious sexual offences and had previously breached his supervision order, leading to his detention. The key legal issue was whether the protection of the community could be ensured despite the respondent's breach of the supervision order. The court had to consider whether there remained an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence.

The court examined the evidence, including psychiatric evaluations, to determine the respondent's risk level. Both psychiatrists, Dr Sundin and Dr Harden, concluded that the supervision order was effective in containing the respondent's risk to the community. They recommended that the order be modified to include additional restrictions, such as restrictions on alcohol consumption and increased disclosure requirements. The court found that while the respondent had breached the supervision order, he had not committed any further serious sexual offences while in the community. The court accepted the psychiatrists' opinion that the supervision order was fulfilling its purpose and that the community could be adequately protected.

The court concluded that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the existing supervision order, albeit with certain amendments. The court ordered the release of the respondent under the supervision order with additional requirements, including restrictions on alcohol consumption, increased disclosure obligations, and limitations on the number of mobile telephones he could possess. These amendments were intended to further mitigate the risk posed by the respondent while allowing him to reintegrate into the community under controlled conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made 5 November 2018:

THE COURT, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent has contravened requirements of his supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent be released from custody to be subject to the supervision order of Martin J dated 29 October 2012, with the following amendments.

(a) Insert the following additional requirements:

28. disclose the name of each person with whom he associates and respond truthfully to requests for information about the nature of the association, address of the associate if known, the activities undertaken and whether the associate has knowledge of his prior offending behaviour;

29. notify the supervising officer of all personal relationships entered into by him;

30. obtain prior approval before attending the premises of any shopping centre;

31. supply any details of any email address, instant messaging services, chat rooms or social networking site including user names and passwords;

32. allow any device to be randomly examined and, if applicable, account bills are to be provided upon request;

33. not own, possess or regularly utilise more than one mobile telephone; and

34. abstain from the consumption of alcohol whilst subject to contingency accommodation and subsequently not exceed 0.05 alcohol breath reading.

(b) Amend requirement (xx) as follows:

20. Abstain from the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of this order;

Background

Background to the litigation

The issue under s 22 of the Act is not whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will breach the supervision order. The issue is whether there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence.[16][16] Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2012] QSC 275 at [64]–[67]. Background to the present application The respondent was born on 1 April 1968. He is currently 50 years of age. As a young man, the respondent committed various sexual offences of varying degrees of seriousness. Between 13 December 1988 and 14 February 1998 there was no recorded sexual offending by him. Between 14 February 1998 and 11 July 1998 he committed a number of sexual offences against three different women at night time. One of those offences was rape. On 8 February 2000, he was sentenced in the District Court at Rockhampton to various terms of imprisonment with an effective head sentence of 13 years. Towards the end of his sentence, an application was made against the respondent under the Act and on 8 November 2011, Byrne SJA made a continuing detention order. On 29 October 2012, Martin J reviewed the continuing detention order pursuant to Part 3 of the Act and released the respondent under the terms of a supervision order. Relevantly to the present application, the supervision order contains the following conditions requiring that the respondent:“(vii) comply with every reasonable direction of a Corrective Services Officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of the order …(ix) not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order …(xv) not commit an indictable offence during the period of the order …(xxvi) obtain the prior written approval of a Corrective Services Officer before accessing a computer or the internet.” After being released in October 2012, the respondent breached the supervision order and was returned to custody in January 2013 upon a warrant issued pursuant to s 20 of the Act. On 13 May 2013, the respondent was released back onto the supervision order. The details of that contravention are scant, but summarised briefly in a judgment of Daubney J upon a later breach. The conduct was described as “personal sexual activity … in a car park”.[17][17] Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Griffin [2015] QSC 31 at [4]. While in the community, the respondent became involved in an altercation with police and was returned to custody in October 2013. He was released pursuant to s 21(4) of the Act in November 2013 and was placed back onto the supervision order on 19 May 2014. In July 2014, the respondent was again returned to custody. He had not breached the supervision order but his behaviour was such that it was “likely” that he would contravene the order. On that occasion, the respondent had formed a relationship with a woman. That was not going well and those difficulties led to a deterioration in his mood and emotional state. He ceased using medication that was prescribed to him and he acted in a threatening manner to Queensland Correctional staff. He was released again into the community on the supervision order on 27 January 2015.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I find that the respondent did push his mobile telephone under the door of the change room while the telephone was in camera mode and thereby attempted to take images of Miss A while she was undressed.The psychiatric evidence Dr Sundin prepared a report dated 16 September 2018 after her interview with the respondent on 23 July 2018 at the Capricornia Correctional Centre. Dr Sundin had previously provided reports in 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 for earlier proceedings. Dr Sundin noted her previous opinion that the respondent had a history suggestive of a Mixed Personality Disorder with Borderline Anti-Social Personality Traits. In her latest report, she opined that the “supervision order is serving the purpose of containing the risk that Mr Griffin potentially poses to the community” and recommended that he be released again under the supervision order. On the question of alcohol, Dr Sundin said this:“Given his history of decades of abstinence from alcohol and the conflict that it is [sic] created in his interactions with QCS staff over consumption of alcohol, I suggest that consideration could be given to deleting this clause from the supervision order.” In a supplementary report of 16 October 2018, Dr Sundin said this:“Since I supplied my original report on this man dated 21 September 2018, I have been reflecting further on the alcohol abstinence clause of his supervision order.My advice recommending complete removal of this clause may be premature.It is 25 years since Mr Giffin says he has consumed alcohol and he asserts that he is not interested in resuming consumption of alcohol.Rather than it being an all or nothing approach, I would prefer if QCS introduce a gradual easing of the abstinence requirement, in discussion with Mr Griffin. This could be a gesture of good will and an opportunity to practically demonstrate to Mr Griffin the benefits of more open disclosure with his case manager and psychologist.” Dr Harden prepared a report dated 16 October 2018 after interviewing the respondent at Capricornia Correctional Centre on 23 August 2018. Dr Harden, like Dr Sundin, had previous contact with the respondent and had written reports for earlier proceedings. Dr Harden is of the view that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for the paraphilia of Sexual Sadism with Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Anti-Social Borderline and Narcissistic Features. Dr Harden noted that no violent sexual offence had been committed by the respondent while on supervision. Dr Harden’s final recommendations were:“I recommend that he have ongoing individual therapy with the current therapist Dr Madsen.Psychological therapies and psychological containment are important in his management.If he is released again on a supervision order clearly emphasis must also be placed on issues around potential victim access given these recent allegations. He should have a consultation with a psychiatrist, possibly the previous treating psychiatrist Dr Arthur regarding the risks and benefits of reinstituting a testosterone lowering medication.Substance use has not in general been associated with his offences, however I would echo the previous advice that it would be best if he avoided intoxication as the associated disinhibition would be unhelpful. The history does not support a complete ban on alcohol use.His potential victim group is adult women; I see no need for specific restrictions on his contact with children and young people.In the longer term it is probably necessary for him to develop relationships with adult women, however he needs to continue to be scaffolded by supervision and therapy in the context of developing these relationships.”[21][21] Dr Harden’s recommendation at 45 ll 3–26.Consideration

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Dr Harden’s final recommendations were:“I recommend that he have ongoing individual therapy with the current therapist Dr Madsen.Psychological therapies and psychological containment are important in his management.If he is released again on a supervision order clearly emphasis must also be placed on issues around potential victim access given these recent allegations. He should have a consultation with a psychiatrist, possibly the previous treating psychiatrist Dr Arthur regarding the risks and benefits of reinstituting a testosterone lowering medication.Substance use has not in general been associated with his offences, however I would echo the previous advice that it would be best if he avoided intoxication as the associated disinhibition would be unhelpful. The history does not support a complete ban on alcohol use.His potential victim group is adult women; I see no need for specific restrictions on his contact with children and young people.In the longer term it is probably necessary for him to develop relationships with adult women, however he needs to continue to be scaffolded by supervision and therapy in the context of developing these relationships.”[21][21] Dr Harden’s recommendation at 45 ll 3–26.Consideration As the breaches have been admitted,[22] the central question is whether the respondent has discharged the onus cast upon him by s 22(7) to prove “ … that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by a supervision order …”[22] And the disputed fact found against the respondent. That question comes down to one of whether there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence while on supervision. The issue is not one of risk of re-offending in general (or even offending violently), and not one of whether he will breach the supervision order, but a risk of re-offending in a particular way namely, the commission of “a serious sexual offence.” The respondent has previously been on supervision and has been unable to comply with the terms of the supervision order. That has resulted in him being in custody for much of the time during which the supervision order has been in force. However, the respondent, while in the community, has not committed a serious sexual offence. The conduct towards Miss A was no doubt very upsetting for her and unacceptable. That conduct, if it were committed upon an adult, is not conduct which the Act primarily seeks to control.[23] The Act provides for quite extreme remedies to control serious violent sexual conduct and sexual offences against children. While Miss A was a child, the psychiatrists both opined that her youth was not a factor in the respondent’s behaviour. He shows no tendency to offend against children. [23] Attorney-General (Qld) v Phineasa (2012) 221 A Crim R 200 and Tilbrook v Attorney-General (Qld) [2012] QCA 279. The evidence of the psychiatrists is to the effect that the supervision order is fulfilling its purpose in protecting the community against unacceptable risk of the commission of serious sexual offences by the respondent.