Attorney-General (Qld) v Hill - [2021] QSC 150

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Hill [2021] QSC 150

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

IAN MALCOLM CLAUDE HILL

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5977 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2021 (ex tempore)

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 supervision order the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where applicant applied for orders that the supervision order was contravened – where the respondent admits the supervision order was contravened – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the existing supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), ss 13, 22

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324

Attorney-General (QLD) v Hill [2020] QSC 47

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sands [2016] QSC 225

Kynuna v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2016] QCA 172

COUNSEL:

M Maloney for the applicant

S Robb for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

This is an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (the applicant) seeking orders pursuant to section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) that Ian Malcolm Claude Hill (the respondent) has contravened the supervision order made by this Court on 20 March 2020 (Supervision Order). The particulars of the contravention have been set out in the application filed 11 February 2021, and arise out of the failures of the respondent to comply with curfew directions under paragraph 14 of the Supervision Order.
The respondent admits the contraventions of the Supervision Order and accepts that the Court would be satisfied to the requisite standard that he has contravened requirement 14 of the Supervision Order that he was subject to, and, therefore, that the jurisdiction to make orders under section 22 of the Act is enlivened. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, on the basis of the evidence presented by the applicant and the admissions made, that the relevant contraventions have been made out.
If the Court finds that the respondent has contravened the Supervision Order, the Court must, pursuant to section 22(2) of the Act, rescind the Supervision Order and make a continuing detention order, unless the respondent can satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the existing supervision order, either with or without amendments, despite the contraventions.[1]
[1]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sands [2016] QSC 225 at 5.

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.

Continue reading Attorney-General (Qld) v Hill

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (Qld) v Hill [2021] QSC 150
Case: [2021] QSC 150
Decision Date: 14 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, the Attorney-General for Queensland, sought orders that the respondent, a designated dangerous sexual offender, had contravened the conditions of a supervision order imposed under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent admitted that he had contravened the supervision order. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by maintaining the existing supervision order in light of the respondent's contravention.

The court considered the overarching purpose of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, which is to protect the community from dangerous sexual offenders. The court noted the respondent's admission of contravening the supervision order and examined the specific conditions breached. The respondent argued that, despite the contravention, the existing supervision order could still ensure adequate protection of the community. The court weighed the respondent's history, the nature of the contravention, and the effectiveness of the current supervision measures in ensuring community safety.

After careful consideration, the court found that the existing supervision order could adequately protect the community, taking into account the respondent's history and the specific circumstances of the contravention. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the respondent's compliance with the supervision order moving forward. Consequently, the court decided to maintain the existing supervision order but imposed additional conditions to enhance community protection.

The final orders of the court included the continuation of the supervision order with additional conditions designed to strengthen the supervision and rehabilitation measures. These conditions were intended to ensure the respondent's compliance and the adequate protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order as per draft

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Attorney-General (Qld) v Hill [2021] QSC 150
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v IAN MALCOLM CLAUDE HILL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5977 of 2019
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 June 2021 (ex tempore)
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 supervision order the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where applicant applied for orders that the supervision order was contravened – where the respondent admits the supervision order was contravened – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the existing supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), ss 13, 22 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324 Attorney-General (QLD) v Hill [2020] QSC 47 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sands [2016] QSC 225 Kynuna v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2016] QCA 172
COUNSEL:	M Maloney for the applicant S Robb for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent