Attorney-General (Qld) v Nelson-Adams

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Nelson-Adams [2025] QSC 136

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
JAMIE CHRISTOPHER NELSON-ADAMS

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 1558 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2025

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDERS:

1.   The court is satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Jamie Christopher Nelson-Adams, has contravened the order of Callaghan J made on 12 October 2021 and amended by Kelly J on 5 February 2024 (“Supervision Order”);

2.   The respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the Supervision Order.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – GENERALLY – where the respondent is subject to a Supervision Order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) – where the respondent is an Indigenous transgender woman who sexually offended once as a child and once as an adult 16 years later – where the respondent was charged and convicted for contravening conditions of the Supervision Order – where the respondent’s contraventions did not involve the commission of sexual offences – where the applicant seeks to detain the respondent in custody for an indefinite term for care, control or treatment under the Act – where the applicant, in the alternative, seeks for the respondent to be released from custody subject to the Supervision Order – where psychiatric evidence characterised the respondent’s risk of sexual offending as ‘moderate to high’ – where the respondent submits that she should be released from custody subject to the Supervision Order – whether the respondent’s release from custody under the Supervision Order would provide adequate protection to the community against the commission of a serious sexual offence

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 s 2, s 13, s 16, s 22, s 24, s 43AA

Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, followed
Attorney-General (Qld) v Nelson-Adams [2021] QSC 257, considered
Attorney-General (Qld) vPossum [2021] QSC 145, followed
Attorney-General (Qld) v Thaiday [2021] QSC 227, considered
Black v Attorney-General (Qld) [2022] QCA 253, considered
Kynuna v Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 172, followed

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

J Tate for the applicant
A Beard for the respondent

LC Ling, Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The respondent, Jamie Christopher Nelson-Adams, is a 39-year-old Indigenous transgender woman[1] who is currently subject to a Supervision Order made on 12 October 2021 under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”).[2] That order will expire on 22 December 2032.

    [1]In most of the material before me, the respondent is referred to as “he/him”. Counsel for the respondent confirmed that the correct pronouns for the respondent are “she/her”. Except where giving a direct quote, I have adopted these pronouns…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Nelson-Adams 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
[2025] QSC 136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Nelson-Adams, the Attorney-General sought to either rescind the Supervision Order imposed on the respondent or maintain the order with the respondent detained indefinitely for care, control, or treatment. The respondent, Jamie Christopher Nelson-Adams, an Indigenous transgender woman, was subject to the Supervision Order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The Attorney-General argued that the respondent’s risk of sexual offending was ‘moderate to high’ and that her release would not provide adequate protection to the community. The respondent contended for her release under the Supervision Order. The court was required to determine whether the respondent’s release from custody under the Supervision Order would ensure adequate community protection.

The court considered the psychiatric evidence and the respondent’s history, including her diagnoses of psychopathy, severe antisocial personality disorder, and substance use disorder. Both psychiatrists classified the respondent’s risk of future serious sexual offending as ‘moderate to high’. The court also noted the respondent's lack of engagement and cooperation with authorities, which made risk assessment challenging. Despite the applicant's submission that the Supervision Order should be rescinded, the court found that the respondent's lack of a pattern of sexual offending and her demonstrated periods of abstinence in supervised environments provided some grounds for her release. The court accepted that the Supervision Order had been effective in restricting the respondent’s alcohol and drug-seeking behavior. However, the court also acknowledged the complexity of the case, including the lack of appropriate accommodation for the respondent and her history of non-compliance with the Supervision Order. Ultimately, the court decided that the respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the Supervision Order.

The court ordered that the respondent, Jamie Christopher Nelson-Adams, be released from custody and continue to be subject to the Supervision Order. The court found that the Supervision Order was sufficient to ensure adequate community protection and that the respondent’s release was appropriate given the evidence and circumstances of the case. The decision underscores the importance of considering individual risk factors, engagement with treatment, and the effectiveness of supervision orders in determining the appropriate measures for dangerous sexual offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The court is satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Jamie Christopher Nelson-Adams, has contravened the order of Callaghan J made on 12 October 2021 and amended by Kelly J on 5 February 2024 (“Supervision Order”);

2. The respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the Supervision Order.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The exercise of discretion to rescind or maintain the Supervision Order is assisted by the psychiatric evidence. The psychiatric evidence Dr Phillips and Dr Brown provided reports in the current contravention proceeding and were cross-examined before me. The Attorney-General relies on the evidence of both Dr Phillips and Dr Brown in their respective Risk Assessment Reports and clinical reviews of the respondent to support its submission that the adequate protection of the community cannot be ensured by the respondent’s release into the community under a supervision order. As such, the applicant submits that the Supervision Order should be rescinded, and a continuing detention order made under s 22(2) of the Act. It is relevant to note that the respondent conceded that the psychiatric evidence and findings in earlier decisions under the Act establish that the respondent does pose a relevant risk of serious sexual offending. That risk is said to be of the sexual assault, rape or indecent dealing with a female child. At this point, I reiterate the earlier concerns about the wide reach of the Act, in encompassing a person who has sexually offended in the way the respondent has. But, I also accept that the evidence in this case supports a finding that she does pose a relevant risk under the Act. It must not be overlooked, too, that the respondent’s lack of engagement and cooperation with psychiatrists and authorities more generally, and her continued refusal to accept responsibility for her earlier sexual offending, has made the task of assessing the nature and likelihood of the risk she poses very difficult. The respondent’s diagnoses The psychiatric evidence as to the respondent’s various diagnoses remains relatively consistent. Those diagnoses include psychopathy, a severe antisocial personality disorder and a substance use disorder (alcohol, cannabis, and stimulants). Dr Phillips described a feature of the respondent’s personality disorder to include pseudo-hallucinations, or hearing voices saying derogatory comments about the respondent and telling her to harm others. Both Dr Brown and Dr Phillips opined that the respondent may also have some cognitive impairments secondary to several serious head injuries. Dr Phillips further suggested the possibility that the respondent has post-traumatic stress disorder related to her history of childhood sexual abuse. The respondent is currently in remission for her substance abuse disorder in a controlled (custodial) environment. Risk of sexual offending Both Dr Brown and Dr Phillips classified the respondent’s current unmodified risk of future serious sexual offending at the ‘moderate to high’ range. They also both agreed that the respondent’s diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy increase her risk of reoffending both generally and sexually. In Dr Brown’s opinion, the fact of the previous sexual offending, in itself, increased the risk of the respondent committing further sexual offences.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Dr Brown and Dr Phillips each opined that it would be clinically appropriate for the respondent to recommence individual psychological treatment in custody prior to release into the community. Dr Phillips suggested that the purpose of such treatment would be to gain a better understanding of the drivers of the respondent’s previous sexual offending and the dynamic risk factors for future sexual re-offending, as well as improving the respondent’s adaptive coping skills, implementing interventions aimed at her personality dysfunction, and developing a robust Relapse Prevention Plan. Dr Brown also suggested that there be an agreed plan in relation to appropriate transgender supports and management, both in custody and on release. Consideration In making the original supervision order, Callaghan J was alive to the risk that the respondent may breach its terms, but not necessarily by committing a serious sexual offence. His Honour noted: “the relevant test does not require me to ask whether such an order would be breached but demands consideration of what that breach would mean.”[32] [32]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Nelson-Adams [2021] QSC 257 at [15] (Callaghan J). I accept Dr Phillips’ suggestion that the respondent may be better characterised as a generalist, rather than a specific sexual offender, with intoxication being a key driver of her offending behaviour. That finding is made in the absence of evidence of paedophilic desires or tendencies on the part of the respondent, although I note neither psychiatrist ruled out this possibility. I also accept the evidence that the Supervision Order has been effective in restricting the respondent’s alcohol and drug-seeking behaviour, and that the respondent has now demonstrated periods of abstinence while in supervised environments. With respect, there were some aspects of the psychiatrists’ conclusions which I am unable to accept on the basis that they are not supported by the evidence. For example, while I accept Dr Brown’s evidence that previous sexual offending can and does increase the risk of committing further sexual offences, I am not satisfied that this reasoning can be said to apply in this case. The respondent has not demonstrated a pattern of sexual offending. Rather, she has offended sexually twice in her life, once very seriously as a troubled child, and then 16 years later (now some nine years ago) at a lower end of offending as a heavily intoxicated adult. Overall, this is a troubling case, complicated by the accepted lack of appropriate accommodation available to the respondent given her transgender status. It is also complicated by the applicant’s unwillingness to engage with psychiatrists and psychologists, and her proven track record of poor compliance with the Supervision Order. The respondent’s lack of engagement in sexual offender treatment programs and her contravention history is concerning. There was suggestion in the material before me that the respondent did not wish to be released until her considerable demands for appropriate accommodation were met. That position was clarified through the respondent’s counsel, and the respondent accepts that, as it stands, the only appropriate place for her to reside is as currently apprehended under the Supervision Order; that is, the Wacol precinct.