Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson - [2018] QSC 263

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson [2018] QSC 263

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
PAIS WANMAN PENNINGSON

(respondent)

FILE NO:

No 2031 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

16 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, Pais Wanman Penningson, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act), ORDERS THAT:

1. The decision made by Burns J on 24 June 2016 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed; and

2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 24 June 2016.

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 has been detained on a continuing detention order for two years – where at the first annual review one year ago the continuing detention order was affirmed – whether the respondent continues to be a serious danger to the community – whether the respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13, s 17, s 30

Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, followed
Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson [2016] QSC 146, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson (Unreported, Dalton J, 30 October 2017), cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2017] QSC 61, cited

Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, followed

COUNSEL:

P Clohessy for the applicant

A E Loode for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

The respondent is the subject of a continuing detention order made under s 13(5) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”).
Continuing detention orders must be reviewed.[1] The present application sought such review. On 5 November 2018, I made the following orders:
THE COURT, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Pais Wanman Penningson, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act), ORDERS THAT:
1. The decision made by Burns J on 24 June 2016 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed; and
2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 24 June 2016.
[1]Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) Part 3.
After making those orders I indicated that I…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson 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 263
Decision Date: 16 November 2018 Orders made 5 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Attorney-General sought an affirmation of the continuing detention order for Pais Wanman Penningson, a respondent deemed a dangerous sexual offender. The case involved a review of Penningson's status under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, focusing on whether he remained a serious danger to the community, thereby justifying his continued detention. The previous year, Burns J had already affirmed the continuing detention order, which was now subject to this annual review.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if the threshold of 'serious danger to the community' was still met for Penningson. This required the court to assess the risk posed by Penningson based on available evidence, including expert evaluations and the respondent's behaviour during the preceding year. The court needed to decide whether the risk was such that it warranted the continuation of the detention order under the Act.

The court found that the evidence presented, including psychological assessments and the respondent's history, supported the conclusion that Penningson continued to pose a serious danger to the community. The court was satisfied with the high standard of proof required by the Act, affirming the previous decision that Penningson was indeed a serious danger to the community in the absence of continued detention. Consequently, the court ordered that the continuing detention order be maintained, reflecting the ongoing risk posed by Penningson.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made 5 November 2018:

THE COURT, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Pais Wanman Penningson, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act), ORDERS THAT:

1. The decision made by Burns J on 24 June 2016 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed; and

2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 24 June 2016.

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 Penningson [2018] QSC 263
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v PAIS WANMAN PENNINGSON (respondent)
FILE NO:	No 2031 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	16 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, Pais Wanman Penningson, is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the *Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act* 2003 (the Act), ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision made by Burns J on 24 June 2016 that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Act, be affirmed; and 2. The respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 24 June 2016.
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 has been detained on a continuing detention order for two years – where at the first annual review one year ago the continuing detention order was affirmed – whether the respondent continues to be a serious danger to the community – whether the respondent should continue to be subject to the continuing detention order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 13, s 17, s 30 Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, followed Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson [2016] QSC 146, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson (Unreported, Dalton J, 30 October 2017), cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2017] QSC 61, cited Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, followed
COUNSEL:	P Clohessy for the applicant A E Loode for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent