Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson - [2016] QSC 146

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson [2016] QSC 146

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
PAIS WANMAN PENNINGSON

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 2031 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 June 2016

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

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 Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the court orders that Pais Wanman Penningson be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and 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) Act 2003 (Qld) s 5, s 9A, s 13, s 16, s 27, s 28

Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie [2007] QCA 96
Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324
Attorney-General (Qld) v Kanaveilomani [2013] QCA 404
Attorney-General (Qld) v Phineasa [2013] 1 Qd R 305; [2012] QCA 184
Attorney-General (Qld) v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46
Kynuna v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2016] QCA 172

Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54

COUNSEL:

J B Rolls for the applicant
J W J Fenton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

By this application, the Honourable Attorney-General for the State of Queensland seeks an order pursuant to Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 detaining the respondent, Pais Wanman Penningson, in custody for an indefinite term for care, treatment or control: s 13(5)(a). In the alternative, if the court is minded to release Mr Penningson from custody, the Attorney-General asks that he be released subject to a supervision order under the Act: s 13(5)(b).

It was not in issue on the hearing of the application that Mr Penningson is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.[1] Rather, for Mr Penningson it was submitted, at least initially, that the adequate protection…

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: [2016] QSC 146
Decision Date: 24 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Penningson, the Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the appropriate sentencing order for Pais Wanman Penningson, who had been convicted of serious sexual offences. The Attorney-General sought an order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, arguing that Penningson posed a significant danger to the community if not subject to such an order. The central legal issue was whether Penningson was a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order and, if so, whether the court could reasonably and practicably manage the protection of the community through a supervision order rather than continuing detention.

The court examined the provisions of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 and the criteria for determining whether an individual is a serious danger to the community. It considered the nature and severity of Penningson's offences, his history of reoffending, and expert psychiatric evidence regarding his risk of reoffending. The court concluded that Penningson's history of violent and sexual offending, coupled with his high risk of reoffending, justified the finding that he was a serious danger to the community. The court found that adequate protection of the community could not be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order, as Penningson's risk profile and the nature of his offences necessitated a higher level of control and treatment.

Consequently, the court determined that the appropriate order under s 13(5) of the Act was a continuing detention order. The court was satisfied that the requirements under s 16 of the Act, which pertain to the management of Penningson by corrective services officers, could be reasonably and practicably managed. The court ordered that Penningson be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, and treatment.

Orders

Orders of 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 Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the court orders that Pais Wanman Penningson be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment.

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 [2016] QSC 146
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v PAIS WANMAN PENNINGSON (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS No 2031 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 June 2016
JUDGE:	Burns J
ORDER:	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 Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, the court orders that Pais Wanman Penningson be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and 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) Act 2003 (Qld) s 5, s 9A, s 13, s 16, s 27, s 28 Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie [2007] QCA 96 Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324 Attorney-General (Qld) v Kanaveilomani [2013] QCA 404 Attorney-General (Qld) v Phineasa [2013] 1 Qd R 305; [2012] QCA 184 Attorney-General (Qld) v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46 Kynuna v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2016] QCA 172 Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54
COUNSEL:	J B Rolls for the applicant J W J Fenton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent