Attorney-General (Qld) v Reader

[2017] QSC 167

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Reader [2017] QSC 167

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
ERIC ALBERT READER

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS13521 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for contravention of a supervision order

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2017 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2017

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

As per the amended draft order initialled by Mullins J and placed with the file

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where respondent contravened a condition of a supervision order not to establish or maintain any contact with a child under the age of 16 years – where respondent failed to disclose contact with children – application pursuant to s 22(2) Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – whether adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the existing supervision order – where respondent released under amended supervision order

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

Attorney-General (Qld) v Reader [2010] QSC 142, related

COUNSEL:

J Tate for the applicant

S Robb for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

HER HONOUR: Mr Reader, who is currently 59 years old, was the subject of a finding made by Justice Margaret Wilson that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”), which resulted in his being released under a supervision order for a period of 10 years until 21 May 2020. See Attorney-General (Qld) v Reader [2010] QSC 142 (“the reasons”).

Justice Wilson set out at pages 5 and 6 of the reasons the details of the three sets of sexual offences committed by Mr Reader which resulted in the application to bring him under the Act, and I will not repeat those details other than to note that the third set of offending, which included one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 12 years with circumstances of aggravation between 1 January 1997 and 21 May 1999, resulted in an effective head sentence imposed on Mr Reader of 11 years’ imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offending.

On release under the supervision order, Mr Reader was permitted to resume living with his wife in independent accommodation. By all accounts, he was able to comply with the supervision order until the contravening conduct that was committed in the period of some months preceding 1 November 2016, resulting in his arrest for offences under the Act on or about 1 November 2016.

Mr Reader pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court on 5 May 2017 to four charges, pursuant to section 43AA of the Act, of contravening the supervision order. He was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of two months, which has expired whilst Mr Reader was waiting for the contravention application brought by the applicant Attorney-General under section 22 of the Act to be heard in this Court.

For the purpose of this application and consistent with his pleas of guilty to the criminal offences that arose from the same conduct, Mr Reader admits the contravention of paragraph (xxxviii) of the supervision order.  Mr Reader, therefore, seeks to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the imposition of the existing order on him, with appropriate amendments, provides adequate protection of the community despite the contraventions of the supervision order.

The applicant does not seek continuing detention and concedes that, in the circumstances, the evidence is sufficient to support Mr Reader’s release, subject to the existing supervision order with the amendments proposed by the applicant and which are not disputed by Mr Reader.  Despite the applicant’s concession, I still must be satisfied by the evidence that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the supervision order with the proposed amendments. 

I will provide some brief details of the nature of the contravening conduct.  Two friends of Mr Reader, who have provided support for him in the community and who were aware of his history and that he was under a supervision order, regularly had their grandchildren at their home from some time in the first half of 2016, when Mr

Reader was visiting.  There were three children from one family, a seven year old girl and her two brothers, aged five and two years, and a 14 year old female cousin who attended at the home less frequently.

No charges of sexual offending arose as a result of the contact with these children that Mr Reader had in breach of the supervision order, which provided that Mr Reader must not establish and maintain any supervised or unsupervised contact with children under 16 years of age, except with prior written approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer, and required Mr Reader to disclose fully the terms of the order and the nature of the offences to the guardians and caregivers of the children before any such contact, and to permit Queensland Corrective Services to disclose information pertaining to the offender to guardians or caregivers and external agencies in the interest of ensuring the safety of the children.

The contravention was aggravated by the failure of Mr Reader during the period in which he was having contact with these children to disclose the contact either to his treating psychologist or to the case manager with whom he met regularly from Corrective Services. 

For the purpose of this application, Mr Reader was assessed by two psychiatrists, who have provided written reports.  Dr Sundin interviewed Mr Reader on 16 March 2017.  She diagnoses Mr Reader as meeting the criteria for paedophilic disorder, heterosexual in type, attracted to females, not limited to incest, and observed that there were no other comorbid psychiatric diagnoses.  And whilst Mr Reader has a number of antisocial and narcissistic personality traits, those do not appear to rise to the level of a personality disorder.  Dr Sundin in her report had recited the previous assessments of Mr Reader by reference to the instruments used by psychiatrists and considered those risk assessments that concluded his sexual recidivism was in the moderate to high zone for the future appeared valid.

Mr Reader had admitted to Dr Sundin that he understood he was in breach of the supervision order by having contact with the relevant children but that he needed to test himself out and was frustrated by the supervision order.  In Dr Sundin’s opinion, that was likely to be a rationalisation for what she considered was “rising paraphilic interests”.  Dr Sundin conclude in respect of the contravention:

This breach suggests a very serious lapse of judgment and is clearly quite egregious.  Taken on balance, however, I do not consider that Mr Reader’s breach is such that a continuing detention order is needed.  Rather, I think he needs to return to the community on a supervision order with a much higher level of supervision than was in place previously in terms of frequency of checking on contacts and support people.  The terms of his supervision as currently identified in the material are satisfactory.

Dr Aboud interviewed Mr Reader on 15 April 2017.  According to Dr Aboud, Mr Reader’s primary psychiatric diagnosis is paedophilia, non-exclusive type, sexually attracted to females pre and post-pubescent and that Mr Reader also harbours

antisocial and avoidant personality traits, but not to the extent of meeting criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder.  Dr Aboud also applied the various instruments and, in his view, concluded that Mr Reader’s overall unmodified risk of sexual offending would currently be regarded as between moderate and high.  Dr Aboud concluded, however, in the context of monitoring and supervision, that Mr Reader’s risk of sexual reoffending could be reduced to between moderate and low.  Dr Aboud noted this in relation to the contravention:

It is of concern that he chose to deceive his case manager and also his treating psychologist in this latter regard by maintaining regular contact with minors, two of them female.  It is of concern that he was more concerned about being breached by authority figures/supervisors discovering his behaviour than by the fact he was creating a high-risk situation which, over time, may have led to sexual reoffending.  Within this concern is recognition of his tendency to reframe the situation, positioning himself as somehow the victim of an inflexible system.  Taken together, these factors speak to the insidious nature of his sexual risk and the need to manage this risk in the longer term.

Although the psychiatrists, at this stage, raised the issue of whether consideration should be given to Mr Reader having supervision past 21 May 2020, that was not an issue that was pursued by the applicant on the application.  That is a matter that is covered by the legislative scheme and can be considered by the applicant at an appropriate time, if so advised at that time.

The psychiatric evidence, in conjunction with the other material filed in connection with this application by the applicant, has allowed Mr Reader to discharge the onus he bears on the balance of probabilities to satisfy the Court that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by the existing supervision order as amended.  The amendments have largely addressed some of the archaic and repetitive provisions that were in the original order, which were those favoured by the applicant at the time the original order was made. 

In order to facilitate Mr Reader’s understanding of the provisions of the supervision order and assist Corrective Services in their supervision of Mr Reader, the applicant has proposed to modernise, in effect, the terms of the supervision order.  The schedule of proposed revisions showing the alterations were neatly summarised in a separate document, if any future consideration has to be given to the differences between the orders.  Mr Reader had no objection to the order being modernised, as it makes it easier for him to understand the constraints on his activities and the obligations required of him under the terms of the order.

I therefore make an order in terms of the amended draft that has been initialled by me and placed with the file.