Attorney-General (Qld) v Thompson

Case [2017] QSC 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Thompson [2017] QSC 79

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

PAUL THOMPSON

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 13108 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 May 2017

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

1. The court, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Paul Thompson, 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 (Qld), orders that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control and treatment.

2.     The court directs that a copy of the reports prepared by Drs Grant, Phillips and Harden for the purpose of this hearing, together with a copy of the transcript of their oral evidence at the hearing as well as these reasons be provided to the psychiatrists, psychologists or other medical treatment providers who are, from time to time, responsible for treating the respondent.

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 respondent suffers from a severe personality disorder with a mixture of histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial and possibly dependent traits – where the respondent has a mixed sexual paraphilia which manifests in exhibitionism and paedophilia with an attraction to underage males – where the respondent has a long and prolific history of exhibitionism, indecent exposure and contact sexual offences in the nature of touching and fondling young males – 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 can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order – whether the requirements under s 16 of the Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers if a supervision order is made – whether the adequate protection of the community can only be ensured by a continuing detention order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 5, s 13, s 13A, s 16

Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie [2007] QCA 96, followed
Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon[2011] QCA 111, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Kanaveilomani[2013] QCA 404, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505; [2009] QCA 136, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Phineasa [2013] 1 Qd R 305; [2012] QCA 184, cited

Continue reading Attorney-General (Qld) v Thompson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General (Qld) v Thompson [2017] QSC 79
Case
[2017] QSC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Thompson, the respondent, Paul Thompson, faced a hearing under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) to determine whether he qualified for an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act. The court had to decide if Thompson was a serious danger to the community in the absence of such an order and whether his adequate protection could be managed by a supervision order. The court's decision hinged on the nature of Thompson's severe personality disorder, his history of sexual offending against underage males, and his high unmodified risk of reoffending if released from custody.

Thompson's psychiatric profile was marked by histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, and possibly dependent traits, compounded by a mixed sexual paraphilia manifesting in exhibitionism and paedophilia. His criminal history was extensive, including a rapid reoffending pattern post-release. The court heard from three psychiatrists who unanimously assessed his risk of reoffending as high, with a poor prognosis. The court considered Thompson's struggle to live independently and his potential to commit further serious sexual offences upon release, driven by impulsivity and unpredictability.

The court found Thompson to be a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, noting his lack of insight into the impact of his actions and the potential for serious psychological harm to his victims. Given this, the court determined that adequate community protection could not be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order. Instead, it concluded that the only feasible way to ensure community protection was through a continuing detention order. Therefore, the court ordered Thompson to be detained indefinitely for care, control, and treatment, with directions to relevant medical treatment providers to aid in his treatment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The court, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Paul Thompson, 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 (Qld), orders that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control and treatment.

2. The court directs that a copy of the reports prepared by Drs Grant, Phillips and Harden for the purpose of this hearing, together with a copy of the transcript of their oral evidence at the hearing as well as these reasons be provided to the psychiatrists, psychologists or other medical treatment providers who are, from time to time, responsible for treating the respondent.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence and to the high degree of probability required by s 13(2) of the Act that the respondent represents a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act. However, I am not satisfied that the adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order. To the contrary, I consider that the adequate protection of the community can only be ensured by a continuing detention order. As such, it will be ordered that the respondent be detained indefinitely for control, care and treatment. Directions will be made to assist the treatment objective.Background The respondent was born in Sydney. He is the older of two children and did not report any difficulty in his upbringing. In fact, he described his early life as “glorious” and he was very close to both of his parents. After leaving home, he maintained a relationship with his parents and younger brother for a number of years. His parents are deceased. He has not had any contact with his brother for many years. The respondent did well at school. He was a good student and was actively involved in a range of sports. He excelled at cricket. After completing High School, he went to Teachers’ College and, after graduating, taught in the state system for a number of years before working in various private schools in Sydney teaching English and Mathematics and occasionally Music. He was able to keep his regular offending secret from the private schools over this time and, to cover up his absences when he was in custody, the respondent would make excuses about needing a break. He was last employed as a teacher in about 2003. Subsequently he earned money by trading on the stock exchange and through buying and selling cars. After completing Teachers’ College, the respondent entered into a de facto relationship which lasted 10 years. It resulted in the birth of two daughters but he has had no contact with either of them for over 20 years. He knows nothing of their current circumstances. His relationship with his de facto partner ended because of his repeated offending against the criminal law. Not long after their relationship broke down, the respondent escaped from lawful custody in Western Australia and fled to Indonesia. He remained there for several years. To support himself, he taught English and, drawing on his experience as a first grade cricketer in Sydney, coached the National team. His extradition back to Australia to face an outstanding prosecution was accompanied by considerable media attention. In more recent years, the respondent has struggled to live independently in the community. This is no doubt principally due to the effects of his mental disorders, but he has a strange sense of entitlement. For example, he told Dr Grant that he is reluctant to be released from prison unless he has a “decent lodge” to go to. He said that he would “need to be provided with meals” and that if he was in independent accommodation where he had to shop and cook for himself, he “couldn’t survive”. As Dr Grant remarked:“All his life his basic skills have been taken care of by other people such as his mother, his defacto and people in Indonesia. He found life much easier in Asia where he could rent a small bungalow for $70 a month and buy cheap food at take-away eating houses”.Medical and psychiatric history

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

Lastly, it does well to recall in a case such as this the following observations made by Keane JA in Attorney-General (Qld) v Beattie:[20]“For the appellant, it was argued that the expert description of the risk of the appellant’s re-offending as ‘moderate’ meant that the risk fell short of ‘unacceptable’. But this argument overlooks the point that whether or not a moderate risk is unacceptable must be gauged by taking into account the nature of the risk and the consequences of the risk materialising. In this regard, the appellant's likely targets are children, and especially street children: vulnerable members of the community who are likely to be peculiarly susceptible to his seduction techniques. The focus of consideration must, therefore, be upon the likely effect of a supervision order in terms of reducing the opportunities for the appellant to engage in acts of seduction of children to an acceptably low level.”[21] [Emphasis added][20] [2007] QCA 96.[21] Ibid [19].Consideration As stated at the outset, the respondent’s counsel was instructed to dispute that the evidence was such as to justify a finding that the respondent represents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order but that, if the court was so satisfied, the respondent did not wish to contest the making of a continuing detention order. In that regard, he expressed a willingness to engage in “individual psychiatric and/or psychological treatment in order to better prepare him for release under a supervision order in the future”.[22] [22] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions; pars 2-3.Is the respondent a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order? On the evidence before the court, it cannot be seriously doubted that the respondent is a person to whom the Act applies. He suffers from a severe personality disorder with a mixture of histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial and possibly dependent traits. He has a mixed sexual paraphilia which manifests in exhibitionism and paedophilia with an attraction to underage males. He has a long history of sexual offending against, relevantly, adolescent males. When released from custody on 14 January 2013, the respondent reoffended only 11 days later by exposing his genitals to three boys at a public swimming pool. After he was dealt with for those offences and released from custody on 4 December 2013, within two weeks he committed the index offences against two 11-year-old boys in a public toilet. His overall condition is, for all intents and purposes, untreated. Each of the psychiatrists who examined the respondent for the purposes of this application expressed the opinion that the respondent’s unmodified risk of reoffending if released from custody is high. As Dr Harden said, the respondent’s “short, medium and long-term prognosis from the point of view of interpersonal function and risk of reoffending is poor.” He lacks insight into the seriousness of his past offending and its impact on his many victims. At least until relatively recently, he was inclined to minimise the seriousness of his offending. Although I am prepared to accept that none of his past offences escalated to oral, vaginal or anal intercourse, each such offence had the real potential to cause serious and lasting psychological harm. Furthermore, the respondent has struggled in recent years to live independently and it remains very much in prospect that, if he is released into the community, he may well decide to commit another serious sexual offence in order to be returned to custody. He is impulsive and, to a significant degree, unpredictable.