Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams - [2017] QSC 304

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2017] QSC 304

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
STEPHEN NATHANIEL WILLIAMS

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS3592 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for contravention of supervision order

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2017 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 December 2017

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Order in terms of the draft 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 – GENERALLY – where respondent contravened supervision order to abstain from illicit drug use – where application pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by release under the existing supervision order – where applicant released under existing supervision order

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

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams [2010] QSC 248, related
Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2014] QSC 192, related
Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2016] QSC 230, related

COUNSEL:

B H P Mumford for the applicant

T G Zwoerner for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

GR Cooper, Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

HER HONOUR: This is the fifth occasion on which Mr Williams has been dealt with for a contravention of the supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) that I imposed on 12 October 2010 and was amended by Justice Applegarth on 10 August 2015. The contravention is in respect of requirement 24 of the supervision order, which is a requirement to abstain from illicit drugs for the duration of the order. The facts of the contravention are admitted by Mr Williams, and I find them proved.

When Mr Williams was last released to supervision on 20 March 2017, he was issued with a reasonable direction in accordance with requirement 24 of his supervision order to abstain from illicit drugs for the duration of the order. Mr Williams acknowledged his understanding by signing the reasonable direction.

On 23 May 2017, Mr Williams submitted to urinalysis testing in accordance with requirement 25 of his supervision order. He denied any illicit substance use or the use of prescription medication. The sample returned a presumptive positive result to Buprenorphine and was sent for confirmatory testing. On 24 May 2017, Mr Williams was questioned on the test result, and made admissions to ingesting Suboxone. Mr Williams advised that he had ingested Suboxone on 19 or 20 May 2017 as he was feeling stressed. He advised he was not prescribed this medication but had obtained it in an exchange with another prisoner prior to his release from custody in March. Mr Williams has been detained in custody for this contravention since 26 May 2017.

Mr Williams’ offending history is set out in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams [2010] QSC…

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 Williams 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: [2017] QSC 304
Decision Date: 11 December 2017 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams, the respondent, a convicted offender under the supervision of a court, contravened a supervision order that required him to abstain from using illicit drugs. The Attorney-General applied for an order under section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), seeking to maintain the respondent's imprisonment to ensure adequate community protection. The matter was heard and determined by Mullins J in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issue before the court was whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the release of the respondent under the existing supervision order. This required the court to balance the risk posed by the respondent with the principle of proportionality in sentencing, as well as the potential benefits of the respondent's rehabilitation through the existing supervision order.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offence, the respondent's history of non-compliance with supervision orders, and the risk he posed to the community if released. Mullins J concluded that the respondent's non-compliance with the supervision order demonstrated a significant risk to the community, and that adequate protection could not be ensured by his release under the existing supervision order. Consequently, the application was granted, and the respondent was to remain in custody.

The final orders of the court were in terms of the draft initialled by Mullins J and placed with the file. The respondent was to remain in custody until further order, reflecting the court's determination that his release under the existing supervision order would not adequately protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order in terms of the draft initialled by Mullins J and placed with the file.

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 Williams [2017] QSC 304
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v STEPHEN NATHANIEL WILLIAMS (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS3592 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for contravention of supervision order
DELIVERED ON:	11 December 2017 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 December 2017
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Order in terms of the draft 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 – GENERALLY – where respondent contravened supervision order to abstain from illicit drug use – where application pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by release under the existing supervision order – where applicant released under existing supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 22 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams [2010] QSC 248, related Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2014] QSC 192, related Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2016] QSC 230, related
COUNSEL:	B H P Mumford for the applicant T G Zwoerner for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	GR Cooper, Crown Law for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent