Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams - [2016] QSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2016] QSC 230

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:

10 October 2016 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2016

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 – where application pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent diagnosed with paedophilia attracted to females non-exclusive type, an anti-social personality disorder and poly-substance misuse – where applicant conceded the respondent could rely on psychiatric evidence to discharge the onus under the Act – whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by release under the existing supervision order – where applicant released under 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

COUNSEL:

B H P Mumford for the applicant

J McInnes for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

HER HONOUR: This is the final hearing of a contravention proceeding brought by the Attorney-General by application commenced on 3 May 2016 under section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (the Act) alleging that Mr Williams contravened requirement 42 of the supervision order made by me on 12 July 2010, as amended by Justice Applegarth on 10 August 2015. Requirement 42 is in these terms: requiring Mr Williams to “not access pornographic images that display photographs or images of children on a computer or on the internet or in any other format”. A warrant was issued for Mr Williams to be brought before the Court, which occurred on 3 May 2016, and he has been detained in custody since that time.

For the purpose of this contravention proceeding, he has been examined by psychiatrists, Dr Harden and Dr Beech. I also have the assistance of a report from the treating psychologist, Ms Lavers, who conducted treatment sessions with Mr Williams on 33 occasions between 19 August 2015 and 27 April 2016.

Mr Williams is 44 years old. I will not set out his criminal history in detail as it was set out in the reasons that I gave when I made the suppression order on 12 July 2010: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams [2010] QSC 248. Mr Williams did not perform well under the supervision order. I have ascertained that from the reasons published by Justice Jackson in Attorney-General (Qld) v Williams [2014] QSC 192. In paragraphs 6 to 9 of those reasons,…

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: [2016] QSC 230
Decision Date: 10 October 2016 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney-General of Queensland initiated proceedings against Williams, a registered sex offender, seeking an order under section 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) that he be detained indefinitely, given his propensity for violent sexual offences and diagnosis with paedophilia, anti-social personality disorder, and poly-substance misuse. Williams had contravened his supervision order, prompting the application. The primary legal issue was whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured if Williams were released under the existing supervision order. The court had to balance the state's interest in protecting the community against the rights of the individual, particularly considering the psychiatric evidence presented.

The court assessed the evidence, including the psychiatric assessments of Williams' conditions and the risk he posed to the community. It was established that Williams had a history of non-compliance with supervision orders and had demonstrated an inability to control his impulses. The court found that while Williams' psychiatric conditions required ongoing management, the severity of his offences and his past behaviour indicated a high risk of reoffending. The applicant accepted that Williams could rely on psychiatric evidence to discharge the onus under the Act, but this did not sufficiently mitigate the risk he posed to the community. Given the findings, the court concluded that the community's protection could not be adequately ensured by the release of Williams under the existing supervision order.

In light of the above, the court granted the order sought by the Attorney-General, determining that Williams should be detained indefinitely. This decision was based on the significant risk he posed to the community and his history of non-compliance with supervision orders. The order reflects the court's commitment to ensuring public safety while acknowledging the complexities of managing individuals with severe psychiatric conditions who have committed serious sexual offences.

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 [2016] QSC 230
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:	10 October 2016 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 October 2016
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 – where application pursuant to s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent diagnosed with paedophilia attracted to females non-exclusive type, an anti-social personality disorder and poly-substance misuse – where applicant conceded the respondent could rely on psychiatric evidence to discharge the onus under the Act – whether adequate protection of the community could be ensured by release under the existing supervision order – where applicant released under 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
COUNSEL:	B H P Mumford for the applicant J McInnes for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent