Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeatman - [2019] QSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeatman [2019] QSC 230

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
TRENT THOMAS YEATMAN

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No 187 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2019

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, has contravened a requirement of the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014, ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where a supervision order was made with respect to the respondent under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where it was alleged that the respondent had contravened a requirement of the supervision order – where a warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent pursuant to the Act and the respondent was detained in custody – where the applicant sought orders with respect to the respondent under s 22 of the Act – where the contravention was admitted by the respondent – where the applicant had not committed any further serious sexual offences – whether the adequate protection of the community could, despite the contravention of the order, be ensured by the existing supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 3, s 5, s 13, s 22

Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, cited

Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited

Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited

Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, cited

Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, cited

Kynuna v Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 172, cited

LAB vAttorney-General [2011] QCA 230, cited

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

COUNSEL:

B Mumford for the applicant
K Bichel for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

The Attorney-General sought orders under s 22 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act) consequent upon a breach by the respondent of a supervision order made by Philippides J on 30 June 2014 (the supervision order).
Statutory context
The Act provides for the continued detention or supervised release of “a particular class of prisoner”.[1] The objects of the Act are twofold, namely the protection of the community and the control, care and treatment of certain prisoners to facilitate their rehabilitation.[2] The prisoners the subject of the Act are those serving a term of imprisonment for a “serious sexual offence”[3] which is “an offence of…

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 Yeatman 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: [2019] QSC 230
Decision Date: 13 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeatman involved a dispute regarding the enforcement of a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, had been subject to a supervision order following his release from prison, and it was alleged that he had contravened a requirement of that order. The Attorney-General sought orders under s 22 of the Act, which allows for the detention of a dangerous sexual offender who is believed to be a risk to the community. The contravention was admitted by Yeatman, and the issue before the court was whether, despite the contravention, the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by the existing supervision order.

The court considered the psychiatric evidence provided by Dr Scott Harden and Dr Andrew Aboud, who diagnosed Yeatman with Antisocial Personality Disorder, psychopathic personality features, and substance abuse in remission. Both doctors agreed that Yeatman did not exhibit signs of a paraphilic drive such as sexual sadism or paedophilia, and his violent sexual offences against underage victims were attributed to his emotional immaturity at the time. Dr Harden assessed Yeatman's future risk of sexual reoffence as moderate to high, but noted that the supervision order, along with monitoring and abstinence from substances, could reduce this risk to moderate/average. The court also considered the CCTV footage of the alleged contravention, which showed Yeatman assaulting his partner at a shopping centre.

The court determined that, despite the contravention, the adequate protection of the community could still be ensured by the existing supervision order. The court found that Yeatman's risk of reoffending could be managed effectively through the supervision order, and there had been no further serious sexual offences committed by him. The court also noted that Yeatman had shown some improvement in his behaviour and compliance with the order since the contravention.

The court ordered that Yeatman be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014. The court also directed that Yeatman be subject to additional conditions, including regular reporting to his supervising officer, refraining from contact with his former partner, and abstaining from alcohol and other drugs. The court emphasised the importance of Yeatman's compliance with the supervision order and the need for ongoing monitoring and support to ensure the protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, has contravened a requirement of the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014, ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The alleged contravention arises from an incident on 30 May 2019 at a shopping centre. The respondent was at the shopping centre with his partner. The incident was captured on CCTV which shows the respondent assaulting her and attempting to take a backpack from her. The conduct of the respondent is quite aggressive and includes pushing her in the face. The psychiatric evidence For the purposes of the current proceedings, the respondent was examined by Dr Scott Harden and Dr Andrew Aboud. Dr Harden formed the following diagnosis:“In my opinion he still meets[22] criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder. He also has some psychopathic personality features.In my opinion he would still meet a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse, in remission because of incarceration, it is not clear whether he has ever met criteria for alcohol dependence. The alcohol abuse is significant because of the disinhibiting effect of intoxication which has been intimately involved in facilitating his committing offences. It is likely that he would also meet criteria for Marijuana Abuse, In Remission Because Of Incarceration.Although the rapes were violent in nature and the victims were under 18, they were not prepubertal and there are no features to suggest that he has a paraphilia such as sexual sadism or paedophilia.”[22] Dr Harden had previously examined the respondent. Dr Aboud made the following diagnosis:“From the perspective of psychiatric diagnosis, I fully concur with the previous assessing psychiatrists, Dr Harden, Dr Grant and Dr Moyle,[23] who diagnosed: Antisocial Personality Disorder (with Borderline Traits); prominent features of Psychopathy; Alcohol Dependence, currently in remission; Cannabis Dependence, currently in remission. Similarly, I also do not believe there is evidence of other mental illness, or of a paraphilic drive. With respect to the latter, it is my view that the young ages of his two victims of rape (15 and 14, respectively) reflect instead his own emotional immaturity at the time, rather than a particular and enduring interest in female minors.”[23] Doctors who had previously diagnosed the respondent. On assessment of risk, Dr Harden opined:“This is my opinion that on the basis of the information available his future risk of sexual reoffence continues to be moderate — high/above average.Issues in this man in my opinion continue to be substance intoxication, violation of social rules and laws, lack of empathy for other people and lack of vocational and social structure in the community. These are exacerbated by his interpersonal coping style, his strong desire for an intimate relationship, his relative lack of skills in choosing an appropriate partner and maintaining the relationship.In my opinion the monitoring, supports and abstinence from substances associated with a supervision order continue to reduce his risk of recidivism to moderate/average in the community.In the absence of supervision in the community, he will rapidly return to substance abuse and unregulated dysfunctional interpersonal relationships with a high likelihood of development of domestic violence.”

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 Yeatman [2019] QSC 230
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v TRENT THOMAS YEATMAN (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	No 187 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	13 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 September 2019
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	THE COURT being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, has contravened a requirement of the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014, ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where a supervision order was made with respect to the respondent under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where it was alleged that the respondent had contravened a requirement of the supervision order – where a warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent pursuant to the Act and the respondent was detained in custody – where the applicant sought orders with respect to the respondent under s 22 of the Act – where the contravention was admitted by the respondent – where the applicant had not committed any further serious sexual offences – whether the adequate protection of the community could, despite the contravention of the order, be ensured by the existing supervision order Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) s 3, s 5, s 13, s 22 Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, cited Attorney-General v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Ellis [2012] QCA 182, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2013] QCA 64, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeo [2008] QCA 115, cited Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, cited Kynuna v Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 172, cited LAB vAttorney-General [2011] QCA 230, cited Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54, cited
COUNSEL:	B Mumford for the applicant K Bichel for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent