SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Attorney-General (Qld) v ZBA [2021] QSC 313
PARTIES:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)v
ZBA
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
BS 10345 of 2019
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
26 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 November 2021
JUDGE:
Brown J
ORDERS:
The order of the Court is that:
1. The decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3, Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) be affirmed
2. The respondent, ZBA, continue to be subject to the Continuing Detention Order.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OF DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent was detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment – where the applicant applies for a continuation of the order – whether the adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practically managed by a supervision order
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) ss 13, 30
Attorney-General (Qld) v Cobbo [2018] QSC 131, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, cited Attorney-General (Qld) v Kennedy [2016] QSC 287, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v S [2015] QSC 157, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v ZBA [2020] QSC 4, cited
Fardonv Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, cited
Turnbull v Attorney-General(Qld) [2015] QCA 54, cited
COUNSEL:
J Tate for the applicant
S Robb for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
By an order dated 31 January 2020, Davis J ordered that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment.[1] At the first annual review, the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (the applicant) applies for a continuation of that order.
[1]CFI 28.
The relevant circumstances surrounding the respondent’s offending and the sentences imposed upon him are set out in the reasons of Davis J, which I adopt and which I will not repeat.[2] His previous offending involved a 17 year old male and, in respect of the index offence, a four year old girl.[3]
[2]Attorney-General (Qld) v ZBA [2020] QSC 4 at [3]-[8].
[3]Attorney-General (Qld) v ZBA [2020] QSC 4 at [5]-[6].
There is no contest that the evidence relied upon on by the applicant supports a finding that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act). The real contest is whether the adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order.
Proceeding in which Division 3 Order made
As to the Court affirming the previous order that the respondent is a serious…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (Qld) v Zba 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] QSC 313
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the continuation of the indefinite detention order for the respondent was necessary to ensure the protection of the community, given that the alternative of a supervision order might be insufficient. The court had to balance the need for public safety against the respondent's rights and the potential for rehabilitation. The decision hinged on assessing the likelihood of the respondent reoffending and the effectiveness of different measures in preventing such an occurrence.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the respondent remained a serious danger to the community, affirming the decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of the detention order. The court found that a supervision order would not provide adequate protection to the community and that the indefinite detention order was necessary to manage the risk posed by the respondent. Consequently, the court affirmed the continuing detention order, ensuring that the respondent, Zba, remains subject to the Continuing Detention Order.
The court's final orders affirmed the decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of the detention order and confirmed the continuation of the order. The court determined that the respondent, Zba, should continue to be subject to the Continuing Detention Order, thereby maintaining the measures in place to protect the community.
Orders
Orders of the court
The order of the Court is that:
1. The decision that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order pursuant to Division 3, Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) be affirmed
2. The respondent, ZBA, continue to be subject to the Continuing Detention Order.
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.