Attorney-General v Lawrence

Case [2016] QSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence [2016] QSC 58

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v
MARK RICHARD LAWRENCE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 7468 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court  

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 November 2015

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

1. The decision made on 3 October 2008 that Mark Richard Lawrence is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) is affirmed.

2.     Mark Richard Lawrence is to continue to be subject to the continuing detention order.

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 continuing detention order was made with regard to the respondent on 3 October 2008 that has been affirmed on many occasions since – where the applicant seeks, at annual review, that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or, in the alternative, that he be released from custody subject to a supervision order – whether the respondent is such a danger to the community that adequate protection of the community cannot reasonably be provided by a supervision order

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13, s 27, s 28A, s 29, s 30

A-G (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, cited

A-G v Lawrence [2009] QCA 136, cited

A-G (Qld) v Lawrence [2011] QCA 347, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2011] QSC 291, cited

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2012] QSC 386, cited

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

Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence [2014] QSC 77, cited

Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence [2014] QCA 220, cited

R v Lawrence [2002] 2 Qd R 400; [2001] QCA 441, cited

R v Lawrence [2002] QCA 526, cited

COUNSEL:

J B Rolls for the applicant

J J Allen QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

  1. This was the hearing of an application to review a continuing detention order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act (Qld) 2003 (“DPSOA”). The application was made pursuant to s 27(2) of the DPSOA which requires the Attorney-General to make an application to initiate a review of a continuing detention order.

  2. A continuing detention order was made with regard to the respondent, Mark Richard Lawrence, on 3 October 2008.  That continuing detention order has been affirmed on many occasions since.  The application by the Attorney-General proposed that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order or, in the alternative, that he be released from custody subject to a supervision order.  Each of those orders may only be made if the court affirms the…

Continue reading Attorney-General v Lawrence

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence [2016] QSC 58
Case
[2016] QSC 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General v Lawrence, the central dispute involved the ongoing detention of Mark Richard Lawrence, a convicted sex offender, under a continuing detention order. The matter was brought before the court for an annual review of the order, with the Attorney-General seeking affirmation of the order or, in the alternative, the imposition of a supervision order. The court was tasked with determining whether Lawrence posed such a significant danger to the community that adequate protection could not be reasonably provided by a supervision order. The evidence presented included expert psychiatric evaluations, Lawrence's own testimony, and detailed accounts of his criminal history and behaviour both in and out of prison.

The primary legal issues revolved around the assessment of Lawrence's risk of reoffending and the effectiveness of a supervision order in providing adequate community protection. The court had to weigh the expert opinions on Lawrence's mental state, his cooperation with treatment programs, and his conduct while incarcerated against the persistent concerns about his dangerous propensities. The court also needed to consider the practicalities of managing a supervision order, including the capacity of Corrective Services Officers to monitor and control Lawrence's activities post-release.

The court concluded that there was cogent evidence to support the view that Lawrence remained a serious danger to the community, primarily due to his diagnosed paraphilia and anti-social personality disorder. The expert opinions highlighted Lawrence's history of violent and deviant fantasies, including detailed accounts of his past crimes and his ongoing risk of reoffending. Despite his cooperation with treatment programs and claims of willingness to comply with a supervision order, the court found that the risk he posed was too great to be reasonably managed through supervision alone. The practical considerations presented by Corrective Services Officers did not, in the court's view, present insurmountable obstacles to the management of a supervision order.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision made on 3 October 2008, continuing the detention order for Mark Richard Lawrence. The court determined that the risk he posed to the community was such that adequate protection could not be reasonably provided by a supervision order, justifying his continued detention under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The court's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence, including expert psychiatric evaluations, Lawrence's own testimony, and the persistent concerns about his dangerous propensities.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision made on 3 October 2008 that Mark Richard Lawrence is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) is affirmed.

2. Mark Richard Lawrence is to 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

Dr Grant also thought that the insights he had developed in education and therapy were much better but they were more on an intellectual than an emotional level and the same would apply to his concepts of empathy. He had the right words but he did not necessarily actually have the empathy. Dr Grant agreed with Dr Lawrence that erectile dysfunction medication would be inappropriate and that testosterone should be avoided as a prescription drug.Evidence of Mark Lawrence Mr Lawrence the respondent in these proceedings gave evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit. He referred to his imprisonment since 1983 and that he had completed the High Intensity Sexual Offending Program in 2007 after attending 93 sessions and completed the Maintenance Sexual Offender Treatment Program in May 2013. He referred to his good conduct in prison and that he was prepared to comply with all conditions of a supervision order. In paragraph 17 of the affidavit his evidence was as follows:“I acknowledge that there is concern about my thinking and fantasies. I have been frank and honest in what I have said to Lars Madsen and Doctors Grant and Lawrence. This includes what I’ve said as to the nature and frequency of fantasies I now experience, my willingness to disclose fantasies if they occur and my ability and willingness to take appropriate steps to prevent any recurrence of fantasies leading to any risk of re-offending. I confirm that I am willing to disclose and discuss my thoughts and fantasies with my therapist, my case officer and my support team.” In oral evidence he talked about the practical difficulties he might face on release such as how to use a Go card and how to use an ATM machine and how to find employment. In his oral evidence Mr Lawrence disagreed with Dr Lawrence that he was angry about what he read in the Courier-Mail. He said he was frustrated because interviewing the person who lost their daughter would remind the person of what had happened. He said he felt sorry for the family because every time he went to court it was reported in the media and that affects them because he took someone’s life. He acknowledged that he would have to tell Dr Madsen what he was thinking and he knew the disadvantage was that, if he said he had a deviant fantasy and was masturbating to that, that meant he could go back to jail but he also said that if he was not honest he could end up going out and doing something catastrophic and he did not want that because he wanted to try to live a decent and better life. Mr Lawrence then said that Dr Madsen could have taken what he had said about deviant fantasies when they had the one month trial the wrong way. He wrote down what deviant fantasies he experienced. When he was asked in cross-examination what he understood by the term “deviant fantasy” he said “a deviant fantasy can put you back into prison.” When asked again he said that it was about going out and raping or killing someone and having that thought pattern go through his head. When asked about what triggered his deviant thoughts he said this could include American crime investigation programs but also thinking about a girl in an isolated area or seeing a lady by herself, for example in an isolated park. He said he did not think about raping and killing her straight away. The following questions and answers were of particular concern:“Well, you see someone, and then you think about that person, raping and killing that person, don’t you? --- Not all the time, no.Not all the time, but you do on occasions think about – when you see someone isolated, you think about that particular person, raping and killing them? --- Yes.” (emphasis added)

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

It was submitted that objective factors supporting the veracity of Mr Lawrence as to the crucial matter in issue and the ultimate expert opinions on risk were the increased age and maturity of Mr Lawrence, his more recent prosocial behaviour in prison, his willingness to engage in therapy and continue motivation and good behaviour despite the Court of Appeal’s setting aside his supervision orders on two occasions. The experts referred to the fact that he was far removed in time, circumstances and psychology from the disturbed young man who committed the rape and killing in 1983. The court should therefore, it was submitted, take into account the deterrent effect of his lengthy incarceration in assessing future risk.Consideration There can be little doubt, indeed it was not disputed, that Mark Lawrence remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. There is acceptable, cogent evidence of sufficient weight to persuade me to a high degree of probability that the decision first made on 3 October 2008 and subsequently confirmed on many occasions that in the absence of a Division 3 order Mark Lawrence remains a serious danger to the community should be affirmed. As the Court of Appeal held in Francis, when the court affirms the decision, if supervision of the prisoner is sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the community then an order for supervised release should, in principle, be preferred to a continuing detention order. The court is also required to consider practical matters under s 30(4)(b) as to whether or not a supervision order can be practicably managed by Corrective Services Officers to ensure protection of the community. Affidavits were filed regarding those matters and whilst they point to some difficulties none of them appear to be insurmountable. The critical matter in this case is whether not Mark Lawrence is such a serious danger to the community that adequate protection of the community cannot reasonably be provided by a supervision order. In determining that question I shall address each of the matters set out in s 13(4) of the DPSOA which are relevant to this application. It is not necessary to repeat all of what I have previously set out. I have, however, taken it all into account.Reports prepared by the psychiatrists and the extent to which Mr Lawrence co-operated in the examinations by the psychiatrists I have referred in detail to the reports prepared by Dr Grant and Dr Lawrence and need not repeat what I have already said. Mr Lawrence co-operated in their examinations for this review. Both of them have diagnosed him as suffering from paraphilia (sexual sadism) with an anti-social personality disorder and psychopathic traits. Dr Lawrence has had the advantage of seeing Mr Lawrence over a very long period of time. She first reported on him in January 1985 when he had been charged with murder. He described in graphic detail his violent and deviant fantasies of the rape and murder of a girl which he acted upon. She was told of other violent and sexual criminal acts he had committed for which he had not been charged and of his continuing deviant fantasies reinforced by frequent masturbation. Disturbingly, he told Dr Lawrence that the best part of his fantasy was killing his victim by cutting her throat. She was then of the opinion that he was a very high risk of re-offending.