Attorney-General v Yeatman

Case [2018] QSC 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeatman [2018] QSC 70

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:

Date of Orders: 3 April 2018

Date of Publication of Reasons: 9 April 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 April 2018

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

Date of Orders: 3 April 2018

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 continues 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 previously contravened the supervision order but 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 for the State of Queensland v Marama [2015] QSC 8, followed

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Yeatman [2014] QSC 144, 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 v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396, cited

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

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

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

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, 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
J Benjamin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant

Legal Aid Qld for the respondent

  1. 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 (as her Honour then was) on 30 June 2014 (the supervision order).

  2. I heard the matter on…

Continue reading Attorney-General v Yeatman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General v Yeatman [2018] QSC 70
Case
[2018] QSC 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Attorney-General v Yeatman, the court was tasked with determining whether the respondent, who had contravened the terms of a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), could continue to be supervised in the community. The case involved the respondent, an Aboriginal man with a history of serious sexual offences, who had breached the conditions of his supervision order. The Attorney-General sought orders under the Act, which included a continuing detention order, due to the respondent's admitted contravention of the supervision order. The court had to decide if the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by continuing the supervision order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent could demonstrate that his supervision in the community would ensure the adequate protection of the community, as required by section 22(7) of the Act. The court considered psychiatric evidence that highlighted the respondent's severe personality disorder, lack of sexual paraphilia, and the likelihood of sexual reoffending under conditions of intoxication and emotional destabilisation. Despite the respondent's breaches of the supervision order, the court found that there had been no further serious sexual offences or instances of domestic violence since his release. The court needed to balance the risks associated with the respondent's release against the evidence of his rehabilitation and the absence of new offences.

The court determined that the adequate protection of the community could indeed be ensured by the existing supervision order. It accepted the evidence that a supervision order was a suitable means of managing the respondent's risk, and there was no evidence to suggest that a continuing detention order was necessary. The court also rejected the Attorney-General's proposal to add a condition prohibiting interpersonal violence, finding it unnecessary given the respondent's history and current circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent's release from custody and his continued supervision under the existing order.

The final orders of the court were issued on 3 April 2018, directing that the respondent, Trent Thomas Yeatman, be released from custody and continue to be subject to the supervision order made on 30 June 2014. The court's decision was grounded in the assessment that the existing supervision order was sufficient to ensure the adequate protection of the community, despite the respondent's breaches and past serious sexual offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 3 April 2018

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 continues to be subject to the supervision order made by Justice Philippides on 30 June 2014.

Background

Background to the litigation

Therefore, once a contravention is proved, the Court shall rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order[12] unless the prisoner satisfies the Court that their continuation on supervision in the community will ensure the adequate protection of the community.[13] It is well established that the concept of “the adequate protection of the community” in s 22(7) has the same meaning as it bears in s 13.[14] Therefore, a prisoner facing an application under s 22 must prove that the supervision order will ensure adequate protection of the community by removing unacceptable risk that they will commit a serious sexual offence. Here, as I explain later, the respondent has breached the supervision order on four occasions and was held in custody pursuant to sections 20 and 21 of the Act pending determination of applications brought under s 22. There must at least be a suspicion here that if released the respondent may again breach the supervision order. However, the issue under s 22 of the Act is not whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will breach the supervision order. The issue is whether there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence.[15][12] Section 22(2).[13] Section 22(7).[14] Kynuna v Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 172 at [60]; see also Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54 at [36].[15] Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2012] QSC 275 at [64]-[67]. Background The respondent was born on 17 March 1979. He is an Aboriginal man. The respondent’s criminal history commences with convictions in the Yarrabah Magistrates Court on 8 May 1996. He was convicted on that occasion of an offence of break, enter and steal which was committed only weeks after his 17th birthday. He was fined. A breach of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) (the Bail Act) was also established; again, a fine was imposed. There were then further appearances in the Yarrabah Magistrates Court on 15 July 1998, 4 November 1998, and 16 February 1999. These appearances concerned relatively minor offences and none involved violent or sexual offending. The only custodial sentence which was imposed was one month’s imprisonment on 16 February 1999 and that was for breach of the Bail Act. In a period from July to September 1988 the respondent’s offending escalated. At that time he was 19 years of age. On 16 July 1999 the respondent was convicted of three counts of entering a dwelling and committing indictable offences,[16] assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed,[17] deprivation of liberty,[18] and rape.[19] Those offences were committed against a young Aboriginal girl. That conduct culminated in her being abducted at knife point and then raped. For those offences the respondent was sentenced to an effective sentence of seven years imprisonment. On 6 April 2000, the respondent was convicted of one count of common assault and one count of rape. Each of these charges involved the same complainant who was a different complainant to the offences for which he was convicted in July 1999. The assault was committed in September 1998 and the offence of rape was committed in October 1998 at a party at Yarrabah. The victim was again a young Aboriginal girl. The respondent pushed her into a public toilet block, where he raped her. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, cumulative on the sentence imposed on 16 July 1999. The effect of all those sentences was a term of 15 years from 16 July 1999, with 80 per cent to be served before the respondent was eligible for parole.[20][16] Criminal Code (Qld) s 419(4).[17] Section 339(1) and (3).[18] Section 355.[19] Section 348.[20] Pursuant to Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) pt 9A.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The respondent has admitted the breach. I find the breach proved.Psychiatric evidence Dr Donald Grant, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 31 January 2018.[28] Dr Grant has had a good deal of professional contact with the respondent and has prepared previous reports. Dr Grant is the only psychiatrist to have provided a report in the present application. He was not cross-examined and his evidence was therefore untested. Dr Grant is a psychiatrist with very significant experience in the field of forensic psychiatry generally and dangerous prisoners in particular and I have no hesitation in accepting his evidence.[28] Exhibited to his affidavit filed 27 February 2018, CFI 124. In Dr Grant’s opinion:(i) The respondent has “a severe Personality Disorder with prominent antisocial traits, including prominent psychopathic personality traits” (fall just short of a firm diagnosis of Psychopathic Personality Disorder). In addition he has borderline personality traits, which are indicated by his quite severe addictive instability”.[29](ii) There is no evidence to suggest that he suffers from sexual paraphilia.[30](iii) He has past alcohol abuse and dependence and cannabis abuse and dependence both of which are in remission, although the cannabis abuse resurfaced, causing the previous contravention of the supervision order.[31](iv) Any sexual reoffending is likely to occur during intoxication with drugs and alcohol, and in a period of emotional destabilisation.[32](v) There are various characteristics of the respondent which make management and rehabilitation challenging including his severe deafness,[33] impulsiveness, suspicion of those supervising him and aggressive attitudes to women.[34](vi) A supervision order is a suitable means of managing the respondent’s risk.[35][29] Affidavit of Donald Archibald Grant filed 27 February 2018, CFI 124, Exhibits at 11 (‘Grant Exhibits’).[30] Ibid.[31] Ibid.[32] Grant Exhibits at 12.[33] At 11.[34] At 12.[35] At 13.The real contest on the application The Attorney-General concedes that a continuing detention order is not warranted. That concession is properly made. While the offences in 1998 were clearly sexual offences and were of a very serious nature, they were committed almost 20 years ago. The respondent has been in the community on the supervision order on and off since June 2014. While there have been breaches of the supervision order, there have been no offences committed of a sexual nature and no instances of domestic violence against sexual partners.[36] While there are obvious difficulties in managing the respondent, the question is whether the respondent has satisfied me that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by releasing him upon the supervision order.[37] I am so satisfied. [36] At 9.[37] Section 22(7) of the Act. There was dispute between the parties though about the terms of the order. The Attorney-General pressed for the addition of a further condition upon the supervision order, namely, “not to engage in or demonstrate interpersonal violence against any other person, excluding acts of self-defence”. The respondent resisted the addition of such a condition.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.