Campbell v LOR - [2024] QMC 18

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Campbell v LOR [2024] QMC 18

PARTIES:

SERGEANT MELISSA CAMPBELL

(Applicant)

V

LOR

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00016742/24(4)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Application for an Offender Reporting Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Gympie

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

MAGISTRATE:

Magistrate Hughes

ORDER:

THE APPLICATION FOR AN OFFENDER REPORTING ORDER PURSUANT TO THE CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING AND OFFENDER PROHIBITION ORDER) ACT 2004 (QLD), SECTION 12E(1)(B) IS REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – NON-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – GENERALLY – OTHER TYPES OF ORDER – where respondent already subject to ongoing supervision and Protection Order – where respondent is single mature woman - where respondent left threatening voicemails for her daughters – where respondent used manipulative language - where offending not opportunistic nor targeted towards children in broader community – where respondent’s children closer to age of majority – where limited and dated criminal history – where respondent’s children interstate and no longer in her care – where respondent has negligible access to her children – where protective factors present – where perceived risk to children not demonstrable to requisite standard of proof

Child Protection Act (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld), s 3, s 8, s 9A, s 12B, s 12D, s 14, s 18, s 19, s 20, s 21, s 22, s 25, s 26, s 30, s 32, s 35, s 36, s 40A, s 50, s 68, s 74A

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

C, M v Commissioner of Police [2014] SASC 163

Commissioner of Police v ABC [2010] WASC 161

Director of Public Prosecutions v MJB [2021] QDC 222

R v Bunton [2019] QCA 214

R v Rogers [2013] QCA

R v SBP [2009] QCA

SOLICITORS:

Applicant in person

Nightingale Law for the Respondent

What is this Application about?

For the first time in her life, in the last six months LOR has been taking small but significant steps to get her life on track. Although she has been homeless, she is currently residing in a Department of Housing unit. She has been reaching out to agencies and other support groups for help. She has been complying with all her bail conditions. And she has a job to help her get by.

However, because LOR has been convicted for communications she made to her two teenage daughters in April and November 2023[1], an Offender Reporting Order is sought. In addition to her current sentence that will require her ongoing supervision in the community and the current Protection Order requiring LOR to be of good behaviour and not commit associated domestic violence to her daughters, the Reporting Order would have significant impacts for LOR:
[1]The Application and supporting material refer to other ostensible grounds for which LOR has not been convicted and therefore cannot not form the basis for an Order under the Child Protection Act (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld), s 12B.

(a) Reportable…

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.

Continue reading Campbell v LOR

Details

AGLC: Campbell v LOR [2024] QMC 18
Case: [2024] QMC 18
Decision Date: 29 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Campbell v LOR, the respondent, who is a single mature woman, left threatening voicemails for her daughters. The respondent had used manipulative language in these messages and had a limited and dated criminal history. The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant an offender reporting order under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld). The application was refused by the court, which took into account several factors, including that the respondent was already under ongoing supervision and subject to a Protection Order. The respondent's children were also closer to the age of majority and resided interstate, with the respondent having negligible access to them. The court also considered that the offending was not opportunistic and was not targeted towards children in the broader community. The court found that the respondent's conduct did not present a demonstrable risk to the children to the requisite standard of proof.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct warranted an offender reporting order under the relevant legislation. The court considered several factors, including the nature and context of the offending, the respondent's criminal history, the age of the children, and the level of risk posed to the children. The court determined that the respondent's conduct, although concerning, did not reach the threshold required for an offender reporting order. The court emphasised that the risk to the children was not demonstrable to the requisite standard of proof, and the respondent was already subject to other forms of supervision and protection orders. The court also took into account the respondent's limited criminal history and the fact that her children were interstate and no longer in her care.

The court's reasoning focused on the lack of demonstrable risk to the children and the presence of protective factors, such as the respondent's ongoing supervision and existing Protection Order. The court found that the respondent's conduct, while concerning, did not warrant the imposition of an additional offender reporting order. The court concluded that the existing measures in place were sufficient to protect the children and that the respondent's conduct did not pose a significant risk to them. The court also noted the respondent's negligible access to her children and their proximity to the age of majority, which further supported its decision.

The court refused the application for an offender reporting order pursuant to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld), section 12E(1)(B). The court found that the existing measures in place were sufficient to protect the children, and the respondent's conduct did not warrant the imposition of an additional offender reporting order.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE APPLICATION FOR AN OFFENDER REPORTING ORDER PURSUANT TO THE CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING AND OFFENDER PROHIBITION ORDER) ACT 2004 (QLD), SECTION 12E(1)(B) IS REFUSED.

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:	Campbell v LOR [2024] QMC 18
PARTIES:	SERGEANT MELISSA CAMPBELL (Applicant) V LOR (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00016742/24(4)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Application for an Offender Reporting Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Gympie
DELIVERED ON:	29 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Gympie
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate Hughes
ORDER:	*THE APPLICATION FOR AN OFFENDER REPORTING ORDER PURSUANT TO THE CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING AND OFFENDER PROHIBITION ORDER) ACT* 2004 (QLD), SECTION 12E(1)(B) IS REFUSED.**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – NON-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – GENERALLY – OTHER TYPES OF ORDER – where respondent already subject to ongoing supervision and Protection Order – where respondent is single mature woman - where respondent left threatening voicemails for her daughters – where respondent used manipulative language - where offending not opportunistic nor targeted towards children in broader community – where respondent’s children closer to age of majority – where limited and dated criminal history – where respondent’s children interstate and no longer in her care – where respondent has negligible access to her children – where protective factors present – where perceived risk to children not demonstrable to requisite standard of proof
Child Protection Act (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld), s 3, s 8, s 9A, s 12B, s 12D, s 14, s 18, s 19, s 20, s 21, s 22, s 25, s 26, s 30, s 32, s 35, s 36, s 40A, s 50, s 68, s 74A Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 C, M v Commissioner of Police [2014] SASC 163 Commissioner of Police v ABC [2010] WASC 161 Director of Public Prosecutions v MJB [2021] QDC 222 R v Bunton [2019] QCA 214 R v Rogers [2013] QCA R v SBP [2009] QCA
SOLICITORS:	Applicant in person Nightingale Law for the Respondent