Lawrence v Attorney-General (Qld) - [2017] QCA 27

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lawrence v Attorney-General (Qld) [2017] QCA 27

PARTIES:

MARK RICHARD LAWRENCE
(appellant)
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3393 of 2016
SC No 7468 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2016] QSC 58

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 September 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Dismiss the appeal.

2. Refuse the application to adduce new evidence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the appellant has been subject to a continuing detention order under division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 since 2008 – where the primary judge affirmed the decision and ordered that the appellant continue to be subject to the continuing detention order – where the expert witnesses gave evidence that the appellant’s risk level had decreased – where those assessments were based on the assumption that the appellant was being truthful about certain matters – where the appellant had given differing information to expert witnesses – whether the primary judge’s decision was contrary to the expert evidence – whether in all the circumstances a supervision order could ensure adequate protection of the community

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13(4), s 27, s 30

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167; [1990] HCA 47, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2008] QSC 230, related
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505; [2009] QCA 136, related
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence (2014) 244 A Crim R 184; [2014] QCA 220, related
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2016] QSC 58, related
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; [1993] HCA 78, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
P Dunning QC SG, with J B Rolls, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Law for the respondent

FRASER JA: On 18 March 2016 a judge in the Trial Division made orders[1] under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) affirming a decision made on 3 October 2008[2] that the appellant is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under division 3 of the Act, and ordering that the appellant is to continue to be subject to the continuing detention order.
[1]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2016] QSC 58.
[2]Attorney-General for the State of Queensland…

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 Lawrence v Attorney-General (Qld)

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Attorney-General (Qld) [2017] QCA 27
Case: [2017] QCA 27
Decision Date: 9 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lawrence v Attorney-General (Qld), the appellant, a subject of a continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 since 2008, sought to appeal against the primary judge’s affirmation of that order. The appellant argued that the evidence presented by expert witnesses indicated a decreased risk level, suggesting that a supervision order could provide adequate community protection. The appeal was dismissed, and the application to adduce new evidence was refused.

The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge erred in affirming the continuing detention order by ignoring the expert evidence that the appellant’s risk level had decreased, and whether, given the circumstances, a supervision order could ensure adequate protection of the community. The appellant contended that the assessments of the experts were based on the assumption that he had been truthful about certain matters, which he had not been. The court was required to determine the weight to be given to the expert evidence and whether it was sufficient to warrant a change in the appellant’s detention status.

The court examined the evidence presented by the experts, who based their assessments on the assumption that the appellant was truthful. The court found that the primary judge was not required to accept the expert evidence at face value, especially given the appellant’s history of providing differing information to the experts. The court held that the primary judge was entitled to consider the appellant's credibility and the reliability of the expert assessments. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellant’s risk level, while decreased, was still significant enough to warrant continued detention under the continuing detention order. The court found that a supervision order would not provide adequate protection of the community in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the application to adduce new evidence was refused. The court upheld the primary judge’s decision, maintaining the appellant under the continuing detention order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dismiss the appeal.

2. Refuse the application to adduce new evidence.

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:	Lawrence v Attorney-General (Qld) [2017] QCA 27
PARTIES:	MARK RICHARD LAWRENCE (appellant) v ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3393 of 2016 SC No 7468 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2016] QSC 58
DELIVERED ON:	9 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 September 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Boddice J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Dismiss the appeal. 2. Refuse the application to adduce new evidence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the appellant has been subject to a continuing detention order under division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 since 2008 – where the primary judge affirmed the decision and ordered that the appellant continue to be subject to the continuing detention order – where the expert witnesses gave evidence that the appellant’s risk level had decreased – where those assessments were based on the assumption that the appellant was being truthful about certain matters – where the appellant had given differing information to expert witnesses – whether the primary judge’s decision was contrary to the expert evidence – whether in all the circumstances a supervision order could ensure adequate protection of the community Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 13(4), s 27, s 30 Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167; [1990] HCA 47, cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; [2006] QCA 324, cited Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2008] QSC 230, related Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505; [2009] QCA 136, related Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence (2014) 244 A Crim R 184; [2014] QCA 220, related Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Lawrence [2016] QSC 58, related Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; [1993] HCA 78, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf P Dunning QC SG, with J B Rolls, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Crown Law for the respondent