R v. Eades - [2008] QDC 124

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Eades [2008] QDC 124

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN (Applicant)

AND

RAYMOND BARRY EADES (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

233/01

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

11.06.2008

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

28.05.2008

JUDGE:

Judge J.M. Robertson

ORDER:

Indefinite sentences discharged

CATCHWORDS:

Review of indefinite sentence pursuant to s171(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992; consideration of “serious danger”; relevance of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2007.

Cases:
R v Eades [2006] QDC 171
Buckley v The Queen [2006] 80 ALUR 605; [2006] HCA 7
R v Buckley [2008] QCA 45

Legislation:
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003

COUNSEL:

D. Meredith (for the Applicant)

C. Reid (for the Respondent)

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (for the Applicant)

Patrick Murphy Solicitors (for the Respondent)

Mr. Eades was sentenced on the 20.12.01 to an indefinite sentence for two offences of sodomy of a child and at the same time I indicated nominal sentences of 10 years for each offence. The indefinite sentences were reviewed by me in 2006, and I concluded on the basis of the evidence then before me that Mr. Eades then still remained a serious danger to the community: R v Eades [2006] QDC 171.

As is clear from those reasons, an important reason for so concluding was based on the failure of Mr. Eades at that time to complete any module of the sex offenders treatment programmes offered in prison.

The Director has sought a further review of the indefinite sentences as is required by s.171(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentencing Act 1992. The hearing took place on 28^th May and after hearing submissions I reserved judgment.

On a review of this kind, the prosecution has the onus of proving that an offender is still a serious danger to the community and the standard of proof is governed by s.170 of the Act.

At the time of the sentence, the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 was not in effect, however it was at the time of the first review, and reference is made to it in my reasons.

I also referred to Buckley v The Queen [2006] 80 ALJR 605; [2006] HCA 7; in which the High Court allowed an appeal against an indefinite sentence and referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal. That court delivered judgment on 7.3.08 and set aside the indefinite sentence imposed at first instance and instead imposed a sentence which accorded with the nominal sentence originally indicated by the sentencing judge: R v Buckley [2008] QCA 45.

In Buckley, at the time of the hearing, the offender was still facing a very lengthy term of imprisonment at the time of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, whereas here the nominal sentence (if imposed originally) would expire in December 2010; nevertheless, observations made by Muir JA in that case (with whom Fraser JA and Mullins J agreed) are apposite to this…

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 R v. Eades

Details

AGLC: R v Eades [2008] QDC 124
Case: [2008] QDC 124
Decision Date: 11 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eades involved a review of an indefinite sentence imposed on the defendant, Eades, pursuant to section 171(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The primary dispute was whether Eades, diagnosed with a personality disorder and paedophilia, posed a serious danger to the community, warranting continuation of his indefinite sentence. The matter was heard in the Queensland District Court.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the phrase “a serious danger to the community” within the context of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and the relevance of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. The court also needed to consider the defendant’s progress in a high-intensity programme and expert opinions on his risk of re-offending. The court further examined earlier judgments such as Buckley v The Queen and R v Buckley, which provided precedent on the assessment of risk and indefinite sentencing for sexual offenders.

The court concluded that the phrase “a serious danger to the community” was not explicitly defined in the relevant legislation or authorities. It relied on expert opinions and the defendant's progress in treatment, noting that while Eades had made some progress, he still represented an unacceptable risk of re-offending. The court was also influenced by comments in the Buckley case regarding the seriousness of risk. Consequently, the court determined that the indefinite sentences imposed on 20 December 2001 should be discharged. The court ordered that the defendant be re-sentenced in accordance with section 173(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

Orders

Orders of the court

Indefinite sentences discharged

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

Conclusions The phrase “a serious danger to the community” is not defined in the Act or in the authorities. In my reasons in 2006 I said [at 16]; by reference to the relevant provisions in Part 10 of the Act: It is correct, as Mr. Meredith submits, that if not discharged, the indefinite sentence will need to be reviewed again at least once before the end of the nominal finite sentence in December 2010, however; it is difficult to see how there could be much change, given the static nature or Mr. Eades’ personality disorder and paedophilia. His successful completion of the high intensity programme has lead to some progress. Dr. Arthur opines that he still represents “an unacceptable risk of re-offending” should he be released” which I take to be a level of risk below that stated in s173(1). I am also influenced in that conclusion by the comments of Muir JA in Buckley to which I earlier referred. In those circumstances, I order that the indefinite sentences imposed on 20.12.2001 be discharged. I will hear the parties in relation to the sentences now to be imposed pursuant to s173(1)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Eades [2008] QDC 124
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (Applicant) AND RAYMOND BARRY EADES (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	233/01
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	11.06.2008
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	28.05.2008
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	Indefinite sentences discharged
CATCHWORDS:	Review of indefinite sentence pursuant to s171(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992; consideration of “serious danger”; relevance of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2007. Cases: R v Eades [2006] QDC 171 Buckley v The Queen [2006] 80 ALUR 605; [2006] HCA 7 R v Buckley [2008] QCA 45 Legislation: Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003
COUNSEL:	D. Meredith (for the Applicant) C. Reid (for the Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (for the Applicant) Patrick Murphy Solicitors (for the Respondent)