R v Eades - [2006] QDC 171

[2006] QDC 171

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBERTSON

THE QUEEN

RAYMOND BARRY EADES

MAROOCHYDORE

..DATE 19/05/2006

ORDER

HIS HONOUR: On the 20th of December 2001 the respondent was sentenced by me to an indefinite sentence for two offences of sodomy of a child for which I imposed nominal sentences of 10 years for each offence. As required by the Act the Director applied on the 28th of October 2005 for a review of the indefinite sentence and on the return date of the application, the 5th of December 2005, I ordered a number of reports which are now in evidence.

I am told by Mr Copley that this is the very first application to review an indefinite sentence under part 10 of the Penalties and Sentencing Act. The only issue on a review of an indefinite sentence is whether or not I am satisfied that the respondent is still a serious danger to the community: section 173(1). Although it is not clear in the Act I agree with Mr Copley and Mr Reid that the Director has the onus of satisfying me that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community and the standard of proof is governed by section 170.

The Director's application is supported by a number of affidavits of Sharon Munday, to one of which is exhibited a psychological report under the hand of Mary Mackenzie from Psychologist Operations, Wolston Correctional Centre. As a result of the orders made by me on the 5th of December 2005 I have now before me a comprehensive psychological report under the hand of Linda Bennett dated the 6th of March 2006. Ms Bennett is a psychologist with specialised experienced in the assessment of male offenders convicted of sexual and violent offences. Her report reviews the many reports and assessments on the respondent's prison file including assessments done since the indefinite sentence was imposed. Annexed to her report is a comprehensive Sexual Offender Program Assessment dated the 6th of February 2006 undertaken by Robert Wood of Wolston Correctional Centre.

I also have a very comprehensive report from Professor Barry Nurcombe who is presently Emeritus Professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University and the University of Queensland. He is a highly qualified and experienced clinician with extensive experience in forensic psychiatry and he has prepared a number of reports for applications to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.

The respondent does not seek to challenge any of the conclusions in these reports and none of these professionals have been required for cross-examination.

Since I imposed the sentence, the High Court has specifically considered the imposition of indefinite sentences under part 10 of the Act in Buckley v Queen [2006] 80 ALJR 605. In that case, the appeal of the prisoner Buckley, who had been sentenced to an indefinite sentence, was allowed on the basis of significant factual errors made by the sentencing Judge which, in the unanimous opinion of the members of the…

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 [2006] QDC 171
Case: [2006] QDC 171
Decision Date: 19/05/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of Queensland, the case of R v Eades involved a review of an indefinite sentence imposed on Raymond Barry Eades for two offences of sodomy of a child. The primary issue before the court was whether Eades remained a serious danger to the community, which would warrant the continuation of his indefinite sentence. The court was required to consider the evidence presented, including psychological assessments and expert opinions, to determine if the indefinite sentence should remain in force.

The court reviewed comprehensive reports from psychologists and psychiatrists, who concluded that Eades still posed a significant risk to children and required close supervision. The experts noted Eades' extensive history of sexual offending against children, spanning several decades, and his failure to engage in treatment programs designed to address his deviant behaviour. The court acknowledged that while Eades had enrolled in a high-intensity sexual offender treatment program, the delay in offering him a place in such programs was due to administrative issues within the Department of Corrective Services. The court emphasized the importance of providing treatment options for serious offenders as part of their rehabilitation and to reduce the risk of re-offending.

Ultimately, the court found that the imposition of a finite sentence would not adequately protect the community from Eades' risk of re-offending. Therefore, the indefinite sentence was upheld. The court highlighted that the indefinite sentence, while severe, is not intended to lock individuals away indefinitely without hope of release or rehabilitation, and that such sentences must be subject to regular reviews and supported by effective treatment programs.

Orders