R v Stevens

In the case of R v Stevens, the appellant was convicted of various child pornography offences and was subject to a sentencing hearing before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant, Mr Stevens, should be subject to a Serious Sex Offenders Supervision Order (SSOSSO) under the Sentencing Act 2017 (Qld). This required the court to assess the risk of reoffending posed by Mr Stevens and whether such a supervision order was necessary for the protection of the community.

The court considered expert evidence from two psychologists, Dr Jennings and Dr Begg. Dr Jennings concluded that Mr Stevens was in a high-risk category of reoffending due to his intellectual impairment, antisocial personality, and lack of adequate adult relationships. Dr Jennings found that Mr Stevens' intellectual age and social isolation, combined with his past sexual offences, made him at risk of having recurrent paedophilic sexual urges. Conversely, Dr Begg believed that while Mr Stevens had an affinity or sexual attraction towards children, he had the capacity to control his sexual instincts. However, Dr Begg also considered that Mr Stevens’ risk of reoffending was high if released without mandated structured rehabilitation mechanisms.

The court ultimately preferred the evidence of Dr Jennings, finding that Mr Stevens was not capable of controlling his sexual instincts. The court held that Mr Stevens’ risk of reoffending was very high, and that a supervised program mandating the recommendations in the Post Treatment Report was necessary to give him the best chance of successful assimilation into the community. The court concluded that the SSOSSO was appropriate, and ordered that Mr Stevens be subject to such an order.

The court made a Serious Sex Offenders Supervision Order on Mr Stevens for a period of five years.