Yeo v Attorney-General

Raymond Yeo, the appellant, was subject to a supervision order following his release from prison. The appellant was found to have breached his supervision order by attending a support group at a McDonald's restaurant. The trial judge found that the appellant was a serious danger to the community and ordered his continued detention. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to warrant his continued detention and that the trial judge erred in not finding the breach of the supervision order to be relatively minor. The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to take into account international law.

The Court found that the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant was a serious danger to the community. The Court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion correctly in ordering the appellant's continued detention. The Court found that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors in making his decision and that the appellant's breach of the supervision order was not relatively minor. The Court found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to take into account international law.

The Court affirmed the trial judge's decision that the appellant was a serious danger to the community and that a supervision order was necessary to protect the community. The Court rescinded the continuing detention order and released the appellant from custody subject to certain conditions. The Court found that the appellant was required to be under the supervision of an Authorised Corrective Services Officer and to comply with various requirements, including reporting to an Authorised Corrective Services Officer, notifying the officer of changes to his name or employment, seeking permission to enter into an employment agreement or engage in volunteer work, and abstaining from alcohol and pornographic images. The Court also found that the appellant was required to reside at a place approved by an Authorised Corrective Services Officer, not leave or stay out of Queensland without the written permission of an Authorised Corrective Services Officer, and not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order.

The Court made orders releasing the appellant from custody subject to the conditions set out in the decision. The Court also found that the appellant was required to comply with every reasonable direction of an Authorised Corrective Services Officer, respond truthfully to enquiries by the officer about his whereabouts or movements, not have any direct or indirect contact with a victim of his sexual offences, and submit to medical testing or treatment as deemed necessary by the treating psychiatrist or an Authorised Corrective Services Officer. The Court found that the expense of any such testing or treatment was to be met by Queensland Corrective Services. The Court also found that the appellant was required to permit any medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioner to disclose details of treatment, intervention and opinions relevant to the appellant's level of risk of re-offending and compliance with the order to Queensland Corrective Services. The Court found that the appellant was required to attend and participate fully in any program or course conducted by a psychologist, counsellor, or other professional, in a group or individual capacity, as directed by an Authorised Corrective Services Officer in consultation with any treating medical, psychiatric, psychological or other mental health practitioner where appropriate, with any expense of such program to be met by Queensland Corrective Services. The Court found that the appellant was required to submit to and discuss with an Authorised Corrective Services Officer a schedule of his planned and proposed activities on a weekly basis or at such other intervals as directed by an Authorised Corrective Services Officer, which must, if required by the Authorised Corrective Services Officer, disclose the identity of any person who will accompany the appellant during any of those activities and the extent to which that person has been advised by the appellant of the nature of his sexual offences.