STATE WANTS SEXUAL OFFENDER’S CONTINUED DETENTION
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Henry [2020] QSC 296 (25 September 2020)
This case involves an application by the state under the Dangerous Prisoners Sexual Offenders Act for continued detention of the respondent alleging that he is a serious danger to the community if released.
Facts:
This is an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (the applicant) under Part 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSO Act) for a review of the continuing detention order made in respect of the respondent. The applicant alleged that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under Division 3 of the DPSO Act. The psychiatric assessments indicate the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual re-offence is high.
The respondent on the other hand states that he is currently undertaking the SOPIM (Sexual Offending Program for Indigenous Male) and the indications are that he is showing some progress. The psychiatric evidence is that it is important that the respondent complete the full programme.
Issue:
Should the respondent’s detention be continued?
Law:
- On a review under s 30(2) of the DPSO Act, the Court may affirm the decision if it is satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence and to the high degree of probability that the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community
Analysis:
Based on the evidence relied upon by the applicant, including the reports of Dr Sundin and Dr Timmins and the evidence they gave orally at the hearing, the court is satisfied that there is acceptable, cogent evidence which satisfies me to the high degree of probability required pursuant to s 30(2) of the DPSO Act that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under Division 3 of the DPSO Act. The psychiatric evidence identifies the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual re-offending is high.
Conclusion: The court is satisfied that an order pursuant to the DPSO Act ought to be made that the respondent continue to be subject to the continuing detention order made on 24 September 2018.
