PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO BE RELEASED FROM BEING DETAINED AFTER CONTRAVENING THE COURT’S SUPERVISION ORDERS

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Wason [2021] QSC 107 (28 May 2021)

This is a case where the respondent is under a supervision order for a sexual offense. The plaintiff submits that the respondent had contravened a requirement of the supervision order by ingesting substances. The respondent here seeks for his release on supervision notwithstanding the contravention.

Facts:

The present offense is attempted rape which was committed against a female tourist aged in her mid-20s.  It occurred shortly after the respondent was released from custody for the previous sexual offense.  Bradley J ordered Mr Wason’s release on supervision on 2 December 2019.

The supervision order contained various conditions, including condition 26 in these terms: “26. You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, or sniff) any alcohol. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any alcohol.”

On 17 July 2020, alcohol was detected in Mr Wason’s system and he was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under  S.20 of the DPSOA on an allegation of breach of condition 26 of the supervision order. On 10 April 2021, he was again tested and again alcohol was detected in his blood. After initially denying the consumption of alcohol, he later made admissions.

Again, he was arrested and on 12 April 2021 he was ordered to be detained in custody until a final decision was made on the breach proceedings.

Mr Wason admitted the contravention. He submitted that he had discharged the obligation cast upon him by S.22(7) of the DPSOA, namely proving that the adequate protection of the community could be ensured by his release on supervision notwithstanding the contravention of the supervision order.

Issue: Should the respondent be released from being detained notwithstanding the contraventions made?

Law:

• Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 S.22: The court may make further order that (7) If the released prisoner satisfies the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention or likely contravention of the existing order, be ensured by a supervision order or interim supervision order, the court—(a) must amend the existing order to include all of the requirements under section 16(1) if the order does not already include all of those requirements; and (b) may otherwise amend the existing order in a way the court considers appropriate.

Analysis:

It appears that prisoner Wason made some attempt to address the risk of alcohol use with medication and affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous. In a similar fashion to his previous contravention, his drinking was a single episode that  involved only moderate amounts of alcohol and was not associated with any emotional or behavioral disturbance.

This recent contravention highlights prisoner Wason’s vulnerability to impulsively using alcohol to manage emotional distress. Whilst it is likely that he was experiencing some frustrations with the restrictions of his order, there is no evidence of a rejection of supervision or any associated hostile/oppositional behavior.

This is Mr Wason’s second contravention of the supervision order which has been in place since 2 December 2019. Mr Wason’s unmodified risk of serious sexual reoffending is considered by Dr Arthur to be moderately high. However, the court accepts Dr Arthur’s opinion that the supervision order has operated so that the consumption of alcohol by Mr Wason was detected and could be actioned.

Given that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order, Mr Wason’s release on supervision ought to be favored to his continued detention.

Conclusion: The court, being satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent has contravened supervision requirement 26 of the order made by Bradley J on 2 December 2019 (‘the supervision order’), orders that the respondent be released from custody and continue to be subject to the requirements of the supervision order.”

#breachesofcourtorders