SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Eades [2015] QSC 240	
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
RAYMOND BARRY EADES
(respondent)	
FILE NO:	BS 7253 of 2010	
DIVISION:	Trial Division	
PROCEEDING:	Application for contravention of supervision order	
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane	
DELIVERED ON:	3 August 2015 (ex tempore)	
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2015	
JUDGE:	Mullins J	
ORDER:	Order in terms of the draft initialled by Mullins J and placed with the file	
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where respondent was under a supervision order made under Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where respondent was required under the supervision order to take medication as prescribed – where respondent failed to take a number of prescribed medications – where contravention of the supervision order was admitted – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the conditions of the supervision order
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Eades [2011] QSC 408, related 
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Eades [2013] QSC 266, related	
COUNSEL:	K Philipson for the applicant
S Robb for the respondent	
SOLICITORS:	G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent	

HER HONOUR:   I make an order in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the file.  The effect of the order that I have made is to permit Mr Eades to be released again under the supervision order that was made on 30 September 2013 with an additional requirement that is not opposed by him.  The additional requirement is that he must supply to a Corrective Services officer upon request and within two business days of any change to details of any email address, instant messaging service, chat rooms or social networking sites utilised or accessed by the respondent including usernames and passwords.  

Although there were two conditions in the existing supervision order that were directed at supervising Mr Eades’ access to a computer and the internet, the respondent submitted, that if a supervision order were to be made, it should be amended to accommodate the fact that since 22 September 2014, Mr Eades has no longer been subject to the reporting conditions imposed pursuant to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.  The proposed additional condition 45 replicates what he would have been required to provide to the police under the periodic reporting that’s required under that Act.  

A history of Mr Eades’ performance under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 can be gleaned from the judgment of his Honour Justice McMurdo in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland and Eades [2013] QSC 266.  Reference should be made to the reasons in that decision and also the prior contravention hearing as a result of which I rescinded the supervision order that was made on 30 November 2010.  The latter judgment is Attorney-General for the State of Queensland and Eades [2011] QSC 408.  

In summary, Mr Eades was first released under a supervision order as a result of the decision made by his Honour Justice Lyons on 30 November 2010.  His Honour found that Mr Eades is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.  There has been no departure from the position that Mr Eades is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order.  This hearing today has proceeded on the basis that remains the position.  

The issue today was whether Mr Eades should remain in detention under a continuing detention order under the Act, or whether he could be released again on the supervision order that was made by McMurdo J on 30 September 2013.  

When Mr Eades was first released on 30 November 2010 he had difficulty in complying with the supervision order that ultimately resulted in his being returned to custody when he was alleged to have contravened the order by having contact with children under the age of 18 years without the prior approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer.  That contravention was proved before me and on 20 December 2011 the supervision order was rescinded and Mr Eades became the subject of a continuing detention order.  

While he was in custody under that continuing detention order, he participated in a sexual offender’s treatment maintenance program.  When the matter came for review before his Honour Justice McMurdo later in 2013, his Honour was satisfied that the risk of re-offending could be appropriately managed by a supervision order.  Although the Attorney-General still contends that the court rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order on this contravention that is before me today, Ms Philipson of counsel fairly acknowledged that the psychiatric evidence that has been obtained from Drs Beech and Aboud does support the release of Mr Eades under a supervision order.  

Mr Eades is 60 years old.  His age is relevant to his risk, but does not eliminate the risk.  His current state of health is also relevant but, again, does not eliminate the risk.  He presents in court today in a wheelchair, as he has been waitlisted for a hip replacement and has mobility issues.  The pain that he is suffering is obviously significant as he is being treated with OxyContin.  As Dr Beech indicated, the mobility issues may reduce opportunities for offending, but it does not eliminate risk.  

Mr Eades has been diagnosed on a number of occasions, and there is no issue, that he has an antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy and paedophilia nonexclusive but with a preference for males.  His criminal history can be gleaned from Justice McMurdo’s judgment.  

After he was released on 30 September 2013 Mr Eades had difficulty in responding well to the intense supervision.  He ultimately was breached for failing to comply with condition 24 of the supervision order.  And that is:  

Take prescribed drugs as directed by a medical practitioner and disclose details of all prescribed medication as requested to an authorised Corrective Services officer.  

By May 2014, Mr Eades had been prescribed an antidepressant Paroxetine and another antidepressant Mirtazapine.  The Paroxetine had been prescribed after Mr Eades had complained about the side effects that he was suffering from the antiandrogen medication that had been earlier prescribed.  The Paroxetine was prescribed to treat fluctuating mood symptoms as well as having the secondary effect of lowering Mr Eades’ libido.  When Mr Eades was required to produce all his medication, it was apparent from the boxes that were produced that he was not taking the medication as prescribed.  It seems that despite the fact that there was also medication for his cardiovascular condition, he stopped taking his medication.  

The stopping the medication is admitted as a breach of the supervision order and the contravention is therefore proved.  As the judge who decided the previous breach proceedings where the breach was contact with children without the approval of the supervision Corrective Services officer in circumstances where it appeared Mr Eades was grooming the parents, so that he would be able to have contact with the children, I can say that the proved breach of the supervision order on this occasion is not as serious as on the previous occasion.  It remains serious, because the medication was for controlling his mood.  Even apart from that, it is a warning sign when Mr 
Eades does not comply with any condition of his supervision order.  That said, he has been in custody now for some close to 14 months since the contravention was raised against him and he has sworn an affidavit for the purpose of this proceeding in which he acknowledges that he has felt better in mood and health since he has received his medication in a more structured manner.  He, therefore, indicates that he is willing to take steps that will assist him in taking the medication as prescribed in the future. 

The two psychiatrists who assessed Mr Eades for the purpose of today’s hearing gave some short oral evidence to supplement their written assessments.  Dr Beech had seen Mr Eades on five previous occasions for the purpose of the Act and had the benefit of that previous exposure in evaluating Mr Eades.  Dr Beech is of the opinion that the issue that was important in relation to Mr Eades stopping his medication was the indicator of his response to supervision.  Dr Beech states in his report:  

In my opinion, the risk of reoffending is high.  He is a psychopathic, recidivist child sex offender who is not cooperative with supervision.  He is prone to depressive states and irritability and, when challenged, he speaks of wanting to return to prison.  Realistically, I can see little improvement in his attitude despite support, counselling and sanctions.  And, as the earlier sentencing Judge noted, sanctions and custody seem to have had limited effect in curbing his offending.  

Dr Beech then identified the real risk associated with Mr Eades’ release, and that is:  

He will befriend a family and gain access to a child – to a young child.  

Dr Beech then concluded:  

The risk is reduced by a supervision order to the extent that supervisors are able to follow his travels, contact people he meets and warn them and restrict his liberty in the community.  It could be lowered by medication that was judiciously prescribed, monitored and taken.  Failing that, it is a matter of stringent enforcement of conditions and constant vigilance.  

Dr Aboud was not quite as pessimistic as Dr Beech but Dr Aboud, in his oral evidence, deferred to Dr Beech on the basis of his longer exposure to Mr Eades.  Dr Aboud had expressed that Mr Eades’ risk of reoffending would be reduced to below moderate in the context of a supervision order, but acknowledged that Mr Eades’ overall risk would be moderate to high in respect of sexual violence, if he was not monitored under a supervision order.  Mr Eades is prepared to continue participating in counselling with psychologist Mr Nicholas Smith if released under a supervision order and the psychiatrists consider that there were positive outcomes for Mr Eades in the counselling that he had undergone with Mr Smith when he was in the community under the supervision order when released in 2013.  Mr Eades has indicated the willingness to continue with that counselling.  

Both Dr Dr Beech and Dr Aboud detected some greater insight or transparency in Mr Eades’ thinking, although Dr Beech cautioned that that may very well be Mr Eades endeavouring to convey that he had that greater insight, because that was what he thought that the psychiatrist would need to hear, when there is no real change.  Both the psychiatrists considered that the risk of reoffending under a supervision order was no greater than it was when Mr Eades was released in September 2013.  

Mr Eades bears the onus on the balance of probabilities to show that the adequate protection of the community can, despite the contravention, be ensured by a supervision order on the terms that are proposed with the additional condition 45.  I am satisfied that, in light of the psychiatric evidence and the stringent conditions of the supervision order that are proposed, Mr Eades has satisfied the Court on the balance of probabilities that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the supervision order, despite his contravention of it in May 2014.  

Whether Mr Eades is released on the supervision order is going to depend on his sorting out the suspension of the parole order that also applies to him and the availability of housing that is approved by Corrective Services that can accommodate his mobility issues.  The fact that there are those obstacles does not seem to be a reason not to make the supervision order so that the supervision order can be actioned when those conditions or obstacles are overcome.  

______________________