SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v WMS [2021] QSC 177	
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
WMS
(respondent)	
FILE NO/S:	BS No 1389 of 2021	
DIVISION:	Trial Division	
PROCEEDING:	Application	
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland	
DELIVERED ON:	29 July 2021	
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	
HEARING DATE:	19 July 2021	
JUDGE:	Williams J	
ORDER:	The respondent be released from custody subject to a supervision order containing the conditions appearing in Annexure A to these reasons.	
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent is in custody and due for release in August 2021 – where the applicant seeks orders for the respondent’s continued detention or release subject to a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent was assessed by two psychiatrists for the purpose of the review – whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order – whether adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order
Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 3, s 11, s 13, s 16, s 30
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111, cited
Attorney-General v Francis [2006] QCA 324; [2007] 1 Qd R 396, cited
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v S [2015] QSC 157, cited
Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54, cited	
COUNSEL:	M Maloney for the applicant
K T Bryson for the respondent	
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant
Wallace O’Hagan Lawyers for the respondent	

[1]	
[1]	This is an application by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland for orders in respect of the respondent pursuant to s 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the DPSO Act).
[2]	The respondent is currently in custody and is due for release on 7 August 2021.  The applicant seeks orders for the respondent’s continued detention or release subject to a supervision order under the DPSO Act.
[3]	On 12 February 2021, Bradley J set down this application for hearing. Further orders provided for Dr Timmins and Dr Arthur to prepare independent reports pursuant to s 11 of the DPSO Act.  Those reports have been prepared and provided in accordance with the orders.
Background 
[4]	The respondent is currently 52 years of age.
[5]	On 10 August 2006 the respondent was convicted, following a guilty plea, in the District Court at Beenleigh of 24 offences against 16 boys, between the ages of eight and 15 years old.  The offending included 10 counts of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child with circumstances of aggravation.
[6]	The respondent was sentenced to a head sentence of 20 years imprisonment, with 1828 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served.
[7]	Further, on 28 May 2015 the respondent was convicted, following a guilty plea, in the District Court at Beenleigh for another four offences against a further male child, which occurred during the same period as the previous offending.
[8]	In respect of this further conviction, the respondent was sentenced to a concurrent period of four years imprisonment.
Criminal history
[9]	The respondent has a relevant New South Wales criminal history and a Queensland criminal history.
[10]	In New South Wales the respondent was convicted in March 1991 of two counts of committing an act of indecency (under 16 years) and two counts of homosexual intercourse with a male between 10 years and 18 years.  The respondent was sentenced on each count to 300 hours community service with the sentence deferred on entering into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for three years and be under the supervision of the Probation and Parole services, with a surety of $500.  The New South Wales offence involved a 12 year old boy and occurred when the respondent was 21 years old.
[11]	In Queensland, the respondent has the following criminal history including in September 1997, the respondent was convicted of abducting a child under the age of 16 years and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and eight days, with pre-sentence custody between 9 September 1997 and 16 September 1997 declared as time served.  In October 1997, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.  The 1997 Queensland offending involved the respondent abducting a 13 year old boy.  The charges on the indictment did not contain any allegation of indecent behaviour between the respondent and the complainant but the sentencing remarks of the judge noted several concerning aspects.  His Honour concluded:
“In my opinion, you are a very cunning person with a dangerous propensity to form unhealthy relationships with young boys.”
[12]	His Honour imposed the maximum punishment available being two years imprisonment.
Index offences
[13]	In August 2006, the respondent was convicted in the Beenleigh District Court of the following offences:
(a)	10 counts of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation;
(b)	Unlawful sodomy – person under 18 years child under 12 years;
(c)	Maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child;
(d)	Two counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 child under 12 years lineal descendent/guardian/carer;
(e)	Three counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 child under 12 years;
(f)	Three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (expose) child under 12 years;
(g)	Indecent treatment of a child under 16 (permit) child under 12 years;
(h)	Indecent treatment of child under 16 (indecent film etc) child under 12 years lineal descendent/guardian/carer; and
(i)	Two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (expose) child under 12 years lineal descendent/guardian/carer.
[14]	The respondent was convicted on all charges and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and a further 10 years imprisonment to be served concurrently.  1828 days of pre-sentence custody was declared as time served.  The respondent’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed in December 2006.
[15]	In May 2015, the respondent was convicted of the following offences:
(a)	Two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (expose) child under 12 years;
(b)	Indecent treatment of children under 16;
(c)	Indecent treatment of a child under 16 (procure to commit) child under 12 years.
[16]	The respondent was convicted on all charges and sentenced to four years imprisonment to be served concurrently.
[17]	The offences for which the respondent was sentenced on 10 August 2006 spanned a period of time between 1993 and his arrest in August 2001.  The offending involved 16 male children between the ages of eight to 15 years of age, and 11 of those children were children which he maintained a sexual relationship with during the offending period.
[18]	The respondent pleaded guilty to a total of 24 offences, including an offence against a child who was the victim of the 1997 abduction offence.
[19]	This offending began almost immediately after the respondent was released from prison in respect of the abduction offence.
[20]	The respondent’s first victim in relation to this offending was the son of a person who had befriended the respondent and had given him a job and a reference at his sentence in 1997.  The sentencing judge remarked that a “greater act of betrayal is hard to imagine”.
[21]	In respect of this offending, the respondent took advantage of victims in vulnerable situations, including where there were domestic problems between the victims’ parents.  The sentencing judge in respect of this aspect commented:
“In your calculated and conniving way, [you] masqueraded as a good Samaritan to the family to pursue your deviate habits against an innocent child.”
[22]	Similar behaviour could be seen in relation to the abduction offence and the respondent’s offending against the other children.
[23]	For example, the respondent adopted the role of a parent to the victim in circumstances where the parents might have separated or the child was otherwise vulnerable.  Another example is that the respondent formed a relationship with a single mother who was recovering from cancer, and the respondent was a source of assistance for her whilst at the same time was offending against the child.
[24]	In addition, the respondent used his relationships with some of the victims as a way to meet the victims’ friends and peers and then offend against them.
[25]	Concerningly, the respondent created an environment at his house which was enticing to children:  for example, they could go motorbike riding, play PlayStation, and watch movies.
[26]	Further, his grooming encouraged secrecy with the victims and he also told multiple victims that the offending was natural and there was nothing wrong with what was going on.
[27]	The offending also occurred, in some cases, in close proximity to the victims’ parents, including, the respondent offending whilst staying at the victims’ family home with the parents in the house.
[28]	A variety of offences were committed against his victims, with six of the 16 victims sodomised by the respondent, and the respondent attempting to sodomise two others.
[29]	Tutt DCJ, in sentencing the respondent, remarked as follows:
“Your conduct towards these children is indescribable to any civilised human being.  Words such as abhorrent, heinous, odious, vile and repulsive are all too inadequate to describe your depravity.  You preyed on vulnerable victims with a cunning and deviousness which was foreshadowed and inferred by his Honour Judge Boyce QC of this Court in September 1997.”
[30]	The respondent applied for leave to appeal against sentence and the application was dismissed.  Keane JA (as his Honour then was) noted:
“Enough has been extracted … to demonstrate the predatory nature of the applicant’s paedophilia, his willingness to betray parental trust and the extent of the dominance he achieved over his prepubescent victims.”
[31]	In respect of the offending in May 2015, the respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of indecent treatment of an 11 year old child.  Whilst the offending occurred during the same period as the above index offences, the complainant did not make a complaint to police until 2011.  The respondent was sentenced to four years imprisonment to be served concurrently with the 20 year sentence imposed.
Custodial background
[32]	During his period in custody, the respondent has undertaken numerous programs including:
(a)	First aid course;
(b)	Responsible service of alcohol course; and
(c)	Working safely in construction course.
[33]	He has also held employment in a range of roles including as a laundry worker.
[34]	The respondent undertook the Sexual Offending Program Assessment (SOPA) in August 2012.  The respondent received a score of seven on the Static-99R component of the assessment, indicating he was a high risk of sexual recidivism.  A further assessment was undertaken on 2 February 2016 and the respondent scored eight, which makes his risk level high.  On 5 February 2016, the respondent was assessed, in accordance with the Stable-2007 assessment, scoring 11 which placed him in the moderate intervention needs group.
[35]	Between 23 May 2014 and 4 July 2014, the respondent completed the Getting Started: Preparatory Program (GS:PP) at the Capricornia Correctional Centre.  Facilitators considered that he demonstrated significant insight into his offending and accepted full responsibility for his offending behaviour.  The respondent was an active participant and engaged openly with the other participants and facilitators.  During this program, the respondent identified that at the time of the first of his sexual offending periods he was overwhelmed by personal distress due to a relationship breakdown and did not seek professional help to deal with his problems.  Further, at the time of his second sexual offending period, he was feeling lonely, scared, confused and worthless.
[36]	Between 15 February 2016 and 1 February 2017, the respondent completed the High Intensity Sexual Offending Program (HISOP) at the Wolston Correctional Centre.  Facilitators considered he was a strong group member and was motivated to participate in the program.  The respondent was able to recognise he was grooming the victims and some parents.
[37]	Between 19 January 2018 and 6 April 2018, the respondent completed the Sexual Offending Maintenance Program (SOMP) at the Wolston Correctional Centre.
[38]	Following completion of this program it was recommended that the respondent engage with one-on-one intervention with a psychologist to address and explore deviancy.
[39]	The respondent has applied for parole on multiple occasions during his current custodial period.  His first application was in September 2016 and his most recent was on 27 May 2019.  The Parole Board formed a preliminary view that the application should be declined on the basis that the respondent was an unacceptably high risk in the community.  Further submissions were invited before a final decision was made.  However, as a result of the orders made by Bradley J at the preliminary hearing under the DPSO Act on 12 February 2021, the respondent was, from that point, no longer eligible for parole.
Previous psychological and psychiatric reports
[40]	Ms Teresa Wood, forensic psychologist, prepared a report dated 22 March 2017 for the Parole Board.  Ms Wood assessed that the respondent required a high level of intervention to protect him against committing acts of sexual violence.
[41]	Dr Scott Harden, psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 20 September 2018 for the Parole Board.  Dr Harden diagnosed the respondent with Paedophilia, exclusively attracted to males.  Further, Dr Harden assessed the respondent on a number of risk assessment tools and reached the opinion that the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending was in the moderate to high range.
[42]	Dr Harden ultimately supported the respondent’s suitability for parole subject to certain caveats, on the basis that strict conditions were imposed.
[43]	Dr Robert Moyle, psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 9 September 2020 for the Parole Board.
[44]	Dr Moyle diagnosed the respondent with Paedophilia, exclusively attracted to males.  Dr Moyle also concluded that the respondent had developed an anxious avoidant and borderline personality style.  Dr Moyle assessed the respondent on a number of risk assessment tools and provided the opinion that the respondent’s unmodified risk of sexual reoffending was in the moderate to high range but it had been lowered to moderate through self-reflection, by the use of psychotherapy and counselling, and the programs for sexual offending in custody, together with the absence of risk factors such as substance abuse and severe psychopathy.
[45]	Dr Moyle assessed the respondent as a moderate risk of reoffending in the community with the likelihood of harm to the victims, should he reoffend, being very high.
[46]	Similarly, Dr Moyle ultimately supported the respondent’s suitability for parole, with certain caveats, and on the basis of strict conditions being imposed.  Further, that any breaches of conditions of parole that involve attempts to try and contact children should result in parole being revoked.
Psychiatric evidence for a DPSO Act application
Dr Josephine Sundin
[47]	Dr Josephine Sundin, consultant psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 3 September 2020 for the purpose of a risk assessment in relation to a potential application under the DPSO Act.
[48]	Dr Sundin interviewed the respondent on 10 July 2020 for the purposes of a report.
[49]	Dr Sundin diagnosed the respondent with Paedophilia Disorder, exclusively attracted to males, and Avoidant Personality Disorder. 
[50]	Further, Dr Sundin undertook a range of assessments under the various assessment tools including as follows:
(a)	Static-99R – score of seven, placing him amongst a group of offenders considered to be well above average relative to other male sex offenders.
(b)	Hare Psychopathy Checklist (revised PCL-R20) – score of 10, indicating that the respondent does not come close to attracting the label of psychopathy.
(c)	Stable-2007 – the respondent is identified as having issues around the areas of:
(i)	Significant social influences;
(ii)	Capacity for relationship stability;
(iii)	Emotional identification with children;
(iv)	General social rejection/loneliness;
(v)	Poor problem solving;
(vi)	Negative emotionality;
(vii)	Sex drive/preoccupation;
(viii)	Sex as coping; and
(ix)	Deviant sexual preference.
(d)	Sexual Violence Risk Scale – the respondent is in the group of offenders considered to be at moderate risk for future sexual offending.
(e)	Dr Sundin, in her report, comments as follows:
“His last tranche of offences occurred over a prolonged period of time and was in my opinion highly exploitative. His offences have all involved betrayal of trust, both of the victims and their families. [The respondent] received a quite severe sanction with the length of incarceration imposed upon him, and it does appear that he has benefitted from this, having undertaken both group and individual sex offender programmes.
He was able to describe the emotional foundations of his sexual offending and to identify his high-risk factors. He believes that he has changed and matured over his time in prison and is now comfortable with his homosexuality.
He believes that he is at no risk of reverting back to the previous sexually deviant cognitions and behaviours.
I am somewhat more cautious than [the respondent] in his judgement with respect to his risk for sexual recidivism.
Unlike Dr Harden, I found [the respondent] to be a somewhat glib individual.
I was also concerned at the level of deception he has demonstrated in the past. For example when interviewed by Dr Apel he lied when he said: ‘that there that there had been “no sexualisation” of the relationship with T.’
Mr Petheran, a social worker with experience in treating sex offenders, after 50 treatment sessions opined:
‘[The respondent] showed genuine and considerable remorse but was in need of treatment.’
He comments that [the respondent] ‘certainly understands that his actions were unacceptable on any community standard’. [The respondent] then went on to offend for an extended period after this treatment.
Apart from the obvious sexual deviance, [the respondent] has demonstrated a capacity for deceptiveness, comfort with lying and past disregard for the impact of his behaviour on others. He appears to have been quite determined in his pursuit of T.  He had behaved in a quite organised manner as part of this prolonged and detailed process of deception. He was able to successfully engage other in this process of deception.
To be fair, the glibness I discerned at interview may be a practice effect. I am one in a long line of psychiatrists and psychologists who have assessed this man over the past 20 years. He is very experienced at being interviewed by clinicians.
On the face of it, he would appear to have made substantial gains with respect to achieving insights into his sexual offending and has developed a satisfactory New Futures plan.
However, I proffer these comments as a note of caution given his past capacity for deceptiveness.
Taking all of these factors globally, I consider that [the respondent] is a man who is at moderate to high risk for future sexual offending.
Victims would be prepubertal or peripubertal males. The offending would not be impulsive or opportunistic but would occur after a period of grooming of the victims and/or their families. The risks for sexual offending would be intensified if [the respondent] experienced feelings of emotional rejection or alienation by others. At such a time, he would be at risk of regressing back into identification with children who in the past have been seen as more emotionally nurturing, supportive and trustworthy.
The risk he poses to the community would be modified by the imposition of a supervision order. The presence of a supervision order would reduce his risk to moderate.
Any supervision order would require curfew clauses, disclosure clauses, and GPS tracking.
In the first 12 months to 2 years of his release from prison abstinence clauses are required. I do not consider that [the respondent] needs to be abstinent indefinitely but the release from prison for a person like [the respondent] who has been incarcerated for such a length of time will be challenging. The use of any disinhibiting substances during that period of time should be avoided. Use of intoxicants will be a flag of emotional regression and signify a time of heightened risk for sexual offending.
[The respondent] has a reasonable work history and a strong work ethic. Engagement in meaningful employment will be of benefit to him.
It will also be important for him to build a range of social and recreational activities so that he builds a strong pro-social support network and a range of pleasurable activities so that he does not revert into overwork and avoidant coping.
[The respondent] is still a relatively young man. He has a lengthy history of past sexual offences. In my opinion, a supervision order should be in place for 10 years given the extent of his past sexual offending and his proven past capacity for deceptiveness.”
Report of Dr Eve Timmins
[51]	Dr Eve Timmins, consultant psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 27 May 2021, for the purposes of a risk assessment pursuant to s 11 of the DPSO Act.  Dr Timmins interviewed the respondent on 6 May 2021.
[52]	Dr Timmins’ diagnosis of the respondent is as follows:
(a)	Paedophilia, attracted to males, exclusive; 
(b)	Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment; and
(c)	Personality vulnerabilities with borderline, avoidant and potentially some dependent traits.
[53]	The respondent scored 15 out of 40 on the PCL-R, being midrange on the scale of Psychopathy, but below the cut-off score for a diagnosis.  The respondent has periods of low mood, but is not prescribed any psychotropic medication.  Further, he has some anxiety symptoms and difficulties coping with stress, evident through the documentation, however he does not meet the criteria for a mood or anxiety disorder currently.
[54]	Dr Timmins also undertook a risk assessment using the various risk assessment tools and concluded as follows:
(a)	Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) – scored 15 out of 40, not indicating a diagnosis of psychopathy.
(b)	Static-99R – the respondent scored seven which is regarded as well above average, or high risk of reoffending.
(c)	RSVP – the respondent has a positive score for the following items:
(i)	Chronicity of Sexual Violence;
(ii)	Diversity of Sexual Violence;
(iii)	Escalation of Sexual Violence;
(iv)	Physical Coercion in Sexual Violence;
(v)	Psychological Coercion in Sexual Violence;
(vi)	Problems with Stress or Coping;
(vii)	Problems resulting from Child Abuse;
(viii)	Sexual Deviance;
(ix)	Problems with Substance Abuse;
(x)	Problems with Intimate Relationships; and
(xi)	Problems with Non-Intimate Relationships.
[55]	The respondent also scored partial/positive scores for a number of further items which Dr Timmins identified in the report.
[56]	Further, Dr Timmins concludes that the respondent does not have evidence of problems with supervision. 
[57]	Overall, Dr Timmins concludes that the respondent has a high risk of reoffending if released into the community at this time.
[58]	In her report, Dr Timmins undertakes a risk analysis and concludes as follows:
“Victims will be underage boys from age nine to 14 years old. He will meet them through their parents or other underage boys or they will come into contact with him through his employment or some other avenue such as hobbies and interests. He is likely to engage in a period of grooming, initially touching, hugging or giving them gifts. He will take on a father role or believe he is rescuing them from their home situation. He will engage them in fun activities that will appeal to young boys such that he can isolate them and then test the situation for sexual offending.
When he does sexually offend, he will initially involve the boys in touching, then oral sex and then penetrative offences. He may encourage them to give him oral sex or sodomise him, then sodomise them in return. He may engage in group sexual activities with other young boys. He is likely to keep his behaviour away from detection by authorities for a long time. There is likely to be a high degree of psychological and potentially physical harm with penetrative offences towards the victims.
[The respondent] is likely to be emotionally distressed, lonely, and feel low in his mood. He will seek comfort, love and acceptance from the young boys. There is some evidence to suggest that there were alcohol problems associated with his offending. He is more likely to plan his offending, however there may be victims who are strangers to him if they are involved in group activities whereby they are exposed to his paedophilic behaviour towards other boys.
In summary, I am of the opinion that [the respondent] will be at a HIGH risk of re-offending in a sexual manner if released into the community at this time without a supervision order.
He appears to have reasonable insight into his sexual behaviour towards young boys and seems to have a plan for his release. Of concern, is that this also mirrors the situation at his last release from prison in the late 1990’s. He was noted to be adept at explaining his situation to various assessors and appearing relatively genuine in what he had learnt during his incarceration at that stage, however soon after release he was re-offending quite quickly. It remains to be seen whether he has integrated what he has learnt this incarceration such that he manages his risk to the community of sexually re­offending better.
If the court is of a mind to release [the respondent], he will require extensive support given he has been incarcerated for 20 years and is a recidivist sex offender.
He will require GPS tracking, have suitable accommodation and engage in appropriate work that does not involve any contact with children. His employer will need to understand his offending given he has previously met a victim through his employer and work situations.
He will require treatment from a forensic psychologist to treat his sexual offending and deviance. He would also benefit from a maintenance group programs to maintain his relapse prevention plan.
He needs treatment and monitoring around alcohol use given this was an aspect of his offending. He should engage in appropriate activities and pro-social relationships, both male and female, which will require monitoring given that he has been able to source victims through various friendships he has developed in the community previously. Although he does not have internet offending, he should have his internet activities monitored closely given this is a common way to meet people and groups in the community.
If he complies with an order, his risk may be modified by a community supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoner (Sex Offender) Act 2003. He would most likely fall into a Moderate risk category.
The duration of a community order would need to be 10 years given that [the respondent] has offended twice previously against under-age boys despite treatment, has a paedophilic sexual interest, has previously been able to avoid detection of his sexual behaviour against underage boys and has not been tested in the community given a long incarceration. A period of 10 years may be the most appropriate for the adequate protection of the community.”
Report of Dr Ken Arthur
[59]	Dr Ken Arthur, consultant psychiatrist, has prepared a report dated 1 June 2021 for the purpose of a risk assessment pursuant to s 11 of the DPSO Act.  Dr Arthur interviewed the respondent on 7 May 2021.
[60]	Dr Arthur, in his report, comments in relation to the respondent’s custodial background as follows:
“[The respondent] functioning in jail suggests that he has no difficulty behaving appropriately within a controlled environment. Earlier on in his incarceration there were a number of assaults (with him being the victim) and some suggestion in 2013 of inappropriate sexual behaviour, including the grooming of younger inmates. However, there have been no recent reports of this nature and he is generally described as polite, appropriate and compliant. Historically, he has a strong work ethic and this has been borne out in jail, with a good employment and educational record. He can identify a number of recreational and intellectual interests. In general, he has been well-contained emotionally, apart from veiled threats of self-harm/suicide in times of high stress. It appears that he has maintained contact with many of his siblings and is able to list a significant number of supports in the community.
He has cooperated with all recommended programs including the HISOP and SOMP, as well as privately funding sessions with an external Forensic Psychologist. He displays an impressive intellectual understanding of most aspects of his sexual offending and is able to discuss at length the associations between his childhood traumas, sexual abuse and the development of attitudes and behaviours which led to his offending. He is able to generate a detailed list of risk factors and relapse prevention strategies. His plans for the future are somewhat optimistic but not unrealistic.
Despite this high level of intellectual understanding and engagement in treatment, it is surprising that [the respondent] continues to deny a sexual attraction to children, preferring to understand his offences as an inability to express his homosexuality in adult relationships and seeking out “safe” and non-judgemental partners. He would like to believe that he will now be able to form a satisfying relationship with an adult on leaving jail and no longer needs to seek out children as sexual partners. This contrasts with previous psychiatric assessments where he admitted to a sexual preference for young boys of 10-14 years of age and that he has had sexual fantasies about some of his victims. He now denies sexual preoccupation and does not accept that he suffers from a sexual deviancy. On a number of occasions during the assessment he expressed the belief he could not be easily categorised, suggesting to me there were limits in his level of insight and acceptance of his sexual drives.”
[61]	Further, Dr Arthur diagnosed the respondent as follows:
(a)	Paedophilia, homosexual and mostly exclusive.
(b)	Not enough consistent history to confirm a diagnosis of a Substance Misuse Disorder. 
(c)	Displays a number of personality vulnerabilities in the Cluster B and C spectrum, sufficient for a diagnosis of a Mixed Personality Disorder. 
(d)	Some features of borderline personality organisation, narcissism and avoidance. 
[62]	Dr Arthur has also undertaken a risk assessment using the various risk assessment tools and concludes as follows:
(a)	Static-99R – score of seven, placing the respondent in the well above average risk group.
(b)	Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) – the respondent scored seven out of 40 which does not indicate a diagnosis of Psychopathic Personality.
(c)	Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) – the following relevant factors were identified:
(i)	Sexual Violence:
(A)	Chronicity – duration/frequency;
(B)	Escalation; and
(C)	Psychological coercion.
(ii)	Psychological Adjustment:
(A)	Problems with self-awareness;
(B)	Problems with stress/coping; and
(C)	Problems resulting from child abuse.
(iii)	Mental Disorder:
(A)	Sexual Deviance.
(iv)	Social Adjustment:
(A)	Problems with intimate relationships.
[63]	Dr Arthur also identified a number of further possible risk factors of relevance:
(a)	Problems with substance abuse;
(b)	Violent and suicidal ideation;
(c)	Problems with non-intimate relationships; and
(d)	Non-sexual criminality.
[64]	Dr Arthur prepared a comprehensive risk statement which states as follows:
“RISK STATEMENT

Propensity to reoffend	Static factors place [the respondent] in the ‘well above average’ risk group for sexual recidivism. He does not have any significant features of Psychopathy. There remain a number of relevant risk factors and possible risk factors identified on the RSVP. Whilst [the respondent] displays an impressive intellectual understanding of the drivers for his sexual offences, it is concerning that he remains in denial about his deviant sexual interest in children. Furthermore, he displays features of a Mixed Personality Disorder which renders him vulnerable to future difficulties in the realms of intimate/non-intimate relationships, problems with stress and problems with self-awareness.	
Pattern of offending	In the initial offences [the respondent] formed a friendship with a pubescent boy with whom he identified based on his own history of childhood trauma. He engaged in grooming behaviours and developed an attachment to the child, convincing himself that he was ‘in love.’ He then initiated sexual contact with the child, utilising justifications and permission statements to override any internal resistance. The most recent offences followed a similar pattern of grooming, although appeared more predatory with a greater focus on the sexual gratification. There was a significant escalation in the number of victims and severity of sexual acts. [The respondent] described an increased sexual preoccupation, heightened recklessness and a loss of control over his actions leading up to his arrest.	
Attempt to change	After the initial offences [the respondent] voluntarily admitted his behaviour to police and engaged in counselling. During his first incarceration he engaged with a number of Psychologists, although this primarily appears to have been to discuss his childhood trauma rather than addressing his deviant sexuality. During his most recent period of incarceration he has fully availed himself of treatment programs and completed the GS:PP, HISOP and SOMP. He has further self-funded 10 sessions with Ms Ursula Oertel to address his deviant sexuality.	
Effects of treatment programs	It appears that [the respondent] has developed a high level of intellectual understanding regarding most aspects of his sexual offending. According to the exit reports of treatment programs, he has developed increased levels of insight and victim empathy, associated with appropriate levels of remorse. However, at interview he appears to be in denial in regard to his deviant sexual interest and now seeks to distance himself from any sexual interest in young boys, reframing his offences as a function of his repressed homosexuality and fear of adult relationships.	
Were [the respondent] to sexually reoffend, this would be unlikely to occur soon after release from custody. He would be compliant with supervisory conditions and gain the trust of Corrective Services staff. He would focus on his goals of gaining employment and progress to independent living. He is likely to seek out intimate relationships with adult men. Should these relationships fail or be associated with perceived abandonment or rejection, [the respondent] may engage in emotional avoidance and sex as coping to manage emotions such as anxiety and fear of rejection. This would increase the risk he may become attracted to young boys in his environment, or he may actively seek out victims. Given the opportunity, there is a risk that he will engage in grooming behaviours and pursue a sexual relationship with the child in order to meet his sexual needs, bolster his self-esteem and return to the comfort and control of previous abusive relationships.
Potential victims are likely to be male children around the ages of 10-13 who may be socially disadvantaged and thus trigger [the respondent’s] desire to care and protect them. Once offending has commenced, he will utilise justifications and permission statements to maintain a relationship with the child. This will continue until he is caught. Future sexual offending carries a high risk of significant emotional harm to the victims.
The most relevant risk factors of sexual recidivism are his deviant sexual interest in children, a failure of support structures leading to social isolation and difficulties in intimate relationships leading to feelings of rejection/abandonment.
Indicators of acute risk would include victim access, social withdrawal/isolation, evidence of increased sexual preoccupation and rejection of supervision.
It is possible that being in a successful adult relationship may be a protective factor, although given [the respondent’s] limited experience in this regard and the presence of borderline personality features there is a significant risk that he will struggle to form such relationships, particularly in the early stages of his release. Other protective factors would include meaningful employment, adult recreational activities, having an appropriate outlet for his sexual drives and maintaining a social support network.
Based on structured clinical judgment I would consider that [the respondent’s] unmodified risk of sexual recidivism on release to be ‘above average’, or moderately high.”
[65]	Further, Dr Arthur made the following recommendations in respect of the respondent:
“With the provision of a supervision order, [the respondent’s] risk of sexual recidivism would be reduced from moderately high to low.
Given the long duration of his recent incarceration, he may find it difficult to adjust to life outside of prison. Engagement with both formal and informal supports should be encouraged to facilitate the transition from jail and the re- acquisition of living skills.
A key risk management strategy would be reducing victim access. In line with this, [the respondent] should have no unsupervised access to children under the age of 16. Whilst there is no evidence that he has abused female  children, it is possible that any association with girls may facilitate contact with similar aged boys. Restrictions should be placed on his movements in the community to minimise incidental contact with male children through the use of appropriate exclusion zones as well as the close monitoring of all social contacts.
[The respondent] has no history of accessing child exploitation material or procuring children via social media. However, given that this was not freely available during his last period of offending, appropriate caution is advised in regard to his use of internet-capable devices and access to social media.
He has given inconsistent reports of his substance use and how this relates to his offending behaviour. I acknowledge that it may be difficult for [the respondent] to develop relationships if he does not have access to licensed premises, although I am also concerned about the potential disinhibiting/destabilising effects of alcohol. It would not be unreasonable for [the respondent] to have an initial period of absolute abstinence from alcohol of 12 months, with close monitoring of his substance use after this time.
Employment would be an important protective factor and efforts should be made to facilitate [the respondent] finding meaningful work as soon as possible.
I believe [the respondent] has ongoing unmet treatment needs in relation to his personality vulnerabilities, coping strategies and sexual interests. He should continue to be provided with specialist psychological therapy addressing these factors. Consideration should also be given to the potential role of antilibidinal medication in regard to managing any deviant sexual urges, fantasies or sexual preoccupation. Should these issues be identified, I recommend that [the respondent] be referred to a Forensic Psychiatrist to take this treatment modality further.
Given the nature of the sexual offences, his relatively young age, capacity for positive impression management and ongoing denial of deviant sexual interests, I believe that a supervision order of 10 years is indicated to adequately manage his risk of sexual recidivism.”
Additional evidence relied upon by the applicant
[66]	The evidence filed on behalf of the applicant also addresses a number of other matters.  The affidavit of Peter Shaddock deposes to a search of the Eligible Persons Register and no submissions from an eligible person have been received.
[67]	The affidavit of Emily O’Hagan exhibits a treatment summary letter from Dr Ursula Oertel dated 5 July 2021 and a letter of support from Mr Lester Schultz dated 27 June 2021.
[68]	The letter from Dr Oertel states:
“[The respondent] has developed explicit and well-formed plans to ensure he has a positive and stable adjustment to community life if he were to be released from custody subject to a Supervision Order.  He demonstrates a great deal of motivation for future intervention and is observed to genuinely participate in his current treatment sessions.”
[69]	The affidavit of Jolene Monson of the High Risk Offender Management Unit (HROMU) states that the respondent has two active warrants for his arrest in New South Wales and there are plans to extradite the respondent upon his release from custody in Queensland.
[70]	Ms Monson outlines the following process which will occur if the respondent is released on a supervision order:
(a)	The Queensland Police Service will apprehend the respondent on the New South Wales warrants on the day of his release and transport him to the Brisbane Watch House for an appearance in the Roma Street Magistrates Court relating to the extradition application.
(b)	The New South Wales Police will apply for an extradition order before a magistrate in the Roma Street Magistrates Court.
(c)	If the order is granted, the New South Wales Police will take the respondent into their custody and the respondent will be taken to the nearest New South Wales Police Station to process the warrants.
(d)	The respondent then will appear before a magistrate in New South Wales at the earliest available date.
[71]	Further, Ms Monson outlined the following possible alternative outcomes:
(a)	If the respondent is released on a supervision order and the extradition process is not processed upon release, the HROMU will continue to liaise with New South Wales Police and the Queensland Police Service regarding the extradition.
(b)	If the respondent is released on a supervision order and the respondent is extradited and released from New South Wales custody, Queensland Corrective Services will arrange for the respondent to be escorted back to Queensland to reside at suitable accommodation.
(c)	If the respondent is released on a supervision order and the respondent is extradited and remanded in the custody of Corrective Services New South Wales, Queensland Corrective Services will continue to engage with Corrective Services New South Wales on the outcome of the outstanding criminal matters. 
[72]	A copy of the two New South Wales warrants were tendered at the hearing.  The warrants are in respect to sexual offences against children alleged to have been committed in the periods 1986 to 1987 and 1990 to 1991 in New South Wales.
Applicant’s position
[73]	The applicant submits that the Court would be satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order under Division 3 of the DPSO Act.
[74]	 In this regard:
(a)	Dr Sundin assesses the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending to be moderate to high.  On a supervision order, the risk would reduce to moderate.
(b)	Dr Arthur assesses the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending as moderately high and concludes that a supervision order would reduce the respondent’s risk to low.
(c)	Dr Timmins assesses the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending as high and considers a supervision order would reduce the respondent’s risk to moderate.
[75]	Further, on the psychiatric evidence, all three psychiatrists emphasise the need for close monitoring of the respondent’s social contacts, internet and social media use.  All three psychiatrists also agree that a supervision order in the range of 10 years would be appropriate to reduce the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending.
[76]	The applicant maintains its application in the alternative.  However, the applicant accepts that the psychiatric evidence supports the making of a 10 year supervision order.  The psychiatric evidence from all three psychiatrists is that the risk will be reduced but the supervision order must be strict and that the respondent must be closely monitored.
[77]	A draft supervision order has been provided and is set out at Annexure A.
Respondent’s position
[78]	Submissions made on behalf of the respondent concede that there is sufficient evidence upon which the Court could be satisfied that the respondent is an unacceptable risk to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.
[79]	Further, the respondent submits that the evidence does not establish to the requisite standard that the respondent should be detained in custody pursuant to a continuing detention order for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.
[80]	In these circumstances, the respondent contends that the risk can be adequately managed by the imposition of a supervision order.
[81]	The respondent has seen the draft supervision order and the proposed terms are not in contention.
Issues
[82]	The issues for determination in respect of the application are as follows:
(a)	Whether the Court is satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order; and
(b)	If the Court is satisfied in respect of (a), taking into account the matters set out in s 13(6) of the DPSO Act, whether it is appropriate to order that:
(i)	The respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment; or
(ii)	The respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements considered appropriate.
Serious danger to the community
[83]	Dealing with the first issue, it is necessary to make a determination whether or not the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order. 
[84]	Section 13(2) of the DPSO Act provides:
“(2) 	A prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1) if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence—
(a) 	if the prisoner is released from custody; or
(b) 	if the prisoner is released from custody without a supervision order being made.”
[85]	Further, pursuant to s 13(3) of the DPSO Act, there is a mandated level of satisfaction required, namely:
“(3) 	On hearing the application, the court may decide that it is satisfied as required under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied—
(a) 	by acceptable, cogent evidence; and
(b) 	to a high degree of probability; 
that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify the decision.”
[86]	Section 13(4) of the DPSO Act outlines the information that the Court must have regard to in deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community. This includes any reports prepared by the psychiatrists under s 11 and any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the prisoner, the prisoner’s antecedents and criminal history.  It also includes having regard to the risk that the prisoner will commit another serious sexual offence if released into the community, the need to protect members of the community from that risk and any other relevant matter. 
[87]	 ‘Serious sexual offence’ is defined in the Schedule to the DPSO Act as follows:
“serious sexual offence means an offence of a sexual nature, whether committed in Queensland or outside Queensland—
(a) 	involving violence; or
(b) 	against a child; or
(c) 	against a person, including a fictitious person represented to the prisoner as a real person, whom the prisoner believed to be a child under the age of 16 years.”
[88]	Section 13(7) of the DPSO Act provides as follows:
“(7) 	The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community as mentioned in subsection (1).”
[89]	Based on the psychiatric and other evidence, which I accept, I am satisfied that there is acceptable cogent evidence which satisfies me to the high degree of probability required pursuant to s 13 of the DPSO Act that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of an order made under Division 3 of the DPSO Act.
Which order, if any, should be made?
[90]	The subsequent issue to be determined is whether it would be appropriate to order a continuing detention order or, alternatively, a supervision order in respect of the respondent.  Section 13(5) of the DPSO Act states:
“(5) 	If the court is satisfied as required under subsection (1), the court may order—
(a) 	that the prisoner be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (continuing detention order); or
(b) 	that the prisoner be released from custody subject to the requirements it considers appropriate that are stated in the order (supervision order).”
[91]	In determining what form of order should be made under s 13(5), it is necessary to consider the objects of the DPSO Act as set out in s 3 and also, the considerations outlined in s 13(6). 
[92]	Section 3 of the DPSO Act provides:
“The objects of this Act are—
 (a) 	to provide for the continued detention in custody or supervised release of a particular class of prisoner to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
 (b) 	to provide continuing control, care or treatment of a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation.”
[93]	Section 13(6) of the DPSO Act provides:
“In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (5)(a) or (b)—
(a) 	the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
(b) 	the court must consider whether—
(i) 	adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order; and
(ii) 	requirements under section 16 can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.”
[94]	Section 16 of the DPSO Act provides:
“(1) 	If the court or a relevant appeal court orders that a prisoner’s release from custody be supervised under a supervision order or interim supervision order, the order must contain requirements that the prisoner—
(a) 	report to a corrective services officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the prisoner’s current name and address; and
(b)	report to, and receive visits from, a corrective services officer as directed by the court or a relevant appeal court; and
(c) 	notify a corrective services officer of every change of the prisoner’s name, place of residence or employment at least 2 business days before the change happens; and
(d) 	be under the supervision of a corrective services officer; and
(da)  comply with a curfew direction or monitoring direction; and
(daa) comply with any reasonable direction under section 16B given to the prisoner; and
(db)  comply with every reasonable direction of a corrective services officer that is not directly inconsistent with a requirement of the order; and
…
(e) 	not leave or stay out of Queensland without the permission of a corrective services officer; and
(f) 	not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order.
(2) 	The order may contain any other requirement the court or a relevant appeal court considers appropriate—
(a) 	to ensure adequate protection of the community; or
…
(b) 	for the prisoner’s rehabilitation or care or treatment.”
[95]	The Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396 at [39] stated:
“Insofar as his Honour was concerned that, if the appellant began to use alcohol or drugs, he might abscond, the risk of a prisoner absconding is involved in every order under s 13(5)(b). The Act does not contemplate that arrangements to prevent such a risk must be ‘watertight’; otherwise orders under s 13(5)(b) would never be made. The question is whether the protection of the community is adequately ensured. If supervision of the prisoner is apt to ensure adequate protection, having regard to the risk to the community posed by the prisoner, then an order for supervised release should, in principle, be preferred to a continuing detention order on the basis that the intrusions of the Act upon the liberty of the subject are exceptional, and the liberty of the subject should be constrained to no greater extent than is warranted by the statute which authorised such constraint.”
[96]	Also, relevantly, McMurdo J in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v S [2015] QSC 157 at [38] said:
“Other judgments of the Court of Appeal have expressed the present question somewhat differently. In Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence, Chesterman JA (with whom Margaret Wilson J agreed) said this as to the relevant onus of proof: 
‘[I]n cases where the Attorney-General contends that the community will not be adequately protected by a prisoner’s release on supervision the burden of proving the contention is on the Attorney. The exceptional restriction of the prisoner’s liberty, after he has served the whole of whatever imprisonment was imposed for the crimes he committed, and for the protection of the public only, should not be imposed unless the inadequacy of a supervision order is demonstrated. The liberties of the subject and the wider public interest are best protected by insisting that the Attorney-General, as applicant, discharges the burden of proving that only a continuing detention order will provide adequate protection to the community.’
Similarly, in Yeo v Attorney-General (Qld), Margaret McMurdo P (with whom White JA agreed) said:
“[73] 	Under s 13(6), the paramount consideration in determining whether to order a continuing detention order or a supervision order is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. This requires the judge to make a value judgment based on the evidence. It is impossible to eliminate all risk of criminal offending, including offending against children, from a community. A judge must determine what is adequate protection of the community in all the circumstances (Attorney-General v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268, [28]-[30]; Attorney-General v DGK [2011] QSC 73, [28]). The respondent has not persuaded me that the adequate protection of the community in this case cannot be assured by the release of the appellant into the community under a carefully structured supervision order, conscientiously supervised by corrective services officers. It follows that I must release the appellant on an appropriate supervision order.” (footnotes omitted)
[97]	Chesterman J, in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 111 at [29], stated:
“The concern which the psychiatric evidence raises is whether the supervision order will be efficacious in constraining the respondent’s behaviour by preventing the opportunity for the commission of sexual offences. The risk of those offences is rated “low to moderate” with the intervention of the supervision order, but whether that order will perform as intended, given the respondent’s stated attitude to it, and his inclination to disregard it or circumvent it, was not the subject of consideration by the primary judge. Accordingly there may be doubt about the conclusion that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by release on a supervision order.”
[98]	Further, in Turnbull v Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 54 at [36], Morrison JA, with whom Philippides JA and Douglas J agreed, stated:
“… The means of providing the protection, and avoiding that risk, is a supervision order. When a court is assessing whether a supervision order can reasonably and practically manage the adequate protection of the community, it is necessarily assessing the protection the order can provide against that risk. Before making the order the court has to reach a positive conclusion that the supervision order will provide the adequate protection.”
[99]	Consistent with the statutory scheme and the case law, the relevant question is whether the protection of the community can be adequately ensured.  An order for supervised release should, in principle, be preferred to a continuing detention order if the supervision is apt to ensure adequate protection.
[100]	The risk being protected against is the risk of the respondent, if released, committing a serious sexual offence and that risk must be of an unacceptable magnitude.  The legislative scheme must accept that some level of risk is acceptable, consistent with the concept of adequate protection of the community.
[101]	The assessment of that risk and what terms of order would provide for adequate protection of the community is not a matter for expert, particularly psychiatric, opinion.  It is a matter for the court.  As recognised by McMurdo J in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sutherland [2006] QSC 268 at [30], the exercise requires a:
“… value judgement as to what risk should be accepted against the serious alternative of the deprivation of a person’s liberty.”
[102]	The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that a supervision order does not afford adequate protection of the community.  If, on all the evidence, a supervision order would be likely to reduce the opportunity for the respondent to engage in serious sexual offending to an “acceptably low level” then the supervision order should be made: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Beattie [2007] QCA 96 at [19]. This is subject to there being some evidence that the respondent would be likely to comply with it: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 155.
[103]	In making the “value judgement” required, I have considered the views expressed by Dr Sundin, Dr Timmins and Dr Arthur, and the evidence filed in support of the application.  I find that the adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practically managed by the terms of the proposed supervision order.  
[104]	Further, I find that the requirements under s 16 of the DPSO Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by Corrective Services officers.  This is supported by the matters outlined in the affidavit of Ms Monson.
[105]	The terms of the supervision order include conditions in respect of reporting and supervision, place of residence, a curfew, monitoring, employment or study, use of motor vehicles, mobile phone and computer/internet access, no alcohol and drug use and testing, rehabilitation and counselling, together with no contact with victims or children.
[106]	The level of supervision of the respondent is an essential element in the management of the risk to a level adequate to protect the community.  I am unable to mandate or make directions in respect of management by Queensland Corrective Services.  However, in the circumstances, I encourage the provision of the relevant risk assessment reports prepared by the psychiatrists and these reasons to the persons appointed to supervise, support and manage the respondent to assist them in understanding the importance of the conditions in the management of the respondent.
[107]	The duration of the supervision order for a 10 year period is appropriate to manage the respondent in the community.
Conclusion
[108]	In summary, I have made the following findings:
1.	I am satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence and to the high degree of probability required by the DPSO Act that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order.  Accordingly, the applicant has established, to the high degree of probability required, that if released without a Division 3 order the respondent presents an unacceptable risk of committing a ‘serious sexual offence’ as defined by the DPSO Act.
2.	Adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practically managed by the terms of the proposed supervision order.  
3.	The requirements under section 16 of the DPSO Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers.
[109]	Therefore, I order that the respondent be released from custody subject to a supervision order containing the conditions appearing in Annexure A to these reasons.

Annexure A

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

	REGISTRY:	Brisbane
	NUMBER:	1389/21

Applicant	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND	

	AND

Respondent	WMS	

SUPERVISION ORDER

Before:				Justice Williams 
Date:				29 July 2021
Initiating document:	Originating Application filed 8 February 2021 (CFI 1) 

THE COURT is satisfied that [the respondent], is a serious danger to the community. The rules in this order are made according to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT [the respondent] be released from prison and must follow the rules in this supervision order for ten years, until 29 July 2031.

TO [the respondent]:

1.	You are being released from prison but only if you obey the rules in this supervision order.

2.	If you break any of the rules in this supervision order, the police or Queensland Corrective Services have the power to arrest you. Then the Court might order that you go back to prison. 

3.	You must obey these rules for the next ten years.
Reporting
4.	On the day you are released from prison, you must report before 4 pm to a corrective services officer at the Community Corrections office closest to where you will live. You must tell the corrective services officer your name and the address where you will live.

5.	A corrective services officer will tell you the times and dates when you must report to them. You must report to them at the times they tell you to report. A corrective services officer might visit you at your home. You must let the corrective services officer come into your house.

To “report” means to visit a corrective services officer and talk to them face to face.
Supervision
6.	A corrective services officer will supervise you until this order is finished. This means you must obey any reasonable direction that a corrective services officer gives you about: 
a)	where you are allowed to live; and
b)	rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and
c)	using drugs and alcohol; and
d)	who you may have contact with; and
e)	anything else, except for instructions that mean you will break the rules in this supervision order.

A “reasonable direction” is an instruction about what you must do, or what you must not do, that is reasonable in that situation.

If you are not sure about a direction, you can ask a corrective services officer for more information, or talk to your lawyer about it.

7.	You must answer and tell the truth if a corrective services officer asks you about where you are, what you have been doing or what you are planning to do, and who you are spending time with.

8.	If you change your name, where you live or any employment, you must tell a corrective services officer at least two business days before the change will happen. 

A “business day” is a week day (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) that is not a public holiday. 
No offences
9.	You must not break the law by committing a sexual offence.
Where you must live
10.	You must live at a place approved by a corrective services officer. You must obey any rules that are made about people who live there.

11.	You must not live at another place. If you want to live at another place, you must tell a corrective services officer the address of the place you want to live. The corrective services officer will decide if you are allowed to live at that place. You are allowed to change the place you live only when you get written permission from a corrective services officer to live at another place.

This also means you must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place.

12.	You must not leave Queensland. If you want to leave Queensland, you must ask for written permission from a corrective services officer. You are allowed to leave Queensland only after you get written permission from a corrective services officer.
Curfew direction
13.	A corrective services officer has power to tell you to stay at a place (for example, the place you live) at particular times. This is called a curfew direction. You must obey a curfew direction.
Monitoring direction
14.	A corrective services officer has power to tell you to:
a)	wear a device that tracks your location; and
b)	let them install a device or equipment at the place you live. This will monitor if you are there. 

This is called a monitoring direction. You must obey a monitoring direction.
Employment or study
15.	You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work.

16.	When you ask for permission, you must tell the corrective services officer these things: 
a)	what the job is;
b)	who you will work for;
c)	what hours you will work each day;
d)	the place or places where you will work; and
e)	(if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study.

17.	If a corrective services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you. 
Motor vehicles
18.	You must tell a corrective services officer the details (make, model, colour and registration number) about any vehicle you own, borrow or hire. You must tell the corrective services officer these details immediately (on the same day) you get the vehicle. 

A vehicle includes a car, motorbike, ute or truck. 
Mobile phone
19.	You are only allowed to own or have (even if you do not own it) one mobile phone. You must tell a corrective services officer the details (make, model, phone number and service provider) about any mobile phone you own or have within 24 hours of when you get the phone. 

20.	You must give a corrective services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phones you own or have. You must let a corrective services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone.
Computers and internet
21.	You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to use a computer, phone or other device to access the internet.

22.	You must give a corrective services officer any password or other access code you know for the computer, phone or other device. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using the computer, phone or other device. You must let a corrective services officer look at the computer, phone or other device and everything on it. 

23.	You must give a corrective services officer details (including user names and passwords) about any email address, instant messaging service, chat rooms, or social networking sites that you use. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using any of these things.
No contact with any victim
24.	You must not contact or try to contact any victim(s) of a sexual offence committed by you. You must not ask someone else to do this for you. 

“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
Rules about alcohol and drugs
25.	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.

26.	You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, smoke or sniff) any illegal drugs. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any illegal drugs.

27.	A corrective services officer has the power to tell you to take a drug test or alcohol test. You must take the drug test or alcohol test when they tell you to. You must give them some of your breath, spit (saliva), pee (urine) or blood when they tell you to do this. 

28.	You are not allowed to go to pubs, clubs, hotels or nightclubs which are licensed to supply or serve alcohol. If you want to go to one of these places, you must first get written permission from a corrective services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to go.
Rules about medicine 
29.	You must tell a corrective services officer about any medicine that a doctor prescribes (tells you to buy). You must also tell a corrective services officer about any over the counter medicine that you buy or have with you. You must do this within 24 hours of seeing the doctor or buying the medicine.

30.	You must take prescribed medicine only as directed by a doctor. You must not take any medicine (other than over the counter medicine) which has not been prescribed for you by a doctor.
Rules about rehabilitation and counselling
31.	You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor. 

32.	You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program.

33.	You must let corrective services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program.
Speaking to corrective services about what you plan to do
34.	You must talk to a corrective services officer about what you plan to do each week. A corrective services officer will tell you how and when to do this (for example, face to face or in writing).

35.	You must also tell a corrective services officer the name of new persons you have met.

This includes: people who you spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly.

36.	You may need to tell new contacts about your supervision order and offending history.  The corrective services officer will instruct you to tell those persons and the corrective services officer may speak to them to make sure you have given them all the information.
Contact with children 
37.	You are not allowed to have any contact with children under 16 years of age.  If you want to have supervised or unsupervised contact with a child under 16 years of age you must first get written permission from a corrective services officer.  If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to have contact with the child.
“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking with them face to face, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting, using a telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
“Supervised” means having contact with the child while another person is with you and the child.
“Unsupervised” means having contact with the child while there is no other person with you and the child.

38.	If you have any repeated contact (that is, more than one time) with a parent, guardian or carer of a child under the age of 16, you must:
a)	tell the person(s) about this supervision order; and
b)	tell a corrective services officer the details of the person(s).
You must do this immediately.  This means you have to tell the person, and tell a corrective services officer, on the same day you have contact with the person.
39.	Queensland Corrective Services has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to any parent, guardian or caregivers that you have contact with.

40.	Queensland Corrective Services also has power to give information about you, and about this supervision order, to an external agency (such as the Department of Child Safety).

41.	You must not:
a)	go to a school or childcare centre;
b)	be in a place where there is a children’s play area or child minding area;
c)	go to a public park;
d)	go to a shopping centre;
e)	join any club or organisation in which children are involved;
f)	participate in any club or organisation in which children are involved.
If you want to do any of these things, you must first get written permission from a corrective services officer.  If you do not get written permission, you cannot do any of these things.
Other specific conditions
42.	You must not collect photos/ videos/ magazines which have images of children in them without prior approval of a Corrective Services officer. If you have any you may be asked to get rid of them by a corrective services officer.

43.	You are not to get child exploitation material or images of children on a computer or phone from the internet.

44.	You must develop a management plan with your psychologist or psychiatrist to address any risk of sexual re-offence.  You must talk about this with a corrective services officer when asked.

45.	You must advise your case manager of any personal relationships you have started.

Signed:	
	
	Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland