The dangerous CQ criminal one judge refuses to release
ONE of Rockhampton's most dangerous sex offenders has been ordered to return to prison indefinitely after his release was over-ruled in the Supreme Court of Queensland this week.
Following a hearing in Brisbane on August 29, Justice David Boddice on Monday ordered a supervision order made by Justice Peter Lyons on April 30, 2012 be revoked and a 'dangerous prisoner', who cannot by named for legal reasons, be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control or treatment in order to protect the community.
The 56-year-old has a significant criminal history including being convicted of:
- nine counts of indecent treatment of children
- five counts of rape
- two counts of unlawful sodomy and;
- one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child
He was subject to a supervision order which required he not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of the order.
In September 2014, he was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual assault but was found not guilty on all counts during a trial in District Court of Rockhampton in August 2015.
The matter was heard in conjunction with another indictment containing two counts of sexual assault involving a separate female complainant.
Despite that acquittal, the Attorney-General decided to prosecute the offender, alleging a contravention of a supervision order.
The contravention related to allegations concerning one of those two female complainants from the trial.
The woman alleged while she was at the offender's unit in Yeppoon in August, 2014, he rubbed his hand up and down her leg and put his hand on her breast without her consent.
The offender denied the accusations but after a hearing, was found to have committed the offences which were of a sexual nature, subsequently contravening a condition of the 2012 supervision order.
In making his case to have the offender detained, the Attorney-General relied on a significant body of evidence including reports from two psychiatrists, Dr Michael Beech and Dr Donald Grant, and a report from
the respondent's treating psychologist, Dr Lars Madsen.
Dr Beech and Dr Grant were both of the opinion the offender's risk of sexual re-offending had actually increased since he was made subject to the supervision order.
Both psychiatrists agreed the offender's scores placed him in the moderate-high risk group, which is higher than 80% of sexual offenders.
Dr Beech said he was also concerned about the offender's deceptive nature.
"For all the appearance of cooperation and compliance, [the respondent] has acted with duplicity, and I have a concern that some of the minor aberrations in the GPS monitoring in fact reflected illicit contact with others," Dr Beech said.
"It is because of this nondisclosure, secretiveness, and deceit I have a concern that a Supervision Order would be very difficult to administer although, perhaps, longer periods of close regulation might mitigate some of the risk.
"Even then, though, there is a worrying factor that relates to the persistence of offending over two decades despite custodial sentences and treatment.
"He's had two sex offender treatment programs in custody, he's had counselling in the community and he has committed this last offence.
"So I would think that he has ongoing counselling, but I don't know how effective that would be, particularly as he didn't seem particularly open with Dr Madsen.
"I think it would be again about surveillance and monitoring and it would be reducing access to potential victims.
"Now, I would think that clearly a supervision order must hinder your ability to offend just because you're under all these restrictions.
"But the difficulty is he does go under the radar, he does - he is secretive, he doesn't disclose everything honestly and the risk is that we just - I don't know how you can sufficiently limit victim access under those circumstances because I would think the way to manage the risk of - a central part of managing risk would be limiting his access to victims."
Taking this evidence into account, Justice Boddice found the offender had not demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that, despite the contravention, the existing supervision order or an amended supervision order would ensure the adequate protection of the community and ordered the supervision order be revoked and a continuing detention order be made in its place.