Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Valence [2010] QSC 335

section 27 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act

2003 (the Act) that the continuing detention of the

On 13 August 2009 her Honour Justice White ordered that the

respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term of

care, treatment and control (Attorney-General for the State of

Queensland v. Valence [2009] QSC 255).

Mr Valence is currently 53 years old. His history of sexual

offending is summarised in Justice White's decision, including

the offences that resulted in his imprisonment for four years

with a full-time discharge date of 29 August 2009. He remains

in prison, having completed those sentences, because of the

continuing detention order made by her Honour Justice White.

That order was made because the applicant made an application

under the Act that the respondent be dealt with under the Act.

Justice White in her decision summarised the psychiatric

assessments that were relied on for the purpose of that

application that were provided by Dr Moyle, Dr Beech and

Professor James. Dr Beech had concluded that Mr Valence is an

"insightless recidivist sex offender with a poor attitude to

treatment and no reasonable plans to limit his risk." Dr Beech noted that the respondent has very few supports and

significant substance abuse problems. Dr Beech expressed the

opinion that the respondent's risk of reoffending could be

reduced by his participation in a high intensity sexual

offender program with a subsequent development of a robust

relapse prevention plan that could, with supervision, be

Professor James' opinion concurred with that of Dr Beech. It

Since Justice White's decision, the respondent has undertaken

the Getting Started Preparatory Program which is a sex

offender program that is undertaken prior to a more intensive

sex offender treatment program. The Getting Started

Preparatory Program involved 12 sessions that Mr Valence

attended between 9 November and 16 December 2009. Mr Valence

did the program when it became available to him at Capricornia

Correctional Centre where he is imprisoned. The exit report

for the program notes that Mr Valence was disengaged during

the initial stages of the program, but increased his

participation as the program progressed. The exit report

concurs with the recommendations from the psychiatrists that

the respondent undertake the High Intensity Sex Offender

Program before release into the community under a supervision

Professor James reassessed Mr Valence on 10 June 2010 for this

review application. Professor James could not find any

material which would cause him to alter the view that he

previously expressed that the respondent attracted a diagnosis

of paedophilia of a predominantly homosexual nonexclusive type

and substance alcohol abuse which were currently in remission

as a result of imprisonment. Professor James did not consider

that there had been any alteration to the actuarial findings

in his previous report and the dynamic considerations remain

In his reassessment Professor James concluded that:

"1. Mr Valence remains a person with a high risk of

2. The high level of risk would not be significantly

reduced by the imposition of a supervision order upon his

3. Mr Valence therefore should remain in custody in the

4. The respondent should be strongly encouraged and

supported to participate in a high intensity sexual

Psychiatrist Dr McVie assessed the respondent on 23 April 2010

for the purpose of the review application. Dr McVie had the

benefit of reviewing the earlier psychiatric assessments and

other material that had been made available to her by the

applicant in relation to the respondent's criminal history and

imprisonment. Dr McVie's assessment included the following

"Mr Valence continues to minimise his offending history.

He has made very few plans to deal with his attitudes and

offences. He readily admits that he will continue to use

alcohol and cannabis on release from custody if it is

available to him. He has no plans for where he wishes to

live or for any meaningful employment on release from

custody. In some ways he feels content to remain in

"My primary recommendation at this point is that this

program, the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program,

needs to be completed satisfactorily by him and then a

re-evaluation of his attitudes, intentions, plans and

behaviour needs to be completed on finalisation of the

program in order to effectively evaluate his suitability

The psychiatric evidence relied on by the applicant on this

application precludes any consideration of a supervision order

for the respondent at this stage. The respondent must

undertake the High Intensity Sexual Offender Treatment Program

and his risk of sexual reoffending must be reassessed, if he

can successfully conclude that program, before supervised

release is a realistic option. This is acknowledged to some

extent by the respondent through the instructions that he has

given his counsel to not oppose the continuing detention order

The psychiatric evidence before me on this review application

is acceptable, cogent evidence that satisfies me to the degree

of probability required under section 30(2) of the Act that

the evidence is of sufficient weight to affirm the decision of

Justice White made on 13 August 2009 that the respondent is a

serious danger to the community in the absence of an order

made pursuant to Division 3 of the Act and that the respondent

must continue to be the subject of a continuing detention

I therefore make an order in terms of the draft initialled by

I hope you listened to that, Mr Valence. It's a very

pessimistic outcome for you unless you embark on HISOP.