Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Williams [2010] QSC 248

Dangerous Prisoners Sexual Offenders Act 2003 (the Act) made

by the Attorney-General for orders that either Mr Williams be

detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control

or treatment, or that he be released from custody subject to

the conditions that the Court considers appropriate and that

Mr Williams was born in 1972. He is presently serving a

period of imprisonment for sexual offending. The current

period, which is due to expire on 16 July 2010, includes a term of imprisonment of 4 years for the offence of rape and a

concurrent term of imprisonment of 12 months for indecent

treatment of a child under the age of 16 years. Both offences

were committed against the same victim in early 2005.

The sentences were imposed in the Cairns District Court on 15

For the purpose of this application, a psychiatric report was

obtained initially from Dr Harden. Subsequent reports were

obtained from psychiatrists Professor James and Professor

Nurcombe. The three psychiatrists were available to give

evidence to the Court on the terms of a proposed supervision

order that was made Exhibit 2 in the proceeding. They were

able to express their opinions not only on what was the

appropriate way of resolving this application, whether by way

of detention order or supervision order, but also, to provide

helpful evidence on the conditions of a proposed supervision

order that were not able to be agreed between the applicant

The Attorney-General, helpfully, acknowledged that the terms

of the psychiatrists' reports were such that the imposition of

a supervision order was supported as being able to address the

respondent's risk of sexual re-offending. Mr Williams,

helpfully, did not challenge a finding that the Court would be

satisfied on the acceptable, cogent evidence of the

psychiatrists that there is an unacceptable risk of his

That said, it is still incumbent upon me to consider the

material in detail before reaching a conclusion that I

consider appropriate on the material. I therefore need to

refer to some history of Mr Williams' offending and some aspects of the opinions expressed by the psychiatrists as a framework for the findings that I need to make in this matter.

Mr Williams' criminal history dates back to 1990 and is

primarily concerned with offences that were committed whilst

he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There is, in

fact, no sexual offending as such on his history until the

conviction in the Cairns District Court in June 2003 of

multiple counts of indecent treatment of children under 16

There was an earlier entry in the Cairns Magistrates

Court on 28 October 2002 where Mr Williams was convicted of

wilful exposure, although not sentenced by the Court on the

basis that it was a sexual offence. The circumstance of the

offending of urinating on a beach near a 5 year old has been

the subject of consideration by the psychiatrists as an

example of the type of sexual offending that Mr Williams

embarked on and then continued with, followed by an escalation of that type of sexual offending.

The first set of offences, for which he was dealt with in the

Cairns District Court in 2003, did not involve physical

contact with the children involved. The charges arose from

Mr Williams exposing his penis to his female relatives, all

aged under 7 years, while watching a video in their lounge room.

The other offences, for which he was dealt with on the same

occasion, concerned children in a household where he was

present and he masturbated in the lounge room in front of one

of the complainants. On another occasion, in relation to the

same complainant, he touched her on the breasts when he went

into her bedroom. Mr Williams' sentence on that occasion of

imprisonment for 8 months was not of a sufficient length of

time to enable him to receive the treatment in relation to his

sexual offending that was recommended by the sentencing Judge,

even though the length of imprisonment was appropriate to the

type of offending that he had committed at that stage.

The offences for which Mr Williams is presently in prison were

committed against a girl aged 10 years. Mr Williams was introduced to the complainant through the partner of the complainant's older sister. There were therefore opportunities for Mr Williams to have contact with the complainant. The rape conviction resulted from his conduct of inserting a finger into the complainant's vagina. Mr Williams had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol on the occasion that he committed this offence. He also rubbed the complainant's chest and nipples and that resulted in the conviction for the offence of indecent treatment.

Whilst in prison for this period of imprisonment, Mr Williams

has undertaken a number of courses. Apart from those that are

relevant to equipping him for employment, he undertook the

Getting Started Program, which is a preparatory program for a

sexual offender treatment program. He then undertook the

Indigenous High Intensity Sexual Offending Treatment Program.

He participated in that between 2 July 2008 and 29 June 2009.

The exit report on Mr Williams' completion of that program indicates that there were some positive signs of changing attitudes on Mr Williams' part as a result of participating in that program. He was initially disruptive and resistant in the program, but he became more responsive to suggestions from the facilitators as he participated in the different activities that the program requires of participants and showed poitive involvement. Relevantly, he was able to identify contributing factors to his offending including his own background of being sexual abused as a child and his abuse of alcohol and cannabis sativa and his strategy of distancing himself from his offending conduct, so that he did not acknowledge what he was doing to his victims.

The longer the course went on, there were signs that the

respondent gained some understanding of the effects of his

offending on his victims, although he did have difficulty with

the issue of consent and, as was echoed by the opinion

expressed during the course of evidence today, he has

difficulty in understanding the concept that a child does not

think like an adult and that a child's actions should not be

The future plan that Mr Williams has prepared for his release

has identified key factors associated with his offending that

will be able to be used by him in developing strategies to

avoid being in a position where he finds himself tempted to

offend again. These factors include being deprived of sex

when in a relationship, perceived sexualised behaviour of

young girls and being unemployed. I note that it is

recommended that Mr Williams complete the Sexual Offender

Maintenance Program upon release into the community and it is

apparent that Corrective Services will be provided with the

material in the psychiatrists' reports that support this plan for further treatment.

Starting with Dr Harden, he diagnosed Mr Williams as meeting a

diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and suffering

from alcohol abuse and cannabis sativa abuse and that

Mr Williams also met the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia,

attracted to females, non-exclusive type. The actuarial and

structured professional judgment measures administered by

Dr Harden suggested that Mr Williams' future risk of sexual

re-offending is high. Dr Harden therefore recommended that

Mr Williams be monitored in the community by means of a

supervision order and that he not be allowed unsupervised

contact with females under the age of 16 years under any

Each of the psychiatrists today confirms that, because of the

high risk of re-offending that applies to Mr Williams, it

is not only for the community's benefit, it is also for his

benefit that a supervision order be of a lengthy period and

the period that has been recommended is 10 years, which I

Professor Nurcombe examined Mr Williams on 26 April 2010.

Professor Nurcombe suggested that if Mr Williams were to

re-offend sexually, his behaviour would be most likely to

involve familiar females under the age of 12 years whom he

will groom and sexually molest. Based on Mr Williams'

history, Professor Nurcombe suggested that Mr Williams' risk

of re-offending should be regarded as moderate to high.

Professor Nurcombe considers, with an appropriate and

effective supervision order, Mr Williams' risk of re-offending

would drop to a moderate level and that the key elements of a

supervision order and relapse prevention plan are the

avoidance of families with under-age female children, distance

from schools, parks and other places where children

congregate, individual psychotherapy, a sex offender

maintenance program, regular correctional supervision,

indigenous counselling for alcohol/drug abuse, regular alcohol

drug screening, employment planning, and encouragement of

Mr Williams' identification with his cultural heritage.

Professor James interviewed Mr Williams on 4 May 2010.

Professor James also supported a supervision order and that if

Mr Williams were released from prison without a supervision

order, the likelihood of his re-offending would be high.

When it came to the evidence today, much of it was focused on

individual conditions of the proposed supervision order. One

with which I had difficulty was a condition xv in the draft

order, that was Exhibit 2, that stated that the respondent not

commit an indictable offence during the period of the order.

That was one amongst, at that stage, 46 conditions of the

All members of the community must observe the criminal laws

that regulate the conduct of persons and are directed to

preventing antisocial activities and to protect the community

generally from those who would commit antisocial activities,

whether sexual offences, violent offences, fraudulent offences

or any other offences that the Parliament has chosen to be the

subject of the criminal laws. The failure to comply with

criminal laws results in the offender being punished and punishment often includes imprisonment.

Professor James felt that there was a purpose to be served

with such a broad restriction on the respondent in that it

would encourage lawfulness and Professor James was concerned

that if Mr Williams breached the criminal law in any way, not

necessarily sexually offending, but by stealing or by

violence, it would be a sign of increased risk of sexual

re-offending. Professor Nurcombe and Dr Harden were not quite

as wedded to the need for a condition such as one that

proscribed committing any indictable offence, although both

were concerned about any offences against children, not

limited to sexual offences, and violent offences, as strong

From the applicant's point of view, each of the conditions in

the supervised order goes to setting up a scheme for behaviour

that, if breached, will bring the respondent back to Court.

Each proposed condition, however, has to be considered in the

context of the whole order. Although I am referring at the

moment to condition xv in Exhibit 2, there were other

conditions in the order that would catch conduct that would

amount to an indictable offence, for example, condition xiv

"not commit an offence of a sexual nature during the period of

The psychiatrists' concerns about triggers in Mr Williams'

behaviour that might alert the authorities to the pending

commission of a sexual offence are present in many of the

conditions such as the prohibition on contact with a child

under the age of 16 years, except with the prior written

approval of an authorised Corrective Services officer. An

indictable offence could not be committed against a child

under 16 years without the condition preventing the contact

with the child under 16 years being breached as well. There

are many of the conditions that are likely to be breached

After taking into account the psychiatric evidence, I am not

persuaded that there should be the unlimited condition in the

terms in which it was proposed in Exhibit 2. I am mindful

that the purpose of this legislation is the need to protect

the community from the risk that the prisoner will commit

another serious sexual offence. I am satisfied that the

existence of triggers within the supervision order that should alert the supervising Corrective Services officer of the increasing likelihood of that occurring is sufficiently covered by many of the conditions in the proposed order and that it is sufficient if the condition concerning indictable offences is limited to one in terms of "not commit an indictable offence involving violence during the period of the order."

It is important to remember that the supervision order is a

package and the conditions provide a framework of restrictions

on the activities of the respondent, once released into the

community under a supervision order, that will assist

Mr Williams in his adjusting to the return to life in the

community with the supervision of Corrective Services, but will also ensure that there is adequate protection to the community from the risk that the respondent will commit another serious sexual offence.

There was debate in the course of the hearing on the wording

of other conditions. Ultimately, when the concern of either

the applicant or the respondent was made clear in argument,

the wording of the conditions was able to be moderated to

achieve the purpose of the condition and ensure that the order

is sufficient for its purposes without resulting in greater control than is required for the protection of the community.

The evidence of the three psychiatrists is acceptable and

cogent and satisfies me to the high degree of probability that

is required under the Act that the respondent's moderate to

high risk of sexual reoffending, unless appropriately

supervised, is an unacceptable risk in terms of section 13(2)

In light of the psychiatric evidence, I am satisfied that

appropriate conditions can be formulated for a supervision

order that will address the need to ensure the adequate

protection of the community and that a supervision order

should be made for a period of 10 years on the terms of the

order which is initialled by me and placed with the file.

I therefore make an order in terms of that draft as I have

indicated. Now, was there anything I didn't cover that I

MR RYAN: No. I think your Honour's covered everything.

HER HONOUR: So, Mr Williams, I've made an order in terms of

the draft that no doubt your lawyers will speak to you about.

You will need to understand the conditions that you're subject

to. They are very stringent, but hopefully with the

assistance of the Corrective Services officer who will be

supervising you, you will be able to establish a routine that

will enable you to comply with the orders as you make the

transition from the prison environment to the community.