When reviewing continuing detention orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the court must not require 'watertight' supervision arrangements before making a supervision order; the question is whether adequate protection is ensured. The court should not assume departmental supervision resources will be unavailable without clear evidence. Where supervision is apt to ensure adequate protection, a supervision order should in principle be preferred to continuing detention, as liberty should be constrained no more than the statute warrants. The phrase 'control, care or treatment' in s 13(5)(a) is disjunctive, identifying three alternative purposes for detention.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 144 later cases that cite this judgment.
41 of the 144 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.