The reasoning in Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis and Attorney-General (Qld) v WW — that a supervision order may be adequate where breaches would be detected before serious sexual offending — does not apply where the prisoner's offending is impulsive and substance-fuelled such that there is no realistic prospect of detecting a breach before a serious sexual offence is committed. A court must consider the specific offending pattern and risk profile of the individual prisoner, not merely apply general statements of principle from prior cases with different factual circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 39 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 39 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.