SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Riddler [2011] QSC 24 ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v ROBERT LESLIE RIDDLER (respondent) FILE NO/S: No. 6787 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED ON: DELIVERED AT: Trial Division Application under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 Supreme Court 17 February 2011, ex tempore Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17 February 2011 JUDGE: ORDER: Dick A/J Order for supervised release of Robert Leslie Riddler for a period of five years. That order will be on conditions in accordance with the draft proposed orders. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT SENTENCE MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS SEXUAL OFFENDERS Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) respondent convicted of sexual offences against prostitutes application by Attorney-General to have the respondent detained indefinitely or alternatively a supervised order where respondent has a substantial criminal history - where re-offending is associated with illicit substance abuse or alcohol abuse whether respondent is a serious danger to the community whether conditions of the supervision order are appropriate COUNSEL: Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 K Philipson for the applicant
2 SOLICITORS: J McInnes for the respondent Crown Solicitor for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent [1] In this case the Honourable Attorney-General seeks an order pursuant to Division 3 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, hereinafter called the Act, for the continued detention, or alternatively for the supervised release of the respondent. [2] The Attorney-General acknowledges that the evidence of Professors Nurcombe and James supports a final order that the respondent be released from custody, subject to the requirements of a supervision order. [3] The background to the matter is that the respondent pleaded guilty on 22 March 1999 and was convicted and sentenced to an effective term of 12 years imprisonment for 15 charges relating to sexual offences committed against two female prostitutes in two separate but similar courses of offending, committed two days apart on 10 and 13 January 1998. The offences included two counts of attempted rape, five counts of sexual assault while armed, two counts of rape, and two counts of deprivation of liberty. [4] The matter comes on today in the following circumstances. On 16 July 2010 the applicant, the Attorney-General, sought an order pursuant to section 8(2)(a) of the Act, including an order that the respondent be examined by two psychiatrists to prepare risk assessment reports. [5] The Act requires risk reports prepared under such an order to indicate the psychiatrist's assessment of the level of risk the prisoner would commit another serious sexual offence. [6] On that day, Byrne SJA was satisfied there were reasonable grounds for believing the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, and granted the order. [7] He set the matter down for final hearing on 29 September 2010. At that time the respondent's fulltime release date was calculated at 18 October 2010. However, on 5 August 2010 his sentence was recalculated as a result of an appeal by the respondent in relation to forty-two days he had spent in presentence custody, with the result that his fulltime discharge date was amended to 6 December 2010. [8] On 6 August 2010 His Honour Justice Lyons made an interim detention order until 29 September 2010. [9] Then on 14 September 2010 His Honour Justice Applegarth made an interim order that the respondent be released from custody under supervision pending final determination of this application. [10] He was released from custody on 15 September 2010 and has been under supervision in the community since that time.
3 [11] The statutory scheme surrounding such an application is set out in the Act and the objects of the Act are to provide for continued detention or supervision of a particular class of prisoner, and to provide continuing control, care or treatment of a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation. [12] Section 13 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a prisoner may be found to be a serious danger to the community, and section 13(4) provides a list of factors to which the Court must have regard when deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community, and I have considered that list of factors. [13] The respondent is now aged 56. He was born on 2 June 1954. [14] He has an extensive history of criminal offending which is concerned largely with offences of dishonesty and drug offences, street offences, driving offences and some offences of violence. [15] The sentence which he was serving in relation to the events which happened in 1998 concerned victims who were both sex workers. Both recognised him as a previous client. [16] He phoned and made an appointment prior to arriving at the place of work. Both were forced to put on a hood or a pillow case over their heads; a sharp object, probably a screwdriver, was used. [17] He demanded money, made threats and made degrading comments, and raped both anally. [18] One of the victims was able to identify him, but in any event his DNA was matched to samples from both victims. [19] Before those offences in 1996 he had sustained a back injury and had been admitted to hospital and treated with narcotics. He has reported to various doctors that this reactivated his previous substance dependency problem and that he returned to the abuse of substances, primarily opiates. [20] In 1998 he was driving a truck as part of his drug rehabilitation. He was, however, still obtaining substances. [21] He states he has a poor recollection of that time period and no recollection of the relevant offences. [22] He has had an unfortunate personal history; he grew up largely in institutions where he has reported that he, himself, was abused. Most of his schooling took place within the institutions. [23] Risk assessment reports were provided and I have read them. [24] Dr Barry Nurcombe made a provisional diagnosis of an Axis 1 condition of Substance Abuse Disorder (in remission), and an Axis 2, Antisocial Personality Disorder with psychopathic traits, and gave the opinion that it was unlikely that the respondent's reported amnesia of the offences was due to drug dependence but was most likely of psychological origin.
4 [25] Professor Nurcombe has revised his report in two respects: the first is that he has revised the Psychopathology Checklist from the score of 22 out of 40 to 28 out of 40, which does not affect his global opinion. [26] On the Static 99 Revised, the respondent received a score of five out of 10, placing him in a moderate to high risk of recidivism. [27] In the Stable 2000, the respondent scored seven out of 12, indicating a moderate level of risk, but the combination leaves the risk of re-offending at moderate-high level. [28] On the Vermont Assessment of Sex Offending Risk, he was rated at a high overall risk of sexual re-offending. [29] Under the Risk For Sexual and Violence Protocol (RSVP) it was noted that the respondent has marked problems of self awareness and he had marked problems emanating from unresolved conflict to do with rejection, abandonment and very serious sexual, physical and emotional abuse during childhood and he had some psychopathic traits which had been mitigated by aging and self reflection. [30] Professor Nurcombe gave the opinion he needed help with planning for his life following release. [31] At that time he had not taken part in the Sexual Offender Treatment Program and Professor Nurcombe is of the view that all the factors combined suggests the respondent was at a moderate to high risk of re-offending, that the apparent dynamic improvement should be regarded with caution and he made a number of recommendations as to what any supervision order should contain. [32] I have heard him give evidence here today. He has been helpful in respect to the proposed orders that were in contest between the parties. His evidence has helped the parties come to agreement about the proper proposed orders. [33] Professor James noted that the respondent's history was indicative of a substance abuse disorder and, further, that it suggested an antisocial personality disorder. [34] He gave him various ratings, the first of those being the Psychopathology Checklist where he recorded a score of 24, which is not insignificant. [35] In respect of the Static 99, he gave him the same scoring as Professor Nurcombe. [36] In respect of the Sexual Offenders Appraisal Guide he scored him at 18, which places him in a grouping of which 58 per cent can be expected to re-offend sexually within seven years. [37] He also marked him under the Violent Risk Appraisal Guide where he scored nine, that means he is in a group of which 44 per cent could be expected to re-offend within seven years. [38] He was of the view that the main risk with respect to sexual violence, was the possible recurrence as a symptom of chronic substance abuse and that the risk of recidivism, taking all matters into account, was moderately high.
5 [39] However, he said that if there were a supervision order, the main provision of which was abstinence from all intoxicating drugs and alcohol, he was of the opinion the risk of sexually violent recidivism would be relatively low. [40] He initially said that the duration of the order should be 10 years and has revised that to five to 10 years. [41] Professor Nurcombe has revised his estimate of 10 years to five years. [42] I have also had the opportunity of seeing the report of, and hearing evidence from, Dr Elizabeth McVie. Her main concern in respect of the risk of re-offending is associated with illicit substance abuse or alcohol abuse. [43] In her evidence here, she expressed concern, particularly about the fact that the respondent is presently being treated for his back pain with Panadeine Forte, which contains an opiate. [44] She also was of the view that for the next some years, anyway, he should abstain from alcohol. [45] Each of the medical witnesses expressed the view that the combination of alcohol with his pain relief had two consequences: one was possibly to lower his inhibitions to lead him into further use of illicit substances or misuse of alcohol; and, secondly, that the relevant offences were associated with substance abuse. [46] Dr McVie thought that if he fell back into illicit substance abuse or alcohol abuse the risk of further sexual offences against adult women would be high. [47] She thought that a supervised period of reintegration into the community was indicated. She had not estimated the length of the proposed order but, in evidence, said that she thought that five years was the appropriate period. [48] In addition to those doctors, I have also read the report of Dr Alec Jones, who has been intervening with the respondent since October, following his release on the interim supervision order. Essentially, so far the report indicates positive progress. [49] In addition to those reports, I have had the opportunity to read a psychiatric report from Dr Fama, dated 9 February 1999. I have read various extracts from his files from the Department of Corrective Services Department of Correctional Services and details relating to the original offences. [50] As I say, the Attorney-General acknowledges that there should be an order that the respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements of the supervision order. [51] The parties have now prepared a document of proposed orders in which they are in agreement and which are supported, in my view, by the evidence from each of the psychiatrists. [52] The clear requirements of the Act include the adequate protection of the community as one of the objects of the legislation, and I have given that consideration.
6 [53] In light of all the circumstances, including the acknowledgements by the Attorney- General, there will be an order for supervised release, that order will be on the conditions set out in the document, which will be provided by close of business today. [54] I order that that draft document, when it is supplied and initialled by me, be placed with the papers for an order for supervision. [55] What is left to decide is that the duration of the order. On the basis of the evidence that I have heard this morning, I have come to the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is that the order should be for a period of five years. [56] I direct that a transcript of the proceedings of today be prepared and forwarded to the Queensland Corrective Services as soon as practicable.