Background
Christopher Colin Watkins, now 56, has been in continuous custody since 1998. He was convicted of the rape at knifepoint of an adult woman in 1990 and, while on parole, of the abduction and rape of a 10-year-old girl in 1998. Upon expiry of his sentences in 2017, Brown J made a continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), finding him a serious danger to the community. That order had been reviewed and affirmed on each of six subsequent periodic reviews, most recently by Muir J in October 2024. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in December 2025, and an application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused in April 2026.
Watkins carries a complex psychiatric profile including paedophilia (non-exclusive), psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder with borderline traits, a probable substance use disorder, and persistent psychotic or quasi-psychotic symptoms, with ongoing uncertainty as to whether he meets the criteria for schizophrenia. Earlier in 2026 his mental state deteriorated acutely, but by April 2026 it had stabilised following commencement of depot antipsychotic medication. His treating psychologist described the period since January 2026 as the most consistent and constructive period of therapeutic engagement he had witnessed across nearly ten years of treatment.
At the seventh periodic review heard on 26 May 2026, Watkins, through counsel, conceded that the evidence was sufficient to affirm the finding that he remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order under the Act. He did not, however, concede that continued detention was necessary, arguing instead — though candidly accepting the evidence did not presently support it — that adequate community protection could be achieved through a supervision order.
The Court’s Holding
Burns SJA affirmed both that Watkins remains a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order and that the continuing detention order must remain in force. On the danger finding, the court was satisfied to the requisite high degree of probability on the basis of unchallenged psychiatric evidence: both independent reporting psychiatrists, Dr Ness McVie and Dr Jane Phillips, assessed his unmodified risk of serious sexual reoffending as high or moderate-to-high, with a supervision order reducing that risk only marginally.
On the critical question of whether a supervision order would adequately protect the community, the court held it would not, for three reasons. First, both reporting psychiatrists assessed residual risk under supervision as remaining moderate-to-high, and Watkins’ history of absconding and rapid emotional dysregulation made community management highly doubtful. Second, while the improvement in therapeutic engagement and response to depot medication was genuine, it had only been demonstrated within the secure custodial environment and had not been tested in a less restrictive setting. Third, planning for the transition of Watkins’ complex mental health treatment needs from the Prison Mental Health Service to a community service was insufficiently developed to provide confidence that those needs could be met upon release.
The court emphasised that the onus rests on the Attorney-General to demonstrate that continuing detention is necessary, and was satisfied that onus had been discharged. However, Burns SJA also stressed that continued detention must not become an end in itself: the goal is Watkins’ eventual release under supervision, and transition planning — including involving the Inala Community Mental Health Service in future stakeholder meetings — should proceed now rather than be deferred until a supervision order is actually made.
Key Takeaways
- A seventh consecutive periodic review under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) resulted in affirmation of both the danger finding and the continuing detention order, with the respondent himself conceding the former.
- Genuine psychiatric improvement — including stabilisation on depot antipsychotic medication and improved therapeutic engagement — was insufficient to shift the balance toward a supervision order where the improvement was recent, untested outside a secure environment, and community transition planning remained underdeveloped.
- The court directed that key medical reports, the hearing transcript, and reasons be distributed to the Prison Mental Health Service, the Inala Community Mental Health Service, and the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist, to facilitate transition planning in anticipation of a future supervision order.
- The court reiterated that the paramount consideration is community protection, and that the Attorney-General bears the onus of demonstrating continuing detention is necessary — an onus that was met here despite signs of progress.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Queensland courts apply the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 in periodic reviews of long-running continuing detention orders. It confirms that documented psychiatric improvement, even when genuine and encouraging, will not displace a continuing detention order unless it has been sustained over a sufficient period, tested in progressively less restrictive environments, and accompanied by concrete transition planning for community mental health care. The case is also notable for its guidance that detention facilities and community health services should begin transition planning proactively rather than waiting for a supervision order to be imminent.
For practitioners in this area, the decision reinforces the principles from Attorney-General v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396 and the Court of Appeal’s recent guidance in Van De Wetering v Attorney-General (Qld) [2024] QCA 222 — particularly that the adequacy of a supervision order must be assessed having regard to the statutory scheme for dealing with contraventions, including return to custody — and signals that the court will look closely at whether community services have the practical capacity to manage an offender’s complex needs before ordering release.