Dr Michael Rowlands1, Dr Gavan Palk, Prof Ross Young, Prof Ian Coyle
1Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Biography:
Dr Michael Rowlands is a forensic researcher and lecturer with extensive experience in higher education teaching, curriculum delivery, and student supervision. His lecturing background spans psychology and forensic psychology, with a strong emphasis on evidence-based practice, risk assessment, antisocial behaviour, and sexual offending. He has supervised and completed more than 120 student theses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, supporting research development across diverse forensic and clinical domains. Dr Rowlands has contributed to publications and research examining recidivism, paraphilic interests, antisocial traits, and risk assessment methodologies. His work integrates empirical rigour with practical forensic applications, teaching innovation, and student mentorship.
Abstract:
This study examined recidivism outcomes among offenders managed under Queensland’s Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (DPSOA) and evaluated the comparative utility of judicial and actuarial risk classifications in predicting reoffending. A retrospective longitudinal cohort design was employed using publicly available Queensland Supreme Court and legal database records. The sample comprised 182 male offenders released into the community under DPSOA supervision orders between 2005 and 2025. Risk classifications determined by the Queensland Supreme Court (QSC) were compared with actuarial classifications generated using the Brief Assessment for Recidivism Risk–2002R (BARR-2002R). Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and log-rank tests were used to assess stratification of violent, sexual, and general recidivism outcomes. Approximately 49.45% of offenders engaged in some form of post-release antisocial behaviour. Rates of violent recidivism (17.58%), sexual recidivism (12.63%), and non-sexual violent recidivism (4.94%) were comparable to or lower than rates reported in broader sex offender samples. Judicial risk classifications significantly differentiated violent, sexual, and general recidivism outcomes, with high-risk offenders reoffending at greater rates and over longer follow-up periods. In contrast, the BARR-2002R failed to significantly differentiate violent or sexual recidivism risk, although it demonstrated utility for predicting general offending. The findings suggest that clinically informed judicial evaluations may outperform simplified actuarial models when assessing complex, high-risk offender populations. Results also raise questions regarding the proportionality and necessity of restrictive supervision orders for offenders classified as low risk under DPSOA legislation.