What happens when the public disagrees about a sex offenders order expiration?
This recently occurred in a case pulled in front of the District Court of NSW.
Background of the case
In 2003, the defendant – then aged 25 – engaged in sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 14. This was noted as a 'serious sex offence', with the defendant being incarcerated until late May 2018, as well as being held under a child protection prohibition order (CPPO) until 20 August 2020.
In early May however, an order was passed to allow two medical experts (both forensic psychiatrists) to examine the defendant and provide the court with reports. But what was the defendant's argument against a possible extension to his existing order?
The defendant's argument
The defendant believed there had been a considerable amount of time since the only 'serious sex offence' was committed. Therefore, he was at a lower risk of re-offending for such extreme offences. The Counsel added that the defendant had shown a strong desire to reform and had taken steps to address his behaviour to prevent future offences.
However, it soon became evident that the defendant had a consistent history of grooming boys, despite his actions not falling under the 'serious sex offence' umbrella.
What did the reports discover?
After completing various tests, results from the first medical report found that the defendant was well above the risk of reoffending in serious sexual assault crimes. Furthermore, the second forensic psychiatrist concluded – and agreed – the defendant fell into a category of people with a higher risk of reoffending than other perpetrators. This person also added that the defendant sat on the autistic spectrum which heightened his impulsivity. They believed that specialised treatment and increased supervision would likely reduce the risk.
The final hearing
While the court agreed that there had being an extended time since the defendant's serious sex assault crime, his perseverance to engage with – and attempt to groom – young boys was a cause for concern. This, combined with a heightened impulsivity from his diagnosed autism disorder indicated there was still a major risk of a sexual crime being committed by the defendant.
Therefore, orders were made to place the defendant under a further four years of supervision.
If you've been a victim of sexual assault and are unsure what your options are, our expert team can help you deal with such a sensitive time. Contact Gerard Malouf & Partners Compensation, Medical Negligence & Will Dispute Lawyers today, to see how we can help you file a claim.