To listen the article select text   Click to listen highlighted text! To listen the article select text

‘Insatiable’ sex offender living opposite school

The 39-year-old offender from the northern suburbs, who cannot be identified because three of his victims were his relatives, was described by prosecutors as an “insatiable” and “predatory” sex offender.However, he was found not mentally competent to commit the crimes against the four children and prosecutors have conceded he should spend any limiting period under strict conditions in the community.During a hearing earlier this month, Kelly Smith, prosecuting, said the man’s offending began when he was 18 and escalated in 2019 and 2020 when he abused three children under 14.“The accused preyed on the vulnerabilities of those young children who trusted him for their care and protection, and he instead exploited them for his own sexual gratification,” Ms Smith said.“The prosecution maintains its submission that the defendant’s sexual appetite for children was insatiable.”Ms Smith said that after taking into account expert reports on the man’s mental health, she did not push for him to be forced to spend any period of detention in a mental health facility.“Nor have we sought that the defendant relocated due to his proximity to a school,” she said.“However, the prosecution submits that there needs to be some compromise to ensure that while the defendant is subject to a limiting term in the community that the community is not put at risk.“In particular the most vulnerable in our community, our children, are not put at risk.”John Lyons, for the man, fought against the electronic monitoring anklet as a condition of his client’s detention in the community.“He would be subject to ridicule, he would be subject to being pointed at whilst walking down the street, he would be subject to community disapproval,” he said.“He only goes out to walk the dog and go to the gym as part of the NDIS.“You can imagine what he would suffer at the hands of other people at that gym if he’s wearing an ankle bracelet.“It can have a diabolical effect on his mental state.”Ms Smith said that the man’s embarrassment did not matter.“It is important to note that any embarrassment suffered by the defendant is not a primary consideration,” she said.“It’s not even a secondary consideration of the legislation. The paramount consideration is the protection of the community. “The reality is that he could wear a sock or long pants to conceal the electronic monitoring bracelet.”The man will learn his fate next month.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Click to listen highlighted text!