The man abused a little girl for more than two years. Photo / Stock
The man abused a little girl for more than two years. Photo / Stock
Warning: this story refers to child sexual abuse
A violent child rapist who subjected his victim to more than two years of extreme abuse has been denied parole - despite offering the board a “Good Life Plan” that outlined why he should be let out of prison.
The board describedthe criminal’s release proposal as “sketchy” and said had much more work to do before he could return to the community without being a danger.
The man has permanent name suppression - in place to protect his young victim.
He claimed his offending against the little girl was “caused by manic episodes”.
At sentencing the presiding judge acknowledged the man’s mental state “may have made some contribution to his offending” but it was “only to a very limited extent”.
The judge said it was “not impulsive offending but repetitive conduct over two years with grooming aspects”.
“The offending involved indecent touching using objects and repeated acts of rape or attempted rape, as well as showing the victim pornographic material,” the Parole Board outlined.
“The victim at the time was a protected person under a protection order… (the offender) has a concerning history of family violence, weapons offences, and breaches of protection orders among other offences.
“He has also reported undetected intimate partner violence prior to his conviction history.”
In mid-2018, the man was jailed for eight years after he was convicted of two charges of indecent assault of a female under 12, rape, and breach of protection order.
The man will remain in prison for another year at least. Stock photo / 123RF
All of the charges were representative - indicating police were satisfied that multiple offences of the same type were committed in similar circumstances - but the nature and circumstances of the offences made it unreasonable for the victim to pinpoint specific dates or other details.
Before the child sex offending the man, now 50, had 28 prior convictions including male assaults female and breach of a protection order - for which he had been jailed in the past.
His sentence is not due to end until November 2025 and since he became eligible for parole in 2021 he has been repeatedly refused an early release.
His most recent hearing was earlier this month.
The board heard he had completed a “medium intensity” child sex offenders’ programme and was “continuing with maintenance”.
However - he had not made anywhere near enough progress to be released back into the community.
“He has prepared what is described as a ‘Good Life plan’... We did not consider that ‘plan’ to be in any way adequate,” said Parole Board panel convenor, Judge Geoffrey Ellis.
“It does not have the appearance of a serious attempt to identify the underlying causes of his offending or the processes whereby he has enabled such serious offending over such a long period of time.
“The portion headed ‘Safety Plan’ has no more than six sketchy lines and might well be perceived as casually dismissive of the purpose of such a document.”
Judge Ellis said the man’s drug use was also an issue the board had to consider.
“He has a prior history of using substances including methamphetamine, prescription substances, anabolic steroids, painkillers and sleeping pills,” he said.
“(He) told us that he had ceased the use of alcohol and drugs and other such substances many years ago and he did not understand the suggestion by the psychologist that he would benefit from a Dependency Treatment Programme.
The man groomed the child and seriously abused her for two years. Photo / 123RF STOCK
“The Parole Assessment Report notes that a transfer to another site for reintegrative activity has been recommended but that he was resistant.”
While in prison the child rapist has had no reported incidents or misconduct and had completed a 52-session group programme with a psychologist.
“The psychologist… goes on to observe that (the offender) has only recently completed treatment and there has been limited opportunity to observe change in different contexts,” Judge Ellis said.
“Overall, (he) is assessed at a ‘moderate’ risk of sexual reoffending which would be exacerbated if he relapsed into the use of substances.”
Another reason the offender could not be released was that he did not have an approved address.
“In the Board’s view (the offender) still has considerable work to do to complete his rehabilitation and to develop his re-integrative pathway,” said Judge Ellis.
“We are satisfied that it is appropriate for him to do the DTP group programme in the prison and thereafter to undertake a period of reintegration activity to test his learnings from the programmes and his commitment to change in different settings as recommended by the psychologist.
“He also needs to prepare a strong release proposal… He needs to prepare a serious safety plan, and we believe he will need professional assistance to do that.”
Judge Ellis said the man had “significant work ahead of him”.
“We have come to the view that further rehabilitation is in fact necessary,” he said.
“For the present, risk is still assessed as undue and parole is declined.”
