Court of last resort rules no deal to sex offender's appeal

The Supreme Court of New Zealand has thrown out an application by convicted sex offender Dylan Edward Coleman to appeal a five-year extended supervision order placed on him.

A convicted sex offender's application to appeal an extended supervision order has been thrown out by New Zealand's court of last resort.

Dylan Edward Coleman sought leave to appeal the five-year extended supervision order (ESO) placed on him by the Court of Appeal in 2021, at the request of the chief executive of the Department of Corrections, in the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The 28-year-old was convicted of indecent assault offences in 2011 and in 2014 for the sexual exploitation of a significantly impaired person. Since then he has committed several more minor offences.

ESOs are used to monitor high-risk sex offenders in the community and impose restrictions on them, such as where they live and/or who they associate with. They may also be subject to electronic monitoring.

Previously the district court had declined to impose the order, finding that although there was "a pervasive pattern of sexual offending and sexualised behaviour", there was no pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending.

The Court of Appeal, however, considered Coleman's offending in 2011 and 2014 was serious, overturned the decision and imposed the order.

"(It) pointed to a pattern of Mr Coleman forcing himself on young women in order to have sex irrespective of their objections.

"The Court considered that Mr Coleman has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and is plainly at high risk of committing serious sexual offending in the future."

The five-year term was regarded as appropriate to protect the community from the real and ongoing risk of Coleman committing serious sexual offences.

In his application to appeal the decision, Coleman argued the test used to evaluate whether an ESO was imposed placed too much weight on future conduct.

Coleman submitted the court should recast the test for pervasive pattern to remove the emphasis on the prediction of future conduct.

The chief executive submitted the test was well established and based on facts.

"Any perceived inconsistencies between the application of the test is due to the particular offending histories and individual characteristics.

"In this case it is clear there was a pervasive pattern."

There is no risk of a miscarriage of justice as the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the ESO given the ongoing risk to the community posed by Coleman, the chief executive argued.

The Supreme Court ruled nothing raised by Coleman suggested the test for pervasive pattern needed modification or that, in his case, led to an incorrect conclusion by the Court of Appeal.

"There is therefore no matter of public or general importance or any risk of a miscarriage of justice."

Coleman's application for leave to appeal the order was dismissed.