Applicant v CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

1. The applicant BG, is a registrable offender pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) ('SORA') for the remainder of his life. BG makes application to suspend his reporting requirements under the SORA.

1. On 26 August 2009 BG pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years.
2. The sentencing reasons do not detail the offending but summarise the offending as follows:

The charges and the offences concern a young woman, who at the time of your relationship with her was 13 years of age and you yourself were 21, certainly at the times of the offences that constitute Counts 1 and 2 you turned 22 shortly thereafter those events.

...

Your counsel has outlined to me and it appears indeed in the summary as to how you came to meet the complainant. It was through a mutual friend and the sexual intercourse that took place thereafter, over the period covered by the presentment was entirely consensual and often usually it was what is called protected sex. There is no doubt, it seems to me on the materials, that until such time as the complainant terminated the relationship, you were each enthusiastic about your activities. Indeed I am told that Count 1 is a representative count, that is between 1 May 2008 and 18 June 2008, in that intercourse took place many times per week and it is not possible to identify specific dates in that regard.

1. On count 1 BG was sentenced to three months imprisonment and on the remaining counts he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of six months imprisonment. Pursuant to s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2009 (Vic) the sentence was wholly suspended for a period of 18 months.[1]

B.2 Personal history and background to the offending

1. At the time of sentence BG was unemployed after having completed his VCE. He underwent counselling with a psychologist and a report was provided to the sentencing judge. BG was found to have experienced some difficulties at school and struggled to make friends. It was the friendship of the complainant that led to the offending conduct. At that time of his life, BG felt more comfortable in the company of adolescents.
2. BG made full admissions and expressed remorse for his actions and demonstrated empathy for the complainant.
3. BG had no criminal history.

1. BG continues to live with his parents in regional Victoria. His social circle is limited to his parents and he rarely leaves his home unless in their company. After his conviction for these offences, whilst one or two friends stood by him, he was largely ostracised by the community. BG did however have one relationship that lasted 13 years but this ended almost three years ago.
2. BG's older sister remains a part of his life however as she now has children of her own, BG has chosen not to spend time with them. This is to avoid the requirements of the SORA as they apply when seeking to be in the company of children. The effect is that BG has never met his nieces and nephews and does not attend any family celebrations or holidays or any event where children will be present.
3. After completing his secondary education BG undertook a number of TAFE courses but had limited employment. This is largely because of the matter being widely known in the community. However BG has been employed for the past two years and his employer is aware of his criminal history.
4. BG was assessed by Doctor Michael Davis, Forensic and Clinical Psychologist. Dr Davis gave evidence on the application.
5. Dr Davis administered a number of tests during his examination of the applicant.
6. The Revised Screening Scale for Paedophilic Interests ('SSPI-2') is a behavioural rating scale that measures paedohebephilia. The applicant's score was lower than the average score amongst child sex offenders. Dr Davis opined it is highly unlikely the applicant has a preferential sexual interest in pre-pubescent and/or pubescent children despite the age of the victim in the index offence.
7. The Screening Scale of Paedophilic Crime Scene Behaviour ('SSPC') is a further behavioural rating scale that focuses exclusively on relationships with paedophilic sexual interests. The applicant's score was lower than the average scores amongst child sex offenders. Dr Davis opined the results indicate it is very unlikely the applicant has a preferential sexual interest in prepubescent children.
8. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised ('PCL-R') rating scale, whilst not designed as a risk assessment instrument, the PCL-R has been reliably associated with general, violent and sexual recidivism and is considered an important consideration in assessing risk. Higher scores on the PCL-R are suggestive of an increased risk for all types of offending. The applicant's score was in the very low range and even lower than the average for non-offenders in the general population.
9. A further risk assessment tool was administered; The Level of Service/Risk, Need Responsivity ('LS/RNR'). The LS/RNR is a standardised offender classification scale that covers the majority of the best-established predictors of general criminal conduct across eight domains. The test was utilised to provide an indication of risk for general offending or antisocial behaviour with a focus on risk for sexual recidivism. The applicant's total score on the LS/RNR was in the lower end of the 'low' range of risk and need. Dr Davis found the applicant posed a low risk for general offending behaviour, that is, considerably lower than that of the average general population.
10. In relation to risk for sexual recidivism, the Risk Matrix 2000/S was utilised. This tool assists in the assessment of recidivism risk among adult males who have already been convicted of a sexual offence. The applicant was assessed as remaining in the 'below average' risk category. This is the lowest of the four risk categories on the RM2000/S. Dr Davis opined the level of risk here is considerably lower than that of the average sex offender.
11. The final risk assessment undertaken was the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol - Version 2 ('RSVP-V2'). The applicant presented with a low number of risk factors across his lifetime and very few risk factors with recent presence. The applicant has been in the community for 16 years since his conviction without further sexual offending. Lengthy periods of time without offending is considered to be a powerful protective factor. Dr Davis found the applicant to pose a low risk for sexual recidivism and opined there is no likely scenario for future sexual offending. There is therefore no requirement for any particular treatment or management plan in order to contain his low risk for sexual recidivism.
12. Dr Davis identified a number of features of BG's personality that lead him to function at a moderate level of impairment. This is exacerbated by the social isolation BG has experience over the past 16 years.

1. An application to suspend the reporting requirements can only be made if:

(a) a period of 15 years has passed (ignoring any period during which the registrable offender was in government custody) since he or she was last sentenced or released from government custody in respect of a registrable offence or a corresponding registrable offence, whichever is later; and

(b) he or she did not become the subject of a life-long reporting period under a corresponding Act whilst in a foreign jurisdiction before becoming the subject of such a period in Victoria; and

(c) he or she is not on parole in respect of a registrable offence - the registrable offender may apply to the Supreme Court for an order suspending his or her reporting obligations.[2]

1. More than 15 years have passed since BG was sentenced in 2009. BG has not become the subject of a lifelong reporting period under a corresponding Act whilst in a foreign jurisdiction. BG is not on parole in respect of a registrable offence. Therefore the criteria for the making of the application are satisfied.
2. An order for suspension must not be made unless the Court is satisfied of the matters identified in s 40 of the SORA namely:

(a) the registrable offender poses no risk or a low risk to the sexual safety of one or more persons or of the community; and

(b) it is in the public interest to suspend the registrable offender's reporting obligations.

(3) In deciding whether to make an order under this section, a court must take into account -

(a) the seriousness of the registrable offender's registrable offences and corresponding registrable offences; and

(b) the period of time since those offences were committed; and

(c) the age of the registrable offender, the age of the victims of those offences and the difference in age between the registrable offender and the victims of those offences, as at the time those offences were committed; and

(d) the registrable offender's present age; and

(e) the registrable offender's total criminal record; and

(f) any other matter the court considers appropriate.

(4) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1), the Supreme Court must also take into account any submissions made by the Chief Commissioner under section 41.

1. BG relies upon the evidence of Dr Davis as detailed above, that demonstrates BG poses no risk or a low risk to the sexual safety of one or more persons or of the community.
2. Regarding the question of public interest, BG has contravened his reporting obligations on one occasion. The contravention was a failure to report a new mobile phone number to Victoria Police. On 1 August 2012 BG was convicted and fined $500 for this offence. The contravention was an oversight and not indicative of any ongoing risk.
3. Whilst it is in the public interest to monitor registrable offenders, this is largely to reduce the likelihood of further offending. The second reading speech of the Sex Offenders Registration Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2017 (Vic) recognised that

there may be cases where an offender has demonstrated, after a period of time complying with their reporting obligations, that they are no longer a significant risk to the community and that there is no benefit to the community in requiring them to continue to comply with those reporting obligations.[3]

1. It was further submitted that the offending was not at the 'most serious end of the spectrum' and nearly 17 years had passed without any further sexual offending. The age disparity between BG and the victim was to be considered in light of his personality deficits but in any event BG was now 39 years old and now relates more to people of a similar age.
2. It was submitted the reporting obligations impact upon three rights protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ('the Charter') namely, his freedom of movement, his privacy and reputation and his freedom of association with others.[4]

1. The respondent does not oppose the application.
2. The respondent accepted the evidence of Dr Davis and the opinion that BG presents a low risk.
3. The respondent noted that a residual condition imposed by the SORA restricts BG from working in child-related employment. This would remain in place should the reporting obligations be suspended. This measure is a relevant consideration when assessing whether the application is in the public interest.
4. The respondent disputes the characterisation of the offending as at the lower end of the spectrum and points to the presumption of harm regarding sexual offending against children[5] and the age disparity between BG and the victim at the time.
5. The respondent rejects the applicability of the Charter and argues the suspension provisions in the SORA were justified by law and arose as a result of BG being sentenced for offences which engaged the imposition of reporting obligations. The respondent relied upon Donohue v Westin.[6]

1. I accept the evidence of Dr Davis regarding the risk assessment of BG.
2. I do not accept the applicant's submission the offending falls towards the lower end of the spectrum of this type of offence however I am limited to the summary of the offending in the sentencing remarks. The sentence imposed reflects the view taken by the sentencing judge of the offence and the matters relied upon in mitigation. That is perhaps not surprising given the attitude expressed by the sentencing judge towards the victim in the remarks. Despite the absence of a victim impact statement, I accept the presumption that premature sexual activity will cause long term physical and psychological harm and is unaffected by the presence of apparent consent.
3. A considerable time has passed since BG was convicted. It is apparent BG's life has taken an unexpected course since that time as a result of the conviction and the SORA. BG is 39 years of age and relies upon the support of his parents. Despite securing employment, his social circle is confined to spending time with his parents although he hopes to forge relationships with persons his own age in the future.
4. The applicability of the Charter was the only matter truly in dispute on this application. Given the attitude of the respondent to the application and the evidence relied upon by the applicant, the result would be the same whether the Charter rights are considered or not. I note the question of the application of the Charter has been considered by this Court and deemed relevant.[7]

1. Given the risk assessment and the crippling impact of the conviction and being a registrable offender upon BG, it is in the public interest to suspend the reporting obligations to give BG the opportunity to live a more engaged and fulfilling life.

E Suppression order under the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic)

1. Finally, the applicant seeks a suppression order to prohibit or restrict the disclosure by publication or otherwise of a report of the whole or any part of these proceedings; or any information derived from these proceedings. The applicant submits that pursuant to ss 17 and 18 of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) and particularly s 18 (1)(a) and (d). In support of this position, the applicant refers to RBC v Chief Commissioner of Police [2025] VSC 10 (Champion J) at [63]-[70] and also Re GH [2024] VSC 216 (Croucher J) at [143]-[146]. Although not noted in the original application, the Court may also consider that there is a basis to make such an order pursuant to s 18 (1)(c) given the information contained in the psychological material and generally.
2. I am able to make such an order pursuant to s 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) if satisfied as to one or more of the grounds contained in s 18. I am not satisfied that the making of such an order is necessary to protect the safety of the applicant. I am satisfied that, in the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction, it is in the interests of justice to make a pseudonym order. I take the same view formed by Beale J in MB v Chief Commissioner of Police[8] that such an order strikes a proper balance between, on the one hand, open justice and, on the other hand, the public interest in not undermining the progress made by the applicant.
3. I order that:

(a) In this proceeding, the applicant is to be referred to only by the pseudonym BG.

(b) All material published in connection with this proceeding is to refer to the applicant by his pseudonym only.

(c) These orders apply throughout Australia and for the remainder of BG's life.

[1] See R v Brooks [2009] VCC 1086.

[2] See Sexual Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic), s 39 ('SORA').

[3] Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 11 May 2017, 1274 (Ms Neville, Minister for Police).

[5] Clarkson v R [2011] VSCA 157; (2011) 32 VR 361.

[6] [2022] VSC 37.

[7] DH (a pseudonym) v Chief Commissioner of Police [2025] VSC 380, [46] (Fox J).

[8] [2025] VSC 684, [12].