Applicant v Respondent

1. In relation to those matters listed in s 40(3), the seriousness of the offences are outlined above. As the Court of Appeal said, the gravity of these offences needs hardly be emphasised. Notwithstanding this, they make up the applicant's only criminal offences apart from the reporting breach in 2016. The offences were committed over 40 years ago. Although there was a long period of time between the offending and the laying of charges, there was no other offending in that period. Mr Ian Joblin, psychologist, noted in 2008 that CP appeared to have been concerned for some time, even at that stage, about the psychological basis of his offending.
2. CP continued to engage in psychological counselling over a sustained period of time with David Chong between 2008 and 2013. Mr Chong, has provided reports addressing his observations prior to and subsequent to the applicant's sentence which comprehensively describe the applicant's preparedness to 'look at his crime and history with a view to try and understand it'. The opinion of Mr Chong, identified his formative years as providing him with a confused and distorted understanding of sexually appropriate relationships. The ongoing therapeutic relationship has provided CP with insight. In 2016, in the context of the breach of reporting obligation, Mr Chong wrote:

CP's commitment to his rehabilitation has been remarkable. His position in therapy has been genuine and honest and he has faced his guilt towards his offending in a way rare to sex offenders. ...It is my professional opinion that CP's chance of reoffending is minimal, that as a person I do believe CP is a conscious man fulfilling his obligations under the legislation...

1. Those comments are echoed in the earlier the medicolegal assessment undertaken at the time of sentencing, which highlighted CP's concern about the psychological basis of his offending. The report of Mr Ian Joblin dated 24 October 2007 indicated his observation that the applicant had almost a preoccupation with attempts to find out why the offending occurred and to rectify the harm caused. In Joblin's observation, there is no suggestion that CP minimises or avoids accepting the significant and lasting impact on the young girls as they grew into women. CP has attempted to deal with his behaviour at both an intellectual and emotional level.
2. It is appropriate to specifically consider and acknowledge the extensive and proactive rehabilitation of CP. His remorse is genuinely held. This has been the opinion of psychologists, both treating and medico-legal, as well as of the sentencing judge and the Court of Appeal. It is expressed in the words of CP's written apology to his victims at the time of sentencing, and expressed unequivocally by all friends and family who have prepared statements for this hearing.
3. It is not just the words that demonstrate CP's remorse but his substantive actions seeking and self-funding counselling. It demonstrates a person very motivated to rehabilitate and to understand the reasons for offending in order not to reoffend.
4. The genuineness of the assessment of remorse and potential for rehabilitation is borne out by the isolated nature of CP's offending over the past 40 years. It is also borne out by CP's continued engagement with psychological counselling beyond the context and requirements of the criminal process. Further, since release from custody in 2009 CP has regained steady employment, maintained a loving and mutually supportive relationship with his long-term partner and positive family relationships including with his now adult daughter.
5. Mr Burrows, reporting in June 2025, says that at the time of CP's offending a number of risk factors were relevant, including CP's own distorted understanding of appropriate sexual behaviour, which played a significant role in the context of his offending. This was in part influenced by CP's own adverse childhood experiences. With time and the benefit of self-reflection and targeted counselling CP has worked hard to address these previously held distorted understandings. Mr Burrows conducted a formal assessment of CP's risk to the sexual safety of persons in the community, describing his risk score of engaging in further sexual offending as a 'low risk' and noted that his risk was 'well below' the average relative to other sex offenders. That opinion is consistent with Mr Chong's view, and the earlier opinion of Mr Joblin.
6. The lay statements exhibited to the affidavit describe a man who has worked hard to make a positive contribution to the community, and in turn, is supported by longstanding friends and family. The statements disclose CP's conscientious adherence to the reporting obligations and the significant and negative impact of this compliance on maintaining his relationships and participating in the community. The statements universally describe a man who continues to show deep remorse for his actions. By way of example of this, his partner describes conflicting advice CP had received about requirements. Rather than risking an inadvertent breach she says they have chosen to limit contact with family members and others who have children. The statements also describe how this has led to CP's social withdrawal and isolation from positive community interactions. Whilst the onerous nature of reporting obligations are in place to address the risk to the community, CP's steps to ensure compliance whilst he remains subject to these obligations reflect the low risk he poses. In other words, his concern to not breach his obligations underscores his unlikeliness to reoffend. The statements are also testimony to a wide variety of interests and activities pursued by CP including philosophy, music, gardening and education that have themselves also led to enduring friendships.

1. As to the public interest question, satisfaction that the applicant poses a low risk is a matter of significant weight in the context of public interest.[3] However, public interest is a separate requirement.
2. There are three further matters of relevance to the public interest. First, there is a public interest in the acknowledgement of the 'exemplary conduct'[4] of CP in his rehabilitative efforts as this generally may encourage other registrable offenders to engage in similar behaviour. Second, I accept the Commissioner's submission that the limited resources of Victoria Police could be directed to monitoring registrable offenders who pose a higher risk. Finally, but importantly, the obligations are causing significant adverse impact on the life of the applicant and his partner. There is a public interest in supporting, rather than restricting, those who endeavour to form and maintain meaningful connections and make a positive contribution to their community.
3. For these reasons, I made orders that CP's reporting obligations as a registrable offender under the SORA are suspended for the remainder of his life.

[1] Affidavit of Paul Thomas Galbally sworn 15 December 2025.

[2] They are discussed in Re GH [2024] VSC 216.

[3] Re GH [2024] VSC 216 [82] and Re AJ (a pseudonym) [2024] VSC 769 [108].

[4] So described by the Chief Commissioner in his submissions filed 17 February 2026 at [19].