• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Representation: Counsel:
A R Sapienza (Plaintiff)
J Brock (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2026/00047307

Publication restriction: Pursuant to s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) and s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), publication of the name of the victims or any other matter that could identify the victims is prohibited.

JUDGMENT

1. The Attorney General for New South Wales, the plaintiff, seeks an order extending the defendant, Paul Delmege’s, status as a forensic patient pursuant to the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the Act”) for a period of three years.

2. The defendant appeared by his tutor and was represented by counsel. The defendant opposed the application to extend his status as a forensic patient.

3. Section 121 of the Act provides that on application, the court may make an order for the extension of a person’s status as a forensic patient. Pursuant to s 122 of the Act, the court can make an extension order if and only if the court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the forensic patient poses an unacceptable risk of causing serious harm to others if the patient ceases to be a forensic patient, and the risk cannot be adequately managed by other less restrictive means.

4. Those concepts and tests have been considered and explained by this Court in many decisions, and it is not necessary to repeat them at length. Both counsel referred me to the decision of Emmett J in Attorney General of New South Wales v AB (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWSC 79 and I gratefully draw from his Honour’s summary of the tests at paragraphs [26] – [31] of his judgment. “Unacceptable risk” is directed to the assessment of the risk in the context of making the community secure from harm as opposed to guaranteeing its safety and protection: Lynn v New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57. The assessment is by reference to the likelihood of the risk eventuating and the gravity of its potential consequences: Attorney General (NSW) v Randall (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 226 at [24]. “Serious harm” may be physical or psychological harm: Attorney General (NSW) v Kereopa (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 928 at [16]. Whether the risk can be adequately managed by a less restrictive means is to be judged by the legal power of others to control the defendant’s actions: Attorney General (NSW) v Doolan (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 107 at [96].

5. An application for an extension order may only be made in respect of a forensic patient if the forensic patient is subject to a limiting term or an existing extension order: s 124 of the Act. Mr Delmege was a forensic patient as defined in the Act when the plaintiff’s application was made because he was subject to an extension order made by this Court in May 2021, which expired on 4 May 2026. Mr Delmege is currently the subject of an interim extension order which commenced on 4 May 2026 and will expire on 3 August 2026. Mr Delmege accepted through his counsel that those threshold requirements have been met. Otherwise his position was that the evidence before the court does not establish the matters required by s 122 of the Act.

6. In determining whether to make an order or not, the court must have regard to the matters specified in s 127(2) of the Act. They are the safety of the community, reports from experts who examined the defendant, a report by an expert who assessed the risk of the defendant causing serious harm to others, relevant orders or decisions made by the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) about Mr Delmege, his compliance with any obligations to which he has been subject while a forensic patient, the views of the Court which imposed a limiting term or extension order, and any other information that is available as to the risk that the forensic patient will in future cause serious harm to others.

7. The court received reports from two experts appointed under s 126(5) of the Act, being Dr Marcelo Rodriguez, senior psychologist, and Dr Timothy Roach, forensic psychiatrist. Each of those experts provided a report and a supplementary report, the latter responding to specific questions asked of them. The court also received a report from Dr Carollyne Youssef, psychologist, provided pursuant to s 125(b). All of the experts were cross-examined in the hearing of the application.

8. Mr Delmege is 67 years old. He lives in supported independent living accommodation in Wangi, which was arranged by his NDIS provider. He has a guardianship order, in respect of accommodation and services, an NDIS plan, is subject to reviews by the Tribunal and is a registrable person under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW). He is engaged with the Community Safety Program (CSP), a division of Corrective Services. CSP reports were provided to the court in respect of this application. Counsel for Mr Delmege submitted that the court should place greater reliance on the CSP reports than the reports of Drs Roach, Rodriguez and Youssef. I will return to that submission later.

9. Mr Delmege experienced hypoxia at birth, resulting in an acquired brain injury, congenital bilateral deafness with severe to profound hearing loss and dysarthria. He has been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability which it appears he does not dispute. He does dispute a diagnosis of paedophilic disorder.

10. Mr Delmege’s history of sexual offending against children is as follows. In 2012 he was sentenced in respect of two counts of aggravated indecent assault committed in 1995. The victim, who was 10 or 11 years old, was a friend of one of his daughters who was staying at his home. The offending involved Mr Delmege rubbing the child’s vagina on two occasions. On appeal he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

11. In 2013 Mr Delmege was charged with two counts of committing an act of indecency, one with a person under 16 years and the other with a person 16 years or over. Those charges arose out of Mr Delmege masturbating on a train in front of two young girls aged 14 and 16. Those matters were dealt with pursuant to s 33 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW).

12. In October 2015 Ellis DCJ found Mr Delmege unfit to stand trial in respect of an offence of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 and indecent assault of a child. In March 2017 Ellis DCJ found that on the limited evidence available Mr Delmege had committed the two offences. His Honour imposed a limiting term of 5 years in respect of the sexual intercourse offence and a limiting term of 2 years in respect of the indecent assault offence. The total limiting term was 6 years from 10 February 2015 to 9 February 2021. The victim of those offences was Mr Delmege’s daughter, who was aged 7 at the time of the first offence of cunnilingus and 11 or 12 at the time of the second offence of touching her breast. The limiting term imposed by Ellis DCJ expired on 9 February 2021. On 8 February 2021 an interim extension order extending Mr Delmege’s status as a forensic patient for 3 months was made by this Court. On 5 May 2021 this Court made an order extending Mr Delmege’s status as a forensic patient for 5 years, commencing on 5 May 2021. In April this year this Court made an interim order extending Mr Delmege’s forensic patient status for 3 months from 4 May, expiring on 3 August 2026.

13. On 14 May 2021 the Mental Health Review Tribunal ordered Mr Delmege’s conditional release from Long Bay Correctional Complex. His conditions then included that he be accompanied in close proximity by support staff at all times in the community. Mr Delmege has been periodically reviewed by the Tribunal since 2021. In April 2025 the Tribunal ordered the removal of a condition prohibiting alcohol, to allow Mr Delmege to self-manage his alcohol abstinence. In October 2025 the Tribunal ordered the removal of a condition that Mr Delmege be accompanied in close proximity by support staff or his case manager at all times in the community unless engaging in independent community access planned activity. The Tribunal stated that the removal of the condition was to build on Mr Delmege’s self-management of risk and support the gradual stepping down of restrictions.

14. For the purpose of reviews by the Tribunal, CSP workers prepared reports about Mr Delmege. A report dated 30 September 2025 by Sinead Corcoran, described as Senior Clinical Consultant, recorded that CSP Case Managers met with Mr Delmege monthly at his place of residence and spoke to him by phone when needed. They also received reports from his service provider. Ms Corcoran noted that 19 incident reports of behaviours of concern (verbal aggression) directed at support staff at Mr Delmege’s accommodation had been received in the assessment period since the previous Tribunal hearing. Ms Corcoran noted that those incidents appeared to occur in the context of money disagreements and difficulties with Mr Delmege’s distress tolerance and expressive communication when frustrated. She expressed the opinion that those incidents did not have a direct association with Mr Delmege’s risk of sexual recidivism. She noted some conflict with staff until changes of staff reduced such incidents. Ms Corcoran expressed the opinion that those incident reports reflected Mr Delmege’s functional capacity associated with his cognitive impairment and speech impediment rather than criminogenic factors associated with reoffending. Ms Corcoran said “Overall, based on the information available, the CSP is not of the opinion that Mr Delmege is exhibiting behaviour indicators suggestive of gravitation towards risky situations associated with problematic sexualised behaviour relevant to the index offence.” [I note that Dr Roach disagreed with that opinion. I will deal with his opinions later]. Ms Corcoran stated that when interpreting Mr Delmege’s Static-99R risk rating it is important to consider time sexual offence free in the community as indicating a lower risk of sexual recidivism. The longer a person is sexual offence free after his release into the community, the lower is his risk of sexual recidivism.

15. In March 2026 a report was prepared for the Tribunal by James Wu described as “Team Leader Community Safety Program”. In his report Mr Wu referred to two events which were considered by the experts in their evidence. One was that Mr Delmege had purchased a motorbike, although did not pass his motorbike license test the first time, and another was when Mr Delmege became angry that another person in the house had put an unclean frying pan back into a cupboard. He yelled, slammed kitchen cupboards and utensils and damaged the frying pan by hitting it on a kitchen bench, although later agreed to pay for the damage to the pan. There were other reported incidents in Mr Wu’s report of Mr Delmege behaving in an agitated way, yelling and swearing in the shared accommodation. I note that since then Mr Delmege has moved into accommodation on his own. Mr Wu concluded that Mr Delmege was abstinent from alcohol and “Mr Delmege does not appear to exhibit behaviour indicators suggestive of increased risk of problematic sexualised behaviour relevant to the index offence.…the challenge for Mr Delmege concerns his ability to effectively navigate interpersonal conflict and distress with his immediate social environment. The incidents above demonstrate progress in this area.”

16. Dr Carollyne Youssef, clinical and forensic psychologist, prepared a risk assessment report dated 7 November 2025 in relation to Mr Delmege pursuant to s 125(b) of the Act. She also prepared a supplementary report dated 15 December 2025. Her expertise was not challenged. Dr Youssef had considered Mr Delmege’s history of sexual offending against children. She interviewed Mr Delmege on 17 October 2025.

17. In her report Dr Youssef stated that Mr Delmege told her he was attracted to younger women who are slim. She said “He said that he finds adolescents attractive, however understands that he cannot have sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16 years. When asked about a sexual interest in children, Mr Delmege indicated that he finds adolescent and prepubescent females attractive, however he knows it is illegal. …I clarified whether this … applied to prepubescent females and Mr Delmege said that if an eight-year-old ‘jumped on me*,* then what can you do’ saying that ‘if she wants me to, then I would do it’, referring to sex. I do note that Mr Delmege has previously report[ed] that he understands that if there are children present, ‘I wouldn*’*t be there’.”

18. In discussing his offences with Dr Youssef Mr Delmege acknowledged he committed the offence against his daughter, though emphasised she was not his biological daughter. He said his wife had “spiked” his alcoholic drink with methylamphetamine. He said, as he had previously said, that he committed that offence to “get back at his wife” who he believed had been unfaithful to him for a long time. He was described by Dr Youssef as lacking an appreciation or insight into the potential ramifications of the offence on his daughter. He denied the indecent assaults of his daughter’s friend, blaming another man with whom he said his ex-wife was then having an affair. He denied the conduct on the train, and blamed the girls for following him, sitting with their legs open to trap him and lying to get him in trouble. Dr Youssef referred to an incident when in December 2021 a support worker observed a photo of a nude young woman on Mr Delmege’s phone and he had said that she was not under age.

19. Dr Youssef noted that Mr Delmege had completed some programs in custody in respect of drugs and alcohol and sexual offending. She noted from the reports of his participation in the programs that he “struggled to articulate his treatment gains, other than the need to avoid using drugs and alcohol and avoid being alone with children”.

20. In estimating Mr Delmege’s risk using risk assessment tools, Dr Youssef stated “it is not scientifically possible to accurately predict whether a specific offender will or will not actually reoffend.” She noted that risk assessments for people with cognitive impairments present challenges and limitations. She said Mr Delmege’s score on the STATIC-99R placed him in the above average risk category relative to other male sexual offenders. She identified as clinically significant areas of concern for Mr Delmege, according to the STABLE-2007, “hostility towards women, negative emotionality and deviant sexual interest.”

21. Using the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol - Version 2 (RSVP-V2) Dr Youssef stated Mr Delmege’s offending history indicates a degree of chronicity, with offences occurring over an extended period from approximately 1989 to 2013 and involving multiple victims. This pattern is consistent with the RSVP Manual’s definition of “persistent offending”.

22. Dr Youssef said “It has long been known that an individual’s overall level of psychological adjustment is related to the risk of sexual offending. …Mr Delmege continues to significantly minimise or deny aspects of his offending behaviour. He demonstrates limited self-awareness and insight, with a general lack of introspection. Ongoing difficulties with stress management and coping are evident, although some improvement has been observed over time. I note that the CSP are of the opinion that Mr Delmege’s emotional dysregulation and interpersonal difficulties are not related to his risk. …These issues were considered highly relevant contributing factors in his past offending. With regards to attitudes supportive of sexual offending, Mr Delmege continues to endorse views that would allow him to sexually offend against a child without recognising the inappropriateness of this.”

23. Dr Youssef said “It appears likely that Mr Delmege has had deviant sexual interests in prepubescent females and would meet diagnostic criteria consistent with Paedophilic Disorder.” She noted his history of substance abuse was relevant to his risk but there was no current evidence of substance misuse. She noted that Mr Delmege attributed conflict in his marriage as precipitating his offence against his daughter. She noted that his historic living arrangements played a significant role in affording him access to victims and thereby facilitating his offending behaviour.

24. Dr Youssef said “With respect to sexual offending risk, the combined STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 score places Mr Delmege in the ‘Above Average’ risk category for sexual offending. The results of the RSVP-V2 indicate a moderate density of dynamic risk factors. According to the RSVP-V2, Mr Delmege has a ‘Moderate’ likelihood of sexual offending, assuming no special management plans are implemented, however with his current level of supervision, this would be ‘Low’. With regards to imminence of sexual offending, he would be considered ‘Moderate’ if no special management plans are implemented, however with his current level of support and supervision this would be ‘Low’. He has a ‘Moderate to High’ severity of sexual violence, if he were to reoffend, with no management plans in place. The case prioritisation rating suggests that Mr Delmege requires a ‘Moderate’ level of effort to effectively prevent sexual recidivism. Particularly salient dynamic risk factors identified for Mr Delmege include deficits in his general self-regulation; marked interpersonal and attachment deficits; deficits in his sexual self-regulation; and limitations in insight. In relation to protective factors, Mr Delmege’s strongest protective domains include having stability, a prosocial identity and most significantly, access to external supports.”

25. Dr Youssef said if Mr Delmege committed another contact sexual offence the victim is likely to be a prepubescent known female to whom he had access or another vulnerable female. Such an offence was likely to be opportunistic, although Mr Delmege may create opportunities to be alone with the victim. Dr Youssef said “The factors likely to increase Mr Delmege’s risk include limited self-awareness and insight, victim access, sexual gratification, difficulty managing anger and other emotions, cognitive distortions that enable his offending behaviour, a potential sexual interest in young girls, and substance abuse (both drugs and alcohol). Like most people who offend, Mr Delmege’s history does not suggest that he would offend at every opportunity.”

26. Dr Youssef said that from Mr Delmege’s description of his relationships as marked by emotional insecurity and conflict, it seemed likely that “as Mr Delmege felt insecure in his interactions with adults, he may have felt safer with children.”

27. Dr Youssef said “Mr Delmege’s offending behaviour, specifically the sexual abuse of his prepubescent daughter, her friend, and two teenagers in a public setting, appears to have been an attempt to fulfil unmet sexual needs, although his actions indicated disregard for appropriate boundaries. While Mr Delmege does not appear to have a specific sexual preference for prepubescent children, his actions suggest that he may have sought environments where rejection was minimal and his desires could be satisfied without challenge. His repeated offences do point to a likely sexual interest in children, albeit not exclusive. The lack of insight into the inappropriateness of his behaviour, as well as his failure to recognise the harm caused, is concerning. It is also noteworthy that Mr Delmege’s offending, in addition to deviant sexual interests, may have been driven by a combination of emotional dysregulation, substance use, and unresolved relational issues. His offending behaviour seems to be a maladaptive attempt to meet needs for sexual gratification and control, particularly in situations where he felt entitled to satisfy his needs without considering the appropriateness.”

28. Dr Youssef said that Mr Delmege’s cognitive impairments appear to impact his capacity for insight. She said “He exhibits little to no insight into the underlying causes of his offending, and he is unable to identify his risk factors or articulate the gains he has made through treatment. This lack of insight, coupled with his cognitive limitations, makes it unlikely that he will develop a comprehensive understanding of his offending behaviour without continued external controls. … Furthermore, while it is positive to see that Mr Delmege has not consumed any alcohol since his release, it remains unclear whether alcohol was a contributing factor to his sexual offending behaviour.”

29. Dr Youssef said “While Mr Delmege has not demonstrated a specific focus on children or actively sought to engage with them, the nature of his past offending and his lack of insight into appropriate behaviour suggest that he poses an ongoing risk to children, particularly in situations where supervision is minimal or absent. His belief that a child jumping on him would indicate sexual interest, without recognising the inherent inappropriateness of this belief, highlights the risk he poses in situations involving children. It is essential that Mr Delmege not be left unsupervised with children under any circumstances, as his ongoing inability to recognise inappropriate boundaries pose a significant risk. Additionally, Mr Delmege’s expressed interest in meeting his grandchildren presents a novel risk situation. Given his history of offending and the lack of clear insight into appropriate interactions with children, any potential contact with his grandchildren must be carefully supervised. While it is unlikely that he would pose a direct risk to unknown children, the potential for interaction with his grandchildren remains a concern …”.

30. Dr Youssef said that Mr Delmege meets the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder (non-exclusive, sexually attracted to females). She said paedophilia is considered a lifelong condition. She said it is unclear as to whether this condition is in remission given Mr Delmege has not been permitted to be around children. She said Mr Delmege does pose a risk of harm to others, which has the potential to be serious, if he ceases to be a forensic patient and is not subject to any other type of protective order. Dr Youssef recommended that Mr Delmege continue to have restricted access to children, with any contact occurring only under direct and continuous supervision by an appropriate adult or professional. She said her recommendation for the least restrictive form of management for Mr Delmege’s risk of harm to others is a continuation of his status as a forensic patient, with continued restricted access to children occurring only under direct and continuous supervision by approved adults. She said Mr Delmege made only marginal therapeutic gains from completing a sex offenders program in custody, is currently not engaged with any treatment provider to address his risk factors and is reticent to engage. She said his most robust protective factors lie in external factors including maintaining restrictions that prevent unsupervised contact with children. She said Mr Delmege’s continuation as a forensic patient will allow his risk of causing harm to others to be adequately managed.

31. Dr Youssef gave evidence and was cross-examined on 26 June 2026. She said that she had read the reports of Drs Roach and Rodriguez and they had not caused her to change her opinion about the risk posed by Mr Delmege and the need for an extension order.

32. In cross-examination Dr Youssef was asked to consider a report by Dr Jeremy O’Dea, forensic psychiatrist, dated August 2020, in which Dr O’Dea said “Mr Delmege’s sex offending behaviours in particular are likely to be best understood in the context of his overall sex drive and general sexual deviance, rather than a specific paraphilic disorder; with associated disinhibition in the context of his substance abuse, in particular his alcohol abuse; and in the context of his limited intellectual functioning and his personality.” She said that was a plausible differential hypothesis, though she said that she diagnosed paedophilic disorder based on the recurrence of the offending behaviour.

33. Dr Youssef said that in discussing Mr Delmege’s sexuality with him she paid a lot of attention to what he was saying and ensured that he understood. In respect of his talking about sexual activity with an eight year old, she said she specifically used the word “sex” and she asked it many different ways to ensure that she understood and he understood. She particularly clarified “eight year old” as differentiated from 18 year olds, to make sure that she was not misunderstanding. She said when Mr Delmege said “if an eight year old girl jumps on him what can he do”, he “sort of shrugged”. When asked could there be a potential communication issue and that when he asked a question, “jump on me, what do I do?” he was potentially trying to seek clarification from her, she said “I suppose that’s possible, yes”.

34. In re-examination Dr Youssef said that in her assessment of Mr Delmege she formed the view he was able to understand her questions and she understood his responses. She confirmed that in the exchange about eight year olds who want to have sex she remembered him shrugging and her understanding was if a child were to jump on him and want to engage in sexual activity “what can I do” was not a question to her; she understood it to mean it would happen. She said Mr Delmege understood he should not be alone with a child, but he did not understand the nuance behind why that was and he was not able to generalise that self-management if there was an incidental exposure to a child. She said he does not understand that children cannot consent to have sex, so even if it looks like they want to consent they cannot actually consent. She said his absence of offending since being released she attributed to external controls and supports, primarily the CSP staff who were checking in with him regularly. She maintained her diagnosis of paedophilic disorder. She maintained that he poses a risk of serious harm to others if he ceases to be the subject of a forensic patient order.

35. Dr Youssef was an impressive witness whose opinions were maintained in her evidence and were acceptable.

36. Dr Timothy Roach, consultant forensic psychiatrist, was one of the court appointed experts. His expertise was not challenged. He assessed Mr Delmege at his home over 192 minutes, initially with a support worker present, but then Mr Delmege asked the support worker to leave.

37. In his report of 1 June 2026 Dr Roach said the following in summary. In the assessment Mr Delmege repeated that his former wife had put what he believed to be methylamphetamine in his drink after which he performed oral sex on the victim. He minimised its impact on his daughter. He told Dr Roach he had seen his daughter approximately one month before the assessment at a shopping centre, which he had not otherwise reported. As he had reported to Dr Youssef, Mr Delmege told Dr Roach that he did not offend against his daughter’s friend but that a person named Ian with whom his wife was having an affair had committed that offending. Mr Delmege also denied the offending on the train, even though it was raised with him that it had been captured on CCTV footage.

38. Dr Roach said that Mr Delmege denied ever having been sexually attracted to children, but when asked later in the assessment about the “most sexually arousing age” Mr Delmege indicated 15 years.

39. Dr Roach said “when asked whether he would engage in sexual activity with children if all restrictions were removed, he indicated that he could not, stating that it was ‘illegal’. On further questioning he stated that such activity could be ‘fine’ but that it would also affect a child later in life. He appeared to have a negative view of women, stating that most women lie and cannot be trusted.”

40. Dr Roach noted the reported incident in December 2021 of support staff observing an image of a nude female on Mr Delmege’s mobile phone, whom the worker thought was about 14, maybe 16, or 18 at most, and when the issue was raised with Mr Delmege he stated “she is not underage” and “I didn’t put it there”.

41. Dr Roach said “Dr Delmege has a history of sexual offending against children, with the youngest victim aged approximately seven years old. At times throughout the assessment, he provided an inconsistent account with respect to his psychosexual history. For instance, he denied ever having been sexually attracted to children but later in the assessment when asked about the most sexually arousing age, Mr Delmege indicated an age of 15 years. It is important to note that a diagnosis of paedophilic disorder can be made in individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubertal children (generally aged 13 years or younger) when there is substantial objective evidence to the contrary. I note there is recurrent sexual offending behaviour involving children aged 13 years and younger. I also note that at a recent assessment in October 2025 that he stated that he would have sex with an eight-year-old female (“if she wants me to *[*have sex] then I would do it”). On balance, taking into account all the information available to me, and noting that at assessment Mr Delmege did disclose at one point that he found children sexually arousing, Mr Delmege meets criteria for paedophilic disorder. I note this diagnosis has previously been established by other clinicians.”

42. Dr Roach also noted Mr Delmege had a history of frequent hazardous cannabis use and a history of problematic, hazardous, excessive and frequent alcohol use that had likely contributed to offending behaviour and interpersonal difficulties. I interpolate that there were other matters on Mr Delmege’s criminal record other than his sexual offending against children, to which I have not previously referred. They included breaches of apprehended violence orders and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Dr Roach noted Mr Delmege’s statement that he last consumed alcohol in 2013.

43. Dr Roach said he took steps during the assessment, including repeating or rephrasing questions, and asking Mr Delmege to repeat his answers and confirming responses by follow-up questioning, to deal with Mr Delmege’s communication difficulties.

44. Dr Roach said Mr Delmege meets diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder. He said paedophilia is considered a lifelong condition, but paedophilic disorder requires other criteria such as an individual acting on their sexual interest in children for a diagnosis to be made. He said the course and severity of paedophilic disorder can fluctuate over time with and without treatment. He said it is difficult to ascertain if Mr Delmege’s diagnosis of paedophilic disorder is in remission given that some details of his psychosexual history were inconsistent with other information.

45. Dr Roach said the likelihood of a relapse of a substance use disorder generally decreases progressively as the duration of remission increases.

46. Dr Roach said in his opinion Mr Delmege’s cognitive impairment is permanent and more likely to worsen than improve in the future.

47. Dr Roach said the presence of paedophilic disorder greatly increases Mr Delmege’s risk of committing a sexual offence against children and causing serious harm to children. He said the presence of an alcohol use disorder and cannabis use disorder significantly increase Mr Delmege’s risk of causing serious harm and reoffending. Dr Roach said in his opinion Mr Delmege poses a risk of causing serious harm to others if he ceases to be a forensic patient. In his opinion the most clinically significant serious harms include harms related to sexual offending against children and harms related to violence; his risk of sexual harm towards children is his most significant risk.

48. Dr Roach said Mr Delmege showed limited insight into his offending behaviour and the need for ongoing supervision and treatment. Dr Roach denied several offences and indicated he would not want to see a psychologist. He said if Mr Delmege was to use substances and lose social supports providing supervision then his opinion was that his risk of future sexual violence would increase.

49. Dr Roach said taking into account Mr Delmege’s scores on assessments and also taking into account his supervision as a forensic patient, he was of the view that Mr Delmege’s risk of further sexual offending likely falls within the average to above average range.

50. Dr Roach said if Mr Delmege “continues to be subject to a forensic patient order, then I am of the view that he still would pose a risk of serious harm to others, and a similar nature of risk. However, the likelihood of serious harm occurring would likely be less owing to the conditions and restrictions that a forensic order can provide as well as the overall scaffold of supports that have been arranged … under the forensic patient order (that may have not otherwise been arranged if the order was not in place)”. Dr Roach said Mr Delmege requires ongoing care, management and supervision to effectively mitigate the risk of sexual reoffending. Dr Roach said in his opinion an extension of Mr Delmege’s status as a forensic patient is the least restrictive form of safe and effective care, having considered his overall risk profile and what other forms of management may be reasonably available to him in the community. He said in his view, removal of Mr Delmege’s status as a forensic patient would increase his risk of reoffending, particularly considering his level of insight, lack of engagement in treatment, possible recent breach of a non-association condition [in respect of his daughter] and his historical reluctance to engage with supports and wanting to live independently.

51. Dr Roach said that a financial management order under a guardianship order would be inadequate to sufficiently manage Mr Delmege’s risk profile, as would NDIS services and supports which are not targeted at reducing the risk of future offending. He said nor are reporting obligations under the C**hild P**rotection (Offenders R**egistration) A**ct 2000 (NSW) sufficient to manage the risk posed by Mr Delmege, since the registration scheme is primarily a system of reporting and enforcement rather than one of active supervision, treatment or risk management. He said that scheme does not provide frequent oversight of behaviour and is largely a reactive rather than proactive approach to mitigating risk. Dr Roach said an extension of Mr Delmege’s status as a forensic patient is the least restrictive form of safe and effective care and the other proposed alternative means are not sufficient, alone or in combination, to manage his risk profile.

52. Dr Roach said Mr Delmege’s cognitive deficits affect his insight and his paedophilic disorder increases his risk of causing serious harm to children. Both conditions are chronic, Mr Delmege is not engaging in any psychological treatment and many risk factors have not changed considerably since 2021, such as poor insight and lack of targeted intervention or treatment. Dr Roach recommended an extension order of three to five years duration as appropriate.

53. Dr Roach gave evidence and was cross-examined on 25 June 2026. He impressed as a good witness. He said that having read Dr Rodriguez’s reports of May and June 2026 he had not changed his opinions as to the risk posed by Mr Delmege or the appropriate length of an extension order. Dr Roach did not agree with Dr Youssef’s hypothesis of a clear nexus or link between Mr Delmege’s past relationships contributing to his feeling insecure with adults and feeling safe with children.

54. About Mr Delmege’s first offence against his daughter Dr Roach noted a history of Mr Delmege telling police he committed the offence to get back at his wife and he had said he was intoxicated at the time, but he said it was unclear whether Mr Delmege was intoxicated at that time. When asked whether Mr Delmege’s insecurity in his adult sexual relationship, his history of substance abuse, his account of being intoxicated and his limits in cognitive ability, raised a possibility that his first offence against his daughter could have been primarily driven by something other than a recurrent intense sexual urge towards a child under 13, he said “I don’t think that’s likely, it is possible”. Dr Roach said he did not place any weight on the period of 18 years between Mr Delmege’s 1995 offences and the 2013 offences with respect to the diagnosis of paedophilia.

55. Dr Roach said that Mr Delmege’s behaviour was not better explained by his cognitive impairments, or an alcohol use disorder; that the diagnosis of paedophilic disorder best explained his sexual offending.

56. He said Dr O’Dea’s position [set out at paragraph [32] above] was a “possible psychiatric formulation”, but he reached a different position.

57. When taken to the opinion of the CSP [in Ms Corcoran’s report of September 2025] that they were not of the opinion that Mr Delmege was exhibiting behaviours indicative of problematic sexualised behaviour, Dr Roach said he somewhat disagreed with their opinion. He said the CSP team were of the view that incidents of emotional dysregulation were separate from and did not contribute to Mr Delmege’s increased sexual risk, but he was of the view that that was not an accurate psychiatric formulation. He said in his view Mr Delmege has issues with impulse control and emotion dysregulation. He said Mr Delmege meets criteria for paedophilic disorder and that increases his risk of further sexual offending, but the explanation of his offending was more nuanced and complicated, and his first offence against his daughter could suggest a nexus between emotional dysregulation, anger and sexual offending, as Mr Delmege had reported in respect of that offence.

58. Dr Roach said that when Mr Delmege said he found 15 to be the most sexually attractive age, he confirmed that with Mr Delmege.

59. Dr Roach said he was very careful in obtaining a psychosexual history from Mr Delmege, but there were inconsistencies in information provided by him and he was a poor historian in many respects.

60. Dr Roach said that Mr Delmege’s psychosexual history was wholly inconsistent and it is common for people with paedophilic disorder to be guarded and not disclose urges and fantasies, so the fact that Mr Delmege did not disclose such at the assessment was not something which Dr Roach put a lot of weight on. He said Mr Delmege’s criminal history is very strongly suggestive of recurrent sexual behaviour. Because of the inconsistent history it was very unclear if Mr Delmege was in remission. He said the image of a nude female on Mr Delmege’s mobile phone, observed by support staff in December 2021, could be some evidence to suggest that there were ongoing sexual urges and fantasies. He said Mr Delmege’s history is concerning and did not give him confidence that Mr Delmege is in remission.

61. Dr Roach said prison time can be both protective and a risk factor for future sexual violence; someone spending time in prison does not necessarily mean they will not reoffend, or that it will reduce the risk of reoffending. He agreed that at his assessment Mr Delmege said he did not want to return to prison. He said because of Mr Delmege’s cognitive deficits specific deterrence would not work.

62. Dr Roach said that Mr Delmege’s emotional dysregulation was illustrated by an incident when he discovered a dirty frying pan in a cupboard and he shouted, banged the frying pan on a kitchen bench and damaged the frying pan, and raised the frying pan in a manner suggestive of intending to strike a staff member. He said that indicated poor impulse control and limited adaptive coping strategies. Dr Roach considered that a significant incident because Mr Delmege was not able to identify any concrete or practical skills on how to emotionally regulate when stressors occur.

63. In re-examination Dr Roach said that in his assessment Mr Delmege understood his questions and he understood Mr Delmege’s version of events. He remained of the view that Mr Delmege has paedophilic disorder. He attributed the fact that Mr Delmege had not offended since his release to his forensic status, including supported accommodation, and his lengthy abstinence from using substances.

64. Dr Marcelo Rodriguez, senior psychologist, was the second court appointed expert. His expertise was not challenged, although when he gave evidence his credibility was challenged. He prepared a report dated 21 May 2026, having assessed Mr Delmege on 14 May 2026. He noted in his report that he had previously assessed Mr Delmege in March 2021 and provided a report dated 29 March 2021.

65. During the assessment Dr Rodriguez stated that Mr Delmege “reported recently purchasing a 2015 Harley Davidson motorbike for $12,000, despite not possessing a motorcycle licence and being unable to ride it. This acquisition appears to have been made impulsively and without consideration for his current circumstances, reflecting ongoing deficits in judgment, foresight, and impulse control associated with his intellectual and neurocognitive impairments.”

66. To Dr Rodriguez Mr Delmege denied all his offences, including the first offence against his daughter, and again said that his wife put drugs in his drink.

67. Dr Rodriguez said Mr Delmege provided a simple and vague plan not to offend sexually against young females by staying away from them because it is illegal.

68. Dr Rodriguez said that Mr Delmege met the criteria for paedophilic disorder, non-exclusive type. He said “This condition is considered permanent and may relapse if certain conditions are present, such as opportunities arising when unsupervised in the company of female children.” He said Mr Delmege’s mild intellectual disability, mild neurocognitive disorder and paedophilic disorder each contribute to an elevated risk profile for causing serious harm to others. He said his mild intellectual disability and cognitive impairments significantly reduce his capacity for appropriate judgment, impulse control and understanding of social boundaries, increasing his vulnerability to engaging in inappropriate or harmful behaviour, particularly in the absence of close supervision. He said his diagnosis of paedophilic disorder is a chronic and relapsing condition, particularly if environmental risk factors are present, such as unsupervised access to female children.

69. He said Mr Delmege’s age does not constitute a significant protective factor in his case, given the chronic nature of his condition and the presence of ongoing cognitive and functional impairments. He said his history of alcohol use disorder, although currently in remission, remains a relevant risk factor. Relapse into alcohol misuse could further compromise his judgment and impulse control, thereby increasing his risk of reoffending. He said in summary those conditions, particularly in combination, place Mr Delmege at significantly elevated risk of causing serious harm to others and/or reoffending especially in situations where supervision is inadequate. He said ongoing structured support and monitoring are essential to mitigate the risk. His behaviour is modifiable by supported care, placement and strict supervision. He said there are serious concerns that Mr Delmege could commit another sexual offence if provided with an opportunity. He said the nature of the serious harm Mr Delmege poses is primarily sexual in nature, specifically involving sexual violence and the exploitation of children. He said the risk is driven by a chronic paraphilic disorder and exacerbated by intellectual and neurocognitive impairments that limit Mr Delmege’s capacity for impulse control, social judgment and the internalisation of victim impact.

70. Dr Rodriguez said that Mr Delmege’s history of sexual violence is long-standing and diverse, with sexual offences against intra-familial and extra-familial victims. He said Mr Delmege’s offending history demonstrates emotional congruence with children and indicates persistent paraphilic interests.

71. Dr Rodriguez said Mr Delmege has demonstrated impaired impulse control, evident from his offending history and his “impulsive” purchase of a motorbike. He said his offending history and diagnosis of paedophilic disorder indicate persistent sexual preoccupation and paraphilic interests. He demonstrates poor insight and denial of offending, with limited engagement in offender-specific interventions. He has multiple elevated dynamic risk factors which indicate a high risk of sexual recidivism in the absence of structured supervision and support.

72. Dr Rodriguez said Mr Delmege is assessed as presenting a high risk of future sexual violence if current supervision and environmental controls are relaxed or removed. His risk of serious harm is significantly increased if Mr Delmege is provided unsupervised access to female minors, as structured supervision is a critical protective factor. Placement in supported housing with staff oversight prevents unsupervised access to children. Maintenance of sobriety eliminates a major destabilising factor that could impair judgment and increase risk. The risk of serious harm is substantially reduced when Mr Delmege is subject to structured supervision.

73. Dr Rodriguez said if Mr Delmege remains subject to a forensic patient order with supervision, monitoring and environmental controls, the risk of serious harm to others is significantly reduced. His underlying risk factors of chronic paraphilic disorder, intellectual and neurocognitive impairment and poor social functioning persist, and he would continue to pose a risk of serious harm if supervision were relaxed or removed.

74. Dr Rodriguez said a guardianship order is not sufficient alone to manage risk as it does not guarantee intensive supervision or prevent unsupervised access to vulnerable persons. He said NDIS support alone may not provide the legal authority for compulsory supervision or enforcement of risk management strategies. He said a combination of a guardianship order, NDIS supports and registration under the Child P**rotection A**ct could provide a less restrictive alternative to forensic patient management, but the effectiveness of that approach depends on the intensity and integration of supervision, the enforceability of restrictions and the capacity for immediate intervention if risk escalates. He said intensive supervision remains essential. Dr Rodriguez recommended a five year extension of Mr Delmege’s forensic patient status, based on his conditions being permanent and not amenable to short-term intervention or treatment and his risk of sexual offending remaining high in the absence of intensive structured supervision. He said Mr Delmege is entirely dependent on external controls, such as supervised accommodation, strict contact restrictions and multidisciplinary oversight to manage his risk. He lacks insight into his offending and does not have the cognitive capacity to benefit from traditional therapeutic interventions or develop internal strategies for risk management.

75. Dr Rodriguez gave evidence by audiovisual link from South America. There were technical difficulties in Dr Rodriguez establishing a link with the court, which took about an hour. He said it was late at night where he was, around midnight, as he was finishing. He did not have a printer to print the voluminous documents he was asked to refer to. He was cross-examined in a combative fashion and responded in a similar manner.

76. Dr Rodriguez had assessed Mr Delmege and prepared a report in 2021, for the previous application for an order in respect of Mr Delmege. He said that in preparing his 2026 report he did not draw on his 2021 report. He was taken to parts of his 2021 report and 2026 report which were identical, and accepted that he may have incorporated parts of his 2021 report in his 2026 report. He agreed there was a risk of confirmation bias in his 2026 report and he did not take any steps to guard against it. He maintained that Mr Delmege’s risk remained because his paedophilic disorder was not going to change and nor was his intellectual disability.

77. He was challenged about his opinion that Mr Delmege’s buying of a motorbike demonstrated impulsivity. He was referred to reports by the CSP team and his NDIS support workers that Mr Delmege had worked towards achieving his identified goal of purchasing a motorbike. He maintained that Mr Delmege was impulsive and his purchase of the motorbike was impulsive. He said it was an impulsive choice given Mr Delmege’s cognitive limitations and his general problems with rule adherence.

78. He said that someone with a paedophilic disorder continues to be a risk to children despite having been to prison. He said in terms of paedophilic disorder people can reoffend after many years, after being in prison and after being under supervision and strict conditions. He said if Mr Delmege was given enough time in the community and access to or opportunity with a child there is a high probability he could offend against a child. He said Mr Delmege continues to have some risk factors that are not going to change with time, but under supervision and oversight the risk can be attenuated.

79. In re-examination Dr Rodriguez said that because of his cognitive limitations Mr Delmege has poor inhibitory control, the clinical significance of which is that he could reoffend.

80. The conflict between counsel and Dr Rodriguez, and that he had drawn on his 2021 report for parts of his 2026 report may have been significant if his was the only opinion sought to be relied on by the plaintiff. However his opinions were consistent with those of Dr Roach and Dr Youssef and therefore can be relied upon.

The plaintiff’s submissions

81. Counsel for the plaintiff made the following submissions. Each of the experts has assessed Mr Delmege as posing a risk of causing serious harm by sexual offending against children. Parliament, by the statutory scheme, requires qualified experts to be appointed to provide reports to the court on the risk of serious harm. Therefore the court should give more weight to the reports of the experts than those involved in Mr Delmege’s treatment, such as the CSP workers, because their reports to the Tribunal were prepared for a different purpose and they were seemingly unaware of Mr Delmege’s comment to Dr Youssef about a continued sexual attraction to children.

82. The gravity of the harm that could result from sexual offending against children makes the risk unacceptable.

83. All of the experts said the absence of offending by Mr Delmege since his being released is due to the supervision and structured support he receives as a forensic patient, the conditions of which minimise his opportunities for offending. The means of managing the risk posed by Mr Delmege identified by the experts is if he is subject to supervision as a forensic patient. That is the least restrictive means of managing the risk.

84. While Mr Delmege’s offending last occurred years ago, he recently expressed views to Dr Youssef and Dr Roach that demonstrate a continued interest in sexual contact with children. Both of the doctors were of the view that they and Mr Delmege understood each other when those comments were made.

85. All three experts said that Mr Delmege meets the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder, which is chronic. His impulsivity, emotional dysregulation and resort to violence are considered to contribute to his risk of sexual reoffending. His intellectual disability significantly impairs his judgment and impulse control. He lacks insight and does not take responsibility for his offending. He is resistant to treatment. Therefore he needs structured supervision and controls to manage his risk.

86. His other service providers, such as NDIS support workers, lack the powers to compel his supervision or enforce risk management strategies. It is not the role of the Public Guardian to do such. Reporting under the child protection legislation is not adequate to manage his risk.

87. The plaintiff raised a concern that Mr Delmege saw his daughter at a shopping centre and thought it was a breach of his order but did not report it to his CSP workers. It only came to light when he told Dr Roach about it. The plaintiff submitted that while Mr Delmege relies on his assertion that his sexual offending against children was a way to “get back” at his wife, and was affected by substance abuse, an attitude that sexually offending against children was a way of dealing with his relationship with his wife still poses an unacceptable risk of causing serious harm.

Defendant’s submissions

88. Counsel for Mr Delmege made the following submissions. The evidence adduced is deficient in meeting the demanding standard of proof which the plaintiff must meet. Mr Delmege’s risk is acceptable, especially when he still has oversight by the Public Guardian, his NDIS provider and continuing obligations under the Child Protection Register. Mr Delmege’s actual conduct is the basis to assess his risk. His most serious sexual offending occurred over 30 years ago. The last alleged sexual offending occurred 13 years ago. His most serious offending occurred when he was a parent and had opportunity which was also affected by substance abuse and turmoil in his adult relationship. He received significant punishment for that conduct, and since then there is no credible evidence of his being prepared to act on any deviant sexual interest. He has acted positively in remaining abstinent from alcohol and cannabis and not offended since he was released.

89. The reported representations by Mr Delmege about his sexual interests and insight into his offending must be considered unreliable in light of his communication difficulties, but he is aware such conduct would lead him to gaol and that has had a deterrent effect.

90. The experts’ opinions that Mr Delmege’s risk is currently reduced because he is supervised as a forensic patient mistake correlation for cause.

91. His offences should not assume paedophilia; the offences between 1987 and 1995 occurred in a context of an insecure relationship and substance abuse. The diagnosis of paedophilic disorder must be questioned. If Mr Delmege offended to spite his partner and not from sexual urges that is significant because paedophilic disorders are regarded as untreatable.

92. Mr Delmege relies heavily on the reports of his CSP workers who have closely observed him for five years. Their observations over that time diminish the value of the experts’ reports. His alcohol abstinence over that five year period and his saving up to buy his motorbike show he is capable of managing impulsivity.

93. Mr Delmege took issue with Dr Roach’s opinion that he would not be responsive to specific deterrence, submitting that his alcohol abstinence is an illustration of such a response. He submitted that Dr Roach’s dismissal of the CSP reports was infected by confirmation bias. He submitted each expert ignored the significance of his gaol term, which had a specific deterrent effect, and that devalues their opinions.

94. The order sought is a significant intrusion on the liberty of a person.

Consideration

95. Mr Delmege sought to explain his offending against children as the result of alcohol misuse and his relationship with his wife. He gave that explanation for the first offence against his daughter. His offending was not limited to his daughter.

96. The reports from Mr Delmege’s CSP workers Ms Corcoran and Mr Wu were favourable. However his disclosures to both Dr Youssef and Dr Roach of his current attitudes to sexual contact with children were significant. I accept that each of those doctors was careful to ensure that they and Mr Delmege did not misunderstand each other when those parts of the conversations occurred.

97. Two such disclosures to careful expert doctors are significantly adverse on the issue of Mr Delmege’s risk of causing serious harm to children, despite the positive observations of his CSP workers.

98. One likely explanation for Mr Delmege not having offended sexually against children since 2013 is that he was initially in gaol, and presumably there incapacitated from contact with children, and thereafter he has been supervised and his conduct restricted under the forensic patient order.

99. I do place weight on the opinions of the experts, which are consistent and reasoned. From the expert opinions I am satisfied of the following. Mr Delmege has been diagnosed with a paedophilic disorder and has recently expressed interest to two doctors in sexual activity with children. He needs to be supervised when in the company of children. His absence of offending is attributable to the external controls and support which have been in place. Structured supervision as a forensic patient is a factor in his recent lack of offending and substantially reduces his risk of serious harm. Continuing supervision as a forensic patient will reduce the likelihood of serious harm occurring to children. Mr Delmege’s paedophilic disorder combined with his cognitive deficits increase his risk of causing serious harm to children, the latter by impairing his judgment and impulse control. Both conditions are chronic. Mr Delmege is not engaging in any psychological treatment. He lacks insight into his offending and does not take responsibility for his offending. He would continue to pose a high risk of serious harm to children if his supervision was relaxed or removed.

100. In terms of less restrictive means to manage Mr Delmege’s risk, his other service providers lack power to compel his supervision. I note that “the role of a NDIS provider is not to enforce compliance with a lawful order”: “The Justice System and Lawful Orders: A guide for supporting people with disability”, November 2025, extracted in the affidavit of Joanna Kwan of 16 June 2026. Nor is that the role of the Public Guardian in providing services to Mr Delmege. Nor does the regime under the Child Protection Register provide sufficient scrutiny of behaviour, although that regime has on some occasions detected offending conduct which has been brought before the courts.

101. Based on the expert opinions which I accept and the other evidence before me I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Delmege poses an unacceptable risk of causing serious harm to others if he ceases to be a forensic patient and that the risk cannot be adequately managed by other less restrictive means than an extension of his status as a forensic patient.

102. As to the duration of the order, accepting the evidence of the experts about the chronic nature of Mr Delmege’s paedophilic disorder and the combined effect of his intellectual disability, and his recent expressions of interest in sexual activity with children, the term of the order will be three years.

103. Therefore I make the following orders:

104. Pursuant to ss 121, 127 and 128 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act*,* Paul Delmege’s status as a forensic patient is extended for 3 years from the date of this order, 30 July 2026, and expires on 29 July 2029.

105. The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the above order.

**********

Amendments

30 July 2026

Typographical error

30 July 2026

Typographical error