He tendered a psychological report from Mr Luke Hatzipetrou who interviewed the applicant on 11, 16 and 24 May 2006. The psychological assessments undertaken indicated that the applicant had a low IQ and significant deficits in communication, functional academics, social skills, self-direction and leisure. He met the criteria for the diagnosis of intellectual disability. He had partial insight into the seriousness of his actions but his judgment and reasoning were impaired. He presented as a socially naïve and immature young man who was co-operative in the interviews. He showed symptoms of high anxiety, stress and depression. He was confused as to his sexual orientation. He had suffered symptoms of social anxiety and panic attacks. He had considered perpetrating similar acts upon his then 16 year old sister but decided instead to victimise his young niece because he thought she would be more compliant. Because of his intellectual impairment he had a poor understanding of the nature and consequences of his acts and the impact of them. He recognised, however, that his actions were wrong and he felt guilt and heightened anxiety about them. He had significantly impaired understanding of relationship boundaries, adult responsibilities and the importance of trust and feelings of safety within family relationships. He had a history of special school education and childhood developmental delay associated with his intellectual disability. His parents separated and divorced when he was a teenager and he had a tenuous relationship with his stepfather. These relationship problems stemming from adolescence were exacerbated by his social skills impairments, social anxiety and low self-esteem. He appeared to be functioning in the mentally deficient borderline range of intelligence at the bottom fourth percentile in the community. He has however been able to sustain semi-skilled employment with the assistance of an employment agency. His actions were disturbing and reflected behaviours and attitudes consistent with a disorder of sexual depravity in the context of an intellectually impaired man. His capacity to understand the consequences of his actions at the time of the offences was likely to be significantly impaired. He had several cognitive distortions and a pattern of arousal consistent with paedophilia. His treatment of his sexually deviant behaviour is a priority. He should actively participate in the Sexual Offenders' Intervention Programme offered by Corrective Services, but is unlikely to benefit from a model of treatment for non-intellectually impaired sexual offenders. The treatment he requires is not available within Corrective Services, but is available from mental health service providers with expertise in the treatment of intellectually disabled sexual offenders. Mr Hatzipetrou recommended a comprehensive psychiatric review by a forensic psychiatrist. He considered the applicant also required support to form functional peer relationships and assistance on basic sex education. He noted the applicant appeared motivated to address his deviant behaviours and to develop strategies to reduce the risk of recidivism. He was likely to have employment and had the support of members of his family. Mr Hatzipetrou concluded that these factors, combined with his remorse and guilt, reduced the applicant's risk of reoffending, but noted that he will require regular supervision and support whilst participating in rehabilitation programmes.