He was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. It is not clear that he satisfies diagnostic criteria for this disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Even if he did not satisfy the mental diagnosis, given that the diagnostic criteria involve offending, the diagnosis is made in large proportions of those incarcerated. I am unclear how such a diagnosis would be of relevance to his sentence.
He was diagnosed with paedophilia. Once more, to my mind he does not meet the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia, as set out in DSM-IV-TR. The diagnosis is not made out simply by repeated offending against minors, but requires substantial sexual ideational preoccupation with minors, which is not clearly present. In [the applicant's] case, offences against minors are also mixed with a range of adult sexual relationships. He does not to my mind demonstrate a compelling sexual attraction to minors, but rather a mixture of poor judgment, cognitive deficits and limited assertiveness.
I should add that although deviant sexual arousal such as paedophilia is significantly associated with reoffending, the issue of controlling deviant arousal is always addressed in offender treatment, whether paedophilia is evident or not.
[The applicant] impresses as low functioning. He does not clearly have an intellectual disability, but has limited literacy and employment skills, and his language and demeanour suggest that he is of borderline intellect. I think this is relevant because (by his account) the offences of animal cruelty and the current conviction all occurred in concert, and the impression is that [the applicant] was not the instigator, but he engaged in all of these offences through a combination of poor judgment, gormlessness and stupidity.
[The applicant's] offences were appalling, but in light of your request that I review his psychiatric assessment for appeal, I hold the opinion that his apparent intellectual dullness may not have been appreciated at sentencing. I note that the sentencing comments reflected that [the mother and GG] had intellectual deficits, although these were not noted in the case of [the applicant]. The nature of the offending in concert suggests that all parties were grossly impaired in their appreciation of social and sexual norms, although should have appreciated that their actions were wrong. This may be understood, although not in any way condoned, by reference to the offenders' family backgrounds of abuse and intergenerational sex.