Subjective circumstances
14 In sentencing the applicant his Honour took into account the disability with which he had been born in August 1965 as a consequence of his mother having contracted Rubella during her pregnancy. This had left him with a condition of deafness and deficient literacy abilities, associated with the fact that, while he had been taught to lip-read, he had never learned sign language.
15 His Honour accepted that as a consequence he had not been able to form appropriate sexual and social relationships, particularly within the isolated community of Araluen where he lived. He was found to be emotionally and socially very immature, and to be more comfortable in the company of the young boys with whom he has mainly associated, and who shared his interest in trail bikes, model aeroplanes, computers and similar activities.
16 Additionally, it was established that he suffered from Crohn's Disease, a condition involving inflammation of the bowel which had necessitated a number of operations including an ileostomy in 1996. Although not diagnosed as suffering from any form of psychiatric illness, he had from time to time engaged in suicidal gestures and threats leading to admission to a psychiatric hospital on one occasion.
17 He was aged thirty-five years when he appeared for sentence. He had been educated to the age of fourteen years, was able to read and write and had considerable computer, electronic and mechanical aptitudes, particularly in relation to motor mechanics. He was in receipt of a disability pension which he supplemented by seasonal fruit picking and by the sale of vegetables which he grew himself. He was somewhat isolated from his parents although he maintained limited contact with them.
18 The material before his Honour left him satisfied that while his grandmother and other members of the local community had endeavoured to keep an eye on the applicant, and to ensure that he avoided the company of young boys, they had not been particularly successful in this regard.
19 Further, the material left his Honour satisfied that he had in the past declined to take responsibility for his offending, and had refused to move to Queanbeyan where he would have had access to appropriate services. However, his presence in such a larger community, it was recognised, might have increased his risk of re-offending.
20 The applicant's disabilities, his Honour recognised, meant that he would be "An extraordinarily vulnerable individual" within the prison system. It was for this reason that he had been held on strict protection since being taken into custody on 19 May 2000.
21 It was the case that he had a prior record of dishonesty, and of sexual offences involving young boys, which had been dealt with by recognisance, bonds and community service orders. One such bond was current at the time of the offence on the indictment, while a recognisance for an offence of sexual assault was current at the time of the offence in the form 1.
22 The further material placed before his Honour in July 2000 left him with the impression that there had been some progress and hope for the future, so far as the applicant had established a degree of rapport with a psychologist. On the other hand, it was the fact that two of the offences included in the s 51A document had occurred during this period of counselling. Furthermore, the pre-sentence report expressed continuing concerns of a serious kind which tended to cast a significant doubt upon the extent to which the applicant had developed any insight into his conduct and upon the question whether he had any favourable prospects of rehabilitation.
23 This report disclosed that in April 2000 the applicant had been barred from a refuge in Queanbeyan due to his aggressive and threatening behaviour. In May he had received fines totalling $1,600 in relation to a series of driving offences. He had also admitted to associating with boys in breach of his earlier bail conditions and he had become subject to an apprehended violence order following a complaint to the effect that he had been video taping them.
24 Ken Mayes, the unit leader of the Queanbeyan office of the Probation and Parole Service, advised that, by reason of strong local feeling, the applicant would be unable to return to Araluen. His report concluded:
"In relation to sentencing options, Mr Wisbey remains unsuitable for a community service order or periodic detention. It is considered that at present Mr Wisbey cannot be effectively supervised by this Service in the community. He has no suitable accommodation and his behaviour and attitude indicate that he is an unacceptable risk in the community. Consequently, and despite Mr Wisbey's disability, a custodial sentence appears appropriate. Such a sentence may serve to impress upon Mr Wisbey the seriousness and unacceptable nature of his behaviour and could encourage him to accept responsibility for his actions.