(c) psychological and psychosocial variables which cast light upon the risk of sexual recidivism.
26 Dr Lennings has interviewed the Defendant and has reviewed a significant amount of documentation. He has expressed the view that the overall risk rating with respect to the Defendant was moderately high. Using the statistical basis in STATIC 99 alone, Dr Lennings said the Defendant is "less likely to commit another sexual offence then he is more likely to". However, subjective factors of the assessment indicate, accordingly to Dr Lennings, that the Defendant may belong to the one-third of offenders who are more likely to re-offend, by reference to the dynamic variables and psychological and psychosocial variables which have contributed significantly to Dr Lennings' opinion about the risk of the Defendant re-offending.
27 Dr Lennings considered dynamic risk factors identified in the Risk of Sexual Violence 20 ("RSV-20") and identified a range of factors. Firstly, sexual deviance, which Dr Lennings noted is one of the two most predictive factors of sexual re-offending. This factor weighed heavily, in Dr Lennings' opinion, towards the risk of re-offending by the Defendant.
28 A further factor which is significant to the RSV-20 dynamic risk assessment was the Defendant's relationship problems. This Defendant has never had an intimate relationship with an adult and seeks to meet his intimacy needs with children.
29 Other factors which operated adversely to the Defendant on the RSV-20 dynamic risk assessment were the high density of his sexual offending, the significant number of victims involved, his persistent abuse over a period of some 26 years, what Dr Lennings described as the escalation of his sex offences, the Defendant's attitude of condoning sex offending, and the Defendant minimising his offending (in particular, persisting in viewing his behaviour towards children as that of friendship rather than exploitation).
30 Dr Lennings referred (as did the author of at least one other report) to what was said to be the Defendant's unrealistic future plans, whereby he proposes to live in a rural area in Victoria.
31 With respect to the Defendant's age (a significant factor in the present proceedings), Dr Lennings observed that, in general, it is thought that paedophilic offenders have higher recidivism rates than rapists. Age is generally a factor that decreases risk but the nature of the offender's victims need be considered. Research shows that extra-familial child molesters have the highest recidivism rates. Dr Lennings concluded that, as the Defendant had child victims and had committed his last offence at the age of 59 years, "age is not a protective factor against recidivism in the Defendant's case".
32 Dr Lennings expressed the view that the Defendant did not seem to have achieved much genuine insight into his sex offending. Whilst he expresses an understanding that his victims had been harmed, the Defendant "persists in claiming them as friends, being hurt by what he sees as them turning against him".
33 With respect to the Defendant's future plans, Dr Lennings observed that, it seems "unrealistic and against the interests of the community safety for the Defendant to be released so as to disappear into a bush block somewhere in Victoria". He expressed the view that the Defendant ought be supervised in the community.
34 The report of Ms Kate Harle, psychologist, dated 23 April 2008 summarised the CUBIT program undertaken by the Defendant. Like Dr Lennings, Ms Harle expressed concern with respect to the Defendant by reference to dynamic risk factors. Earlier reports prepared in 2002 by Dr Anthony Samuels, psychiatrist, and Ms Narci Sutton, psychologist, had pointed to a significant risk of re-offending.
35 Thus the material referable to the Defendant under s 9(3)(c) of the Act provides, in my view, strong support for the making of a s7(4) order.
36 Section 9(3)(d) requires attention to be given to results of any statistical or other assessment of the likelihood of persons, with histories and characteristics similar to those of the Defendant, committing a further serious sex offence. In this respect, there is reference in the evidence (which I do not need to further summarise) to the use of actuarial risk assessment tools such as STATIC 99 and the opinions of Dr Lennings and others by way of assessment as to likelihood of committing a further serious sex offence.
37 Section 9(3)(e) requires consideration of any treatment or rehabilitation programs in which the Defendant has had an opportunity to participate, his willingness to participate and the level of participation in such programs. The Defendant has voluntarily completed a number of programs. He completed, in 2000 and 2001, six short psycho-educational programs whilst in custody in Victoria. He completed the first stage of the three-stage sex offenders program in Victoria, but did not continue that program as a result of his transfer to this State in 2001.
38 He has completed the CUBIT program, although he was suspended from it for a period in 2006, and did not complete it until 2007. Ms Harle's report with respect to the CUBIT program includes the opinion that the Defendant's release plans and support network are "unrealistic and insufficient to provide much assistance to him to effectively manage his risk of re-offending".
39 Thus, although the Defendant has undertaken rehabilitation programs, the results of those programs are such that the opinions with respect to him are somewhat guarded.
40 Section 9(3)(f) requires the Court to consider the level of the Defendant's compliance with any obligations to which he has been subject while on release on parole or while subject to an earlier extended supervision order. As I have mentioned, the Defendant has consistently refused to seek parole and thus there has been no opportunity to test his performance in the community. He has been in custody continuously since 2000.
41 Section 9(3)(h) requires the Court to consider the Defendant's criminal history (including prior convictions and findings of guilt in New South Wales or elsewhere) and any pattern of offending behaviour disclosed by that history. I have referred briefly to the Defendant's history of sexual offending. It reveals offences in the states of Victoria and New South Wales over a period of some 26 years against child victims, including both prepubescent girls and boys and post pubescent boys. A pattern of offending is revealed. The evidence points to a range of grooming behaviour by the Defendant. There is an entrenched pattern of conduct, involving active sexual offending against children to the point where the Defendant was 59 years of age.
42 Section 9(3)(i) of the Act requires the Court to have regard to any other information that is available as to the likelihood that the Defendant will in future commit offences of a sexual nature. In this respect, the Plaintiff points to the fact that the Defendant has no post-release plans in place which would minimise his risk of re-offending. The Plaintiff points to evidence indicating very limited insight on the part of the Defendant into his offending; and that what would occur on 19 December 2008, in the absence of any orders under the Act, would be the release of the Defendant unsupervised into the community. These factors are pointed to, and are supportive of, the making of an order.
43 I mention lastly the factor in s 9(3)(a), being the safety of the community. This is a paramount factor for the purposes of the Act. All the matters to which I have referred are capable of being grouped together and bearing upon the safety of the community. It is sufficient to note that there are real concerns operating against the Defendant on the present application flowing from the possibility of his release unsupervised into the community, given his lengthy history of offending and the absence of plans or safeguards revealed in the evidence before the Court on this preliminary hearing.