Lane v Police

In Lane v Police, the applicant sought to have the reporting conditions under the Australian National Child Offender Register (ANCOR) suspended. The applicant had previously been convicted of serious sexual offences against children, resulting in his registration on the ANCOR. The case involved a dispute over whether the applicant posed a risk to the safety and well-being of any child, which was a crucial factor in determining whether the reporting conditions could be suspended. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant met the threshold requirements under section 37(2) of the relevant Act and if he did not pose a risk to children. This required the court to consider expert opinions on the applicant's risk of re-offending and whether these opinions indicated a low or moderate risk.

Justice Nicholson reviewed the evidence, including the opinions of three forensic psychologists: Mr Broomhall, Mr Fugler, and Mr Balfour. While two of the experts, Mr Fugler and Mr Balfour, assessed the applicant's risk as low, Mr Broomhall opined that the risk was moderate. Nicholson J acknowledged the differing expert opinions but concluded that the applicant's risk rating for future sexualised behaviour remained in the "moderate" range. Nicholson J held that although the applicant met the threshold requirements under section 37(2) of the Act, he could not be satisfied that the applicant did not pose a risk to the safety and well-being of any child or children. Consequently, Nicholson J decided against suspending the ANCOR reporting conditions.