LBJ v Commissioner of Police

The case of LBJ v Commissioner of Police involves the applicant, LBJ, who seeks a suspension of his reporting obligations under the Sex Offender Registration Act. LBJ, a former teacher's assistant, had previously been convicted of indecent assault involving a 14-year-old student at his school. The court had suspended his sentence and imposed various conditions, which LBJ successfully fulfilled. The primary issue before the court was whether LBJ, who has not been convicted of any further offences since his original sentence, poses a risk to the safety and well-being of any child or children. This determination hinges on the interpretation of the phrase "does not pose a risk" in s 38(2) of the Act, which requires consideration of both present and future risks. The court must decide if LBJ's past conduct and current circumstances indicate an appreciable risk of reoffending.

The court's reasoning centred on the interpretation of the statutory phrase "does not pose a risk" as requiring a nuanced assessment rather than a literal or absolute finding. The court acknowledged that determining the absence of risk indefinitely is rare and that the focus should be on whether there is an appreciable risk, which is grounded in evidence and perceptible. The judge considered several factors, including LBJ's age, health issues, the significant time elapsed since the offending, his remorse, lack of further offending, and his motivation to avoid jeopardizing his family relationships. The court concluded that these factors collectively indicated that LBJ did not pose a risk to children, thus satisfying the requirements of s 38(2).

Based on the evidence and factors considered, the court decided to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the application. The judge was prepared to rely on the opinion of a relevant expert and was satisfied that LBJ did not pose a risk to the safety and well-being of any child or children. Consequently, the court ordered a suspension of LBJ's reporting obligations under s 38(1) of the Act. The terms of the order would be determined after hearing from the parties involved. This decision reflects a balanced approach, taking into account both the statutory requirements and the specific circumstances of the applicant.