A Queensland serial sex offender will again walk free after a court overturned his indefinite detention order.
In a written judgment handed down on Friday, the Court of Appeal in Brisbane ordered Raymond Yeo, 65, be released from jail under a 31-point community-based supervision order.
Yeo has a criminal history dating back to when he was 13.
He was sentenced in 1995 to three years' jail for a sexual offence against a 16-year-old boy with an intellectual disability.
He was also convicted and jailed in 2001 for committing 13 sexual offences against two boys aged nine and 11.
Granted bail in 2000, he then committed two sexual offences against a six-year-old boy and was jailed in 2002.
He was then subject to a continuing detention order in April 2006 after he was deemed unfit for release.
He remained in jail under this order until he was released 18 months later.
In 2007, Justice Debbie Mullins ordered Yeo be released under a strict 10-year supervision order that banned contact with children under 16 and prohibited Yeo from leaving his home at times when children were travelling to and from school.
In May 2008, Attorney-General Kerry Shine lost an appeal to have Yeo returned to jail.
But just over a year later the appeals court agreed to a continuing detention order, after Yeo breached his supervision order by attending a meeting at a McDonald's restaurant, despite being advised not to attend because children were present.
Since then two judges have refused Yeo further attempts at freedom, ruling the indefinite detention should stand.
However, on Friday this was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which, despite saying it a "difficult, borderline case", ruled a new supervision order could mitigate the risk Yeo posed to the community.
Under the order, Yeo is again banned from contact with children or accessing pornographic material.
He is also forbidden from drinking alcohol, and must have regular psychiatric and medical tests, including testing of his testosterone levels.
Another example of how the justice system is against the victim.
Cases like this only support the general public's opinion that the 'system' has failed them, once they are on the receiving end of a criminal act.
No comments:
Post a Comment