Just a lonely child sex offender looking for love
A sex offender has told the Supreme Court that his obligation to report his criminal history to the parents of children he meets is "hindering" his chances at finding romance.
The 58-year-old, whose name is suppressed to protect the identity of his victim, was refused his application to remove the reporting obligations.
His lawyer argued that the man wanted to use the RSVP dating website to meet a "suitable woman and remarry".
But under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act he is required to tell a nearby adult of his prior offences and status as a serious registrable offender if he makes contact with children.
He is also required to report to police any change in personal circumstances, as well as any contact with children within two days.
The man applied to the Supreme Court to remove the "obligations that will hinder the development of a relationship".
However, the court only has the power to remove obligations to report to police. Even if that was removed, the man would still be required to report his child sex offender status to adults with children.
The man was given a 12-month suspended sentence in February 2003 for the indecent assault of his then nine-year-old daughter.
He made full admissions to police when the offending came to light and has since tried to repair the relationship with his older child.
Psychologist reports tendered in court said the man was at low risk of reoffending and could benefit from a normal sexual relationship with a consenting adult.
During the interview with the psychologist for the application to remove his obligations, the man said he had been using RSVP since 2013.
The website use was reported by the Crown Solicitor's Office to police, who investigated and charged the man with breaching his reporting obligations because he had not disclosed his attempts at dating to police.
The application was delayed as the man was prosecuted. He was convicted in the Magistrates Court in November last year and fined $200.
Justice Greg Parker refused the man's application because of the recency of the breach, as well as the misunderstanding about the court's power to suspend his obligations.