View Comments

Notorious paedophile Michael Alexander McGarry is facing at least another year behind bars after a judge ruled this morning that the community could not be adequately protected if he was released on a supervision order.

Justice Stephen Hall declined to rescind an order for McGarry's ongoing detention in jail under dangerous sex offender laws.

McGarry completed his latest jail term for child sex offences in August last year, but has been held in prison indefinitely after being declared a dangerous sex offender.

At a hearing into an annual review of his case last month, McGarry conceded he remained a serious danger to the community but submitted he could be managed on a supervision order.

McGarry, 50, sparked heated community debate in 2009 when the Supreme Court granted his supervised release on an order with 52 conditions.

He was arrested within days of being released for breaches of two conditions by meeting one of his victims and attending a shopping centre during a weekend.

He was then sentenced to a further 18-month jail term for fresh charges relating to historic offences committed against children in 1994 and 2003.

During last month's two-day review hearing, the court heard evidence that McGarry had been taking anti-libidinal medication for over three years, which had reduced his testosterone levels, and undergone extensive individual counselling.

The court as also told that the police sex offender management squad had raised concerns about proposed accommodation for McGarry if he was released, warning it could provide an ideal opportunity to re-offend and there were families living nearby.

In the decision handed down this morning, Justice Hall said McGarry's re-offending in the past and a recent reduction in the dose of his anti-libidinal medication were matters of concern.

Justice Hall said McGarry's self reports of lowered libido had to be treated with caution and anti-libidinal drugs we not a panacea.

He said it was troubling that McGarry continued to maintain that he had breached the previous order because of some ambiguity in the conditions.

"Given that he raised such an argument unsuccessfully in the breach proceedings, his unwillingness to accept full responsibility for those breaches suggests that compliance in the future would be problematic," Justice Hall said.

Declining to remove the continuing detention order, Justice Hall said he was satisfied there were no conditions that could be imposed which would reduce to an acceptable level the risk that he would re-offend.