For nearly eight years, an ultra-high-risk Dunedin sex offender has lived in a facility, penned by 4m-high electric fences, watched 24 hours a day.
Glen Anthony Douglas, 33, was the first person in the country to be made subject to a public protection order (PPO) — one of the most restrictive measures available under New Zealand law.
It allows for the detention, in a secure facility, of those who have served a sentence and continue to pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending.
But in a recently released judgement, the Court of Appeal agreed there was an error in the way a judge approached Douglas’ case in 2016.
He will now go back to the High Court, where Corrections' application for the PPO will be heard afresh.
Douglas’ problematic tendencies were identified when he was young.
While living in supported accommodation as a teen, he exhibited an "extensive pattern of premeditated and predatory sexual behaviour towards other boys, despite supervision and having a teacher’s aide with him at all times", the court heard.
After his first sex crimes in 2006, rehabilitative efforts were made.
Douglas, however, made no progress in therapy and accessed child abuse material when there were lapses in his supervision.
In 2011, there was a sexually motivated assault at a public swimming pool and two years later he used false social media accounts to coax a 13-year-old boy into sex acts.
Douglas was jailed for three years, which ultimately led to the PPO being enforced in 2016.
Justice Nicholas Davidson said the evidence was "stark".
"When the opportunity presents itself Mr Douglas is determined and manipulative," he said.
He offended even when subject to supervision and monitoring, given "the briefest opportunity even while under 24-hour supervision", the judge noted.
Those subject to a PPO are assessed annually by a panel and every five years by the High Court to determine whether the order remains necessary.
That was undertaken by Justice Cameron Mander in 2022.
He noted Douglas had made limited gains during the preceding years and the judge was satisfied there was strong justification for him to remain on the order.
Douglas’ successful legal challenge comes on the back of a 2022 case in which the Court of Appeal made a declaration that the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act and part of the Parole Act and were inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which states that no-one who has been convicted of an offence can be tried or punished for it twice.
The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court and a decision is expected in the coming months.
If the declaration of inconsistency is confirmed, it will force the government to look at the controversial legislation.
PPO laws were passed by Parliament in 2014 allowing for the most dangerous offenders to be indefinitely detained despite having completed their prison terms.
It led to the construction of the $8.9 million Matawhaiti Residence, a 24-bed facility situated on the grounds of Christchurch Men’s Prison, staffed around the clock.
A previous Official Information Act request by the Otago Daily Times showed the residence cost more than $1m a year to run.
Those subject to a PPO cannot leave without approval and only then under escort, their communications may be monitored, and they are not allowed alcohol, tobacco or cellphones.
Public protection order
What is it?
• Those subject to an order must have finished serving a sentence and still pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending.
• They are housed in the ‘‘Matawhaiti Residence’’, a secure facility in the grounds of Christchurch Men’s Prison.
Why is it controversial?
• In 2022, the Court of Appeal made a declaration saying PPOs were inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights Act, which stipulates no-one can be punished twice for the same crime.
• The issue is now awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court. If it echoes the Court of Appeal, it will prompt the government to review the legislation.
