Child molester Colin Charles Humphrys will be freed to live in Bowden-Brompton area

ONE of the worst sexual predators in SA history has won his bid to be released from prison — but the notorious child kidnapper failed to have his new home in the Bowden/Brompton area hidden from the public.

A historical mugshot of convicted child molester Colin Charles Humphrys.

• Telcos charging police to hand over information on paedophiles
• Notorious sex predator Colin Charles Humphrys jailed for life
• Let me out: How Humphrys is seeking release from prison
• Read Justice Kelly’s full reasons for Humphrys’ release

ONE of the worst sexual predators in state history has won his bid to be released from prison — but failed in his attempt to have his location hidden from the public.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted Colin Charles Humphrys’ application to be released, on a supervised licence with GPS tracking, to live in the Bowden-Brompton area.

Under the terms of his release, Humphrys’ movements are restricted, he must attend counselling and he must take anti-libidinal medication.

His release will take effect from May 14 unless the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions files, and succeeds in, an appeal against Tuesday’s decision.

Humphrys, 66, had also asked the court to ban publication of the suburb in which he will live, arguing he would fall victim to violence were his location known.

SA paedophile Colin Humphrys during his last period of freedom a decade ago.

Justice Trish Kelly refused that application on Tuesday, saying she agreed with prosecutors and The Advertiser that the public had a right to know.

“Having weighed this up anxiously, the interests of justice are best served in exactly the way that’s been put forward by prosecutors and, to some extent, by the media,” she said.

“It’s in the public interest, and it’s in the interests of monitoring Humphrys, that the community is aware — generally speaking — of the Bowden-Brompton area.

“That way, if he’s not where he should be, there will be more than just police looking for him.”

Humphrys’ criminal history spans five states and three decades, and he is infamous for the 1990-91 kidnapping of a boy known only as XX.

He served an eight-year term for taking the boy, 9, to Kings Cross in Sydney and abusing him after being introduced to him by fellow paedophile Laurie O’Shea.

Notorious paedophile Laurie John O'Shea, who in 1990 introduced Humphrys to a nine-year-old boy who was kidnapped, taken interstate and sexually abused for 10 days.

It was the second time he had kidnapped a young boy and took him interstate — the first incident occurred in Queensland in 1985.

In 2009, Humphrys was jailed for 10 years for abuse against another boy, 14, that began 30 minutes after they first met and continued for the next three years.

Then-Justice John Sulan refused to set a non-parole period, deeming Humphrys an “opportunistic, calculated” and uncontrollable sexual predator.

In her judgment, Justice Kelly said mental health experts had concluded Humphrys’ chances of successfully re-entering the community were “as good as they’ve ever been”.

She said they still considered him unwilling to control his sexual instincts, and likely to reoffend if presented with the opportunity, and so would need close and frequent monitoring.

“Unlike other applicants, Humphrys has never had the opportunity to demonstrate his capacity to comply with licence conditions,” she said.

“Both psychiatrists ... echoed the same concern that, if he is not given the opportunity ... it is unlikely he will ever be in a better position than he is today.”

One experts, she said, expressed concern that the Parole Board — which opposed Humphry’s release — felt it lacked sufficient resources to monitor Humphrys.

Humphrys in January 1995.

Justice Kelly said the Department for Correctional Services had identified 11 potential risks if Humphrys was released, eight of which it deemed “unlikely to arise”.

She said the Department was confident GPS monitoring would be effective, and that any breach of conditions would attract a “priority tasking” from SA Police.

The GPS system would also sound if Humphrys approached schools in the area, while any attempt to enter the North Adelaide parklands would attract a priority police tasking.

“I am satisfied that, once the electronic monitoring regime is in place, most of these identified risks will be reduced,” she said.

“(Monitoring) will significantly curtail Humphrys’ freedom of movement in the community (and) when outside his residence he will be accompanied at all times.”

Justice Kelly said it was impossible to eliminate all risk in such a matter.

“I am acutely conscious of the responsibility reposed in this court ... safety of the community is the paramount consideration,” she said.

Humphrys in February 2002.

“I do not consider that the point has been reached that it is as yet appropriate to incarcerate him in all probability for the rest of his life because he has been found unable or unwilling to control his sexual instincts.

“There is enough material supporting release on a strict regime for me to consider that the community can be adequately protected.”

Peter Morrison, for Humphrys, said he remained concerned about the lack of a suppression order as Bowden-Brompton was “reasonably confined”.

“There’s a chance that members of the public might converge upon the area and it wouldn’t take long, in those circumstances, for the address to be revealed,” he said.

Justice Kelly dismissed that argument.

“Adelaide is small, too, if you want to look at it that way,” she said.

“(This case) has highlighted the absolute conundrum that courts in this country face with these issues ... they are very, very vexing.

“There are competing interests, but there is a very important public interest — and the public, by having this knowledge, are helping to influence Humphrys’ restrictions.”

Follow @SeanFewster