Full Court decision to refuse to overturn Colin Humphrys’ release is no surprise — it is the bullet that was always coming

THE Full Court’s refusal to overturn sex predator Colin Humphrys’ release is no surprise – it is the bullet that was always coming and that we have thankfully dodged, says chief court reporter Sean Fewster.

• THE DECISION: Appeal to keep Humphrys in jail fails
• THE LEGISLATION: New laws will keep him in jail
• THE ORIGINAL RULING: Supreme Court rules he should be released
• THE SURVIVOR: ‘This battle gave me a voice after 27 years’

THE Full Court’s refusal to overturn sex predator Colin Humphrys’ release is no surprise – it is the bullet that was always coming, and the one we have thankfully dodged.

From the moment Supreme Court Justice Trish Kelly ruled, back in March, that Humphrys should return to the community, the round was in the chamber.

Her Honour’s decision was different to those made, previously, about other paedophiles like Mark Trevor Marshall and Gavin Shaun Schuster.

Errors, be they legal or prosecutorial, infected each of those decisions and that all but ensured they would be overturned on appeal.

The Humphrys’ decision was different – it was, legally speaking, as watertight as judgments come.

The most recent photo of Colin Humphrys.

Prosecutors had laid all their evidence on the line – having learned from their failure in Schuster – while state law was obsessively picked over – the complaint in Marshall’s case.

The hammer on that loaded weapon was pulled back two months later by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

It questioned why prosecutors were suddenly claiming Humphrys was so deceptive, so manipulative, that he could reoffend even if closely monitored.

Put aside, for a moment, the fact Humphrys is capable of doing such a thing, as proven by his criminal history and the shattered lives left in his wake.

Forget, just for a second, that Humphrys’ most recent stint in jail was for befriending, grooming and abusing a boy within just 30 minutes of their first meeting.

Courts must make their decisions based on evidence, and that evidence was not before Justice Kelly.

Appeal courts must, in turn, decide whether earlier decisions were correct based on the evidence filed at the time, not newer and later assertions.

And so, once the Full Court asked whether Humphrys “realistically” posed a threat to the community while supervised, the bullet was primed and ready to fire.

Monday’s decision was merely pulling the trigger on the inevitable – and the only reason no damage was done is because of new laws that passed Parliament last week.

Nothing short of legal change was ever going to stop Humphrys’ release but, now, prosecutors have the weapon they have long needed to keep predators behind bars.

The original decision was never the problem – the law, as written, always was.

If not for brave child abuse survivor “XX”, the Carly Ryan Foundation and The Advertiser’s “Your Right To Know” campaign, the bullet that is Humphrys would have struck home.

Follow @SeanFewster