Sexual predator: DPP has just 10 days to challenge release of child predator Colin Charles Humphrys into Bowden-Brompton

PROSECUTORS have 10 days to review the decision to release serial kidnapper and child predator Colin Charles Humphrys – as state and federal politicians demand the new State Government intervene.

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

PROSECUTORS will review the decision to release serial kidnapper and child predator Colin Charles Humphrys from prison — but have just 10 days to do so.

The newly-elected State Government, meanwhile, has not ruled out directing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) to act — as its predecessor did, controversially, in the infamous case of gunman Paul Habib Nemer.

Humphrys, 66, on Tuesday succeeded in his bid to be released from prison and live, under supervision and GPS monitoring, in the Bowden-Brompton area.

That release order will take effect from May 14, unless the ODPP seeks to challenge it in the Full Court of the Supreme Court.

Under state law, the ODPP must file a challenge to Humphrys’ release on licence before April 12, or it will go ahead.

Thanks to the four-day Easter long weekend, prosecutors have slightly more time than usual to consider their position as the law recognises a period of 10 business days.

On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Director of Public Prosecutions Adam Kimber SC told The Advertiser the matter was being considered.

“I can advise that the Director will review the order made yesterday for Mr Humphrys’ release on licence,” she said.

“He has 10 days, from the date the order was made, to decide whether to appeal.”

Child molester Colin Humphrys in 1995. Picture: Supplied

Humphrys, 66, has a criminal history spanning five states and three decades, and is infamous for the 1990-91 kidnapping of a boy known only as XX.

In 2009 he was jailed for 10 years, without parole, for the abuse of a boy, 14, that began 30 minutes after they met and continued for three years.

Supreme Court Justice Trish Kelly ordered Humphrys’ release, saying she was satisfied supervision and monitoring could address his potential risk to the community.

She noted release was opposed by prosecutors and the Parole Board, and that the Department for Correctional Services had concerns about the resources needed to monitor Humphrys.

Justice Kelly said mental health experts had warned Humphrys remained a risk to the public, but had also said the predator had never been given an opportunity to attempt to comply with licence conditions.

On Wednesday, Federal Labor MP Kate Ellis called on the State Government to act with “urgency” and stop Humphrys — whose criminal history spans five states and three decades — stepping out of prison.

Ms Ellis and Labor MP Peter Malinauskas have penned a letter to Attorney-General Vickie Chapman, asking Humphrys’ release be the subject of an appeal.

READ THE LETTER BELOW:

“When this happened, at the time, the State Government said we’ll call on the DPP to appeal and if that appeal is unsuccessful then we’ll look at how we can legislate to stop this happening,” Ms Ellis told The Advertiser.

“We’re calling on Steven Marshall to take the same action and to come out and fix it.

“The letter has asked for the State Government to ask for an appeal. If there’s an appeal then that May 14 release date doesn’t go ahead.

“We need (the State Government) to act with some urgency. We’ve also called for Vickie Chapman to have an urgent meeting with both Peter and I so we can talk about what the plan is, but also the reasons why this area is completely unsuitable.

“I don’t think local communities with schools, childcare centres and kindergartens are the solution.”

In a press conference, Ms Chapman said the Supreme Court’s ruling was of great concern.

“It’s obvious, now that the judgment has been published, that there were multiple expert witnesses recommending against release,” she said.

“The position of the court was, notwithstanding those multiple expert witnesses, Humphrys needed the opportunity to be released.

“I can confirm that the ODPP is currently reviewing the matter for the purposes of appeal and that process will continue.”

Humphrys in 2002.

Ms Chapman would not be drawn on whether she would direct the ODPP to file an appeal, saying there was “no need” as the proper process was “exactly what’s occurring”.

The State Government’s ability to direct the ODPP — originally established as an independent entity from the bureaucracy — was a central facet of the Nemer case.

In August 2001, Nemer shot newsagent Geoffrey Williams in the eye, mistakenly believing the newsagent was stalking two young girls.

Following a plea bargain with then-Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Rofe, QC, Nemer received a $100 bond.

The penalty sparked widespread public outrage and political turmoil when then-Premier Mike Rann built his re-election campaign around Nemer’s imprisonment.

He directed Mr Rofe to appeal and, when Mr Rofe refused, the government took the issue to the High Court.

Represented by then-Solicitor General, now Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, the government’s argument succeeded and, following an appeal, Nemer was resentenced to jail time.

On Wednesday, Ms Chapman said the Liberal Party had never opposed the ODPP being directed by the government, but had instead wanted the legality of such an action clarified.

“It’s certainly the law that allows for the ODPP to be directed, but that’s not necessary in this case,” she said.

“The Director of Public Prosecutions is upstairs, doing exactly what he’s supposed to.

“The power (to direct) remains, and we don’t have any plans to change that.”

She said the law under which Humphrys’ release was ordered was drafted by the former Weatherill Government and her predecessor, John Rau SC.

“We were comfortable with this regime when it came before Parliament but, if the Rau law is unsatisfactory, we will look at that,” she said.

“The important thing is that, by appeal or by review of legislation, it will continue to be this government’s priority to protect the community.”

Follow @SeanFewster