Supreme Court will decide fate of sex predator Colin Humphrys, and validity of new state laws, this month

The fates of both serial sex predator Colin Charles Humphrys and the new laws keeping him behind bars will be decided by the Supreme Court this month — and his prison cellmates will be called to give evidence about his behaviour.

Sex predator Colin Charles Humphrys. He has shaved off his beard since this piece was produced. Artwork: Tim Ide.

• Bombshell: Six-month delay sparks predator’s new release bid
• Opposition calls for greater public information about predators
• Humphrys’ freedom stymied again — by a 7am email to court
• Predator ‘needs cleaner, gardener, personal shopper if released’

The fates of both serial sex predator Colin Charles Humphrys and the new laws keeping him behind bars will be decided by the Supreme Court at the end of this month.

On Wednesday, Justice Martin Hinton agreed to hear both Humphrys’ challenge to the validity of new anti-paedophile legislation and a review of a 2018 decision to release him from jail.

The three-day hearing will tackle not only issues of the Australian Constitution, but also hear evidence from Humphrys’ cellmates regarding his behaviour and sexual appetite behind bars.

Last year, the court granted Humphrys, 66, supervised release from prison but he remains in custody because his victim, “XX”, successfully campaigned for legal change.

His release, into the Bowden-Brompton area, will be reviewed and cancelled unless two forensic psychiatrists agree he is willing to and capable of controlling his sexual instincts.

In February, The Advertiser revealed Humphrys would seek to use a famous High Court case to have the new laws overturned — reactivating his release — regardless of those opinions.

It is understood both forensic psychiatrists agree Humphrys remains an uncontrollable sex predator.

The man known as XX who was, as a child, kidnapped and abused by serial sex predator Colin Charles Humphrys.

On Wednesday, Edward Jolly, for Humphrys, said he would argue the new legislation was unconstitutional and should be struck out.

He pointed to the 1995 High Court case of Gregory Wayne Kable, which found it was unconstitutional to write laws that targeted a single individual.

“We would ask that there be a ruling on the validity of the law before we move to the question of reconsideration (of his release),” he said.

“If the law is valid, it may well be there is no need to consider the reconsideration question.”

Justice Hinton said he was “a bit miffed” the hearing could not proceed immediately, given the reports had been provided and prosecutors had filed a written outline of their case.

Mr Jolly apologised, saying the Legal Services Commission had provided only “tight funding” for the case — meaning he had yet to speak to Humphrys and receive instructions.

“My client may wish to cross-examine the psychiatrists or further witnesses,” he said.

“There is a large amount of material from others in his cell.”

Prosecutors agreed it was appropriate to settle the constitutional debate first and then move on to the review of Humphrys’ release.

Justice Hinton ordered the hearing proceed at the end of the month — and that Humphrys be brought to court in person to attend it.

Follow @SeanFewster