Alleged sex offender applies for bail 160m from Adelaide early learning centre

One half of a couple accused of sex offences against two foster kids has applied for home bail as his co-accused ex abandons her bid for release.

The man and his former wife are accused of facilitating the abuse of their two foster children. Picture: Supplied

An alleged child sex offender accused of going out “spotting” for further victims wants to live on bail just 160m from an early learning centre – which is, a court says, “an obvious concern”.

On Thursday, the man – who cannot be named to safeguard the alleged victims’ privacy – asked the Adelaide Magistrates Court to grant him home detention bail.

His co-accused and former partner, who is accused of facilitated his alleged offending, abandoned her application after a report found her proposed address was not suitable.

Magistrate Simon Smart said the man may wish to make the same decision because the “proximity” of his desired address to an early learning centre “stands out”.

“That’s a matter of obvious concern, and I can understand what the prosecution’s concerns might be,” he said.

“There’s only so much control any order of bail can put in place, and they are very close … 160m is not far.”

The man, 36, has yet to plead to four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of communicating to making a child amenable to sex.

He is further charged with 12 counts of producing child exploitation material.

The woman, 44, is charged with two counts of communicating to making a child amenable to sex and 13 counts of producing child exploitation material.

She is further charged with three counts of disseminating that material, and four counts of permitting unlawful sexual intercourse at her residential premise.

Prosecutors have alleged the couple facilitated the repeated sexual abuse of two foster children, a boy and girl who have been in care since they were just weeks old.

They have further alleged they discussed their conduct in 30,000 text messages and went “spotting” in shopping malls for more victims.

On Thursday, after speaking with his client, the man’s lawyer said the early learning centre “is not in the same street, but in extreme proximity” to the proposed address.

However, he asked the bail application be adjourned so his client could seek alternative accommodation.

Mr Smart refused, saying the man could file a new application if and when he found a place to stay.

A police prosecutor, meanwhile, asked for suppression orders – despite statutory protections and safeguards for victims – to ban “all further reporting” of the case.

Mr Smart rejected that application.

“You’re asking that these proceedings continue in an atmosphere of complete secrecy? For a blanket suppression? I’ve never heard of such an order,” he said.

He said there was no need for such an order as “from my observations” the media had fully complied with the law in its reporting, and the case was of genuine public interest.

The man and woman were remanded in custody to face court again next year.