SA pedophile Robert William Symonds, aka ‘Mother Goose’, still poses risk to community, Supreme Court warned

A sex predator known as “Mother Goose” is back on the streets, with a judge unconvinced about requests to place him under strict supervision orders.

A convicted pedophile who insists he was framed by people responsible for the so-called “Family” murders is too dangerous to be in the community unsupervised, a court has heard.

On Thursday, the state government asked the Supreme Court to place Robert William Symonds on an extended supervision order.

Symonds, known as “Mother Goose” due to his distinctive walk, was released from prison in June having served his entire three-year prison term, without parole, for sex offending.

Holly Nikoloff, for the Attorney-General, said Symonds remained a high-risk offender from whom the community should be protected.

She said expert reports showed he had “engaged very poorly” with treatment prior to his release and “failed to complete” anti-sex offending programs.

Symonds could not, she said, be trusted to stop himself from future offending due to his “limited self-awareness” into the reasons for his crimes.

Robert William Symonds outside court.

“He displays victim-blaming, a lack of victim empathy and a lack of remorse,” she said.

“He does not view himself as a perpetrator, allowing him to distance himself from responsibility and hindering genuine reflection and change.

“We are not seeking to further punish him, our purpose is to consider the risk he poses now to the community and whether it should be protected through an extended supervision order.”

Symonds stood trial, for the first time, over alleged child sex offending in 2011 but claimed the charges had been concocted by a suppressed suspect in the Family murders.

He told the court that man’s motive was revenge, because Symonds supplied information to police about the murders.

Symonds was found not guilty because a judge, though “highly suspicious” sexual activity had taken place, could not find the allegations proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In 2018, however, Symonds was arrested and charged with three child sex abuse counts arising from the alleged assault of a troubled teen in 1994.

Symonds served his entire three-year prison term without parole, and was not released until June this year.

As at his previous trial, Symonds claimed he was being framed – naming the person supposedly responsible as “an accomplice” of murderer Bevan Spencer von Einem.

Jurors rejected his assertions and found him guilty, and Symonds was jailed.

Between his trials, Symonds was named repeatedly as a suspected child sex predator during the Mullighan Inquiry into the sexual abuse of wards of the state.

On Thursday, Justice David Peek said he “had some trouble” with the government’s application.

He said the evidence “had a very strong flavour” if relying upon uncharged and unproven allegations against Symonds, rather than just the offences for which he was convicted.

“When a person has served their full, undiscounted sentence, I just don’t see how you can say ‘righty-ho, we will get an order because he’s not been candid enough to agree with all the allegations against him’,” he said.

“I really wonder how you justify, in this particular case, an extended supervision order.”

Symonds, who is representing himself, was allowed to cross examine Dr Loraine Lim, the psychologist who concluded he was an above average risk.

Dr Lim told the court her analysis showed Symonds had “recurring themes of denial, minimisation and an unwillingness to gain an insight into his offending”.

“He also shows a number of concerning cognitive disturbances which may condone further offending,” Dr Lim said.

“Even with the exclusion of the offending he was acquitted of, my findings would remain unchanged.”

Justice Peek told Symonds the argument was not an “all-or-nothing” debate and the court could place less restrictive conditions if it felt that was appropriate.

“I will oppose any order in its totality,” Symonds said in reply. “My submission is that no order needs to be made.”

Justice Peek will hand down his decision at a later date.