Bundaberg child sex offender loses appeal after Maryborough jail abuse

A child sex offender has appealed his convictions for grooming and creating exploitation material several years after he was jailed, claiming physical abuse from another inmate forced him to admit to the crimes.

A child sex offender has appealed his convictions for grooming creating exploitation material several years after he was jailed, claiming physical abuse from another inmate forced him to admit to the crimes.

A convicted child sex offender has failed in his bid to overturn his convictions after the Supreme Court rejected his claims he only pleaded guilty to “get out of jail quicker”.

The man, who cannot legally be identified, pleaded guilty at Bundaberg District Court at sittings in October and November 2018 to multiple offences including grooming a child under 16, involving a child in the creation of exploitation material, possessing child exploitation material, giving false information and failing to comply with reporting conditions.

The charges were laid over his crimes against a 14-year-old girl one year earlier, published Supreme Court of Queensland documents show.

He committed them at a time he was on a suspended sentence over convictions for carnal knowledge of a child, stalking and deprivation of liberty for crimes against another young victim.

As a result he was ordered to serve the remainder of that sentence, two years and 32 days, in jail.

Debate rages over erosion’s cause at picturesque Qld beach

The man, who cannot legally be identified, pleaded guilty at Bundaberg District Court at sittings in October and November 2018 to multiple offences including grooming a child under 16, involving a child in the creation of exploitation material, possessing child exploitation material, giving false information and failing to comply with reporting conditions.

Four years after his guilty pleas, the man lodged an appeal over his convictions claiming he made them at a time he was experiencing “traumatic” physical and sexual abuse from another inmate while he was on remand at Maryborough Correctional Centre.

This was well outside the normal one-month window allowed for appeals, forcing him to ask the courts for an extension.

At the centre of his appeal was a psychological report undertaken in 2020 as part of a civil claim against Corrective Services over the abuse.

It is understood the claim was ultimately settled.

No terms were outlined in the Supreme Court’s judgement document.

The man claimed in his appeal there was a “serious injustice”, the primary evidence “lacked plausibility”, and that the police withheld material beneficial to his defence.

Sinkholes, landslides: Wild footage captures Qld’s coastline chaos

The man appealed his convictions and sentences four years after pleading guilty, claiming he only entered the plea to out of jail “quicker” and away from abuse from another inmate he experienced while on remand. The Qld Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding there was nothing in his grounds suggesting his pleas were not entered freely and voluntarily.

He further claimed he entered the pleas only to get away from the abuse at the jail, saying “my legal aid funded lawyer (gave) me the advice to plead guilty to get out of prison quicker”.

“An appeal or a not guilty plea would, in his words, ‘take years’,” he submitted.

The man said the abuse were a key reason as to why he did not lodge his appeals shortly after he was convicted.

The Supreme Court accepted the report, but threw out his request for an extension and appeal saying it did not back the claims he was making.

Justice Debra Mullins found the report did not deal with how any abuse he experienced at the jail, and associated mental health issues, affected his decision to plead guilty.

In her published decision, she said the report did not find a psychiatric disorder which affected the man’s “capacity to manage his own affairs, give legal instruction or understand the meaning of proceedings or the applications of the settlement of his claim” during his civil claim.

“The applicant seeks to draw favourable inferences from the report and the evidence … when he entered his guilty pleas to the first indictment,” Justice Mullins said.

“Even accepting the applicant was motivated to plead guilty to the first indictment to get an early transfer from the Maryborough Correctional Centre, that does not itself negate that the guilty pleas were entered freely and voluntarily,” she said.

“Nothing has been disclosed that raises a serious question that the applicant was not guilty of the subject offences or suggests that an appeal would be viable.”

He ordered the appeal and extension be refused.