Serial rapist whose identity is protected charged with fresh CBD sex attack

A serial rapist has allegedly offended again in a CBD apartment block, but his identity is being kept from the public. Here’s why.

A serial rapist has allegedly offended again by sexually touching a young woman in an apartment block lift, but his identity is being kept from the public because a judge previously found naming him could interfere with his “rehabilitation”.

The shocking criminal served 20 years in jail for raping five women in the 1990s, including following a teenager home from a train station and attacking another woman at knifepoint.

Three years after his release from prison in 2015 he was convicted of assaulting a teenage girl in public.

Now, the man — who can be referred to only by the pseudonym GJO in relation to his historic offending — has been rearrested over an alleged sex attack on a 20-year-old woman in the inner city last week. Police allege he followed the woman into a lift of an apartment building before touching her when she got out on her floor.

But because of a ruling by NSW Supreme Court Justice Stephen Rothman in 2020, The Daily Telegraph is prevented from revealing the man’s identity in conjunction with his historic crimes.

A serial rapist has allegedly offended again by sexually touching a young woman in a Haymarket apartment block lift, but his identity is being kept from the public. Picture: NSW Police

“The publication of the defendant’s name … would significantly impact upon the defendant’s capacity to continue any process of rehabilitation,” Justice Rothman ruled.

Having allegedly failed in his “rehabilitation”, Opposition Police spokesman Walt Secord voiced his anger at the man’s identity still being protected, saying he believes the suppression order should be lifted.

“The public’s right to know trumps the suspect’s right to privacy. In fact, suppressing this person’s name is unusual as most people brought before the courts are publicly named,” Mr Secord said.

“A person on a minor traffic offence or a shoplifting charge does not get this consideration.”

The suppression order was made by Justice Rothman during a hearing for an extended supervision order (ESO) for the rapist in July 2020.

CCTV of the man in the CBD.

The NSW Supreme Court heard from GJO’s lawyers that because of previous media attention he had lost multiple jobs, including one “as a result of concerns (subsequently) expressed by some female workers”.

“Posts on Facebook pages that published or summarised the articles … contain express and implied threats to his safety,” the court heard.

After his address was publicised in the media, GJO was also forced to leave his rental apartment and also lost all contact with his family.

While the suppression order was opposed by prosecutors, Justice Rothman ruled it was “necessary”.

That was despite him admitting that GJO’s attacks “were extremely violent rapes” that “no doubt had, and continue to have, a huge impact upon the lives of the victims”.

“The publishing of the defendant’s name, address or workplace will, once more, result in threats to his safety. The suppression of his name, address and workplace is necessary to protect his safety,” Justice Rothman said.

GJO faced Parramatta Local Court on Saturday on one charge of sexual touching without consent.

He made no application for bail and he is due to return to the same court on Wednesday.