Two clinical psychologists have accused Community Corrections Tasmania of incorrectly applying a sexual offender risk assessment tool to determine whether or not a Nepalese man is likely to reoffend — and say the tool has likely been misused in other cases.
Key points:
- A Nepalese man caught masturbating in his car at a public reserve was reported by council workers
- The man, who moved to Australia in 2015, faces deportation if he’s placed on the sex offender’s register
- The man’s lawyer is arguing the man has been placed into a category of offender that is beyond the level of offending
The man, who moved to Australia in 2015, faces being placed on the sex offenders register, which his lawyer says could lead to him being deported.
The 26-year-old Nepalese man was working as a food delivery driver in Hobart in 2021 when the offense occurred.
Hobart Magistrates Court heard earlier that on the day in question, the man had finished his early morning delivery shift and headed to Rosny Park.
Assuming no one was around, he began to masturbate in his car.
The court heard a council worker then approached the car to let the man know he could not park there. When he knocked on the window he realized the man was masturbating and the council worker told him to leave.
The man immediately drove away — he was later charged with one count of prohibited behavior to which he pleaded guilty.
As part of the court case, Community Corrections Tasmania (CCT) was asked to undertake a risk assessment to determine whether or not he was at risk of reoffending, which could then be used by the court to determine whether or not he should be placed on the sex offenders register.
CCT found he had a medium risk of reoffending.
That finding was challenged by the man’s lawyer, Dinesh Loganathan.
CCT ‘applying tool incorrectly’
Mr Loganathan commissioned reports from two separate clinical psychologists — Dr Grant Blake and Dr Emma Collins — who both refuted CCT’s assessment, finding the man had a very low-risk of reoffending.
Dr Blake even described the man’s risk of future offending as “far-fetched” and “fanciful”.
In court on Monday, Mr Loganathan told Magistrate Andrew McKee that despite the reports, CCT would not shift its position.
“We have two certified trained clinical psychologists who have provided a report to the court that Static-99R [the risk assessment tool] should have never be administered to [the man] and the administration was flawed,” he told the court.
“We have Community Corrections who have provided a recommendation that [he is at] medium risk of offending.
“On the other hand, there’s Dr Blake, who quite forcefully provides a view that Community Corrections has been wrongly administrating [assessments] for however long they’ve been doing it.”
Magistrate McKee then questioned the claim that CCT had “wrongly” administered assessments beyond the current case, to which Mr Loganathan responded by reading out some of Dr Blake’s report.
“Community Corrections must be informed they are continuing to use risk assessment tools incorrectly,” he read to the court.
“It is unethical, unacceptable practice. It cannot continue.”
Mr Loganathan said Dr Blake’s position was that the risk assessment should never have been applied to the man and CCT “continue to use it for people within Category B”.
The court heard Dr Collins’s report also stated it was wrong to use Static-99R to assess Category B offenders.
Tool developed by Canadian, UK researchers
According to the manual for Static-99R, Category B offenses include “sexting”, “consenting sex in public places” and “indecent behavior without a sexual motive”.
Static-99R was developed by researchers in Canada and the United Kingdom and is meant to apply in “cases where an actual sex offense has occurred with an identifiable victim”.
Community Corrections representative Emily Drysdale, who did not undertake the assessment, said it had been applied “based on the fact there had been sexual offending.”
“My communication with senior management is that it was correctly applied,” she told the court.
She said CCT did not have a position on whether or not the man should be placed on the register and that was up to the court.
When Magistrate McKee asked her if she accepted that the assessment had been applied incorrectly, Ms Drysdale deferred to her manager’s advice.
“In their understanding it was applied correctly,” she told the court.
Magistrate McKee said Community Corrections had assessed the man was at a “higher risk than a routine sample of offenders”.
“[Based on that] I would need to give significant consideration to the register,” he said.
When asked about what CCT thought of the psychologists’ opinions that the assessment tool was being used incorrectly, Ms Drysdale said she had passed on their feedback.
“I have submitted that to that particular manager and haven’t received a particularly favorable response,” she told the court.
While Ms Drysdale did not say that she was challenging the psychologists’ reports, Magistrate McKee said that by standing by CCT’s assertion it had applied the risk assessment tool correctly, she effectively was.
“Your manager has told you ‘we were right’, therefore, the only inference is that Dr Blake and Dr Collins are incorrect and I’ve got to sort it out,” he said.
The case has been adjourned and will potentially lead to a disputed facts hearing.
.
