David Raymond Lewis (73) was jailed for six and a-half years when he appeared before the Dunedin District Court in May 2012.
Judge Michael Crosbie imposed the prison term for offending which included sodomising a 9-year-old boy 17 years ago, sexually violating him over a period of about two years, and for indecently assaulting an 8-year-old about 20 years earlier, as well as committing numerous indecencies in her presence until she was about 14.
Despite the pensioner undertaking treatment while incarcerated, Corrections staff were not satisfied at the end of his sentence that the public would be safe if he was released.
"Mr Lewis was regarded as making minimal change during the treatment programme and is only now being viewed as starting to gain insight into the factors contributing to his offending behaviour," clinical psychologist Katrina Falconer Beach told the court.
She said there was a high risk the man would go on to commit another relevant sexual offence if released without the oversight of Corrections staff.
"Due to his deviant sexual interest, his limited insight, and his poor ability to sexual self-regulate, risk reduction for Mr Lewis is likely to be more successful when supported by external monitoring and managing of his behaviour," Ms Falconer Beach said.
Her evidence led Judge Stephen O’Driscoll to impose a seven-year Extended Supervision Order following a hearing at the Christchurch District Court in August last year.
But Lewis disputed the ruling and took his fight to the Court of Appeal, which heard his argument in February.
Counsel Andrew Bailey said Judge O’Driscoll had been wrong in his assessment of the offender’s risk.
He argued Ms Falconer Beach did not sufficiently address the main question which was of concern to the court — whether Lewis was likely to commit "a relevant sexual offence".
In a recently released judgement, Justices Brown, Brewer and Collins disagreed, saying there was nothing lacking in the District Court judgement, and with the same evidence before them, the Court of Appeal would have come to the same conclusion.
"Should Mr Lewis sexually reoffend, it would most likely occur in the context of grooming prepubescent children with whom he has repeated contact, including family members and children outside of his family," Judge O’Driscoll outlined.
"Mr Lewis is more likely to sexually offend against prepubescent males than females ... Signs that Mr Lewis’s risk of sexually reoffending is increasing include: Mr Lewis isolating himself from adults he knows; engaging in seemingly harmless contact with children, which may include offering them money or gifts; accessing child pornography images on the internet; befriending the parents of a prepubescent child to ensure access to the child; and presenting as being sexually preoccupied.
"If Mr Lewis experiences a disruption to his daily routine, such as no longer being able to engage in a valued adult activity, he is more likely to sexually reoffend against children."
Mr Bailey stressed Lewis’ most recent relevant offending was more than 20 years ago. The Court of Appeal confirmed the seven-year order.
Lewis will now be subject to a range of conditions which may include GPS monitoring.
