WHERE TO NOW FOR RAPIST
What is Robert Fardon’s criminal history?
He was jailed for 13 years in 1988 for the violent rape of a woman. He committed a further rape just four months after his release. One of his victims was a 12year-old girl. She bravely continued to fight after being almost choked and having a gun put to her head.
Two victims were living within a kilometre of each other when he allegedly committed his last rape, of a mentally impaired woman, at Palm Beach in 2008. He was found guilty and jailed for 10 years, only for the conviction to be quashed.
What will happen with Robert Fardon’s supervision? Commissioner Ian Stewart confirmed Fardon would not be monitored by a GPS tracker. He declined to say how Fardon will interact with police. “I am not going to talk about specific strategies or initiatives that we’re taking.”
What will Fardon be required to do to meet his obligations under free release?
His order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 ceased on January 9, and he immediately came under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004. Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath says police will know where Fardon lives and travels, details of his phone and internet connections, social media accounts, interactions and passwords for the rest of his life. Failure to meet those conditions could see him jailed for five years.
Why isn’t Fardon wearing a GPS tracker?
Police say Fardon is not on parole. Since he has not breached any requirements, he moves on to “to another stage of supervision”.
Has the Government explored all legal options? Since 2013, Fardon was under a supervision order. He had to report to and receive visits from police, abide by curfews or monitoring and not live within certain distances of schools or playgrounds. The order lapsed last year and the Attorney-General made several attempts to extend it. In the original hearing, the Supreme Court found he would not be an unacceptable risk if released. The Government was successful in having its appeal allowed but ultimately its lawyers could not convince the court to extend the supervision order.