No supervision order removal
A high-risk sex offender wanting an extended supervision order removed has been denied a request to take his appeal to the Supreme Court.
Basil Steven Marshall Mist, 42, was put on the 10-year order after he was released from prison in 2022.
He served two decades in prison for the manslaughter of his teenage girlfriend and sexual offending against girls aged between 7 and 15.
Mist sought the removal of the order in the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his bid in November 2023.
He appealed it on the basis the High Court judge had not sufficiently outlined why he met the statutory test for the order to be imposed. It did, however, allow Mist leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
But, in a decision released on Tuesday, his application was dismissed. The threejudge panel found there was “strong justification” for making the order.
Mist had been sentenced to preventive detention after an appeal by the solicitorgeneral, but this was removed and replaced with a 20-year term because of his young age.
He did not complete any rehabilitation while in jail, and upon release consented to the order.
The High Court found he was informed enough to make that decision and he needed help in his desire to not reoffend.
Mist had no personal or community support and the judge found he met the criteria for the order.
The Court of Appeal found he posed a high risk of reoffending, and had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending.
Its decision said while 10 years was the maximum term, it considered it to be the minimum term required in this case.
During his jury trial, when he was aged 21, the court heard Mist invited his victims into his home and plied them with alcohol and drugs.
He sexually assaulted them and forced them to watch him engage in sex acts with his girlfriend, Barbara Miller.
He later beat Miller to death.
Mist said the court adopted an incorrect approach when determining whether his supervision order was justified.
Its primary purpose was to protect the community and the Supreme Court found there was “strong justification” for making the order against Mist.
It said the Court of Appeal’s “clear conclusion” that he still presented a high risk was correct. He also had a clear lack of support and his offending was particularly grave. “In such circumstances, whatever the additional considerations that should have been taken into account, there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice.”