The applicant, a repeat sex offender with multiple convictions involving female children, applied to vary a s. 161 Prohibition Order to allow contact with his fiancée's 9-year-old son, or alternatively, to have his fiancée approved as a supervisor.
The court found that while there was a change in circumstances, the proposed variation was not desirable.
The court noted the applicant's history of offending against children in his trust and found the fiancée lacked insight into his behaviour, making her an unsuitable supervisor.
The application was dismissed.
