Judge forced to grant release of child molester

A SELF-CONFESSED child molester is being allowed back 'into society' because a council cannot afford to pay for the treatment he desperately needs.

The decision has been criticised by a High Court judge who said be was left with no alternative but to approve an order letting the man, who molested his teenage daughter, go into the community.

'I protest most strongly that my order is likely to have serious consequences,' Mr Justice Ward said.

The judge's remarks came after learning that Nottinghamshire County Council decided that it could not pay the pounds 15,000-a-year cost of treatment at a special clinic. Now he will be 'sent out into society' under an order banning him from his home and from having contact with his children unless under council supervision.

The judge had found that the man, who cannot be named, had over a number of years persistently abused one of his daughters, having sexual intercourse with her and committing buggery. There had been allegations that he also abused another daughter.

In a 'frightening' report on the man, he was said to have claimed when talking about attacks on children: 'I was aroused. I see. I take.' His fantasies focused on '12-year-old smooth bodies, girls not boys, that must be clean and virgins'.

He targeted girls who were readily accessible and whom he could control. He would then 'groom' the child by instilling fear. Having gained control through this method he would have sexual intercourse - 'See, take,' said the judge. It was feared that the man had also abused other children, who had been having problems with their parents, after posing as an 'understanding father figure'. Experts who treated him said the child abuse was linked to anger. He had been described as an 'anger rapist' and was said to need extended therapy at the special clinic.

The man sat in court with his wife as the judge said: 'All my efforts to balance the risk of harm against the benefits of healing therapy are now rendered totally useless by virtue of the refusal or inability, or both, of the local authority to provide the course of treatment which they recognise to be necessary. Their solution is to order the father from the matrimonial home and leave the care of the children in the hands of the mother who is weak, who has no capacity to protect the children, who is probably still totally under the control of her husband and who, standing by herself, gives me grave cause for anxiety.'

The judge said he, therefore, had to proceed on the basis that the help the family needed and wanted was denied by the local authority's decision.