A SERIOUS sex offender sent back to jail this week was under a state government supervision order and wearing an electronic ankle bracelet when he held a knife to his latest victim and violently raped her.
Gary Collingwood was under an order which monitors criminals who have completed their sentences but are still considered a risk to the community.
The Department of Justice can apply to the court for supervision orders and ask for conditions.
This includes curfews, electronic monitoring devices, alcohol and drug bans and exclusions from certain areas if a person remains a threat.
But Collingwood’s victim has demanded to know why a person with a history of violent and sexual crimes, dating back to 1984, was allowed to walk free from a Western Australian jail in August last year.
She believes a person deemed dangerous enough to be monitored should never be released into the community.
Sarah (not her real name) was raped in January after meeting Collingwood online two months earlier.
He held a knife to Sarah’s face, tied electrical tape around her hands and legs and stuffed her mouth
with a stocking while raping her.
She believes that based on his history and poor chance of rehabilitation, Collingwood should never have been set free – or given access to the internet.
She said this allowed him to prey on innocent women.
“This rapist was out (of prison) in August and raped me in January, he had me targeted from November,’’ she said.
“He will be out when he is 57 or 60, and he will do it again.
“His only punishment is he can’t walk out of a gate now for 13 years.
“I’m punished for life.
“The sentence is almost the same as the last time he did it.
“Where’s the justice in that?”
Corrections Minister Edward O’Donohue yesterday said the government was limited in how it could supervise those who had served sentences imposed by the courts.
“Supervision orders let us go as far as we can in supervising offenders who have done their time without breaching the constitution,’’ he said.
“I have enormous sympathy for the victim in this case.
“But we are constitutionally limited in what we can do to restrict people who have already served the sentence the court has given them.”