A paedophile now dating a case worker he met in a facility for sex offenders wants to live with the woman in regional Victoria when he's released from the secure unit.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Gregory Sedgman, who has a history of serious sex offences spanning 12 years, wants to live with his partner in Horsham after he leaves Corella Place, a secure facility in nearby Ararat.
The 40-year-old met his partner during a previous stay at the facility, which is for sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences but are considered unfit for community release.
The case worker, who resigned when her relationship with Sedgman was discovered by co-workers, had continued to work at Corella Place for several months after it began.
Fairfax Media revealed last week that a mother is suing the State of Victoria for placing Sedgman in the same crisis accommodation as her and her 15-year-old daughter when he was last released from Corella Place in 2012.
The legal action is included in an explosive series of lawsuits by the families of victims of sex offenders, rapists and murderers, including five people killed by offenders released on parole.
The County Court heard last June that Sedgman had been bashed in custody, and wanted a suppression order to protect his identity as he feared further violence.
He wanted the order to apply for the remainder of his sentence, his time in Corella Place, and his release in the community.
Sedgman argued that he was likely to be targeted by fellow residents at Corella Place because of his relationship with his former case worker.
But a judge ruled that his fear of reprisals was unreasonable, and that, because of his previous offending, the community were entitled to know his history so they could make informed decisions about the risk he may pose.
In a strange set of circumstances, the County Court, Department of Justice, and Office of Public Prosecutions were all unable to confirm if the suppression order, which was to remain in place until Sedgman was released from custody to Corella Place, was still valid.
This prevented Fairfax from naming Sedgman last week.
Sedgman was expected to be released late last year.
He had been serving a four-month sentence for four breaches of Sex Offender registration requirements, and an eight-month sentence for 13 breaches of his supervision order.
These breaches included those committed by Sedgman when he was moved to the same block of flats as the 15-year-old girl in Flora Hill, a suburb of Bendigo.
He paid the girl $10 an hour to clean his flat, and she was soon visiting regularly, once visiting when Sedgman and another convicted sex offender were present.
Over three months, from February to April 2013, he gave the girl a key to his flat, touched her leg, tried to hug her and touch her hair and encouraged her to come over to play Xbox.
Sedgman had previously been convicted of seven counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16, charges which involved two 14-year-old girls, and making, publishing and possessing child pornography.
A court heard during his sentencing for the breaches that Sedgman had been angry he was released from Corella Place as he feared he could not cope living in the community.
Haven; Home, Safe, the accommodation provider that housed Sedgman at the block of flats, is also being sued.
The basis of Shine Lawyer's argument in the series of cases is that the State and other defendants failed in their duty of care to the victims because of their unique knowledge of the offenders and their prospects of rehabilitation.
They also had a responsibility to house them or monitor their lives in the community.
While a person does not generally owe a duty of care to protect another individual from the criminal acts of a third party, lawyers for the families will argue that as only the State had knowledge about these offenders, they breached a duty of care arising from a special category of relationship.
The duty of care is similar to that which can exist between a school and a student, it will be argued.
The maximum amount that they could be paid for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, is about $525,000.
This did not include separate costs, such as those incurred by being unable to work.
