Appeal judges reserve decision on paedophile

One of the country's most prolific paedophiles has appealed against an indefinite jail term.

Peter Douglas Liddell, 59, was sentenced last September to preventive detention after he admitted sexually violating a 15-year-old boy.

Justice Bruce Robertson, sitting in the High Court at Auckland, imposed a minimum five-year jail term.

Liddell was jailed for sex offences against four youngsters in 1994. He had previously offended against other victims.

Yesterday his lawyer, Jonathan Wiles, asked the Court of Appeal in Auckland to impose a finite sentence of around six years, with Liddell required to serve a minimum two-thirds.

But the Crown, represented by Howard Lawry, resisted the move, saying that in this case, as in others, Liddell had "groomed" his victim for sex.

Justices Robert Chambers, Tony Randerson and Peter Salmon reserved their decision.

Mr Wiles argued that at sentencing, Justice Robertson did not give enough weight to "optimistic and positive" indicators in three psychiatric and psychological reports.

But the appeal judges pointed to negative aspects in the reports and suggested Mr Wiles was picking and choosing the positive bits.

Justice Randerson said Justice Robertson took the view that Liddell's record spoke for itself and that "he just can't help himself". Liddell placed himself in the way of temptation with inevitable results.

The question for the appeal court and for the sentencing judge was that when Liddell was released from prison would the same thing happen yet again?

"The judge, on the basis of [Liddell's] record, came to the conclusion it was likely it would," Justice Randerson said.

Justice Salmon said it had been shown that Liddell was likely to re-offend, as that was what had happened in the past.

"We have to ask ourselves what has changed? Is there sufficient positive prognosis for the court to responsibly determine that despite what happened on his release on this occasion, it is unlikely to happen on his release on the next occasion?"

Mr Wiles said the seriousness of Liddell's offending had not escalated, but Justice Chambers said that was not the test.

"The test is whether he poses a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of any member of society."

Justice Randerson said that in 1994 another judge, Justice Robert Smellie, had given Liddell a final warning about preventive detention. "How could [Justice Robertson] overlook the warning given at the last sentencing?" Justice Randerson asked.

Mr Lawry said even the most positive of the reports relied on by the defence referred to Liddell's "grooming" behaviour. And that was exactly what Liddell had done with his latest victim.

Said Mr Lawry: "While he has already served a lengthy sentence and received a final warning, he has again engaged in that same sort of grooming behaviour."