In February last year the Parole Board determined that Chisnall should be released, subject to special conditions, when a bed became available at a community support centre in Hamilton.
But the Parole Board revoked his parole on April 6, 2016, and Corrections applied to the High Court for a public protection order (PPO), or alternatively an extended supervision order (ESO).
Interim orders were also sought and granted to authorise Chisnall's ongoing detention until the applications could be determined.
Despite his sentence coming to an end, Chisnall has remained in a purpose-built facility for those subject to PPOs, known as the Matawhaiti Residence, within the perimeter fence of Christchurch Men's Prison.
Chisnall unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal against the interim order, and then appealed to the Supreme Court. New Zealand's highest court also dismissed his appeal.
At a week-long hearing before Justice Edwin Wylie in the High Court at Auckland this month Corrections applied for an indefinite public protection order.
Chisnall opposed the making of a PPO but was not opposed to an application for an ESO and would consent to an intensive monitoring condition.
However, in his judgment, released to the Herald last week, Justice Wylie ordered the PPO against Chisnall.
"Having considered all of the available evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Chisnall poses a very high risk of imminent serious sexual offending were he to be released into the community unsupervised," the judge concluded.
"All experts were concerned at the risk Mr Chisnall poses, and I accept the evidence, particularly of [a doctor and psychologist] that the risk of serious sexual reoffending is very high and imminent."
Reports from Chisnall's childhood describe him as being violent at kindergarten and school, and there is also a reference of a "very serious assault on his mother" where Chisnall broke her jaw and tried to strangle her.
Chisnall says he suffered physical abuse as a boy and became "sexually preoccupied" after watching a violent pornographic film when he was 10.
Through his counsel Chisnall also made an application for declarations of inconsistency.
He claimed that a section of the Public Safety Act and a section of the Parole Act are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights when relating to the manner and method of obtaining information for psychological reports needed to support a PPO or ESO application.
Chisnall's application was opposed by the Attorney-General and the argument has been set down for separate hearing.
