"When he was placed, how he was placed, by whom...when he took off, and exactly what minute of the day and everything else - those facts will come out in due course. I just don't have them at the finger tips because of the very acute nature of him taking off."
Mr Wormald said police do believe Livingstone poses a risk to the public.
He said that risk assessment was based entirely on what he had done in the past.
Police had not received any sightings of him yet, Mr Wormald said, but were following the normal investigative leads including making contact with his family, known associates, and people he may have got in contact with.
Detective Inspector Wormald confirmed to Radio New Zealand this afternoon that police did not find Livingston was absent until around seven hours after the first alert.
Mr Wormald told Newstalk ZB that Livingstone had been living at the Upper Hutt address for about seven or eight weeks, as part of a Corrections placement.
"At that time, the staff that dropped him off said that he had these two suitcase. Now having searched the address we know they're not there, so we're surmising that with other clothing and items missing from the house, it's possible he may have packed his bags and left.
"We don't know what he is thinking at the moment, or why he has necessarily taken off at this time."
Mr Wormald told Newstalk ZB that police were aware of who he had visited and seen, as he was wearing a monitoring bracelet.
"We're certainly working through a number of people, a number of addresses that we know he is in contact with.
"We would certainly call on anybody who has heard from him, received a text from him or anything along those lines just to let us know he is out and about."
The Corrections Department was alerted immediately when Livingston tampered with his electronic bracelet.
A security officer who was sent to check on him did not reach his address until 3am, an hour after the department was notified.
When Livingstone did not answer the door, Corrections called the police. The police arrived soon after but could not locate Livingstone.
They did not enter the home, and left the address.
A security official was sent back to the house at around 7am, and again could not get him to answer the door.
Corrections asked police to return to the home and carry out a welfare check.
Despite being asked to enter the home by Corrections, police did not go inside and left the address without locating Livingstone.
Two hours later, at around 9am, Corrections again asked police to carry out a welfare check, this time with urgency.
When police returned and entered the address, they found the sex offender was not there and his electronic anklet had been removed.
The Herald understands Livingstone was living alone at the Upper Hutt address, which is believed to be a flat.
Livingstone was convicted in 2006 of the abduction and rape of a 10-year-old girl in Whangarei.
He was subject to an extended supervision order (ESO) and had been living in Upper Hutt since June.
The case has eerie parallels to the murder of Blessie Gotingco by Tony Robertson, another convicted child sex offender subject to an ESO.
The case of Robertson - who was today sentenced to at least 24 years in prison for murdering Mrs Gotingco and preventive detention for raping her - showed prisoners released with ESOs and GPS bracelets were considered the highest risk offenders.
(App users click here)
The High Court ruling which ordered Livingstone be GPS tracked confirms the system is used to monitor those most dangerous to the community.
The bracelet Livingstone removed was fitted after the Department of Corrections applied to the High Court in Napier for an ESO order. The hearing took place in February last year - the same month Robertson's ESO was imposed.
Livingstone was considered to have a "hostility to women; general social rejection; impulsiveness; poor problem solving; negative emotionality; sex drive/preoccupation; deviant sexual preferences; and cooperation with supervision".
The psychologist found he was likely to commit further offences and they were likely to be of a sexual nature against those aged under 16.
The judgment of Justice Stephen Kos recorded the psychologist's assessment that "likely victims will be pre-pubescent females who are unknown to him, compromised by their age or vulnerability".
It was likely his offending was likely to "escalate to rape" if Livingstone had "exclusive access to the person for a sufficient period of time".
"Mr Livingstone has been assessed as having a high level of sexual preoccupation. And he has a poor ability to control his sexual impulses. His preoccupation and lack of control are aggravated by use of substances. The facts of the immediate offending indicate impulsiveness in response to his sexual urges. And a blatant disregard for consequences."
Police were called Livingstone's address this morning by Corrections staff who notified them the tamper alarm on his monitoring bracelet had been activated.
When police got into his home they found the bracelet.
Due to Livingstone's criminal record, police hold grave concerns for the risk he may pose to the community - and himself.
He is described as a 1.75m Maori of medium build.
He may have medium-sized dark blue suitcase with a hard shell or a large maroon suitcase.
Police understand he does not have access to a vehicle.
He should not be approached.
Dave Sayes, who represented Livingstone at his trial for the abduction and rape of a 10-year-old girl, agreed Livingstone's offending was serious.
But in a statement to NZME News Service this evening, he defended the court's decision not to impose preventive detention on his client.
Mr Sayes said sentences were not, and should never be allowed to be, "based on raw emotion and desire for vengeance".
"Sentences proceed on a principled statutory legal basis," Mr Sayes said. "And this is exactly what occurred in this case."
Mr Sayes said he made "extensive written submissions" to the court opposing preventive detention.
He said the Crown withdrew its request for preventive detention, as the expert opinion did not assist or support the Crown in pursuing it.
"The judge agreed fully with their concession."
Mr Sayes said Livingstone had done what society expected "by pleading guilty early and he demonstrated some remorse".
He said it would be inappropriate to make any comment as to Livingstone's current situation.
"I haven't seen him since sentencing so I can't say why he has done that," he told NZME News Service.
Highest risk offenders
The case of Tony Robertson showed those released from prison with Extended Supervision Orders and GPS bracelets were considered the highest risk offenders.
The High Court ruling which ordered the GPS tracking system be used for Livingstone confirms the system is employed against those most dangerous to the community.
The bracelet Livingstone removed yesterday was imposed after the Department of Corrections applied to the High Court in Napier for an ESO order, with the hearing taking place in February last year - the same month Robertson's ESO was imposed.
He was considered to have a "hostility to women; general social rejection; impulsiveness; poor problem solving; negative emotionality; sex drive/preoccupation; deviant sexual preferences; and cooperation with supervision".
The psychologist found Livingstone was likely to commit further offences and it was likely to be of a sexual nature against those aged under 16.
The judgment of Justice Stephen Kos recorded the psychologist's assessment being that "likely victims will be pre-pubescent females who are unknown to him, compromised by their age or vulnerability". It was likely his offending was likely to "escalate to rape" if Livingstone had "exclusive access to the person for a sufficient period of time".
"Mr Livingstone has been assessed as having a high level of sexual preoccupation. And he has a poor ability to control his sexual impulses. His preoccupation and lack of control are aggravated by use of substances. The facts of the immediate offending indicate impulsiveness in response to his sexual urges. And a blatant disregard for consequences."
The psychologist carrying out the assessment for the ESO hearing "harbours doubts as to the sincerity of Mr Livingstone's remorse and shame at his offending", Justice Kos recorded.
He also recorded Livingstone's participation in a sex offenders program - but that he was described as being "detached and disinterested" and it was hard to determine whether he had learned anything.
Livingstone had no objection to the ESO - but Justice Kos said he had to reach his own reasons for ordering it. He found an ESO was required but Livingstone's single sex offence required it be less than the 10 year maximum. He ordered a seven year term.
