EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (GROUP I) This report looks into Dennis Ferguson, noted to be one of Australia’s most infamous criminals as a result of his abuse against women and children. Ferguson abducted and sexually abused three children over a period of three days – this immediately brought public concern. Despite spending 14 years in prison for this crime, his paedophilic tendencies did not dwindle. Even after his release, Ferguson was charged with molesting a young girl in 2005 – possibly due to his refusal to participate in rehabilitation programmes. However, Ferguson was not charged as his liability was difficult to prove due to Allan Guy being present. This led to a public outrage, as most people were infuriated with the idea that a paedophile was released back into society. Ferguson’s life consisted of being forced out of neighbourhoods and assaults being made against him. In 2012, Ferguson was found dead in his apartment due to a discontinuation of his diabetic medicine. There is some speculation that this may have been suicide, but there is limited evidence for this claim. Therefore, using the conditioned response theory, Dennis Ferguson can be classified as a serial paedophile, because of his traumatic childhood during which he was sexually abused. The media labelled Dennis Ferguson a ‘Notorious Paedophile’. However, according to DSM 5 experiencing sexual attraction towards children this does not constitute evidence for a disorder unless those actions cause distress. Ferguson does not experience any distress about his actions nor does he admit to being guilty. As discussed by the profiler above, diagnosing Paedophilia mainly uses questionnaires and interviews. Since Ferguson does not admit to being guilty, it is difficult to classify him as a paedophile from a questionnaire. However, theories such as conditioned response theory and the police investigation conducted shows concrete evidence that Dennis Ferguson is indeed a paedophile. Therefore, since Ferguson is a paedophile, he should be prosecuted for his crime in 1988. Ferguson should be convicted under s.210 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 and serve a maximum of 14 years. Dennis Ferguson allegedly knew the children had already been abused and had previous criminal convictions prior to 1987 for various assaults on children. For this reason, Ferguson is unsafe in the community, and due to his attempts to obtain photographs of the victims under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld), this indicates he has no guilt or signs of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, from a forensic psychiatrist standpoint Ferguson should start rehabilitation while in jail. This would start with addressing what he has done, admitting to what he has done, and understanding the implication of his actions. Dennis Ferguson, while incarcerated, should not be housed with paedophiles nor should he be reprimanded for any further talk about molesting children. Upon release, since paedophiles are most likely to reoffend, Ferguson should be supported to prevent further offences. Thus, Ferguson should be attending therapy sessions bi-weekly when first released and he should be paired with a support group in an effort to prevent further offences. Briefing Document by Reporter (INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT) In 1988, one of Australia’s most notorious criminals, Dennis Raymond Ferguson, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for the kidnapping and sexual abuse of 3 children in Brisbane. This was not Ferguson’s first offence, as his previous criminal history notes several convictions for fraudulent pretences, various violent and lewd aggressions against women and children women which led to his incarceration in Long Bay Jail in 1987. Upon his release from prison in 1987, he teamed up with his male lover, Alexandria George Brookes to abduct the 3 children. Ferguson had come to learn about these children during his incarceration in Long Bay Jail in 1987, during which he spent most of his time with an inmate, who happened to be the father of the 3 abducted children. His interest in the children was sparked after having learned from his fellow inmate that they were previously sexually abused by him. Ferguson was eventually discovered by the police lying naked in bed with the children in a motel. At the time of his arrest, Ferguson appeared oblivious and unremorseful to the situation, and declared that he was able to assist the police in obtaining “kiddy porn” from other sources. He was persistent in establishing his innocence, going as far as to justify the situation by blaming one of the molested boys of committing the crime. Despite his best attempts, he was ultimately found guilty by the jury for abduction and molestation (Jackson 2009). Ferguson’s pedophilic tendencies and actions are believed to have stemmed from the abuse he faced in his childhood, in addition to the influence of his home environment on him (ABC News 2009). As a child, Ferguson had endured various hardships. Having been a child of separated parents and subsequently being sexually assaulted by his mother’s new lover for 7 years, Ferguson’s grasp of social cues, normal behaviour and sexuality was believed to be severely impaired. This was indicated by his antisocial behaviour and lack of empathy for his young victims. His tragic upbringing and childhood experiences is what was believed to lead his pedophilic tendencies to become a lifelong trait ingrained into his character. Hence, he declined participation into any rehabilitation programs while serving his sentence in prison. This was detrimental to his condition and recovery, as he had even gone to the extent of requesting police photographs of his victims under the Freedom of Information Act. Further, while incarcerated, it was reported by inmates that he even expressed intentions to sexually molest the 8-year-old daughter of the family he planned to reside with after his release. Despite such claims, Ferguson was eventually granted parole and released from prison with a legal requirement to report his whereabouts to the police at strict time intervals. Regardless of these rules, Ferguson had once again failed to comply, as he was discovered once more in 2003 within the grounds of a local school in New South Wales despite being forbidden to appear within close vicinity of children. He was reported to have defended his actions by claiming that he was only attempting to distribute cleaning products to raise funds. This event then again led to his reincarceration for 15 months in John Morony Correctional Centre, only to be released in December 2004 (The Australian 2008). These complications however did not seem to stop Ferguson from being involved yet again in another compromising situation. In 2005, only after a year of being released from the correctional centre, Ferguson was once again charged for allegedly sexually assaulting a 5-year-old girl in Queensland. However, to the public’s shock and horror, Ferguson was able to escape the consequences of this allegation in court. The court had already been lax on Ferguson initially by granting him a bench trial as opposed to a trial by jury, due to public threat and intense media coverage surrounding him (O’Leary 2009). Following this, Ferguson further provided the argument that there were 2 other men in the house with the child, with one of them being convicted child sexual abuser, Allan Guy (Ramachandran 2009). Hence, the court was not able to uncover any evidence of Ferguson being the perpetrator, which cleared a passage for him to escape the walls of prison once again. Besides legal prosecution, Ferguson had faced considerable public outrage and exile, which deprived him of ever leading a “normal” life. However, there is no such evidence to prove that if he was ever given a chance to rehabilitate, his conditions and thought processes would have differed and impeccable cure would have been achieved. Furthermore, Ferguson had even rejected any help offered to him for rehabilitation while he was in prison, which goes to show his disinterest for change and reluctance to accept that he is at fault, is of harm to society and is in need of a mental makeover. This created sufficient motivation for the public to assimilate and come together with one goal and intention: To keep Dennis Ferguson away from their surroundings. Upon his release from prison each time, Ferguson struggled to reside in one location or have a permanent address, as he was made to seek refuge in new places each time as a result of public and media pressures. He faced threats and disruptions from neighbours, to the extent that he was even endowed $2,250 in compensation as a result of a death threat (Gearing 2009). After major attempts, NSW police finally obtained a safety order against Ferguson, after having several previous orders denied by the judge, necessitating him to alert authorities before getting involved in activities involving children. This was achieved as a result of an incident in 2012, during which Ferguson was found selling toys for charity without a legal permit or police approval, which caused public outrage and fear. He was able to delude his way into carrying out this act by using his middle-name ‘Ray’ for registration, as opposed to ‘Dennis’ (Cuneo 2012). Ferguson was eventually found dead in his apartment in December 2012 from discontinuation of his diabetic medications. There was some speculation by his ‘supporters’ who claimed that Ferguson had committed suicide, as a result of the distress he faced from the police and media, who had allegedly continuously ‘undermined’ Ferguson’s attempts of rehabilitation and remorse, said Brett Collins, Ferguson’s advocate (Levy 2012). Hence, there is no denial that Dennis Ferguson’s actions had played a major role in reconstructing several aspects of laws involving child protection in NSW. The public’s defilement of him has even given rise to the ‘Dennis Ferguson Act’, which many claim is the state’s response to giving into vigilantism, making Ferguson a very interesting case of study for authorities and public nationwide.