MAP Forum

Peter Craig Townsend, who still maintains his innocence despite five convictions spanning 17 years, will remain in prison indefinitely.

A serial pedophile and sexual deviant, who still maintains his innocence despite five convictions spanning 17 years, will remain in prison indefinitely.
Peter Craig Townsend, 42, was first charged with sexual offences against a girl under 12 in 2002 and he was convicted and sentenced to a year behind bars.
He was sentenced for further similar child sex offences in 2004, when he was 20 years-old, receiving a four-year jail term, but eligible for release after serving 18 months.

Townsend was further convicted of failing to comply with reporting conditions in 2009 and 2011 – on one occasion he failed to disclose that he had been in the company of several children under the age of 13.
In 2019, he was convicted in Toowoomba District Court of two counts of rape and one count of indecent treatment against an eight-year-old girl. He was jailed for five years for these offences.
The State Attorney-General initiated the case in the Supreme Court, asking for an order to detain Townsend in custody for an indefinite term for control and treatment, which was the preference, or if he was to be released from custody, do so under a strict court-mandated supervision order in effect for at least 10 years.

In the proceeding, Townsend himself did not disagree that he is a serious danger to the
community in the absence of a supervision order, but said his preference was to be released into the community under supervision and he said he would comply with any requirements.
A psychiatrist who assessed Townsend in prison at Woodford Correctional Centre said although he had never had an intimate partner and remained a virgin, he had displayed sexual behaviour as a teenager.
“He has a difficult upbringing. There is evidence of stealing and other anti-social acts,” Dr Eve Timmins said in her report.
“There were concerns of sexualised behaviours in his early teenage years and observations of sexual behaviour with family pets.
“He has declined all interventions in this custodial period aimed at treating his sexual offending behaviour. He tended to minimise his offending, often being vague with answers or outright denying his behaviour.”

Dr Timmins said Townsend’s diagnosis of pedophilia was an exclusive disorder in the sense that he did not have any interest in adult females.
She concluded the risk Townend posed was “quite high” noting his lack of insight into his sexual deviance or understanding of how to mitigate his own risk.
“With regards to future sexual offending, Mr Townsend is likely to target under-age females in his vicinity who are known to him,” Dr Timmins testified.
“He will groom them and engage them in a relationship. He will use presents, enticements and casual touching, moving to hugging and then kissing before he attempts penetrative offending.”

Dr Jane Phillips – another psychiatrist who assessed Townsend – said a community supervision order could reduce his risk of reoffending.
“It is my opinion that a supervision order would assist in reducing the risk of reoffending by offering assertive monitoring and interventions to target dynamic risk factors for sexual violence,” Dr Phillips submitted to the court.
“It is my opinion that if Mr Townsend were to be released from custody with a supervision order, in the context of individual psychological intervention, abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances and robust supervision in the community, that his risk of sexually reoffending would be in the moderate range.”
Justice Rebecca Treston ordered Townsend be detained in custody on a continuing detention order.
“All of the psychiatrists expressed the opinion that the preferable course … would be served by him undertaking sexual offender courses and psychological treatment whilst he remained in custody,” she wrote in her decision.

“The respondent [Townsend] repeated to each of the doctors who had seen him that he refused to participate with ongoing treatment whilst still in custody.
“It is difficult to conclude that community protection can be ensured when there is little more than a mere declaration by the respondent [Townsend] that he will engage in the necessary treatment regimen if he is released on a supervision order.
“He poses a high unmodified risk of sexual violence because of his refusal to undertake any treatment.”