Dangerous predator loses court bid to overturn ban on watching porn

A DANGEROUS sexual predator has failed to persuade a court that a social worker had breached his human rights by banning him from viewing pornography.

Martin Miller, who poses a high risk to women and children, had claimed that the social worker was wrong to impose the pornography ban on him after he was freed from jail.

Miller, also known as Jones, claimed that the ban on him watching pornography - which was imposed as part of a supervised release order - was a breach of his human rights.

He told Perth Sheriff Court yesterday that the social worker - rather than the sentencing sheriff - had acted outwith their authority in imposing the ban.

Advocate Sean Templeton, for Miller, said: "In essence, the supervising officer has overstepped their authority in deciding to take the role of the sheriff in setting sentence. That should be a matter for the court alone, and not the supervising officer.

"The social worker has effectively adopted the role of sentencing judge in making this variation in terms of its depth and breadth."

Miller was jailed for 18 months last July for stalking a 12-year-old girl and making her so scared that she has been left traumatised and having nightmares as a result.

The 26-year-old, described in court as a very-high risk re-offender, had only just been released from jail when he pursued the terrified youngster through Perth.

He was placed on supervised release upon being freed from prison and social workers - who said there was nothing they could do to prevent him posing a danger to the public - imposed the ban on pornography and computer usage.

Senior social workers said that they had worked intensively with Miller, of St Catherine's Square, Perth, for almost a decade, but nothing could be done to reduce the danger he presents to the public.

He is now alleged to have breached that order by viewing pornography.

Fiscal depute Katie Pacholek, for the Crown, said the sentencing sheriff had been of the opinion that it was for the supervising officer to set the conditions of Miller's release.

She said that when Miller was initially presented with the no-pornography rule he had agreed to abide by it and signed an agreement as such.

Miller was also placed on a sexual offences prevention order for the next five years and was banned from being alone with any child under the age of 17.

It is alleged that Miller breached the condition of his supervised release, which he denies.

Sheriff Michael Fletcher said: "This is a challenge to the relevancy of an application for breach of a supervised release order, on the basis it was not imposed directly by the court, but later by a supervising officer.

"In my view, in these circumstances, the supervising officer is entitled to impose requirements as he may reasonably specify for the purposes set out and he does not require to apply to the court to vary the order."

Miller will now pursue his case on the grounds that the condition was not "reasonable", and a further hearing at the court has been set for next month.