Arrest of ‘North Shore Rapist’ Leads to Calls for Better Community Protection

The recent arrest of Graham James Kay – the man dubbed the media as ‘the North Shore rapist’ – over allegations of sexual touching has caused outrage on social media, with many asking how the notorious sex offender could be released on parole after serving 18 years behind bars for a string of sexual offences spanning two-decades.

Police allege that at around 6pm on Friday, 21 February 2025, a man was captured on CCTV footage sexually touching a 16-year old girl at a pharmacy on George Street in the Sydney CBD.

After reviewing the footage, police attended the now 73-year old’s apartment on Blacktown, arrested and conveyed him to Blacktown police station where he was charged with sexual touching without consent.

He was refused bail at the police station and was formerly remanded in custody after appearing in Parramatta Local Court the next morning, where he did not apply for bail.

‘Entirely predictable’

Graham Kay was released from custody in 2015 after serving 18 years behind bars for sexually assaulting eight women in Sydney’s North Shore in the 1990s.

The offences included home invasions where he was armed with a knife, leading to widespread fear in the region.

Before this in the 1970s and 1980s, Mr Kay was convicted of a number of less serious offences including ‘groping’ and stalking a number of women and girls, for which he received good behaviour bonds.

Upon his 2015 release, Mr Kay was placed on an extended supervision order but nevertheless went on to reoffend in 2018 and again in 2022.

He sentenced to imprisonment in 2022 for stalking or intimidating a woman with intent to cause physical or mental harm, but was released in 2023 – subject to an additional extended supervision order which ostensibly subjected him to strict monitoring, including having to wear an ankle monitor, and reporting to authorities on a regular basis.

It has been reported that one of Mr Kay’s victims has called the most recent allegations ‘entirely predictable’, calling on authorities to ‘throw away the key’ and consider enacting tougher laws for serial sexual offenders.

Sexual reoffending

One of the concerns is the relatively high rate of reoffending when it comes to sexual offenders.

A study conducted in 2001 suggested that 14% of alleged offenders had previously been apprehended for sexual offences, with 35% of the sample found to have been processed for multiple sexual offences. 35% of the sample were also previously apprehended for violent or other offences.

A study conducted between 1984 and 1994 with 2,785 males arrested for sex offending found that a large number of the offenders were re-arrested at a later date. One study conducted in Canada found that sexual rapists had the highest recidivism rates among the three offence categories of paedophilia, rape, and incest. 

The data is concerning, leading to calls for the enactment of a range of measures to reduce the likelihood of reoffending – including better monitoring, more stringent reporting requirements and compulsory participating in programs proven to reduce recidivism.

Others have called for harsher penalties for sexual offences as well as more stringent bail and parole laws.

In relation to sentencing, statistics from the Judicial Commission of New South Wales suggest that 95% of those convicted of sexual assault are sentenced to imprisonment, with an average full term sentence of four years and three months and non-parole period of two years and six months, despite the maximum penalty being 14 years behind bars.  

The offence of sexual touching in New South Wales

Mr Kay now faces a criminal prosecution for sexual touching, which is an offence under section 61KC of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person:

1. Sexually touched another person (‘the complainant’), or incited the complainant to sexually touch themselves, or incited a third person to sexually touch the complainant, or incited the complainant to sexually touch a third person,
2. Did so intentionally, and
3. Did so without the complainant’s consent.

‘Sexual Touching’ is defined as touching another person with any part of the body or through anything, including clothing in circumstances where a reasonable person would consider it to be sexual.

The matters to be taken into account when determining whether touching is sexual include:

• Whether there is touching of the genitals, or breasts of a female or someone who identifies as female,
• Whether the act was for sexual arousal or gratification, and/or
• Whether any other aspect of the touching, or the surrounding circumstances, make it sexual.

Touching is not sexual if carried out for genuine medical or hygienic purposes.

A person is not guilty if evidence is raised of a legal defence, and the prosecution is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defence does not apply in the circumstances of the case.

Legal defences to sexual touching include duress, necessity, self-defence and lawful correction of a minor.

Extended supervision orders in New South Wales

Mr Kay was subject to an extended supervision order at the time of the most recent allegations.

In 2011, the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was amended to allow the attorney general make applications for extended supervision orders, which are essentially orders to keep certain persons under close monitoring and supervision after their release into the community.

To obtain an extended supervision order, an application must be made to the Supreme Court during the last six months of the offender’s sentence.

Whether or not an application will be granted is based on a number of considerations, including:

• What treatment and/or rehabilitation programs the offender has undertaken
• during custody and the extent of their participation.
• Reports from psychologists, psychiatrists or medical practitioners detailing the likelihood of the offender committing a further offence if left unsupervised.
• Whether or not the offender has complied with restrictions and rules during their time in prison.
• The criminal history of the offender, and whether they have committed previous offences.
• Any factors that were mentioned at the time of sentencing that could be relevant to whether the offender is likely to re-offend once released.

A releasee must be served with a copy of the extended supervision application within two days of it being made, and is entitled to see the supporting documentation and reports that are included within the application.

If it is considered likely that the person will be released before the application is processed, an interim order can be put in place.

The conditions of extended supervision order may vary, but can include:

• Reporting regularly to a corrective services officer.
• Residing at a specified address.
• Allowing corrective services access to their address, and items such as computers, when required.
• Mandatory participation in treatment and rehabilitation programs.
• Wearing electronic monitoring equipment.
• Restrictions around who to associate with or particular classes of persons to associate with.
• Restrictions surrounding participation in certain activities or forms of behaviour.

It is possible to appeal an extended supervision order if the terms are unjust, or would impact too harshly on the releasee.

An order can be imposed for up to five years, and the state can apply for a further or subsequent order.

Breaching an extended supervision order is a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.