A convicted rapist whom Tasmania’s Supreme Court formally assessed as posing an “unacceptable risk” of committing another serious offence has been released from custody after repeatedly breaching conditions imposed following his eight-year prison sentence for the rape of a 76-year-old woman.
Christo Brown has walked free again after appearing before a Hobart court over breaches of the extraordinarily strict High Risk Offender Order imposed when he completed his prison sentence last year.
Brown was sentenced to one month in jail over the latest breaches, but the term was backdated to reflect time he had already spent in custody, allowing him to be released.
The development has renewed scrutiny of a case that has generated community anger since Brown’s impending release was revealed last year, when Tasmanians began campaigning for federal authorities to deport him rather than allow him to return to the community.
Brown’s release is subject to a five-year High Risk Offender Order containing electronic monitoring, a nightly curfew, compulsory supervision and treatment, restrictions on leaving Tasmania and absolute prohibitions on alcohol and illicit drugs.
Those restrictions were not imposed routinely.
In September 2025, Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Shanahan concluded to the required high degree of probability that Brown posed an “unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence” unless such an order was made.
Brown released after latest breaches
The latest proceedings followed allegations that Brown had repeatedly failed to comply with the controls designed to manage him in the community.
According to reporting of the Hobart court proceedings, Brown had twice failed to comply precisely with his 8pm curfew.
On May 31, electronic monitoring indicated he was not at his approved residence at 8pm. He arrived about three minutes later and said he had been collecting a phone charger from his brother.
A second incident occurred on June 13, when Brown contacted the compliance unit to say he was at a Hungry Jack’s drive-through and would be late.
He returned at approximately 8.06pm but was reportedly found outside the property boundary speaking with an associate in a vehicle.
The court also dealt with Brown’s failure to provide an oral-fluid sample to police.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Ken Stanton sentenced Brown to one month’s imprisonment, but backdated the term to account for the period he had already spent behind bars. That meant Brown had effectively served the sentence by the time it was imposed.
Defence says Brown had already spent enough time in custody
Brown’s lawyer, Fran McCracken, argued that the breaches had to be viewed in context and told the court her client had already spent sufficient time in custody.
The defence also raised the intense public attention surrounding Brown since his release, including photographs of him appearing on social media and racially charged commentary directed towards him.
But the court also stressed that High Risk Offender Orders require strict compliance, particularly because they are imposed specifically to manage offenders whom the courts consider capable of presenting serious risks following release.
Brown’s latest difficulties were not his first since leaving prison.
He was accused earlier this year of breaching the order’s prohibition on alcohol. Court reporting in April said Brown disputed an allegation concerning alcohol consumption and blamed a testing-machine error in relation to one incident.
Why Brown is subject to extraordinary restrictions
The severity of Brown’s supervision becomes clearer in the Supreme Court’s original decision imposing the order.
The five-year regime requires Brown to live at premises approved by Community Corrections and allows police to enter and search his residence.
He must submit to supervision by probation authorities, follow lawful directions concerning matters including employment and participate in counselling or treatment when directed.
Brown cannot leave Tasmania without approval from the Director of Corrective Services.
Between 8pm and 6am every day, he must ordinarily remain at an approved address. He is subject to electronic monitoring and must not tamper with the equipment.
The court also imposed a complete prohibition on consuming alcohol or illicit drugs and requires Brown to submit to breath, urine or other testing when directed.
He can additionally be required to participate in psychiatric, psychological, therapeutic or counselling programs.
The conditions demonstrate the degree of concern surrounding Brown when his eight-year prison term came to an end.
Supreme Court found an ‘unacceptable risk’
Chief Justice Shanahan’s 2025 judgment provides an unusually detailed account of why authorities sought to keep Brown under close control.
The court considered a Behaviour and Management Report as well as a specialist risk assessment prepared by Associate Professor Rajan Darjee.
The Behaviour and Management Report described Brown as having a long history involving violence and drug use.
While acknowledging that he had made treatment gains, the report concluded that Brown continued to present with numerous risk factors associated with sexual and violent offending and remained at an above-average risk of future sexual offending.
It recommended a high level of intervention and risk management following his return to the community.
The specialist assessment went further, concluding Brown would require long-term intensive monitoring, supervision and intervention to prevent further sexual violence.
It also found that offence-specific treatment undertaken while Brown was imprisoned had not significantly reduced the risk he posed.
Chief Justice Shanahan ultimately accepted the Director of Public Prosecutions’ request for the maximum five-year operational period.
Under Tasmania’s Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021, the safety of the community was required to be the paramount consideration.
Eight years for rape of elderly woman in her home
Brown’s supervision stems from a brutal crime committed when he was 18.
In July 2015, Brown broke into the West Launceston home of a 76-year-old woman during the early hours of the morning.
He sexually assaulted the woman and demanded money from her.
The prosecution case later relied heavily on DNA recovered from the victim’s nightgown, which matched Brown’s profile.
Brown denied committing the attack, but a Supreme Court jury convicted him of rape in July 2018.
He was subsequently sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
Justice Robert Pearce said the attack had inflicted a devastating and enduring impact upon the victim. The sentencing court also heard that Brown showed no remorse and had been assessed as presenting a very high risk of sexually reoffending.
The victim had been attacked in the home in which she had lived for most of her life.
According to contemporaneous reporting, Brown demanded sex and, after she refused, raped her.
The case was considered particularly serious not merely because of the victim’s age, but because the assault took place after an invasion of the place where she should have been safest — her own home.
Brown’s criminal history went beyond the Launceston rape
The Supreme Court’s 2025 High Risk Offender Order judgment also records other serious offending.
Brown had a conviction for arson dating to when he was 14.
More significantly, while on bail he travelled to Queensland and was convicted over a sexual assault committed in July 2016.
In July 2019, he was also convicted of four counts of assault and an aggravated burglary arising from an incident in January 2015.
Those matters formed part of the broader history examined when the Supreme Court considered whether Brown could safely leave prison without extraordinary post-sentence supervision.
Brown had technically been eligible for parole for several years, but the 2025 court judgment noted he had not completed relevant treatment necessary to become eligible for release on parole.
Appeal against rape conviction and sentence failed
Brown previously tried to overturn his rape conviction and reduce his sentence.
In 2019, Tasmania’s Court of Criminal Appeal rejected his arguments.
The appeal court noted his extensive prior convictions for violence and dishonesty and the assessment that he presented a high risk of further sexual violence.
His eight-year prison sentence therefore remained intact.
By the time the Supreme Court considered the High Risk Offender Order in September 2025, Brown had been continuously in custody since November 2017 and was approaching his earliest release date of October 31, 2025.
Risk assessment drove five-year supervision order
The question confronting the Supreme Court last year was no longer whether Brown was guilty of the original crime. His conviction and sentence had long since been settled.
The question was what would happen when the prison gates opened.
The DPP argued that releasing Brown without an intensive legal framework would expose the community to an unacceptable risk.
Brown did not ultimately oppose the existence of an order itself. The dispute instead centred on particular conditions, including the curfew and prohibition on alcohol, as well as how long the order should operate.
Brown sought greater flexibility and wanted to be permitted to consume alcohol up to the legal driving limit.
The court refused.
Chief Justice Shanahan accepted the recommendations supporting a curfew verified by electronic monitoring and maintained the prohibition on alcohol.
Brown had also expressed a desire to move to Western Australia to distance himself from criminal connections in Tasmania that he believed could interfere with his rehabilitation.
The final order nevertheless requires him to obtain permission before leaving Tasmania.
Community campaign demands deportation
Brown’s release has also generated a separate political controversy over his immigration status.
Brown was born in Sudan and moved to Australia with his family when he was young. His impending release prompted Tasmanians to establish an online petition calling on Home Affairs and Immigration Minister Tony Burke to have him deported.
The petition argues that a foreign-born offender assessed as presenting a serious risk should not remain in the Australian community after completing his custodial sentence.
As of the latest available version, the campaign displayed more than 6,800 verified signatures.
Its nominated decision-maker is Tony Burke, and organisers have repeatedly urged supporters to contact the federal minister directly.
However, publicly available material located for this article does not establish that Burke has personally made a formal decision refusing to deport Brown.
That distinction matters. The existence of a petition demanding ministerial intervention is verifiable; a claim that the minister has formally refused such intervention requires evidence of a decision or statement that has not been established by the available official material.
Release puts High Risk Offender Order back under scrutiny
Brown’s latest release presents a difficult test for Tasmania’s post-sentence supervision regime.
The High Risk Offender Order exists precisely because the Supreme Court determined ordinary release without those safeguards would create an unacceptable risk.
At the same time, the order does not itself amount to a further prison sentence.
It establishes legally enforceable conditions intended to control risk while allowing an offender who has completed his sentence to live in the community.
Breaches can result in further criminal penalties and imprisonment, as Brown’s latest return to custody demonstrates.
The latest violations may appear relatively brief in terms of minutes outside curfew, but they take on greater significance because of the stringent risk-management framework under which Brown was released.
The refusal to provide an oral-fluid sample was also treated seriously by the court.
Brown remains under supervision despite release
Brown’s release does not terminate the High Risk Offender Order.
The original Supreme Court order runs for five years from his release and continues to subject him to extensive controls.
He remains required to comply with his curfew, electronic monitoring and directions from supervising authorities, abstain from alcohol and illicit drugs, participate in required treatment and obtain permission before leaving Tasmania.
The Supreme Court made clear when imposing those restrictions that community safety was its paramount consideration.
That conclusion rested not on political rhetoric but on formal assessments of Brown’s history, treatment progress and risk of future sexual offending.
The 2025 judgment found that Brown had made some treatment gains, but nevertheless retained many factors associated with sexual and violent offending. It also found he required strict community supervision to manage those risks.
Brown is therefore free from prison, but he is not free from supervision. Any further failures to comply with the five-year order could again return one of Tasmania’s most closely monitored offenders to court — and potentially to custody.
