A Sydney court has loosened the bail conditions of a 34-year-old company director accused of sexually assaulting a toddler, allowing him to travel without electronic monitoring while serious child sexual offence charges remain before the courts.

The man, whose identity cannot be published in order to protect the identity of the alleged child victim, is facing two counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10.

Police allege the offences occurred on two occasions between March 2024 and November 2025, when the child was aged between two and four.

The allegations have not been tested at trial, and the accused has not been convicted of any offence.

He was previously granted bail after being arrested at Surry Hills Police Station and appeared again this week seeking a variation of the conditions governing his release.

The application was reportedly heard at Sydney’s Downing Centre before Deputy Chief Judge Stephen Hanley of the NSW District Court.

The defence told the court there were problems associated with the existing bail arrangements and sought the removal of the electronic monitoring requirement.

Judge Hanley granted the variation.

The decision means the accused is no longer required to wear the monitoring device under the bail arrangement described to the court.

However, the removal of electronic monitoring does not mean his bail is unconditional.

According to the court report, he must continue reporting to police once each week and is prohibited from contacting the complainant or witnesses, with an exception allowing contact with his parents.

The available reporting does not specify the destination or purpose of any travel contemplated by the application, nor does it establish that every other restriction on his movement has been removed.

The distinction is important in a case that has attracted attention because of both the gravity of the allegations and the fact the accused is not being held in custody while proceedings continue.

Under New South Wales law, bail is not a determination of whether an accused person is guilty or innocent.

A bail hearing instead determines whether a person should remain detained before their case is resolved, taking into account risks including whether they may fail to appear in court, commit a serious offence, endanger a victim or the community, or interfere with witnesses or evidence.

The Bail Act expressly recognises both the safety of victims and the community and the common-law presumption of innocence and general right to liberty.

That means even a person facing an extremely serious allegation may be released if the applicable legal tests are satisfied and the court concludes identified risks can be dealt with through conditions.

Conversely, bail must be refused where the court concludes there is an unacceptable risk that cannot be adequately addressed.

The charges in this case are among the most serious sexual offences recognised under NSW law.

Section 66A of the Crimes Act 1900 makes sexual intercourse with a child under 10 an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The legal definition of sexual intercourse is broader than the everyday meaning sometimes attached to the term, and encompasses several forms of sexual penetration or contact specified by the Crimes Act.

Because an offence under section 66A is punishable by life imprisonment, it is also within the categories of offences for which NSW’s heightened “show cause” bail provisions apply.

For a show-cause offence, an accused person seeking bail must first satisfy the court that their continued detention is not justified.

If that threshold is met, the court then moves to the separate unacceptable-risk assessment applying under the Bail Act.

That second stage requires consideration of whether release creates an unacceptable risk that the accused will fail to appear, commit a serious offence, endanger another person or the community, or interfere with witnesses or evidence.

Conditions may be imposed to deal with identified concerns, but NSW law requires those conditions to be reasonably necessary, appropriate to the risk and no more onerous than required.

Those principles help explain why the seriousness of a charge alone does not automatically result in a person remaining behind bars until trial.

They also explain why bail conditions can later be varied.

Courts can reconsider restrictions where circumstances change or where an existing condition is argued to be unnecessary, impractical or more onerous than required to manage the relevant bail concern.

Electronic monitoring has itself undergone major changes in NSW.

Following controversy over privately operated ankle-monitoring arrangements, the NSW Parliament passed legislation in 2025 banning private electronic monitoring as a general bail condition.

Under the current Bail Act, electronic monitoring is tightly confined and section 30A says a bail condition cannot require it other than through the specific regime established by section 28B.

That regime is principally directed at certain serious domestic violence offences and monitoring is conducted by Corrective Services NSW.

The publicly available material concerning the present child-sexual-offence case does not explain the precise legal basis on which the accused came to be subject to an ankle-monitor requirement, or when that condition was first imposed.

For that reason, the significance of the court’s latest ruling should not be overstated beyond what has been reported: the electronic monitoring requirement has been removed, while other bail conditions remain.

The identities involved are also subject to particularly strict protections because the allegations concern a very young child.

Australian courts and media organisations routinely withhold information that could identify alleged victims of sexual offences, especially children.

That can mean an accused person’s name must also be suppressed or withheld where publishing it could indirectly reveal who the child is through family, personal or other connections.

Those restrictions can limit the amount of publicly available information about a proceeding even when the charges themselves are extremely serious.

They also explain why reporting in such matters frequently refers to an accused only by their age, occupation or other non-identifying details.

The same caution applies to terminology used to describe the accused.

Although some reporting has referred to the man as an “alleged paedophile”, the more precise description at this stage is a man accused of child sexual offences.

Paedophilia is not itself the criminal charge before the court, and no finding of guilt has been made.

What police must ultimately prove is the criminal conduct alleged in the charges.

The matter also illustrates the sometimes uncomfortable distinction between allegations that evoke an understandably strong public reaction and the procedural protections applying before a criminal trial.

Sexual offences against very young children attract some of the heaviest penalties available under NSW criminal law.

But an accused person does not lose the presumption of innocence because of the nature of the allegation, and bail proceedings cannot be used to punish someone before guilt has been established.

At the same time, the Bail Act requires courts to consider the safety of alleged victims, witnesses and the wider community when deciding whether release is appropriate and which restrictions should apply.

Conditions such as police reporting obligations and prohibitions on contacting particular people are among the mechanisms courts can use to address those concerns.

The reported continuation of those conditions in this case means Judge Hanley’s decision was a variation of the existing bail package rather than the removal of bail supervision altogether.

There is no suggestion in the available material that the charges have been withdrawn or reduced.

Nor does the granting of the application indicate any finding about the strength or truth of the allegations.

The prosecution will still be required to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt if the matter proceeds to trial and the accused contests the charges.

Likewise, nothing about the original decision to grant bail, or the later decision to alter its conditions, should be interpreted as a determination of guilt or innocence.

The case is expected to return to court in November.

Until then, the 34-year-old remains on bail subject to the continuing restrictions reported to the court, while the two allegations concerning the child remain unresolved.