A convicted sex offender was ordered yesterday to wear an electronic monitoring device after he failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that it would cause him pain.

Junius Caines, 50, was imprisoned last year after he was convicted of a 2016 serious sexual assault for the attempted rape of a woman. He was released from custody in June, but objected when he was told he should wear an electronic monitoring device.

Caines said he had “bad pains” that could be worsened by wearing the monitor and that it produced radiation. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons said yesterday: “He has failed to provide any evidence that the court can use to find the EMD is harmful to his health.”

She ordered that Caines be fitted with an EMD and wear it until his probation officers were satisfied it was no longer needed.

Caines was arrested on August 6, 2016 after an incident in which he followed and attacked a woman outside her Hamilton home.

The Supreme Court heard Caines grabbed her from behind and threw her to the ground, but a group of passers-by heard the noise and came to the woman’s aid.

Caines ran away but, as the victim was at the scene talking to police, she saw him walk back through the area and identified him.

The court heard the assault lasted less than a minute and the victim suffered only minor injuries, but that she had been traumatised by the attack.

Caines admitted the offence and was sentenced to three years in prison, followed by a five-year supervision order.

The Crown argued that he should wear an EMD as part of the conditions of his supervision order when he was released from prison.

But in a hearing before his release, he argued the EMD would cause him pain due to a leg injury suffered in a traffic collision.

He also claimed the device released “radiation”.

Mrs Justice Simmons allowed Caines to be released without a device on an interim supervision order, but he was ordered to provide the court with evidence to support his claims.

The court heard yesterday that neither Caines nor his lawyer Saul Dismont had submitted evidence.

Nicole Smith, Crown counsel, said: “In fact, through an e-mail, Saul Dismont informed the court and the Crown they had no such evidence.”

Ms Smith added that the Crown had spoken to a radiologist who said there was no evidence to suggest the device or radiation from the device would cause Caines any discomfort.

Mr Dismont said Caines had not been in breach of any of the conditions of the interim order which suggested the EMD would not be needed.

He said: “Mr Caines is not fighting the EMD, but it seems that it’s not entirely necessary. He has been attending court regularly.”

Mr Dismont also said Caines objected to other suggested conditions, including that he should inform the Department of Court Services about any new relationships.

But Ms Smith said the Crown did not seek to include that condition in the final supervision order.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem might inflame sensitivities. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.