A convicted sex offender was remanded after he was deemed unsuitable for Mental Health Treatment Court.

Devaun Cox, 38, had been ordered to complete the court’s programme for the remainder of his probation for a sex assault.

But the Supreme Court heard that Cox was rejected from the court after he refused to comply with its conditions, namely taking a “cocktail” of necessary medications.

Appearing in the higher court on Friday to determine how to proceed, Crown prosecutor Adley Duncan suggested that Cox be jailed for the remainder of his probation.

But Elizabeth Christopher, for the defence, said that imprisoning her client would be unconstitutional because he had essentially completed his one-year sentence.

She said: “As far as I’m concerned, his sentence is expired.”

Ms Christopher added that some of her client’s medication involved an injection, which he was uncomfortable with, and instead suggested switching him to different medication.

She pointed out that her client suffered a brain injury that caused him to have problems with impulse control, and requested time to collect his medical records to suggest how to adjust his treatment conditions.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe ordered that Mr Duncan submit the Crown’s official stance in writing within 14 days and that Ms Christopher respond within the same time.

He also gave an order for the collection of Cox’s medical records and findings on the legality of imprisoning someone in place of probation.

A return date will be determined administratively.

Cox was held in custody since January 9 after he was brought before Magistrates’ Court accused of a probation breach.

He was released from prison on January 3 after serving eight months of a one-year sentence for sexually assaulting a woman.

The sentence was handed down on December 29 after Cox had been behind bars since last May.

It included a mandatory 18-month probation upon his release, where he was ordered to refrain from alcohol or drug use, submit to urine screenings and take part in any programmes suggested by court staff.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. 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.