Christopher Williams, 49, who lives in a probation hostel in Carlisle, Cumbria, had argued the ban was 'restrictive' because it stopped him from losing weight - something he had been ordered to do by doctors because of his heart condition, rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.
Williams, who was jailed for seven years in 1996 for indecent assault and gross indecency after molesting and tying up a 12-year-old boy, and who also had a conviction from 1980 for indecent exposure, fought the ban in court, and amazingly, a judge agreed it 'breached his human rights' not to be allowed to walk there.
Despite having miles of open ground in the vast Lake District nearby, Williams insisted he should be allowed access to his local park, promising to not go near children's play area, which, he said 'doesn't interest me.'
Sitting at Burnley Crown Court, Lancashire, Judge Andrew Woolman and two magistrates agreed to relax the Sexual Offences Prevention Order Williams was under, to allow him more freedom.
They did, however, state he would only be allowed there at certain agreed times and not during school holidays or after school hours.
Judge Woolman said no order of the court could prevent all contact between Williams and children, as he would come into contact with them when he was out shopping.
Was the judge right? Should Williams' ban have been relaxed?