Where does his freedom to pursue sex end and the right of others not to be sexually threatened by him begin?
Clearly he represents a sexual threat or the case would never have been brought. Whether that is his fault or not isn't really the point. If he represents a substantive threat, his freedom ought to be restricted. After all, we effectively do this via the Mental Health Act with sectioning, etc.
But a clinical psychologist has made clear that he represents a moderate risk of sexually offending against women because he is mentally impaired, horny as fúck and cannot understand consent. If he then goes on to commit such a sexual offence, how would you justify the decision to give him that chance to his victims?
As I say, the principle of precautionary restriction of freedom already exists within the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Not to apply it here seems extremely rash.