Corbett v The State of Western Australia [No 6]
[2019] WASC 37
•8 FEBRUARY 2019
| JURISDICTION | : | SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
| IN CRIMINAL | ||
| CITATION | : | CORBETT -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 6] [2019] WASC 37 |
| CORAM | : HALL J | ||
| HEARD | : 8 FEBRUARY 2019 | ||
| DELIVERED | : 8 FEBRUARY 2019 | ||
| PUBLISHED | : 22 FEBRUARY 2019 | ||
| FILE NO/S |
| ||
| BETWEEN | : TYRONE KINGSLEY CORBETT |
Applicant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
Catchwords:
Dangerous sexual offenders - Exceptional review - Availability of accommodation for a detainee previously considered suitable for release - Supervision order made
Legislation:
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), s 30, s 33
[2019] WASC 37
Result:
Supervision order made
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms M R Barone SC |
Respondent : Mr B D Meertens
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : Mara Barone |
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Corbett v State Director of Public Prosecution [2018] WASC 409
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dick [No 5] [2013] WASC 357
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Pindan [No 3] [2017] WASC 107
Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Decke [2009] WASC
312
Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4
The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
HALL J:
On 18 December 2018 I granted leave for the applicant, Mr Corbett, to apply for a review of his continuing detention order pursuant to s 30 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act). That application was heard on 8 February 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing I made orders which included rescinding the continuing detention order and making a supervision order. I gave brief oral reasons for my conclusions and said that more detailed written reasons would be published in due course.
The history of proceedings in respect of Mr Corbett was summarised in my judgment on the last annual review.[1] At that review it was accepted by the State that release of Mr Corbett on a supervision order was appropriate, subject to suitable accommodation being found. Despite extensive efforts, no such accommodation was able to be secured. As I noted at that time, the end result was that a man who should have been able to be released into the community under supervision could not be. The continuing detention order was, therefore, affirmed at that time.
[1] See The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115.
Reviews of continuing detention orders occur after the end of the first year and thereafter every two years. The next periodic review was due in April 2019. In late 2018 Mr Corbett became aware of the availability of accommodation through the DSO Supported Accommodation Program. Such accommodation is limited in availability and cannot be held indefinitely. It was for this reason that Mr Corbett brought an application under s 30 for his detention to be reviewed. There was a challenge by the State to the competency of that application which I dealt with in Corbett v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA).[2] I concluded that the application was competent, that there were exceptional circumstances that justified the early review and that leave to bring the application should be granted. I also made orders requiring the preparation of reports.
[2] Corbett v Director of Public Prosecution (WA) [2018] WASC 409.
Object of this review
A review under s 30 is exceptional but its object is essentially the same as a periodic review. The purpose of any review is to determine whether the person continues to be a serious danger to the community and, if so, whether the appropriate order is continued detention or
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
release on supervision.[3] If the person is no longer a serious danger to the community the detention order must be rescinded. If the person continues to be a serious danger consideration must be given to whether detention or release on supervision is appropriate. In respect of this latter decision the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[4]
[3] Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act) s 33.[4] DSO Act s 33(3).
The clear intention of the review process is to allow for the possibility of a change of circumstances. Detention under the DSO Act is not a punishment for past offending, it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent the risk of future serious sexual offending from being realised. If circumstances change such that the risk of reoffending reduces or can be adequately managed in the community, then the continuing need for detention must be considered.[5] It does not follow from this that a court conducting a review is bound by the factual findings made at previous hearings. In practice, however, there is usually little prospect that expert evidence on a review will call into question the previous finding that a respondent is a serious danger to the community.[6]
[5] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dick [No 5] [2013] WASC 357.
[6] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Pindan [No 3] [2017] WASC 107 [51] (Fiannaca J).
It is a significant thing to deprive a person of his liberty, not for something he has done but for something that he might do in the future. In order to justify detention on these grounds the evidence must be acceptable and cogent and establish the existence of a serious danger to the community to a high degree of probability.[7] Such a finding requires satisfaction that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious sexual offence if not placed under a supervision order or detained.
[7] DSO Act s 7(2).The risk of reoffending may change over time. It may be affected by age, health, or the successful undertaking of treatment. The availability of new technology or resources in the community may also affect whether the risk of reoffending can be managed by a supervision order. There is also the possibility that the risk may increase because of the failure of treatment or a relapse into deviant thinking.
The justification for making a continuing detention order is the existence of an unacceptable risk of serious sexual offending that cannot be adequately controlled by conditional release. However,
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
detention also serves the purpose of allowing treatment and care in a secure environment.[8] This confirms an obligation on the part of the prison authorities to facilitate change by offering programs and access to counselling.
[8] DSO Act s 17.
If the risk changes or resources improve to enable more efficacious conditions then the need for detention may dissipate. In these circumstances, continued detention may be unjust.
The review process is intended to ensure that detention only continues where necessary. It mitigates the otherwise draconian effect of imprisoning people for crimes that they have not committed. Reviews are not, therefore, a mere welfare check: they are an exercise of judicial power to affirm, vary or rescind a detention order. Continuing detention should not be ordered unless that course is justified by the circumstances existing at the time of the review. The court should choose the order that is least invasive of the person's right to be at liberty, whilst ensuring an adequate degree of protection in the community.[9]
[9] The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v
On any review the State bears the onus of persuading the court that the person remains a serious danger to the community. However, if that stage is reached the court must turn to the question of whether the appropriate order is continuing detention or release under supervision. A supervision order cannot be made unless the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order. The meaning of the phrase 'will substantially comply' has recently been considered by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart.[10] Whilst that decision related to a different provision of the DSO Act, I respectfully agree with what his Honour said at [39] to [51]. The standard conditions are those which under s 18(1) of the DSO Act must be included in a supervision order. The onus of proof as to whether the person will substantially comply with the standard conditions is on the person who is the subject of the proceedings.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
Evidence at this annual review
At the hearing of this review the State tendered a book of materials. There was no objection to the tender. The book included the following:
(1) a copy of the application to review the detention order; (2) a copy of the judgment of the last review; (3) prison records for the period 24 April 2017 to 21 December
2018;(4) a copy of an individual management plan dated 31 October
2018;(5) medical notes for the period 7 November 2016 to 14 December
2018;(6) two letters from Mission Australia regarding alcohol
counselling, dated 9 November 2016 and 6 April 2017;(7) a psychological report from Dr Ben Bannister dated 30 January
2019;(8) a dangerous sexual offender treatment progress report from
Dr Tara Yewers, dated 4 February 2019; and(9) a community supervision assessment report by Mr Kyle Jarvie, a senior community corrections officer with the Department of Justice, dated 6 February 2019.
Although Mr Corbett was the applicant in these proceedings the State accepted that it bore the onus in respect of the issue of whether he remained a serious danger to the community. In these circumstances the State assumed the obligation of preparing the book of materials and calling the witnesses who had prepared reports. Dr Bannister, Dr Yewers and Mr Jarvie gave oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Corbett elected not to give or call any evidence.
Prison and medical records
Since the last review in April 2017 Mr Corbett has been detained for the majority of the time at Roebourne Regional Prison. In July 2018 he was transferred to Casuarina Prison for medical treatment. It is unclear how long he remained at Casuarina. The records indicate that
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
he was at Roebourne Regional Prison by the beginning of October
2018.
The prison records show that there have been no adverse prison incidents since the last review. The management plan states that Mr Corbett has been employed in the Roebourne prison cleaning party and has also been a long term member of the prisoner peer support team. It states that he is well known to staff and other offenders. Staff at Roebourne prison have expressed the view that he is a positive role model to other offenders and often assists others as required. He is often called upon to assist prison management by providing advice and guidance in relation to local cultural and spiritual issues. The report describes Mr Corbett as a quiet prisoner who does not come to the attention unit staff or management, mixes appropriately with his peers and is not considered a management problem.
Between 26 May 2017 and 4 October 2018 Mr Corbett has been subject to random drug and alcohol tests. He has not tested positive on any occasion for any drugs or alcohol.
The medical records show that Mr Corbett has a range of health problems, including intermittent cardiac arrhythmia and Graves' disease. He has been treated for these conditions and appears to be well managed. It is likely that he will continue to require treatment from specialists in the future.
Dr Ben Bannister
Dr Bannister prepared the report required by s 37 of the DSO Act addressing the level of risk that Mr Corbett would commit a serious sexual offence if not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order. For the purposes of preparing the report Dr Bannister interviewed Mr Corbett on 23 January 2019. He also spoke to Mr Corbett's treating psychologist, Ms Catherine Matringe.
Dr Bannister reported that Mr Corbett was initially friendly and cooperative with the assessment. However, his demeanour changed when enquiries about his history were put to him, particularly questions relating to his offending. In his oral evidence Dr Bannister said that he considered this to be motivated by a feeling that he had already dealt with these things and a desire to look forward. He said that Mr Corbett accepted the need to change. There was some level of cognitive
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
distortion in terms of how he recalled, for example, the behaviour of
some of the victims, but there was no outright denial.[11][11] ts 656.
One of the issues that Dr Bannister raised with Mr Corbett was his response to supervision when released in 2012. Mr Corbett referred to experiencing temptations from some family members and an inability to contact other family members because his victims were related to him. He confessed to being annoyed with supervising staff on his previous release and to being suspicious that they were trying to 'trip (him) up'. However, he said that his previous poor attitude had improved and he accepted that the intention was to see him succeed in the community. Indeed, he later pointed out to Dr Yewers an instance where he had had positive interaction with a person responsible for electronic monitoring and believed that this was one of the resources that he could use on release. Perhaps most importantly, Mr Corbett has maintained counselling with Ms Matringe and one of the main points addressed in that counselling has been the causes of previous breaches of supervision orders. Treatment has focussed on the employment of strategies to overcome stresses on release.
Previous offending (and breaches) were associated with the use of alcohol. This is a factor that has been addressed in counselling with Ms Matringe and also in alcohol treatment sessions with Mission Australia. In counselling Mr Corbett has discussed various risk related issues such as unhelpful thinking patterns, drug and alcohol use and how to manage stress. He has been abstinent in prison and has an understanding of the effect of alcohol and substance use on his offending behaviour. Reports from Mission Australia indicate that Mr Corbett has engaged well with the services offered and has gained momentum towards maintaining a recovery plan. More recent counselling has focussed on minimising alcohol related harm within the context of transitioning into the community and establishing a set of recovery goals that will support relapse prevention, abstinence maintenance and increased personal and wider community safety awareness.
In regard to risk assessment, Dr Bannister utilised a risk assessment tool known as the Violence Risk Scale: Sex Offender Version (VRS-SO). The VRS-SO is a rating scale designed to assess risk and predict sexual recidivism, to measure and link treatment changes to sexual recidivism and to inform the delivery of sexual
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
offender treatment. It comprises seven static or historical factors and 17 dynamic or changeable factors that have been linked to sexual recidivism. Each of the factors is scored on a scale of 0 - 3, thus the maximum possible score is 72. The total score produced in an assessment is then compared to a risk assessment scale. That scale was the product of an analysis conducted on 1,264 Canadian and New Zealand adult sex offenders, some of whom were indigenous. At the end of a five year period 945 of those offenders were reassessed and their scores at the beginning of the period and the end of the period compared to instances of sexual reoffending. Those who scored 0 - 20 reoffended at a rate of 2.1%, those who scored 21 - 30 reoffended at a rate of 4.7%, those who scored 31 - 40 reoffended at a rate of 10.5% and those who scored 41 - 72 reoffended at a rate of 24.9%. Those bands are described in the scale as low (0 - 20), moderate low (21 - 30), moderate high (31 - 40) and high (41 - 72). The reassessment done after a five year period enabled a focus on the influence of change in the dynamic factors. For any individual the static factors will, of course, remain the same.[12] The dynamic factors, which include insight, community support, compliance with community supervision and treatment compliance may change over time. The reassessment found that those who achieved greater change in the dynamic factors were less likely to reoffend. For example those in the moderate high risk category were generally at a 10.5% risk of reoffending, but within that category those who achieved a 6 point or greater change were at a 6.5% risk whereas those who achieved a 1 point or fewer change were at 14.8% risk.
[12] With the exception of 'age at release'.
Dr Bannister's assessment was that Mr Corbett scored 16 out of a possible 21 on the static factors and 21 out of a possible 51 on the dynamic factors. The combined score of 37 out of a possible 72 indicates that he is in the moderate high range for reoffending and his risk is comparable to the normative group of sexual offenders that committed another sexual offence at a rate of 10.5% within a five year period. However, it is possible that that risk rate could fall if Mr Corbett continues to respond positively to treatment.
In his conclusions Dr Bannister states that Mr Corbett's meaningful engagement in treatment has assisted in mitigating his potential risk, thereby making that risk more manageable. However, this has been in the context of the restricted environment of prison. His ability to maintain treatment gains and apply learned concepts in the
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
community remains to be seen. Nonetheless, in oral evidence Dr Bannister said that he had no concerns regarding Mr Corbett's ability to comply with a supervision order. He said that there may be occasions where Mr Corbett would find it challenging but he believes that he has the capacity to comply with an order at this point in time. In particular Dr Bannister said that Mr Corbett was much better positioned to engage with community corrections and those who are providing him with treatment than was previously the case.[13] Dr Bannister considered that the appropriate length of an order was six years.
[13] ts 664 - 665.
Dr Tara Yewers
Dr Yewers is a counselling psychologist employed by the Department of Justice. She prepared a report setting out Mr Corbett's treatment history and progress. In particular, Dr Yewers obtained information from Ms Matringe regarding the counselling Mr Corbett has undertaken.
As noted earlier, Mr Corbett has continued to attend individual psychological sessions with his treating psychologist, Ms Matringe. These sessions have generally been held on a fortnightly basis. Since the commencement of contact with Ms Matringe in 2015, 58 sessions have been held. Ms Matringe reports that Mr Corbett has shown a receptiveness to feedback and to challenging some of his assumptions. He appears to be more self-reflective and has been willing to examine his thoughts, feelings and behaviours. He has ceased blaming external factors for past behaviours and has accepted greater responsibility for his actions.
Ms Matringe reported that Mr Corbett was disappointed and discouraged following the outcome of the last review and had requested a break in contact for two months. However, after a month he asked for the sessions to resume. He has remained respectful in his interactions and his behaviour has been appropriate. Ms Matringe considered that this reflected his ability to appropriately manage frustration and disappointment.
Treatment objectives have included the maintenance of previous treatment gains, problem solving, emotional management and review of a self-management plan. A significant focus has been on Mr Corbett's coping and problem solving, particularly in relation to interpersonal interactions. Coaching, role play and cognitive restructuring have been
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
utilised to target emotional management and coping skills, healthy relationships, mutual respect, boundary setting, assertive communication and appropriately expressing needs. Dr Yewers reports that Mr Corbett has made gains in these areas and was able to provide Ms Matringe with an example where he resolved potential conflict with a fellow prisoner in Casuarina Prison in late 2017. It was noted that he has not been involved in any incidents of aggression and violence since the last review.
Ms Matringe reported to Dr Yewers that Mr Corbett's long held mistrust and suspicion of police was continuing to be addressed in treatment. Attention has been directed towards increasing Mr Corbett's awareness of viewing supervising officers as doing their job rather than conducting a personal campaign against him. He has made progress around these issues and has taken greater responsibility for his own behaviour and developed strategies to cope with any stress that may occur. He is conscious that he must adhere to all the conditions of a supervision order or risk a return to custody. He is aware that he cannot yield to the influence of family and friends in regard to behaviours such as drinking alcohol. He has acknowledged that he will require support and has stated his willingness to seek assistance if required. He has identified the importance of planning activities and social interactions to avoid loneliness and boredom.
Dr Yewers reported that Mr Corbett's drug and alcohol issues were primarily addressed through his contact with the Pilbara Community Alcohol and Drug Service, which is operated by Mission Australia. From 14 July 2016 to 6 April 2017, Mr Corbett attended 16 sessions and was deemed to have completed his counselling program. Thereafter he continued to engage with this service on a voluntary basis. The program focussed on minimising alcohol related harm in the context of transitioning back into the community, identifying recovery goals that support relapse prevention and maintaining abstinence. Mr Corbett is reported to have engaged well with this counselling and has consistently made progress in addressing alcohol related behaviour issues.
Ms Matringe is available to continue counselling with Mr Corbett. In particular, it is intended that on release into the community she would see Mr Corbett on a more regular basis (weekly) at least initially, to assist him with the stresses arising from a transition into the community. In oral evidence it was confirmed that Ms Matringe would also be available for Mr Corbett to contact by telephone between
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
appointments if needed. Dr Yewers noted that Mr Corbett spoke in positive terms about his psychological treatment and professional relationship with Ms Matringe. He said that over the four years that he has engaged with Ms Matringe he has developed a trusting relationship and feels comfortable in confiding in her. He was able to give an account of what he had learnt during counselling, his strategies for avoiding stress and the factors relating to offending.
Dr Yewers concluded her report by saying that Mr Corbett appears to have continued to make progress since he was last reviewed. It is clear that he has a good working relationship with Ms Matringe and has demonstrated a willingness to discuss and address issues relevant to his risk and self-management. He has reflected on his past breaches and developed strategies to ensure future compliance for the supervision order. However, he will require both practical and psychological support on release. Practical assistance will aid him in productively filling his time, establishing a routine and negotiating the tasks of daily living. Constructive pro-social activity will give him the opportunity for social connection, enhance his self-worth and self-efficacy and alleviate boredom. Dr Yewers stated that continuing psychological treatment will be essential to consolidate and extend the gains that have been made to date.
Kyle Jarvie
Mr Jarvie is a senior community corrections officer with the Community Offender Monitoring Unit of the Department of Justice. He prepared a community supervision assessment report dated 6 February 2019.
At the previous review attempts were made to locate suitable housing in a regional area close to Mr Corbett's traditional land. No further attempts in that regard have been made but suitable housing has been located in the Perth metropolitan area. Despite the difficulties that Mr Corbett would face in the metropolitan area, as evidenced by his previous breaches, recent information suggests that a release to the regional area would be problematic at this stage. Contact with members of the Aboriginal community from which Mr Corbett came have identified concerns that he would be alienated in that community due to his offending history. It has been suggested that due to outstanding customary laws and practices it would not be culturally appropriate for Mr Corbett to return to the area until he is able to demonstrate that he has addressed his behaviour. It was suggested that
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
he should undergo counselling in the metropolitan area and that an Aboriginal male mentor who has an appreciation for the differences between urban and remote culture could assist him. A return to the regional area as part of a longer term goal, with the possibility of engagement in station work, may be possible once Mr Corbett has proven his ability to remain offence free in a community setting.
Mr Corbett has been allocated housing under the DSO Supported Accommodation Program administered by Uniting Care West. The accommodation is on a main arterial road with ready access to public transport services. There are adequate shopping and medical facilities close by. An analysis completed by the police assessed the area within two kilometres of the proposed accommodation. Given that this is the metropolitan area, there were a number of shopping areas, parks, sporting complexes, public spaces, schools, restaurants, licensed premises and other residential properties within that area. However, Mr Jarvie did not anticipate any problems with ensuring that any risk related areas were identified and made the subject of global positioning system ('GPS') prohibited zones.
Mr Jarvie reported that the accommodation is presently available and is intended for use for approximately six months, with ongoing support during the first year of release. Support is not limited to accommodation. Assistance will also be provided with re-integrating into the community, such as transport training, assistance finding appropriate social activities, attendance at appointments and assistance finding private accommodation. Assistance would be provided in accessing government services, banking, the purchase of food and clothing and accessing health care services. Mr Corbett would also be assisted to purchase a telephone so that he can establish contacts with his supports, including his mother.
Engagement with pro-social activities has also been explored, including talks with an indigenous employment organisation. Some steps have been taken to identifying a suitable Aboriginal male mentor. The importance of these personal supports is enhanced by the fact that Mr Corbett has minimal family or friends in the Perth metropolitan region. He will be able to maintain telephone contact with family and this has been identified as a priority upon his release. He does expect to have occasional visits from family due to medical travel to the Perth area.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
One possible issue that arose was that it was understood one of Mr Corbett's victims was now residing with his mother. His mother resides in a regional centre, so physical contact is not a risk. However, there may be inadvertent verbal contact when Mr Corbett telephones his mother. This is an issue that Mr Corbett has raised with his psychologist Ms Matringe. The State suggested that this problem could be adequately alleviated by incorporating an exception to the non-contact condition that would allow Mr Corbett to telephone his mother and that if the victim answers he is to request that the phone be handed over to his mother. I note, however, that this would not affect any violence restraining orders that are also in place.
Mr Jarvie states that on release Mr Corbett would be subject to frequent and random urine analysis and breath-testing as a means of monitoring his abstinence from drugs and alcohol. He will also be monitored by GPS tracking and be subject to a requirement that he keep a diary of whom he has had contact with and what he has been doing at the locations that he attends. In the initial stages of release a curfew could be considered an appropriate condition.
Mr Jarvie concluded that Mr Corbett has displayed positive prison behaviour and engagement with psychological counselling with noted treatment gains. The development of a pro-social support network and engagement in positive structured activities either through employment, training or other leisure pursuits are considered pivotal to Mr Corbett's ongoing successful management in the community and options in regard to this have been outlined. If Mr Corbett successfully remains in the community there could be an opportunity for his return to the regional area, closer to his traditional country.
Findings
Mr Corbett has been assessed as a moderate high risk of offending, however that risk may be reduced by continuing positive engagement with treatment. It was not contested that he continues to be a serious danger to the community unless he is either detained or placed on a supervision order. The real issue was whether the risk can be adequately managed, and the community sufficiently protected, by a supervision order.
At the last periodic review which concluded on 10 April 2017 I noted that Mr Corbett had responded positively to treatment, had engaged with drug and alcohol counselling and was suitable for release into the community. However, it proved impossible to make a
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
supervision order at that time because of the unavailability of appropriate accommodation. In the following 20 months Mr Corbett has continued to make progress with treatment. A detailed release plan has been developed, which includes significant professional and community supports. Most importantly, suitable accommodation is now available. I am satisfied that it is likely that Mr Corbett will substantially comply with the conditions of the order, including the standard conditions. All of this supports a conclusion that release on a supervision order is now appropriate. That is a conclusion that the State supports.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, at the hearing, I was satisfied that Mr Corbett should be released on a supervision order. The continuing detention order was rescinded and a supervision order made, which is in terms of the conditions annexed to these reasons. The address of the accommodation is the subject of a suppression order.
At the conclusion of my reasons on the last review I took the opportunity of noting that continuing detention is for the purpose of control, care and treatment. A detainee is not a prisoner and is not in custody for the purpose of punishment. I said that whilst effective management of prisons may mean that detainees will sometimes have to be the subject of the same rules and conditions as prisoners, that should not be the default position. Indeed, to treat detainees as being subject to the same restrictions and requirements as applied to prisoners may be contrary to the terms of an order that they be held for their care and treatment. During the course of this review there was evidence that there had been no changes to the way in which detainees under the DSO Act are treated since I made those comments. Whilst detainees may receive specialist psychological counselling or medical treatment, they continue to be subject to rules that relate to security classification, the requirement to work and restrictions on visits and telephone calls. I accept that there may be difficulties in making changes that could be seen as giving greater privileges to detainees. However, I am sure that such difficulties can be managed in a way that is consistent with the obligations imposed on the executive by the Act.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
Annexure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
DSO 3 of 2012
IN THE MATTER of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006
| TYRONE KINGSLEY CORBETT | Applicant |
| -and- | |
| THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Respondent |
______________________________________________________________
SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE HALL
ON 8 FEBRUARY 2019
______________________________________________________________
The Court, having found pursuant to section 33(1)(b) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 that the Applicant remains a serious danger to the community, orders that the Applicant be the subject of a supervision order pursuant to section 33(1)(b)(ii) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 for a period of 6 years, these orders to take effect from 5 March 2019, being a date not earlier than 21 days from the date on which this review concluded, on the following conditions:
You, TYRONE KINGSLEY CORBETT, must:
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT
1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer at the place and within the time stated in the order and advise the officer of your current name and address.
2. Report to, and receive visits from, a Community Corrections Officer as directed by the court.
3. Notify a Community Corrections Officer of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
4. Be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer, which includes complying with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 19A or 19B).
5. Not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Community Corrections Officer.
6. Not commit a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A during the period of the Order.
7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 19A.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence
8. Take up residence at [redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in
advance by a Community Corrections Officer (‘CCO’) assigned to you.
Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
9. Report to a CCO at your approved address within normal business hours on the day of release from custody under this order, and thereupon advise the CCO of your current name.
10. Report to and receive visits from a CCO at times and places as directed by the CCO, and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.
11. Not commence or change employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO.
Attendance at programs or treatment
12. Consult and engage with any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, programs, mentor, support service, support person and/or accommodation provider nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.
13. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious sexual re-offending, as directed by a CCO.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
Reporting to WA Police
14. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad (SOMS) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 within 48 hours of your release from custody, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad or his/her delegate or authorised person.
15. Comply with all obligations imposed on you pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.
16. If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence, vehicle and/or person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the order.
17. Remain at your residence and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle.
18. When requested, advise Police of the names of all of your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services used by you, and all internet user names or identities used by you.
19. Permit a CCO or WA Police to access upon request any computer, telephone or other device capable of storing digital data (electronic storage device), at any location nominated by the CCO or WA Police, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer activities.
20. Provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords, or any other means used to unlock or access any computer, telephone or electronic storage device, as may be required for the access described in condition 19.
21. With respect to any computer or telephone in your possession that is connected to the internet or has been used by you to access the internet, not to delete or otherwise remove or disguise any search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, without the approval in advance of a CCO or Police Officer.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
Disclosure/Exchange of Information
22. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information.
23. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offence history.
Restrictions on contact with Victims
24. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your sexual offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice.
('Contact' under this condition does not include communication by telephone with a victim residing with your mother, providing that only the bare minimum of interaction or communication necessary to promptly and civilly transfer the call to another person or terminate the
call is entered into. ‘Contact’ that meets these requirements shall not be
deemed to be a breach of condition 26. ‘Contact’ also does not include
any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication).
25. Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your sexual offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture, and must avert your gaze from such victim at all times.
26. Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
Criminal conduct
27. Not commit any criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
28. Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204, s 204A, s 204B, s 217, s 218, s 219, s 220 or s 557K Criminal Code 1913 (WA).
29. Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films
and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996.
Curfew
30. Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 19B of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.
31. When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or curtilage of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
32. When subject to a curfew under this order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
| Health | |
| 33. | Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice. |
Prevention of high-risk situations
34. Not possess, purchase, consume or use alcohol.
35. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorized under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014, and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the prescriber.
36. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer, including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
37. To provide a valid sample for the testing described in condition 36.
38. Not go to, enter or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
(a) For the purpose of averting or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; (b) For a purpose, and for a duration, approved in advance by a CCO; (c) On the order of a CCO or Police Officer.
39. Not remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by alcohol, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO.
40. Not remain in the presence of any person affected by illicit substances, or reasonably ought to know to be affected by illicit substances.
41. Not to enter or remain in any residence where any female(s) are present, whether the female(s) are accompanied or not, unless the identity of the female(s) are approved in advance by the CCO.
42. Not to remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed, or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place.
43. Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations if and as directed by the CCO, and present this diary to the CCO or any Police Officer upon request.
44. Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO.
45. Report at your next contact with your CCO the formation of any friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with a person.
46. As directed by a CCO, make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence a friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer.
[2019] WASC 37
HALL J
________________________________
THE HON JUSTICE HALL
I have received a copy of this order. I have had explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it.
| Signed by the Applicant | ________________________________ |
Tyrone Kingsley Corbett
| In the presence of: | ________________________________ |
| Name and address: | ________________________________ |
| ________________________________ | |
| Date: | ________________________________ |
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
KR
Associate to the Honorable Justice Hall
22 FEBRUARY 2019
Decke [2009] WASC 312.
4
5
2