Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Dunne
[2013] WASC 359
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- DUNNE [2013] WASC 359
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 359 | |
| Case No: | DSO:1/2013 | 17 SEPTEMBER 2013 | |
| Coram: | JENKINS J | 27/09/13 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Supervision order made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA PETER LEWIS DUNNE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) Whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community Supervision order Appropriate approach to anti-libidinal treatment |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA) Ch. XXXI Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), s 7, s 8, s 17, s 37 Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106 Prisons Act 1981 (WA), s 95 |
Case References: | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2007] WASC 318 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Applicant
AND
PETER LEWIS DUNNE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) - Whether the respondent is a serious danger to the community - Supervision order - Appropriate approach to anti-libidinal treatment
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA) Ch. XXXI
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), s 7, s 8, s 17, s 37
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106
Prisons Act 1981 (WA),s 95
Result:
Supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr P D Yovich
Respondent : Mr D J McKenzie
Solicitors:
Applicant : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent : McKenzie Legal Pty Ltd
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2007] WASC 318
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206
1 JENKINS J: This application is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia (DPP) pursuant to the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (the Act) s 8 for either a continuing detention order or a supervision order. At the hearing of the application, the DPP submitted that a suitable place of residence has been found for the respondent and asked that a supervision order be made.
2 The respondent consents to a supervision order being made in the terms proposed by the DPP. However, it is still necessary for me to be satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been satisfied before I can make such an order.
The law
3 The Act s 17(1) provides that if a court hearing an application such as this finds that the respondent is a serious danger to the community the court may:
(a) order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment; or
(b) order that at all times during the period stated in the order when the offender is not in custody the offender be subject to conditions that the court considers appropriate and states in the order.
4 Section 7(1) provides that before the court can make a finding that the respondent is a serious danger to the community, it must be satisfied that there is 'an unacceptable risk that, if the [respondent] were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the [respondent] would commit a serious sexual offence'.
5 Section 7(2) states that the DPP has the onus of satisfying the court of the matters in s 7(1) and that the court must be satisfied:
(a) by acceptable and cogent evidence; and
(b) to a high degree of probability.
6 The standard of proof to a 'high degree of probability' is higher than the civil standard, being proof on the balance of probabilities, but lower than the criminal standard, being proof beyond reasonable doubt.
7 The term 'serious sexual offence' is defined in the Act s 3 to have the meaning given to that term in the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) (Evidence Act) s 106A. The Evidence Act s 106A read with pt B of sch 7 of the same Act and the Criminal Code (WA) (Criminal Code)relevantly provides that serious sexual offences are any of the offences contained in ch XXXI of the Criminal Code, the penalty for which is 7 years' imprisonment or more. The Criminal Code ch XXXI is headed 'Sexual Offences' and contains the majority of offences of a sexual nature. Offences contained in ch XXXI which would fall within the definition of a 'serious sexual offence' include all sexual offences against children under the age of 13 years, all sexual offences by a person over the age of 18 years, against a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years, aggravated indecent assault, sexual penetration without consent, sexual penetration of a de facto child or lineal relative, indecent dealing of a de facto child or lineal relative under the age of 16 years and sexual offences against incapable persons. Indecent assault simplicitur and indecent dealing with a child over the age of 16 years are not serious sexual offences.
8 The Act s 7(3) states that in deciding whether to find that a person is a serious danger to the community, I must have regard to the following matters:
(a) any report that a psychiatrist prepares as required by section 37 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the person cooperated when the psychiatrist examined the person;
(b) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the person;
(c) information indicating whether or not the person has a propensity to commit serious sexual offences in the future;
(d) whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the person;
(e) any efforts by the person to address the cause or causes of the person's offending behaviour, including whether the person has participated in any rehabilitation program;
(f) whether or not the person's participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the person;
(g) the person's antecedents and criminal record;
(h) the risk that, if the person were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the person would commit a serious sexual offence;
(i) the need to protect members of the community from that risk; and
(j) any other relevant matter.
9 In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 [68] - [72] Wheeler JA (Le Miere AJA agreeing) held that if a court found that an offender was a serious danger to the community it must make either an order under s 17(1)(a) or (b) for custody or supervision, respectively. A court does not have a discretion not to make an order.
10 Her Honour also considered what was meant in s 7(1) by the words 'unacceptable risk'. Her Honour said:
In my view, an 'unacceptable risk' in the context of s 7(1) is a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations which may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of sexual offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted) and the consequences of making a finding that an unacceptable risk exists. That is, the judge is required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of the person offending and the offence likely to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding that the person has already been punished for whatever offence they may have actually committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that the person is subject to further control or detention [63].
11 Wheeler JA's views were affirmed in the Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2007] WASC 318.
12 I now set out my findings in respect to the background of the respondent.
Background of the respondent
13 The respondent is a 50-year-old single male who is currently being held in custody pursuant to an interim custody order made under the Act.
14 The respondent is the second youngest of six children. His father died whilst the respondent was in custody under sentence. His mother is alive and lives in Perth. She remains supportive of her son but does not appreciate the seriousness of the respondent's sexual offending. The respondent does not have contact with any of his siblings. The respondent has never had a long term intimate adult relationship and has no children.
15 After an initial period at a primary mainstream primary school, at which the respondent says that he was assaulted when he was in year 2, he moved schools and spent nine and a half years at a special school. The respondent left school when he was 16. He has a mild cognitive impairment and has limited literacy skills.
16 The respondent claims to have been sexually assaulted by a female teacher whilst on a school camp when he was 14 years old. After finishing school, the respondent had a labouring job in the country but he soon became homesick and returned to his family in Perth. After two years unemployment, his father got him a job as a machinery operator. He stayed in this job for 10 years until he was remanded in custody for his first series of serious sexual offences. He has not had long term employment since then.
17 The respondent claims to have become fearful of women after his teacher assaulted him. He has had only one adult consensual sexual experience with a woman and he claims that this was unsatisfactory. He now says that his sexual orientation is towards adult males.
18 In about March - May 1988, the respondent, then aged 24 years old, offended against a male relative who was then aged 10. The complainant and others were playing in a yard when they broke the clothes line. The respondent singled out the complainant and told him to go inside to his parents' bedroom. The respondent followed the complainant into the house and locked the doors. At the time the complainant thought he was going to get into trouble for breaking the clothes line. Once in the main bedroom, the respondent told the complainant to undress and to lay face down on the bed. When the complainant did this, the respondent undressed, got on top of the complainant and penetrated the complainant's anus with his erect penis. The complainant does not know whether or not the respondent ejaculated. However, he was in extreme pain and believes that the assault lasted between five and 10 minutes. The complainant also refers in his statement to the respondent threatening him after the offence. He did this several times.
19 In August of the same year, the victim reported the offences to his parents. The family made a decision to deal with the matter 'within the family'. In 1988 - 1989, the respondent attended counselling with an unknown person with respect to this offending.
20 In August 1994, the respondent, then aged 31 years old, commenced offending against another 14-year-old male relative who was then living with the respondent at the respondent's parents' home. The offending continued for three years.
21 On 10 March 1998, the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court at Perth to 112 offences against that victim which comprised 40 counts of indecent dealing, 23 counts of sexual penetration, two counts of threatening to kill, 22 counts of indecent assault and bodily harm, nine counts of sexual penetration and bodily harm, 13 counts of indecent assault, two counts of attempted sexual penetration and one count of attempted sexual penetration with bodily harm.
22 The offending followed a routine. First, the respondent would manually masturbate the victim. He would then suck his penis, lay on top of himand rub his (the respondent's) penis against the complainant's body until such time as he ejaculated on to the complainant's body. The offences generally occurred in the respondent's car when he was giving the boy a lift to or from sport, work or school. The victim sometimes cried during the offending and the respondent threatened him with a knife, on one occasion, and, on another occasion, the respondent made a threat to kill him. The counts of sexual penetration were the respondent performing fellatio on the victim. There were nine counts of sexual penetration associated with the doing of bodily harm to the boy which involved squeezing the victim's testicles until he submitted to the offending behaviour. The count of attempted sexual penetration involved the respondent attempting to insert his penis into the boy's anus but he was physically able to resist that attempt.
23 When questioned about the offending, the respondent readily admitted it. He was sentenced to a total of 10 years' imprisonment and made eligible for parole.
24 In 1998, the respondent made a complaint to the police about the sexual assaults by his teacher. In June 1999, the police made a decision not to charge anyone in respect of that complaint. The respondent then withdrew it.
25 Whilst in custody the respondent completed skills training for aggression control, a legal and social awareness program and the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program (ISOTP).
26 On 10 August 2002, the respondent was released to parole. His risk of reoffending was assessed as medium-high. Whilst on parole he undertook the community-based sex respondent maintenance program. His parole order expired on 10 August 2004.
27 On 28 September 2004, the victim of the sexual offence committed in 1988 made a written complaint about it to the police. The respondent was interviewed and admitted the offence. He was charged with sexual assault and bailed.
28 On 4 December 2005, the respondent sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy he had befriended. The victim made an immediate complaint to the police, the respondent was interviewed by police, charged and remanded in custody.
29 On 28 July 2006, the respondent appeared in the District Court to be sentenced after his pleas of guilty to the offence against his 10-year-old male relative which was committed in 1988 and for three offences against the 14-year-old boy.
30 The facts of the latter offences were that on 4 December 2005 the respondent drove the complainant to an abandoned building in East Rockingham on the pretence that he had arranged for a female of similar age to be present so that the two of them could have sex. At the request of the respondent, the complainant stripped naked and placed a blindfold over his eyes, believing the female to be nearby. The respondent stood behind the complainant and masturbated the complainant's penis with his hand. At the time, the complainant believed him to be a female. The respondent then moved in front of the complainant, placed the complainant's penis in his mouth and performed fellatio until the complainant realised that it was the respondent and not a female. At this point the complainant pushed the respondent away. The respondent then forced the complainant to the ground and pushed against the complainant's anus. A struggle ensued until the complainant managed to arm himself with a glass bottle and to fight off the respondent. The respondent allowed the complainant to get dressed and drove him to a location near his home.
31 After his arrest the respondent participated in a video record of interview. He admitted he had masturbated and performed fellatio on the complainant. However, he denied attempting to anally penetrate him. In explanation, he stated that he did not know what had come over him. As a result of the struggle with the respondent, the complainant received minor bruising and abrasions to his arms and back.
32 The respondent was sentenced to a total of 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment and he was made eligible for parole. The sentencing judge said that it was essential for the respondent to be supervised on his release from custody.
33 The respondent completed another ISOTP between August 2008 and April 2009. In part, the final report of his performance on the programme reads:
During this program Mr Dunne repeated many of the rationalizations and justifications he had voiced in his first program. He intimated that, since he had experienced an incident of sexual abuse from a female teacher at the age of 14, he was justified in abusing his own victims: 'She did it to me, so I can do it to them'; and also offered that one of his [male relatives] was not affected by the abuse because he did not seek counselling. Quite late in the program he said that if a '14 year old boy could change a wheel nut' then he had the maturity and understanding to consent to sexual activity with an older person. It was obvious that Mr Dunne had not been able to fully internalise concepts such as consent and empathy during either of the treatment programs, key factors in the development of an understanding of sexual offending and vital to ongoing self-management strategies.
Mr Dunne often displayed a victim stance and expressed himself as hurt by others, such as his [male relatives] because they had given evidence against him, or a sister because she would not support him since the offences came to light. He contended that it was this justifiable anger that lead to his more recent reoffence: that it was to him reasonable that his sense of resentment be taken out on another. Of note is Mr Dunne's quite entrenched thinking style which shows deficits in reasoning ability and highlights his passive−aggressive communication style. Further, it was most obvious that Mr Dunne has a repertoire of observations and phrases, garnered from previous counselling interventions, which he has repeated to convince people in authority such as counsellors, his parents, his CCO in the community and so on, that he has a genuine understanding of his motivations and feelings. The general content of his speech and the inclusion of wording which is 'psychological' in nature may well give the impression that he is making progress and aware of his issues, but in reality Mr Dunne has little insight or understanding and the positive feedback which he is accustomed to receiving may well have the effect of absolving Mr Dunne in his mind from delving more deeply into his sexual offending and taking full responsibility for his actions.
Towards the end of the treatment program Mr Dunne was afforded the opportunity to develop a relapse prevention plan. Due to his difficulties with literacy he was assisted by a fellow group member for this and other written work. Mr Dunne's relapse prevention plan covered the most important areas,particularly in highlighting the necessity for him to broaden his social activities and be more independent of his family in forming appropriate social and intimate relationships and also to maintain a good work−life balance. In addition, Mr Dunne is aware of the part that feeling aggrieved and angry at others plays in his offending. Most important is for Mr Dunne to have a support network with whom he is open about possible inappropriate thoughts and fantasy related to his previous victims and boys who are underage. Since his parents, hitherto his main supports are elderly and increasingly frail, Mr Dunne recognised in the plan that he should have a good relationship with other supportive people who were fully aware of his propensity not to disclose warning signs of at risk behaviour. His management plan stressed the necessity for Mr Dunne to be monitored closely by a parole officer who was aware of his areas of risk and his previous patter of not disclosing lapses (vol 3, pages 665 - 656).
34 During his time in custody the respondent has at times been anxious and depressed. He was refused parole and his sentence was completed on 4 June 2013.
35 On 25 March 2013, the State filed this application.
36 In support of this application the DPP has filed three volumes of material containing transcripts of relevant court proceedings, excerpts from prosecution briefs in relation to the respondent's charges and various reports and other records contained on the respondent's Department of Corrective Services file (exhibit 1).
37 At a preliminary hearing of this application, the court ordered that pursuant to the Act s 37, the respondent undergo examination by two psychiatrists, Dr Febbo and Dr Tanney. The reports of both psychiatrists are also contained in the three volumes of materials. For the purposes of this application, a Sex Offender Treatment Options Report was prepared by Dr D Galloghly, a forensic and clinical psychologist, and a Community Supervision Assessment was completed by Ms J Dabala of the Department of Corrective Services. These reports are also included in the materials. There is also an undated letter from Ms H Harker, the A/Commissioner for Corrective Services.
38 The respondent did not object to the tender of any document in the three volumes of materials. The DPP chose to supplement the written evidence with oral evidence from the two psychiatrists, Ms Dabala and Dr Roslyn Carbon, the Health Services Director, Department of Corrective Services. The respondent did not adduce evidence in the application.
Matters referred to in the Act s 7(3)
39 I now turn to consider the matters referred to in the Act s 7(3) which I must have regard to in deciding whether or not the respondent is a serious danger to the community.
Psychiatric reports prepared pursuant to the Act s 37
40 Dr Febbo interviewed the respondent for a total of four and a half hours over two interviews. He also had regard to the three volumes of materials which are in evidence.
41 Dr Febbo diagnosed the respondent with paedophilia as one of his victims was pre-pubescent, and in Dr Febbo's opinion, the respondent is likely to have inappropriate fantasies and sexual urges which meet this diagnosis. Dr Febbo is of the view that the respondent has mild mental retardation and paranoid personality traits. In respect to psychosocial and environmental problems, Dr Febbo noted that the respondent reports a history of sexual abuse, he has a lack of social support, accommodation issues and the likelihood of significant stress related to release and relocation into a community setting. Dr Febbo assessed his functioning as in the area of 60 - 70 with moderate to mild symptoms.
42 Dr Febbo completed a risk assessment using four assessment tools. To complete the risk assessment, Dr Febbo used two actuarial instruments being the Static 99 and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - revised (PCL-R) and two structured professional judgment tools being the Historical, Clinical, Risk-20 (HCR-20) and the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP).
Static 99
43 The respondent received an overall score which placed him in the high risk category. Individuals in this category, as a group, have a 39% chance of sexual re-offending within a five year period. The Static 99 does not take dynamic factors into account.
PCL-R
44 The respondent received an overall score of 11 out of a possible 40 points. That score places him at about the 11th percentile when his score is compared to those based on a pool sample of 5,408 male offenders. Put another way, about 89% of correctional offenders are more psychopathic than the respondent. Such a score is well below the cut off traditionally used to diagnose psychopathy, which is 30 points or higher.
45 The respondent's score relating to interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy (Factor One) was 8 out of a possible 16, placing him at around the 49th percentile. Factor One measures features such as lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect and lack of empathy, in addition to a failure to accept responsibility. The factor also includes markers for manipulation and a grandiose sense of self-worth.
HCR-20
46 The respondent has the historical risk factors for violence of previous violence and relationship instability. The factors of young age of first violent incident, major mental illness, and personality disorder were partially or possibly present. The risk factors of employment problems, substance abuse problems, early maladjustment, psychopathy and prior supervision failure were absent. Dr Febbo also noted the risk factors of lack of insight and unresponsive to treatment. The risk factors of negative attitudes, active symptoms of major mental illness and impulsivity were absent. In relation to risk management items, Dr Febbo noted the likely presence of exposure to destabilisers and the likely presence of limited personal support. Using the HCR-20 as a basis for the assessment of risk, Dr Febbo concluded that the respondent has a significant risk of future violence.
RSVP
47 The RSVP includes five domains being sexual violence history, psychological adjustment, mental disorder, social adjustment and manageability. In scoring the risk factors there are three possible responses being that the factor is present, the factor is absent or the factor is either possibly present or partially present. I will detail those risk factors which Dr Febbo found were present.
48 In the first domain of sexual violence history, Dr Febbo noted that the respondent demonstrated risk factors of chronicity of sexual violence, physical coercion in sexual violence and psychological coercion in sexual violence. I note that he scored 'absent' for escalation of sexual violence but only on the basis that all three sets of the respondent's sexual offences had been particularly serious.
49 In relation to the second domain of psychological adjustment, Dr Febbo noted that the respondent demonstrated the risk factors of attitudes that support or condone sexual violence and problems with self-awareness. He said that problems resulting from child abuse may be present given that the respondent's history of sexual abuse has not been confirmed.
50 In relation to the third domain being mental disorder, Dr Febbo noted that the respondent had the risk factor of sexual deviance (that is, sexual attraction to underage boys).
51 In relation to the fourth domain of social adjustment, Dr Febbo noted that the respondent had problems with intimate relationships.
52 Finally, in the fifth domain of manageability, Dr Febbo did not note any risk factors that were definitely present.
53 Significantly, Dr Febbo noted that the respondent had made very limited gains from completing two sex offender treatment programmes. He said that it is likely that major factors that have limited the respondent's improvement are his cognitive impairment and his intense and entrenched sexual deviance.
54 On the other hand, Dr Febbo noted that the respondent appeared to be compliant with the treatment requirements and that he was accepting of any measures of supervision or pharmacological control to address his sexual deviance. Dr Febbo also noted that the respondent maintained that he was willing to abide by any supervision requirement. In the past the respondent has been able to successfully complete parole, without re-offending or breaching his parole conditions.
55 Dr Febbo concluded that, in his opinion, there are three particularly important factors that are significant in the respondent's offending. First, the respondent's sexual deviance is well entrenched, intense and persistent. Dr Febbo is of the view that it is unlikely that there has been improvement in that area. The second factor is that the respondent's cognitive impairment has limited his ability to obtain benefit from treatment modalities which have been made available to him to date. Thirdly, the circumstances of his offending suggests that there is little capacity for victim empathy. Dr Febbo is of the opinion that the fact that the respondent's family did not pursue the first offence in an appropriate manner, entrenched the respondent's attitudes that support or condone sexual violence.
56 As a result of his findings, Dr Febbo is of the opinion that the respondent is currently at high risk of committing a serious sexual offence if not subject to a continuing detention or supervision order. However, it is Dr Febbo's opinion that continuing detention or, for example, participating in yet another sex offender treatment programme, is not likely to be of significant benefit in decreasing risk. In his written report, Dr Febbo said that there were issues that needed to be addressed prior to the respondent's release on a supervision order. However, in evidence he clarified this opinion by saying that a supervision order could be fashioned so as to manage and control the respondent whilst he is in the community in such a way that his risk of re-offending will be reduced and the public will be protected. In Dr Febbo's opinion, such a supervision order requires the following conditions:
(1) if the respondent is suitable, anti-libidinal medication, together with regular monitoring, in order to decrease the intensity and frequency of deviant sexual fantasies and to decrease the respondent's level of risk of offending;
(2) individual psychotherapeutic input which, if provided in the community, would allow the respondent to receive counselling about particular problems that arise for him when he is in the community;
(3) anti-depressant medication as the respondent has a history of significant anxiety and some possible depressive symptoms;
(4) relatively intense support and monitoring with a case manager through the Department of Corrective Services as when the respondent was released on parole, he did well with such monitoring;
(5) limits on the respondent's contact with children utilising both Department of Corrective Services and police resources; and
(6) assistance in practical issues such as accommodation, employment and social support.
57 Dr Tanney interviewed the respondent on two occasions for a total of four hours and twenty minutes. He also had regard to the three volumes of material tendered to the court.
58 Dr Tanney considered five issues known to increase risk of recidivism. These are lack of empathy, problems with power and consent in relationships, lack of insight and understanding (relative to cognitive disability), problems with implementing relapse prevention strategies and cognitive distortions justifying offending.
59 Dr Tanney said that the respondent's lack of empathy remains and he has a notable restriction on affect, generally. Although aware of the potential for punishment and harm, the respondent still finds abandoning a preference for younger boys 'a hard choice'. He did not offer any explanation to Dr Tanney for his physical and psychological coercion of his victims and denied experiencing any pleasure at victim fearfulness, except as a vehicle to satisfy his sexual needs.
60 The respondent was able to problem-solve, but there was no in depth understanding of his inner drive or psychological motivations. His concrete thinking style was apparent in the interviews with Dr Tanney. A number of questions and scenarios addressing his inner life and behaviour choices were explored in the interviews. He mostly responded 'I really don't know'. Dr Tanney did not identify this response as a denial, but rather a lack of understanding and insight. Dr Tanney said that this was most apparent in scenarios relating to the respondent's inability to refrain from further offending.
61 Dr Tanney agreed with the conclusion in the 2009 ISOTP report that the respondent has 'not been able to fully internalise concepts of consent and empathy' and noted that he remains largely unchanged in regards to these issues.
62 Dr Tanney said that the respondent's cognitive disability was not apparent in the interviews. He noted that he was able to read the newspaper and communicate basic information in writing. Dr Tanney is of the opinion that whilst his disability does not represent a major factor in understanding his offending, it does impact considerably on his rehabilitation prospects.
63 Dr Tanney noted that the respondent was able to articulate in a basic manner what he should do if he was having inappropriate fantasies and how he should act so as to avoid re-offending. However, Dr Tanney noted that the respondent's denial and minimisation of the impact and severity of his offending remains a problem. In Dr Tanney's view, this is largely a residue of the respondent's own unresolved victimisation experiences.
64 Dr Tanney used the Static 99R and the RSVP (2003) as risk assessment tools.
Static-99R
65 Dr Tanney scored the respondent 5 out of a possible 12, giving the respondent a 'Medium-High' rating relative to other adult male sex offenders. The Static-99R quantifies this risk as a 33% likelihood of re-offending sexually over five years based on samples of international adult male sex offenders. He said that 25% of a recent sample of 'high risk' non-indigenous, Western Australian sex offenders with similar scores re-offended within five years.
RSVP
66 Dr Tanney identified 11 definite risk factors. He said that this is only a moderate number of risk factors and he noted that they were not evenly distributed across the five clusters. He identified fixated, serious sexual deviance as the source of the respondent's offending, escalation of sexual violence, physical coercion in sexual violence, psychological coercion in sexual violence, extreme minimisation/denial of sex offences, attitudes that support or condom sexual violence, serious problems with self-awareness, problems with stress and coping, problems resulting from childhood abuse, sexual deviance and problems with intimate (romantic) relationships.
67 As an alternative, Dr Tanney considered the respondent's life as a unique entity and the fundamental human behavioural issues which may influence his risk of re-offending. He said that 10 out of the 19 items considered supported an increased likelihood of the recurrence of sexual offending. He noted that the undesired behaviour is established, functional and re-enforced. Dr Tanney said that although the respondent has a considerable variety of internal and social protectors against re-offending, those protectors had failed to inhibit such offending behaviour in the past. Dr Tanney said the dynamic predictors point to a moderate possibility of re-offending.
68 Dr Tanney said:
In summary, three, different, structured enquiries to measure the likelihood of re-offending risk are in strong agreement. The offending is purposeful and continues despite strong negative reinforcers. He presents it as 'out of control' of his inner, psychological deterring frameworks (vol 3 page 732).
69 Dr Tanney concluded that the respondent is at moderately high risk of sexual re-offending such that unsupervised release is highly likely to lead over time to further serious sexual offending.
70 However, Dr Tanney believes that a risk management programme can be developed that would address sufficiently the respondent's risks of re-offending to allow successful management of his risk in the general community. Dr Tanney noted that, in the past, the respondent was cooperative with supervision and risk management in the community, he has expressed a willingness to be cooperative with future supervision and there are adequate resources to maintain this monitoring and supervision. Dr Tanney does not believe that the respondent requires electronic monitoring or testing for substance misuse or abuse. In Dr Tanney's opinion, the conditions of supervision should include:
(1) limitations, but not necessarily prohibition, on his ongoing exposure to teenage males in employment, social and recreational and community environments;
(2) individual counselling and participation in a community based, maintenance sexual offender treatment programme to reinforce control mechanisms for managing the respondent's risk of re-offending;
(3) psychopharmacology, with anti-depressant medication;
(4) a trial of the effectiveness of anti-libidinal medication; and
(5) sustained engagement with consistent support resources, both professional and personal, to increase the likelihood of the respondent seeking help for implementing relapse prevention strategies.
71 In Dr Tanney's view these risk management strategies should be employed for a minimum of 7 - 10 years.
72 I accept and rely upon the opinions of Dr Febbo and Dr Tanney. The factual bases for their opinions are sound, their expertise is unchallenged and their opinions are persuasive.
Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the respondent
73 There are some psychological and other expert reports and notes in evidence. These reports do not add significantly to my assessment of the respondent and his risk of re-offending.
Information indicating whether or not the respondent has a propensity to commit serious sexual offences in the future
74 The respondent's history of sexual offending against three 10 - 14-year-old boys over a period of 17 years and the psychiatric opinions of Dr Febbo and Dr Tanney, persuade me that the respondent still has a propensity to commit serious sexual offences in the future. I acknowledge that he disputes this conclusion and if asked he would say that he does not intend to commit any such offences and has relapse prevention strategies to ensure that he does not do so. Despite the respondent's views, I think that there are limits on the respondent's ability to, over time, control his own behaviour if he is not subject to supervision.
Whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the respondent
75 The respondent's victims have been boys between the ages of 10 - 14 years of age. They have been known to the respondent or befriended by him. The offending has included offences involving penetration. As Dr Febbo noted, his offending has always been at the more serious end of the range of offences of their type. In each case there has been some degree of threats or coercion used by the respondent.
Any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including whether he has participated in any rehabilitation programme
76 The respondent has been very cooperative in undertaking courses to rehabilitate himself. Due to his intellectual capacity the respondent has a limited ability to address the causes of his offending behaviour without assistance from others. He has utilised outside help by participating in two ISOTPs. He has also undergone counselling whilst in custody. When he was subject to parole he complied with his parole conditions and did not re-offend.
77 I accept the psychiatric opinions that the courses undertaken by the respondent have had some, but limited, effect in reducing the respondent's risk of re-offending in a sexual manner. I accept the psychiatric opinions that further courses and counselling whilst in custody is unlikely to assist the rehabilitation of the respondent. It would be of most benefit for the respondent to undertake counselling and the sex offender treatment maintenance programme in the community so that he can avail himself of expert assistance when he is facing challenges that will undoubtedly confront him in the community.
Whether or not the respondent's participation in any programme has had a positive effect on him
78 I have dealt with the results of the respondent's participation in programmes under the previous headings. His participation in programmes has had a positive, but limited, effect on him.
The respondent's antecedents and criminal record
79 I have detailed the respondent's antecedents and criminal record earlier in these reasons. I acknowledge that his criminal record does not include offences other than the sexual offending against the three victims.
The risk that if the respondent were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order that he would commit a serious sexual offence
80 The respondent concedes that there is an unacceptable risk that if he were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order he would commit a serious sexual offence.
81 Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that if the respondent is not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order there is a significant risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence in the future. I do not think that that risk includes the likelihood that if released without supervision the respondent would, within a short period of time, commit a serious sexual offence. I think that the risk would be that as time went on the respondent's motivation to control his behaviour would decrease and it would be then that his risk of committing a serious sexual offence would grow.
The need to protect members of the community from that risk
82 It is unnecessary for me to detail why there is a need to protect members of the public from the risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if he was released into the community without supervision. That need to protect young, vulnerable members of our community is so obvious that it does not need to be articulated.
The potential consequence of an order under the Act for the respondent
83 The respondent accepts that an order should be made under the Act. He does not accept that it is necessary to make a detention order. He submits that his risk of re-offending can be successfully managed by appropriate supervision in the community. I will address that issue later in these reasons.
84 There is no doubt that any order under the Act will have a significant impact on the respondent's liberty. Obviously that would be most significant if a detention order was made but even if a supervision order is made it will include stringent conditions that would significantly affect his liberty.
The type of sexual offence which the respondent is likely to commit
85 I have dealt with this issue when I have considered the respondent's pattern of prior offending. The respondent's risk of re-offending is against pre-pubescent or pubescent males who he has befriended. The likelihood is that the offences would involve penetration or attempted penetration and that there would be some degree of threats or physical coercion if the victim did not submit to the respondent's acts.
Conclusion as to whether there is an unacceptable risk that if the respondent were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, he will commit a serious sexual offence
86 Taking into account all the evidence, the psychiatric opinion and the opinions I have expressed above, there is an unacceptable risk that if the respondent were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, he will commit a serious sexual offence. The unacceptable risk that the respondent poses makes him a serious danger to the community. I take into account that if the respondent re-offended it would be likely to be against a member of a vulnerable group in the community. Such offending would be likely to permanently damage the life of the victim and have deleterious effects on those close to the victim. Thus, I find that the respondent is a serious danger to the community.
Continuing detention order or supervision order
87 Having found that the respondent is a serious danger to the community I must either order that he be detained in custody for an indefinite period or make a supervision order. In deciding whether to make either order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community: the Act s 17(2).
88 The Act does not provide any other guidance as to the considerations which I must take into account when deciding whether to make a detention order or a supervision order. Clearly, I must consider any conditions which could be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community and the rehabilitation of the respondent: the Act s 18(2).
89 For the purpose of this hearing a Sexual Offender Treatment Options Report was completed by Dr Dylan Galloghly, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. After reviewing the respondent's treatment history, Dr Galloghly noted that when a prisoner is made subject to a continuing detention order, a specialist psychologist would case manage his psychosocial intervention needs throughout the period of detention. He also noted that the model of service delivery utilised with offenders subject to supervision orders is one of 'collaborative multi-agency partnerships to augment supervision, intervention and ongoing risk assessment'. Further, individual psychological counselling and/or group programmes may also be provided, dependent upon the offender's identified needs and capacity to benefit from them.
90 Dr Galloghly concluded that the respondent has undergone significant intensive group-based treatment in relation to his sexual offending and supplementary treatment. While he appears to have made some treatment gains, treatment providers and past assessors have highlighted possible difficulties in retaining treatment gains and developing insight into his sexual offending dynamics. These difficulties may be underpinned by cognitive limitations. The difficulties for the respondent retaining treatment gains can be seen by him offending after he had completed his first ISOTP.
91 Dr Galloghly said that should the respondent be made subject to an order under the Act he will be assessed with a view to determining interventions and psychological management strategies appropriate to his individual situation. However, until the respondent is interviewed, specific and contemporary individual treatment recommendations cannot be made. It is somewhat perplexing to me in this and other matters why such interviews are not done before the hearing of an application for an order under the Act.
92 Also for the purpose of this application, Ms Julie Dabala completed a community supervision assessment. Ms Dabala also completed an updated report in respect of housing that has recently become available for the respondent. Ms Dabala is a Senior Community Corrections Officer employed in the Public Protection Unit of the Department of Corrective Services. The Public Protection Unit is the Unit within the Department responsible for dangerous sexual offenders. Ms Dabala's initial report deals with a proposed community supervision plan. She noted that when previously released on parole the respondent was compliant with the supervision component of his order and he completed his order without reoffending.
93 In respect of proposed accommodation and support within the community, Ms Dabala noted that none of the members of the respondent's family are prepared to or, alternatively, in a position to offer him accommodation. For most of the respondent's life he has lived with his parents but this is no longer possible. The respondent has only resided independently for a short period of about three years. Prior to entering prison on the last occasion, the respondent had purchased his own home. Since his imprisonment, the home has been sold and he has no assets with which to purchase another property. The respondent currently resides in a self-care unit at Acacia Prison. This means that he is responsible for cooking for himself approximately three times a week, purchasing some food with his weekly gratuities and budgeting his funds. He told Ms Dabala that he is able to take care of his own needs.
94 At the time of the initial report prepared in May 2013 there were no community accommodation options available to the respondent. Since then, accommodation has become available in a one bedroom public housing unit on the outskirts of Perth. It has some shops within walking distance, as well as nearby fast food outlets. It is close to public transport routes. The respondent has a valid Western Australia driver's licence and if released on a supervision order will probably have use of his mother's car. He would be able to visit his mother.
95 Officers from the Public Protection Unit conducted an environmental scan of the proposed residence and consider it to be suitable accommodation. The Sex Offender Management Squad completed a desktop analysis of the proposed address. The Squad has no concerns in relation to the proposed residence and highlighted in their assessment that the respondent has not offended against strangers. The Victim Offender Mediation Unit has confirmed that two of the respondent's victims were not residing in the area of the proposed accommodation and the whereabouts of the third victim was unknown.
96 Ms Dabala concluded that should the respondent be released on a supervision order he will be made subject to global positioning system (GPS) monitoring. This will allow the Department to monitor any curfew requirements, identify exclusion and inclusion zones and provide approved information to guide the management of the respondent. Ms Dabala has recommended that should the respondent be released on a supervision order it be a condition of the order that he have no contact, direct or indirect, with his victims.
97 In respect of Dr Tanney's and Dr Febbo's recommendations that the respondent be subject to anti-libidinal treatment, Ms Dabala stated that the Department of Corrective Services is only resourced and responsible for providing 'primary' health care for prisoners in the custodial environment and she says that the prescribing and management of medication for non-medical purposes, such as anti-libidinal medication does not fall within the parameters of primary health care. This position was confirmed by Dr Carbon who gave oral evidence at the hearing of the application.
98 Dr Carbon, the Director of Health Services, Department of Corrective Services, gave evidence that Health Services is mandated to provide care for prisoners incarcerated in Western Australian prisons. She said that dangerous sexual offenders on supervision orders did not come within the jurisdiction of Health Services. She said that at the moment she was aware that there were prisoners who were taking anti-libidinal medication and that there were also dangerous sexual offenders on supervision orders who were on anti-libidinal medication who were supervised by a doctor employed within Health Services. However, she did not think that that arrangement was tenable for a doctor from Health Services to perform that role. Part of the reason for her view about that matter is because she considers that the provision of anti-libidinal medication is not the province of Health Services but rather something to do with a prisoner's sentence. She said that doctors would not normally treat someone with anti-libidinal medication to address and reduce deviant sexual fantasy, as if it were an illness. I asked Dr Carbon whether if someone had deviant sexual interests why she would not treat them with a pharmacological agent? Dr Carbon replied:
It's a decision whether it's behavioural or whether it's an illness. And if it was considered an illness that needed to be treated, that would be managed as an illness, but not on a court order (ts 39).
99 Later Dr Carbon was asked whether there was a distinction drawn between treating someone who has a psychosis and someone who has paraphilia or paedophilia? Dr Carbon replied:
Well, that's a debate by the psychiatrists as we speak; and it's whether or not it becomes considered to be a psychiatric condition, or whether it's behavioural. But while it's mandated as part of a sentence, it crosses a line of which medical care is delivered for the sake of the health of the patient, or whether it's part of a sentencing regime (ts 40).
100 Contrary to Dr Carbon's belief, an order made under the Act is not part of a sentence. Dr Carbon's evidence also has to be considered in light of a letter sent by Ms Heather Harker, Acting Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services to the court in respect of the respondent. She says that the Department has concerns about the ongoing health issues that can result from people taking anti-libidinal medication. She states that the Department's Health Services are only resourced and responsible for providing 'primary' health care. She says that the prescribing and management of medication for non-medical purposes, such as anti-libidinal medication does not fall within the parameters and expertise of primary health care. She said that should an offender elect to undertake anti-libidinal treatment, arrangements could be made to assist an offender in prison to access an external medical/specialist service. However, interpreting results remain an issue for which the Department has no capacity or expertise to provide or access. She concludes by saying that the Department will no longer provide anti-libidinal treatment. Although, the Department would continue to monitor the treatment for the nine dangerous sexual offenders in community and in custody who are currently on anti-libidinal medication.
101 I am confused as to the reason why the Department has taken this stance because of the number of different reasons which have been given. I am unsure which is the primary reason. I have always taken the view that the court cannot compel respondents to applications under the Act or dangerous sexual offenders to take anti-libidinal medication. Neither can the court compel the Department to provide it to prisoners or dangerous sexual offenders. Judges can make it a condition of a supervision order that a dangerous sexual offender comply with a prescribed anti-libidinal medication regime. It would then be up to the offender to decide whether they would do so and comply with the supervision order or fail to comply and be in breach of the supervision order. If lack of resources, financial or medical, is the primary reason for the Department's stance then the court is not in a position to compel the Department to provide the treatment, although I would wonder about the cost benefit analysis which supported such decision.
102 If the primary reason for the Department's refusal to provide anti-libidinal medication is because Health Services is only mandated to provide 'primary' health services, then that is an internal departmental matter that has nothing to do with the statutory regime under the Prisons Act 1981 (WA) s 95 or the Act.
103 If the primary reason for the Department's stance is a concern about a conflict between a treating doctor's obligation to provide medical treatment to his or her patient in circumstances where the patient has freely and voluntarily consented to the medical treatment as opposed to the patient potentially agreeing to it so as to get out of prison on a supervision order, then, in my opinion, a blanket refusal to provide the treatment is inappropriate. Every patient and his or her doctor would have to discuss the proposed treatment, its benefits and potential side effects and the patient's reasons for wanting to take it before any decision could be made by the treating doctor that to prescribe the medication would be unethical.
104 If the primary reason for the Department's stance is that anti-libidinal treatment is not medical treatment, then I am somewhat perplexed. I struggle to understand how a doctor whose patient has paedophilia and who wishes to take a pharmacological agent to control that condition and, hopefully, to ensure that they do not offend against children could refuse, without any consideration, to prescribe anti-libidinal medication on the basis that it was not medical treatment.
105 Whatever the reasons are for the Department's stance, the fact is that the respondent has not been commenced on a trial of anti-libidinal medication whilst he has been in custody. The recommendation of the psychiatrists remains that if he is released on a supervision order he should have a trial of such medication, if he is agreeable to it, and continue with the medication if the trial is successful. I agree with the psychiatrists' recommendations. I understand that if such conditions are placed on the supervision order the Department will assist the respondent to access such medical services from the Public Health Service.
106 In addition to these specific matters, the conditions that the applicant has proposed be placed on a supervision order are extensive and would involve a substantial restriction on the respondent's freedom. If the respondent complies with the conditions his risk of sexual re-offending will be adequately managed and the community will be protected. The conditions of the proposed supervision order are attached to this judgment. The psychiatrists recommend that the supervision order be for a period of 7 - 10 years.
Conclusion
107 I am satisfied that a supervision order in terms of the draft supervision order proposed by the DPP would provide for the adequate protection of the community. The supervision order will be for a period of 8 years.
108 I will hear the parties as to the final terms of the order.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN THE MATTER of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant
- -and-
PETER LEWIS DUNNE Respondent
_______________________________________________________________________
SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JENKINS
ON 27 SEPTEMBER 2013
_______________________________________________________________________
The Court having found pursuant to section 17 and section 7 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 ('the Act') that the Respondent is a serious danger to the community, the Court orders that the Respondent be the subject of a supervision order pursuant to section 17(1)(b) of the Act, for a period of 8 years from the date of this order, on the following conditions:
THE RESPONDENT must:
Residence
1. Take up residence at [suppressed], and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by the Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to him (whichdesignated CCO may be changed by the Department of Corrective Services (DCS) at any time);
2. Not leave or remain out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Manager of the DCS and, if so permitted, abide by all conditions of such permission whilst absent from the state;
Reporting to the CCO and supervision by the CCO
3. Report to a CCO at Perth Community Corrections Centre, Level 2, 30 Moore Street, East Perth, within normal business hours on the day of release from custody under this order, and thereupon advise the CCO of his current name and address;
4. Be under the supervision of the CCO, and comply with the lawful orders and directions of the CCO;
5. Report to, and receive visits from, the CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such arrangements having regard to any employment commitments of the Respondent;
6. Not change his name, address or employment without prior approval from the CCO;
Programs and medical treatment
7. Attend upon, consult and engage with any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health service, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO;
8. Take any anti-depressant medication currently or in the future prescribed by a medical practitioner;
9. Comply with the requirements of all programs intended to address his offending behaviour and/or his risk of serious sexual re-offending, including one-on-one-counselling, as directed by a CCO;
10. Undergo assessment for suitability for a trial of pharmaceutical anti-libidinal treatment and, if found to be suitable, comply fully with that trial and any ongoing treatment recommended as a result of the outcome of that trial, in consultation with a medical practitioner and as directed by a CCO;
11. If found to be suitable for pharmaceutical anti-libidinal treatment, comply with all testing to monitor his compliance with that treatment (either during a trial period or during ongoing treatment) as directed by a CCO in consultation with a medical practitioner;
12. Provide a written direction to any medical practitioner to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware or suspect that the Respondent has or intends to stop taking any prescribed medication which has anti-libidinal effect, or has apparently ceased to consult with that medical practitioner;
13. Permit any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health service, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person to disclose details of medical treatment, programs and opinions relating to his level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Corrective Services;
Reporting to WA Police
14. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad Headquarters at Cambridge House, Suite 1, 297 Hay Street, East Perth, within 48 hours of 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;
15. Comply with all obligations imposed on him pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004;
16. If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search his residence for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with his obligations under this order;
Curfew and monitoring
17. Be subject to a curfew as directed by a CCO, pursuant to section 19B of the Act;
18. When subject to a curfew under this order, present himself for inspection at the front door or curtilage of the specified place to any CCO or police officer or their agent monitoring his compliance with the curfew and if contacted by telephone, speak on the telephone, to any CCO or police officer or their agent monitoring his compliance with the curfew;
19. When subject to a curfew under this order, ensure that all those people present in the residence who may answer the telephone or door are aware as to his obligations and he must request their assistance to comply with his obligations by alerting him to such attempts to contact him by persons monitoring his compliance with the curfew;
20. Be subject to electronic monitoring under s.19A of the Act, the imposition of which monitoring is at the discretion of a CCO pursuant to that section;
21. Maintain a daily diary of his movements, activities and associations if and as directed by the CCO and present this diary to the CCO and police officers upon request;
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 his offence history;
Restrictions on contact with Victims
24. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of his sexual offending unless such contact is either conducted strictly in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Corrective Services, or conducted in a manner approved in advance by the CCO, such latter approval not to be given except with the express consent of the victim to both the approval and to the manner to be approved;
25. Unless contact is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of his sexual offending (including being in the immediate presence of such a victim, whether inadvertently or otherwise), without engaging with such victim in conversation or at all, whether by word or gesture, and must avert his gaze from such victim at all times;
Criminal conduct
26. Not commit any sexual offence, as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A;
27. 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);
28. Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for the offence includes imprisonment, and the offence involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;
29. Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996;
30. Not commit any offence under the Restraining Orders Act 1997;
31. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs or substances including, but not limited to, cannabis;
Prevention of high-risk situations
32. Not associate with any person known by him to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO;
33. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for 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;
34. Have no contact with any child under the age of 17 years, whether such contact is in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless
(a) the contact is authorised in advance by the CCO and such contact is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO; or
(b) the contact is necessary to complete a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required to complete the transaction, and another adult is present;
('Contact' under this condition and the following two conditions means any form of interaction or communication whether by word, gesture, expression or touch and whether in person, in writing, by telephonic or electronic means, but does not include the bare minimum of interaction or communication necessary between an adult and child to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication);
35. Where any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 17 years is initiated by the child, unless the contact is permitted under the condition immediately above, withdraw immediately from the presence of the child;
36. Provide details of any contact with a child under the age of 17 years both to the CCO and to the Police on the next occasion he reports to that person or agency;
37. Not conduct computer searches for, nor collect in either electronic or other form, images of children, whether indecent or not, with the exception of images of immediate family members that are not indecent images;
38. Have no contact with, membership of or affiliation with clubs, associations or groups of which the activities or objects are primarily for children, or of which the majority of membership is comprised by children; and to cease/cancel such memberships if directed to do so by the CCO or police officer;
39. Report immediately to his CCO the formation of any domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by him with a person who has children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time;
40. Make full disclosure regarding his past offending and the current order to anyone with whom he commences a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by the CCO and police officer;
41. When requested by the CCO or a police officer, provide full details of all his internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services and all internet user names or identities used by him and cease the use of such names, identities and services if directed to do so by a CCO or Police officer.
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 breach it.
Signed by the Respondent _____________________________
- PETER LEWIS DUNNE
Name and address: _____________________________
_____________________________
Date: _____________________________
2
2
0