Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Narrier [No 4] - [2017] WASC 306

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- NARRIER [No 4] [2017] WASC 306

CORAM: TOTTLE J

HEARD: 5 & 11 MAY, 24 AUGUST 2017

DELIVERED : 24 OCTOBER 2017

PUBLISHED : 1 NOVEMBER 2017

FILE NO/S: MCS 13 of 2008

BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
PATRICK LENNARD NARRIER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Review of continuing detention order - Whether respondent remains a serious danger to community - Whether continuing detention order should be affirmed - Whether continuing detention order should be rescinded and a supervision order made

Legislation:

Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), s 7, s 31, s 33

Result:

Continuing detention order rescinded
Supervision order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr M T Ritter SC
Respondent: Ms M R Barone

Solicitors:

Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent: Barone Criminal Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Narrier [No 3] [2014] WASC 131
Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86
The State of Western Australia v Allen [No 4] [2017] WASC 100
The State of Western Australia v PLN [No 2] [2009] WASC 21
TOTTLE J:

Introduction

Pursuant to s 29 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (the Act) the Director of Public Prosecutions has applied in the name of the State of Western Australia for a review of the continued detention of the respondent, Mr Narrier. Mr Narrier is subject to an order made under the Act on 11 April 2014 by Jenkins J that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment. The present review is the first review of the continuing detention order.
In these reasons I will:
(i)set out the relevant factual background;
(ii)summarise the reasons of Jenkins J for making the continued detention order;
(iii)outline the relevant statutory provisions and the principles that guide the application of those provisions;
(iv)outline the evidence;
(v)state my reasons for concluding that Mr Narrier remains a serious danger to the community; and
(vi)explain why I consider that a supervision order will adequately protect the community and that the continuing detention order should be rescinded.

Background

Mr Narrier was born on 9 November 1972 and is now 44 years old. He is a single man.
The following account of Mr Narrier's offending history draws heavily upon the summary of offending history contained in the DPP's written outline of submissions which was accepted as accurate by Mr Narrier's counsel.

Offending 1990 - 1998

On 24 March 1990 Mr Narrier, then aged 17, knocked on the door of the house of the victim and asked for a drink of water. When the victim returned, Mr Narrier was armed. Mr Narrier grabbed the victim by the throat, forced her into the bedroom and stripped her of her clothing. He then penetrated her anus and vagina with his fingers before attempting to penetrate her anus with his penis. Mr Narrier stole $25 from the victim before he bound her, gagged her and assaulted her whilst demanding more money. Following his arrest, Mr Narrier entered pleas of guilty to offences of aggravated sexual assault, armed robbery and burglary, and was sentenced by the President of the Children's Court on 1 May 1990 to a total of 4 years imprisonment. He was released on 21 January 1993.
On 5 February 1993, shortly after his release at the end of the 4‑year sentence, Mr Narrier committed two offences of burglary, one of child stealing and one of assault occasioning bodily harm. The circumstances were that, whilst armed with a knife, Mr Narrier entered a house at 11.30 pm and removed the 12‑year‑old child/victim by force. He took the victim across the road where he forced her to the ground and removed her nightgown. Mr Narrier punched the victim three times to the face. Mr Narrier attempted to undo his trousers and lay on top of the victim. The victim's screams attracted the attention of neighbours who came to assist. On 17 June 1993 Mr Narrier was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment. Mr Narrier was released on 3 February 1997.
Between 16 and 17 January 1998 Mr Narrier committed offences involving two female victims in their homes on a single night, namely, an aggravated burglary and sexual assault, and a second aggravated burglary with an associated assault occasioning bodily harm. The details are as follows. At about 11.00 pm on 16 January 1998, Mr Narrier grabbed the 30‑year‑old victim by the throat as she put her dog outside the back of her house. Mr Narrier forced her to the lounge room and pulled down her pants. Mr Narrier threatened to kill her if she did not stay quiet. Mr Narrier then penetrated the victim's vagina with his penis. After withdrawing from the victim, Mr Narrier went to the kitchen and later spoke to and apologised to her before leaving. Later that night, at about 1.15 am on 17 January 1998, Mr Narrier entered a different house through an unlocked door in order to steal money. The victim, who was asleep on the lounge, awoke and was restrained by the neck and head by Mr Narrier. She managed to struggle free. No sexual assault took place. For the offending on that night, Mr Narrier was sentenced on 16 June 1998 to terms of imprisonment structured to arrive at an aggregate term of 12 years imprisonment without parole. A term of indefinite detention was also imposed but later quashed by the Court of Appeal.[1]
[1] Narrier v The Queen[2000] WASCA 86.
On 25 December 1998 Mr Narrier whilst in custody was involved in a riot at Casuarina Prison. He was convicted of nine offences including assault of a public officer, damage, threats to kill, threats to injure and threats to harm. On 28 April 2000 Mr Narrier was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, to be served cumulatively upon the 12-year term already imposed.
The effect was that Mr Narrier was required to serve a term of 15 years imprisonment from 19 January 1998. The end date of the aggregate sentences was 12 July 2008.

2009 supervision order

On 11 February 2009 Murray J declared Mr Narrier to be a serious danger to the community and placed him on a five-year supervision order under the Act.[2]
[2] The State of Western Australia v PLN [No 2][2009] WASC 21 (Murray J).
The conditions of the order were amended on 7 December 2009 following breaches earlier that year.

2010 – 2011 breaches of the supervision order

In February 2010 Mr Narrier was again found to have breached the supervision order by missing appointments with his community corrections officer (CCO) and psychologist. The background to these breaches was that Mr Narrier was abusing alcohol and illicit substances in the context of the breakdown of his domestic relationship. He lost his job, defaulted on payment of his rent and became homeless.
On 20, 24, 26 and 28 May 2010 Mr Narrier returned urinalysis samples positive to cannabis. He was convicted and fined for using a prohibited drug.
On 30 September 2010 Mr Narrier was in possession of 2 g of cannabis and he was convicted and fined for this offence.
On 29 December 2010 Mr Narrier failed to report to his CCO in Albany because he had not returned to Albany from an approved visit to Geraldton. He was subsequently arrested in the Perth metropolitan area in early January 2011.
On six occasions between 3 March 2011 and 21 April 2011 Mr Narrier breached the supervision order by using prohibited drugs, namely, cannabis and methamphetamine or methylamphetamine.
On 28 March 2011 and 28 April 2011 Mr Narrier failed to attend for urinalysis testing as directed in contravention of the supervision order.
On 13 April 2011 Mr Narrier breached his supervision order by failing to attend a supervision session with his CCO.
On 14 April 2011 Mr Narrier was admitted to the Next Step detoxification program but he left on the same evening after shouting and swearing at a staff member.
On 21 April 2011 Mr Narrier failed to attend counselling with Drug Arm in further breach of the supervision order.

Offending - April 2011

On 21 April 2011 Mr Narrier, in company with a juvenile co-offender, broke into a family home. The male complainant was pushed out of the house and punched by the co-offender. In the meantime Mr Narrier confronted the female complainant and demanded money. He grabbed her arm and, in the presence of her children, who were crying, threatened to force her to perform a sexual act on him if she did not give him money. No sexual act took place and Mr Narrier was not charged with any sexual offence. Mr Narrier and the co‑offender stole a motor vehicle that was in the carport. On 24 May 2012, following pleas of guilty, Mr Narrier was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment for one count of aggravated burglary and one count of stealing a motor vehicle. The sentence was backdated to 6 May 2011.

2014 - contravention proceedings and continuing detention order

In 2013 the DPP commenced proceedings against Mr Narrier for his contraventions of the 2009 supervision order and applied for a continuing detention order. In those proceedings Jenkins J received evidence from two consultant forensic psychiatrists, Dr Gosia Wojnarowska and Dr Brian Tanney. Both psychiatrists found Mr Narrier to be at high risk of sexual re-offending.
Dr Wojnarowska had assessed Mr Narrier in 2008 and her view in 2014 was that Mr Narrier's high risk of re-offending in a sexual manner had not altered from her earlier assessment. Dr Tanney considered that there were some indications of an increase in risk since 2009. Dr Wojnarowska's view was that Mr Narrier's risk of re‑offending could be managed adequately in the community. Jenkins J did not accept this view.
In the course of her reasons Jenkins J recorded her view that:[3]
The evidence is overwhelmingly to the effect that if Mr Narrier was in the community and not on a supervision order he would be at a high risk of committing a serious sexual offence.
[3] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Narrier [No 3] [2014] WASC 131 [75] (Jenkins J).
Her Honour went on to conclude:[4]
[t]he respondent is a person who, without external controls, is at a high risk of committing a serious sexual offence. Despite that finding, in 2009 he was given the chance to live in the community on a supervision order. Despite the existence of the order and a great deal of community support, within 12 months Mr Narrier had breached the order by consuming alcohol which is acknowledged to be a trigger to his sexual and generalised offending. Only a short time later his breaches became more serious and wider ranging. In April 2011 he committed the burglary offence during which he made a threat of sexual violence which he intended to carry out, albeit for a short period of time. Since then he has been in custody but he has not received any sex offender or substance abuse treatment other than the Pathways programme. He has not been rehabilitated. He has no realistic release plans.
Having regard to these matters I find that there is an unacceptable risk that, if an order that Mr Narrier be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment is not made, he would commit a serious sexual offence. Thus, pursuant to the Act, s 23 I am required to make a CDO. (emphasis supplied)
[4] Narrier [No 3] [88] - [89].
Jenkins J stated that the control, care and treatment to be provided to Mr Narrier should include:[5]
•an opportunity for [Mr Narrier] to complete another [Sex Offending Treatment Program];
•an opportunity for [Mr Narrier] to have ongoing individual and/or group drug and alcohol counselling;
•with the consent of [Mr Narrier], investigation of anti-libidinal drug treatment;
•assistance in the formulation of a realistic release plan; and
•consideration of a downgrading of [Mr Narrier's] custody security status so that he can be moved to a lower security prison in an attempt to prepare him for release into the community.
[5] Narrier [No 3] [98].
As a consequence of her Honour's order at the conclusion his 5‑year sentence for the 2011 offending, Mr Narrier was detained for control, care or treatment, under the Act. The 5‑year sentence concluded in May 2016.

The relevant provisions of the Act and relevant legal principles

Section 33(1) of the Act provides that on review of a person's detention under s 31 if the court does not find that the person remains a serious danger to the community it must rescind the continuing detention order. If the court finds the person remains a serious danger to the community it must affirm the continuing detention order; or, with effect from a date specified by the court, but not earlier than 21 days after the day on which the review is concluded, rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order in relation to that person.
Section 33(3) provides that in making a decision as to whether to affirm a continuing detention order or rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
Reference must be made to s 7 of the Act.
Before a court dealing with an application under the Act may find a person is a serious danger to the community it must be satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that if the person were not the subject of a continuing detention order or a supervision order the person would commit a serious sexual offence: s 7(1).
The DPP has the onus of satisfying the court of those matters and the court must be satisfied by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability: s 7(2).
The factors to which the court must have regard in deciding whether a person is a serious danger to the community are stipulated in s 7(3).
In The State of Western Australia v Allen,[6] Hall J restated the purpose of and principles underpinning the statutory review of a continuing detention order as follows:
A person who has been detained in custody under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act) must be the subject of a review. The first review is to occur after one year and subsequent reviews are to occur every two years thereafter: s 29 DSO Act.
The purpose of a 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 release on supervision: s 33 DSO Act. 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 danger, consideration must be given to whether detention or release on supervision is appropriate. In respect of the latter decision, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community: s 33(3) DSO Act.
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: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dick [No 5] [2013] WASC 357.
It is a significant matter 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: s 7(2) DSO Act. Such a finding requires satisfaction that there is an unacceptable risk the person would commit a serious sexual offence if not placed under a supervision order or detained.
The risk of reoffending may change over time. It may be affected by age, health and the successful completion of treatment. The availability of new technology or resources in the community may also affect whether the risk of reoffending can be managed on a supervision order.
The justification for making a detention order is the existence of an unacceptable risk of serious sexual offending that cannot be adequately controlled by conditional release. However, detention also serves the purpose of allowing treatment and care in a secure environment: s 17 DSO Act. This confirms an obligation on the part of prison authorities to facilitate change by offering programmes and access to counselling.
If the risk changes or resources improve to enable more efficacious conditions then the need for detention may dissipate. In these circumstances, continuing detention may be unjust.
The review process is intended to ensure that detention only continues where necessary. It mitigates the otherwise potentially draconian effect of imprisoning people for crimes that they have not committed. Reviews are not, therefore, merely a 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 of the community: The State of Western Australia v Latimer[2006] WASC 235; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312.
[6] The State of Western Australia v Allen[No 4] [2017] WASC 100 [2] - [9].

Evidence

Relevant documents and reports were incorporated in a book of materials that was received in evidence. These included:
(i)Psychiatric Report of Dr G Wojnarowska dated 29 April 2017;
(ii)Treatment Progress Report (TPR) of Dr Galloghly dated 10 April 2017; and
(iii)Community Supervision Assessment Report (CSA) of Ms Henshall and others dated 27 April 2017.

Disciplinary history following the continuing detention order

Since the continuing detention order was made Mr Narrier has committed the following offences contrary to the Prisons Act 1981(WA):
(i)on 12 June 2014 he was possession of a drug, Buprenorphine, not lawfully issued to him;
(ii)on 11 October 2014 he used drugs, cannabis and Buprenorphine, not lawfully issued to him;
(iii)on 22 February 2015 he used drugs, cannabis and Buprenorphine, not lawfully issued to him;
(iv)on 22 October 2015 he used insulting language to Trades Instructors;
(v)on 27 January 2017 he used a drug, cannabis, not lawfully issued to him; and
(vi)on 14 February 2017 he used a drug, cannabis, not lawfully issued to him.

Transfer to lower security prison

Mr Narrier was transferred from Acacia prison to Karnet Prison Farm on 7 June 2016. He worked in the abattoir and was considered to be an above average worker who performed his duties with minimal supervision. He worked well with his peers and was respectful to staff. The supervisory staff did not view him as a management problem. His use of cannabis in early 2017 in the circumstances described more fully below resulted in Mr Narrier's security rating being upgraded to 'medium' and he was transferred to Acacia Prison in March 2017.[7]

Participation in Sex Offending Treatment Program

[7] At the resumption of the hearing of the application on 24 August 2017 an 'Incident Description Report' was tendered (exhibit 7). This related to the possession of contraband, principally tobacco, by Mr Narrier in circumstances that constituted misconduct. This misconduct has no significance for the determination of this review.

Mr Narrier completed the 'Medium Sex Offending Treatment Program' (SOTP) whilst at Karnet Prison Farm. In their Program Completion Report the facilitators of the program reported: [8]
Mr Narrier completed all sessions of the SOMED and he impressed as someone who was motivated to do the work in order to understand his past offending behaviour. He participated willingly in all activities and group discussions and his comments often encouraged other participants to explore their offending at greater depth. He took responsibility for his offending and expressed empathy towards the victim who he now perceived as devastated by the experience and frightened of aboriginal men.
Facilitators considered Mr Narrier made positive shifts in the following areas: increased insight into his triggers and motivation for offending; increased confidence in disclosing information of a personal nature and expressing his feelings in front of others (instead of previous tendency to metaphorically put on a "brave face"); ability to maintain composure when receiving constructive criticism; increased ability to challenge others in a respectful manner, and a willingness to change.
Mr Narrier was realistic in recognising the significant challenges that lay ahead for him (because of potential isolation/DSO status) and it is for this reason that facilitators highly recommend ongoing support until Mr Narrier has secured regular employment and established a healthy support network. He needs encouragement and agency support to ensure he does not slip into his previous pattern of giving up and succumbing to negative peer influence when life seems too hard.
[8] Exhibit 1 (63).

The facilitators offered the following recommendations in the event that Mr Narrier is found to be eligible for supervised release:[9]
•Adhere to DSO conditions, Sex Offender Management Squad (SOMS) recommendations, and conditions outlined by Victim Mediation Unit (VMU) and Community & Youth Justice Services (CJY).
•Agency support for accommodation, employment and to help build a pro-social support network.
•Present his Self-Management Plan to his Community Corrections Officer and continue to monitor and adapt this plan to ensure Mr Narrier does not become despondent and succumb to negative peer influence.
•Engage with the Drug and Alcohol Through-care Service (DATS) provided at Karnet Prison Farm and continue with this upon release.
•Counselling intervention provided through a mental health care plan and general practitioner which focuses on supporting Mr Narrier to manage the risk factors related to re-offending, as outlined in this report. This would also provide Mr Narrier with an opportunity to address issues of childhood trauma.

Psychological treatment

[9] Exhibit 1 (63 - 64).

Mr Narrier had 11 psychological treatment sessions between 21 April 2016 and 22 April 2017 with Ms Rankin of the Forensic Psychological Service; however, the evidence does not include a report from Ms Rankin.
Dr Dylan Galloghly completed a Forensic Psychological Assessment of Mr Narrier. He reported that Mr Narrier engaged well with Ms Rankin and that if a supervision order is made psychological treatment will continue to be managed by the Forensic Psychological Service.[10]
[10] Exhibit 1 (132 - 134).
For the purpose of preparing her report, to which I refer below, Dr Wojnarowska discussed Mr Narrier with Ms Rankin and, based on that discussion, included the following in her report:[11]
Ms Rankin was of the opinion that Mr Narrier has made progress in the area of engagement and compared to the 'slow start he was now displaying a genuine therapeutic alliance. More so, since he discovered that he wouldn't be 'rejected' or 'abandoned' by his therapist following his positive urinalysis for cannabis. This event gave Mr Narrier another opportunity to explore the factors underlying his drug use and assisted him with cementing his therapeutic relationship with Ms Rankin.
According to Ms Rankin, Mr Narrier has worked steadily on his treatment goals in the last 12 months and these included: developing better emotional regulation and understanding of the association between negative emotions and drug use; developing self management plan without having to rely on antisocial peers; developing better self awareness and associated self-esteem; exploration of past intimate relationships and developing strategies to manage intimacy, sex drive and negative emotions …

Psychological Assessment

[11] Exhibit 1 (152.8).

Dr Dylan Galloghly assessed Mr Narrier and prepared a report dated 10 April 2017.[12]
[12] Exhibit 1 (127).
Dr Galloghly expressed the following opinions:[13]
Overall, Mr Narrier appears to have made meaningful treatment progress since his last review. He has successfully completed a medium SOTP and he has engaged with his FPS psychologist. During the current assessment he presented a reasonable and measured understanding of his issues and was quite open and honest about his ongoing issues including cannabis. Mr Narrier was able to articulate insight into past behaviours that led him to offending and contravening the orders. In particular, he was open about his tendency to catastrophize problems and how he has generally managed problems and stress through alcohol and illicit substance use. He detailed an understanding of his typical offending cycle in not working through issues, feeling isolated and lonely, and then falling in with people who use alcohol and illicit substances before going on to commit crime. Importantly, he was also able to reveal an understanding that he has a high sexual drive which can transform into sexual violent behaviour under certain conditions. Mr Narrier's acknowledgement of having a high libido was affirmed by his expression of interest in using some form of medication in order to taper down his sex drive. It is noted that he is also open to using medication to help him manage his anxiety issues. These issues should be addressed more thoroughly in the expert psychiatric evidence.
The primary ongoing treatment issue for Mr Narrier is his continued use of cannabis at times of stress as evidenced by his self-disclosure and prison charges. Mr Narrier has used cannabis for most of his life and it seemingly acts as a means of emotional regulation. His use of cannabis likely obstructs his opportunity to learn new ways to regulate his emotions. Mr Narrier is aware that cannabis can also act as a gateway drug that could lead to other illicit substance use and criminal behaviour. While he has completed substance use programs, it is hoped that ongoing therapy and counselling through both his FPS psychologist and Cyrenian House can assist him to learn better ways to manage stress without resorting to cannabis use.
[13] Exhibit 1 (132.9).
Dr Galloghly concluded his report with the following statement:[14]
Mr Narrier is an offender with a long history of non-compliance with order conditions. He has completed a substantial body of treatment related to sexual offending and substance use. He has made reasonable treatment progress and has considerable insight into issues that are related to the risk of re-offending. Mr Narrier still struggles with emotional stress regulation problems which are linked to his ongoing issues with cannabis use. These factors remain treatment needs and he is seemingly motivated to utilise various treatment options that are available and appropriate to his needs.

Engagement with Drug and Alcohol Through-Care Service (DATS)

[14] Exhibit 1 (134).

Mr Narrier was referred to the DATS on 27 February 2017 and was at the time of the hearing engaged in a counselling with a counsellor from Cyrenian House. Cyrenian House will be able to provide substance abuse counselling during Mr Narrier's transition to the community.

Community Supervision Assessment

The Community Offender Monitoring Unit of the Department of Corrective Services prepared a Community Supervision Assessment.[15] This incorporates a proposed Community Supervision Plan.
[15] Exhibit 1 (135).
The first issue dealt with in the Community Supervision Plan was the issue of accommodation for Mr Narrier in the event that a supervision order was made. At the time the plan was prepared no accommodation was available for Mr Narrier. The report recorded that Mr Narrier was being assisted by counsellors from United Care West (UCW - a support agency) in his efforts to find accommodation and with the issues that he would face in the event that the continuing detention order was rescinded and he was released into the community on a supervision order. At the hearing, however, Ms Jane Henshall (the Senior Community Corrections Officer of the Community Offender Monitoring Unit) informed the court that suitable accommodation had become available and would remain available pending my decision in this matter. The accommodation that is available is administered as part of the DSO Supported Accommodation Program. It has been used in the past to house persons who are the subject of supervision orders made under Act. A Desktop Accommodation Analysis was prepared for the Department of Corrections by the Western Australian Police and tendered.[16] This analysis set out some cautionary considerations that, in a general sense, may be said to reflect that the accommodation is in within the Perth metropolitan area within easy walking distances of the kinds of facilities located in the suburbs - shopping centres, schools and a variety of recreational facilities. Inevitably - as no doubt could be said of any suburban area - there are areas within walking distance where illicit drug activity takes place and there are potentially vulnerable people who live in the locality. Whilst I take account of the cautionary considerations identified in the Desktop Analysis, I am satisfied that the accommodation which is available is suitable accommodation. In reaching this conclusion I am influenced by the fact that the accommodation has been used in the past as part of the DSO Supported Accommodation Program. I also take into account that any supervision order will include strict conditions to ensure the adequate protection of the community, in particular conditions designed to detect any use by Mr Narrier of illicit drugs.
[16] Exhibit 4.
As outlined in the Community Supervision Plan, the main goals of Mr Narrier's release plan are to:
(i)gain employment;
(ii)re-establish his relationship with his daughter and grand-daughter (Mr Narrier also has two sisters living in the community);
(iii)join a football club; and
(iv)meet new people and possibly to establish a personal relationship with a partner who was not a negative influence.[17]
[17] Exhibit 1 (132).
Mr Narrier has experience of abattoir work both in the community and on the prison farm.
The proposed Community Supervision Plan addresses the potential for Mr Narrier to use cannabis at times of stress and acknowledges that the development of emotional regulation and problem solving skills are particular behaviours that will need to be managed if he is released into the community. In outline the Plan proposes:
•Ongoing psychological counselling - initially on a weekly basis.
•Ongoing substance use counselling with Cyrenian House.
•Strict supervision and monitoring of Mr Narrier's use of substances, including a low tolerance for any substance use, including illicit substances and alcohol, this will involve frequent testing in the form of urinalysis and Random Breath Testing by the police.
•The prescription of a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) to act as an anti-libidinal.
•Engagement with a local general medical practitioner.
•Maintaining an ongoing relationship with UCW.
•Tracking of Mr Narrier with Global Positioning System tracking.
•Close management and supervision by the Risk Management Group.
The Community Offender Monitoring Unit prepared a draft set of conditions for inclusion in a supervision order.

Psychiatric evidence

Dr Wojnarowska interviewed Mr Narrier on 22 April 2017. She reviewed his records, conferred with other professionals who had been involved in his management and prepared her report dated 29 April 2017.[18]
[18] Exhibit 1 (147).
Dr Wojnarowska reported that in her interview with Mr Narrier he said he felt very positive about participating in the SOTP and his work with Ms Rankin and stated that, 'I put my heart and soul into this, I didn't care that much last time', this being a reference to his participation in a program before his release in 2009. Mr Narrier also told Dr Wojnarowska that he has learnt to ask for help when he needed it. Dr Wojnarowska considers, however, that Mr Narrier's level of insight into the factors contributing to his offending has not changed since she interviewed him in 2014.
Mr Narrier told Dr Wojnarowska that he has been feeling less emotional and less angry since starting to talk about his past in counselling though he said he had 'a long way to go'. He told her that before his offending in 2011 he had no confidence to disclose to those involved in his care and management that he was abusing drugs. He said that in 2011 he had lied to his psychologist. He said that he was much more open with his present counsellor, Ms Rankin. He described himself as having increased self-confidence and self-esteem and considered that he was able to be more assertive with others (inferentially with others who might tempt him into illicit drug use).
Mr Narrier also reported that his sexual drive had declined over the last two years.
Mr Narrier told Dr Wojnarowska that he was mildly anxious about the prospect of being released into the community and was hopeful that he would not cause any trouble and said that he was aware of the consequences of another relapse in the community.
Dr Wojnarowska reported on the benefits derived by Mr Narrier from his individual counselling sessions with Ms Rankin (as reported by Ms Rankin and referred to above) but noted that Mr Narrier's recent relapse into cannabis use when faced with a stressor highlights Mr Narrier's vulnerability and, despite his high motivation to 'do well', his propensity to 'give up and give in'.
Dr Wojnarowska stated that her diagnostic formulation of Mr Narrier had not changed since her 2008 assessment and includes Antisocial Personality Disorder with emotionally unstable (borderline) traits and Cannabis, Amphetamine and Alcohol Use Disorder.
Dr Wojnarowska undertook a risk assessment using a tool known as the Risk Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP), a tool used to assist in the management of the risk of sexual re-offending, but not serious sexual reoffending as defined in the Act.[19]
[19] ts 467.3.
In her report Dr Wojnarowska commented on Mr Narrier's current risk and manageability and not on historical factors which had not changed. She began by commenting on Mr Narrier's psychological adjustment referred to in the RSVP as the 'Psychological Domain' and stated:[20]
Psychological Adjustment
Mr Narrier had always admitted his offences; most of the time before he went to trial. He has never supported or condones sexual violence, and on one occasion he even apologised to the victim after assaulting her. He doesn't blame his offending on drug use; he expressed remorse and shape in relation to his sexual offending. He does however have problems with self awareness and coping. Although he is cognoscente of his interpersonal deficits, which can trigger off the cycle offending through alcohol and illicit drugs he still appears to struggle in this area as evidenced by his recent cannabis use.
In my opinion, Mr Narrier's psychological functioning is an area of major concern: his low self esteem, deficits in self-image (so called, lack of 'ego' strength) remains a major vulnerability point. Any perceived or real rejection or personal failure/insult could have catastrophic consequences with Mr Narrier very quickly resorting to intravenous drug use, which would escalate to sexual offending.
[20] Exhibit 1 (155.5).
Dr Wojnarowska then commented upon Mr Narrier's problems with substance abuse stating:[21]
The relevance of this factor in his management cannot be overstated, especially in a light of recent cannabis use. Mr Narrier would require not only support but also strict supervision in this area should he be released into the community.
[21] Exhibit 1 (155.7)
In relation to planning and impulsivity Dr Wojnarowska stated:[22]
Mr Narrier is highly impulsive which is associated with his personality style and can be modulated by psychological counselling only to certain degree.
[22] Exhibit 1 (156.6).
Dr Wojnarowska referred to Mr Narrier's history of failing to comply with the 2009 supervision order and stated:[23]
Mr Narrier has a history of contravening the conditions of his supervision order on many occasions, as outlined in Justice Jenkins' Consent Order [sic] 2014. He then reoffended while on SO. In prison, his initial conduct was characterised by disobedience, involvement in non-sexual violence and one incident of a sexual nature (2006). His behaviour has improved significantly in recent years and there were no prison related charges in 2015. However, despite his motivation to do well, his current prosocial attitudes and sound therapeutic engagement in counselling, his risk of supervision non compliance remains high for the reasons outlined in Psychological Domain section.
[23] Exhibit 1 (156.8).
Dr Wojnarowska outlined a 'Risk Scenario' and described the situation in which Mr Narrier may reoffend as follows:[24]
[H]e is more likely to commit an opportunistic sexual offence after breaking into someone's house to steal money or goods for drugs. Targeted sexual violence is also possible, if, for example, he could see a woman through a window at night time. Psychological harm to the victim would be one on the highest on the scale, physical harm is also likely but not life threatening.
He is likely to be living in a volatile relationship he will be avoiding supervision/counselling sessions providing some not sound excuses as he did in the past. His work performance will deteriorate over that period of time. He will be intoxicated with alcohol or illicit substance prior to the offending he may just have had an argument with his partner.
[24] Exhibit 1 (157.2).
Dr Wojnarowska summarised the result of her risk assessment in the following terms:[25]
Mr Narrier's risk of sexual reoffending is as high as assessed in 2014 and is associated with antisocial and borderline personality structure, and alcohol and illicit drug use.
He has made a sustained effort to work on his treatment goals but even in the very structured and supportive environment and having other options easily available to him he resorted to drug use under stress. This vulnerability however will require long-term psychological therapy and is unlikely to improve in the next years to come. As such, a close supervision of his mental state and strict surveillance of his drug use is the only option of safely managing him in the community.
In the last 12 months he has engaged in offered treatment and is motivated to adhere to his offence-prevention plan and the conditions of the order, should he be released.
[25] Exhibit 1 (157.5).
Dr Wojnarowska offered the following opinion and recommendations:[26]
[26] Exhibit 1 (157.9).
Mr Narrier continues to be at high risk of sexual reoffending if not subject to a supervision order under DSOA for the reasons outlined above.
The following recommendations made assist in managing Mr Narrier in the community:
1 Treatment
Psychological: his treatment needs are related to his emotional functioning and stress and sexual drive management, self‑awareness and self-esteem and interpersonal functioning. Drug counselling remains on top of the list. As mentioned, Ms Rankin will continue the weekly counselling sessions if he is released on SO.
Pharmacological: treatment with antidepressant medication is highly recommended and Mr Narrier agrees to that. This will assist with managing his mood and libido. High doses of an SSRI will be required; the side-effects are not likely to interfere with his medical conditions and their treatment.
2Supervision
Close supervision will be necessary to protect the community. The conditions of the Order should include total abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances; strict curfew - however adjusted to his working hours; GPS monitoring and restriction on attending places selling liquor. Participation in family gatherings should be preapproved by the supervising CCO.
3 Type of Accommodation
As discussed Perth accommodation through Outreach appears to be only option however, availability of this accommodation is not known at this point in time.
In the course of her oral evidence:
•Dr Wojnarowska said that she had not made any findings of deviance or psychopathy, the two most robust predictors of sexual reoffending. Had she made those findings she thought that she would have put Mr Narrier's risk of reoffending as very high as opposed to high.[27]
•Dr Wojnarowska agreed that the most relevant risk of reoffending was 'generalist' reoffending that might generate an impulsive resort to sexual offending of an opportunistic nature.[28]
•Dr Wojnarowska expanded on the evidence in her report on Mr Narrier's pathway to reoffending. The effect of her evidence was that the risk of reoffending arises from Mr Narrier's impulsivity, vulnerability, and emotionally unstable traits and prominent mood swings. These give rise to a risk that under stress Mr Narrier will resort to cannabis use which would have the consequence of disinhibiting Mr Narrier and, in turn, lead to the risk of generalist offending. In the course of such generalist offending Mr Narrier might commit a sexual offence if the opportunity presented itself. Although Dr Wojnarowska acknowledged the significance of these factors in her assessment of Mr Narrier, her opinion was that he was capable of being managed in the community.[29]
•Dr Wojnarowska said that Mr Narrier's dependence on cannabis was psychological rather than physiological.[30]
•Dr Wojnarowska was clear, however, that cannabis use would not have the effect of increasing Mr Narrier's sex drive.[31]
•Dr Wojnarowska agreed that Mr Narrier has made treatment gains since 2014 and, significantly, he is more open in the presentation of information to those providing him with treatment.[32]
•SSRIs are drugs used in the treatment of depression that have the side effect of reducing libido.[33]
•Dr Wojnarowska agreed that Mr Narrier's use of cannabis in January and February 2017 provided him with an opportunity to understand what led to his failure and to discuss the issue with those treating him.[34]
•Dr Wojnarowska agreed that Mr Narrier's release plan was realistic and that if released on a supervision order, the stressor that had been present in his life in 2011 - his relationship with his then partner - would not be present.[35]
[27] ts 468 - 471.
[28] ts 471.2.
[29] ts 475.6 - 476.5.
[30] ts 510.5.
[31] ts 478.1.
[32] ts 480.6.
[33] ts 461.3.
[34] ts 481 - 482.
[35] ts 489 - 490 and 484.

Anti-libidinal drug treatment

As noted above in her reasons for decision for the making of a continuing detention order Jenkins J stated that the treatment to be provided to Mr Narrier should include, if Mr Narrier consented, the investigation of anti‑libidinal drug treatment. Notwithstanding the direction from her Honour, no steps were taken to trial Mr Narrier on anti-libidinal medication before the hearing of this application. This was unsatisfactory. It prejudiced Mr Narrier as one of the submissions made by the DPP is that the court could not be confident that a supervision order has the capacity to protect the community adequately because Mr Narrier has not been trialled on anti-libidinal medication. It appears that the fundamental reason for not trialling Mr Narrier on anti-libidinal medication was the cost of the treatment. In the light of the cost it was decided to await Dr Wojnarowska's opinion on whether Mr Narrier could be managed in the community on a supervision order. The decision to defer trialling Mr Narrier on anti-libidinal medication had the potential to create a self‑perpetuating problem and ultimately was a false economy.
The hearing of the application proceeded over two days in May (5 and 11 May) and resumed on 24 August 2017 (the elapse of time was a consequence of the difficulty in accommodating the availability of counsel and the court). At the conclusion of the hearing on 11 May and after it had become apparent that the hearing would not be resumed for some weeks I stated that it was my expectation that Mr Narrier would be trialled for anti-libidinal medication during the adjournment and that further evidence of the results of that trial be made available on the resumption of the hearing.
When the hearing resumed on 24 August 2017 a further report from Dr Wojnarowska was tendered.[36] In that report Dr Wojnarowska recorded:
Mr Narrier has commenced the treatment with an SSRI approximately 8 weeks ago. He has tolerated the medication well with no side effects reported. He is motivated to continue, as he perceives the treatment beneficial especially in relation to his mood and cravings for illicit substances. The treatment has had a positive, antidepressant effect however the significant changes in libido are not evident on the current dose.
In my opinion the dose of Citalopram should be gradually increased to the maximum recommended which is 80 mg. this can take place in the community and will require frequent medical reviews in antilibidinal clinic or alternatively by Mr Narrier's GP.
[36] Exhibit 5.
I infer from this evidence, read in the context of her oral evidence about the effect of SSRIs on libido that Dr Wojnarowska's opinion is that when the dosage of Citalopram is increased to the maximum recommended dose it will suppress Mr Narrier's libido.

Cannabis use

Mr Narrier's propensity to resort to cannabis use at times of stress is an issue of central importance. Dr Galloghly referred to it as the 'primary ongoing treatment issue' and Dr Wojnarowska said its relevance for future management could not be overstated.
Some detail about Mr Narrier's cannabis use in January and February 2017 is required. On 27 January 2017 Mr Narrier returned a positive result for cannabis use and on 13 February 2017 he was found to be incoherent. A urinalysis sample provided on 13 February 2017 was dilute (it was not suggested that Mr Narrier had deliberately caused the dilution). Further testing, however, disclosed that Mr Narrier had used cannabis on 13 February 2017. Mr Narrier explained that he had become stressed and frightened about the possibility of remaining in custody for a further two years due to recent legislative changes and had resorted to cannabis use as a means of coping with this stress.[37] When interviewed by Dr Galloghly just over two weeks after the second episode Mr Narrier disclosed that he had a chronic cannabis use issue that had been 'prevalent throughout his life'.
[37] Exhibit 1 (136 - 137).
Against that background it is important to consider whether Mr Narrier has used cannabis on an ongoing or habitual basis whilst in prison or whether the occasions on which he has been found to have used cannabis are to be regarded as isolated incidents. The use of cannabis in early 2017 is a concern because by that time Mr Narrier had the benefit of a number of counselling sessions with Ms Rankin and had participated in the SOTP from which he appeared to derive a number of benefits. His resort to cannabis at this time of stress would suggest that whilst the psychological treatment had helped Mr Narrier cope with his emotional regulation problems those problems were not resolved.
There is no direct evidence that Mr Narrier has used cannabis on a regular basis in prison. Neither does the evidence permit an inference to be drawn to that effect. In particular it is not possible to infer from Mr Narrier's remark to Dr Galloghly that cannabis had been an issue throughout his life that he had used cannabis on an ongoing basis in prison.
In my view Mr Narrier's use of cannabis in January and February 2017 should be characterised as a relapse. My reasons for reaching that conclusion are threefold. First, the Community Assessment Report records that not long after he had been transferred to Karnet Prison Farm, Mr Narrier disclosed to the author of the Community Assessment Report that he had been offered cannabis at the Prison Farm on a number of occasions. It is unlikely that Mr Narrier would have disclosed that he had been offered cannabis if he was using it on an ongoing basis. Second, the Community Assessment Report suggests that Mr Narrier was subjected to urinalysis on a frequent basis (though there was, however, only evidence of one test having been conducted in the second half of 2016, that is in September 2016), and there were no other positive test results. Mr Narrier has been subject to urinalysis testing in Acacia Prison and no positive test results have been returned. Third, if Mr Narrier was using cannabis on a regular ongoing basis, it is likely that this would have come to the attention of the prison authorities.

Mr Narrier remain a serious danger to the community

It was not contended on Mr Narrier's behalf that he no longer remained a serious danger to the community.[38]
[38] ts 576.4.
The evidence to which I have referred constitutes acceptable and cogent evidence that satisfies me to a high degree of probability that there is an unacceptable risk that if Mr Narrier were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, he would commit a serious sexual offence. Accordingly, I find that Mr Narrier remains a serious danger to the community. In summary the matters that lead me to make this finding are as follows:
(i)Mr Narrier's history of serious sexual offending.
(ii)As found by Jenkins J in the course of the 2011 offending Mr Narrier made a threat of sexual violence which he intended to carry out.
(iii)The deficits in Mr Narrier's psychological functioning which can lead him into illicit drug use, generalised offending and opportunistic serious sexual offending.
(iv)Dr Wojnarowska's opinion that Mr Narrier continues to be at high risk of sexual reoffending and the matters upon which that opinion is based.

The continuing detention order should be rescinded and a supervision order be made

Having decided that Mr Narrier remains a serious danger to the community it is necessary to decide whether to affirm the continuing detention order or rescind it and make a supervision order. I remind myself that in making this decision the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
The DPP submits that the court cannot be confident that a supervision order will adequately protect the community. In summary it is said that this is because of:
(i)The nature, seriousness and repetition of Mr Narrier's past offending.
(ii)Mr Narrier's failure to abide by the terms of the supervision order made in 2009.
(iii)Mr Narrier's use of cannabis in early 2017. It is contended that this use undermines the argument that Mr Narrier is sufficiently emotionally robust to cope with the stressors he will face on release into the community.
(iv)The lack of sufficiently cogent evidence of rehabilitation. In this context I should mention that the DPP was also critical of Mr Narrier's release plan contending, in effect, that it was expressed in terms that were too aspirational and lacked detail.
(v)It was too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the anti‑libidinal medication.
I consider that a supervision order incorporating the draft conditions proposed by the Community Offender Monitoring Unit will adequately protect the public. The following factors, in combination, lead me to that conclusion.
First, the supervision order that I propose to make will provide for the close supervision and monitoring of Mr Narrier. There will be continuous monitoring of his whereabouts by a global positioning tracking system (a monitoring technique not available under the Act in 2009). He will be subject to a curfew. His home will be subject to random searches by police officers who will also be able to monitor Mr Narrier's use of any telephone or internet connection used by him. It will be a condition of the order that there be complete abstinence from drugs and alcohol and that he be subject to a regime of random testing for drug and alcohol use. Other conditions of the order will be that Mr Narrier comply with the treatment recommendations of his psychiatrist and take the anti-libidinal medications prescribed for him and that he be subjected to testing to ensure compliance. The conditions of the order are set out in the appendix to these reasons. Strict compliance with the orders is required and the latitude seemingly extended to Mr Narrier in 2010 - 2011 in respect of his breaches of the 2009 supervision order should not be extended to him in respect of any breaches of the order I propose to make.
Second, whilst Mr Narrier's breaches of the 2009 supervision order are a cause for concern about whether he will comply with the terms of a further supervision order, his breaches of the 2009 order must be weighed against the significant progress made by Mr Narrier in his rehabilitation. This is reflected in the evidence in by:
(i)the positive observations of the facilitators of the SOTP in their Program Completion Report reproduced at [38];
(ii)the genuine therapeutic alliance formed with Ms Rankin and the benefits derived from that the psychological counselling;
(iii)his engagement with the Drug and Alcohol Through-Care Services; and
(iv)Dr Wojnarowska's evidence that Mr Narrier is more open in the presentation of information.
The progress made by Mr Narrier in his rehabilitation is relevant is two ways. It provides a foundation for further rehabilitation in the community and it increases the likelihood that Mr Narrier will comply with the terms of the supervision order thereby avoiding the kinds of factors that led to his life being destabilised in the past.
Third, Mr Narrier has not been violent in prison and, apart from one episode of insulting behaviour in October 2015, it appears that he has behaved in a respectful manner to prison officers and other persons with whom he has come into contact. The impression that I have formed is that Mr Narrier is more respectful of authority and that his previous defiant attitude has moderated. In her report Dr Wojnarowska referred to the significant improvement in Mr Narrier's behaviour in recent years. This improvement in Mr Narrier's attitude is a basis for confidence that he will comply with a supervision order.
Fourth, Mr Narrier has now been trialled on anti-libidinal medication. It appears that Mr Narrier is able to tolerate the medication with no side effects and that when the maximum daily dosage is administered it will have the effect of suppressing his libido thus reducing the risk of sexual offending. As I have already noted the supervision order will contain conditions that Mr Narrier comply with the treatment and medication regimes prescribed for him and his compliance with the medication regime be tested.
Fifth, Mr Narrier's release plan is not detailed but it is realistic. In my view, it is unrealistic to expect a person in Mr Narrier's position to be able to prepare a more detailed plan. Indeed a more detailed plan has the potential to set Mr Narrier up for failure and to undermine his psychological health. Mr Narrier's plan provides a strategy for him to re-engage with the community by obtaining employment, re-establishing contact with his family and establishing a social life which does not bring him into contact with pro‑criminal influences. There is no doubt that Mr Narrier will require support to assist him re-adjusting to life in the community and the Community Supervision Plan identifies the support that will be available to him: ongoing psychological counselling; maintaining an ongoing relationship with UCW to assist Mr Narrier with general reintegration (assistance with attendance at appointments, assistance in implementing Mr Narrier's release plan, leisure activities and encouragement to positive lifestyle changes); and, ongoing substance abuse counselling.
Sixth the risk factor that gives rise to the greatest concern is the risk that Mr Narrier will resort to cannabis use to cope with the stresses of life in the community. His relapse earlier this year weighs against the rescinding of the continuing detention order. It suggests that Mr Narrier will be unable to cope with the stresses of living in the community and complying with the supervision order without resorting to cannabis use which has the potential to result in offending. The counselling to which I have referred will attenuate that risk but cannot eliminate it. It will be a condition of the supervision order that Mr Narrier be subject to a strict regime of random testing for alcohol and drug use. As already stressed it is imperative that this regime be enforced and that Mr Narrier be monitored closely for alcohol and drug use. My view is that the combination of counselling and close monitoring for alcohol and drug use provides adequate protection against the risk that Mr Narrier will resort to cannabis use.
Seventh, Mr Narrier is older. He has been detained under the continuing detention order for a year. He has had the opportunity to reflect on how he must behave in the community in the event that a supervision order is made. The prospect of a further period of detention pursuant to the Act if he breaches the supervision order will act as a significant personal deterrent.
I will hear the parties in relation to any issues arising from the proposed order.
ANNEXURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

MCS 13 of 2008

IN THE MATTER of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant

-and-

PATRICK LENNARD NARRIER Respondent

___________________________________________________________________________

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE TOTTLE
ON 1 NOVEMBER 2017

___________________________________________________________________________

The Court, having found pursuant to section 33(1)(a) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 that the Respondent remains a serious danger to the community, pursuant to section 33(1)(b)(ii) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006, rescinds the continuing detention order made by the Honourable Justice Jenkins on 11 April 2014 and orders that the Respondent be the subject of a supervision order for a period of seven (7) years from 22 November 2017 on the following conditions:

You (the Respondent) must:

Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the place and within the time stated in the order and advise the officer of the person's current name and address.
Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the court.
Notify a CCO of every change of the person's name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens.
Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, complying with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 19A or 19B).
Not leave, or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO.

Not commit a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A during the period of the Order.

Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 19A.

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 CCO assigned to you.
Keep a permanent place of residence approved by a CCO assigned to you.
Report to a CCO at your nominated release address within normal business hours on the day of release from custody under this order.
Be under the supervision of a CCO, and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.
Not commence or change voluntary or paid employment or education without the prior approval of the CCO.
Consult and engage with any psychiatrist, psychologist, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.
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.
Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000, or other police station if regional, 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.
If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle 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.
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.
Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information.
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.
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 Corrective Services.
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.

Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
Not commit any sexual offence, as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A.

Not commit any other 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.

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 Code1913 (WA).

Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996.
Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs or substances including, but not limited to, cannabis.

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.
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.

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.
Undergo medical treatment, including anti-depressant medication or anti-libidinal treatment, as directed by the CCO in consultation with a medical practitioner or medical practitioners.
To engage with mental health services and to obey the instructions of the treating psychiatrist with regard to treatment and medication.
Comply fully with any treatment prescribed pursuant to conditions 34 and 35.
To engage with mental health services and to obey the instructions of the treating psychiatrist with regard to treatment and medication.
Permit any medical practitioner or medical practitioners to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware or suspect that you have, or intend to cease undergoing pharmaceutical anti-libidinal and or anti-depressant medication contrary to the advice of the medical practitioner or medical practitioners, or you have apparently ceased to consult with that medical practitioner or medical practitioners on such treatment.
Comply with all testing to monitor your compliance with medical treatment and anti-libidinal treatment as directed by a CCO.
Not hitch-hike, nor accept lifts in vehicles from any female who is unaware of your offending history, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
Not allow any female hitchhiker to enter any vehicle under your control.
Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorized in advance by the CCO.
Not be in possession of, use, or be under the influence of alcohol.
Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.
To provide a valid sample for testing pursuant to condition 41.
Not remain in the presence of females who you know to be affected by alcohol, or reasonably ought to know to be affected by alcohol, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
Not remain in the presence of any person who you know to be affected by illicit substances, or reasonably ought to know to be affected by illicit substances.
Not 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.
Make full disclosure to your CCO the details of anyone with whom you commence a friendship, or a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship.
As and when directed by a CCO or police officer, make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to a person with whom you have commenced a friendship, or a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by the CCO or a Police Officer.
To advise a Community Corrections Officer of every device used by you to access the internet and the location of that device.
With respect to any computer 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.
Permit a CCO or Police to access any computer or device capable of storing digital data for the purpose of ascertaining your computer activities, and provide to the CCO a police upon request any PIN or passwords, or other process required for access.

________________________________

THE HON JUSTICE TOTTLE

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 Respondent _____________________________

Patrick Lennard Narrier

In the presence of: _____________________________
Name and address: _____________________________

_____________________________
_____________________________

Date: _____________________________