Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Wimbridge [No 5]
[2012] WASC 119
•5 APRIL 2012
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- WIMBRIDGE [No 5] [2012] WASC 119
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 119 | |
| 05/04/2012 | |||
| Case No: | MCS:20/2007 | 27 MARCH 2012 | |
| Coram: | COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT | 27/03/12 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Detention order rescinded and supervision order granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA MARK BRADLEY WIMBRIDGE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Dangerous sexual offender Review No new principles |
Legislation: | Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) |
Case References: | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [2008] WASC 44 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 2] [2009] WASC 174 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 3] [2010] WASC 173 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 4] [2011] WASC 75 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Applicant
AND
MARK BRADLEY WIMBRIDGE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Dangerous sexual offender - Review - No new principles
Legislation:
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA)
Result:
Detention order rescinded and supervision order granted
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr P D Yovich
Respondent : Mr D J McKenzie
Solicitors:
Applicant : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent : Thames Legal
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [2008] WASC 44
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 2] [2009] WASC 174
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 3] [2010] WASC 173
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 4] [2011] WASC 75
(Page 3)
- COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 27 March 2012 and has been edited from the transcript.)
1 This is an application for an annual review of a continuing detention order. The order was made against the respondent Mr Wimbridge by McKechnie J on 16 March 2011 pursuant to the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (the Act).
2 The history of this matter can be summarised as follows:
(1) On 27 March 2008 Jenkins J found that Mr Wimbridge was a serious danger to the community within the meaning of the Act and ordered that Mr Wimbridge be detained in custody for an indefinite period for control, care or treatment: see Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [2008] WASC 44;
(2) On 16 June 2009 Hasluck J, pursuant to s 29 and s 31 of the Act, reviewed Mr Wimbridge's detention order and declined to rescind the existing order of Jenkins J: see Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 2] [2009] WASC 174;
(3) On 20 July 2010 Blaxell J on an annual review rescinded the continuing detention order and replaced it with a supervision order for a period of five years from 23 July 2010 subject to conditions as set out in the order: see Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 3] [2010] WASC 173;
(4) On 16 March 2011 McKechnie J, on the grounds that Mr Wimbridge had contravened a number of the conditions of the supervision order made on 20 July 2010, ordered that the supervision order be cancelled and that Mr Wimbridge be detained in custody for an indefinite period: see Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Wimbridge [No 4] [2011] WASC 75.
3 Pursuant to s 33(1) of the Act the court must rescind a person's continuing detention order if it does not find that the person subject to the order remains a serious danger to the community.
4 Pursuant to s 33(2) of the Act the court may if it finds the person is still a danger to the community either decline to rescind the detention order or replace it with a release order subject to conditions, known as a supervision order.
(Page 4)
5 Pursuant to s 33(3) the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
6 In this matter counsel for Mr Wimbridge concedes that Mr Wimbridge remains a serious danger to the community. The material before me clearly establishes this fact. Accordingly I make a finding that Mr Wimbridge remains a serious danger to the community within the meaning of the Act.
7 The issue in this application then is whether I should leave the detention order in place or replace it with a supervision order. The applicant has conceded that I should make a supervision order but it remains an issue for me to consider and decide whether it is appropriate that I exercise a discretion to make such an order.
8 Mr Wimbridge is aged 45. He has an appalling history of serious sexual offending. He has been convicted of violent non-consensual sex offences arising from eight separate incidents commencing from a time when he was only 13 years of age.
9 On three occasions the victim of his offending was a prostitute. The details of the offending are described by Jenkins J and summarised by Blaxell J in their decisions that I have referred to earlier. The last offence committed by Mr Wimbridge occurred on 16 May 2000. Mr Wimbridge's sentences expired on 2 September 2007 and ever since then he has been subject to a detention order or a supervision order.
10 As mentioned earlier Mr Wimbridge was placed on a supervision order by Blaxell J on 20 July 2010. On 16 March 2011 McKechnie J found that Mr Wimbridge had breached the conditions of the order made by Blaxell J in a number of ways, namely:
(1) Mr Wimbridge had failed to disclose to police that he had taken possession of a motor vehicle and an internet capable telephone;
(2) Mr Wimbridge was evasive in relation to revealing details of an intimate relationship and breached a condition that allowed officials to interview any associate;
(3) Mr Wimbridge had possessed pornographic material;
(4) Mr Wimbridge had breached a condition not to use alcohol;
(5) Mr Wimbridge had breached a condition not to communicate with prostitutes by exchanging text messages with a prostitute.
(Page 5)
11 As mentioned earlier in this decision, as a result of these breaches the supervision order was cancelled and Mr Wimbridge was placed back on a continuing detention order. The present application for review is supported by a book of material which contains an up-to-date report from Dr Peter Wynn Owen, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 13 March 2012; a dangerous sex offender treatment progress report by Ms T Marley, principal psychologist, dated 8 March 2012; and an adult community corrections supervision assessment report dated 15 March 2012. Also I have heard oral evidence from Dr Wynn Owen.
12 It is appropriate that I make some reference to assessments made of Mr Wimbridge in the past. As far back as August 1985 Dr Paul Skerritt, psychiatrist, assessed Mr Wimbridge and concluded that a rape offence committed by Mr Wimbridge in March 1985 could be seen in terms of characteristics of Mr Wimbridge's personality of thinking impulsively, without prior planning and having somewhat of an introspective approach to relations with other people.
13 Since that time Mr Wimbridge has committed further offences on five separate occasions. Also he has undergone numerous assessments by psychiatrists, psychologists and community corrections officers. In 2007 Dr Mark Hall, a consultant psychiatrist, assessed Mr Wimbridge and provided a report for the purpose of the application before Jenkins J. Dr Hall assessed Mr Wimbridge as meeting the diagnostic criteria of an antisocial personality disorder. This was indicated by Mr Wimbridge's failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviour, deceitfulness manifested by infidelity in offending, impulsivity, aggressiveness and irresponsibility. Dr Hall assessed Mr Wimbridge as being a high risk of reoffending and stated that there was nothing to suggest that the risk of Mr Wimbridge reoffending was time-limited.
14 Dr Hall identified visiting prostitutes, relationship conflict, alcohol consumption and sexual pre-occupation as high risk situations leading to reoffending. Dr Hall also noted that Mr Wimbridge's offending appeared at that stage to have been unaffected by either punishment or therapeutic approaches designed to achieve an understanding of his offending. Also at that time Dr Hall stated that there would be no way to reliably monitor the warning signs of impending offending as monitoring would be reliant upon a high level of honest disclosure, which was unlikely.
15 In 2007, Mr Wimbridge was also examined by Dr Wojnarowska, consultant psychiatrist, who prepared a report and gave evidence before Jenkins J. Dr Wojnarowska concluded that Mr Wimbridge suffered from
(Page 6)
- paraphilia, alcohol dependency and an antisocial personality disorder. She stated that the risk of Mr Wimbridge reoffending was high and chronic. She stated that Mr Wimbridge was aware of the warning signs that may signal reoffending. These warning signs did not have to persist for very long as Mr Wimbridge is very impulsive.
16 Dr Wojnarowska concluded that Mr Wimbridge was likely to be noncompliant with any supervision and untruthful about his compliance with any orders.
17 In 2009, when an annual review of the detention of Jenkins J was heard by Hasluck J, a report was obtained from Dr Wynn Owen who had assessed Mr Wimbridge for the purpose of providing a report to the court. Dr Wynn Owen reported that Mr Wimbridge had undergone counselling to address underlying issues. Dr Wynn Owen's opinion was that, although encouraging treatment gains had been made, Mr Wimbridge was not able to adequately apply coping strategies to his behaviour and that supervision conditions on their own would not be sufficient to reduce the risk of reoffending to an acceptable level.
18 When a review was conducted before Blaxell J in 2010 a report of Dr Fitzclarence was tendered which indicated that Mr Wimbridge had been prescribed an anti-anxiety medication which had anti-libidinal properties. Also Mr Wimbridge had elected to be prescribed Androcur, a stronger anti-libidinal medication. He commenced on this medication on 5 June 2010.
19 Dr Wynn Owen in a report dated 8 June 2010 expressed an opinion as follows:
Mr Wimbridge has made a number of treatment gains over the last year. In particular in taking on more responsibility for his sexual offending, developing an understanding of his previous patterns of behaviour and personality style and identifying alternative ways to cope with stress, avoid boredom and recognised intimacy needs whilst not associating intimacy with sex. These gains in understanding and awareness are yet to be tested in the community. Treatment gains should be further consolidated through ongoing 1:1 counselling and his planned participation in the Holyoake men's program may indicate a likely reduction in reoffending risk with respect to assessments 12 months ago.
20 As mentioned earlier, Blaxell J released Mr Wimbridge into the community on a supervision order and this was breached by Mr Wimbridge. McKechnie J in his decision to cancel the supervision order stated as follows:
(Page 7)
- The respondent seems to be an habitual liar, which may have something to do with his elevated psychopathy scores. He seems to lie whenever it suits him to avoid his responsibilities under the supervision order and, as I say, he has breached it in a most serious way repeatedly over a considerable time.
21 On 29 November 2011, McKechnie J made an order that for the purpose of this review before me, Mr Wimbridge be assessed by Dr Wynn Owen and a report prepared. I take it that this report is pursuant to s 32 of the Act, which requires a report from two psychiatrists unless the court orders otherwise. If not, I make such an order that only one psychiatric report be prepared, that is the report of Dr Wynn Owen, and dispense with the requirement of a second psychiatric report.
22 Pursuant to the order of McKechnie J, a report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 March 2012 was prepared. This report was tendered into evidence as a part of a book of material. In his written report, Dr Wynn Owen refers to a number of earlier reports. In a report dated 10 April 2009, Dr Wynn Owen stated that Mr Wimbridge had a high score in psychopathy check lists, although not quite to a level to be classified in Australia as a psychopath and that evidence suggests that the presence of psychopathy in a sexual offender increases the risk of sexual reoffending.
23 Dr Wynn Owen also diagnosed Mr Wimbridge as having an alcohol abuse disorder in sustained remission and an antisocial personality. Dr Wynn Owen concluded at page 13 of his report as follows:
Mr Wimbridge has impressed on many occasions in the past as motivated to address his psychological issues and his risk factors for reoffending. Prior to 2008, he has completed three sex offender treatment programs in prison, 1997, 1999 and 2007, and participated in two community based maintenance sex offender programs, twice in 1998, and community maintenance sex offender individual counselling in 2000. He has offended whilst on bail, on parole and whilst attending community based maintenance offender programs.
This suggests that although he has successfully understood the principles of the programs and has been able to identify his risks, triggers and possible coping strategies, he has been unable to incorporate these into his behaviour to avoid reoffending. Hormonal anti-libidinal therapy is the most likely intervention to reduce Mr Wimbridge's risk of reoffending over the next five years, during which time continuing therapy will have an opportunity to succeed. If this is coupled with abstinence from alcohol over that time, then reoffending risk is likely to be further reduced.
(Page 8)
24 In the most recent report dated 13 March 2012, Dr Wynn Owen states that Mr Wimbridge continues to present as a high risk of sexual violence reoffending and that the presence of psychopathy increases this risk. The dynamic factors Dr Wynn Owen identifies as increasing the risk of reoffending are interpersonal difficulties, alcohol use, the presence of normal to high libido and deviant sexual arousal. Dr Wynn Owen reported that Mr Wimbridge has seen a psychologist, Sarah Ballantyne, for a three-month period, after being returned to prison, but then this counselling ceased. Mr Wimbridge has recently recommenced weekly counselling with a psychologist, Dr David Summerton. I have not received any report from Mr Summerton, as he does not wish to jeopardise his ongoing treatment relationship with Mr Wimbridge.
25 Mr Wimbridge ceased to use the anti-libidinal medication on his return to prison in March 2011, but has recommenced taking the medication since January 2012. As a result of the reintroduction of the medication, Mr Wimbridge reports that he has experienced a reduction in his libido.
26 Dr Wynn Owen, in his written report of 13 March 2012 concludes at pages 6 - 7 as follows:
Overall, Mr Wimbridge's reoffending risk is not significantly different to when previously released to the community. Whilst his willingness to disclose his sexual drive and acknowledge an inclination towards violent sexual imagery indicates some progress, his inability to link the preference for such violent sexual imagery with underlying deviant sexual arousal remains of concern. Statics 99 and his PCL-R score continue to indicate that he is in the high risk group for reoffending. Mr Wimbridge is currently saying the right things. He appears to recognise risk factors for reoffending; in particular, interpersonal stressors and the risk-increasing effects of alcohol. I, however, note that he has made these statements previously. In terms of further mitigation, I am not sure that it can be achieved by continued imprisonment.
27 Dr Wynn Owen has stated in oral evidence today in court that research indicates that due to physiological changes from the age of about 60 years onwards, the likelihood of sexual offending decreases. Also, Dr Wynn Owen states that a supervision order over a period of 5 to 10 years provides a reasonable opportunity to assess Mr Wimbridge's adjustment to living in the community and the extent he has developed skills to reduce the risk of reoffending. (If he has not developed these skills adequately over this period of time, then an application can be made to the Court to review the duration and conditions of the order.)
(Page 9)
28 Also, Dr Wynn Owen expressed the opinion that if the order was made over a longer period, it may demoralise Mr Wimbridge and reduce his motivation to implement the changes and to cooperate with the implementation of the conditions of the order.
29 A community supervision assessment report dated 15 March 2012 proposed the following arrangements if Mr Wimbridge is placed on a supervision order:
(1) Mr Wimbridge will reside in an Outcare accommodation facility in the Perth metropolitan area. The accommodation will be a one bedroom unit. Eventually, it is proposed that Mr Wimbridge apply for accommodation through the Department of Housing.
(2) Mr Wimbridge will receive regular visits from Outreach services and support from Outcare.
(3) Holyoake will provide ongoing support to Mr Wimbridge and it is recommended that Mr Wimbridge attend 12 sessions of group counselling.
(4) It is proposed that Mr Wimbridge delay obtaining employment so that he can concentrate on compliance with the conditions of any supervision order before obtaining employment. Mr Wimbridge does not anticipate any difficulty ultimately obtaining employment as a plasterer or cabinetmaker and this is consistent with his ability to have obtained employment when he was last released.
30 The report concludes at page 6 as follows:
Mr Wimbridge has stated that he now has a better understanding of the stringent requirements of a supervision order and his need to cooperate fully and honestly with the conditions of his order should he be given a further opportunity of release. He advised that he is fully aware of the consequences should he fail to comply.
31 I have been provided with a minute of proposed conditions if Mr Wimbridge is released on a supervision order. An initial draft was prepared as part of the Community Supervision Assessment report dated 15 March 2012 and some minor modifications have been agreed by counsel for the applicant and counsel for Mr Wimbridge.
32 There are 35 proposed conditions which include a requirement that Mr Wimbridge be under the supervision of a community corrections officer; that he be subject to a curfew as specified by his community
(Page 10)
- corrections officer; that he be subject to electronic monitoring when required; that he comply with psychiatric, psychological and other counselling programs; that he be subject to supervision by the Sex Offender Management Squad; that he undertake medication as required and comply with all testing to monitor his compliance; that he does not possess pornographic material; that he not have access to any escort agency or sex worker; that he not visit Northbridge, Highgate or Rivervale; and that he not consume alcohol or use illicit drugs.
33 Having considered all the material, I am satisfied that the continuing detention order should be rescinded. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account that the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. However, this is not the only consideration. Other factors need to be taken into account. It is a matter of judgment, taking into account all considerations, as to what is adequate to protect the community: see Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams[2007] WASCA 206 [57] (Wheeler JA, with whom Le Miere AJA agreed).
34 In my view, it is not desirable for Mr Wimbridge or for the community for Mr Wimbridge to be held in custody for the rest of his life if conditions can be set to ensure that on release the community is adequately protected. Notwithstanding the risk of reoffending identified in the various reports considered by me, it must be taken into account that Mr Wimbridge has not offended since 2000 and he is assessed as being well motivated to address his risk factors.
35 A significant change in his situation is that he is now using the anti-libidinal medication. Further, I believe that in view of his past breach of a supervision order, he is now likely to be subject to greater supervision to ensure his compliance and he will be more aware of the consequences if he does not comply.
36 Taking all factors into account, I consider that it is appropriate that I order that the continuing detention order be rescinded. There will be an order pursuant to s 33(2)(b) that Mr Wimbridge be subject to conditions as set out in the minute of conditions dated 27 March 2012. The supervision order will apply until 26 March 2019 or further order of the court. I accept that the supervision order ought to be over this period for the reasons given by Dr Wynn Owen for not imposing a longer order.
37 A copy of the conditions is annexed to this decision
(Page 11)
ANNEXURE
Residence
1. Take up residence at [suppressed] and live continuously at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer (CCO).
2. Not leave or remain out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of the CCO and, if so permitted, abide by all conditions of such permission whilst absent from the state.
Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
3. Report to a CCO at Central West Metropolitan Adult Community Corrections Centre at 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 your current name and address.
4. Be under the supervision of a CCO, and comply with the requirements of s 76(4) of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 as if these provisions were applicable. Respond truthfully to all enquiries made of you by the supervising Community Corrections Officer or Departmental Psychologist and any officer of the WA Police Sex Offender Management Squad involved in the management of this order.
5.Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such arrangements having regard to your employment commitments if any.
6. Notify the CCO of any change of your name at least 2 days before the change is due to happen.
7. Not commence or change employment without the prior approval of the CCO.
Curfew
8. Until the expiry of this supervision order, during any period of not longer than 6 months at any one time, be subject to a curfew, such that you are to remain at and not to leave your approved residential address during such hours as are specified by a CCO, for a period of no longer than 12 hours at any one time, which may be varied
- from time to time. You may leave the address during such hours only:
- a) to obtain urgent medical or dental treatment for yourself;
b) for the purpose of averting or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
c) to obey an order issued under a written law (such as a summons);
d) for a purpose, and for a duration, approved in advance by a CCO; or
e) on the order of a CCO or Police Officer.
- When subject to a curfew under this Order:
a) present yourself for inspection at the approved address, and speak on the telephone to, a CCO, Police Officer and any other person monitoring your compliance with the curfew;
b) ensure that all those people present in the residence who may answer the telephone or the door are aware of your obligations; and
c) request that they assist you to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
9. If directed by a CCO, to submit to electronic monitoring of your compliance with any condition of this order, including the wearing of an electronic monitoring device on your person and/or the installation of any device or equipment at your place of residence, as if you were the subject of a curfew requirement under s 75and s 33H of the Sentencing Act 1995.
Attendance at programs or treatment
10. Consult and engage with any psychiatrist, psychologist, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.
(Page 13)
- 11. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour or risk of reoffending, as directed by a CCO; specifically to attend the Men's Programme (30 hours over 12 sessions) run by Holyoake.
Reporting to WA Police
12. Attend at the Sex Offender Management Squad offices at Suite 2, 250 Adelaide Terrace, Perth within 48 hours of your release from custody and report as directed pursuant to your obligations as a reportable offender under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.
13. If requested, give police officers permission to enter and search your residence for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.
14. 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.
15. If requested, give police officers permission to enter and search your person, residence or vehicle for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order. Allow the seizure of any such material that the police officers believe to contravene the conditions of the Order.
Disclosure/Exchange of Information
16. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information.
17. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offence history.
Restrictions on contact with victims
18. 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.
- 19. Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
Criminal conduct
20. Not commit any sexual offence, as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 s 36A.
21. 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.
22. Not to be in possession of any pornographic material in either hard copy or digital form, or access or view pornography on the internet.
23. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs or substances.
Medications/Mental Health
24. Attend any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor as directed by the supervising CCO.
25. Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Corrective Services.
26. Undertake any medication regime in accordance with a medical practitioner’s direction, and to comply with all testing to monitor your compliance with that treatment as directed by a CCO.
Prevention of high-risk situations
27. Not to associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO.
28. Not to be in possession of, use, or be under the influence of alcohol.
(Page 15)
- 29. Not go to or remain at any licensed premises unless required or permitted to do so for one or more of the following reasons:
a) for the purpose of averting or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
b) to obey an order issued under a written law (such as a summons);
c) for a purpose, and for a duration, approved in advance by a CCO; or
d) on the order of a CCO or Police Officer;
30. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or drug use as directed by the CCO or by a police officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.
31. Not to enter the premises of, or access the services of, escort agencies or sex workers.
32. Make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current supervision order to any female which whom you have commenced a relationship, whether that relationship is considered an intimate sexual relationship or a friendship, and whereby this disclosure can be confirmed in person by a CCO or SOMS Police Officer.
33. Not to engage in any telephone communications with prostitutes or sex workers.
34. Not to attend sex shops.
35. Not to be in or pass through the following areas:
(a) the area bounded by the Perth-Fremantle railway line to the south, the Mitchell Freeway to the west, Vincent Street as far as Beaufort Street then Beaufort Street as far as Walcott Street to the north and Walcott Street as far as Lord Street and then Lord Street as far as the Perth-Claisebrook railway line to the east;
- (b) the area bounded by Great Eastern Highway, Graham Farmer Freeway extending to Orrong Road, Sydenham Street and Belmont Avenue.
0
5
1