Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v CMP [No 5]
[2017] WASC 254
•18 AUGUST 2017
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA) -v- CMP [No 5] [2017] WASC 254
CORAM: ALLANSON J
HEARD: 1 MAY, 18 AUGUST 2017
DELIVERED : 18 AUGUST 2017
FILE NO/S: DSO 5 of 2012
MATTER :The Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA)
BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA)
Applicant
AND
CMP
Respondent
Catchwords:
Dangerous sexual offender - Fourth annual review - Whether remains a serious danger to the community - Whether to affirm or rescind detention order - Respondent with mental illness and intellectual disability - Terms of release on supervision order - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), s 7, s 8(4A), s 17, s 27, s 33
Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA)
Result:
Continuing detention order rescinded
Supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr M T Trowell QC (1 May 2017), Mr B D Meertens (18 August 2017)
Respondent: Mr D J McKenzie (1 May, 18 August 2017) & Ms S J McKenzie (18 August 2017)
Solicitors:
Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent: David McKenzie Legal Pty Ltd
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Coffin [No 3] [2017] WASC 233
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Pindan [No 3] [2017] WASC 107
The State of Western Australia v Paul Douglas Allen also known as Paul Alan Francis Deverell [No 4] [2017] WASC 100
ALLANSON J:
(These reasons were given orally on 18 August 2017, and have been edited.)
This is the fourth annual review of the order that the respondent be subject to continuing detention under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA). For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community, and that, with effect from 11 September 2017, the continuing detention order should be rescinded and the respondent be subject to a supervision order.
Section 27 of the Act requires the court making a supervision order to give detailed reasons for making the order, at the time the order is made. To ensure that accommodation that had been located was not lost or re-allocated due to any delay, the decision and reasons were given orally on the last day of the hearing.
In these reasons, unless stated otherwise, all references to legislation are to the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act.
Background
The respondent has been in custody since 15 February 2001. He was convicted in July 2002 for a serious sexual offence. That was and is his only conviction for an offence of a sexual nature.
The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years. The sentence was imposed before the substantial amendments to sentencing and sentence administration made by the Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), and the resulting reduction in the length of sentences pronounced to reflect the time actually to be served.
In March 2013, Hall J ordered, pursuant to s 17 (1), that the respondent is a serious danger to the community and that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment. Since then, there have been three annual reviews. On each occasion, the presiding judge found that the respondent remains a serious danger to the community, and declined to rescind the order pursuant to s 33. The availability of suitable accommodation has been an important factor in the continuation of the respondent's detention.
There is currently a suppression order in force, prohibiting publication of any part of the proceedings. The order was originally made to protect the victim of the respondent's offending. No one has questioned the continuation of the order. In my opinion, the continuation of the suppression of the reporting of these proceedings needs to be reviewed. I intend to publish these reasons, with some limited redactions. In my opinion, suppression must not exceed what is legitimately necessary and the court should publish the reasons why a decision has been made under this legislation.
The evidence
For the purposes of this review, the court was provided with the following reports:
1.Joanne Collyer, Senior Counselling Psychologist, dated 3 April 2017;
2.Jane Henshall, Senior Community Corrections Officer, dated 20 April 2017; and
3.Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 25 April 2017 .
Each of the authors gave oral evidence.
The report of Ms Henshall was updated as progress was made in locating suitable accommodation for the respondent. One of the authors of the most recent assessment, Senior Community Corrections Officer Lisa Rathmann, gave oral evidence about those developments, the conditions proposed should the respondent be released, and how the respondent would be managed in the community.
Dr Wojnarowska has assessed the respondent for the purposes of the Act on three occasions. Her current report cannot be understood without reference to her earlier reports of 16 March 2015 and 11 April 2016. I have also had regard to the reasons for decision on the earlier reviews of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent accepted that it was appropriate for me to consider that material (ts 141).
The statutory scheme
On an application to review a person's detention, s 33 provides:
(1)On a review of a person's detention under section 31 ‑
(a)if the court does not find that the person remains a serious danger to the community it must rescind the continuing detention order; or
(b)if the court finds that the person remains a serious danger to the community it must ‑
(i)affirm the continuing detention order; or
(ii)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 the person.
…
(3)In making a decision under subsection (1)(b), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
The first question is whether the respondent remains a serious danger to the community, that is, that there is an unacceptable risk that if he were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, he would commit a serious sexual offence. If the answer is yes, the court moves to s 33(1)(b) and the same evidence is relevant to whether the continuing detention order should be affirmed or rescinded, and the conditions necessary for any supervision order.
In The State of Western Australia v Paul Douglas Allen also known as Paul Alan Francis Deverell [No 4] [2017] WASC 100, Hall J summarised the principles relating to a review under the Act:
2A 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.
3The 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.
4The 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.
5It 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.
6The 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.
7The 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.
8If 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.
9The 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.
Is the respondent a serious danger to the community
Under s 7:
(1)Before the court dealing with an application under this Act may find that a person is a serious danger to the community, the court must be satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that, if the person were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the person would commit a serious sexual offence.
(2)The DPP has the onus of satisfying the court as described in subsection (1) and the court must be satisfied ‑
(a)by acceptable and cogent evidence; and
(b)to a high degree of probability.
(3)In deciding whether to find that a person is a serious danger to the community, the court must have regard to ‑
(a)any report that a psychiatrist prepares as required by section 37 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the person cooperated when the psychiatrist examined the person; and
(b)any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the person; and
(c)information indicating whether or not the person has a propensity to commit serious sexual offences in the future; and
(d)whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the person; and
(e)any efforts by the person to address the cause or causes of the person's offending behaviour, including whether the person has participated in any rehabilitation program; and
(f)whether or not the person's participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the person; and
(g)the person's antecedents and criminal record; and
(h)the risk that, if the person were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the person would commit a serious sexual offence; and
(i)the need to protect members of the community from that risk; and
(j)any other relevant matter.
The Court has, in earlier decisions, considered whether on a review it must make its own independent and fresh assessment of the factual issues under s 7, or whether, in determining whether the respondent remains a serious danger, it is limited to ascertaining whether there has been a change in the offender's circumstances since the order for detention was made: see Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Pindan [No 3] [2017] WASC 107 [33] ‑ [37]; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Coffin [No 3] [2017] WASC 233 [12] ‑ [18]. In the present application, as in many others, it has been unnecessary to resolve the question because it is not in issue on the facts that, without proper management and supervision, the respondent remains a serious danger to the community. In this matter, counsel for the respondent accepted that on the evidence relevant to the s 7 factors, the court would find that the respondent remains a serious danger. It is still necessary to consider the matters mandated by the Act.
The s 7 considerations
The primary evidence on the application is the report prepared by Dr Wojnarowska. I discuss her evidence and the evidence of Ms Collyer in greater detail later in these reasons. The court must have regard to those reports under s 7(a) and (b), and they are the primary evidence regarding the factual matters in the other paragraphs of the section.
It is convenient to first consider other matters to which the court must have regard under s 7.
Paragraph (g) - antecedents and criminal record
The respondent is now 41 years old. He grew up in the country. His family moved to Perth when the respondent was about 13. His mother died about a year later, and the six children in the family were split up. The respondent stayed with his father and one brother, separated from his other siblings.
The respondent first appeared in the Children's Court at the age of 13 and appeared regularly after that for a range of offences, none of which had a sexual element. He was first imprisoned in 1994, when aged 18. He was imprisoned again on eight further occasions before his current term. Most of those sentences of imprisonment were very short; one was for more than a year.
The respondent also has a history of substance abuse, including abuse of alcohol, cannabis, and prescription medications, particularly benzodiazepines.
The respondent suffered head injuries in 1997 and 1998. He has been admitted to psychiatric hospitals in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2013. I discuss the diagnosis and treatment of his psychiatric condition later in these reasons. In summary, he suffers from mental illness and intellectual disability.
(d) - pattern of offending behaviour
The issue of patterns of offending behaviour does not arise. The respondent committed one serious sexual offence, and has been in custody since his arrest for it. The offence was described as opportunistic, and committed while the respondent was homeless and under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
(a) - the psychiatric report
The respondent has been assessed for the purposes of the Act by Dr Wojnarowska on three occasions. Most recently, she reported on 25 April 2017, following an interview with the respondent on 22 April 2017, a conversation with the respondent's treating psychologist, a conversation with Ms Henshall, and a review of information that had arisen since the respondent's previous annual review. She also commented to Ms Rathmann on the proposed conditions.
Psychiatric history and treatment
In her first report, dated 16 March 2015, Dr Wojnarowska, sets out the respondent's psychiatric history.
(1)In 1997, he was diagnosed with a schizophreniform disorder, with a differential diagnosis of delirium due to alcohol use.
(2)In 2001, on referral to the Frankland Centre at Graylands Hospital, the respondent was diagnosed with substance induced psychotic disorder, polysubstance abuse, antisocial personality disorder, organic brain damage secondary to substance abuse and previous head injuries.
(3)On a further admission to Frankland Centre in 2005, a diagnosis of schizophrenia was established.
(4)In May 2012, the respondent was transferred from prison to the Frankland Centre and treated. He was discharged on depot Risperidone (that is, given by injection).
In 2015, Dr Wojnarowska reported that the respondent has been compliant with his antipsychotic treatment since June 2012, and his mental state has been consistently assessed as stable. In her most recent review, Dr Wojnarowska reports that his psychotic symptoms are currently well controlled on depot medication.
Treatment progress
Dr Wojnarowska reports that the respondent's major limitation is his intellectual disability. He continues to benefit from treatment. He recognises the seriousness of his offence and recognises that any sexual violence is both legally and morally wrong. The respondent is highly motivated not to re-offend, and well engaged in counselling. He has been compliant with treatment.
Treatment, and the respondent's response to treatment, is also dealt with, in some detail, in the report of Ms Collyer.
Sexual deviance
Dr Wojnarowska previously recommended that the respondent be assessed for paraphilia. She now reports that no sexual deviance is identified. Specifically, she reports no entrenched paedophilia. She recommends that, should the respondent be released, conditions should be imposed that are protective of children; but that is because of their vulnerability rather than the respondent having a sexual interest in children.
The court must, however, take into account that the sexual offence committed by the respondent was against a very young child.
Risk of re-offending
In her 2015 report, Dr Wojnarowska set out her conclusions on a risk assessment 'informed by the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol' (RSVP) and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist ‑ Revised (PCL ‑ R). Her assessment has not changed since then, except that sexual deviance is now not seen as a risk factor.
In the opinion of Dr Wojnarowska, unless the respondent is properly managed in the community there is a high risk that he will re-offend. The factors likely to lead to further re‑offending, in the context of the respondent's intellectual disability, are drugs, alcohol and homelessness (ts 147, 152). Dr Wojnarowska said in evidence:
if he's not supported and homeless and if he uses substances, he's more likely to seek an outlet for his sexual needs and - and urges inappropriately …(ts 147).
That 'outlet' involves, in her opinion, an unacceptable risk of sexual violence.
Dr Wojnarowska identifies particular risk factors for re-offending:
(1)problems with self-awareness, as a result of his cognitive and interpersonal deficits;
(2)problems with stress and coping with stress;
(3)major mental illness;
(4)substance use;
(5)lack of community supports;
(6)problems with planning, which may be associated with poor self‑awareness; and
(7)limitations on treatment as a result of intellectual disability.
The psychiatric evidence was not disputed.
(b), (e) and (f) psychological assessment, addressing the cause of offending, treatment and rehabilitation in custody
In her report, Ms Collyer also discusses in detail the general risk presented by the respondent, and the effect of treatment he has received since the review in 2016.
While in prison, the respondent has engaged in available treatment programs, but there are limits to his participation and progress. He was removed from the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Programme in July 2014, due to difficulties he encountered as a result of his cognitive deficits. He completed a Sex Offender Treatment for the Intellectually Disabled Programme in September 2015. While he was described as highly motivated, and making an effort, gains were limited by his slow thought processing, poor memory, and difficulty with verbal comprehension.
Ms Collyer reported that the respondent has made progress in practical matters, but it is unlikely that he will make further gains in the prison setting (ts 159). It is possible that, should his incarceration continue, the respondent will become more depressed and this may affect his engagement with counselling.
Because of his cognitive impairment, the respondent will require continuing support and structure should he be released into the community. Should he be released, he would initially require weekly counselling with his present counsellor. He would also require community support, which could be assisted through the NDIS system.
The respondent has stated to Ms Collyer his understanding of the importance of complying with rules, and in particular the need to abstain completely from alcohol and drugs (page 32), and to comply with the medication regime (page 33).
The ability of the respondent to maintain compliance cannot be tested while he remains in custody. The close supervision regime recommended for any release should ensure that any failures are detected early, so that an assessment can then be made about whether those failures indicate unacceptable risk.
On all of the evidence, which was largely undisputed, I am satisfied that if the respondent is not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order the risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence is unacceptable. The respondent remains a serious danger to the community.
The next question is should he be kept in detention or can the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community - the paramount consideration in making a decision under s 33(1)(b) - be met by an order for release subject to conditional supervision. When the major risk factors are identified, the evidence shows that appropriate conditions can meet those risks so that the community is adequately protected.
The conditions of release must ensure that the respondent lives only at accommodation that has been assessed and approved as suitable, and that he is extensively supported in the community. Dr Wojnarowska said that, preferably, this would be in a psychiatric or Disability Services Commission supported hostel. But independent accommodation with support on a daily basis would be a 'second best option'.
Dr Wojnarowska said that the most important protective factor to mitigate risk was the respondent's genuine engagement in counselling. The respondent will continue his engagement with his present counsellor. Dr Wojnarowska also reported the need for close psychiatric follow up, with a referral to the State Community Forensic Mental Health Services. That also has been arranged. Conditions to support those protective measures are included in the proposed conditions for release on a conditional supervision order.
Dr Wojnarowska also recommended electronic tracking (a mandatory condition under the Act), a curfew and drug and alcohol abstinence as the most important conditions of release. She recommended restriction zones for the purpose of restricting access to where liquor is sold or available, and not, as is usually the case, to places where children are likely to be present. The proposed conditions contain exclusion zones, including to places where children are likely to be present but, importantly, to places where the respondent might obtain or be offered alcohol.
To the date of the first hearing, no suitable accommodation had been found. The hearing was adjourned twice to see whether potential arrangements that were then being investigated might be successful. Accommodation in which support can be provided has now been secured. In a report dated 18 August 2017, the Department advised that accommodation under the Dangerous Sexual Offender Supported Accommodation Programme had been offered. The report further advised:
(1)GPS tracking, including the use of GPS exclusion zones, can be used to monitor and prohibit any attendance at high risk areas in proximity to the proposed address. Those areas will include a school, local licensed premises, and public spaces known to be the site of anti-social behaviour.
(2)GPS tracking will be able to identify the respondent's movements, which can then be discussed during his appointments with his Senior Community Corrections Officer and the Sex Offender Management Squad.
(3)The respondent will be accompanied by support workers for significant periods of the week.
(4)Conditions requiring disclosure of friendships or relationships can be used to manage the respondent's interaction with any potential associates.
(5)A curfew should be imposed.
(6)There will be regular and random urinalysis and breath testing to identify any substance misuse.
(7)The victim does not live in the suburb proposed. Exclusion zones will be used to remove the risk of any unintended meeting between the respondent and the victim.
Support to provide daily living support, skills development, social inclusion and reintegration assistance has been arranged, and it is intended that the respondent will be given daily support from two support providers. The Community Forensic Mental Health Service can provide regular review of the respondent's mental health state and medication regime, and administer medication injections.
The conditions, including those mandated by the Act, are many. Some of the conditions may be difficult for the respondent to grasp, particularly because of his intellectual disability. In particular, there are conditions which refer to legislation, either a whole Act or particular sections, rather than the conduct required or proscribed. Ms Rathmann re‑assured me that the department has strategies to explain to the respondent what is required of him.
I was told, without objection, that Dr Wojnarowska was provided with a copy of the plan and recommended no further support or strategies.
The DPP did not object to release on a supervision order if the court believed that was appropriate.
Conclusion
On all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the risk that the respondent would commit a further serious sexual offence is unacceptable if he is not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order. I am also satisfied that the risk of further serious sexual offending can be managed by the conditions to be imposed on release, so that it is not an unacceptable risk.
I will rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order on the conditions appended to these reasons. They are the conditions proposed in the report dated 18 August 2017. The order will be for a period of 10 years. That is a long period, but the factors affecting the respondent's risk are unlikely to resolve. The period is, of course, subject to extension under s 8(4A).
These orders will have effect from 11 September 2017.
APPENDIX
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT
1.Report to a Community Corrections Officer at the place and within the time stated in the order and advise the officer of the person's current name and address.
2.Report to and receive visits from, a Community Corrections Officer as directed by the court.
3.Notify a Community Corrections Officer of every change of the person's name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens.
4.Be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer, which includes, complying with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of s 19A or 19B).
5.Not leave, or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Community Corrections Officer.
6.Not commit a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 36A during the period of the Order.
7.Be subject to electronic monitoring under s 19A.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
The following conditions incorporate the above standard conditions and are suggested to strengthen and add to the standard conditions required by the Act for the more effective management of the offender in the community.
Residence
8.Take up residence at […] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to you.
9.Keep a permanent place of residence approved by a CCO assigned to you.
10.Not to have any person in your home other than those family or non‑family members approved in advance by a CCO.
Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
11.Report to a CC at your nominated release address within normal business hours on the day of release from custody under this order.
12.Not commence or change voluntary or paid employment or education without the prior approval of the CCO.
Attendance at programmes or treatment
13.Consult and engage with any psychiatrist, psychologist, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.
14.Comply with the requirements of all programmes designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious sexual re-offending, as directed by a CCO.
15.Comply with the requirements of:
a.Outcare;
b.Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS); and
c.Disability Services Commission and/or National Disability Insurance Scheme and any service or support agency contracted to assist with community access as directed by a CCO.
Reporting to WA Police
16.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.
17.Comply with all obligations imposed on you under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA).
18.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.
19.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.
20.Permit a CCO or WA 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 or WA Police upon request any passwords required for such access.
Disclosure/Exchange of Information
21.Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information.
22.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
23.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.
24.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.
Criminal conduct
25.Not commit any sexual offence, as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 36A.
26.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.
27.Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204, s 204A, s 204B, s 217, s 218, s 219, s 220 or s 557K Criminal Code 1913 (WA).
28.Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996 (WA).
29.Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs or substances including, but not limited to, cannabis.
Curfew
30.Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to s 19B of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.
31.When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or curtilage of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
32.When subject to a curfew under this order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
Medications/Mental Health
33.To engage with mental health services and to obey the instructions of the treating psychiatrist with regard to treatment and medication.
34.Comply fully with any treatment prescribed pursuant to condition 33.
35.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 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.
Prevention of high-risk situations
36. Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorized in advance by the CCO.
37.Not be in possession of, use, or be under the influence of alcohol.
38.Not go to or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
(a)For the purpose of averting or minimizing a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person.
(b)For a purpose, and for duration, approved in advance by a CCO.
(c)On the order of a CCO or Police Officer.
39.Not remain in the presence of any person who you know 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.
40.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.
41.Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place.
42.Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.
43.To provide a valid sample for testing pursuant to condition 42.
44.Have no contact with any child under the age of 16 years, whether such contact is in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic means, unless
a.The contact is authorized in advance by the CCO and such contact is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO.
b.The contact is necessary to complete a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required to complete the transaction, and another adult is present.
('Contact' under this condition and the following two conditions means any form of interaction or communication whether by word, gesture, expression or touch and whether in person, in writing, by telephonic or electronic means, but does not include the bare minimum of interaction or communication necessary between an adult and child to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication.)
45.Where any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 16 years is initiated by the child, unless the contact is permitted under the condition immediately above, you must withdraw immediately from the presence of the child.
46.Provide details of any contact with a child under the age of 16 years both to your CCO and to the Police on the next occasion you report to that person or agency.
47.Report immediately to your CCO the formation of any friendship, romantic sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person.
48.Not form any domestic relationship with a person who has children under the age of 16 years in their care either full time or part time.
49.Make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer.
6
2