Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dick [No 5] - [2013] WASC 357

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA) -v- DICK [No 5] [2013] WASC 357

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 16 SEPTEMBER & 1 OCTOBER 2013

DELIVERED : 1 OCTOBER 2013

FILE NO/S: MCS 1 of 2009

BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA)
Applicant
AND
JAMES FLAVELL DICK
Respondent

Catchwords:

Dangerous sexual offenders - Annual review of continuing detention order - Whether risk capable of being managed such that release on a supervision order is viable

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

The respondent should be released on a supervision order if suitable accommodation is available

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr S O'Sullivan
Respondent: Ms F R Veltman

Solicitors:

Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent: Justine Fisher

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

Dick v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [No 4] [2012] WASC 333
The State of Western Australia v Dick [2009] WASC 275
HALL J:

Introduction

This is the fourth review of a continuing detention order originally made by McKechnie J on 18 September 2009 pursuant to s 17 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act): The State of Western Australia v Dick [2009] WASC 275.
The last review occurred on 17 August 2012: Dick v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [No 4] [2012] WASC 333. That was an extraordinary review conducted under s 30 of the DSO Act. On that occasion I noted that the respondent had been taking anti‑libidinal medication for approximately 12 months and this had resulted in a significant reduction of his testosterone levels. The expectation was that that would reduce his sexual desire and functioning. However, there was some evidence that indicated that that effect had not yet been achieved. I also noted at that time that there had been no significant change to psychological factors that affected the risk of re‑offending. The respondent at that stage was continuing to deny the need for conditions to regulate his behaviour and this attitude had a real potential to undermine the effectiveness of any such conditions. An insuperable difficulty for the respondent at that time was the absence of any suitable accommodation.
In the last 12 months the respondent has made significant treatment gains. He has responded positively to individual psychological counselling. This has resulted in increased self‑awareness and self‑management skills. His risk of re‑offending is considered to have reduced significantly and the ability for him to be effectively managed in the community has improved. There have been no adverse incidents in prison in the last 12 months. The respondent has also continued to take anti‑libidinal medication and his testosterone levels remain low. There have been no incidents suggesting continuing sexual desire or functioning. Importantly, suitable accommodation is now available in the community.
The changes to the respondent's circumstances have persuaded me that the appropriate outcome is to rescind the continuing detention order and make an order that he be released on conditions. The conditions must necessarily be detailed and strict, however I am satisfied that the respondent has the willingness and ability to comply with them. Appropriate enforcement of those conditions will minimise any risk of re‑offending. My reasons for coming to this conclusion are set out more fully below.

Object of this review

A person who has been detained in custody under the DSO Act must be the subject of an annual review. The purpose of the 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 this 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 annual 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 re‑offending reduces or can be adequately managed in the community then the continuing need for detention must be considered.
It is a significant thing to deprive a person of his liberty, not for something he has done but for something that he might do in the future. In order to justify detention on these grounds the evidence must be acceptable and cogent and establish the existence of a serious danger to the community to a high degree of probability: s 7(2) DSO Act. Such a finding requires satisfaction that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious sexual offence if not placed under a supervision order or detained.
The risk of re‑offending 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 re‑offending can be managed on a supervision order.
The justification for making a continued 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 annual 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. Annual reviews are not, therefore, merely a welfare check; they are an exercise of judicial power to confirm, 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.

Evidence on this review

The facts of the respondent's past offences do not need to be repeated. They were summarised by McKechnie J in the original proceedings, The State of Western Australia v Dick [16]. It suffices to say that between 1990 and 1993 the respondent committed serious sexual offences against two victims, a girl and a boy. He later re‑offended against the same victims in 1998. In respect of both victims the respondent was in a familial relationship. He served two periods of imprisonment in respect of these offences; from 9 February 1994 to 10 March 1995 and from 3 March 1999 to 18 February 2009. Allegations in relation to other alleged victims were dismissed, discontinued or overturned on appeal.
On this hearing the primary focus was on whether there have been treatment gains and any consequent changes in the risk of re‑offending. There was also a focus on whether the respondent's particular needs and difficulties could be met in the community in a way that would contain that risk. It was accepted on behalf of the respondent that without either detention or conditional release there would be an unacceptable risk of re‑offending. However, it was submitted that that risk could now be adequately managed by conditional release and that was now the appropriate course.
On the hearing of this review I received a number of written reports and heard oral evidence from Dr Bryan Tanney, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr Tara Yewers, a counselling psychologist and Ms Julie Dabala, a Senior Community Corrections Officer with the Public Protection Unit of the Department of Corrective Services.

Dr Bryan Tanney

Dr Tanney has prepared reports about the respondent for the purposes of the DSO Act in 2009, 2011 and 2012. For the purposes of the present review, Dr Tanney interviewed the respondent on 23 August 2013. A report dated 1 September 2013 was tendered at the hearing.
Dr Tanney noted that the respondent was cooperative and presented less defensively than at previous interviews. The respondent reported 'an emotional 12 months' with 'big changes' arising from his sessions with a counsellor. He expressed a greater willingness to listen to others and be more considerate. However, Dr Tanney said that the content of the respondent's answers to his questions continued to reflect an underlying narcissism. Nonetheless, Dr Tanney accepted that the respondent showed more openness and a greater willingness to seek help from others. He was now able to explain how he would use newly learnt techniques in planning his future actions.
Dr Tanney utilised a number of measurement tools for assessing re‑offending risk. These included the Static‑99R test, the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (2003) (RSVP test) and the '3 predictor' model. The Static‑99R test measures fixed historical factors which do not change over time. Whilst this test can be regarded as a baseline estimate for future re‑offending it does not take into account treatment gains. On the basis of the Static‑99R test the risk of re‑offending was assessed as moderate to high. The RSVP test does take into account treatment gains. Dr Tanney noticed significant improvement on the RSVP scale. This particularly related to manageability and self‑management skills and suggested a lessened risk of re‑offending. The 3 predictor model considers three factors, being unrealistic long term goals, unfeasible release plans and poor coping skills prior to release. Applying this model, Dr Tanney noted modest but apparent improvement in all three factors.
Dr Tanney stated that in the past the respondent had few protective factors against re‑offending but this had now changed. He said that in 2012 the respondent had six of 19 features showing some tendency towards making offending less likely. At the most recent assessment those previously existing elements have remained or strengthened and an additional four other elements now contribute to a likelihood of lessened re‑offending risk.
Dr Tanney noted that anti‑libidinal medication also appears to have diminished the biological drive towards sexual interest, desire, arousal and activity in the respondent. However, side effects may complicate the continuation of this treatment.
In terms of managing the risk of re‑offending, Dr Tanney said that in his opinion the respondent's level of risk could be managed in the community under a community supervision order. He noted that the respondent had a clearly expressed intention to comply with any conditions and had developed a good clinical relationship with a psychologist who he intended to continue to rely upon for counselling if released.
Dr Tanney concluded his report by saying that there continued to be some likelihood of serious sexual re‑offending against young persons with whom the respondent has established a relationship of family or close acquaintance. He emphasised the word 'some' in this context as indicating a significantly lowered risk but one that he was unable to quantify. He said that while the respondent had enduring psychological issues, lack of social roles and potential issues around manageability, there had been considerable progress due to counselling since the last review. Individual counselling and continued treatment with anti‑libidinal medication had contributed to a decreased likelihood of sexual re‑offending. Both of these factors should be mandated and continue to be available to the respondent if released into the community. Whilst the respondent continued to maintain a stance of denial in respect of some aspects of his offending, Dr Tanney said that previous concerns and experiences in this regard were no longer sufficient to deny the respondent the opportunity to demonstrate that he can safely re‑enter the community with the aid of sufficient support and supervision.
In oral evidence it was put to Dr Tanney that the respondent's past offending had taken place in a family or family type environment rather than being spontaneous or opportunistic. From this perspective, prohibiting contact with children should be effective in the development of any friendly relationship as a precursor to offending. However, Dr Tanney was asked whether there was any likelihood that the respondent might change his approach and become an opportunistic offender. Dr Tanney said whilst that was always a possibility he would put the likelihood as being quite low.
The respondent had recently been visited in prison by two of his children. His impressions of that visit were that it had been positive and that he could rely upon these adult children as community supports in the event of his release. Subsequent enquiries with the children had established that their own views of the meeting were far less positive and that neither of them had any intention of providing support for the respondent. Dr Tanney said that the respondent's misunderstanding of the emotional response of his children reflected his life‑long difficulties in relating to other people. He is apt to misread social situations and this makes it more difficult for him to function in the community. However, Dr Tanney said that there were indications that the respondent had been addressing this deficiency in counselling and had shown appreciation that others may have different points of view. Dr Tanney said that when told of his children's response, the respondent accepted their position and said that he could only make himself available in the event that they did wish to contact him. This was said to reflect a level of responsibility and an acceptance that he could not coerce others to do what he wanted. This was a noticeable difference because in past years he had shown a disinclination to accept his children's wishes and stressed his own parental role. He now showed an acceptance of his own mistaken views and a willingness to respect the views of others.
The respondent had expressed an interest in conducting a business based on the development of a database relating to the provision of short term accommodation. Dr Tanney was asked what the impact on the respondent would be if this project proved to be unviable. He said that the respondent was likely to be disappointed but any connection between such disappointment and the risk of re‑offending was a 'long and distant connection'. Dr Tanney's view was that the respondent's personality type equipped him well to handle disappointment.
Dr Tanney said that whilst narcissistic personality types were less likely to feel empathy for other people they were often exceptionally good at learning about other people's behaviour. Training such people to consider the consequences of their behaviour, including that breaches of conditions could lead to further imprisonment, can provide a significant incentive not to engage in prohibited behaviour. Dr Tanney said that in the last 12 months there had been a marked change in the respondent's appreciation for the consequences of his conduct both to others and himself. He now had the cognitive skills to understand the consequences of breaching conditions on a release order. He had also shown an appreciation of the need to seek assistance in the event he had difficulties with compliance. Dr Tanney attributed the progress to the opportunity to talk in an intense way once a week with the same counsellor. He said that continued progress could be made in a prison environment but eventually it was necessary to apply the learning in a real situation. In Dr Tanney's view that stage had been reached.
Prior to being placed on the original continuing detention order the respondent had been released for a short period on an undertaking. He had breached several conditions of that undertaking and in the past had expressed views that the conditions were too strict or unrealistic. Dr Tanney said that at his most recent interview the respondent had for the first time acknowledged that he had significant responsibility for the breach of the earlier conditions. He had also had a change of attitude towards such conditions, expressing the view that they were intended to support and not destroy him. He was able to acknowledge that those who supervised and counselled him were there to help. He now better appreciated both the need for such conditions and the consequences that would flow from breaching them. Dr Tanney said that in this regard there had been 'a big step in moral reasoning'. Further development was unlikely to occur within a prison environment. There was a law of diminishing returns in respect of cognitive behavioural therapy within a prison.
Dr Tanney did see some problems with placing too many restrictions upon the respondent, some of which may be unrelated to the risks of his re‑offending. He said that there was a danger that if there were too many rules the respondent would trip over them. He gave as an example a rule prohibiting cannabis use. Whilst Dr Tanney did not condone the use of cannabis, he said that there was nothing to indicate that past use of this drug had been connected to sexual offending. Rather, it had been used for pain relief. He said it was preferable if the conditions for release focused on those that were relevant to real risk factors.

Dr Tara Yewers

Dr Yewers is a counselling psychologist with the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Psychology team. She interviewed the respondent on 6 August 2013 and completed a report dated 28 August 2013. She had also had the opportunity to consult with Mr David Summerton, the respondent's treating psychologist.
Dr Yewers said in her report that the respondent had commenced individual counselling with Mr Summerton on 20 April 2012. Early sessions were focussed on the development of rapport and exploration of victim issues and their impact on the respondent's interpersonal relationships. Sessions since that time have generally been held on a weekly basis and have focussed on the respondent's perception of an external locus of control and feelings of victimisation. His offending had also been subject to some therapeutic scrutiny. Mr Summerton had reported that the respondent had been an active participant and they had developed a robust working relationship.
There was evidence of progress in regards to the respondent's external locus of control issues and lack of empathy. He now accepted shared responsibility for negative interactions with his siblings and for the demise of his marriages. He was less likely to attribute blame to others and demonstrated an insight into his propensity to be self‑absorbed. This was said to be a therapeutic gain of some significance, though the extent to which it will be applied to future relationships was unable to be tested. The longstanding and entrenched pattern of the respondent for externalising problems and blaming others may result in him finding it challenging to maintain his new found perspective in times of stress.
In regard to his past offending, the respondent maintained his stance of denial and minimisation. However, he conceded some of the offences perpetrated against his step‑daughter in 1993. There appeared to be some shift in regard to denial of other offences in that he now acknowledged being complicit in a broader sexually inappropriate familial environment. He also accepted that in the past he had placed himself in situations that increased his risk of sexually offending. This acceptance was considered to represent an opportunity to address facets of his offending notwithstanding his stance of denial.

Dr Yewers said that the respondent had willingly and actively engaged in individual treatment over an extended period with Mr Summerton. In this regard she said:
The apparently robust nature of the relationship bodes well for ongoing treatment and is requisite for the often challenging nature of intervention. Although gains are generally related to Mr Dick's own victimisation issues, these do represent a shift in locus of control and perception of himself as a victim in his previous relations with family and spouses. Mr Summerton noted evidence of a capacity to self‑reflect and that Mr Dick's perception of his past appeared to be more analogous with the likely reality. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, this change in perspective is largely untested in the face of current relationships.
In oral evidence, Dr Yewers was asked whether further counselling gains could be made within a prison environment. She said that such gains were probably restricted. The respondent had reached a point where the gains he had made could be applied to new situations. However, if the respondent was released into the community counselling should definitely continue.
Dr Yewers noted that the respondent continues to take anti‑libidinal medication and that this had both biological and psychological impacts. She considered that continued use of anti‑libidinal medication would be a useful management tool if the respondent was released into the community.
Dr Yewers said that the longstanding and robust relationship that the respondent had developed with Mr Summerton would stand him in good stead in coping with the stresses of life in the community. She said that narcissistic personality traits were not as strong as in someone who was actually personality disordered. She said that in terms of supervision the respondent was highly motivated to stay out of prison and to comply with any conditions that were imposed on him. She confirmed that Mr Summerton would be available to continue counselling with the respondent if he were released. Such counselling would continue on a weekly basis, if not more frequently, particularly at the initial stages.

Ms Julie Dabala

Ms Dabala is a Senior Community Corrections Officer with the Public Protection Unit of the Department of Corrective Services. She completed a report dated 5 September 2013. In her report Ms Dabala considered issues of accommodation, community support, employment and management.
As regards accommodation, at the time of writing the report suitable accommodation had not been identified. However, in oral evidence Ms Dabala said that a unit had been identified in the Fremantle area. The unit had yet to be assessed by the police. Subsequently an updated report was provided which gave more details of the proposed accommodation. However, further information was received that nearby residents either had, or were likely to, become aware of the identity and background of the respondent. This caused the community agency responsible for managing the accommodation to express concerns about the respondent's security and safety at that location. An alternative was then proposed, which at the time of writing had yet to be assessed by the police. Subject to that assessment, that accommodation was available and suitable for the respondent's needs.
In regard to community supports the respondent identified two adult female friends as community support persons. Both were contacted and confirmed that they would support the respondent in the community if he was released. The respondent also referred to the support of two of his children who had visited him in prison on 19 July 2013. Contact with the son and daughter involved established that continued contact with the respondent and support for him in the community was unlikely to eventuate. The information from the daughter was that other natural children of the respondent did not want contact with him.
As regards employment options, in the past the respondent has been on a disability support pension. His ability to obtain and maintain any future employment would be dependent on his health. Medical records confirm that he suffers from anaemia, neck and back pain, migraines and high cholesterol. The respondent told Ms Dabala that once he established himself in the community he intended to develop his own business involving setting‑up a database linking people with residential accommodation. Doubts as to whether this project was realistic had been expressed by Mr Summerton.
In regards to management in the community, Ms Dabala confirmed that the respondent currently receives a 50 mg dose of Androcur daily and that blood tests consistently confirmed a low testosterone level. The Department was aware of a number of general practitioners who were willing to continue to prescribe anti‑libidinal treatment in the community and if released the respondent would be referred to one of these doctors.
The respondent would be subject to GPS tracking if released and this would allow the monitoring of curfews and exclusion and inclusion zones. These zones had not yet been identified as the respondent was awaiting the allocation of accommodation. It was noted that the respondent's past offending had generally occurred during the evening and a curfew that required him to be at his residence by 6.00 pm each night would assist in managing his risk. The risk would also be managed by continuing counselling with Mr Summerton. The respondent informed Ms Dabala that he had enjoyed counselling and believed himself to have become a better person for having engaged in it.

Findings

It was accepted on behalf of the respondent that if he was not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order there would be an unacceptable risk that he would commit a serious sexual offence. I accept that on the basis of the evidence summarised above that that concession is properly made.
The essential issue for determination on this annual review is which type of order is appropriate. In making a decision as to whether a continuing detention order or a supervision order should be made the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. Whether the community can be adequately protected from the risk of re‑offending by a supervision order needs to take into account the nature of the risk and the extent to which that risk can be reduced to an acceptable level by management mechanisms.
Since the last annual review the respondent has made very significant treatment gains. He has established a robust counselling relationship with a psychologist. That is a relationship that could continue if he were to be released and is likely to be protective from the risk of re‑offending. The respondent has acquired insight into the way he interacts with other people. He now has a better appreciation of the need for conditions to manage his behaviour and the consequences for breach. He is considered to be highly motivated to comply with such conditions.
His past offending conduct has occurred in a familial context and involved grooming behaviour. This means it is generally more susceptible to management. The respondent has not been an opportunistic offender who has preyed upon random or unknown victims. It is considered unlikely that he would change to become such an opportunistic offender. Conditions that would prevent opportunities for the respondent to form friendly relationships with children or their parents would substantially reduce any risk of re‑offending.
The respondent has some community supports which should assist in reducing the risk that he will become isolated or bored. Whilst he has in the past failed to fully appreciate the unwillingness of his children to support or maintain contact with him, he has more recently expressed a willingness to respect their position. Conditions preventing any such contact without consent of the children would enforce this willingness.
The respondent has now been on anti‑libidinal medication for two years. The blood test results show that this medication has been effective in lowering testosterone levels. The respondent has self‑reported that his libido and sexual functioning are effectively non‑existent. There have been no incidents in the last 12 months to cast any doubt on these reports and they are consistent with the blood test results. Whilst concerns have been expressed about possible adverse side‑effects, no such side‑effects have been reported in the respondent's case. There is good reason to think that conditions requiring continued use of anti‑libidinal drugs would be both viable into the future and effective in reducing the risk of re‑offending.
Another relevant consideration is that GPS monitoring is now available and operational. Any conditional release must include a condition requiring compliance with any reasonable direction of a Community Corrections Officer: s 18(1)(d) DSO Act. This can include electronic monitoring and a curfew: s 19A and s 19B DSO Act. These mechanisms can ensure that the respondent does not enter or approach prohibited zones (for example schools or the homes of victims) and that any breach is immediately detected. Given the pattern of the respondent's past offending conditions and exclusion zones can be crafted to minimise the risk of re‑offending.
There are conditions which could be imposed on the respondent which would reduce the risk of re‑offending to an acceptable level. Those conditions would be strict and would ensure that treatment and support would continue to be provided to the respondent. His appreciation of the importance of the conditions and his motivation for compliance are important factors in ensuring their efficacy. The respondent well understands that the consequence of any breach is likely to be a return to custody.

Conclusion

The respondent should be released on a supervision order. A draft supervision order was annexed to the report of Ms Dabala. I will hear from the parties as to whether that draft contains all of the appropriate conditions and as to the timeframe in which some of those conditions can be put in place prior to release. This conclusion that the respondent should be released on a supervision order remains conditional on the availability of accommodation that is suitable for the respondent's needs.

Addendum

Following the preparation of my reasons I received an addendum report on alternative accommodation. That report provided details of the accommodation and of schools, shopping centres and public facilities within a two kilometre radius. On the basis of the information contained in the report I was satisfied that the accommodation is suitable and that appropriate exclusion zones can be created by using GPS monitoring.
There was an issue as to the length of the supervision order. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order should be no longer than 5 years having regard to the respondent's age, the nature of his past offending and the possibility that a lengthy order may require an application to amend if the respondent's circumstances change, in particular if his health is adversely affected by continuing anti‑libidinal medication. The applicant submitted that a supervision order of at least 10 years was required because the risk of re‑offending required management well into the future. It was submitted that it was impossible to predict how long it would be before the respondent was no longer a danger of serious sexual offending. It was noted that the respondent would in any event be required to report for 15 years pursuant to s 46(2) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA).
I am satisfied that the appropriate length of the supervision order is 10 years. Whilst the risk of re‑offending can be adequately managed it is not at this stage clear how long that risk will continue for. I accept that there is a possibility that in that ten year period the risk may reduce as a result, for example, of failing health. In that event an application by the respondent to vary the supervision order could be made.
There will be a condition prohibiting the respondent from having any contact directly or indirectly with his children or grandchildren without their express consent. Any such contact will also require approval by the Victim/Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Corrective Services or a Community Corrections Officer. This condition reflects the clearly expressed wishes of the respondent's children.
At the hearing an issue was raised by Dr Tanney as to the utility of a condition prohibiting use of cannabis. Whilst I accept that there was no connection between cannabis use and the respondent's past offending I am nonetheless satisfied that such a condition is appropriate. The use of such drugs is, of course, prohibited by law. Whether or not there is any proven connection between drug use and past offending such use has the potential to adversely affect the respondent's ability to understand and comply with the conditions of his release. For similar reasons possession and consumption of alcohol is prohibited.
The conditions for release are detailed and onerous, but I am satisfied that they are necessary. They are attached as an annexure to these reasons.

ANNEXURE
THE RESPONDENT must:
Residence
1.Take up residence at [suppressed], and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by the Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to him (which designated CCO may be changed by the Department of Corrective Services at any time);
2.Not leave or remain out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Manager of the Department of Corrective Services and, if so permitted, abide by all conditions of such permission whilst absent from the state;
Reporting to the CCO and supervision by the CCO
3.Report to a CCO at [suppressed], within normal business hours on the day of release from custody under this order, and thereupon advise the CCO of his current name and address;
4.Be under the supervision of the CCO, and comply with the lawful orders and directions of the CCO;
5.Report to, and receive visits from, the CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such arrangements having regard to any employment commitments of the Respondent;
6.Not change his name, address or employment without prior approval from the CCO;
Attendance at programs or treatment
7.Attend upon, consult and engage with any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health service, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO;
8.Take any anti-depressant medication currently or in the future prescribed by a medical practitioner;
9.Comply with the requirements of all programs intended to address his offending behaviour and/or his risk of serious sexual re‑offending, including one-on-one-counselling, as directed by a CCO;
10.Continue to undergo pharmaceutical anti-libidinal treatment;
11.Comply fully with that treatment, in consultation with a medical practitioner;
12.Provide a written direction to that medical practitioner to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware or suspect that the Respondent has or intends to cease undergoing pharmaceutical anti-libidinal medication, or has apparently ceased to consult with that medical practitioner;
13.Comply with all testing to monitor his compliance with that treatment as directed by a CCO or medical practitioner;
14.Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist, endocrinologist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to his level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Corrective Services;
Reporting to WA Police
15.Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad Headquarters at Cambridge House, Suite 1, 297 Hay Street, East Perth, within 48 hours of release from custody, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad or his/her delegate;
16.Comply with all obligations imposed on him pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004;
17.If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search his residence for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with his obligations under this order;
Curfew and monitoring
18.Be subject to a curfew as directed by a CCO, pursuant to section 19B of the Act;
19.When subject to a curfew under this order, present himself for inspection at the front door or curtilage of the specified place to any CCO or police officer or their agent monitoring his compliance with the curfew and if contacted by telephone, speak on the telephone, to any CCO or police officer or their agent monitoring his compliance with the curfew;
20.When subject to a curfew under this order, ensure that all those people present in the residence who may answer the telephone or door are aware as to his obligations and he must request their assistance to comply with his obligations by alerting him to such attempts to contact him by persons monitoring his compliance with the curfew;
21.Be subject to electronic monitoring under s.19A of the Act, the imposition of which monitoring is at the discretion of a CCO pursuant to that section;
22.Maintain a daily diary of his movements, activities and associations if and as directed by the CCO and present this diary to the CCO and police officers upon request;
Disclosure/Exchange of Information
23.Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information;
24.Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including his offence history;
Restrictions on contact with Victims
25.Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the following persons ('prohibited persons'):
(i)[suppressed];
(ii)[suppressed];
(iii)[suppressed];
(iv)[suppressed];
(v)[suppressed];
(vi)[suppressed];

unless such contact is either conducted strictly in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Corrective Services, or conducted in a manner approved in advance by the CCO, such latter approval not to be given except with the express consent of the prohibited person to both the approval and to the manner to be approved;
26.Unless contact is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with a prohibited person (including being in the immediate presence of such a person, whether inadvertently or otherwise), without engaging with such victim in conversation or at all, whether by word or gesture, and must avert his gaze from such person at all times;
Criminal conduct
27.Not commit any sexual offence, as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A;
28.Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204, s 204A, s 204B, s 217, s 218, s 219, s 220 or s 557K Criminal Code 1913 (WA);
29.Not commit any 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;
30.Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996;

31.Not commit any offence under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004;
32.Not commit any offence under the Restraining Orders Act 1997;

33.Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs or substances including, but not limited to, cannabis;
Prevention of high-risk situations
34.Not possess, consume or use alcohol;
35.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;
36.Not associate with any person known by him to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO;
37.Have no contact with any child under the age of 18 years, whether such contact is in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless
a.the contact is authorised in advance by the CCO and such contact is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO; or
b.the contact is necessary to complete a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required to complete the transaction, and another adult is present;

('Contact' under this condition and the following two conditions means any form of interaction or communication whether by word, gesture, expression or touch and whether in person, in writing, by telephonic or electronic means, but does not include the bare minimum of interaction or communication necessary between an adult and child to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication);
38.Where any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18 years is initiated by the child, unless the contact is permitted under the condition immediately above, withdraw immediately from the presence of the child;
39.Provide details of any contact with a child under the age of 18 years both to the CCO and to the Police on the next occasion he reports to that person or agency;
40.Report immediately to his CCO the formation of any domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by him with a person who has children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time;
41.Make full disclosure regarding his past offending and the current order to anyone with whom he commences a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by the CCO and police officer;
42.Not conduct computer searches for, nor collect in either electronic or other form, images of children, whether indecent or not, with the exception of images of immediate family members that are not indecent images;
43.Have no contact with, membership of or affiliation with clubs, associations or groups of which the activities or objects are primarily for children, or of which the majority of membership is comprised by children; and to cease/cancel such memberships if directed to do so by the CCO or police officer;
44.When requested by the CCO or a police officer, provide full details of all his internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services and all internet user names or identities used by him and cease the use of such names, identities and services if directed to do so by a CCO or Police officer.