Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Yates [No 3] - [2016] WASC 213

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA) -v- YATES [No 3] [2016] WASC 213

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: 8 & 30 JUNE 2016

DELIVERED : 1 AUGUST 2016

FILE NO/S: DSO 3 of 2013

BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA)
Applicant
AND
NIGEL YATES
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Dangerous sexual offender - Second annual review - Whether community would be adequately protected if continuing detention order rescinded

Legislation:

Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA)

Result:

Continuing detention order rescinded
Supervision order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms S Markham
Respondent: Ms M R Barone

Solicitors:

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

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

Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Yates [2014] WASC 136
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Yates [No 2] [2015] WASC 201
MARTIN CJ:

Summary

This is the second annual review of an order which I made in 2014 under s 17 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (the Act) directing that Mr Nigel Yates be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care and treatment.[1] In the first annual review of that order I concluded that Mr Yates had taken some of the steps down the path towards a situation in which his release into the community under supervision might be compatible with the need to ensure the protection of the community. However, I concluded that there were a number of further significant steps which had to be taken on that path before that point would be reached. For that reason I declined to rescind the continuing detention order previously made in respect of Mr Yates.[2]
[1] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Yates [2014] WASC 136.
[2] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Yates [No 2] [2015] WASC 201.
The evidence adduced on this review satisfies me that Mr Yates has made significant progress since the last review, to the point at which the community can be adequately protected by his release under supervision for a period of five years. Although the risk that Mr Yates might reoffend can never be entirely eliminated, the conditions to which he will be subject while under supervision should result in any circumstance which might significantly increase the risk of Mr Yates' reoffending coming to the attention of the authorities who can then take appropriate action including, if necessary, bringing Mr Yates back before the court.

Legal principles

In the first review of Mr Yates' detention, I set out what I took to be the legal principles applicable to the annual review of such orders.[3] It is unnecessary to reiterate those principles in these reasons. As with the first annual review, the submissions of the parties did not turn to any significant extent upon issues pertaining to the proper construction of the Act.
[3] Yates [No 2] [3] - [5].

The evidence

The evidence adduced on the review took the form of the tender of a booklet of written materials and the oral evidence of three witnesses - Dr Adam Brett, a consultant psychiatrist; Ms Vanessa Rankin, a clinical psychologist; and Ms Jane Henshall, a community corrections officer for the Department of Corrective Services. That evidence is to be viewed in the context of the evidence adduced and the findings made in the course of the Div 2 proceedings and the first annual review, and these reasons should be read in the context of the reasons published in those proceedings.

Dr Brett

Dr Brett is a consultant psychiatrist. His evidence took the form of a written report augmented by his oral testimony. He was provided with written materials relating to Mr Yates and conducted a clinical interview of Mr Yates at Casuarina Prison.
In his written report, Dr Brett expressed the view that Mr Yates remained somewhat insightless into his offending behaviour, and tended to blame intoxication and the victims for his offending. However, Mr Yates accepted that substance abuse was a significant risk factor and had developed some very basic strategies to help reduce that risk. Those strategies focused upon living with his prospective domestic partner who did not allow substances in her house, and also involved keeping himself occupied by working and painting.
Dr Brett noted in his report that Mr Yates had no previous formal psychiatric history, although he had been diagnosed with an anti-social personality disorder and there had been an incident of possible self‑harm in 2000, involving the sniffing of solvents.
In his report, Dr Brett recounted Mr Yates' history of substance abuse in similar terms to those contained in my previous reasons for decision. He noted that intoxication had been a factor in all of Mr Yates' sexual offending, and appeared to be a consistent factor in his non-sexual violent offending. Dr Brett noted that Mr Yates had been receiving counselling through Holyoake and that substance use had been a central focus of the individual counselling sessions provided by Mr David Summerton, a clinical psychologist. Dr Brett noted that the same Holyoake counsellor would be available to Mr Yates if he was transitioned into the community.
Dr Brett noted with concern that Mr Yates had tested positively for marijuana in February 2016, in Casuarina Prison. Mr Yates attributed that transgression to stress associated with his mother's deteriorating health.
In his written report, Dr Brett recounted Mr Yates' family history and childhood experiences in similar terms to those contained in my previous reasons for decision.
Dr Brett reports that after conducting a mental state examination of Mr Yates, he concluded that although rapport was difficult to obtain given cultural differences, in the context of the interview Mr Yates' affect was reactive, and he smiled at times. Dr Brett did not identify any evidence of psychotic phenomena, nor any acute risk issues to Mr Yates or others. He noted that his cognition appeared to be slightly impaired and reiterated his view that Mr Yates appeared to have limited insight into his offending behaviour and his risk of reoffending.
Dr Brett reported upon the application of various risk assessment tools to Mr Yates. The first tool utilised by Dr Brett was an assessment based on the HCR‑20. After describing the application of that tool, Dr Brett concluded that Mr Yates had significant historical risk factors for violence, and minimal clinical risk factors for violence, except for limited insight. He did not expect those circumstances to change in the short term.
The next instrument applied by Dr Brett was the STATIC‑99‑R. He noted that although Mr Yates would score in the high risk group using that tool, there were serious problems applying that tool to indigenous Australians.
In his written report Dr Brett then assessed the application of a predictor model developed by Western Australian researchers that had been measured on indigenous sexual offenders. The model assessed three dynamic factors thought to be linked to violent and sexual reoffending - unrealistic long‑term goals, unfeasible release plans and poor coping skills prior to release. Dr Brett expressed the view that Mr Yates' long‑term plans appeared to be fairly realistic, and his release plans were more feasible than those proposed when he was tested in 2013 and 2014. Mr Yates was aware of the problems that he would face attempting to find fly‑in fly‑out work, and planned to live with his partner in her residence. Dr Brett noted that Mr Yates' coping skills had been addressed in individual sessions of counselling using a problem‑solving framework, although it was not possible to properly test those skills in the prison environment.
The final tool applied by Dr Brett was the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) - a set of structured professional guidelines. The administration of the protocol comprises six steps, and Dr Brett assessed each of those steps in turn in his written report.
Dealing firstly with Mr Yates' history of sexual violence, Dr Brett reiterated the circumstances of each significant sexual offence in his written report and concluded that Mr Yates' minimisation of his responsibility for those offences was a factor associated with the risk of recidivist sexual violence.
Dr Brett also noted that Mr Yates' sexual violence had been consistent and always associated with intoxication and opportunistic offending. He also noted that there had been a degree of escalation in the sexual violence, and highlighted in particular that Mr Yates' most recent offence was committed against a child of 15 years of age and involved the use of physical coercion.
On the topic of psychological adjustment, Dr Brett noted that the themes of denial and minimisation remained present and were a continuing risk factor relating to recidivism, as were Mr Yates' attitudes towards women, including the view that women were prone to making false allegations of sexual misconduct. Dr Brett also noted that Mr Yates appears to have very simplistic self-appraisal and understanding of what drives his behaviour, and little appreciation of his distorted attitudes or his problems with impulse control.
On the subject of mental disorder, Dr Brett noted that Mr Yates has a history of sexual arousal from non-consenting victims that could be viewed as sexual deviance, but did not appear to have other sexually deviant fantasies. He also noted that Mr Yates fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for dissocial personality disorder which is a significant risk factor. Dr Brett reiterated in his report that Mr Yates has a significant and extensive history of substance abuse associated with his offending behaviour, which he described as 'a critical, treatable risk factor in reducing his risk of sexual reoffending'.
On the subject of social adjustment, Dr Brett noted that Mr Yates has never had an ongoing intimate relationship whilst in the community. The relationship that he had formed over the last seven years had been formed while he was in prison. Dr Brett noted that according to Mr Yates, his proposed domestic partner had been informed of his offending history. He noted that the relationship had not been tested in the community, which was a significant risk factor. Dr Brett also noted that Mr Yates had a very limited employment history in the community, and a significant history of non-sexual offending from the age of 14.
Dr Brett noted that Mr Yates has had significant problems with planning and would likely need assistance in this area. However, he considered that his current release plans were more realistic than his previous plans, although he was likely to need significant assistance in his transition to the community.
Dr Brett expressed the view in his report that if Mr Yates' relationship with his proposed domestic partner worked out, his risk of sexual reoffending would be significantly reduced. However, he noted that living in a Perth suburb away from Mr Yates' land and people could cause psychological stress. He also noted that it might be helpful for Mr Yates' psychological adjustment if a visit to his mother in a nursing home near Kalgoorlie was facilitated.
In his report Dr Brett identified the main risk scenarios as being similar to those in which Mr Yates' previous offences were committed - that is, if there were problems in his relationship and he became intoxicated and an opportunity for sexual violence arose. He considered any victim most likely to be an adult woman or a post-pubertal adolescent.
In Dr Brett's reported view, case management should focus on the monitoring of Mr Yates' living situation, his substance abuse and his whereabouts. In Dr Brett's view, Mr Yates' risk of reoffending would escalate significantly if his proposed relationship did not work out. In Dr Brett's view, ideally Mr Yates' proposed partner would be involved in the monitoring of Mr Yates and would inform the supervisory team if there were problems with the relationship.
In his report, Dr Brett expressed the view that substance use should not be tolerated in any circumstances or form, and that abstinence on the part of Mr Yates should be the goal. Dr Brett expressed the view that it would be ideal if his proposed partner was involved in the supervision of this regime. Dr Brett considered that urinalysis could be helpful, although it would not detect the abuse of solvents. Dr Brett also considered that ongoing substance abuse counselling would be helpful.
In summary, in his written report Dr Brett concluded that Mr Yates remained at a significant risk of sexual reoffending. He did not consider that his risk was likely to reduce any further if Mr Yates remained in custody. He believed that the key to Mr Yates' successful reintegration into the community would be the maintenance of his domestic relationship, the provision of stable accommodation, abstinence from substance abuse, ongoing substance abuse counselling, ongoing psychological treatment, and the regular monitoring of his whereabouts and living circumstances. Dr Brett recommended very frequent monitoring and reporting initially, reducing over time. Dr Brett expressed the view that if appropriate structures and strategies could be put in place around Mr Yates, his risk of reoffending would reduce. However, if that did not occur, Mr Yates was likely to reoffend rapidly. Dr Brett did not consider it desirable for Mr Yates to return to the desert country in which he had lived for most of his life, as that would significantly increase the risk of his sexual reoffending. Dr Brett did not believe that there were any programmes available to Mr Yates in a custodial environment that would further reduce his risk of reoffending.
During his oral testimony, Dr Brett advised that he had augmented the information gathered from Mr Yates during his interview by discussion with those involved in his management, including, in particular, Mr Summerton, who has been providing counselling to Mr Yates for some years now. That information led him to believe that Mr Yates may have a better understanding of his offending behaviour than Dr Brett had assessed during the interview process.
Dr Brett confirmed that Mr Yates had identified risk factors during the course of that interview, as well as the strategies which he might use to reduce those risks. Dr Brett also expressed the view that Mr Yates was gaining benefit from the counselling he was receiving from Holyoake.
Dr Brett expressed the view that although Mr Yates' chronic substance abuse had caused him some degree of cognitive dysfunction, it was not so gross as to deprive him of significant capacities.
Dr Brett confirmed that Mr Yates had stated that his proposed partner was abstinent and that the house in which she lived was free of alcohol or other substances.
In his oral testimony, Dr Brett reiterated his view that the critical factors in Mr Yates' successful transition into the community were the provision of stable accommodation, a stable relationship and a good relationship between his proposed partner and those responsible for monitoring and supervising Mr Yates. In Dr Brett's view, Mr Yates' proposed partner is critical in helping him survive his transition into the community. In that context, he noted that the relationship between the two was untested, and that the relationship between the proposed partner and the services that would be responsible for monitoring Mr Yates in the community was also unknown. In his view, very close monitoring would be required in the early stages if Mr Yates was released into the community.
In Dr Brett's view, stable accommodation was a significant factor in reducing the risk of Mr Yates' reoffending. His past offences had been associated with instability immediately following his release from prison. He also noted that gainful engagement in things like painting would require a stable base in order to keep his painting kit together. He summarised his views with respect to the importance of stable accommodation for Mr Yates by describing that factor as 'crucial'.[4]
[4] ts 273.
Dr Brett expressed the view that if Mr Yates' domestic relationship broke down, it was likely that Mr Yates would also lack accommodation and 'there would be a high chance of him slipping back into his previous behaviours'.[5] Dr Brett also noted that, as far as he was aware, Mr Yates had never lived in the metropolitan region before, which was another area of unknown risk.
[5] ts 274.
In the course of his oral testimony Dr Brett reiterated the view expressed in his report to the effect that, contrary to the views expressed by Dr Wynn Owen in the course of the first annual review, he did not consider that participation in a sexual offender treatment programme was likely to significantly reduce Mr Yates' risk of reoffending. In his view, Mr Yates has probably participated sufficiently in therapy relating to his sexual offending, to the point where there were unlikely to be further gains by participation in programmes specifically targeted at sexual offending.
Dr Brett expressed the view that Mr Yates and Mr Summerton had developed a therapeutic relationship through which they had been able to address most aspects of Mr Yates' needs. He was very impressed with the knowledge which Mr Summerton had of Mr Yates. He thought it essential that their therapeutic relationship continue if Mr Yates was to be released into the community.
In cross‑examination, Dr Brett confirmed that he did not consider that anti-libidinal medication was necessary if Mr Yates was released into the community. Dr Brett also confirmed that he thought it unlikely that Mr Yates would make any further significant achievements while in custody in relation to his risk of substance abuse, and that the point had been reached at which Mr Yates' commitment to avoiding substance abuse should be tested within the community.
Dr Brett also expressed the view that Mr Yates' risk of reoffending might be exacerbated if he were not released in the near future, because he may become frustrated and his coping mechanisms may be overwhelmed in the prison environment.
Dr Brett confirmed during cross‑examination that in his view there was nothing to suggest that Mr Yates had a sexual interest in pre‑pubertal children. Dr Brett also confirmed that he did not have any significant concern that Mr Yates would be able to manage living in the Perth metropolitan area with appropriate levels of support.
Mr Brett confirmed his view in his oral testimony that, although Mr Yates was at a high level of risk, that risk could be adequately managed in the community. Dr Brett confirmed that he was not discouraged in that view by Mr Yates' limited empathy and remorse, and his tendency to minimise his own culpability.[6]
[6] ts 292 ‑ 293.

Ms Vanessa Rankin

Ms Vanessa Rankin is a senior clinical psychologist employed by the Department of Corrective Services. A report prepared by Ms Rankin was amongst the materials tendered in evidence. In that report, Ms Rankin drew upon information she gathered in the course of an interview with Mr Yates, a telephone discussion with the counsellor from Holyoake who was assisting Mr Yates, various consultations with Mr Summerton and the perusal of information held on Mr Yates' file.
In her report, Ms Rankin detailed Mr Yates' participation in programmes and counselling prior to the conduct of the first annual review last year. As I have summarised those matters in my first decision and in the first annual review, it is unnecessary to repeat them in these reasons.
Ms Rankin reported that Mr Yates had attended a further 18 sessions of individual counselling with Mr Summerton since the last annual review. Those sessions occurred at a monthly frequency shortly after the last annual review, increased to approximately fortnightly in January of this year, and further increased to weekly sessions in the lead‑up to the second review. In addition, Mr Yates has attended nine sessions with the Holyoake counsellor to discuss substance misuse issues.

In accordance with the usual practice, Ms Rankin reported the information she had been provided by Mr Summerton.[7] Mr Summerton advised that there had been a positive shift in the extent of Mr Yates' engagement during the course of the year - he now presented as more responsive and potentially more invested in maintaining the therapeutic engagement. Mr Summerton also reported that concrete behavioural risk management scenarios had been discussed in detail in the course of his sessions with Mr Yates. Mr Yates appreciated the risks to which he would be subject if he placed himself in public areas where people engaged in excessive drinking and where he might be put in the path of potential sexual partners.
[7] In order to avoid any conflict of interest between Mr Summerton's role as a therapeutic counsellor and the duties to which he would be subject if he gave evidence in these proceedings.
Mr Summerton also reported that Mr Yates had taken greater responsibility for his prior offending behaviour, and that Mr Yates was aware that what he had done was wrong. In Mr Summerton's view, Mr Yates' understanding of the need for consent had improved. Mr Summerton also noted that Mr Yates was more willing to discuss his offending history and had overcome some of his apparent shame.
Mr Summerton also reported that a lot of time during his sessions with Mr Yates had been spent generating potential risk scenarios and discussing how Mr Yates might respond to those scenarios. Mr Summerton reported that during those sessions Mr Yates demonstrated a solid understanding of the risks to which he was subject, but that he often struggled to articulate what he had learned to others. The majority of scenarios addressed by Mr Summerton focused on access to and potential peer pressure relating to the misuse of alcohol and cannabis; obtaining and ensuring consent for sexual activity; and responding to conflict within an intimate relationship. Mr Summerton noted that although Mr Yates appeared to have an understanding of cause and effect in relation to potential risk scenarios, his ability to effectively manage those scenarios remained untested.
Mr Summerton noted that Mr Yates' primary response to conflict appeared to be avoidance. He also expressed doubt as to Mr Yates' capacity to sustain a close relationship for any length of time, given his limited experience in this area, and suggested that Mr Yates was likely to require support to manage relationship issues as and when they arose. He also noted that Mr Yates had been living a fairly mobile life (when not incarcerated), and that he might find it difficult to remain in one place for an extended period of time. He also noted that Mr Yates' unfamiliarity with Perth increased the likelihood that he will need to rely on his domestic partner in order to get around. Mr Summerton considered that the proposed relationship would be protective for Mr Yates, and that his partner could likely play a positive role in the management of risk.
Mr Summerton reported that Mr Yates had also indicated some basic coping strategies to be used in responding to stress, including painting, seeking assistance from his support mechanisms and engaging in other pleasurable activities. Mr Summerton noted that Mr Yates had been exposed to some stressors in the custodial environment, in response to which he had apparently been able to engage strategies to positive effect.
Mr Summerton confirmed to Ms Rankin that if Mr Yates were released into the community under supervision he would continue to provide him with weekly counselling sessions. The main issues likely to be addressed in those sessions would be Mr Yates' adjustment to the community, the monitoring of his risk, and the continuing refinement of risk management strategies. This would include observation of the emotional climate of the intimate relationship in which Mr Yates would then be engaged, together with providing support for the management of day-to-day issues as and when they arose.
On the other hand, if Mr Yates remained in custody, Mr Summerton advised that his future sessions with Mr Yates would likely be intermittent, though they would increase in frequency in the period leading up to the next annual review.
The Holyoake counsellor advised Ms Rankin that Mr Yates had engaged well in his discussions with her, and that she would continue to provide counselling sessions to Mr Yates if he was released into the community. She noted that Mr Yates had expressed a commitment to remain abstinent from alcohol, and that he had developed a comprehensive relapse prevention plan that took account of high risk situations and identified strategies for managing those situations. The Holyoake counsellor also characterised the proposed intimate relationship as protective of Mr Yates because of his partner's firm stance against the misuse of substances in her house. Apparently the proposed partner had refused to provide temporary accommodation to family members who were known to engage in substance misuse.
During Ms Rankin's interview with Mr Yates, he confirmed that he regarded his relationships with each of Mr Summerton and the Holyoake counsellor as positive and he would be pleased of their continuing support if he were released into the community. He was able to identify to Ms Rankin the role which substance misuse had played in his previous offending behaviour, including his sexual offences. He expressed confidence in his ability to abstain from alcohol misuse and dismissed any possibility that he would return to the inhalation of solvents. He was able to identify that high risk situations for him would include public parks and other areas where people tended to gather to consume alcohol to excess or to gamble.
Mr Yates asserted to Ms Rankin that he believed he would be able to manage stress and cited recent experiences within the prison environment as examples of his capacity to adequately deal with stressors. He described the circumstances in which he had tested positive for cannabis use in prison earlier this year, which was his response to a distressing telephone interaction relating to the deterioration in his mother's health.
Mr Yates also advised Ms Rankin that he had met his proposed mentor who indicated he would provide him with assistance in obtaining employment if he was released into the community. When asked about the difficulties he might face when living in Perth, Mr Yates admitted that his knowledge of the metropolitan area was limited, but indicated that he had some family members in Perth to whom he could turn if necessary.
Mr Yates acknowledged the risks involved with the relationship which had only developed while he had been in custody, but advised Ms Rankin that if relationship issues arose, he would discuss them either with his partner or with Mr Summerton.
Ms Rankin expressed the view that remaining abstinent to alcohol would likely present the biggest challenge for Mr Yates if released into the community, but noted that his apparent willingness to seek support in relation to the management of alcohol was a positive factor.
Ms Rankin also expressed the view in her report that if Mr Yates was able to form a viable intimate relationship, the support and stability which it would provide would likely reduce his risk of reoffending. Accordingly, in her view, it would be important to monitor the state of that relationship and to have the capacity to intervene where necessary if Mr Yates was to be released into the community.
Ms Rankin noted that Mr Yates appeared to have maintained the gains he had made in therapeutic contact with Mr Summerton, and had refined and extended his knowledge and understanding of the consent and risk scenarios relevant to him which had been addressed in the course of the counselling sessions with Mr Summerton. She also considered that the availability of the Holyoake counsellor to assist Mr Yates in the management of substance misuse issues was another positive factor. She expressed the view that it was likely that Mr Summerton and the Holyoake counsellor would have the opportunity to consult collaboratively with respect to Mr Yates' progress if he were to be released into the community.
During her oral evidence, Ms Rankin confirmed that she had assessed Mr Yates with respect to his suitability to undertake a sex offender treatment programme, and had concluded that he was not suitable for such a programme. Although she considered that he might potentially gain some benefit from participation in an indigenous sex offender programme, she considered such gains were likely to be incremental at best and, in any event, he was addressing much of the content that would have been relevant to him through the individual counselling work that he was undertaking. She also confirmed that the reality was that there were no indigenous programmes available either at the time she undertook the assessment, or at present.
Ms Rankin confirmed that her advice from Mr Summerton had been to the effect that Mr Yates had engaged more fully with Mr Summerton and the therapeutic relationship between the two had developed significantly. Based on the advice she had received from Mr Summerton, she considered that Mr Yates had made gains in the area of self-management and the management of risk, in the context of his prospective release into the community. The counselling sessions had also addressed issues that might arise from his potential intimate relationship, in the event that he is released.
Ms Rankin also confirmed that the Holyoake counsellor had spoken very positively of Mr Yates' engagement with her. She reported that the counsellor and Mr Yates had developed a comprehensive relapse prevention plan that took account of high risk scenarios specifically applicable to Mr Yates, who had stated his commitment to abstinence from alcohol if released into the community.
Ms Rankin considered that Mr Yates' prospective personal relationship was a significant protective factor while noting that the relationship was untested. She agreed with Dr Brett that the provision of stable accommodation was an important aspect of any appropriate plans for his supervision in the community - she described it as being 'of paramount importance'.[8]
[8] ts 299.
During cross‑examination, Ms Rankin confirmed that in her view if Mr Yates were to be released into the community under supervision, it would be of benefit to him to have the opportunity to visit his mother in the Goldfields in an appropriately planned and supervised visit. Ms Rankin did not harbour any concerns with respect to Mr Yates' ability to comply with the terms of a supervision order or with respect to his willingness to comply with the terms of such an order.[9] She expressed the view that:[10]
He's actually in a very good place at the moment to - to be compliant, motivated and willing.
In her view, the risk of Mr Yates' reoffending was capable of being adequately managed by appropriate supervision.
[9] ts 304.
[10] ts 305.

Ms Jane Henshall

Ms Henshall is a senior community corrections officer employed by the Department of Corrective Services. She prepared a written report which was included within the materials tendered by consent.
In that report, Ms Henshall reviewed the incidents in which Mr Yates had been involved within the prison system since his last review. The most significant of those related to a positive reading to cannabis from a urinalysis test conducted on 2 February 2016. Mr Yates attributed his breach to the stress he was experiencing as a result of his mother's deteriorating health. When he spoke with her by telephone, she did not recognise his voice and kept calling him by the name of one of his brothers.
Although Ms Henshall refers to other incidents which resulted in disciplinary action in her report, it is unnecessary to relate those incidents as they are of such a minor nature that I consider them to be irrelevant to the issues which I must address in these proceedings.
Ms Henshall reported upon her various attempts to engage with Mr Yates' prospective partner with respect to the arrangements that would be made if he were to be released into the community. There had been difficulties in making contact with the partner, although those difficulties were ultimately overcome and Ms Henshall visited the prospective partner in her home. During that visit the partner indicated that she expected an intimate relationship would develop upon Mr Yates' release from custody, and further that she expected him to abide by the conditions of any order imposed upon him.
Ms Henshall reported that although the partner had previously been informed of the details of Mr Yates' prior offences, she did not appear to be fully aware of those details. The partner was again advised of Mr Yates' prior sexual offending in detail.
Ms Henshall reported that when asked questions with respect to possible situations which may place Mr Yates at a higher risk of reoffending, his prospective partner was able to identify substance misuse and socialising with people who engage in antisocial behaviours and substance misuse as factors of significant risk. She responded positively to the proposition that Mr Yates be subject to exclusion zones which he could not enter without breaching the terms of his supervision order.
During the interview, the prospective partner advised Ms Henshall that she would not allow Mr Yates to use substances, including alcohol and cannabis, while residing at her property. She indicated to Ms Henshall that she would not hesitate to report Mr Yates to the Department of Corrective Services if he were to use either alcohol or any illicit substance. The prospective partner did not indicate any resistance to receiving visits from Outcare, or from representatives of the Public Protection Unit, or the Western Australian Police Sex Offender Management Squad.
Ms Henshall reported that during the interview, the prospective partner indicated that she has a brother resident in Perth who would be available to provide assistance if required. The partner also has other brothers resident in rural Western Australia who sometimes visit on the weekends. She indicated that she will impose rules which will prevent those brothers from bringing alcohol to her house if Mr Yates is released and staying with her.
Subsequent to the interview, Mr Yates' prospective partner contacted Ms Henshall to advise that she had been evicted from her residence and was required to vacate imminently. Ms Henshall expressed concern that the partner had not told her of doubts with respect to her continuing tenancy during their interview, notwithstanding that she was already in arrears of rent at the time the interview took place.
In that context, Ms Henshall conducted inquiries with respect to the possibility of alternative accommodation and reported that no such accommodation was currently available under the programme developed by the Department of Corrective Services for the provision of accommodation to persons under supervision in the community pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
In her report, Ms Henshall stated that in the event that Mr Yates is released into the community, the Department will maintain close liaison with his prospective partner in order to identify any problems or deterioration in the relationship. She suggested that the imposition of a curfew and the use of GPS tracking systems would be desirable in the event that Mr Yates is released into the community. She noted that if Mr Yates were to be released into the community, he would be closely managed and supervised by the members of the local Risk Management Group which includes, but is not limited to, police officers from the Sex Offender Management Squad, community corrections officers employed by the Department of Corrective Services and management staff from the Department of Corrective Services Public Protection Unit. Mr Yates would also be provided with counselling by each of Mr Summerton and the Holyoake counsellor. She also noted that Outcare would provide support to Mr Yates if he were to be released into the community, and in particular would provide him with a mentor to assist him in the navigation of a lifestyle appropriate to the metropolitan area.
During her oral testimony, Ms Henshall advised that since her report was written, she had received information to the effect that two support agencies had agreed to provide Mr Yates' prospective partner with a contribution towards the rental arrears, and she had agreed to pay the landlord an additional amount over and above her fortnightly rent in order to reduce the arrears owing. Ms Henshall had received advice from the organisation providing the accommodation that if those arrangements were met, they would be considered satisfactory and the action to evict the partner from her accommodation would be suspended. However, at the time of the hearing, the arrangements that would enable the partner to remain in her accommodation had not been completed. Ms Henshall was, however, able to confirm that she had been advised by the agency providing accommodation that there was nothing to prevent Mr Yates living in that accommodation if he were to be released.
During cross‑examination, counsel for Mr Yates explored the possibilities for the provision of alternative accommodation for Mr Yates and his prospective partner if he were to be released into the community. Without relating the evidence given by Ms Henshall in detail, it is sufficient to summarise that evidence by saying that the prospects of arranging alternative accommodation in the event that Mr Yates' partner is unable to provide accommodation appear remote.
In her evidence, Ms Henshall indicated that it was likely that greater clarity would emerge in relation to the accommodation of Mr Yates' prospective partner over the next few weeks, and the hearing was adjourned to enable further evidence to be given on that topic.
When the hearing resumed, Ms Henshall confirmed that the arrangements for the reduction in the arrears of rental in respect of the residence occupied by Mr Yates' prospective partner had been implemented, with the result that the arrears had been substantially reduced. The reduction in arrears came about as a consequence of payments made by not-for-profit agencies who were approached by Mr Yates' prospective partner, and by the partner having agreed to an amount of $150 over and above the rental being deducted from her welfare payments and paid to the landlord each fortnight. Ms Henshall expressed the view that the current arrangements with respect to the payment of rental were satisfactory, but she noted that the consequence of the additional payments was to put Mr Yates' prospective partner under financial stress.
The agency providing the prospective partner with accommodation had confirmed to Ms Henshall that Mr Yates could become a joint tenant with his prospective partner, if released under supervision. However, the agency also advised Ms Henshall that action for breach of lease had been taken by the agency because of issues with respect to the maintenance of the property. The agency had given the prospective partner notice that there would be a further inspection of the property on 20 July 2016, and, depending upon the standard of the property at the time of inspection, there was a possibility that action for breach might be taken.
Ms Henshall visited the prospective partner at the property on 14 June. She noticed the property was very unkempt - there was an infestation of cockroaches, food on the stove top and the bathroom and toilets were dirty. Ms Henshall discussed the condition of the property with the prospective partner on 28 June, when she was advised that the partner had only been recently discharged from hospital. Ms Henshall had previously noticed that the prospective partner's health appeared to have deteriorated, and was aware that the partner was suffering from diabetes. The partner had been in hospital for five days as a result of variations in her blood sugar level. Ms Henshall discussed the possibility of not-for-profit agencies helping her to clean up the house if she was ill.

Ms Henshall received information from the agency providing the partner with accommodation to the effect that there had been a significant history of poor maintenance of the property. Ms Henshall was unable to predict what that agency would do after the inspection of the property on 20 July.
Ms Henshall also gave evidence with respect to a desktop accommodation analysis which had been performed by WA Police since the earlier hearing. In Ms Henshall's view, there were no particular issues arising from that analysis other than the fact that police noted that there had been several incidents of domestic violence at the prospective partner's residence over the last 12 months that involved people who appeared to be affected by alcohol and/or drugs.
Ms Henshall obtained further information from police with respect to the incidents to which reference was made in the report. She then discussed the matter with Mr Yates' prospective partner. The partner advised Ms Henshall that members of her family were attending her house and threatening her with violence - she was 'being stood over' by family members who were heavy substance users. Ms Henshall noted that two other members of the partner's family had been at the house when she had visited the partner earlier.
Mr Yates' prospective partner reported to Ms Henshall that one member of her family had smashed a large television in her house. Ms Henshall discussed the possibility of the prospective partner taking out a violence restraining order against the other family members. The partner had indicated initially that she was willing to take that step, but later indicated reluctance. Ms Henshall noted that the information provided by police indicated that the prospective partner had called them on occasions when members of her family were causing trouble.
Ms Henshall indicated that the Department of Corrective Services had two major concerns with respect to the stability of the accommodation which would be available to Mr Yates with his partner if he were to be released under supervision. The first concerned the risk arising from the prospective partner's family attending and causing trouble. If these practices continued, it could place Mr Yates in a difficult situation, with possible risk of breach of the conditions of his supervision order. Second, the Department was also concerned about the stability of the accommodation as a result of the issues that had arisen in respect of both the rental arrears and the inadequate standard of maintenance.
In that context, Ms Henshall confirmed the evidence she had given at the earlier hearing to the effect that there does not appear to be any alternative accommodation available to Mr Yates and his prospective partner if eviction action was taken by the agency providing the partner with accommodation. Although the Department had the capacity to provide emergency accommodation in the short term (three or four days), there was no capacity to provide longer term accommodation and such accommodation as was available was occupied.
During cross‑examination Ms Henshall agreed that the arrears of rental had been reduced substantially as a result of the action taken by Mr Yates' prospective partner. She also agreed that Mr Yates had said to her that he would help to tidy up the house for his partner. Ms Henshall was not aware of whether the agency providing the accommodation was aware of the prospective partner's recent poor health. She did, however, confirm that the agency considered that the prospective partner had a positive rental history, and this was the first occasion upon which she had been in arrears of rental.
Ms Henshall also confirmed that the information provided by police with respect to the incidents of domestic violence did not indicate any occasion upon which the prospective partner had been assaulted. One of the occasions involved a circumstance in which the prospective partner's niece had attended the property, leading to an argument with the partner in relation to the niece's drug use. When the partner asked the niece to leave and she refused, the partner called police, with the result that her niece left.
In another incident in October last year, the partner called police because her brother-in-law was causing trouble. The partner had advised the brother‑in‑law that he was not welcome, so he broke two windows. The police were called by the partner and attended and arrested the brother‑in‑law.
According to the information provided by police there was another occasion upon which Mr Yates' prospective partner had contacted police as a result of trouble being caused by another of her nieces.
Ms Henshall considered that if incidents of this kind continued at a time when Mr Yates was living at the house with his prospective partner, there were risks that he might become involved in substance abuse or violence - perhaps protecting his partner. There was also a risk that the incidents might cause stress which might in turn lead Mr Yates to resort to alcohol or illicit drugs.
Ms Henshall confirmed that if Mr Yates was released on a supervision order, he would be drug tested randomly as and when directed by his supervising community corrections officer. She also confirmed that the Sex Offender Management Squad of WA Police undertook overt and covert surveillance of people released on supervision orders under the Act. She also confirmed that there was a fortnightly risk management meeting attended by representatives of relevant agencies at which regular reviews of Mr Yates' circumstances and the risk of him reoffending would be undertaken.
Ms Henshall confirmed that her Department and WA Police liaise closely with respect to the supervision of persons placed on supervision orders under the Act. There are also protocols into which each of the agencies have entered with respect to the nature of the response which would be provided by WA Police, including emergency responses where appropriate. Ms Henshall agreed that the normal terms of a supervision order gave her Department considerable capacity to control who could attend the property, although in her view the practical implementation of those arrangements would require the continuing assistance of Mr Yates and his prospective partner.
Ms Henshall agreed that the information provided by WA Police generally revealed that the prospective partner of Mr Yates contacted the police when there was trouble at the property, although she noted that no contact was made with police on the occasion upon which the television was broken.

Mr Yates' prospective partner

The prospective partner of Mr Yates was called to give evidence by counsel for Mr Yates. She is an Aboriginal woman who is approximately 50 years of age. She feels very strongly about Mr Yates and has known him for about seven years. She wants to be his de facto partner. According to her, they speak every day on the telephone. She initially said in her evidence that she sees Mr Yates every Saturday at the prison, although later she agreed that there had been a number of occasions recently when it had not been possible for her to attend the prison.
Mr Yates' prospective partner confirmed that she had recently spent five days in hospital because her blood sugar level was too high. That was the first occasion upon which she had been hospitalised as a result of her diabetes for approximately nine years. However, her condition does cause her to have injections every day.
The partner confirmed that she had been living at her current address for approximately seven years, and that she lived there alone. She advised that the difficulty with respect to the maintenance of the house had arisen because of her illness - she had not been strong enough to clean the house properly. There was also a problem because she could not afford a lawnmower to clean up the yard. She confirmed that Mr Yates had said that he would help her. She also confirmed that she had 'put the hard word on him' to be a man and help her.
The prospective partner confirmed that she had normally kept up to date with the rent. She had fallen behind because she had been attending funerals in regional Western Australia, and the cost of travel had reduced her capacity to pay the rent. She confirmed that she had contacted four not‑for-profit organisations which had each agreed to pay $500 towards reducing the arrears in her rent, and that the arrears would be further reduced by her overpayment of $150 each fortnight.
The prospective partner confirmed that she expected Mr Yates to contribute financially from his income if he was released under supervision and lived with her.
The prospective partner was emphatic in her evidence to the effect that she would work closely with the Department of Corrective Services, and would have no difficulty telling representatives of the Department if there were problems with her capacity to pay the rent or with family members attending the premises and causing trouble.
The partner confirmed that the family members who were causing trouble were currently homeless. She confirmed that on a number of occasions when they had caused trouble in the past, she contacted police. She confirmed in evidence that she was willing to take out restraining orders against her family members, although she had not done so because she was waiting for her man to be released from prison. However, she was willing to take the action necessary to obtain a violence restraining order against family members prior to him being released.
She considered that if Mr Yates came to live with her, her family would stay away - because 'they would have to'.
The partner confirmed that she would have no difficulty with police and other agencies attending the house if Mr Yates was living with her, and was emphatic that she would call police if there was any trouble at the house or if Mr Yates broke the rules under which he was released. She denied that she would tell lies in order to keep Mr Yates out of prison.
During cross‑examination, Mr Yates' prospective partner confirmed that she had only told Ms Henshall about the problems with her family quite recently. She also confirmed that she had not reported the damage to her television to police. She said that the damage occurred four or five months ago, although that assertion does not appear to be entirely consistent with the evidence given by Ms Henshall. She did not know why her brother‑in‑law had broken her television.
In cross‑examination, the prospective partner confirmed that members of her family tended to treat her house as their own. Although they did not have keys, they were able to enter the house through the windows. This last occurred about three weeks ago - when she came home, her sister was at the house.
The prospective partner confirmed that members of her family had attended her house affected by alcohol or drugs. When this occurred she called the police. According to the prospective partner, family members never brought alcohol or drugs with them.
The prospective partner agreed that the house was in a pretty poor condition. However, she had a working fridge and a functioning kitchen. The house was currently in a bad state because of her illness, which occurred when she stopped taking insulin and was not measuring her blood sugar levels as regularly as she should.
Mr Yates' prospective partner confirmed that the issues with her family were a source of stress, as were the issues with relation to accommodation - namely, the arrears of rent and the problem maintaining the cleanliness of the house.
The prospective partner confirmed that people had stayed at her house in the past, although she did not anticipate that people would stay with her in the future if Mr Yates was living with her.

Analysis

There is no reason to doubt the evidence given by Dr Brett and Ms Rankin, which I accept. Their evidence satisfies me that Mr Yates has made significant progress since the last annual review. He has engaged very positively with Mr Summerton through the course of the counselling sessions which have been provided, and has developed the capacity to identify risk factors and strategies which would reduce the risk of him reoffending by avoiding the circumstances which had caused him to offend in the past. Mr Yates has also engaged very positively with the counsellor provided by Holyoake, and each of Mr Summerton and that counsellor would be available to Mr Yates if released under supervision into the community.
In short, I accept Dr Brett's view that the positive progress which Mr Yates has made since the last review has brought him to the point at which his risk of reoffending can be reduced to a level which is acceptable if his relationship with his prospective partner develops, and he is provided with stable accommodation and the counselling and mentoring services to which I have referred.
Counsel for the DPP did not put any submissions contrary to that view. Rather, her submissions were directed to the question of whether the circumstances into which Mr Yates would be released under supervision were sufficiently stable and secure having regard to:
(a)the risk that the agency providing accommodation to Mr Yates' prospective partner might take action to terminate her lease; and
(b)the risks arising from family members of that partner attending the premises while intoxicated.
These concerns are entirely appropriate, and necessitate detailed consideration.
There are two issues which give rise to a doubt with respect to the stability of accommodation which would be available to Mr Yates in the event of his release - a factor which Dr Brett regarded as very important to his successful reintegration into the community. The first arises from the arrears of rental. However, Mr Yates' prospective partner does have a good tenancy record with the agency providing her with accommodation and has generally been able to keep her rent up to date. Further, when the situation escalated to the point at which the agency took eviction action, the partner took appropriate action to secure support from various agencies and to make good the arrears of rental over time from her own resources. It must be said that it took her a little time to take these steps, during which she voluntarily removed herself from the property (somewhat bizarrely). I also take into account that if Mr Yates is released under supervision, he will be in a position to contribute financially to the household which will further facilitate a reduction in the arrears of rental. For those various reasons, I do not consider the current situation with respect to the rental to pose a significant risk to the stability of the accommodation available to Mr Yates in the event of his release under supervision.
Turning now to the issue of the current condition of the property, I am satisfied that this issue has largely arisen as a result of the prospective partner's recent ill health. I am also satisfied that deterioration in her health to the point where she requires hospitalisation is a rare occurrence, and is not likely to jeopardise her capacity to monitor Mr Yates following his release. I am persuaded by her evidence that she has the resolve to take the steps necessary to bring the property into a more satisfactory state of repair and cleanliness. I consider that her efforts in that regard would be significantly assisted if Mr Yates is released on supervision prior to the next inspection by the relevant agency. With that consideration in mind, I have specifically chosen the time at which Mr Yates is to be released into the community to provide the relevant authorities with the opportunity to put in place the arrangements which will provide him with financial resources immediately upon his release, but will nevertheless provide him with a few days at least in which he can assist his prospective partner to bring the property into the condition in which it will pass inspection. I also consider that Mr Yates' commitment to the success of the relationship after his release from custody is such that he will cause to be taken whatever remedial action is required by the agency which owns the property in order to bring the property into an adequate state of cleanliness and repair.
I turn now to address the risk posed by the possibility that the family members of Mr Yates' prospective partner might continue to attend the property and cause trouble after Mr Yates' release. I first note in this context that it seems likely that the risk of such incidents in the future will be reduced by the mere fact of Mr Yates' presence at the property. His prospective partner is at present a vulnerable woman living alone. There seems to be a distinct prospect that her family members may take a different view if she is supported by an able‑bodied man such as Mr Yates.
I also note that on a number of occasions in the past in which trouble has been caused by family members, it was Mr Yates' prospective partner who contacted police and arranged for them to attend. She was emphatic in her evidence that she would take the same course in the event of any repetition of those incidents, and I accept that evidence.
I also note that any recurrence of incidents of the kind which have occurred in the past is unlikely to directly increase the risk of Mr Yates committing any further sexual offences. Such incidents might create the risk of Mr Yates breaching the conditions of his supervision order by committing a further offence if, for example, a fight ensues. However, there would not appear to be any significant likelihood of such an incident creating an appreciably increased risk of further sexual offending. Counsel for the DPP submitted that the presence of such persons might expose Mr Yates to the risk of alcohol or drug use, but I note the evidence of his prospective partner to the effect that her family members did not bring such substances to her house, and further note that Mr Yates will be subject to random urinalysis if released under supervision.
For these various reasons, I do not consider that the possible risks to the stability of the accommodation to be provided to Mr Yates upon his release, or arising from the possible attendance of his prospective partner's family members at the premises are such as to require his continuing detention.
I am reinforced in that conclusion by the observation that the conditions which I will impose on the supervision order which I will make will have the practical effect that if either Mr Yates' relationship with his prospective partner does not work out, or the couple do not have adequate accommodation, conditions will be triggered which will enable the relevant authorities to bring Mr Yates back before the court where the pertinent circumstances can be reconsidered. That is because the conditions which I will impose will require Mr Yates to live at the address where his prospective partner currently resides, unless he is permitted to live somewhere else by an officer of the Department of Corrective Services. I will also impose a specific condition to the effect that Mr Yates must notify the Department of Corrective Services of any occasion upon which his prospective partner will not be spending the night at those premises. I note also the evidence to the effect that the Sex Offender Management Squad of WA Police is likely to keep Mr Yates under both overt and covert surveillance in the period following his release from custody. In these circumstances, if either the relationship between the couple does not work out, with the result that Mr Yates is no longer able to live at the designated premises, or the agency providing those premises to the couple decides to terminate the lease, the conditions of Mr Yates' release will be breached with the result that he can be brought back before the court.
I note also that Mr Yates will continue his therapeutic counselling sessions with Mr Summerton and the counselling provided by Holyoake with respect to alcohol and drug use. He will also be provided with a mentor, and closely supervised by officers of the Department of Corrective Services. In my view the general effect of these arrangements, coupled with the conditions to which I have referred, is such that the risk of Mr Yates committing further sexual offences can be managed to the point where the community is adequately protected.

For these reasons, although I am satisfied that Mr Yates remains a serious danger to the community, I will rescind the order for his continuing detention and instead order that Mr Yates be released on supervision into the community for a period of five years, subject to the conditions attached to these reasons.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

DSO 3 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA)

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant

-and-

NIGEL YATES Respondent

_____________________________________________________________________

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTIN ON 1 AUGUST 2016
VARIED ON 12 SEPTEMBER 2016

_____________________________________________________________________

UPON an application pursuant to section 29 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (‘Act’) for review of a continuing detention order made on 15 April 2014 in respect of the Respondent, and the Court having found pursuant to section 33 and section 7 of the Act that the Respondent remains a serious danger to the community, the Court orders that:

The continuing detention order made on 15 April 2014 in respect of the Respondent be rescinded.

The Respondent be the subject of a supervision order pursuant to section 33(2)(b) of the Act, for a period of 5 years from the date of this order, on the conditions set out in the Schedule to this order.

SCHEDULE

THE RESPONDENT must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT

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.
Report to and receive visits from, a Community Corrections Officer as directed by the court.

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.

Be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 19A or 19B).

Not leave, or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Community Corrections Officer.
Not commit a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A during the period of the Order.

Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 19A.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Residence

Take up residence at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.

8A.Immediately notify an officer of the Department of Corrective Services of any occasion upon which xxxxxxxxxxx will not be spending the night at those premises.

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.

Keep a permanent place of residence approved by a CCO assigned to you.

Unless otherwise directed by a CCO, any overnight stays, defined as between 7pm and 7am, at your permanent place of residence by a third party, must be approved in advance by a CCO.

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

Report to a CCO at Central West Metropolitan Adult Community Corrections Centre, Level 2, 30 Moore Street, East Perth, WA 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.
Be under the supervision of a CCO, and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.

Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such arrangements having regard to any employment commitments of you.

Notify the CCO of any change of your name at least 2 days before the change is due to happen.

Not commence or change employment without the prior approval of the CCO.

Attendance at programs or treatment

Consult and engage with any psychiatrist, psychologist, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.
Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious sexual re-offending, as directed by a CCO.

Reporting to WA Police

Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad located at the ‘Hatch Building’ Ground Floor, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 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.
Comply with all obligations imposed on you pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.

If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order, and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the order.

When requested, advise Police of the names of all of your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services used by you and all internet user names or identities used by you.

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information.
Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offence history.

Restrictions on contact with Victims

Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your sexual offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Corrective Services.
Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your sexual offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture, and must avert your gaze from such victim at all times.

Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.

Criminal conduct

Not commit any sexual offence, as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A.
Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.

Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204, s 204A, s 204B, s 217, s 218, s 219, s 220 or s 557K Criminal Code 1913 (WA).
Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996.

Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs or substances including, but not limited to, cannabis.

Curfew

Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 19B of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.
When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or curtilage of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew.

When subject to a curfew under this order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew.

Medications/Mental Health

Attend any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor as directed by the supervising CCO.
Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Corrective Services.

To engage with mental health services and to obey the instructions of the treating psychiatrist with regard to treatment and medication.

Prevention of high-risk situations

Unless compliance with this condition is waived in advance by a CCO, not hitch-hike, nor accept lifts in vehicles from any female who is unaware of your offending history, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
Not allow any female hitchhiker to enter any vehicle under your control.

Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO.

Not possess, consume or use alcohol.
Not to possess, consume or inhale any volatile substance.

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.
Not remain in the presence of females who are affected by alcohol, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
Not remain in the presence of any person affected by a prohibited drug.

Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place.
Have no contact with any child older than 11 or younger than 17 years, whether such contact is in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless
(a)the contact is authorised in advance by the CCO and such contact is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO;
(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)

Where any unsupervised contact with a child older than 11 or younger than 17 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.

Provide details of any contact with a child older than 11 or younger than 17 years both to your CCO and to the Police on the next occasion you report to that person or agency.

Report immediately to your CCO the formation of any domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with a person who has children older than 11 or younger than 17 years in their care either full time or part time.

Not form any domestic relationship with a person who has children older than 11 or younger than 17 years in their care either full time or part time.

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.

Permit a CCO or WA Police to access any computer or any device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer activities, and provide to the CCO or police upon request any passwords required for access.

Other matters

The Respondent’s photograph and locality are not to be published under section 85G of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA).

BY THE COURT

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTIN

I have received a copy of this order. I have had explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it.

Signed by the Respondent _____________________________

Nigel Yates

In the presence of: _____________________________

Name and address: _____________________________

_____________________________
_____________________________

Date: _____________________________