The State of Western Australia v Atkinson [No 2]

In this case, the State of Western Australia sought to have Atkinson, a high risk serious offender, detained under a supervision order as an alternative to a continuing detention order. Atkinson had previously been found to be a high risk serious offender and was subject to a supervision order. The supervision order was due to expire, and the State sought to have Atkinson detained under a new supervision order for an extended period, subject to stringent conditions. Atkinson argued that the new supervision order would be oppressive and that he had substantially complied with the standard conditions of his existing supervision order.

The legal issues before the court included whether a new supervision order should be made in Atkinson's case, the duration and conditions of any such order, and the extent to which Atkinson had complied with the standard conditions of his existing supervision order. Atkinson argued that the existing supervision order should be extended only if it could be shown that he was likely to commit a serious indictable offence if released. The State, on the other hand, argued that Atkinson should be detained under a new supervision order because he remained a high risk serious offender and posed a risk to public safety.

The court held that Atkinson should be detained under a supervision order for a period of five years. The court found that Atkinson remained a high risk serious offender and that it was necessary to detain him to protect the public. The court considered the risk Atkinson posed, his history of offending, and his substantial non-compliance with the conditions of his existing supervision order. The court also noted that Atkinson had expressed a desire to engage in criminal activity upon release and that he had not taken steps to address his offending behaviour. The court held that Atkinson's human rights were not engaged because the supervision order was necessary to protect the public.

The court made a supervision order for a period of five years, subject to stringent conditions. The order included conditions that Atkinson was to be subject to electronic monitoring and was to be prohibited from using the internet or possessing a mobile phone. Atkinson was also to be prohibited from leaving his home without permission and was to be subject to regular reporting requirements. Atkinson was also to be subject to a curfew and was to be prohibited from entering certain areas. Atkinson was given leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.