The State of Western Australia v Bradbury - [2025] WASC 90

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BRADBURY [2025] WASC 90
CORAM:   LEMONIS J
HEARD:   14 MARCH 2025
DELIVERED          :   19 MARCH 2025
PUBLISHED           :   21 MARCH 2025
FILE NO/S:   SO 19 of 2024
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND

DAVID BRADBURY
Accused

Catchwords:

Application for a restriction order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Consideration of whether the State has met the requisite criterion for the Court to fix a date for hearing of the State's application - Consideration of whether an interim supervision order should be made

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Weapons Act 1999 (WA)

Result:

Criterion under s 46 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) is met

Date set for hearing of application and ancillary orders made for the provision of expert evidence at that hearing

Interim supervision order to be made

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms T Hollaway
Accused	:	Mr T Hager

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Accused	:	Legal Aid (WA)

Cases referred to in decision:

Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30
The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20
The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405
The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215
The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65

LEMONIS J:

On 17 December 2024, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of David Bradbury under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).
Mr Bradbury is currently in custody serving a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 8 months, backdated to commence on 24 July 2018. He is due to be released from custody on 23 March 2025.
As Mr Bradbury is in custody, s 35(3) of the HRSO Act only permits the State to make its application if there is a possibility that he might be released from custody within the period of one year after the application is made. That possibility arises here.

Section 43(1) of the HRSO Act requires that there be a preliminary hearing in respect of the State's application, which was the hearing listed before me on 14 March 2025. As usual, the State has provided helpful written submissions for the purposes of the hearing.

Preliminary hearing

The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find, pursuant to s 7 of the HRSO Act, that Mr Bradbury is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of that Act. If I am not so satisfied, then I cannot fix a day for the hearing of the State's application for a restriction order.
A 'high risk serious offender' is a person in relation to whom the court is satisfied by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.
A restriction order is made under s 48 of the HRSO Act and comprises either a continuing detention order or a supervision order. A supervision order permits an offender to be in the community subject to conditions. Thus, a restriction order does not necessarily entail a person being detained in custody. A supervision order contains mandatory conditions, and any additional conditions that the court thinks appropriate directed to matters that include the adequate protection of the community. A continuing detention order is an order that the person be detained in custody for their control, care or treatment. Thus, the purpose of a continuing detention order is not necessarily just that of having control over the person. The purpose can extend to the care or treatment of the person.
Section 7 of the HRSO Act sets out the matters that the court must have regard to in assessing whether a person is a high risk serious offender. These matters are comprehensively addressed in the State's written submissions.
In TheState of Western Australia v Williams [No 2],[1] I considered the judgments of Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ, and the judgment of Edelman J, in Garlett v Western Australia, which concerned a constitutional challenge to the HRSO Act.[2] Their Honours addressed the application of s 7 and s 48.
[1] TheState of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 [22] - [37].
[2] Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30.
Having regard to the judgments in Garlett, I expressed the following view, to which I adhere:[3]

Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the court's judgment as to the nature and extent of the possible harm. The assessment of the nature and extent of the possible harm directs attention to the possible serious offences that might be committed and the harm they may cause. It also directs attention to the likelihood that the offender might commit such offences (that is, the likelihood the risk might eventuate). The extent to which deterrent factors have operated to reduce risk in the past feeds into the assessment of current and future risk, as does the offender's historical and current response to rehabilitation. These are all factors that inform the assessment of whether the risk is 'unacceptable'. They are by no means exhaustive…
If the risk is found to be 'unacceptable', the nature and extent of that unacceptable risk then informs the assessment of whether a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. And, as Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ explained, the assessment of whether the order is necessary requires recognition that an offender's entitlement to be at liberty is not lightly to be denied.
(footnote omitted)

[3] Williams [39] - [40].

Further, in Garlett, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ observed that:[4]
While the requirement of an evaluation under s 7 depends upon the offender having been convicted of a 'serious offence', ss 7 and 48 do not envisage the possibility that a restriction order might be made to prevent the commission of a serious offence, whether of the same kind or of another kind, unless the risk of further offending involves a real threat of harm to the community.
(footnote omitted)
[4] Garlett [84].
In respect of the issue before me on this preliminary hearing, Quinlan CJ observed in The State of Western Australia v Winder that:[5]
For the purposes of this hearing, I do not have to be satisfied that a restriction order will be made. It is sufficient if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an order might be made. I emphasise the word might. To say that something might occur, is to say that it is possible. Belief is an inclination of mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting a proposition. For there to be reasonable grounds for belief requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.
[5] The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65 [16] (Quinlan CJ). See also The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405 [20] ‑ [21] (Allanson J).
Mr Bradbury is represented by experienced counsel, Mr Hager who concedes that the criterion set out in s 46 of the HRSO Act is met.
For the reasons which follow, I accept that concession and I am satisfied that the criterion in s 46 is met.

The evidence

In support of the application, the State principally relies upon an affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell of the State Solicitor's Office affirmed 17 December 2024. Mr McDonnell's affidavit, amongst other matters, sets out the details of Mr Bradbury's criminal history, and attaches several reports and assessments concerning him. These include a psychological report, as well as treatment assessment and program completion reports.
Mr Bradbury's current term of imprisonment of 6 years and 8 months is made up of terms of imprisonment imposed for the following offences:
1.One offence of aggravated armed robbery, which is an offence under s 392 of the Criminal Code (WA) (Criminal Code). Mr Bradbury was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years for this offence.
2.Two offences of deprivation of liberty, which is an offence under s 333 of the Criminal Code. Mr Bradbury was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months for one of those offences, to be served concurrently. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 months for the other offence, to be served cumulatively.
3.One offence of unlawful wounding, which is an offence under s 301 of the Criminal Code. Mr Bradbury was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months to be served cumulatively.
The offences described at [16(1)] and [16(2)] constitute serious offences under the HRSO Act.
The circumstances of the offending are as follows.[6]
[6] The sentencing transcript setting out the findings of fact is at pages 112 - 122 of Mr McDonnell's affidavit.
The offences were committed on 20 July 2018. There were two offenders, Mr Bradbury and Mr Lindsay. There were two victims, Mr H and Mr P. The offending was committed approximately six weeks after Mr Bradbury's release from prison in respect of other offences.
The context to the offending was that Mr Bradbury's friend had been driving a car, lent to him by Mr H. Police officers pulled over the car, because it was apparently stolen, and detained the driver. Mr Bradbury's intent in engaging in the offending was to obtain compensation for the driver of the car.
Mr Bradbury directed Mr Lindsay to contact Mr H and arrange for him to come to the address where Mr Bradbury and Mr Lindsay were situated. Mr H attended with Mr P. Mr Lindsay told Mr H to sit on the couch which he did, and Mr Bradbury came into the living room, punched Mr H and then locked the back door. Mr Bradbury took a commando type hunting knife and in quick succession, stabbed Mr H three times to his leg, in particular his right knee. The injuries caused to the right knee as a result were the most serious injuries that Mr H suffered in the incident.
Mr Bradbury made a threat to both victims that if they wanted to leave, they would have to promise to pay $5,000. Further, Mr Bradbury helped Mr Lindsay cut off some of Mr H's pubic hair and Mr Bradbury told Mr H that if he did not pay or if he went to the police, Mr Bradbury would rape a little girl and leave the hair at the scene to frame Mr H. Mr Bradbury was sentenced on the basis that he did not intend to commit such an offence, but the sentencing judge rightly remarked 'that such a concept would occur to [Mr Bradbury] is quite chilling'.[7]
[7] Sentencing transcript, page 114 of Mr McDonnell's affidavit.
Mr Bradbury told the victims to give him everything they had. They handed over $150 in cash, a gold watch and some cannabis.
Mr Bradbury told Mr P to go home to get any valuable items and return or he would 'open [Mr H] up'. Mr P returned with a laptop and some DVDs. While Mr P was away, Mr Bradbury continued to punch Mr H.
The sentencing judge found that Mr H was detained for between 40 minutes and two hours.
Mr Bradbury had previously committed another offence of armed robbery on 8 May 2010.
That offence was also committed with a co‑offender. The circumstances were as follows. Mr Bradbury drove the co‑offender's vehicle to a location a short distance from a service station and parked it there. The co-offender got out and went into the service station. He approached the attendant behind the front counter and produced a large machete, which Mr Bradbury had given him the previous day. The co-offender pointed the machete in a threatening manner and demanded that the attendant open the cash register and give him the money in it. Ultimately, the attendant opened the cash register and took out several cash notes and put them on the counter. The cash totalled $730. The co-offender picked up the cash, ran from the store, returned to the vehicle and Mr Bradbury drove away at speed.[8]
[8] Sentencing transcript, pages 136 - 137 of Mr McDonnell's affidavit.
Mr Bradbury was initially placed on a pre-sentence order in respect of this offence but ultimately was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
In addition to the offences I have just described, Mr Bradbury has a significant criminal record. He has committed numerous offences of breaches of violence restraining orders. Further, he has also committed four burglary offences, which are offences under s 401 of the Criminal Code. All of the offences involve Mr Bradbury entering residential premises and stealing items from them. The most recent of such offences was committed on 16 September 2015 and involved Mr Bradbury producing a 15 - 20 cm kitchen style knife and holding it near the victim's throat. In respect of that aspect of the offending, Mr Bradbury was convicted of an offence of carrying a knife with an intent to cause fear under s 8 of the Weapons Act1999 (WA).
Also of particular relevance to the application presently before me is a group of offences committed by Mr Bradbury on 28 September 2015. The victim was Mr Bradbury's mother. The offences were stealing a motor vehicle, unlawful assault and doing bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation and making a threat to kill. Mr Bradbury's mother was driving Mr Bradbury to a rehabilitation centre. At Mr Bradbury's request, his mother stopped the car and then he became aggressive towards her. During the incident that then followed, Mr Bradbury threatened to kill his mother and bit her leg and face while she was trying to escape. It was accepted at the sentencing that Mr Bradbury did not have the intent, or any obvious means, to carry out the threat to kill. People came to his mother's aid and Mr Bradbury drove off in the car. For these offences, Mr Bradbury was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 1 year and 9 months.[9]

Personal circumstances

[9] Sentencing transcript, pages 316 - 317 and 322 of Mr McDonnell's affidavit.

Mr Bradbury is now 42 years of age.
Mr Bradbury's personal circumstances were summarised in the remarks of Chief Judge Sleight on 21 February 2017, when his Honour sentenced Mr Bradbury for the offences committed against Mr Bradbury's mother.
His Honour was satisfied that Mr Bradbury had been the subject of significant trauma while a young boy. The significant instances that his Honour referred to were as follows. [redacted]. Mr Bradbury's aunt was murdered when he was about 12 years old and his uncle took his life with an overdose when he was about 17 years of age.
Also, Mr Bradbury has been using cannabis and methylamphetamine from an early age. As the Chief Judge observed, with his Honour's typical wisdom, children who [redacted] at a young age sadly often self-medicate on drugs and that leads to a downward spiral in their behaviour.[10]
[10] Sentencing transcript, page 321 of Mr McDonnell's affidavit.
Mr Bradbury left school after year 10 and then did an apprenticeship course in carpentry, mainly working with family members. His work history over the years has been interrupted by his drug use and there have been extended periods of unemployment.[11]
[11] Sentencing transcript pages 317 - 321 of Mr McDonnell's affidavit.
Mr Bradbury suffers from depression. He receives prescribed medication to reduce stomach acid production and anti-inflammatory medication for back pain.
Mr Bradbury's parents are supportive of him and intend to provide support upon his return to the community. At the hearing of this application, there were several family members and friends of Mr Bradbury present in court, which is indicative of the level of support he has available.

Reports and attempts at rehabilitation

The most recent psychological report in respect of Mr Bradbury is dated 9 February 2017. It was prepared in respect of Mr Bradbury's sentencing for the offences committed against his mother.
The psychologist expressed the opinion that Mr Bradbury clearly has treatment needs in the area of substance use and violence. The psychologist was also of the opinion that without intervention, Mr Bradbury's risk remains high in terms of illicit drug use and violence.[12]
[12] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 338, pars 18 and 19 of the report.
Mr Bradbury most recently participated in the Pathways Program in prison over the period 12 April 2021 to 17 June 2021. The program is a 100-hour structured program, which provides treatment to individuals who have a history of offending behaviour and substance use problems.[13] He completed the program.
[13] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 344.
The program completion report summarised his participation and gains made in the program as follows:[14]
Mr Bradbury successfully completed the Pathways Program and made significant gains across all treatment needs. Mr Bradbury demonstrated strong communication skills throughout the program, the ability to reflect on past behaviours and the willingness to change his thinking patterns. Mr Bradbury engaged well in tasks and submitted a highly detailed and specific relapse and recidivism plan for release from prison.
Mr Bradbury had demonstrated a willingness and determination to implement changes that he has made into the community and would benefit from continued support to do so.
[14] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 349.
Mr Bradbury's participation in the Pathways Program has been his most significant engagement with rehabilitation.
Further, Mr Bradbury participated in the Whitehaven Clinic Addiction Recovery Process Program. He completed 12 sessions, equating to 18 hours of one-on-one counselling, with the last session conducted on 30 November 2022. The completion report dated 2 December 2022 noted that he engaged extremely well in counselling and made great progress on developing insight into his unhealthy behaviours and patterns.
I have also considered Mr Bradbury's parole assessment reports for 2023 and 2024. The report dated 25 January 2023 has been endorsed by a senior officer.[15] The report author stated:[16]
Should he relapse to illicit substances and reacquaint himself with negative peers he is likely to present an ongoing risk of harm to the community. However, he has proposed a strong parole plan focused on addressing his treatment needs and reintegrating gradually back into the community and as such, it is considered that his release on Parole with monitoring and supervision would better serve to reduce his risk to the community in the long term rather than his release at maximum term. Therefore, his release to Parole is supported, pending confirmation from The Bridge Inc. that they have a placement for him at his release date.
[15] Mr McDonnell's affidavit pages 373 - 379.
[16] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 377.
The relevance of 'The Bridge Inc.' in this extract is as follows. Mr Bradbury's parole plan proposed that he enter residential rehabilitation in Esperance, which was a 12 ‑ 14 month program targeted at substance misuse. That program did not accept people directly from prison. Mr Bradbury therefore had arranged an initial two-week placement at The Bridge Inc. Mr Bradbury also had arranged to be supported during that time to get his finances and other matters in order by a former employee of community corrections.[17]
[17] Mr McDonnell's affidavit pages 375 - 376.
Mr Bradbury was not granted parole. Amongst other matters, the reasons noted that Mr Bradbury tested positive for drug use in prison following his completion of the Pathways Program.[18] The relevant drug was Buprenorphine, which is an opioid medication available on prescription. As I understand it, Mr Bradbury did not have a prescription for the drug. According to Mr Bradbury's prison charge history, Mr Bradbury used Buprenorphine on 28 June 2021.[19] The evidence does not suggest that since then, Mr Bradbury has had any further incidents involving drug use in prison.
[18] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 35.
[19] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 33.

Mr Bradbury's parole assessment dated 16 July 2024 was completed by different officers to those who completed the earlier assessment and was also endorsed by a senior officer. The assessment did not support his release on parole. The report noted that Mr Bradbury intended to live with his parents for two weeks before entering residential rehabilitation in Esperance. The report also noted that since the previous parole report, Mr Bradbury had incurred 22 'incidents' across three different prisons, although the majority were deemed to be 'non‑critical'.
Mr Bradbury was not granted parole. Amongst other matters, the reasons noted that Mr Bradbury had not participated in any 'mandated intensive intervention since completion of the Pathways Program in June 2021'.[20] It is however not apparent on the evidence before me whether that was because Mr Bradbury was unwilling to participate in further programs, or had not been offered any further programs in which to participate. Also, Mr Bradbury did subsequently participate in the Whitehaven Program, which he completed in November 2022.
[20] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 35.
In addition to the incident involving the use of Buprenorphine, over the period 27 July 2018 to 8 April 2024, Mr Bradbury was found guilty of four prison charges. They were two charges of disobeying an order, one charge of misconduct by fighting and one charge of using indecent language.[21]
Post Sentence Supervision Order
[21] Mr McDonnell's affidavit page 33.
In respect of Mr Bradbury's current term of imprisonment, a Post Sentence Supervision Order (PSSO) has been made for the period 23 March 2025 to 22 March 2026.
Amongst other matters, the PSSO requires Mr Bradbury not to use or be in possession of any illicit drugs, to attend random urinalysis as directed by a community corrections officer, not to consume alcohol, to submit to random breath testing as requested by police, to comply with mental health treatment as directed by a medical practitioner and to attend programs and counselling as directed.
Further, the implicit effect of the PSSO is that Mr Bradbury will reside initially with his parents. He may change that address with the prior approval of a community corrections officer.
The PSSO does not include a curfew or electronic monitoring.
The PSSO report noted that Mr Bradbury had advised his offending behaviour was linked to his relapse to illicit substance use and the offences were committed with persons he met through the drug scene.
The PSSO report also noted the following matters. Mr Bradbury stated he now has a minimum-security prisoner classification. Mr Bradbury has not incurred any negative incidents or charges in prison since June 2024. Mr Bradbury has indicated he would engage with any program requirements deemed suitable if subject to a PSSO.[22]
[22] PSSO report, pages 2-3.
Further, Mr Bradbury has part-time employment available as a trades assistant with a demolition company upon his release from prison.
The PSSO report stated that: [23]
To assist with Mr Bradbury's reintegration and provide support in distancing him from negative peers, an initial curfew may assist as a deterrent. GPS monitoring is not considered to be necessary as Mr Bradbury's offending is not linked to specific areas and it appears both victims [of his most recent offending] are no longer residing in Western Australia.

Accommodation

[23] PSSO report, page 6.

I have said in a previous decision that accommodation is predominantly relevant to risk assessment and has many features that may not necessarily point in the same direction regarding risk.[24]
[24] The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20 [57] .
There are two primary accommodation options available for Mr Bradbury. The first is to live with his parents. The property has been assessed as suitable for installation of electronic monitoring equipment. The State rightly raises concerns about this option, having regard to Mr Bradbury's prior offending against his mother. The second option is for Mr Bradbury to live with family friends. The State does not raise any issues regarding the second option. The property has also been assessed as suitable for installation of electronic monitoring equipment. The family friends have offered accommodation for between three to six months.[25] The one difficulty with Mr Bradbury living with family friends is that it will take Mr Bradbury a significant amount of time to get to the location where he has been offered employment.
[25] Ms Applin's affidavit affirmed 31 December 2024, pars 6, 10 and 11.

My assessment

Conclusion regarding preliminary hearing

In all of these circumstances, and having regard to the matters outlined in the State's written submissions, I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the court might find that Mr Bradbury is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act. The following matters are of particular importance in coming to that view.
Mr Bradbury has committed a number of serious offences, in which violence was used and threatened. Mr Bradbury's risk of committing serious offences in the future will be affected by the extent of the risk that he returns to illicit substance use, or returns to the company of people who are not law abiding. In that respect, illicit substance use has been a predominant theme of Mr Bradbury's time in the community and a significant contributing factor in his offending behaviour.
While Mr Bradbury engaged well with the Pathways Program, his history shows that he has had difficulty positively integrating into the community upon release from prison. In that respect, the offences for which he is currently in prison were committed only six weeks after his release from prison for the offences committed against his mother.
The State does not submit that Mr Bradbury has demonstrated a clear tendency to commit serious offences in a particular way, or upon a particular victim. However, the State submits that Mr Bradbury's criminal history demonstrates he is capable of committing serious offences. I accept that submission.

Interim supervision order

The State seeks an interim supervision order in respect of Mr Bradbury.
Section 58(5) of the HRSO Act provides the court with the discretion to make such an order in this proceeding with effect until the proceedings are finally determined, or until another specified date.
Where there is an existing restriction order application, s 58(2) imposes two preconditions to the exercise of that discretion. They are:
1.the offender to whom the pending proceedings relate is not in custody;[26] and
2.the court is satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an order under s 58.[27]
[26] HRSO Act, s 58(2)(b).
[27] HRSO Act, s 58(2)(c).
Given the first of these preconditions, such an order must operate with effect from Mr Bradbury's release from prison.
If both preconditions are satisfied, s 58(5) provides the court with the discretion to make an interim supervision order on conditions that the court considers appropriate, subject to the stipulation at s 58(6) that s 30 applies to an interim supervision order as if it were a supervision order.
This stipulation brings into consideration (at least) two important considerations.
First, s 30(5) of the HRSO Act provides the court with a broad discretion to impose additional conditions that the court thinks appropriate directed to matters that include the adequate protection of the community and the rehabilitation, care or treatment of the relevant respondent.
Second, the court's discretion as to the appropriate conditions of the order is constrained by the requirement that the order contain the standard conditions set out in s 30(2). Those standard conditions include that the person be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31. Section 31(4) allows for the suspension of electronic monitoring, granting to a community corrections officer the discretion to suspend while satisfied that it is not 'practicable to subject the offender to electronic monitoring', or that it is not 'necessary for the offender to be subject to electronic monitoring'.
Returning to the second precondition set out at [66] above, it would almost invariably be the case that the discretion to make an interim supervision order would be exercised if the court is satisfied of that precondition. That is, if the court is of the view that to ensure the adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an interim supervision order, the court would almost invariably impose such an order. It would seem that in such a scenario, as a matter of practice, the exercise of the discretion is more substantively engaged in determining the conditions of such an order, and not the question of whether it should be made.
The State submits that Mr Bradbury needs a higher level of supervision and monitoring in the community than that typically afforded by a PSSO. Also, the State submits that Mr Bradbury needs to be subject to swift mechanisms for contravention of any conditions provided under an interim supervision order.
The State points to the following particular features of the proposed interim supervision order that are not contained in the PSSO: a curfew, mandated electronic monitoring, the ability for police to more regularly monitor Mr Bradbury and to search his home and vehicle, and that Mr Bradbury not associate with drug users, or attend places where drugs are being consumed.
Mr Bradbury's counsel submits that the terms of the PSSO provide adequate protection to the community. Mr Bradbury's counsel points in particular to the requirements that Mr Bradbury attend counselling, not use or be in possession of any illicit drug, attend random urinalysis as directed by a community corrections officer and that any change of address must be approved by a community corrections officer. Mr Bradbury's counsel also points to Mr Bradbury being committed to his path of rehabilitation. Ultimately, Mr Bradbury's counsel says that the restrictions under the PSSO are significant and provide adequate protection of the community.
The task before me is not a balancing exercise between the PSSO on the one hand, and the proposed interim supervision order on the other, to determine which is more appropriate. Rather, the principal question is whether, to ensure the adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an interim supervision order. In making that assessment, an important factor to take into account is the extent to which the PSSO affords protection to the community.
The conditions of the proposed interim supervision order prevent Mr Bradbury from being with anyone he knows, or ought to know, is affected by prohibited drugs and prohibits him from being anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used.[28] These conditions prevent him from returning to the company of drug users. They are important conditions that reduce the risk of Mr Bradbury relapsing into drug use, which is a significant cause of his offending behaviour. They will operate as a powerful deterrent against Mr Bradbury associating with people who are drug users or suppliers. Similarly, the ability of police officers to search Mr Bradbury and his home will operate as a powerful deterrent against Mr Bradbury being in possession of, and using, drugs.
[28] Proposed conditions 30 and 31.
I also consider that at present a curfew is desirable. Mr Bradbury has previously had difficulty positively reintegrating into the community and a curfew will allow him to be more closely monitored. I am somewhat less convinced of the benefit of electronic monitoring, principally for the reasons set out in the PSSO report. However, that being said, s 31(4) provides a community corrections officer with a discretion to suspend the electronic monitoring of Mr Bradbury. Thus, if the views set out in the PSSO report are borne out by positive behaviour on Mr Bradbury's part, a community corrections officer can then consider suspending the electronic monitoring requirement.
I consider that these deterrent features and closer monitoring are important factors in protecting the community that are not achieved by the PSSO. I am therefore satisfied that to ensure the adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an interim supervision order and I am satisfied I should exercise the discretion to make such an order.
In terms of accommodation, I consider it is preferable that Mr Bradbury live at the home of his family friends. This is predominantly for two reasons. First, Mr Bradbury's mother is a victim of his prior offending and it is not an ideal scenario that he live at her home. Second, the family friends live outside the Perth metropolitan area, which takes Mr Bradbury away from the residential areas that have previously been associated with his drug use.
As to the proposed conditions of the interim supervision order, I have previously expressed concerns that the conditions of supervision orders are generally too complex. In that respect, the community is best protected by conditions that clearly set out what an offender cannot do, what they must do, and that can be readily recalled by the offender.[29]
[29] See Williams [11].
The conditions contained in the proposed interim supervision order admirably address the concerns I have raised previously. The conditions use language as plain as is possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that the conditions address matters of importance. I am satisfied that the proposed conditions are appropriate in Mr Bradbury's circumstances, subject to the amendment of the first sentence of condition 18 such that it reads:
Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, you must have no contact with the victims of the serious offending for which you were sentenced on 10 March 2020 (victims), when your most recent term of imprisonment was imposed.
There is no need for this restriction to apply to the first serious offence Mr Bradbury committed in 2010, as there is no suggestion that Mr Bradbury knows who the victim is, or what they look like. Also, in such circumstances, Mr Bradbury could inadvertently breach such a condition if it extended to the victim of the 2010 offending.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the criterion in s 46 of the HRSO Act is met. I therefore make an order fixing the date for hearing of the State's application for a restriction order.
Further, in accordance with s 46(2), I will order that Mr Bradbury undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, and I will make orders facilitating the preparation of their reports.
In respect of those reports, I consider it is beneficial that they address any particular areas of treatment or support which the author considers would assist Mr Bradbury to now successfully integrate into the community.

I am satisfied that an interim supervision order should be imposed pending the determination of these proceedings. I will order that the interim supervision order be with effect from 23 March 2025 until these proceedings are finally determined, or until further order. The conditions of that order are attached to these reasons.

ANNEXURE A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SO 19 of 2024

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant

-and-

DAVID BRADBURY Respondent

___________________________________________________________________________

INTERIM SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE LEMONIS
ON 19 MARCH 2025

___________________________________________________________________________

With proceedings pending on a restriction order application and the Court being satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an order under section 58 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, the Court orders that the Respondent be subject to an interim supervision order pursuant to section 58(5) of the Act, from 23 March 2025 and until the proceedings are finally determined or until further order of the Court, on the following conditions:

You, DAVID BRADBURY, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the prison at the time of your release and advise the officer of your current name and address;
Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the court;
Notify a CCO of any change to your name, home, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens;
Be under the supervision of a CCO and follow any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);
Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO;
Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order; and
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence

Reside (live) at [redacted] and spend each night there (period can be defined by a CCO). You can stay at a different address only if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

On the day of release report to a CCO at the prison or at a place directed by a CCO and allow for fitting of electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake;

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 you have;

Not start, change or increase any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO;

Attendance at programs or treatment

Attend and engage in all appointments as directed. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, support service, mentor and/or support person as directed by a CCO;

Reporting to WA Police

Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, PERTH WA 6000, or their delegate at a nominated Police station within 48 hours of your Order starting and report to and receive visits from Police when and where directed by the OIC of SOES or their delegate;

If asked to, allow Police Officers to enter and search your home and/or vehicle and search you and allow the Police Officers to seize (take) any items they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order. The police officer is to tell you they are using this power before acting pursuant to it;

Remain at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your home and/or vehicle under the previous condition;

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

Agree to the exchange of any information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out the Order, including any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor;

Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with or may spend time with and, where appropriate, to tell them information about you, including your offence history;

Restrictions on contact with Victims

Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, you must have no contact with the victims of the serious offending for which you were sentenced on 10 March 2020 (victims), when your most recent term of imprisonment was imposed. Contact in this condition means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim;

Unless contact with the victim is permitted by the previous condition, if you see any of the victims, you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them and you must look away from the victim at all times;

Report to the CCO and WA Police any contact with the victims within 48 hours of any contact occurring; Contact in this condition means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim;

Criminal conduct

Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which also involves sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;

Not to be armed in any way that may cause fear when in public places without a lawful reason/excuse;

Not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, this includes cannabis. This does not apply to a drug that your doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you don’t use more than the doctor has told you to use;

Curfew

Comply with a curfew, requiring you 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, during the time when you must be at your approved residence:
a) Go to the front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you;
b) Speak on the telephone to any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, if they call to check you are at home.

When subject to a curfew under this order, you must tell all adults at the house who may answer the telephone or door that you are on a curfew and ask them to tell you about attempts by police or a CCO to contact you;

Prevention of high-risk situations

Not to possess, use or purchase any alcohol without prior approval of a CCO;

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 another place for a sample to be taken;

Provide a legitimate sample pursuant to condition 28;

Not to be with anyone who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by prohibited drugs, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO;

Not to be anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used or, if drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of the house, or ask the persons using prohibited drugs to leave;

Not to go into any licensed premises, other than licenced cafes, restaurants and sporting clubs unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
a)For the purpose of avoiding or minimizing a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
b)For a purpose, and for a duration, approved in advance by a CCO;
c)On the order of a CCO or Police Officer.

You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a member of the departmental staff or an agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice.
You must not have any contact, by any means, with your co-offender, Jessie Archibald LINDSAY.

_______________________________
THE HON JUSTICE LEMONIS

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

Signed by the Respondent _________________________________
DAVID BRADBURY

In the presence of: _________________________________

Name and address: _________________________________

_________________________________

Date: _________________________________

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
OM
Associate to the Hon Justice Lemonis
21 MARCH 2025