The State of Western Australia v Casey [No 2]
[2021] WASC 469
•20 DECEMBER 2021
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- CASEY [No 2] [2021] WASC 469
CORAM: QUINLAN CJ
HEARD: 16 DECEMBER 2021
DELIVERED : 16 DECEMBER 2021
PUBLISHED : 20 DECEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S: SO 11 of 2021
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
DEMPSEY COLIN CASEY
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law – High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) – Interim supervision order – Whether interim supervision order desired for adequate protection of the community
Legislation:
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA)
Result:
Interim supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | D S McDonnell |
| Respondent | : | T J McCulloch |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Respondent | : | Legal Aid WA |
Case referred to in decision:
The State of Western Australia v Casey [2021] WASC 421
QUINLAN CJ:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 16 December 2021 and has been edited from the transcript.)
On 26 November 2021, I heard the preliminary hearing under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act) in relation to the State's application for a restriction order in relation to Dempsey Colin Casey. I was satisfied that in light of Mr Casey's significant history of violent offending and, in particular, the influence of methylamphetamine on him, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Court might find Mr Casey to be a high risk serious offender. I therefore made orders for a restriction order application.[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Casey [2021] WASC 421.
At the time of the application, the State made an application for an interim supervision order pursuant to s 58 of the Act. I adjourned that application to today as the Prisoners Review Board was still to determine whether to make a post‑sentence supervision order under the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA). I considered that it was desirable that I have access to whatever decision was made by the Prisoners Review Board before making any decision in relation to the matter.
The Prisoners Review Board have since made a post-sentence supervision order, dated 8 December 2021. The State renewed its application for an interim supervision order.
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the protection of the community that I make an interim supervision order. I will, however, amend the terms of the order proposed by the State in relation to a number of the conditions.
My reasons for being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the community that there be an interim supervision order are as follows.
Mr Casey has a history of violent offending which is associated, and has been associated, with his substance abuse. Much of his violent offending in the past was committed at various times of the day and night, albeit that his most recent offending has occurred during the day. It must be recognised, in that regard, that Mr Casey has spent a significant period of that time in custody over the past 10 years, although he was released on parole in September 2015 and did not offend again until 7 to 12 January 2017 for the offences of armed robbery and aggravated armed robbery. It is those offences for which Mr Casey is currently in custody.
Mr Casey himself recognises, as I noted in my reasons for decision on 26 November 2021, that his high risk situations include the influence of family and friends who use alcohol and drugs, especially if he encounters stressful situations and struggles to cope. The significant period of time in which Mr Casey has been in prison, together with the inevitable stressors of reintegration into the community, are such that in my view it is in his interests and therefore in the interests of the adequate protection of the community, that his reintegration into the community involves reasonably substantial restriction at the outset with a graduated easing of restrictions, as he demonstrates an ability to prove himself in the community.
In my view, it would benefit Mr Casey to be able to demonstrate a capacity to comply with the more significant restrictions of an interim supervision order (than is the case under a post-sentence supervision order). In particular, if it is considered necessary by his community corrections officer, in order to be able to properly monitor his performance, it should be possible that Mr Casey be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31 or be subject to a curfew pursuant to s 32.
This is not to say, I stress, that he should necessarily be subject to electronic monitoring or a curfew at all times. Indeed, in my view, it is something of a fine discretionary decision whether or not those matters will be desirable for ensuring the adequate protection of the community. While I am satisfied that providing that additional option to the community corrections officers, particularly at this early stage of Mr Casey's release, is desirable in the interests of the community, the community corrections officers should nevertheless give careful and close attention to the circumstances in which those matters are actually required, so as to enable Mr Casey to pursue the kind of prosocial activities he identified, and which are reflected in, the pathways program completion report referred to in my earlier reasons.
For these reasons, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the adequate protection of the community that there be an interim supervision order.
Nevertheless, I would amend the order in the following way.
The purposes of proposed condition 26, which would prohibit Mr Casey from attending any licenced premises would be adequately met by a condition in the same terms or similar terms as that made by the Prisoners Review Board in the post-sentence supervision order.
That condition was not to enter licensed premises except cafes, restaurants and sporting venues or grocery stores, which may have a liquor licence, but with no purchase of liquor permitted at any venue. I would therefore amend condition 26 in the following terms: not to go on or remain at any licensed premises other than cafes, restaurants, sporting venues or grocery stores which may have a liquor licence, unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons set out therein. Condition 25 already prohibits the purchase of liquor.
The other conditions that I would remove as unnecessary in the interests of the protection of the community, at least for the purposes of an interim supervision order, pending the restriction order application, are conditions 30 and 31. Those relate to access to computers or telecommunication devices and searches of such devices. Those conditions are more appropriate in the case of persons who may have a tendency to access inappropriate material.
I do not, in the circumstances, given the powers of the CCO generally to issue directions, consider that it is necessary to have such significant restriction on the use of telecommunication devices or computers.
I certify that the preceding paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
LH
Research Associate to the Honourable Chief Justice Quinlan
20 DECEMBER 2021
0