The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 2]
[2022] WASC 187
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- DEMPSTER [No 2] [2022] WASC 187
CORAM: DERRICK J
HEARD: 24 & 26 MAY 2022
DELIVERED : 26 MAY 2022
PUBLISHED : 27 MAY 2022
FILE NO/S: SO 1 of 2022
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
JACK JAMES DEMPSTER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Whether interim detention order or an interim supervision order should be made pending determination of restriction order application - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Result:
Interim supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr D S McDonnell |
| Respondent | : | Ms A Fedele |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office (WA) |
| Respondent | : | Legal Aid (WA) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
The State of Western Australia v CA [2020] WASC 164
The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2022] WASC 135
The State of Western Australia v Hart [2021] WASC 205
The State of Western Australia v Ratcliff [2021] WASC 31
DERRICK J:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 26 May 2022 and has been edited from the transcript.)
Introduction
On 22 April 2022 I presided over the preliminary hearing conducted pursuant to s 46(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act) in relation to the State of Western Australia's application for a restriction order to be made in respect of Jack James Dempster (the respondent). I was satisfied, in light of the respondent's lengthy criminal record for acts of violence, his significant number of outstanding treatment needs particularly in relation to alcohol and substance abuse and emotional regulation, and the most recent assessment of his risk of committing further violent offences that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find him to be a high risk serious offender. I therefore made orders for the hearing of the restriction order application. I published reasons for my decision (the preliminary hearing reasons).[1] These reasons should be read together with the preliminary hearing reasons.
[1] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2022] WASC 135.
Upon my making of the orders for the hearing of the restriction order application the State made a further application pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the Act for an order that the respondent be subject to an interim detention order until the final determination of the restriction order application. In the alternative, the State applied for an order pursuant to s 58(5) of the Act that the respondent be subject to an interim supervision order until the final determination of the restriction order application. The State provided a draft interim supervision order (draft order) containing a significant number of stringent conditions which it contended should be made to ensure adequate protection of the community in the event that I did not accept its primary submission that an interim detention order was required.
The respondent opposed the application for an order that he be detained in custody until the determination of the restriction order application. The respondent submitted that he should be released on an interim supervision order pending the determination of the restriction order application on the condition that he live with his sister, Ms Ellerina Thomson (nee Dempster), at an address in Hay Street, Kalgoorlie (Hay Street address).
I heard submissions from the respondent's counsel in relation to the suitability of the Hay Street address. However, during the course of her submissions counsel informed me, in substance, that if I was not satisfied of the appropriateness of the Hay Street address there were two other possible accommodation options available to the respondent about which further information could be obtained if the State's application for an interim detention order was adjourned for a period of time to a date which was before the respondent's sentence expiry date.
I heard preliminary submissions from the State in relation to the suitability of the Hay Street address. In essence, the State submitted that the Hay Street address was not a suitable address for the respondent to be released to. In adopting this position the State relied on two affidavits filed in advance of the preliminary hearing, one affirmed by Ms Heather Applin on 13 April 2022 and the other sworn by Mr Martyn James Clancy-Lowe on 19 April 2022. Ms Applin is a Senior Community Corrections Officer (CCO) employed by the Department of Justice (the Department) based at the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU). Mr Clancy-Lowe is employed by the Western Australian Police Force as the Executive Manager of the Sex Offender Registry. The affidavits of Ms Applin and Mr Clancy‑Lowe related to the respondent's proposal to reside at the Hay Street address on release.
The State, in submitting that the Hay Street address was not a suitable address for the respondent to be released to, also relied upon an undated email that had been sent by a police officer to counsel for the State.
In the course of making his submissions counsel for the State made clear that if suitable accommodation could be found for the respondent, the State would not oppose him being released on an interim supervision order. In these circumstances the State did not oppose the respondent's request for an adjournment of its application for an interim detention order so as to give him the opportunity to obtain further information about the two additional accommodation options.
Ultimately, I decided to agree to the respondent's request to adjourn the State's application for an interim detention order. I adjourned the application to 24 May 2022. I did so because I formed the view that I should, before deciding if the respondent could be released on an interim supervision order, have before me information relating to all possible accommodation options for him.
On 24 May 2022, after hearing further submissions from counsel and to enable the State to provide some additional information in relation to a possible accommodation option, I again adjourned the application for an interim detention order. I adjourned the application to today's date.
At the preliminary hearing the respondent's counsel indicated that she would attempt to obtain affidavit evidence prior to 24 May 2022 in support of some or all of the assertions that she had made from the bar table on the respondent's instructions in relation to the suitability of the Hay Street address. Counsel was not able to obtain any such affidavit evidence although she did on the morning of the hearing on 24 May 2022 provide me with a letter written by Ms Thomson dated 24 May 2022.
Since the preliminary hearing the State has filed a further affidavit relating to the Hay Street address affirmed by Ms Bethwyn Miller dated 3 May 2022. Ms Miller is a Senior CCO employed in the Department's Corrective Services Division. She is based at the COMU in Perth.
Additional accommodation options
After the preliminary hearing the respondent identified two additional addresses as possible suitable addresses for him to be released to on an interim supervision order. The first of the additional identified addresses was in Johnston Street, Kalgoorlie (Johnston Street address). The second of the additional identified addresses was in Victoria Park (Victoria Park address).
In response to the respondent's identification of the Johnston Street address and the Victoria Park address as additional accommodation options for him, the State has since the preliminary hearing filed a further affidavit sworn by Mr Clancy-Lowe on 18 May 2022, and two affidavits affirmed by Ms Nadine Minnock on 20 May 2022 and 25 May 2022. Ms Minnock is an Acting Team Leader employed by the Department's Corrective Services Division. She is based at the COMU in Perth.
For reasons that will become apparent from what I am about to say the Johnston Street address is no longer an available address for the respondent to be released to.
The respondent's preference remains for him to be released to live at the Hay Street address. However, he is willing, if I find the Hay Street address to be unsuitable, to be released to the Victoria Park address.
The Hay Street address
With respect to the Hay Street address, the affidavits of Ms Applin and Mr Clancy-Lowe reveal the following:
1.Police records indicate that Ms Thomson has been subject to antisocial behaviour related incidents while under the influence of alcohol;
2.Police records indicate that the address has been subject to frequent visitors that became involved in antisocial behaviour and alcohol use, including incidents of family violence; and
3.The victim of the respondent's most recent offence for which he is currently imprisoned (index offence), who has a Violence Restraining Order against the respondent, presently resides 2.3 km from the address.
The above referred to email provided by the police officer to counsel for the State contains some additional information about the incidents of antisocial behaviour and domestic violence that have occurred at the Hay Street address and have involved, directly or indirectly, Ms Thomson. The email refers to five separate incidents, the first of which occurred on 27 March 2018 and the last of which occurred on 27 July 2021.
During the preliminary hearing and in response to the issues raised in the affidavits of Ms Applin and Mr Clancy-Lowe in relation to the Hay Street address, the respondent's counsel informed me of the following:
1.She had spoken to Ms Thomson;
2.Ms Thomson had told her that although over the years antisocial family members (including extended family members) had attended the Hay Street address, these family members no longer live in Kalgoorlie and are no longer welcome at the address. The Hay Street address is a very quiet address these days. Nobody attends the Hay Street address other than her cousin with whom she undertakes Bible studies twice a week;
3.Ms Thomson had told her that although she has in the past had some personal difficulties, she has now overcome those difficulties by doing Bible studies;
4.Ms Thomson had told her that she believes that she is going to be offered a job imminently and that a condition of her employment will be that she subject herself to random urinalysis and breath testing every morning;
5.Ms Thomson had told her that she is not drinking at all now and that she will not tolerate drugs or alcohol at the Hay Street address;
6.Ms Thomson is eager to assist the respondent; and
7.The Hay Street address is three minutes from the Kalgoorlie Police Station and on the same street as the police station.
During the preliminary hearing the respondent's counsel informed me that there is a Community Corrections Office in Kalgoorlie, that there are rehabilitation services readily available in Kalgoorlie and that the respondent could, if he was living at the Hay Street address, be subjected to electronic monitoring and exclusion zones. The respondent's counsel submitted that electronic monitoring and exclusion zones ought to give the court comfort in respect of the victim of the index offence.
During the preliminary hearing the respondent's counsel also informed me of the following additional matters.
First, the respondent's instructions are that he now accepts that his relationship with the victim of the index offence is over, that he understands that there is a life-time Violence Restraining Order in place and that he has no interest in re-establishing a relationship with the victim.
Second, the respondent's instructions are that he now accepts that he must change, that he is ready to change and that he has decided that he will not drink at all particularly given that he knows that his sister will not permit alcohol consumption in her house.
Third, the respondent, if he is released to live in Kalgoorlie, will have the support of his uncle, Mr Elvis Stokes, with whom he has a close relationship. Mr Stokes works for the Aboriginal Legal Service and is a Pastor in the local Aboriginal community.
Fourth, Ms Thomson has been in touch with the PCYC which runs a program for Indigenous men who have recently been released from custody and which is directed at providing them with skills and training with a view to facilitating them obtaining employment. The fact that the respondent's sister has done this demonstrates her bona fides in relation to assisting the respondent.
Fifth, Mr Leigh Thomson, the occupier of the Johnston Street address, is Ms Thomson's former partner. Ms Thomson enjoys a close relationship with Mr Thomson. Mr Thomson is employed as a supervisor at an assay laboratory in Kalgoorlie. Ms Thomson has spoken to Mr Thomson. Mr Thomson has indicated that he is willing to speak to his employer to see if he can obtain some work for the respondent.
The information contained in Ms Miller's affidavit in relation to the Hay Street address (which as I have indicated was affirmed after the preliminary hearing) is as follows:
1.On 2 May 2022 she spoke to the respondent who told her that his sister Ms Thomson had reconciled with Mr Thomson and that they were living together at the Hay Street address;
2.On 2 May 2022 she spoke to Ms Thomson who confirmed that she had reconciled with her partner Mr Thomson and that they were residing together at the Hay Street address with their two children aged 6 and 8;
3.Ms Thomson confirmed her previous advice that she is willing to have the respondent live with her and her family if he is released to the community; and
4.Ms Thomson was unable to provide the respondent with additional accommodation options in the community.
In his affidavit sworn on 18 May 2022 Mr Clancy-Lowe deposes that Mr Thomson has criminal convictions related to aggravated burglary, armed robbery, unlawful possession of cannabis and assault.
It is due to the fact that Mr Thomson has moved into the Hay Street address that the Johnston Street address is no longer an available address for the respondent to be released to.
During the hearing on 24 May 2022 the respondent's counsel confirmed much of what she told me during the preliminary hearing. Counsel informed me that Mr Thomson and Ms Thomson are aware of the respondent's prior sexual offences and do not hold any concerns for the safety of their two children (a boy and a girl). Counsel informed me that the respondent knows that his former partner, the victim of the index offence, is in a new relationship and that his relationship with her is over. Counsel informed me that the respondent's instructions are that he wants to lead a prosocial life. Counsel also informed me that on her instructions there is a prospect of Mr Thomson being able to secure employment for the respondent at his place of work.
In her letter Ms Thomson in essence confirms the information provided to me by the respondent's counsel. She states that she has been free from alcohol for eight months. She states that she has been issued by the government with the 'INDUE' card which cannot be used by her to purchase alcohol. She states that she does not have any cash to purchase alcohol. She states that there is no alcohol and no drugs in her house. She emphasises her desire to help the respondent and expresses confidence in her ability to not only ensure that he abstains from drinking alcohol but also to guide him in the right direction in life.
In the circumstances to which I have referred the respondent's counsel submits that the Hay Street address is a suitable address for the respondent to be released to on an interim supervision order.
In relation to the issue of two young children living at the Hay Street address, the respondent's counsel submits that the fact that the respondent committed his sexual offences years ago reveals that he does not have paedophilic tendencies. She submits that the fact that Mr Thomson and Ms Thomson are alive to the respondent's past offending is a protective factor. She submits that if the respondent is released to the Hay Street address the children will not be in danger.
The State submits that despite the matters raised by the respondent the Hay Street address is not a suitable address for him to be released to. The State's reasons for making this submission, which are founded on the content of the affidavits to which I have referred are, in essence, as follows:
1.Ms Thomson has been involved in antisocial behaviour related incidents while under the influence of alcohol;
2.The Hay Street address has been subject to frequent visitors that become involved in antisocial behaviour and alcohol use including family violence incidents;
3.The victim of the index offence lives within 2.3 km of the Hay Street address;
4.Two young children now live at the Hay Street address; and
5.Mr Thomson has criminal convictions for aggravated burglary, armed robbery, unlawful possession of cannabis and assault.
The State refers in this context to the fact that there are now two young children living at the Hay Street address given the respondent's two prior convictions in 2005 and 2007 for indecent dealing type offences against young girls (one involving the touching of the breasts of a 14‑year-old girl and the other involving him exposing his penis to an 8‑year-old girl). However, in considering this aspect of the State's argument it does need to be borne in mind that at the preliminary hearing I was not satisfied on the material before me that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the court, by reason of the respondent's convictions for the sexual offences approximately 15 years ago, might find that he is a high risk serious offender (that is, might find that it was necessary to make a restriction order in relation to him to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence comprised of a sexual offence).[2]
[2] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [37].
The Victoria Park address
I turn to the Victoria Park address.
In his affidavit sworn on 18 May 2022 Mr Clancy-Lowe deposes to the following matters.
The Victoria Park address is occupied by Mr Delson John Stokes. Mr Stokes has criminal convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm, criminal damage, stealing and fraud.
The Victoria Park address has a number of domestic violence incidents recorded against it in the last 12 months. However, the incidents related to visiting relatives and did not involve Mr Stokes.
Mr Clancy-Lowe does not in his affidavit specify when Mr Stokes was convicted of the offences he refers to.
During the hearing on 24 May 2022 the respondent's counsel informed me that she had spoken to Mr Stokes on 23 May 2022. Counsel informed me that Mr Stokes expressed to her his willingness and eagerness to assist the respondent by allowing him to live at his address. Counsel informed me that Mr Stokes is a renowned Aboriginal musician, that he is an activist for Aboriginal people and that he will not allow antisocial behaviour to occur at his address.
In her affidavit affirmed on 25 May 2022 Ms Minnock deposes to the following matters in relation to the Victoria Park address and Mr Stokes:
1.She spoke to Mr Stokes, the respondent's uncle, by telephone on 24 May 2022;
2.Mr Stokes told her that he lives at the Victoria Park address by himself and that the address is a one bedroom property;
3.Mr Stokes confirmed his willingness for the respondent to reside with him at the Victoria Park address. The respondent will be sleeping in the lounge room;
4.Mr Stokes told her that he is currently applying through the Department of Housing for another property which he hoped would have two bedrooms and confirmed his willingness for the respondent to move with him if another property is allocated to him;
5.Mr Stokes reported that he is aware of the respondent's offending behaviour and stated that he wanted to support and provide guidance to the respondent;
6.Mr Stokes reported that is aware of the respondent's offending against children and stated that he has told his family and associates that children are not to come to his house and that he would visit them at their homes;
7.Mr Stokes stated that he is aware that the respondent may have restrictions on his ability to have contact with children;
8.Mr Stokes stated that he did not consume alcohol or illicit substances and that he would not allow illicit substance use or alcohol use in his home; and
9.Mr Stokes acknowledged that the respondent could be subject to stringent conditions including electronic monitoring and again confirmed his support for the respondent.
The respondent's counsel submits that if I am not persuaded that the Hay Street address is an appropriate address for the respondent to be released to I should, on the information before me, find that the Victoria Park address is a suitable address for the respondent to be released to.
The State, in light of the information that has now been provided in relation to the Victoria Park address, does not suggest that the address is not an appropriate address for the respondent to be released to. The State accepts that it is appropriate to release the respondent on an interim supervision order on the condition that he reside at the Victoria Park address. Despite the State's concession it is, of course, for me to decide whether the respondent should be released.
Interim supervision order
I come back then to the question for my determination, specifically whether I should make an interim detention order pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the Act or an interim supervision order pursuant to s 58(5) of the Act. As is apparent from what I have said, the respondent does not suggest that it is appropriate for him to be released without any restriction.
The answer to the question whether I should make an interim detention order or an interim supervision order depends ultimately on my assessment of what is required to ensure adequate protection of the community against the risk that the respondent will commit a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act pending the determination of the restriction order application.[3] In making this assessment I must bear in mind not only that the scheme of the Act requires that the court do no more than is necessary to achieve an adequate degree of protection of the community but also that the respondent has not been found by the court to be a high risk serious offender. Given that there has been no finding by the court that the respondent is a high risk serious offender I should only make an interim detention order if I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the making of such an order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community against the risk that the respondent will commit a 'serious offence'.
[3] Act, s 58(2)(c).
In the circumstances of this case, my determination of whether it is necessary to make an interim detention order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the risk that the respondent will commit a 'serious offence' really turns on whether there is suitable accommodation for him to be released to.
With respect to the Hay Street address, I acknowledge all the points made by the respondent's counsel in support of the contention that the address is suitable. I recognise the force in the submission that to release the respondent to an address in the area of his traditional lands and at which he will have family support will operate as a protective factor. I accept the genuineness of Ms Thomson's expressed desire to support the respondent and the genuineness of her belief that she will be able to do so. I also accept that the respondent's currently expressed intentions to abstain from alcohol are genuine. Ultimately, however, I have concluded that the Hay Street address is not a suitable address for the respondent to be released to. I have come to this conclusion given the proximity of the Hay Street address to the residence of the victim of the index offence. In my view the Hay Street address is simply too close to the residence of the victim of the index offence to permit the conclusion that to release the respondent on an interim supervision order that requires him to live at the Hay Street address will ensure adequate protection of the community, specifically the victim of the index offence, against the risk that he will commit a 'serious offence' involving violence. In arriving at this conclusion I have taken into account the following matters:
1.The risk that the respondent will, despite his best intentions and despite the conditions of the draft order, relapse into alcohol use;
2.The clear causal relationship between the respondent's use of alcohol and his violent offending;
3.The nature of the respondent's past relationship with the victim of the index offence;
4.The extreme nature of the violence that the respondent inflicted on the victim of the index offence;
5.The most recent assessments of the risk of the respondent committing further violent offences;
6.The fact that at the time of committing the index offence the respondent was subject to a protective bail condition that prohibited him from having contact with the victim; and
7.The respondent's past demonstrated inability to comply with the obligations of community based dispositions.
To put the matter another way, in my opinion the risk that would be posed to the victim of the index offence by releasing the respondent on an interim supervision order in terms of the draft order to live at an address which is less than 2.5 km away from where the victim resides is such that it cannot be said that to take this course of action will ensure adequate protection of the community, most specifically the victim, against the risk that the respondent will commit a 'serious offence' of violence.
That leaves the Victoria Park address. The Victoria Park address has the advantage of being in the Perth metropolitan area and hence a long way away from the place of residence of the victim of the index offence. If the respondent is released to live at the address he will be able to be subjected to electronic monitoring. It is apparent from the affidavit of Ms Minnock that the occupant of the address, Mr Stokes, will not permit alcohol or illicit substance use at the address, is very supportive of the respondent living with him at the address and will provide encouragement and support to him.In these circumstances I am satisfied that the nature and extent of the risk that the respondent presents to the community including, of course, the victim of the index offence, can be adequately and properly managed under an interim supervision order that requires him to live at the Victoria Park address and which contains most of the stringent conditions set out in the draft order.
I summarise my conclusions as follows.
On the basis of the information before me I am not satisfied that it is necessary to make an interim detention order in respect of the respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community. However, I am, in accordance with s 58(2)(c) of the Act, satisfied that to ensure adequate protection of the community it is desirable to make an interim supervision order under s 58(5) of the Act in respect of the respondent which contains most of the conditions set out in the draft order and which requires him to live at the Victoria Park address. I am also satisfied that the other pre-conditions for the making of an interim supervision order specified in s 58(2)(a) and s 58(2)(b) of the Act are met given that the respondent will not be in custody on a specified future date (7 June 2022).[4]
[4] The State of Western Australia v CA [2020] WASC 164 [30 - 33]; The State of Western Australia v Ratcliff [2021] WASC 31 [42] - [43]; The State of Western Australia v Hart [2021] WASC 205 [32] - [33].
The draft order contains a significant number of conditions that are invariably included in interim supervision orders when the evidence supports the conclusion that the offender is at a high risk of committing serious sexual offences against adults and children; that is, when the court concludes that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a 'serious offence' comprised of a sexual offence (conditions 36 - 43). As I have already stated, at the preliminary hearing I concluded that I was not, on the material that was before me, satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find that it was necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a 'serious offence' comprised of a sexual offence. Nonetheless, I accept that it is conceivable that the more detailed evidence to be adduced at the hearing of the restriction order application might reveal additional information that justifies a different conclusion. Further, the respondent does not, in light of his above referred to prior but old convictions for indecent dealing type offences against female children, seek to argue against the inclusion in the interim supervision order of the conditions contained in the draft order specifically directed at reducing the risk (to the extent that there is such a risk) of him committing a sexual offence against a child. In these circumstances I will adopt the pragmatic approach of including in the interim supervision order the conditions contained in the draft order that are specifically directed at reducing the risk of sexual offending against children (conditions 39 - 43).
I will not include in the interim supervision order the conditions contained in the draft order that are primarily directed at reducing the risk of sexual offending against adult females by prohibiting, without prior approval of a CCO, contact with females in residential addresses or vehicles (conditions 36 - 38). The inclusion of these conditions in the interim supervision order is objected to by the respondent and consistently with my decision on the preliminary hearing I do not think that there is a proper basis for the inclusion of these conditions in the interim supervision order. In any event, to the extent (if any) that the respondent is at risk of committing a sexual offence against an adult female, I am satisfied that the remaining conditions of the draft order are sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the community against the risk. Further, to the extent that the conditions are directed at reducing the risk of the commission of non-sexual offences against adult females the respondent does not have a history of committing serious violent offences against adult females in the circumstances envisaged and encompassed by the conditions (the respondent's only violent 'serious offence' against a female being the index offence which was committed in a domestic setting against his long-term partner).[5]
[5] Condition 44 of the draft order, which will be included in the interim supervision order, requires the respondent to report to his CCO the formation of any friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship with any person.
I will also not include in the interim supervision order condition 15 of the draft order which seeks to impose an obligation on the respondent to advise the police of the names of his internet service providers, of the details of his mobile or landline telephone services and of his internet user names or identities. Having listened to the submissions of counsel, I am not persuaded that the condition needs to be included in the interim supervision order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the risk that the respondent presents. This is particularly so in light of condition 46 of the draft order which will be included in the interim supervision order and which requires the respondent to permit and facilitate the interrogation by the police of any device (including computers and telephones) capable of storing digital data.
Subject to removing a small number of the conditions contained in the draft order in accordance with what I have said in the previous two paragraphs, I will make an interim supervision order in the terms of the draft order. Of course, the respondent should realise that if he is ultimately found by the court to be a high risk serious offender his performance on the interim supervision order is likely to be highly relevant to the court's determination as to whether he should be made the subject of a continuing detention order or be allowed to remain in the community on a supervision order. To put the issue more bluntly, if the respondent contravenes the conditions of the interim supervision order that I am about to make then, if he is ultimately found to be a high risk serious offender, it will be much more difficult for the court to conclude that a continuing detention order should not be made.
I wish to make one further related point for the respondent's benefit. I have at this point in the proceedings refused to release the respondent on an interim supervision order that allows him to live at an address in Kalgoorlie due to the proximity of the address to the victim of the index offence. However, if while he is subject to the interim supervision order that I am about to make the respondent demonstrates his ability to refrain from using alcohol and to comply with the conditions of the order generally, and if he is ultimately found to be a high risk serious offender, his demonstrated compliance with the order I am going to make will inevitably increase the prospects of the judge who has found him to be a high risk serious offender deciding that to permit him to live in the Kalgoorlie area while subject to a supervision order will not pose an unacceptable risk to the victim of the index offence. In other words, the respondent should not think that my refusal to release him to live in Kalgoorlie under the conditions of an interim supervision order inevitably means that he has no prospect of being permitted to live in the Kalgoorlie area under a supervision order if he is found to be a high risk serious offender. As I have said, much will depend on how he performs on the interim supervision order that I am about to make.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
CP
Associate to the Honourable Justice Derrick
27 MAY 2022
4
4
0