The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5]
[2025] WASC 456
•30 OCTOBER 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- DEMPSTER [No 5] [2025] WASC 456
CORAM: MUSIKANTH J
HEARD: 14 & 28 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED : 30 OCTOBER 2025
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 offender - Review hearing - Whether respondent remains a high risk serious offender - Whether continuing detention order should be affirmed or rescinded - Whether community would be adequately protected if respondent released on a supervision order
Legislation:
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2005 (WA) (repealed)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Result:
Supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms T Hollaway |
| Respondent | : | Ms A Fedele |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitors Office (WA) |
| Respondent | : | Legal Aid (WA) - Criminal Law Division |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307.
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4.
Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116.
The State of Western Australia v AB [No 3] [2022] WASC 126.
The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219.
The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424.
The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2022] WASC 135.
The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211.
The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 2] [2022] WASC 187.
The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [2022] WASC 189.
The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387.
The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351.
The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104.
The State of Western Australia v JKX [No 3] [2023] WASC 23.
The State of Western Australia v MAM [2022] WASC 100.
The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 8] [2023] WASC 80.
The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126.
The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] [2024] WASC 348.
The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 7] [2022] WASC 342.
The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [2023] WASC 148. ,
The State of Western Australia v White [2023] WASC 432.
MUSIKANTH J:
On 10 January 2022, the State of Western Australia filed an application for a restriction order in respect of the respondent, Jack Dempster, pursuant s 48(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).
On 22 April 2022, at a preliminary hearing, Derrick J heard the State's application for orders under s 46 of the HRSO Act, and ordered that the respondent be made subject to an interim supervision order pending the final hearing of the application.[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2022] WASC 135 read with The State of Western Australia v Dempster[No 2] [2022] WASC 187.
On 11 November 2022, prior to the final hearing, the respondent contravened his interim supervision order by consuming alcohol and assaulting his neighbour. The respondent's behaviour resulted in the State bringing contravention proceedings against him.
On 21 March 2023, McGrath J ordered that the respondent be detained in custody pending the determination of the contravention proceedings.[2]
[2] The State of Western Australia v Dempster[No 3] [2023] WASC 94 [25].
On 24 May 2023, the final hearing of the State's application for a restriction order and contravention proceedings were heard together before McGrath J. His Honour's reasons for decision were delivered on 16 June 2023 in The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211.
In that decision, having carefully analysed the evidence, McGrath J:
(a)found the respondent was a high risk serious offender as defined by s 7 of the HRSO Act;[3]
(b)was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order as set out under s 30 of the HRSO Act;[4]
(c)found that the evidence before him supported a finding that a supervision order would provide adequate protection to the community if suitable accommodation was available to the respondent;[5]
(d)was not however satisfied the respondent had accommodation which was suitable for the purpose of a supervision order;[6] and
(e)accordingly, made an order that the respondent be subject to a continuing detention order pursuant to s 48 of the HRSO Act.[7]
[3] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [128]-[132].
[4] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [137] - [144].
[5] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [137].
[6] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [145].
[7] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [146]; Order 2 of the orders of the Honourable Justice McGrath made on 16 June 2023.
On 9 January 2024, the State applied pursuant to s 64 of the HRSO Act for a review of the continuing detention order made by McGrath J. That review hearing was listed before me on 14 and 28 October 2025.
On an application for a review under s 64, I must consider whether the respondent remains a high risk serious offender under s 7 of the HRSO Act and, if so, whether it is necessary to impose a continuing detention order or supervision order upon him.
For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied the respondent remains a high risk serious offender and have decided the appropriate disposition is to grant a supervision order.
Legal Principles
The court must hear the application and review the continuing detention order under s 64 and s 66 of the HRSO Act.
In reviewing the order, the court must determine whether the offender remains a high risk serious offender.[8]
[8] HRSO Act s 66.
The respondent is a high risk serious offender for the purposes of the HRSO Act if 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 in relation to the respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.[9]
[9] HRSO Act s 7(1).
This requires the court, first, to be satisfied that a risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence is unacceptable and, secondly, that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against a risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.[10]
[10] The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [2023] WASC 148 [18]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [2022] WASC 189 [245]; The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [136(d)].
An unacceptable risk is one that is not trivial or transient.[11]
[11] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [136(b)], [138]; The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [20]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [20].
In determining whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community, the court makes two evaluative assessments: one of 'necessity' and the other of 'adequacy'.[12]
[12] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [136(a)], [138]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [19].
In Italiano,[13] in the context of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (now the HRSO Act), Buss JA observed that a finding that there is an 'unacceptable risk' is an evaluative and predictive finding of fact involving a balancing exercise in which the court is required, on the one hand, to have regard to, among other things, the nature of the risk (the commission of a serious offence with serious consequences for the victim) and the likelihood of the risk materialising and, on the other hand, the serious consequences for the offender (either detention, without having committed an unpunished offence, or being required to undergo what might be an onerous supervision order) if an order was made.[14]
[13] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116.
[14] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [46].
As Corboy J explained in Garlett,[15] the factors identified by Wheeler JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams[16] and Buss JA in Italiano,[17] and the balancing exercises to which their Honours referred, would be most relevant to the determination of whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community.[18]
[15] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [128] - [129].
[16] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [68].
[17] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [46].
[18] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [136(c)].
The approach is:
(a)finding whether the risk is unacceptable by reference to whether it was trivial or transient (which is treated as an exhaustive definition of 'unacceptable risk'); and only then
(b)undertaking the balancing exercise with reference to whether it is necessary to make an order to adequately protect the community.[19]
[19] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [136] - [139]; The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [18] -[22]; The State of Western Australia v JKX [No 3] [2023] WASC 23 [71] - [75]; The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 8] [2023] WASC 80 [18] - [23]; The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104 [19] - [25]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [20] - [21]; The State of Western Australia v AB [No 3] [2022] WASC 126 [27] - [34]; The State of Western Australia v White [2023] WASC 432 [36] - [42]; The State of Western Australia v MAM [2022] WASC 100 [18] - [20].
The State bears the onus of satisfying the court that the offender is a high risk serious offender, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability.[20] The words 'high degree of probability' are incapable of further definition. They import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt. [21]
[20] HRSO Act s 7(2).
[21] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
If the court finds the offender remains a high risk serious offender, the court must either affirm the continuing detention order, or replace it with a supervision order (subject to s 29).[22]
[22] HRSO Act s 68 (1)(b).
If the court finds the offender does not remain a high risk serious offender, it must rescind the continuing detention order.[23]
[23] HRSO Act s 29, 30, 68(1)(b).
Where the court finds the offender remains a high risk serious offender, the court's discretion to either affirm the continuing detention order or replace it with a supervision order must be guided by the paramount consideration of ensuring adequate protection of the community.[24]
[24] HRSO Act s 68 (2).
Supervision orders granted under the HRSO Act are provided for in Part 4 Division 1 of the HRSO Act.
A supervision order must contain the standard conditions set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act, as well as any other conditions the court thinks appropriate for the purposes of rehabilitation, or protection of the community or victims.[25]
[25] HRSO Act s 30(5).
A court cannot make, affirm, or amend a supervision order unless it is satisfied that the offender will 'substantially comply' with the standard conditions of the order.[26]
[26] HRSO Act s 29(1).
The onus of proof is on the offender to show that they will 'substantially comply' with these conditions.[27]
[27] HRSO Act s 29(2) read with s 29(1).
In considering whether an offender is a high risk serious offender, the court may have regard to any relevant matter, but must consider the matters set out in s 7(3)(a) - (j). These matters are considered below.
Evidence
In support of its review application, the State tendered a four-volume book of materials,[28] an email from Dr Sarah Barbas dated 14 October 2025,[29] an updated Community Corrections community supervision assessment dated 24 October 2025 (Updated CSA report),[30] an email from Ms Hollaway dated 27 October 2025,[31] and an email from Ms Fedele dated 27 October 2025.[32]
[28] Exhibit 1.
[29] Exhibit 2.
[30] Exhibit 3.
[31] Exhibit 4.
[32] Exhibit 5.
The book of materials (BOM) contained, among other things, the following materials:
(a)the respondent's criminal history;
(b)various records produced by the Department of Justice;
(c)various historical pre-sentence and psychological reports;
(d)various historical program completion reports;
(e)High Risk Serious Offender treatment option reports dated 19 October 2022, 6 August 2024 and 25 September 2025;
(f)psychiatric reports of consultant psychiatrist Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 1 October 2022, 2 December 2022, 28 March 2023, 16 July 2024, and 25 September 2025;
(g)psychological reports of Ms Julie Hasson dated 30 September 2022, 30 November 2022 and 29 March 2023;
(h)a Violence Prevention Program Completion Report dated 30 September 2025;
(i)two forensic psychological assessment team (FPIT) treatment reports dated 4 September 2025 and 25 September 2025; and
(j)various Adult Community Corrections (COMU) community supervision assessments dated 2 August 2024, 25 January 2025, and 3 October 2025 (CSA reports).
In addition, the State led oral evidence from Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Nicole Bennetts from COMU.
The respondent did not object to any of the State's evidence.
Antecedents - s 7(3)(g)
The respondent's antecedents may be summarised as follows:
(1)The respondent is a 41-year-old Aboriginal man born on 26 May 1984. He is one of four children of his parents' union.
(2)For the most part, the respondent was raised by his grandmother and amongst his extended maternal family. His father died when he was very young, and his mother was unable to care for him due to her alcohol abuse and drug addiction.
(3)During his formative years, the respondent was subjected to physical abuse and was exposed to substance abuse and domestic violence. He witnessed his mother getting 'flogged' by several of her partners and observed a senior relative beat his partner to death.
(4)The respondent received a formal education until Year 8. Since leaving school, he has had sporadic periods of employment having worked as a house painter and as a roustabout. He has reasonable literacy and numeracy skills.
(5)The respondent has been in two meaningful relationships. At the time of his most recent serious offence, he had been with his partner for seven years.
(6)The respondent has a long history of solvent abuse and of using amphetamines, opiates (morphine) and cannabis. He first began abusing alcohol and drugs in his teenage years.
Criminal record - s 7(3)(g)[33]
[33]See also The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2022] WASC 211 [18] - [29]; The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [50] - [64].
The respondent has spent much of his adult life incarcerated. He as an extensive criminal history having accumulated over 150 criminal convictions dating back to when he was 13 years old.[34]
[34] Exhibit 1, Criminal History as at 25 January 2025 (BOM v1, 2 - 20).
The respondent's criminal record indicates convictions relating to driving offences, thefts, breaches of bail, breaches of supervision order conditions, burglary offences, assaults, possessions of weapons, threats, escaping from custody, indecent assaults, performing indecent acts, and unlawful wounding.[35]
[35] Exhibit 1, Criminal History as at 25 January 2025 (BOM v1, 2 - 20).
The respondent's history of sexual and violent offences is of most concern for the purposes of this review hearing. He has convictions for one sexual offence and two violent offences each of which is considered a 'serious offence' for the purpose of the HRSO Act.[36]
[36] HRSO Act s 5 read with sch 1.
The respondent's sexual offence convictions occurred between 2005 to 2007. He was convicted of aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault and performing indecent acts. The respondent's victims were all female and ranged from six years old to fifty-one years of age.
The respondent's conviction for aggravated indecent assault is his only 'serious offence' of a sexual nature. That offence occurred in 2005 and involved the respondent touching the breast of a 14‑year‑old female. He was told three times by the victim to leave before complying after other adults came to the victim's aid.
Since mid-2007, the respondent has not committed any further sexual offences. The only further conviction connected to his sexual offending occurred in 2017 for being near a public place where children are regularly present, without reasonable excuse, while being a child sex offender, contrary to s 557K(6)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The respondent's violent offending, on the other hand, has been more prevalent and persistent. He has numerous convictions involving violent offending dating back to 1997 and last occurring in March 2023. Notably, five of the respondent's violent offences relate to an assault on a public officer.
The respondent's first 'serious offence' of a violent nature was committed on 4 March 2011. The respondent followed the male victim as he was walking along the road and eventually walked in front of the victim to prevent the victim from passing.
The respondent asked the victim why the victim was ignoring him. The victim responded that he did not know the respondent. The respondent then punched the victim to the head twice causing him to fall to the ground. While the victim was on the ground, the respondent took the victim's earphones and attempted to take the victim's wallet.
For this offence, the respondent was charges and convicted with aggravated robbery contrary to s 392(d) of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months imprisonment.
The second 'serious offence' of a violent nature was committed by the respondent on 8 June 2018. It was described by McGrath J in the following terms:[37]
[53]The complainant was Mr Dempster's partner. Mr Dempster was subject to protective bail conditions which prevented him from having contact with his then partner. Mr Dempster, the complainant and the complainant's sister had been consuming alcohol together leading to Mr Dempster verbally and physically abusing the complainant. Mr Dempster stomped on the victim's foot twice causing the complainant to walk away. Mr Dempster then hit the complainant in the back with a chair causing the victim to fall backwards onto a kitchen table.
[54]The complainant stated that she was going to leave Mr Dempster, causing him to say that he would kill her and himself. Mr Dempster then pulled the victim into the dining room by a jumper and punched her in the head repeatedly with his fists. He then took a large steak knife from the kitchen and stabbed the complainant in the head approximately four times. Mr Dempster then hit the complainant in the head with a glass bottle a number of times. Mr Dempster left the premises and did not render any assistance to the complainant, nor did he contact the emergency services. The complainant suffered numerous injuries, including lacerations that were deep to the skull bone.
[37] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [53] - [54].
The respondent was charged and convicted for this offence with intentionally doing an act resulting in the life, health and safety of another person being or likely to be endangered, contrary to s 304(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. He received a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.
Since being released from incarceration for that offence, the respondent has been convicted for one further violent offence. That offence was committed by the respondent on 11 November 2022 while the respondent was subject to an interim supervision order imposed by this Court.
The respondent was convicted on one count of common assault and on three counts of contravening a condition of his interim supervision order contrary to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. These were the contraventions considered by McGrath J in The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211.[38]
[38] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [65] - [69].
Section 74 report prepared for application, and extent of co-operation by the offender - s 7(3)(a)
Dr Wojnarowska
For the purpose of the current hearing, Dr Wojnarowska, a forensic consultant psychiatrist, was commissioned under s 74 of the HRSO Act to provide a report assessing the level of risk the respondent will pose to the community if he is not subject to a restriction order.
Dr Wojnarowska's report was prepared on 16 July 2024 (Wojnarowska 2024 report)[39] and is the second report[40] she has provided the Court pursuant to s 74 of the HRSO Act. Her earlier report was prepared for the restriction order hearing before McGrath J and is dated 1 October 2022 (Wojnarowska 2022 report).[41]
[39] Noting this report is to be read with a supplementary report, also prepared by Dr Wojnarowska, dated 25 September 2025.
[40] Noting Dr Wojnarowska supplemented this report with two further reports dated 2 December 2022, and 28 March 2023.
[41] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2022 report (BOM v1, 120).
Dr Wojnarowska clinically diagnosed the respondent with antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse (in remission).[42] While she previously diagnosed the respondent with adjustment disorder, she has not maintained this diagnosis in her current report.[43]
[42] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [84] - [86] (BOM v2, 254 - 255).
[43] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2022 report [84] - [87] (BOM v1, 134 - 135).
To assess the risk of the respondent committing a serious offence, Dr Wojnarowska employs the PCL-R for psychopathy, the Static 99‑R for sexual recidivism, the HCR‑20 v3 for violence, the SARA‑V3 for intimate partner violence, and the RSVP model for sexual violence.[44]
[44] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [87] - [93] (BOM v2, 255 - 256).
The PLC‑R instrument indicates the respondent has elevated factors consistent with him being impulsive, sensation seeking, and unstable.[45] According to Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent does not reach the threshold for clinical psychopathy.
[45] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [98] - [99]] (BOM v2, 257).
The Static 99-R results for sexual recidivism suggest that the respondent is in the 'well above average risk' category for sexual re-offending. Based on data obtained from other convicted sexual offenders of a similar profile, the results indicate that the respondent has a predictive 25.1% to 37% chance of sexually re‑offending in the next 5 years.[46]
[46] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [96] (BOM v2, 256).
In analysing the respondent's risk of violent and sexually violent offending with reference to the HCR‑20 v3, SARA-V3 and RSVP models, Dr Wojnarowska observed and opined that:[47]
[47] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [119] - [172] (BOM v2, 260 - 267).
(a)the respondent's last violent offence against his intimate partner was a clear escalation of his violent offending;[48]
[48] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [163] (BOM v2, 266).
(b)he is remorseful for his previous offence against his partner, but does not accept full responsibility for it;[49]
[49] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [172] (BOM v2, 267).
(c)he fails to appreciate the seriousness of his offending or the impact it has on his victims;[50]
[50] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [120] (BOM v2, 260).
(d)he minimises and denies committing any sexual offences;[51]
[51] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [146] (BOM v2, 263).
(e)he does not experience any violent thoughts or fantasies and does not exude any views that condone or support any sexual violence;[52]
[52] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [123], [148] (BOM v2, 261, 264).
(f)his previous violent offending was impulsive and committed in the context of intoxication;[53]
(g)he has a tendency to act in an impulsive and reckless manner;[54]
(h)he acknowledges that he has a significant substance use problem and that this problem is linked to his offending;[55]
(i)he is particularly aware that there is a close link between his domestic violence and his substance use;[56]
(j)he has a history of inadequate coping mechanisms which may result in him resorting to maladaptive coping mechanisms and problem solving (reoffending and substance misuse);[57]
(k)he acknowledges he is unable to cope with stress without relapsing into substance use;[58]
(l)he identifies boredom, anger, and unemployment as the triggers for relapsing into abusing alcohol and illicit substances;[59]
(m)he is not cognisant of his own risk and has been unable to identify triggers predisposing and perpetuating factors related to his sexual violence (except substances);[60]
(n)he is unable to recognise or appreciate that stressors such as conflict with his family or partner are an important risk factor for his offending;[61] and
(o)he presents as unmotivated and lacking insight into the benefits of professional services assisting with his reintegration into the community.[62]
[53] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [170] (BOM v2, 267).
[54] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [126] (BOM v2, 261).
[55] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [120], [130] (BOM v2, 260).
[56] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [170] (BOM v2, 267).
[57] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [136] (BOM v2, 262).
[58] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [151] (BOM v2, 264).
[59] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [121] (BOM v2, 260).
[60] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [150] (BOM v2, 264).
[61] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [150] (BOM v2, 264).
[62] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [131] (BOM v2, 262).
In her 2024 report, Dr Wojnarowska opined that the respondent 'is a versatile offender who is likely to engage in both sexual and non-sexual offending in the future, some of which are likely to come under HRSO legislation'.[63]
[63] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [179] (BOM v2, 268).
Dr Wojnarowska observed that the respondent's offences occurred in the context of personality deficits, problems with self-regulation and offence supportive beliefs such as denial, justification and minimisation.[64] She considered that his risk is likely to escalate should he resort to drug use, or should he be subject to psychosocial stressors such as housing instability or relationship breakdown.[65]
[64] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [179] (BOM v2, 268).
[65] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [139], [175] (BOM v2, 262, 267).
In her 2024 report, Dr Wojnarowska opined that the respondent is most likely to reoffend if antisocial family members, intimate partners or peers lead him to re‑engage in substance misuse. She suggested that he would be easily influenced by others to engage in violent behaviour as a means of seeking money or items to fund his substance use.[66]
[66] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [138] (BOM v2, 262).
I note that, since the production of the Wojnarowska 2024 report, the respondent has completed a Violence Prevention Program (VPP). The evidence suggests the respondent has made noticeable treatment gains since undertaking that program.
Since the respondent's completion of the VPP, Dr Wojnarowska's assessment of the respondent has been more positive. She observed that the respondent demonstrated a strong motivation to continue to take steps towards rehabilitation which she attributes to the 'difference[s]' he has noticed in himself following the completion of the VPP.[67]
[67] ts 14 October 2025, 269 (Dr Wojnarowska).
In her most recent report, Dr Wojnarowska observed that the respondent now impresses as being insightful, motivated and committed to making positive changes in his life.[68]
[68] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2025 report [14] (BOM v3, 316).
In this regard, Dr Wojnarowska considers that the respondent has now developed a 'good prevention plan', in which he has identified peer refusal and help-seeking behaviours he could implement were he to be released into the community on a supervision order.[69]
[69] ts 14 October 2025, 260 (Dr Wojnarowska).
Nonetheless, despite the recent developments, Dr Wojnarowska maintains the view that the respondent poses a high risk of violently re‑offending in a serious manner if not subject to a restriction order.[70] She considers, however, that the respondent's risk can be managed in the community.[71]
[70] Cf. Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [182] (BOM v2, 268); Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2025 report [15] (BOM v3, 316).
[71] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [182] (BOM v2, 268); Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2025 report [15] (BOM v3, 316).
Dr Wojnarowska recommends that a five-year supervision order would be sufficient to allow the respondent to assimilate, continue to benefit from treatments and demonstrate his ability to positively live in the community.[72] She opines that any shorter period would be inadequate to address the respondent's reoffending needs.[73]
[72] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2025 report [16] (BOM v3, 316); ts 14 October 2025, 264 (Dr Wojnarowska).
[73] ts 14 October 2025, 277 - 278 (Dr Wojnarowska).
Should the respondent be released into the community on a supervision order, Dr Wojnarowska recommends that the respondent:
(a)engage in drug and alcohol counselling;[74]
(b)receive therapeutic interventions focussed on outstanding needs relating to anger, violence and antisocial personality variable as well as assisting with more robust emotional management and coping skills; and
(c)be assisted with obtaining stable employment.
[74] Dr Wojnarowska also notes that a trial of buprenorphine weekly injection should be considered for the respondent.
In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, employment is a strong protective factor for the respondent. She recommends that he be provided with additional supports to assist him gain employment as this 'is one of the most important aspects of his reintegration in the community',[75] and will assist him in developing prosocial contacts.[76]
[75] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [180] (BOM v2, 268); Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2025 report [16] (BOM v3, 316).
[76] ts 14 October 2025, 282 (Dr Wojnarowska).
Other medical, psychiatric, or psychological or other assessments - s 7(3)(b)
Ms Hasson
Ms Hasson is a consultant forensic psychologist. She produced a report dated 30 September 2022 for the initial restriction order hearing (Hasson 2022 report).[77]
[77] Noting Ms Hasson supplemented her report with two further reports dated 30 November 2022 and 29 March 2023.
Ms Hasson prepared her report during the respondent's last period in the community under an interim supervision order. Her report and subsequent opinions remain relevant to consideration of the respondent's risk.
Ms Hasson attributes a clinical diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder to the respondent, and employed identical assessment tools to those adopted by Dr Wojnarowska to assess the risk of the respondent committing a serious offence.[78]
[78] Cf. Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [87] - [93] (BOM v2, 255 - 256); Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [82] (BOM v1, 168).
The PLC-R instrument indicated that the respondent had elevated factors consistent with him being impulsive, irresponsible, antisocial and unstable but that he does not have clinical psychopathy.[79]
[79] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [86] (BOM v1, 169).
The Static 99-R model again indicated that the respondent was in the 'well above average risk' category for sexual re-offending. The results indicated that the respondent has a predictive 25.1% to 37% chance of sexually re-offending within the next 5 years.[80]
[80] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [122] - [126] (BOM v1, 176-177).
The SARA-V3 risk assessment suggested that the respondent is in 'the high risk category for offending against a future intimate partner or family member'.[81] It identified a number of risk factors as present, including sexual jealousy, impulsivity and behavioural instability.[82]
[81] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [121] (BOM v1, 177).
[82] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [121] (BOM v1, 177).
In undertaking a qualitative analysis of the respondent's risk of violent and sexually violent reoffending utilising the HCR‑20 v3 and RSVP models, Ms Hasson observed and opined as follows:
(1)In the past, the respondent had relapsed into illicit substances when leading a prosocial life proved too difficult.[83] His relapses inevitably resulted in him reoffending, often in a serious and violent manner.[84]
(2)The respondent's substance abuse was considered to be a significant risk factor for future offending.[85] The respondent acknowledged his substance abuse is linked to his offending and accepts that has previously been unable to cope without relapsing into substance usage.[86]
(3)Much of the respondent's offending behaviour (sexual and violent) demonstrated deficits in coping skills, affect regulation, general self-regulation and impulsivity.[87]
(4)In the period prior to the contraventions the subject of the proceedings before McGrath J, the respondent appeared to be adjusting well and coping with release and restrictions as well as the stressors of living in shared accommodation.[88] However, at that time, the adequacy of his coping skills were yet to be tested in a serious manner in the community and his coping skills were still considered limited.[89]
(5)If the respondent were to be released into the community, a key factor in him adjusting to community living would be avoiding antisocial and substance abusing peers and high risk situations.[90] In this regard, Ms Hasson noted the respondent had a large acquaintanceship with negative influences which needed to be managed.[91]
[83] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [109] (BOM v1, 174).
[84] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [109] (BOM v1, 174).
[85] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [93] (BOM v1, 171).
[86] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [100], [140] (BOM v1, 172, 180).
[87] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [140] (BOM v1, 180).
[88] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [103] (BOM v1, 172).
[89] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [109] (BOM v1, 174).
[90] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [106] (BOM v1, 173).
[91] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [106] (BOM v1, 173).
According to Ms Hasson, the respondent was able demonstrate insight into the external risk factors for his offending (people, places, situations) but could not recognise the internal factors (i.e. his anti‑authority attitudes).[92]
[92] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [114], [177] (BOM v1, 175, 185).
Overall, at the time of her 2022 report, Ms Hasson considered the respondent was at moderate risk of sexually re-offending, and at a high risk of committing a serious violent offence against an intimate partner or other individual.[93] She concluded that the respondent would pose a high risk of serious re-offending should he not be made subject to a restriction order.[94]
[93] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [171] - [172] (BOM v1, 183).
[94] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [180] (BOM v1, 185).
In Ms Hasson's opinion, the respondent's most likely scenario for re offending in a violent or sexual manner would be in the context of him using illicit substances or misperceiving social cues.[95] She considered both illicit substances and the respondent's association with antisocial peers to be significant risk factors.[96]
[95] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [110] - [112], [155], [159] (BOM v1, 174-175, 181 - 182).
[96] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [114] (BOM v1, 175).
On 29 March 2023, Ms Hasson produced an update for the Court following the respondent's contravention of his interim supervision order. In her updated report, Ms Hasson opined that, despite the respondent's contraventions, his risk could be managed in the community.[97]
[97] Exhibit 1, Addendum report of Ms Hasson dated 29 March 2023 [2] (BOM v1, 194).
In her 2022 report, Ms Hasson recommended that should the Court release the respondent into the community, the respondent:[98]
(a)be subject to a supervision order of at least 5 years;
(b)undertake individual psychological counselling through a service such as FPIT targeting his substance abuse, coping skills, emotional and behavioural regulation, and reintegration into the community;
(c)be encouraged to engage in appropriate hobbies and develop prosocial relationships; and
(d)be encouraged to seek meaningful employment or community based activities to limit boredom and the opportunity to engage in risky behaviour such as substance use.
[98] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [181] (BOM v1, 185-186).
Ms Hasson further opined that the supervision and monitoring services should encourage a 'collaborative approach' with the respondent and should focus on assisting him abstain from substance misuse.[99]
[99] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [181] (BOM v1, 185 - 186).
Propensity to commit serious offences - s 7(3)(c)
'Propensity' means that the offender has an inclination, tendency, or a disposition to commit serious offences either generally, or in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim.[100]
[100] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126 [78]; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178].
The unchallenged psychiatric evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson is that the respondent has a tendency to engage in many types of crimes as a manifestation of his underlying antisocial attitudes.[101]
[101] Cf. Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [174] (BOM v1, 184); Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [178] (BOM v2, 268).
The evidence shows the respondent is prone to act in an impulsive and reckless manner.[102] His prior offences demonstrate a tendency to become disinhibited by consuming alcohol or illicit substances leading to him perpetrating significant violence against strangers or his intimate partner.
[102] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [126] (BOM v2, 261).
The evidence also suggests that the domestic violence aspects of the respondent's offending are exacerbated by the fact that he tends to form relationships with partners with a history of substance use and trauma.[103] This contributes to the instability in his life which leads to his violent offending.
[103] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [165] (BOM v2, 266).
Pattern of offending behaviour - s 7(3)(d)
A 'pattern' as it relates to behaviour, is recurrent way of acting by an individual or group towards a given object or in a given situation.[104]
[104] The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 7] [2022] WASC 342 [229].
There are patterns to much of the respondent's offending behaviours.
First, there is a clear pattern of generally violent behaviour across a number of developmental stages with a clear escalation in his behaviours over time.[105] These violent behaviours are often committed in the context of the respondent being disinhibited due to alcohol or illicit substances and lashing out toward strangers or a partner.
[105] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [89] (BOM v1, 170).
Secondly, and concerningly, there is a pattern of violence against police officers or figures of authority which emerges from the respondent's offending history. The respondent has assaulted public officers on five occasions. It may be that his offending in this regard is linked to his anti-authoritarian views which continue to persist.[106]
[106] Exhibit 1, Violence Prevention Program report dated 30 September 2025 (VPP report) (BOM v3, 296).
Thirdly, there is a clear pattern of the respondent disregarding and breaching community based court orders. The respondent has over 30 convictions for breaches or contraventions of community based orders.[107]
Efforts by offender to address cause(s) of offending behaviour, including participation in any rehabilitation programme and whether participation in any rehabilitation program has had positive effect - s 7(3)(e) & (f)
[107] Exhibit 1, Criminal History as at 25 January 2025 (BOM v1, 2 - 20).
The criminogenic programs completed by the respondent prior to 2023, and their effect on his offending, were considered at length by McGrath J.[108]
[108] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [73] - [82].
To summarise, the respondent had engaged in the following programs prior to the hearing before McGrath J:[109]
(1)The Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Abuse Program in 2009.
(2)The Cognitive Brief Intervention Program in 2011.
(3)The Pathways Program in 2015.[110]
(4)The Connect and Respect Program in 2020.
(5)The Pathways Program in 2021.[111]
[109] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2022 report [54] - [60] (BOM v1, 130-131). See also Exhibit 1, high risk serious offender treatment report dated 19 October 2022 (HRSO Treatment report) (BOM v1, 115).
[110] The respondent attended 10 of the 13 sessions.
[111] The respondent attended all 50 sessions.
In the Wojnarowska 2022 report, Dr Wojnarowska observed that the respondent was reported to be consistent with his attendance in these programs, and to be an enthusiastic participant who made gains and was motivated to change.[112] Having said that, at this time, Dr Wojnarowska noted that the insight gained by the respondent into his offending did not translate into an ability to remain offence free in the community.[113] She indicated that he continued to be unmotivated and lacked insight into the benefits professional assistance.[114]
[112] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2022 report [60] (BOM v1, 131).
[113] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2022 report [118] (BOM v1, 141). See also Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [119] (BOM v2, 260).
Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2022 report [127] (BOM v1, 142).
After the respondent's completion of the above programs, both Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson recommended that the respondent engage in further therapeutic intervention focused on his needs related to anger, violence and his antisocial variables.[115] Ms Hasson recommended that he be assisted with this intervention through the assistance of the forensic psychological intervention team (FPIT), and the high risk serious offender treatment team suggested that he receive this treatment by completing the VPP.[116]
[115] Cf. Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2022 report [173] (BOM v1, 149); Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [182] (BOM v1, 186).
[116] Exhibit 1, HRSO treatment report [24] - [25] (BOM v1, 118)
Since the hearing before McGrath J, as recommended, the respondent has participated in and completed the VPP,[117] and has been engaged with clinical and counselling psychologist at FPIT.
Violence Prevention Program
[117] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 295 - 302).
The respondent commenced the VPP program in early 2025 and undertook the final session as recently as 4 September 2025.[118]
[118] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 295 - 302).
The VPP is an eight-month program aimed at assisting participants to gain an awareness of their offending, recognize factors which contributed to their offending, challenge their thinking and develop a viable and manageable relapse prevention plan specific to their offending patterns and behaviour.[119]
[119] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 295).
In a report prepared following the respondent's participation in this program, it was observed that the respondent was a willing participant and demonstrated an increased motivation to engage in self-application of the content.[120] Initially, according to the authors, the respondent demonstrated limited insight into:
(a)the role of violence in his lifestyle, with signs of victim-blaming, minimisation, and rationalisation;[121]
(b)the prevalence and role of interpersonal aggression and association to his lack of emotional control and substance related problems;[122] and
(c)the stability of relationships with significant others, and cognitive distortions, perpetuating his cycle of violence.[123]
[120] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 297).
[121] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 297 - 298).
[122] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 298).
[123] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 299).
However, the authors of the report indicated that by the end of the program the respondent had improved across almost all of the areas of insight into his offending behaviour.[124] Specifically, the respondent:
(a)begun identifying cognitive distortions such as entitlement, righteous anger, a victim stance and retribution beliefs regarding partners not meeting his expectations;[125]
(b)recognised his tendency to supress emotions, often culminating in aggression;[126]
(c)identified boredom, thrill-seeking, and substance use as key drivers of past impulsive and reckless behaviours, often reinforced through association with criminal peers;[127]
(d)identified jealousy as a key emotion contributing to past and current offences;[128]
(e)acknowledged a pattern of aggression across various relationships and identified resistance to authority as a trigger;[129]
(f)acknowledged an increased risk of violence when using substances and recognised the need for abstinence;[130] and
(g)reported an increased use of adaptive strategies while incarcerated, including thought challenging, consequential thinking, and disengagement from high-risk situations.[131]
[124] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 299).
[125] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 298).
[126] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 298).
[127] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 299).
[128] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 299).
[129] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 298).
[130] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 298).
[131] Exhibit 1, VPP report (BOM v3, 299).
According to the authors, the gains made by the respondent demonstrate progress toward reducing his risk to the community but have not entirely extinguished that risk. They opine that the respondent's risk will remain if he is unable to maintain motivation or unable to utilise his skills and help-seeking strategies.
Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) report
Since the hearing before McGrath J, the respondent participated in ten sessions with Ms Hamlett‑Waller between June 2024 and July 2025.[132] Ms Hamlett-Waller reports that the respondent has made noticeable gains in through these sessions.
[132] Exhibit 1, FPIT report dated 4 September 2025 (FPIT report) [2] - [3] (BOM v3, 288).
Specifically, Ms Hamlett-Waller opines that the respondent in her recent sessions:
(a)was able to broadly identify several of his criminogenic issues, including substance use, emotional regulation issues, managing his time and reintegration issues, and high risk situations (including with family);[133]
(b)concluded that he needed to abstain from illicit substances and alcohol;[134]
(c)reflected on how he would blame his victims/others for his behaviour in an effort to mollify his shame and guilt recognising he did so as a way of tolerating unpleasant emotions;[135]
(d)demonstrated emerging insight into the fact that he is an individual with heightened threat sensitivity and hostile attribution bias, in which neutral or ambiguous cues are interpreted as hostile or malevolent, and violence could be seen as justified or necessary;[136]
(e)reflected on the fact that the respondent was much more susceptible to misinterpreting peoples cues when he is under the influence of alcohol or illicit substances;[137] and
(f)informed her that 'sharing and getting support' was key for him to increase his self-management skills.[138]
[133] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [12] (BOM v3, 290).
[134] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [17] (BOM v3, 292).
[135] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [18] (BOM v3, 292).
[136] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [19] (BOM v3, 292).
[137] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [19] (BOM v3, 292).
[138] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [18] (BOM v3, 292).
According to Ms Hamlett‑Waller, the respondent demonstrated emerging insight and reported having gained rudimentary skills in criminogenic areas such as relationships, substance use, emotional regulation, impulsivity and consequential thinking.[139]
[139] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [23] (BOM v3, 293).
Having said the above, Ms Hamlett-Waller stated that the respondent's gains will be susceptible to deterioration under stress until they can be consolidated and rehearsed over an extended period and in different contexts.[140] She recommends that the respondent receive further intervention and support, particularly if he is to transition into the community.[141]
[140] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [19] (BOM v3, 292).
[141] Exhibit 1, FPIT report [19] (BOM v3, 292).
Other reports
Treatment Progress Reports
Dr Barbas, a senior clinical and forensic psychologist, prepared two reports dated and 25 September 2025. Her report focusses on treatment undertaken by the respondent and gains he has made.
In her most recent interview with the respondent, on 23 September 2025, Dr Barbas observes that since engaging with FPIT and completing the VPP, the respondent has made promising progress on outstanding treatment needs associated with his violent offending and substance use.[142]
[142] Exhibit 1, Updated Treatment Progress report dated 25 September 2025 (UTP report) (BOM v3, 312).
Dr Barbas opines that the respondent has increased his insight into his offending behaviours and high risk situations for his offending.[143] However, she considers that his plans for abstinence and prosocial engagement remain 'somewhat superficial'.[144]
[143] Exhibit 1, UTP report (BOM v3, 312).
[144] Exhibit 1, UTP report (BOM v3, 312).
In Dr Barbas' opinion, the respondent's gains are 'preliminary' and require further development, application and testing across high risk settings.[145] She recommends that going forward the respondent:[146]
(a)complete a further pathways program to assist with his abstinence from substance use;
(b)be subject to urinalysis testing to ensure ongoing abstinence from substance use;
(c)continue to engage with FPIT and focus on treatment that targets violent (including intimate partner) offending, sexual offending, emotional and behavioural regulation, coping and substance use; and
(d)if released on a supervision order, be given support from programs such as Wungening Aboriginal Corporation, Waalijt Foundation, or UWA to develop a lifestyle consistent with community involvement with a focus on educational, occupational and vocational training, and participation in social activities.
Community Supervision Assessment reports
[145] Exhibit 1, UTP report (BOM v3, 312).
[146] Exhibit 1, UTP report (BOM v3, 312 - 313).
The CSA reports are authored by various members of the COMU team.[147] Two matters of particular significance to this application emerge from the CSA reports and the oral evidence of Ms Bennetts.
[147] The reports are dated 2 August 2024, 25 January 2025, 3 October 2025, and 24 October 2025.
The first matter concerns the respondent's abstinence from substances and behaviour while incarcerated. The authors of the CSA reports note:
(a)the respondent has been tested for alcohol and illicit substances on multiple occasions and produced negative results;[148] and
(b)that 'there [have been] limited negative notes recorded against' the respondent by prison staff in terms of his behaviour.[149]
[148] Cf. Exhibit 1, CSA report dated 3 October 2025 (BOM v3, 324); Exhibit 1, CSA report dated 25 January 2025 (BOM v3, 320).
[149] Exhibit 1, CSA report dated 3 October 2025 (BOM v3, 324).
The respondent's abstinence from illicit substances and good behaviour bode well for managing his risk in the community. It supports the opinions espoused by the allied health professionals to the effect that he is motivated to live a prosocial lifestyle and is becoming less reliant on substances as a coping mechanism for stress and conflict.
The second matter of significance which emerges from the CSA reports is the fact that the respondent has now secured different accommodation from the accommodation McGrath J had considered unsuitable for the respondent. More will be said about the suitability of this accommodation later in these reasons.
Need to protect members of community from risk of offender committing serious offence and risk of offender committing serious offence if not subject to restriction order - s 7(3)(i) & (h)
The unchallenged psychiatric evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson is that the respondent poses a high risk to the community of committing a serious offence if he is not made subject to a restriction order.[150]
[150] Cf. Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [182] (BOM v2, 268); Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2025 report [15] (BOM v3, 316); Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [180] (BOM v1, 185).
The evidence before me suggests the respondent's risk is likely to escalate if he resorts to drug use or is subject to psychosocial stressors such as housing instability or relationship breakdown.[151]
[151] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2024 report [139], [175] (BOM v2, 262, 267).
Historically, the respondent has relapsed into illicit substances when leading a prosocial life has proved too difficult.[152] This inevitably led to him re‑offending, often in a serious and violent manner.[153] While the respondent has made noticeable treatment gains into his offending behaviour, these gains are 'preliminary' and have not yet been tested in the community.[154]
[152] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [106], [109] (BOM v1, 173 - 174).
[153] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [106], [109] (BOM v1, 173 - 174).
[154] Exhibit 1, UTP report (BOM v3, 312).
Of particular concern, is the fact that Dr Barbas considers the respondent's plans to seek in prosocial engagement in the community and to resist drug and alcohol usage to be 'superficial'.[155] Despite the respondent's seemingly good intentions, this does not bode well for him remaining offence free in the community as both his substance use and his engagement with antisocial peers are two key factors in his serious offending behaviour.[156]
[155] Exhibit, UTP report (BOM v3, 312).
[156] Exhibit 1, Hasson 2022 report [114] (BOM v1, 175).
In support of this observation, I note that Dr Wojnarowska remains of the opinion that the respondent is a high risk to the community should not be made subject to a restriction order despite his recent developments.[157]
[157] Exhibit 1, Wojnarowska 2025 report [15] (BOM v3, 316)
I am satisfied the expert evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Barbas is acceptable and cogent evidence to support a finding that the respondent is at a high risk of committing a serious offence if not made subject to a restriction order.
Conclusions as to whether Mr Dempster is a high risk serious offender
Based on the foregoing evidence, I find to a high degree of probability that if the respondent were to be released without a restriction order there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. Specifically, I am satisfied there is an unacceptable risk that he will seriously offend in a violent manner towards his intimate partner, a member of the public, or a law enforcement officer.
In reaching this conclusion, I have not overlooked the treatment gains made by the respondent or his increased insight into his offending behaviour. However, having considered Ms Hamlett‑Waller's evidence that the respondent's treatment gains need to be consolidated and rehearsed over an extended period and across different contexts, and Dr Wojnarowska's opinion that the respondent remains a high risk to the community, I am satisfied that imposing a restriction order remains necessary to adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk of the respondent committing another violent serious offence.
Having said the above, I agree with the reasoning of Derrick J[158] that given the time that has elapsed since the respondent last committed a sexual offence and the relatively short time frame within which his sexual offences were committed (approximately 2 years), the court cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent will seriously reoffend in a sexual manner.
[158] See The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2022] WASC 135 [37].
Whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order?
The effect of s 29 of the HRSO Act is that I must now make a continuing detention order unless the respondent satisfies me, on the balance of probabilities, that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.[159]
[159] HRSO Act s 29(1) - (2).
The supervision order must contain the standard conditions as well as any other conditions the court considers appropriate for the purposes of rehabilitation, or protection of the community or victims.[160]
[160] HRSO Act s 30(5).
The standard conditions, which are set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act, are that the offender:
(a)report to a community corrections officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the offender's current name and address;
(b)report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court;
(c)notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least two days before the change happens;
(d)be under the supervision of a community corrections officer and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of s 31 or s 32 of the Act);
(e)not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer;
(f)not commit a serious offence during the period of the order; and
(g)be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31 of the Act.[161]
[161] HRSO Act s 30(2) read with the definition of 'standard condition' in s 3.
Further, even if I am satisfied the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions, he is not to be released unless I am satisfied the supervision order would ensure an adequate degree of protection to the community.[162]
Substantial compliance
[162] The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [38].
The meaning of the phrase 'substantially comply' was considered by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart,[163] in an earlier legislative context and applies equally to the provisions of the HRSO Act:
(1)The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and of the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious [offence].
(2)The question of what will be substantial compliance is a matter of judgment that will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.
(3)The assessment is to be made in the context that it is one aspect of the broader exercise of determining whether the community can be adequately protected if the offender is released again subject to a supervision order.
(4)It is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of the section, in context, that the word 'substantially' is used in a relative sense and involves an assessment of the degree of compliance that the offender is likely to achieve.
(5)While the prospect of trivial or minor contraventions will not (and ordinarily should not) preclude a finding that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the assessment of whether the offender will substantially comply involves considerations other than simply whether any potential breach will be trivial or minor.
(6)The court must be satisfied that the offender will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the offender will commit a serious [offence].
[163] Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. See also The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] [2024] WASC 348.
In Western Australia v Gorham [No 2], Archer J referred to several further factors identified by Fiannaca J in Hart as relevant to an assessment of whether a high risk serious offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions.[164]
[164] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351. See also The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 [52].
In The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211, McGrath J was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.[165]
[165] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [50] - [64].
His Honour reached this conclusion for the following reasons:[166]
[138]First, both Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson expressed the opinion that the risk may be managed in the community by a supervision order.
[139]Second, that prior to the contravention convictions, Mr Dempster 'demonstrated his ability to positively engage with the supervision process and make requests to engage in activities or seek amendments to conditions, such as his curfew, and has further demonstrated his ability to take on feedback and engage in conversation should requests be inappropriate or require more information.'
[140]Third, the contraventions involving the assault, breaching the curfew and consuming alcohol occurred in the context of Mr Dempster residing in accommodation that was unsuitable. Regrettably, the one bedroom residence had many visitors who would consume alcohol which presented a difficult challenge for Mr Dempster.
[141]Fourth, Mr Dempster has complied with the urinalysis testing requirement whilst in the community demonstrating a commitment to his rehabilitation.
[142]Fifth, Mr Dempster has participated in numerous programs over many years and the reports have consistently stated that he was consistent with his attendance, an enthusiastic participant who made gains, and was motivated to rehabilitate.
[143]Sixth, Mr Dempster's background is characterised, particularly during his formative years, by dysfunction and disadvantage, which are all too often characteristics of Aboriginal offenders who come before the courts in Western Australia. Mr Dempster's chronic substance abuse and its role in the offending reflect the socioeconomic circumstances of the environment in which he grew up. The imposition of a supervision order will be a challenge. It is necessary that there be an understanding that Mr Dempster is doing his best to rehabilitate in the community. There will be lapses but infringements should not be seized upon as an opportunity to deny Mr Dempster the opportunity to be a member of the community.
[166] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [138] - [143].
The State accepts that, since this decision of McGrath J, there has been a positive change in the respondent's circumstances and acknowledges that it is open to the court to find that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.[167]
[167] Applicant's submissions filed on 8 October 2025 [65].
In this connection, since returning to prison, the respondent's behaviour has been recorded as positive. He provided consistently negative test results for alcohol and illicit substances, and has undergone both group and individual treatment to address his violent offending. He is now reported to hold a genuine desire to remain offence free in the community and to have accepted that he needs to abstain from any use of illicit substances or consumption of alcohol.[168]
[168] Cf. Exhibit 1, FPIT report dated 4 September 2025 [15] (BOM v3, 306); Exhibit 1, Updated Treatment Progress report dated 25 September 2025 (BOM v3, 312).
In her most recent report, Dr Wojnarowska records that, since his engagement in the VPP program, the respondent impresses as being insightful, motivated and committed to making positive changes in his life.[169] She now holds a higher confidence in the respondent's ability to adhere to any community supervision order conditions, specifically the conditions relating to him remaining abstinent.[170]
[169] Exhibit 1, report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 25 September 2025 [14] (BOM v3, 316).
[170] ts 14 October 2025, 262 (Dr Wojnarowska).
In light of the evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions if release on a supervision order. I hold this view particularly given:
(a)the respondent's attitude and increased emotional control;
(b)the respondent now having obtained stable accommodation and having comprehensive integration assistance provided by Uniting WA;
(c)the respondent demonstrating increased insight, motivation and commitment to engage in his treatment and to lead a positive life free of previous anti-social influences;
(d)the respondent having independently engaging with external supports for his transition (i.e. Waalijt Foundation); and
(e)for the reasons outlined by McGrath J;
Although the respondent has previously relapsed and contravened his supervision order, his engagement with his treatment and his attitude changes indicate that he now has a greater capacity and willingness to substantially comply with the standard conditions than he previously did.
As was noted by McGrath J,[171] it is necessary to recognise there will be lapses in the respondent's compliance but that those infringements should not be seized upon as a reason to deny the respondent the opportunity to be a member of the community.
Are the proposed conditions adequate to protect the community?
[171] The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [143].
In considering whether a supervision order will protect the community, it is necessary to have regard to the respondent's proposed accommodation in the community and also to the specific conditions proposed by the State.
In closing, the State advised the court that the accommodation now proposed for the respondent in the community was suitable and that it would be appropriate for the court to make a supervision order.
Proposed accommodation
The respondent's proposed accommodation is to be provided by United WA. The court is informed by the COMU team that United WA will provide the respondent with both accommodation and additional community supports (as a benefit of residing in the accommodation).[172]
[172] Exhibit 1, CSA report dated 3 October 2025 (BOM v3, 324).
Ms Bennetts gave evidence that the Uniting WA team will:[173]
(1)Allocate a minimum of 10 - 20 hours per week of face-to-face contact with the respondent.
(2)Take the respondent to his mandated appointments (if necessary).
(3)Assist the respondent in setting up bank and Centrelink accounts.
(4)Assist the respondent in navigating ordinary daily tasks such as shopping, taking public transport and attending job network providing appointments.
(5)Assist the respondent in becoming involved in appropriate recreational activities.
(6)Continue any supports on an ongoing basis and adjust the level of support as necessary.
[173] ts 14 October 2025, 284 - 285, 287 (Ms Bennetts)
According to Ms Bennetts, the respondent has already engaged with Uniting WA while in prison, focussing on setting expectations and goals for any release into the community on a supervision order.[174]
[174] ts 14 October 2025, 283 (Ms Bennetts).
At the hearing, Dr Wojnarowska did not hold any concerns about the respondent's proposed address in the community and indicated the type of proposed accommodation was highly sought after for offenders under the HRSO Act.[175] She also opined that the supports the respondent would receive from Uniting WA and the lack of exposure to antisocial behaviours he may encounter with his family, make the proposed address preferrable.[176]
[175] ts 14 October 2025, 279 (Dr Wojnarowska).
[176] ts 14 October 2025, 264 (Dr Wojnarowska).
Dr Wojnarowska was asked whether she had any concerns given the proposed address appeared to be in a densely populated suburban metropolitan area near liquor stores, primary schools, and aged care facilities. Dr Wojnarowska indicated that she did not.[177]
[177] ts 14 October 2025, 280 (Dr Wojnarowska).
According to Dr Wojnarowska, the fact that the proposed address may be located near places frequented by children was not a concern as the respondent was not a paedophile.[178] Nor in her view was the proximity of liquor stores a concern. In this connection, Dr Wojnarowska opined that the success of the respondent's abstinence would ultimately be determined by his intrinsic motivation to remain sober.[179]
[178] ts 14 October 2025, 280 (Dr Wojnarowska).
[179] ts 14 October 2025, 280 - 281 (Dr Wojnarowska).
At the time of the hearing on 14 October 2025, Dr Wojnarowska had not yet had the benefit of desktop spatial data analysis by the Western Australian police. However, on 24 October 2025, the State provided the Updated CSA report which incorporated such an analysis.[180]
[180] Exhibit 3, Updated Community Supervision assessment dated 28 October 2025.
The analysis indicates that the respondent's proposed accommodation was located near vulnerable women and children who had previously been subject to domestic violence, near places where prior drug related activity had been reported, near other convicted child sex offenders, and near schools and day care centres.[181]
[181] Exhibit 3, Updated Community Supervision assessment dated 28 October 2025.
The court was subsequently informed that Dr Wojnarowska had considered the Updated CSA report and that her opinion and recommendations remained as before.[182]
[182] Exhibit 4.
The State also advised the court that COMU had confirmed they could generate an exclusion zone (involving use of the respondent's proposed electronic monitoring equipment in the community) and that travel routes could also be created for the respondent to walk to the bus or travel via car to avoid any interaction in areas of the neighbourhood where vulnerable women and children were known to reside.[183]
[183] Exhibit 4.
After careful consideration of the totality of the evidence, noting the State's submission that the accommodation now proposed for the respondent in the community was suitable, and on the understanding COMU will implement appropriate protective measures of the kind foreshadowed by the State, I too am satisfied that the proposed address provided by United WA is suitable for the respondent should he be released from custody.
Proposed conditions
At the commencement of the final hearing, the State proposed 48 conditions be imposed upon the respondent in the event the court were to make him subject to a supervision order. These were largely agreed, other than the precise formulation of a proposed condition 34 which concerns the respondent's non-attendance at licenced premises.
The respondent's counsel submitted that prohibiting attendance at all licenced venues, particularly cafes, restaurants and sporting clubs, would make it difficult for the respondent to establish pro-social relationships. It was also contended that requiring prior written approval from a CCO would not be feasible in circumstances where pro-social activities may occur spontaneously.
I have carefully considered the concerns raised by the respondent's counsel. However, the practical reality is that nowadays there is frequently a blurring of lines between what is a café, what is a pub, and what is a restaurant.
Following discussion with counsel, and further refinements suggested by the court, a revised form of words for this proposed condition (reflected in the attached orders) ultimately appeared to find favour with both parties.
Having heard the evidence regarding the respondent's risk factors for re offending, and recognising the protective purpose of the legislation does not require the risk to the community to be reduced to zero, I am satisfied that the revised proposed conditions are sufficient to adequately protect the community against the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I make a supervision order in relation to the respondent for a period of five (5) years from 17 November 2025, being a date 18 days from the date of this Order and subject to the conditions which I now publish.
Regarding the period of 18 days, I note that s 27 of the HRSO Act provides that a supervision order must not take effect earlier than 21 days after the date the order is made unless 'the court is satisfied that the implementation of the order from an earlier date is practically feasible'.
However, at the hearing, the State confirmed that it would be 'practically feasible' for the respondent to be released on 17 November 2025 (being 18 days from today). Therefore, I am satisfied the implementation of the order within 18 days is practically feasible for the purpose of s 27 of the HRSO Act.
Order
Pursuant to section 68(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, five (5) years from 17 November 2025, being a date the court is satisfied is practically feasible for the purpose of s 27 of the Act, on the following conditions:
You, JACK JAMES DEMPSTER, must:
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT
Within 48 hours of this Order starting, report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the Adult Community Corrections Centre that you were told to attend before your release from prison, 30 Moore Street East Perth and advise the CCO of your current name and address;
Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the court;
Notify a CCO of every change to your name, home address, 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, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO;
Not commit a serious offence, as defined by the Act, during the period of the Order;
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the Act;
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence
Reside (live) at [suppressed] and spend each night there (period can be defined by a CCO). You can only stay at a different address if you are asked to by the CCO;
Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO. You can discuss with a CCO about ensuring these times and places do not clash with your job/s and other employment;
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 by a CCO. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO;
As directed by a CCO, follow the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending;
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 within 48 hours of this Order starting, and report to and receive visits from Police by the OIC of the SOES or their delegate;
Follow all obligations imposed on you by the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004;
If asked to, let Police Officers enter and search your home and/or vehicle, search you and allow Police Officers to seize (take) any items they believe to contravene the conditions of this Order. A police officer is to tell you they are using this power before acting pursuant to it;
Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under condition 15;
When requested, tell the Police the names of all of your internet service providers, all telephone services you use and all screen names, usernames and email addresses. If the Police request, you must also let them access any cloud-based platforms, services or internet accounts on or connected with the devices you use to monitor your online behaviour (even if you are not being investigated for an offence);
Disclosure/Exchange of Information
Agree to the exchange of any information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out the Order;
Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with or may spend time with, including partners and potential intimate partners, and, where appropriate, to tell them information about you, including your offending history;
Restrictions on contact with Victims
Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO and the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice, you must have no contact with the victims of your serious offending namely Malinta O'Loughlin, Lee Taurima or Alexandria Tucker (victims). Contact in this condition and conditions 21 and 22 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 condition 20, 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 any contact with the victims to the CCO and WA Police on the next day you report to the CCO or Police;
Criminal conduct
Not commit an offence under sections 202 (obscene act in public), 203 (indecent act in public), 204 (indecent act with intent to offend) of the Criminal Code 1913 or any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;
Not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, which includes cannabis. This does not apply to a drug that a doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you only use the amount that they have told you to use;
Not breach, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997;
Curfew
Comply with a curfew, requiring you to remain at and not leave your approved address, as directed by a CCO;
When subject to a curfew under this Order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence:
a. go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you; and
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, tell all adults at your home 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
Report any new social association (someone you have contact with more than once) or new relationship with a female to your CCO when you next report to them;
If told to do so by your CCO, tell anyone that you have a social association or relationship with (someone you have contact with more than once) about your past offending, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer;
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 going with them to an appropriate place for such testing to take place;
Provide a valid sample under condition 33;
Not to possess, use or purchase any alcohol;
Not go to any licensed premises without the prior written approval of a CCO except for the following reasons:
a. avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; or
b. for a reason and duration approved in advance by a CCO; or
c. if a CCO or Police Officer tells you to do so;
For the avoidance of doubt, a CCO may:
a. in giving any prior written approval for the purposes of this condition:
(i)approve particular named premises or categories of premises; or
(ii)give such approval for a specified duration or for no duration; and
b. in writing withdraw any such approval after being given.
Not to be with anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by alcohol or a prohibited drug, unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by a CCO;
Not be anywhere that prohibited drugs or alcohol are being used (other than as provided in conditions 34 and 35) or, if the drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of your home, or ask the people using the drugs to leave;
Have no contact with any child, whether in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless:
a.the contact is approved in advance by the CCO and is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO; or
b.the contact is necessary for a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required 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);
If a child makes contact with you, leave where you are immediately unless the contact is approved under condition 39 above;
Give the name, address, location and any other details of any contact with a child under the age of 18 years to both your CCO and the Police the next time you report to them;
Not form a relationship with a person who has a child, or cares for a child, without the prior approval of a CCO;
Have no contact with, membership of, or association with any clubs or groups where membership includes children, unless approved in advance by a CCO. You must cancel any such memberships if told to do so by a CCO or Police Officer;
Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device that you possess or use that can store digital data or information, whether or not it can connect to the internet (device), including each device's location;
Not let any person, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer, use any electronic device referred to in condition 42 without prior approval of a CCO;
Have a password on all electronic devices referred to in condition 42 and do not tell anyone your passwords, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer;
If asked to do so by a CCO or a WA Police Officer, let them use any electronic device in your possession capable of storing data so that they can check your device-related activities, and tell them any passwords, usernames or email addresses needed to access the device. If any other entity needs to access your devices, the CCO must give prior approval;
Not delete, or allow to be deleted, any data on your devices, including calls, text messages, search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that device, whether or not the device can connect to the internet, without the prior approval of a CCO;
Not possess, hold a licence to possess, or apply for a licence to possess any firearm, ammunition or offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article;
You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a staff member of the Department of Justice (Department) or other persons working on behalf, or with, the Department to provide services;
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
JE
Associate to the Hon Justice Musikanth
31 OCTOBER 2025
0
22
2