The State of Western Australia v Goodall
[2021] WASC 123
•27 APRIL 2021
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- GOODALL [2021] WASC 123
CORAM: QUINLAN CJ
HEARD: 23 APRIL 2021
DELIVERED : 23 APRIL 2021
PUBLISHED : 27 APRIL 2021
FILE NO/S: SO 2 of 2021
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
ADAM RONALD JOHN GOODALL
Accused
Catchwords:
Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Preliminary hearing - Whether reasonable grounds for belief that restriction order might be made - Whether interim supervision order is desirable - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA)
Result:
Orders pursuant to s 46(2) made
Application for interim supervision order adjourned
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | T W McPhee |
| Accused | : | K J Farley SC |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Accused | : | Legal Aid WA |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405
The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65
QUINLAN CJ:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 23 April 2021 and has been edited for publication.)
Introduction
On 19 March 2021, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of Adam Ronald John Goodall under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act).
The preliminary hearing of the application came before me today.
The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is for me to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Court might find that Mr Goodall is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the Act (see s 46(1) of the Act).
If I am so satisfied, the State seeks interim orders pursuant to s 46(2) of the Act, including orders that:
(a)Mr Goodall undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a qualified psychologist for the purpose of preparing reports to be used in the hearing of the restriction order application; and
(b)Mr Goodall be subject to an interim supervision order until these proceedings are finally determined.
The State's application initially sought an order that Mr Goodall be detained in custody pending the determination of the restriction order application. That order is not pursued by the State today, which confined its application to an interim supervision order.
The law
As noted above, pursuant to s 46(1) of the Act, the main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to decide whether the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Court might find that Mr Goodall is a high risk serious offender.
A 'high risk serious offender' is a person in relation to whom the Court is satisfied by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the person to ensure adequate protection from the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.
A 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act includes offences of violence such as doing grievous bodily harm, acts causing bodily harm or danger with intent to cause harm and robbery.
While the definition of 'high risk serious offender' sets a relatively high bar for the imposition of a restriction order (in the sense of requiring proof to a high degree of probability), s 46(1) of the Act sets a low threshold for the purposes of a preliminary hearing. I do not have to be satisfied that a restriction order will be made. It is sufficient if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an order might be made. To say that something might occur, is to say that it is possible. Belief is an inclination of mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting, a proposition. For there to be reasonable grounds for belief requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405 [20] ‑ [21] (Allanson J); The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65 [16] (Quinlan CJ).
The evidence
In support of its application, the State relies upon two affidavits:
(a)an affidavit of Fleur Marie Allen sworn 19 March 2021. Ms Allen's affidavit contains details of Mr Goodall's criminal history and several previous reports in relation to him (including psychiatric and psychological reports); and
(b)an affidavit of India Ahalya Allegakoen sworn 19 April 2021. Ms Allegakoen's affidavit annexes two PathWest Laboratory reports dated 6 and 16 April 2020 and a record of decisions made by the Prisons Review Board in relation to Mr Goodall.
The evidence reveals that Mr Goodall has a long history of offending, including violent offending. He has a number of convictions for serious offences (within the meaning of the Act), including armed robbery (for which he was sentenced to imprisonment in 2011 and 2015) and doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm (for which he was sentenced in 2015). In addition, the evidence reveals that Mr Goodall has convictions in Victoria that would likely amount to serious offences within the meaning of the Act (see s 5(4) of the Act). Mr Goodall has a considerable number of convictions for burglary and misuse of drugs.
In addition to the length of Mr Goodall's offending, the ferocity of his most recent offending (for which he was imprisoned in 2015), is noteworthy. That offending, which included armed robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent, and for which he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 7 years and 4 months imprisonment, stands out for its viciousness. In the course of that offending, Mr Goodall stabbed and slashed his victim's head and neck with a knife and broken wine bottle, causing his victim serious injuries.
Mr Goodall has now served the entirety of that sentence. While he had been earlier released on parole in March 2020, his parole order was suspended the following month because he had used methylamphetamine. When Mr Goodall's sentence came to an end this month, he was placed on a post‑sentence supervision order by the Prisoners Review Board under the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA).
There are a number of reports annexed to Ms Allen's affidavit in the form of pre‑sentence reports, psychological reports, a psychiatric report and treatment reports. Those reports reveal a significant number of criminogenic factors that are relevant to Mr Goodall's risk of reoffending and his potential danger to the community.
Mr Goodall suffered a truly horrible childhood, characterised by physical abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, and homelessness from a young age. Some indication of the dysfunctional nature of Mr Goodall's upbringing may be gleaned from the fact that one of his co‑offenders in his most recent offending for which he was imprisoned was Mr Goodall's mother. Substance abuse has also been a consistent theme in Mr Goodall's life.
Mr Goodall has suffered from mental health issues from a young age, and was initially diagnosed with, and treated for, bipolar disorder. A psychological report prepared at the time of his most recent sentence (in 2015), raised the possibility that Mr Goodall does not, in fact, suffer from bipolar disorder, but that his problems are personality or trauma based and that he suffers from complex trauma. At that time the author of the report, Ms Martin, reported that the violence risk assessment scheme (HCR-20 v3), indicated that Mr Goodall was a very high risk of violent (and other) reoffending.
During his most recent term of imprisonment, Mr Goodall underwent a number of treatment programs, including Pathways (a treatment program for offending behaviour and substance abuse) and the Violent Offending Treatment Program. The reports in relation to those programs point to a progressive improvement in Mr Goodall's presentation.
Mr Goodall was removed from his first attempt at the Pathways program, in early 2016, due to aggressive behaviour towards one of the facilitators.
A second attempt at the Pathways program, in late 2017, was successful. Mr Goodall was reported to have made some gains in the program, although those reports were somewhat qualified. For example the program completion report dated 19 December 2017 stated:
Mr Goodall justified his current offence during pre group interview stating that he was acting in 'self defence' and that if the victim had not have shown him 'disrespect by closing the front door in my face' he would not have had to 'break the window and confront him'. Mr Goodall went on to minimise the severity of the violence and said he believed he was 'owed money' and was going to get what was owed to him.
Mr Goodall stated during pre group interview that his mother was diagnosed with bi polar disorder and that he too, had been diagnosed with bi polar and also with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of childhood trauma. Mr Goodall stated that he chooses not to take medication for his mental health diagnosis at this stage.
Throughout the program Mr Goodall stated on several occasions that he found the program patronising and derogatory and it made him angry to have to sit through some of the sessions. He explained that this was an issue he faced often as he would be triggered when he perceived he was being spoken down to. Mr Goodall chose not to complete worksheets or involve himself in group discussions on many occasions throughout the program. Mr Goodall did make a goal of 'no more negative retaliation' in relation to when he feels triggered.
Mr Goodall made some gains in dealing with his normalising of his violent offence but would benefit from further insight and skills development in this area.
The program completion report for the Violent Offending Treatment Program dated 7 May 2019 was also positive:
Mr Goodall's participation in the program was mostly positive. He contributed to discussions, produced logbooks of a consistently high standard and participated in group activities as and when required. His comments were often insightful and demonstrated a sophisticated intellect, whereas at other times he appeared to misunderstand facilitators' instructions despite claiming that he had understood. He identified himself as at the 'action' stage of change, stating that he had begun the process of change already. His goal for the program was to stop dwelling on the past and to stop anger running his life. He took responsibility for his offending behaviour and expressed regret for the viciousness of the offence.
During the assessment process, Mr Goodall's treatment target areas were identified as: Violence cycle / violent lifestyle, antisocial attitudes / cognitions, antisocial peers, substance misuse, emotional regulation / anger management, and interpersonal aggression / relationships. Mr Goodall has not incurred any charges for substance misuse since 2014 which indicates his ability to abstain from illicit drug use. He made positive shifts in the areas of emotional management and interpersonal relationships by demonstrating an increased ability to manage his mood swings and by learning to assertively articulate the reasons for his irritability in the group, instead of becoming reactive. Mr Goodall intends to extricate himself from antisocial associates and influence upon release and seemed genuine in his resolve, however he also expressed concern as to how he would successfully achieve this. In completing this program, Mr Goodall has fulfilled his Individual Management Plan requirements.
The most recent professional assessment as to Mr Goodall's risk was contained in a report from Ms Wager, dated 29 January 2020, prior to his release on parole. Ms Wager reported that Mr Goodall fell within the medium category for reoffending, although she again expressed some optimism:
The Violence Risk Scale … was used to assess Mr Goodall's reoffending risk and current attitude towards change and his total score suggested he would fall within the medium category. Many static factors are evident, which are unchangeable due to their historical nature. However, Mr Goodall is considered to have addressed dynamic factors through treatment while in custody. Poor emotional control and a cycle of violence related to opposition (underpinned by early fear) were identified as major issues relating to his antisocial history, and during interview he was able to articulate awareness of his difficulties and expressed readiness to address them. His capacity to enact necessary changes will be tested upon release and appropriate supports will play a salient role in that. Mr Goodall has had dysfunctional interpersonal relationships in the past and spoke of his appreciation of the need to ensure he avoids antisocial contacts.
As noted above, Mr Goodall is assessed as falling within the medium category for reoffending, using structured risk assessment and professional judgement. Information available regarding the programmatic and individual treatment interventions he completed indicated he had made positive changes. His father informed he had noted encouraging changes in his son's interaction and communication, as well as expressed confidence his son was capable, of living a pro social lifestyle in the future. Mr Goodall was noted to have presented as calm and mature during interview, relative to descriptions of him in earlier reports. The changes suggested he has developed a greater sense of self responsibility, which could reflect in him being more compliant with supervision requirements upon release than was reported in the past.
When Mr Goodall was released on parole, he attended one appointment with a community based psychologist before being returned to custody. The psychologist upon whom he attended, Mr Duggan, reported:
Mr Goodall only attended one session before his parole was breach[ed] due to a positive urine analysis result to methamphetamines and his parole was suspended.
Mr Goodall's treatment needs remain unaddressed: posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, poor emotional regulation, communication and problem solving skills. He has a long standing pattern of ameliorating his distress with illicit substances, which has been compounded by his associations.
Assessment
I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a court might find Mr Goodall to be a high risk serious offender.
My reasons are as follows.
Mr Goodall clearly has a serious offending history and his most recent offending indicates that he is capable of the most extreme and unpitying violence. That history could well lead the Court to conclude that Mr Goodall has a propensity to commit serious offences and a pattern of committing such offences to obtain drugs and money.
While Mr Goodall has made positive treatment gains during his most recent term of imprisonment and might be said to have matured, the reports nevertheless continue to assess him as being a moderate risk of reoffending and that he has outstanding treatment needs.
In my view, those potential risks and outstanding needs are illustrated by his unsuccessful release into the community in 2020. His early relapse into substance abuse suggest that while Mr Goodall has made progress in programs and counselling, he continues to have difficulty translating those gains into action, a view expressed by Mr Duggan in his most recent report.
On the basis of Mr Goodall's offending history and his unmet treatment needs, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a court might find that he is a high risk serious offender. I will therefore make orders for the hearing of the restriction order application and for Mr Goodall to be examined by a psychiatrist and qualified psychologist for the purposes of preparing reports to be used at that hearing.
Interim supervision order
In the meantime, the State submits that I should make an interim supervision order pending the determination of the restriction order application, pursuant to s 58 of the Act.
Pursuant to s 58(2) of the Act, I can only make an interim supervision order if I am satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make such an order (s 58(2(c)).
The statutory conditions for the making of an interim supervision order therefore include a requirement that it is desirable to make the order 'to ensure adequate protection of the community'.
There is little doubt, in my view, given that Mr Goodall has only recently be released from custody, and the difficulties he faced with compliance with parole last year, that it is desirable, to ensure adequate protection of the community, that Mr Goodall be subject to supervision in the community. Mr Duggan, for example, expressed the view that Mr Goodall requires 'close monitoring for substance abuse' and monitoring of his associations.
The real issue is whether an interim supervision order is desirable, for that purpose, in light of the fact that Mr Goodall is already subject to a post‑sentence supervision order under the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA). That order, which was imposed by the Prisoners Review Board on 31 March 2021 contains conditions that Mr Goodall is:
(a)not to associate with nominees, associates and members of outlaw motorcycle gangs;
(b)not to leave the State of Western Australia without the prior permission of Adult Community Corrections;
(c)not to use or be in possession of any illicit drugs, including cannabis;
(d)to advise his Community Corrections Officer of his residential address and to not change that address without prior approval of the Community Corrections Officer;
(e)to attend programs and counselling, as directed;
(f)to attend random urinalysis for all illicit substances, as directed by the Community Corrections Officer and provide a valid sample;
(g)to comply with mental health treatment, as directed by a medical practitioner or a community mental health team member; and
(h)to have no direct or indirect contact with the victim.
While the interim supervision order proposed by the State would undoubtedly create greater restrictions on Mr Goodall, it is clear that many of the matters which are contained in the proposed order for the protection of the community are already and presently addressed by the post-sentence supervision order.
The one matter identified by the parties in the proposed interim supervision order that would involve a substantial increase in the restrictions on Mr Goodall is standard condition 7. That is the condition, required by s 30 of the Act, that the offender be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31. The Court has no discretion in relation to the imposition of such a condition, and it would be left to the persons supervising Mr Goodall to determine whether he is to wear an approved electronic monitoring device.
Ms Farley, who appears for Mr Goodall, submits that in the circumstances, that additional restriction upon Mr Goodall is not necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community as there is nothing in his history to indicate that close monitoring of his movements is a matter that is relevant to his offending history.
In this context, of course, I note that the standard condition for the use of electronic monitoring, which appears in s 30 of the Act, is in identical terms to that which applied in relation to the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act2006 (WA), which the Act replaced last year. It will be apparent that the need to monitor the particular whereabouts of offenders who present a risk of sexual offending (particularly in relation to children), can more readily be seen to have a connection to the protection of the community from such offenders.
I am inclined to agree that the significant restriction imposed by electronic monitoring in Mr Goodall's case is not something which is necessary or desirable to ensure the adequate protection of the community at this time given the conditions under which he is currently subject pursuant to the post-sentence supervision order.
It is perhaps noteworthy that pursuant to the provisions of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), it is open to the Prisoners Review Board to require an offender wear an approved electronic monitoring device as part of a post-sentence supervision order. Evidently the Board did not consider such a requirement was necessary or desirable in Mr Goodall's case. On the basis of the available material, neither do I.
In support of its application for an interim supervision order, the State also refers to the important need for Mr Goodall to attend upon the examinations by the qualified experts that are necessary for the purposes of the restriction order application and expressed concern as to whether the powers of the Community Corrections Officer under the post-sentence supervision order would be able to extend to a direction in relation to those examinations.
In that regard, I should note that it is a standard condition of a post-sentence supervision order under s 74F of the Sentence Administration Act2003 (WA) that the supervised offender is required to report to a community corrections centre and is required to comply with s 76 of the Sentence Administration Act2003 (WA). Section 76 in turn requires compliance with the lawful orders or directions of any Community Corrections Officer.
In those circumstances, in my view, there are sufficient alternative mechanisms to ensure that Mr Goodall attends the examinations without it being necessary to impose such a requirement by way of an interim supervision order. In that regard, the Court may give directions in relation to the conduct of the proceedings (s 85(b) of the Act).
As I have said, however, it remains the case that Mr Goodall requires, on the evidence available to me, continued supervision in the community, which he is receiving with the post-sentence supervision order. And I accept, depending upon how he performs under the post‑sentence supervision order, it may be necessary that the degree of supervision that he is subject to should increase. In that regard, it is of significance that the imposition of an interim supervision order under the Act can be imposed by the Court at any time in the pending proceedings.
In all of the circumstances, in my view, on the basis of the current material, while it is not presently necessary to make an interim supervision order, in order to ensure the adequate protection of the community, I do not consider that I should dismiss the application for an interim supervision order. Rather, in my view, the application should be adjourned so that it, and Mr Goodall's compliance with the post-sentence supervision order, remains subject to the scrutiny and control of the Court.
In that context, I am satisfied that, if the application for the interim supervision order is adjourned to a date to be fixed and Mr Goodall is directed to attend that adjourned hearing, Mr Goodall will have had sufficient notice that, in the event that he failed to attend, the Court could make an interim supervision order in his absence.
For those reasons, in addition to the orders sought by the State, I would make orders that the State's application for an interim supervision order be adjourned to 21 May 2021 (being the next serious offenders directions list) and that Mr Goodall is directed to attend the adjourned hearing on 21 May 2021.
In addition, I would make an order that Mr Goodall is directed to attend the examinations by the two qualified experts on the dates and times as directed by his Community Corrections Officer under the post‑sentence supervision order made on 31 March 2021.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AK
Research Associate to the Honourable Chief Justice Quinlan
27 APRIL 2021
0
2
3