The State of Western Australia v Haji-Noor
[2023] WASC 145
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HAJI-NOOR [2023] WASC 145
CORAM: VANDONGEN J
HEARD: 5 MAY 2023
DELIVERED : 12 MAY 2023
FILE NO/S: SO 4 of 2023
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
RAMLI ROBERT HAJI-NOOR
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Preliminary hearing - Whether reasonable grounds for belief that court might find respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether detention order or interim supervision order should be made pending determination of whether respondent is a high risk serious offender - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Result:
Interim detention order made
Interim supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms F M Allen |
| Respondent | : | Mr S F Rafferty |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Respondent | : | Legal Aid (WA) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
The Queen v Haji-Noor [2007] NTCCA 7
The State of Western Australia v CJC [2023] WASC 52
The State of Western Australia v Hansen [2022] WASC 391
The State of Western Australia v PAS [No 2] [2021] WASC 59
VANDONGEN J:
Introduction
Mr Ramli Robert Haji‑Noor is a sentenced prisoner who is currently serving a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 10 months. He was due to be released on 8 May 2023, after he had served the whole of that term.
On 19 April 2023, the State of Western Australia applied under s 35(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act) for a restriction order to be imposed in relation to Mr Haji‑Noor, pursuant to s 48. The State also applied for various orders pursuant to s 46(2) of the HRSO Act, including an order that Mr Haji-Noor be detained in custody, or alternatively that he be released subject to the conditions set out in s 30(2), until the application for a restriction order is finally determined.
Following the filing of the restriction order application this Court was required to fix a day for the matter to come before the Court for a preliminary hearing.[1] The preliminary hearing took place before me on 5 May 2023.
[1] HRSO Act, s 43(1).
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, I announced that I was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the Court might ultimately find Mr Haji-Noor to be a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act.
I then made orders pursuant to s 46(2) of the HRSO Act requiring the preparation of reports and fixing 1 November 2023 as the date for the hearing of the restriction order application. I also made an order that Mr Haji-Noor be detained in custody for a short period of time to ensure that suitable accommodation was available for him, and a further order that he then be released on an interim supervision order pending the hearing of the restriction order application.
Following are my reasons for concluding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the Court might ultimately find that Mr Haji-Noor is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act, and for making the above orders.
Relevant legal framework
Pursuant to s 35(1) of the HRSO Act, the State may apply to the Supreme Court for a 'restriction order in relation to a serious offender under custodial sentence who is not a serious offender under restriction'.
The phrase 'serious offender under custodial sentence' is defined in s 3 of the HRSO Act, relevantly, as a person 'who is under a custodial sentence for a serious offence'. For the purposes of this matter it is sufficient to note that an offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 297 of the Criminal Code (WA), is a 'serious offence'.[2] Further, a person is 'under a custodial sentence' if, amongst other things, they are subject to a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of Western Australia, the term of which has not lapsed.[3]
[2] HRSO Act, s 5; Item 14 in sch 1, div 1, subdiv 3.
[3] HRSO Act, s 3.
A person is a 'serious offender under restriction' if they are subject to a restriction order or an interim supervision order.[4]
[4] HRSO Act, s 3.
A 'restriction order' is a continuing detention order or a supervision order.[5] A 'continuing detention order' is an order that an offender be detained in custody indefinitely for control, care or treatment.[6] A 'supervision order' is an order that, when not in custody, an offender is subject to conditions imposed by a court in accordance with s 30 of the HRSO Act.[7] An 'interim supervision order' means an order under s 58.[8]
[5] HRSO Act, s 3.
[6] HRSO Act, s 26(1).
[7] HRSO Act, s 27(1).
[8] HRSO Act, s 3.
An application for a restriction order cannot be made unless there is a possibility that the offender might be released from custody within the period of one year after the application is made.[9]
[9] HRSO Act, s 35(3).
After an application for a restriction order is made the court must fix a day for the matter to come before the court for a preliminary hearing.[10]
[10] HRSO Act, s 43(1).
Section 46 of the HRSO Act provides that the main purpose of a preliminary hearing is to decide whether the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might, in accordance with s 7, find that the offender 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 offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a 'serious offence'. [11]
[11] HRSO Act, s 7(1).
The test to be applied under s 46(1) of the HRSO Act is well‑established.[12] 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 such an order might be made. To say that something might occur is to say that it is possible, and belief is an inclination of mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting, a proposition. For there to be reasonable grounds for belief, facts must exist which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.
[12] The State of Western Australia v Hansen [2022] WASC 391 [10].
A decision about whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the court might find that a respondent is a high risk serious offender must be based on the evidence that is properly admitted at the preliminary hearing, having regard to s 37(1), s 45 and s 83(4) of the HRSO Act.
The evidence
When the State filed the application for a restriction order to be imposed under s 48 of the HRSO Act, an affidavit of Kathryn Emma Ellson, affirmed 20 April 2023 (Ellson Affidavit), was filed at the same time. Attached to the Ellson Affidavit were copies of the following documents, each of which related to Mr Haji‑Noor:
(a)Western Australian Criminal Record;
(b)Northern Territory Criminal Record;
(c)Sentence Summary from Casuarina Prison dated 21 December 2023;
(d)Chronology of Offending prepared by the State Solicitor's Office;
(e)Indictment BRO 81 of 2018;
(f)Transcript of sentencing proceedings before Staude DCJ in the District Court on 4 December 2020;
(g)Northern Territory Indictment 20603584;
(h)Northern Territory Indictment 20603584 Crown Facts;
(i)Transcript of sentencing proceedings before Martin CJ in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on 2 August 2006;
(j)Decision of the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal, in The Queen v Haji-Noor [2007] NTCCA 7 (20603584) delivered on 18 May 2007;
(k)Think First Program Completion Report dated 13 August 2010;
(l)Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Use Program Report dated 5 July 2012;
(m)Treatment Completion Report dated 10 July 2012;
(n)Pre‑Parole Psychological Report of Jane Sampson dated 6 March 2016;
(o)Psychiatric Report of Kevin Smith dated 20 September 2019;
(p)Psychological Report of Wendy Wager dated 19 July 2020;
(q)Psychiatric Report of Dr Aleksander Janca dated 28 August 2020;
(r)Parole Review Report dated 15 March 2021;
(s)Treatment Assessment Report dated 30 June 2021;
(t)Post Sentence Supervision Order Report dated 15 March 2023; and
(u)Post Sentence Supervision Order dated 29 March 2023 (PSSO).
The PSSO that was attached to the Ellson Affidavit is in the following terms:
The State also relied on an affidavit of Stacey Madden, affirmed 1 May 2023. In that affidavit Ms Madden provided some limited evidence about the suitability of Mr Haji‑Noor's proposed accommodation, were he to be released into the community. It was proposed that Mr Haji‑Noor live with his father and stepmother. Mr Haji‑Noor's father is supportive and has advised Ms Madden that he is willing for his son to live with him. He also told her that Mr Haji‑Noor's stepmother is supportive, but this could not be confirmed by Ms Madden as she speaks limited English. Mr Haji‑Noor's father currently works on a fly in/fly out basis. This means that there would be periods of time when Mr Haji‑Noor would be living alone with his stepmother. According to Ms Madden, Mr Haji‑Noor did not provide her with any alternative accommodation options.
The State also provided the following documents (Supplementary Documents) relating to Mr Haji‑Noor prior to the hearing:
(a)Charge History - Prisoner (Date Range: 20 March 2009 to 2 May 2023);
(b)Incidents History - Prisoner (Incidents for Date Range: 20 March 2009 to 2 May 2023);
(c)Incidents and Occurrences - Prisoner (Selected Date Range: 20 March 2009 to 2 May 2023); and
(d)History of Board of Secretariat Decision Slips - Offender.
At the preliminary hearing counsel for the State tendered the Ellson Affidavit, the affidavit affirmed by Ms Madden, and the Supplementary Documents, without objection. Mr Haji-Noor did not tender any evidence.
Disposition
As I have already said, the State has applied pursuant to s 35(1) of the HRSO Act for a restriction order in relation to Mr Haji‑Noor. This means that I must be satisfied that he is a 'serious offender under custodial sentence who is not a serious offender under restriction'.
Mr Haji‑Noor is currently serving a sentence of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment. That sentence was imposed by a Judge of the District Court of Western Australia on 4 December 2020 for an offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 297 of the Criminal Code. It follows that Mr Haji‑Noor is a 'serious offender under custodial sentence', as explained above.
Given that Mr Haji‑Noor was in custody at the time of the preliminary hearing he is also clearly not a 'serious offender under restriction'.
Pursuant to s 46(1), a court conducting a preliminary hearing is required to first decide whether it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find that Mr Haji-Noor is a high risk serious offender. If the court is so satisfied then it is required to make orders pursuant to s 46(2)(a) and (d), and may at its discretion make orders pursuant to s 46(2)(b) and (c).
Mr Haji‑Noor is 47 years of age. He has a relatively long history of offending, which commenced in Western Australia in about 1996 when he was convicted of offences of escaping legal custody, hindering police and resisting arrest, in respect of which he was sentenced by the Broome Magistrates Court to pay modest fines. From that period until 1999, Mr Haji‑Noor continued to commit offences on a regular basis, including by committing offences of assault occasioning bodily harm, and pointing a firearm at a person, as well as some relatively minor drug offences. According to his criminal record he was sentenced to serve a 6-month custodial sentence in 1999.
From 2002 until 2006, Mr Haji‑Noor committed further offences. Apart from one minor drug offence committed in Broome in late 2005, all his offending in that period took place in Darwin. Almost all those offences were violent offences, and most of them involved serious assaults on his former partner or her fiancé.
In May 2007, Mr Haji‑Noor was sentenced by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal, after a successful prosecution appeal, for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Mr Haji‑Noor had entered the home of his former partner's fiancé and then very seriously assaulted him with a baseball bat. He was ultimately sentenced to a total of 13 years imprisonment, with a non‑parole period fixed at 6 years and 6 months.[13]
[13] The Queen v Haji-Noor [2007] NTCCA 7.
In or about 2008 or 2009 Mr Haji‑Noor was transferred to Western Australia to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed in the Northern Territory. During the first few years of his time in prison in Western Australia Mr Haji‑Noor successfully completed several courses that were designed to improve his cognitive skills, and to deal with issues concerning anger management, substance abuse, and family violence. However, he was denied parole on two occasions. Amongst the reasons given by the Prisoners Review Board for denying parole were his poor behaviour while in prison, the existence of some unmet treatment needs and the fact that he had not completed a resocialisation programme.
Mr Haji‑Noor was eventually released in early 2019 after serving his full term. However, within a few months of being released he again offended in a violent manner. Shortly after being released Mr Haji‑Noor began using methylamphetamine. He became addicted to that substance and started to experience hallucinations.
In June 2019 he went to live with his mother in Broome, where he continued to use methylamphetamine. In July 2019, after using a large amount of methylamphetamine, Mr Haji‑Noor unjustifiably accused his 27‑year‑old nephew of sexually abusing one of his daughters. The situation then dramatically escalated when Mr Haji‑Noor armed himself with two samurai swords and attacked his nephew, causing serious injuries. One of those injuries was found to have been likely to cause the permanent loss of function of his nephew's right thumb.
Mr Haji‑Noor was initially charged with unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 294 of the Criminal Code. However, his lawyers provided the prosecution with a copy of a psychiatric report authored by Dr Kevin Smith, which supported a conclusion that Mr Haji‑Noor did not have the capacity to form the necessary intention because he was floridly psychotic at the time of the offence due to his methamphetamine use. On that basis the prosecution accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 297 of the Criminal Code.
On 4 December 2020, Mr Haji‑Noor was sentenced in the District Court of Western Australia to a term of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment, and he was made eligible for parole. The Court was provided with a copy of Dr Smith's report, as well as court‑ordered psychiatric and psychological reports, for the purposes of informing the sentencing process.
Dr Smith said that Mr Haji‑Noor:
… can be regarded as suffering from an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood triggered by recognition of his catastrophic failure to adapt successfully to freedom. His use of methylamphetamine as a way of coping led to an escalating level of dependence on the drug, and a psychotic mental state with disastrous consequences.
Dr Smith also referred to the issue of institutionalisation and its connection to the fact that he developed a severe social anxiety disorder on his release from prison in early 2019.
Professor Aleksandar Janca, a Consultant Psychiatrist attached to the Department of Justice, diagnosed Mr Haji‑Noor with an antisocial personality disorder, a substance use disorder, and a major depressive disorder. He also said that although it is not possible to predict recidivism with certainty, he believed Mr Haji‑Noor 'might be in the range of high to very high risk of being charged or convicted of another similar offence in the future'. He recommended that Mr Haji‑Noor receive prolonged psychiatric and psychological treatment.
A psychologist, Ms Wendy Wager, observed that Mr Haji‑Noor's offending in 2019 seemed to be consistent with his previous offending, that his propensity to use violence appeared to be related to him wanting control over situations or others, and that his use of weapons likely reinforced his sense of power. She also said that his use of alcohol and stimulants 'would significantly disinhibit his propensity to engage in violent behaviour, as well as his capacity to control his actions when under the influence', before concluding that:
… unless Mr Haji‑Noor is able to abstain from substance abuse and effectively challenge his thinking processes, he is considered likely to violently reoffend.
Ms Wager also identified that the potential scenarios for re‑offending included random violence directed at whomever and whatever upsets him while he has been abusing substances. She said that a domestic violence scenario was suggested by his history of offending and by his tendency to enter into dysfunctional relationships.
Since Mr Haji‑Noor's arrest in July 2019 and sentencing in December 2020 he has not behaved very well. According to the authors of the Post Sentence Supervision Order Report dated 15 March 2023 (PSSO report), he has:
… demonstrated predominantly poor prison behaviour where he was incurred numerous adverse incident reports and prison charges. Mr Haji‑Noor has demonstrated threatening and abusive behaviour towards prison officers, as well as other prisoners. It appears his behaviour has improved slightly over the past few months whether his most recent negative note regarding aggressive behaviour was recorded on 19 October 2022. Although, on 11/01/2023 he attempted to secrete his insulin needle.
The 'Incidents and Occurrences - Prisoner' document for the period 20 March 2009 to 2 May 2023 confirms the accuracy of this observation.
The PSSO report also notes that Mr Haji‑Noor has not participated in any programmes during his current term of imprisonment, and that he failed to implement any gains as a result of his previous participation in programmes.
Counsel who appeared at the preliminary hearing conceded, on Mr Haji-Noor's behalf, that he was a high risk serious offender. However, that concession does not bind me, and I am required to conduct my own review of the evidence to determine whether I am so satisfied.
In the light of all the evidence before me I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might, in accordance with s 7, find that Mr Haji‑Noor is a 'high risk serious offender'. The grounds on which I am inclined to believe that it is possible that the court will ultimately be 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 Mr Haji‑Noor to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence are as follows:
Firstly, Mr Haji‑Noor's criminal history demonstrates that he has a propensity to commit serious offences of violence, particularly in the context of a relationship, or following a relationship break‑down. His history also shows a pattern of violent offending behaviour over time, which on many occasions involved the use of weapons, and resulted in injuries to his victims.
Secondly, although there are no current risk‑assessments that form part of the evidence before me, the opinions reached by Professor Janca and by Ms Wager in their court‑ordered reports indicate that in mid‑2020 there was a real risk that Mr Haji‑Noor might violently re‑offend, particularly if he was under the disinhibitory effects of alcohol or drugs. There is no evidence that anything has changed since those unchallenged opinions were expressed only three years ago in 2020.
Thirdly, although Mr Haji‑Noor appears to have successfully engaged in some treatment programmes in 2010 and 2011, he has more recently been assessed by Adult Community Corrections as having several outstanding treatment needs. He has also not engaged in any programmatic intervention during his current prison sentence, although there may be some question about whether this was because he refused to participate in programs, or was instead due to reasons beyond his control.
Fourthly, Mr Haji‑Noor has behaved badly while in prison, including during his current term of imprisonment. The unchallenged evidence in the document entitled 'Incidents and Occurrences', produced by the Department of Justice, supports the observation expressed in the PSSO report that 'he has incurred numerous adverse incident reports and prison charges ... [and] has demonstrated threatening and abusive behaviour towards prison officers, as well as other prisoners'. I do note, however, that there is evidence that his behaviour has improved 'slightly' towards the end of 2022 and into the beginning of 2023.
At the hearing of this matter I discussed with counsel the orders that should be made in light of my conclusion that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might, in accordance with s 7, find that Mr Haji‑Noor is a 'high risk serious offender'.
Section 46(2)(a) of the HRSO Act provides that I must make an order that Mr Haji‑Noor undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a qualified psychologist for the purpose of preparing reports to be used at the hearing of the restriction order application. Accordingly, I made such an order.
The State submitted that further orders should be made to facilitate the preparation of those reports, and to ensure the efficient conduct of the hearing of the restriction order application. I agreed with those submissions and made several orders to that effect.
Section 46(2)(d) of the HRSO Act requires me to fix a date for the hearing of the restriction order application. I fixed that date as 1 November 2023.
Both parties submitted that I should make an order pursuant to s 58(5) of the HRSO Act, namely that Mr Haji‑Noor be released on an 'interim supervision order'.
Section 58(2) of the HRSO Act relevantly applies if:
(a)proceedings on a restriction order application are pending;
(b)the offender to whom those proceedings relate is not in custody; and
(c)the court is satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an order under that section.
Proceedings on a restriction order application are pending, given that the hearing for that application is yet to take place. However, Mr Haji‑Noor is in custody.
In The State of Western Australia v CJC [2023] WASC 52, Quinlan CJ recently noted that several judges of the Court have been prepared to conclude that an order can be made pursuant to s 58 even if the offender is in custody at the time the order is made, provided that the order takes effect on a date when the offender will be released. I am also prepared to adopt that approach.
I am satisfied that to ensure adequate protection of the community it is desirable to make an order under s 58(5) of the HRSO Act. Mr Haji‑Noor should be released on an interim supervision order pending the hearing of the restriction order application on 1 November 2023. Based on the evidence before me, and having regard to the position that has been taken by the State, I am satisfied that the risk that Mr Haji‑Noor may commit a serious offence will be adequately managed by his compliance with the terms of an interim supervision order.
Mr Haji‑Noor has a propensity to commit serious offences of violence, particularly in the context of a relationship, or following a relationship break‑down. There is also a clear connection between his previous offending and the effects of alcohol or drugs. However, I am satisfied that if Mr Haji‑Noor is subject to an interim supervision order with conditions that require him to live with his father, which enable Corrective Services to effectively monitor and supervise any new relationships that he forms, and which stop him using alcohol and drugs, then the risk that he may commit another serious offence of violence can be sufficiently managed in the community.
I have also decided to order that Mr Haji‑Noor be subject to an interim supervision order because I am of the view that the prospects that a supervision order might ultimately be made are sufficiently high that it would be inappropriate to make an order that he be detained pending that determination. Of course, it will be for the judge who hears the restriction order application to make that determination based on the evidence that is properly admitted at the final hearing,
In deciding to make an interim supervision order I have considered whether I should simply make no order, leaving Mr Haji‑Noor to be released from custody on 8 May 2023, then being subject only to the PSSO. However, in my view the PSSO would not have provided adequate protection for the community.
Firstly, the PSSO does not prohibit the possession, consumption, or purchase of alcohol and so it will not adequately address the influence that alcohol has on the risk that Mr Haji‑Noor might commit another violent serious offence.
Secondly, the PSSO does not enable Corrective Services to monitor Mr Haji‑Noor's relationships or other social associations, and to take steps to ensure that if he does form new relationships or associations that this occurs on the basis that there is full disclosure of his past offending where that is considered appropriate.
Thirdly, the PSSO does not require that Mr Haji‑Noor be subject to electronic monitoring. In my view, it is important that Corrective Services is able to monitor Mr Haji‑Noor's movements to ensure that he is complying with the other conditions of the interim supervision order.
Fourthly, the PSSO does not require Mr Haji‑Noor to live with his father. Given the very long periods that he has spent in custody, without being released on parole, it is obviously very important that he has stable accommodation and a supportive environment when he is released into the community.
Fifthly, the PSSO does not prohibit Mr Haji‑Noor from being in possession of weapons, or from being armed in a way that may cause fear. Given his offending history I am of the view that it is necessary to specifically ensure that he must not be in possession of any weapon, or be armed in any way, as a condition of his release.
Finally, if Mr Haji‑Noor were to commit a 'serious offence' (or any other criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment) while subject to an interim supervision order, that would amount to a contravention of the order. Mr Haji‑Noor may then be liable to be brought back before this Court for orders to be made under s 55 of the HRSO Act, including orders rescinding the supervision order and making a continuing detention order.[14]
[14] The State of Western Australia v PAS [No 2] [2021] WASC 59.
Before the commencement of the hearing the State filed a minute of proposed orders, and a minute of proposed interim supervision orders. As I indicated to the parties at the hearing, I was concerned about the very large number of conditions that were proposed. I was also concerned about whether many of the proposed conditions were even relevant to reducing the risk that Mr Haji‑Noor might commit a further serious offence.
I invited counsel to confer further about the proposed conditions.
After counsel had conferred and then provided me with a refined set of conditions, I made the orders that are set out below at the conclusion of the hearing of the preliminary hearing.
At the request of both parties, I also made an order that Mr Haji-Noor be detained in custody until 8.00 am on 17 May 2023, pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the HRSO Act. I made that order because I was advised that Mr Haji-Noor's father was working away on shift and that it was necessary to delay the commencement of the interim supervision order until he had returned home. As will be seen from my orders, I made a further order that the interim supervision order is to commence with effect from 8.00 am on 17 May 2023, and that it is to remain in force until the proceedings are finally determined.
Orders
1.The hearing of the restriction order application pursuant to section 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 be heard on 1 November 2023.
2.The Respondent undergo examinations by two qualified experts, namely one psychiatrist, Dr Natalie Pyszora, and one psychologist, Ms Kate Riordan, for the purposes of preparing reports as required by sections 46(2)(a) and 74 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 that are to be used on the hearing of the restriction order application.
3.The experts named in order 2 are not to include in their reports' information or opinions about the Respondent based on a communication with a third person unless details of that communication sufficient to identify the person with whom the communication was held, its date and a summary of its content is included in the expert's report.
4.The reports of the experts be provided to the Applicant at least 42 days prior to the hearing of the restriction order application.
5.Any report authored by the Department of Justice, including any Proposed Management Plan or Community Supervision Assessment Report, be provided to the Applicant at least 35 days prior to the date of the hearing of the restriction order application.
6.The experts named in order 2 liaise with the Department of Justice as to a Management Plan (if appropriate) for the Respondent to be supervised in the community.
7.Pursuant to section 122 of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006, the experts named in order 2 may be supplied with and may view any audio‑visual recordings of interviews with the Respondent, or transcripts of the same, for the purpose of preparing their reports.
8.At the hearing of the restriction order application, the reports provided by the experts named in order 2 shall stand as the evidence in chief of the experts and no further evidence in chief may be adduced without the leave of the Court.
9.The Respondent is to be detained in custody until 8.00 am on 17 May 2023, pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020.
10.With effect from 8.00 am on 17 May 2023 and until the proceedings are finally determined, the Respondent is to be subject to the conditions set out in the Interim Supervision Order of Justice Vandongen dated 5 May 2023.
11.There be liberty to the parties to apply generally.
Annexure A
INTERIM SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE VANDONGEN
ON 5 MAY 2023
With proceedings pending on a restriction order application and the Court being satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an order under section 58 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, the Court orders that the Respondent be subject to an interim supervision order pursuant to section 58(5) of the Act, from 8.00 am on 17 May 2023 until further order of the Court, on the following conditions:
You, RAMLI ROBERT HAJI-NOOR, must:
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT
Report to a Community Corrections Officer ('CCO') at the prison at the time of your release and advise the CCO of your current name and address;
Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at such times and at such places as reasonably directed by that CCO;
Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens;
Be under the supervision of a CCO and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (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 during the period of the Order;
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31;
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence
Take up residence at [redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;
Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
On the day of release report to a CCO at the prison or at a location specified by a CCO, and allow for fitting of electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake;
Attendance at programs or treatment or support services
10.Consult, engage, and attend all appointments with, and receive visits from, any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO;
Reporting to WA Police
11.Report to any WA Police Officer nominated by a CCO or WA Police Officer from time to time, and at such times and at such locations as reasonably directed by a CCO or WA Police Officer;
Disclosure/Exchange of Information
12.Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information;
Restrictions on contact with Victims
13.Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victim and/or any victims of your violent offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice;
14.Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your violent offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture, and must avert your gaze from such victim at all times;
15.Report to the CCO and WA Police any direct or indirect contact with the victims of your violent offending within 48 hours of such contact occurring;
Curfew
16.Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time;
Criminal conduct
17.Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider;
18.To comply with the requirements of any current Violence Restraining Order;
19.Not commit any other criminal offence for which the maximum penalty includes imprisonment, and which involves either sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;
Prevention of high-risk situations
20.Not to be in possession of any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article and not to apply for, acquire or hold a licence to possess any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article;
21.Not to be armed in any way that may cause fear when in public locations without a lawful reason/excuse;
22.Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a WA Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place;
23.Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 22;
24.Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol without prior approval of a CCO;
25.Not go to or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
a)for the purpose of averting or minimizing a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
b)for a purpose, and for a duration, approved in advance by a CCO;
c)on the order of a CCO or Police Officer;
26.Not to remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by a prohibited substance or under the influence of alcohol, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO;
27.Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place, or exit that person from your residence;
28.Report at your next contact with your CCO, the new formation of any ongoing social association (of more than 2 contacts by any means), friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person;
29.When and as directed by your CCO, make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence an ongoing social association (of more than 2 contacts by any means), domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer;
30.You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a member of the departmental staff or an agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
RH
Associate to the Judge
12 MAY 2023
2
4
0