The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 3] - [2025] WASC 318

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HOSKIN [No 3] [2025] WASC 318
CORAM:   STRK J
HEARD:   7 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   7 AUGUST 2025
PUBLISHED           :   8 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S:   SO 9 of 2023
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
JASON JAMES PAUL HOSKIN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Contravention proceedings - Whether detention order should be made pending determination of pending contravention proceedings - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Contravention application programmed to hearing
Respondent to be detained in custody pursuant to s 56(2)(b)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	T Hollaway
Respondent	:	DJ McKenzie

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Respondent	:	David McKenzie

Cases referred to in decision:

The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [2023] WASC 355
The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104
The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 4] [2023] WASC 271
The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] [2021] WASC 465

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background

The respondent's offending history

The restriction order hearing and decision

Evidence before the court

Affidavit evidence of Mr Lloyd

Affidavit evidence of Ms Lilly

The contraventions

Contraventions had resulted in outcomes other than formal charges

Disposition

Statutory context

Assessment of the application

Conclusion and orders

Sch A - Supervision order conditions

Sch B - Orders made on 7 August 2025

STRK J:

Introduction

The State of Western Australia filed an application under s 53 and s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) commencing contravention proceedings with respect to the respondent, who was brought before the Supreme Court in circumstances where he has been charged with offences under s 80 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act.[1]
[1] High Risk Serious Offenders Act, s 53(1(b).
In support of the application the State read two affidavits. The first was an affidavit affirmed by Joseph Marc Lloyd on 4 August 2025, and the second an affidavit affirmed by Tracy Jayne Lilly on 4 August 2025. Mr Lloyd is a solicitor employed by the State Solicitor's Office, holding the position of Assistant State Solicitor. Ms Lilly is a Senior Community Corrections Officer employed by the Department of Justice, Corrective Services Division, within the Community Offender Monitoring Unit.
The State also referred to an updated minute of proposed orders provided to the court and to counsel for the respondent on 7 August 2025.
In addition to making directions for the substantive hearing of the contravention proceedings, the issue to be determined was whether the respondent ought be detained in custody pending the determination of the contravention proceedings.
I did not understand any of the orders in the State's minute of proposed orders to be opposed.
In all the circumstances, it was appropriate that the respondent be subject to an interim detention order pending the determination of the contravention proceedings. Set out below are my reasons.

Background

As to the background to the application, I note as follows.
On 16 August 2023 the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order under s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act in relation to the respondent. It was the State's position that it was necessary to make a restriction order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act in relation to the respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.
The application was listed for a preliminary hearing on 18 September 2023, at which it was established that there were reasonable grounds for then believing that a later court might find the respondent to be a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act. For the reasons then delivered, the respondent was made the subject of an interim supervision order pursuant to s 58(5) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act pending the final determination of the application: The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [2023] WASC 355.
After hearing the restriction order application on 21 March 2024, it was found to be necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence. It was also concluded that it was appropriate that the respondent be subject to supervision for five years, and required to comply with conditions in addition to those required by the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, imposed so as to guard against the risk that the respondent posed to the community: The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104. The respondent was released on the supervision order on or about 27 March 2024.
Since the respondent's release on the supervision order he was charged with 75 offences of contravening a requirement of the order contrary to s 80(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act (PE 49544 ‑ 49547 of 2024 and MID 9393 ‑ 9463 of 2024), and seven offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) (MID 9464 ‑ 9470 of 2024).
On 20 October 2024 the respondent was convicted of the various offences on his own plea of guilty. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 8 months' imprisonment and was made eligible for parole. He was sentenced to terms of 4 months' imprisonment for all of the offences (to be served concurrently), with the exception of one offence of contravening a requirement of the order contrary to s 80(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act (MID 9394 of 2024), and one offence of failing to comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act (MID 9464 of 2024), for which he was sentenced to terms of 4 months' imprisonment (to be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed for the other 80 offences). Parole was refused and the respondent's term of imprisonment ended on 6 May 2025.
Since the respondent's re‑release on the supervision order on 6 May 2025, he has been charged with 13 alleged offences of contravening a requirement of the order contrary to s 80(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, and three alleged offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act. On 24 June 2025 he was arrested and remains remanded in custody in relation to the pending charges.
The respondent has spent the following periods in custody since he was released subject to the supervision order made on 27 March 2025:[2]
(a)remanded in custody from 7 September 2024 to 2 October 2025 (26 days);
(b)served a custodial sentence from 2 October 2024 to 6 May 2025 (217 days); and
(c)remanded in custody from 25 June 2025 to date.
[2] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 18.
By the application the State seeks an order under s 55(1)(a) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act that the supervision order be rescinded and a continuing detention order be made. Further, the State moved for an order under s 53(2)(b) that the respondent be detained in custody while proceedings on the application for an order under s 55 remain pending.
The State proposed the following form of orders by a minute dated 7 August 2025:
1.The application for an order pursuant to section 55 of High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 be heard on [to be inserted].
2.The Respondent undergo an examination by a qualified expert, namely Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, psychiatrist, for the purposes of preparing a report as required by section 74 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 that is to be used on the hearing of the contravention application.
3.The expert named in order 2 is not to include in her report 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 are included in the expert's report.
4.The report of the expert be provided to the Applicant at least 42 days prior to the hearing of the contravention application.
5.Any report authored by the Department of Justice, including:
a.any Treatment Progress Report be provided to the Applicant at least 35 days prior to the date of the hearing of the contravention application;
b.any Performance Report be provided to the Applicant at least 28 days prior to the date of the hearing of the contravention application.
6.The expert 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 expert 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 her report.
8.The Respondent be detained in custody until the final determination of the application.
9.The matter be otherwise adjourned for directions hearing in the HRSO directions list on 4 November 2025 at 9am.
10.There be liberty to the parties to apply generally.
The respondent did not oppose the making of the orders,[3] and I will make the orders in the form promoted, including an order pursuant to the court's power under s 54 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act that the respondent undergo examination by Dr Wojnarowska for the purpose of preparing a report in accordance with s 74 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act.
[3] ts 85 (7 August 2025).
Despite the respondent's non-opposition to the order that he be detained in custody while proceedings on the application for an order under s 55 remain pending, it was necessary for me to state my reasons for so ordering which are here recorded.

The respondent's offending history

In considering whether to make an interim detention order, I had regard to the respondent's offending history.
The respondent was born on 30 June 1979. He is therefore now 46 years of age. His criminal history includes convictions for serious child sexual offences in Western Australia.
As was noted in The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2], at the time of the hearing of the State's application for a restriction order, the respondent had been convicted on his own pleas of guilty to 21 charges of distributing child exploitation material contrary to s 219 of the Criminal Code (WA), and two charges of failing to comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act. The total effective sentence was 3 years' imprisonment, which was backdated to 25 September 2020 and came to an end on 25 September 2023. This sentence had marked the fourth separate term of imprisonment that he had served for child exploitation material related offences.
At the time of the hearing of the State's application for a restriction order, the respondent had also been convicted of a number of other offences which are 'serious' within the meaning of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, and offences which are relevant but not 'serious' within the meaning of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act. These offences were described in [18] - [29] of The State of Western Australia v Hoskin.

The restriction order hearing and decision

At the hearing of the restriction order application, it was the State's position that that the respondent was a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, and that if the court were to so find, then the State sought that the court make a supervision order under s 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act.
It was accepted on behalf of the respondent that it was open for the court to find him to be a high risk serious offender, and the making of a restriction order was not opposed. Counsel for the respondent noted that if the court were to find the respondent to be a high risk serious offender, then the appropriate outcome would be the making of a supervision order under s 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, and not a continuing detention order.
For the reasons published, it was found necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence. Further, it was determined appropriate that the respondent be subject to supervision for five years, and required to comply with conditions in addition to those required by the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, imposed so as to guard against the risk that the respondent poses to the community. A supervision order was made which incorporated the conditions reproduced at sch A to these reasons. The respondent's approved address has been redacted.

Evidence before the court

The State read the affidavit affirmed by Mr Lloyd, and the affidavit affirmed by Ms Lilly, save for the annexure marked 'D' to that affidavit.[4] The respondent did not require the deponents to submit themselves to cross‑examination on the content of their respective affidavits.[5]

Affidavit evidence of Mr Lloyd

[4] Exhibits A and B, respectively.

[5] ts 73 (7 August 2025).

Mr Lloyd is a government legal practitioner employed by the State Solicitor's Office, who is tasked with assisting in conducting matters under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act.
Among other things, Mr Lloyd described in his affidavit the offences for which the respondent was charged on 6 September 2024 and convicted on 2 October 2024; and the pending charges for the alleged offences for which he was arrested and is presently remanded in custody.
Mr Lloyd attached to his affidavit a number of documents including a copy of the respondent's Western Australian criminal history dated 28 July 2025 obtained from WA Police; a chronology of the respondent's serious and relevant offending prepared by the State Solicitor's Office; a copy of most of the prosecution notices and statements of material facts for the offences for which the respondent was convicted on 2 October 2024; a copy of the prosecution notices and statements of material facts for which the respondent was charged and remains remanded in custody; and a copy of the expert reports prepared and tendered at the hearing of the restriction order application (that is, the reports of Dr Benjamin Peter Bannister and Dr Mark William Hall).

Affidavit evidence of Ms Lilly

Ms Lilly is a Senior Community Corrections Officer employed by the Department of Justice in the Corrective Services Division. In her affidavit Ms Lilly explained that her role is to case manage high risk serious offenders declared under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, working in conjunction with the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad from the Western Australia Police Force. She has been the respondent's case manager since 10 May 2025 (save for periods that she has been on leave).
Among other things, Ms Lilly deposed that:
(a)on 27 March 2024 the conditions of the supervision order were explained to the respondent, and he initialled each condition to confirm his understanding;
(b)on 2 October 2024 the respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 months, backdated to commence on 7 September 2024;
(c)the respondent was made eligible for parole in relation to various offences for which he had been sentenced on 2 October 2025;
(d)on 10 December 2024 the Prisoners Review Board denied the respondent's release to parole;
(e)on 6 May 2025, when the respondent was released from custody after serving his full sentence, the conditions of his supervision order were again explained to him, and he initialled each condition to confirm his understanding and re‑signed the supervision order;
(f)upon his release from custody the respondent continued to reside at the address prescribed in the supervision order;
(g)the respondent is currently remanded at Hakea Prison due to 13 pending alleged charges under s 80 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, and three pending alleged charges under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act. He is alleged to have committed these further offences following his re‑release to the community on 6 May 2025;
(h)the respondent is next due to appear in Midland Magistrates Court on 8 August 2025;
(i)she does not consider there to be any meaningful amendments that could be made to the supervision order to allow for adequate management of the respondent's risk of serious offending in the community; and
(j)of particular concern is the respondent's ability to access the internet and circumvent conditions in place to authorise or supervise the respondent's use of the same.
In her affidavit Ms Lilly, among other things, summarised the circumstances in which non‑compliance warnings had been issued to the respondent; deposed that concerning behaviours had been identified by the multiagency risk management team, and summarised those behaviours; described the treatment that the respondent had received while in the community; described the respondent's engagement with community supports, recording that the respondent had failed to engage with his National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) providers and build his community supports despite ongoing encouragement; described the lack of protective factors, particularly that the respondent lacked positive community support; described the obstruction of support providers and the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad by the respondent's mother; and deposed that overall, the respondent's non‑compliance had 'raised concerns regarding his general disregard for the Order conditions and his ongoing deceitful behaviour and refusal to engage appropriately with the support provided'.[6]
[6] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 96.
Ms Lilly attached to her affidavit a number of documents including a copy of a pre‑sentence report prepared by Ms Lilly which had been endorsed by Shae Hazzard as Team Leader of the Community Offender Monitoring Unit dated 27 September 2024; and a parole assessment report prepared by Ms Lilly which had also been endorsed by Ms Hazzard as Team Leader of the Community Offender Monitoring Unit dated 22 November 2024.

The contraventions

On 2 October 2024 the respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court in Perth and was convicted of 82 charges and sentenced to an 8 month term of imprisonment, backdated to commence on 7 September 2024.[7]
[7] Affidavit of JM Lloyd affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 24.
The circumstances of the offending are revealed by documents annexed to Mr Lloyd's affidavit. For present purposes it suffices for me to set out the following brief details.
On 2 October 2024 the respondent was convicted on his pleas of guilty of failing to comply with his reporting obligations as a person to whom s 6 of Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act applies. The respondent was also convicted on his pleas of guilty of contravening a requirement of a supervision order by:
1.accessing the internet including YouTube, without supervision or authorisation from his Community Corrections Officer;
2.accessing the internet on his mobile device, without supervision or authorisation from his Community Corrections Officer;
3.accessing the internet and participating in online gaming chats, without supervision or authorisation from his Community Corrections Officer;
4.failing to notify his Community Corrections Officer of an electronic device (specifically a PlayStation 5) within 48 hours;
5.failing to notify his Community Corrections Officer of an electronic storage device within 48 hours;
6.failing to notify his Community Corrections Officer of a new telecommunication device within 48 hours;
7.deleting data from his mobile device without authorisation from his Community Corrections Officer; and
8.possessing a pamphlet that contained non‑decent images of a baby and a 14 year old girl.

On 6 May 2025 the respondent was released from custody after serving his full sentence.[8] He was again subject to the supervision order imposed on 27 March 2024.
[8] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 9; affidavit of JM Lloyd affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 25.
The respondent is presently remanded in custody with 13 charges pending under s 80 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act and the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act. The respondent is alleged to have committed these further offences after his release to the community on 6 May 2025. He is next due to appear in Midland Magistrates Court on 8 August 2025. Bail has not yet been considered.[9]
[9] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 10.
The circumstances of the alleged offending the subject of the pending charges are revealed by documents annexed to Mr Lloyd's affidavit. For present purposes it suffices for me to set out the following brief details. The pending charges appear to pertain to contraventions by the respondent of a requirement of a supervision order by:
1.purchasing a USB without disclosing it to his Community Corrections Officer or WA Police;
2.purchasing a mobile phone without prior approval;
3.deleting or disguising data on his mobile phone;
4.failing to maintain a daily diary;
5.purchasing a smart TV without advising his Community Corrections Officer, and accessing the internet through it including YouTube;
6.accessing pornographic material on the internet;
7.creating a profile on the Netflix streaming service;
8.accessing images of the children on the internet;
9.accessing the internet through his mobile phone;
10.creating a Gmail and YouTube account, which he disclosed to his Community Corrections Officer; and
11.failing to advise his Community Corrections Officer or WA Police of the creation of an Outlook and Netflix account.
The pending charges also pertain to not reporting the details used to access any website or communication service provided by the internet including any username, email address or other information used to gain access to the internet service (in light of the respondent's obligations as a Reportable Offender under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act). It is alleged that in the course of compliance checks, the respondent was found to have created email addresses; and found to have a YouTube account, Netflix account, Gmail account, and other streaming service accounts.
Mr Lloyd deposed that particulars of the alleged contravention will be filed before the final hearing of the contravention application and will likely mirror the statements of material facts attached to his affidavit (pending resolution of the pending charges).[10]

Contraventions had resulted in outcomes other than formal charges

[10] Affidavit of JM Lloyd affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 34.

Ms Lilly deposed that since 27 March 2025 the respondent has also contravened the conditions of his supervision order for which he received numerous non‑compliance warnings.[11] At paragraphs 20 to 42 of her affidavit, Ms Lilly summarised the circumstances in which non‑compliance warnings had been issued to the respondent.
[11] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 19.
Ms Lilly further deposed that concerning behaviours had been identified by the multiagency risk management team, as:[12]
impacting the management of the Respondent's risk of serious sexual offending, due to the correlation with the risk scenarios predicted during expert risk assessments completed for the purpose of the Restriction Order hearing.
[12] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 44.
In respect of the same, Ms Lilly deposed that:[13]
The contravening behaviour has involved the Respondent using public computers to minimise detection when creating email addresses, failing to declare electronic devices inclusive of mobile telephones, storage devices, and engaging in various online chat rooms. The Respondent's use of electronic devices and the internet without approval from a [Community Corrections Officer] has continued to be a significant and high-level risk factor relating to his case management in the community and ability to monitor his increase in contravening his [High Risk Serious Offender supervision order].
[13] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 45.
At paragraphs 45 to 71 of her affidavit, Ms Lilly described what had been observed to be the concerning behaviour of the respondent.

Disposition

Statutory context

Part 4 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act concerns the restriction of offenders and div 5 concerns the contravention of a supervision order.
Section 53 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act empowers the State to commence contravention proceedings. Section 53, among other things, applies to an offender who is charged with an offence under s 80(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act.
Section 54 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act allows the court to order reports for purposes of contravention proceedings; and s 55 concerns the orders that might be made at the substantive hearing of an application made under s 53 if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates has contravened or is contravening a condition of a supervision order, or is likely to contravene a condition of a supervision order. The orders that the court may make under s 55 are to: rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; make an order amending the conditions of the supervision order or extending the duration of the supervision order; or affirm the supervision order without amendment or extension.
Section 56 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act concerns the orders that may be made during contravention proceedings, and provides as follows:
(1) This section applies if an offender who is subject to a supervision order is before the Supreme Court and proceedings on an application made under section 53 in respect of the offender are pending (the pending proceedings).
(2) The court may at any time in the pending proceedings —
(a) if the offender is detained in custody, order the offender to be released, subject to subsection (3); or
(b) if the offender is not detained in custody, order the offender to be detained in custody.
(3) The court cannot order the offender to be released unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that —
(a) releasing the offender is justified by exceptional circumstances; and
(b) the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order, including any amendments to the standard conditions made under subsection (7)(b).
(4) The onus of proof as to the matter described in subsection (3)(b) is on the offender.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3), in considering whether releasing the offender is justified by exceptional circumstances the court may, as it thinks fit, receive and take into account information put before it, whether or not that information would normally be admissible in a court of law.
(6) In making a decision under subsections (2) and (3), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
(7) If the court releases the offender —
(a) the offender remains subject to the supervision order; and
(b) the court may, before the pending proceedings are determined, make an interim order amending the supervision order to include any requirements the court considers appropriate to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
(c) the court may order the offender to reappear before the court at any adjourned hearing of the pending proceedings; and
(d) if it is alleged that the offender has further breached the supervision order or breached an order made under paragraph (c), the court may issue a warrant to have the offender arrested and brought before the court.
In this case, s 56 is engaged as the respondent is before the court in respect of pending proceedings: s 56(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act.
I considered whether the requirement for exceptional circumstances in s 56(3) was engaged in the disposition of the State's application pursuant to s 53(2)(b), which in turn, depended upon whether s 56(2)(a) was engaged.[14]
[14] The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] [2021] WASC 465 [17], cited with approval in The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 4] [2023] WASC 271 [14].
In that regard, the first question was whether the respondent was 'detained in custody' within the meaning of s 56(2)(a).[15] As to how such a question is answered, I adopted the views expressed by Quinlan CJ in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] at [19] ‑ [20]:
Prima facie, in my view, 'detained in custody', within the meaning of s 56, means detained pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Section 56(2)(a) cannot be construed as providing this Court with a general dispensing power to release persons who are otherwise in custody, either as sentenced prisoners or on remand for other offences. In the context of pt 4 div 5 of the Act, in my view, the expression 'detained in custody' would ordinarily apply to a person who is in custody as a consequence of having been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under s 51 of the Act in relation to a suspected or anticipated contravention of a supervision order. An order of the Court would be necessary to 'release' such a person from custody, and so s 56(2)(a) would apply - including the requirements of s 56(3).
Similarly, a person detained pursuant to an order of the Court made under s 53(2)(b) of the Act would be 'detained in custody' within the meaning of s 56(2)(a).
[15] The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] [18], cited with approval in The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 4] [15].
In this case, the respondent is remanded in custody to appear on 8 August 2025 in Midland Magistrates Court in relation to his pending charges. He is not presently 'detained in custody' pursuant to an order made or power exercised under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act. Nor is he an offender brought before the court under a warrant issued under s 51(3) or s 56(7)(d).
I therefore proceeded on the understanding that there need not be, nor would there be an 'order [for] the offender to be released' within the meaning of s 56(2)(a) if the State's application was refused, and that subsection has no application. For that reason, I proceeded on the basis that no issue of exceptional circumstances arose.[16] This approach is consistent with the State's position as articulated in the course of the hearing and not opposed on behalf of the respondent.[17]
[16] The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] [24], cited with approval in The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 4] [17].
[17] ts 82, 88 (7 August 2025).
In making a decision under s 56(2), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[18]
[18] High Risk Serious Offenders Act, s 56(6).
In the disposition of the application, I also adopted and applied the observations of Quinlan CJ in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] at [25] ‑ [27]:
[T]he real issue is that which applies generally to an interim detention order (under s 46(2)(c)) or an interim supervision order under (s 58(2)(c)); namely, whether the Court is satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make either an interim detention order or an interim supervision order. That is, in effect, the test that applies to the making of an interim supervision order generally.
This points up an important aspect of any consideration of alleged contraventions of an interim supervision order. Compliance with an interim supervision order (and, indeed, any supervision order) is an important matter, and the importance of such compliance should not be understated. Nevertheless, it must be recognised, having regard to the text and structure of the Act as a whole, that an interim supervision order is not an end in, and of, itself. An interim supervision order is a means to an end: the end being the protection of the community against the risk of serious offences.
In that sense, a supervision order or an interim supervision order will have served its purpose if it protects the community from serious offences, even if compliance with the conditions of the order, in the particular case, has not been perfect. The Court must always keep in mind that the object of the Act to be achieved is the adequate protection of the community from the commission of serious offences.

Assessment of the application

Turning to the assessment of the application, I noted that various findings were made in the restriction order proceeding. I did not understand that either party had taken issue with those findings, nor my having regard to the same for the purpose of determining the State's application under s 53(2)(b).[19]
[19] ts 88 (7 August 2025).
I proceeded on the basis that the respondent has an extensive criminal history.
When the charges (resolved and pending) were viewed together, and in light of all of the circumstances which included the offences for which the respondent had been convicted in October 2024, the pending charges, the respondent's contraventions that had resulted in actions other than a formal charge, his other concerning behaviour, and the issues recorded which go to the suitability of his current accommodation, there appeared to be good reasons for the authorities to be concerned about their ability to manage the respondent in the community.
As is noted earlier in these reasons, Mr Lloyd attached to his affidavit a copy of the expert reports prepared for and tendered at the hearing of the restriction order application (that is, the reports of Dr Bannister and Dr Hall). In those reports, the authors indicated their respective assessment of the level of risk that, without a restriction order, the respondent will commit a serious offence; and the reasons for their assessment.[20]
[20] As required by s 74(2) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act.
At the hearing of the State's application for an order pursuant to s 56(2)(b), counsel for the State referred to various parts of Dr Bannister's report, including paragraphs 98 and 104. I had regard to the same.
In The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] at [88] ‑ [176], I summarised the evidence of each of the authors.
At [118] of those reasons, I reproduced paragraphs 105 to 109 of Dr Bannister's report, where he described the respondent's most likely risks upon release. In considering the State's application under s 53(2)(b) I had regard to the same. I particularly noted that at paragraph 105 of his report Dr Bannister opined as follows:
The most likely risk scenario for [the respondent] is a breach of the conditions of a Community Supervision Order. This may be brought about due to his underestimation of the seriousness of the obligations inherent in an imposed Order. Specifically, his [autism spectrum disorder] means that he may be more likely to engage in behaviours that are egocentric and consequently fail to naturally consider the outcomes of those behaviours (such as those that constitute a breach of conditions). The most serious risk scenario would involve [the respondent] offending against identifiable victims, brought about by his sexual deviancy and sexual compulsivity overriding his self-regulation skills.
Of the recommendations made by Dr Bannister, at [122] of my earlier reasons I recorded that:[21]
At the conclusion of Dr Bannister's report, he set out a number of recommendations which included conditions that he suggested the court consider imposing should the respondent be made subject to a supervision order. The suggested conditions were that the respondent should be restricted in his internet use specifically in relation to searching for, collecting, accessing, or possessing images of children or documentation relating to child exploitation material, as well as restrictions placed on his capacity to conceal such activity where possible; the devices he has in his possession to access the internet should be regularly monitored; and he should also be restricted from having any unsupervised contact with someone under the age of 18 years.
[21] The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [122].
In his report Dr Hall also considered the respondent's likely reoffending scenarios. At the hearing of the State's application for an order pursuant to s 56(2)(b), counsel for the State referred me to the same.[22] At [170] of my earlier reasons, I reproduced paragraphs 120 to 123 of Dr Hall's report. In considering the State's application under s 53(2)(b), I also had regard to the same, and I record here as follows:
The RSVP can guide professional judgement of the type of offending scenarios that may occur for an offender. The resulting scenario planning can then provide a basis for management interventions that may ameliorate risk in the community.
Were [the respondent] to reoffend, the most probable scenario would be repetition of prior offending, that is, accessing child exploitation material or participating in chat rooms to write about and thereby distribute such material. His past behaviour suggests that, without any intervention, he could reoffend within a timeframe of six months to two years. The risk he poses is chronic given his long history of offending and his still relatively young age. Warning signs that might signal that risk is increasing or imminent include use of legal child images for masturbatory purposes and increasing time spent online.
A potential shift in [the respondent's] offending behaviour could involve the above scenario with activities undertaken on internet capable devices acquired surreptitiously (such as a 'burner' phone) and connected via third party Wi-Fi networks in an effort to avoid detection.
Although less likely, there exists a scenario where [the respondent] could escalate to direct contact offending against children. Given his poor social skills any such victims would likely need to already be accessible to, and trusting of, [the respondent]. His very limited existing network and limited capacity to create future networks suggests a very low likelihood of this occurring. The potential for such offences to escalate to serious physical violence is also low, but the psychological impact on victims of contact offending would be very serious. (Emphasis added)
[22] ts 78 (7 August 2025).
Of the recommendations made by Dr Hall, at [172] of my earlier reasons I recorded that:[23]
As to management strategies, Dr Hall set out in his report a number of recommendations. As to monitoring, Dr Hall recorded that he considered that effective monitoring of the respondent should include vigilant oversight of his online activities and his adherence to the conditions of a restriction order, particularly his level of engagement with mental health services. He further noted that disengagement from health services or supervision, entering a relationship, or obtaining employment would warrant a reassessment of risk.
[23] The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [172].
The conditions imposed upon the respondent by the supervision order are stringent and extensive. They were tailored so as to address the respondent's risk factors, and were drafted so as to enable those responsible for his supervision and management to detect at an early stage signs of the respondent disengaging from therapeutic counselling, or experiencing mood shifts that may lead to him reoffending.[24] As was noted by Dr Hall, warning signs that might signal that risk is increasing or imminent include use of legal child images for masturbatory purposes and increasing time spent online.[25]
[24] The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2].
[25] The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [170]; affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, page 18.

The State has made this application concerned that risk of serious offending is increasing or imminent. The evidence of Ms Lilly, including that at paragraphs 75 and 91, was emphasised.[26] These were matters that weighed heavily in favour of the making of an interim detention order when regard was had to the paramount consideration as prescribed at s 56(6).
[26] ts 75 - 76, 80 (7 August 2025).
Furthermore, on the papers before me, there is some evidence that while the respondent has attended supervision and counselling sessions on a weekly basis while subject to the supervision order, he has not been honest during these discussions.[27] He has also consistently refused offers of support,[28] and concerns have been raised as to conduct which appear indicative of ongoing deception.[29] As a matter of particular significance, there are significant concerns as to the suitability of the accommodation available to the respondent.[30]
[27] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, pages 253, 258.
[28] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, page 254.
[29] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, page 256.
[30] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, pars 84 - 86 and page 259.
On balance, I am satisfied that it is necessary that the respondent be detained having regard to the paramount consideration.
I also considered whether a variation to the conditions might tip the balance. In this regard, I note the evidence of Ms Lilly, the respondent's case manager, that she does not consider there to be any meaningful amendments that could be made to the supervision order to allow for adequate management of the respondent's risk of serious offending in the community.[31]
[31] Affidavit of TJ Lilly affirmed on 4 August 2025, par 99.
Unfortunately, given the nature and number of breaches the subject of recent convictions and pending charges, on the evidence before me I was not satisfied that a variation or imposition of additional conditions would ensure adequate protection of the community from the commission of serious offences.
Therefore, the respondent will be detained in custody while contravention proceedings on the State's application for an order under s 55 remain pending.
The orders otherwise promoted on the part of the State were appropriate and the contravention application was listed for substantive hearing on 10 February 2026 commencing at 10.30 am.
Section 54 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act allows for the court to order reports for the purposes of contravention proceedings and by order 2, the respondent will undergo an examination by Dr Wojnarowska. Given the evidence read which raises concerns as to the suitability of the respondent's accommodation, the Department of Justice will also prepare an accommodation update report by 30 September 2025. It is important that alternative accommodation options and supports are investigated promptly, and for Dr Wojnarowska to have available to her that information.

Conclusion and orders

For these reasons, I was satisfied that I should make an order detaining the respondent until the determination of the contravention proceedings, and the programming orders promoted on behalf of the State. (A copy of the orders made on 7 August 2025 are reproduced at Sch B to these reasons.)

Sch A - Supervision order conditions

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HIGH RISK SERIOUS OFFENDERS ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street, East Perth, Western Australia within 48 hours of the order being issued and advise the officer of your current name and address;
Report to and receive visits from, a Community Corrections Officer as directed by the court;
Notify a Community Corrections Officer of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens;
Be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer, which includes, 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 Community Corrections Officer;
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 [address redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to you;

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

Report to a CCO at your approved address within normal business hours on the day of commencement of this order;
Not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of the CCO;

Attendance at programs or treatment

Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice;
To engage with mental health services and to obey the instructions of the treating psychiatrist with regard to treatment and medication;
To satisfy any therapeutic conditions and requirements of any National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider that is providing you with any services and/or accommodation, as directed by the CCO;

Medications/Mental Health

Attend any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist, or counsellor as directed by the CCO or undergo medication treatment, including anti-depressant medication or anti-libidinal treatment, as directed by the CCO in consultation with a medication practitioner or medical practitioners;
Permit any medical practitioner or medical practitioners to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware or suspect that you have, or intend to cease undergoing medical treatment contrary to the advice of the medical practitioner or medical practitioners, or you have apparently ceased to consult with that medical practitioner or medical practitioners on such treatment;
Undertake any medication regime in accordance with a medical practitioner's direction, and to comply with all testing to monitor your compliance with that treatment as directed by a CCO;

Reporting to WA Police

Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Management Squad (SOMS) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, PERTH WA 6000, or their delegate at a nominated Police station within 48 hours of your release from detention and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and locations as directed by the Officer‑in‑Charge of SOMS or their delegate;
If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle and/or search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order and allow seizure of any such items that the Police Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the order;
Remain at your residence and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle;
Comply with all obligations imposed on you pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004;

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, and where appropriate, agree to the exchange of confidential information;
Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate to disclose to them confidential information including your offending history;

Restrictions on contact with Victims

Have no contact with any child under the age of 18 years, whether such contact is in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless:
a.the contact is authorised in advance by the CCO and such contact is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO; or
b.the contact is necessary to complete a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required to complete the transaction, 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);
Where any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18 years is initiated by the child, unless the contact is permitted under the condition immediately above, you must withdraw immediately from the presence of the child;
Provide the name, address, location and any details known by you, of any contact with a child under the age of 18 years both to your CCO and to the Police on the next occasion you report to that person or agency;
Have no contact with, membership of or affiliation with clubs, associations or groups where membership includes children, unless approved in advance by a CCO; and to cease/cancel such memberships if directed to do so by a CCO or Police Officer;
Report at your next contact with your CCO and Police any association or relationship by you with a person who has a child, or children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time;
Not to form any domestic relationship with a person who has a child, or children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time, without prior approval of a CCO;

Criminal conduct

Not commit any other criminal offence where:
a.the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment; and
b.which involves either sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;
Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204, s 557K of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) or s 17(1) Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021;
Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO;
Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996;

Prevention of high-risk situations

Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations, if and as directed by the CCO, and present this diary to the CCO and Police upon request;
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;
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;
Subject to Condition 37, not access the internet on any computer, telecommunication or other electronic device capable of internet access unless such access is supervised at all times by a person approved in advance by a CCO and/or for a purpose approved in advance by a CCO;
If he or she is satisfied, following assessment by your risk management team, that it is appropriate to do so and the risks can be properly managed, your CCO may permit you to possess one smartphone for unsupervised access of the internet. You are required to provide the IMEI Number, the SIM card number, the telephone number, any password or PIN required to gain access to such device, and the name of the network provider of that device to the officer in charge of the High Risk Serious Offender Team of the WA Police within 48 hours of obtaining that device;
Not to be in possession of any pornographic material, in either hard‑copy or digital form, or access or view pornography on the internet, unless approved by a CCO; Pornographic materials means printed or visual or any medium of material that contains the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity; does not include chests, breasts or nipples or backsides with clothing covering the anus;
Not to access online social media (websites or applications) unless approved in advance by a CCO. Due to the progressive development of social media, you are to enquire with your CCO if a website or application is considered social media and this will be defined for you, therefore you will not inadvertently contravene this condition if you are enquiring with your CCO and access the public component of any website or application; you must however not progress to gain a login (temporarily or otherwise) unless you have explicit CCO approval to do so;
Not to enter any internet cafe or use any publicly available computer without prior approval of a CCO;
Not conduct computer searches for, nor collect or access, or be in possession of, in either electronic or permanent form, images of children, including drawings or sketches, whether indecent or not; with the exception of images of yourself or immediate family that are not indecent images, if and only if approved in advance by a CCO. Possession of such images depicting a child or children on items such as on household items or items in your household that are not explicitly yours, may be authorised by a CCO. You are directed to review and remove any items that you have in your property within 48 hours of your release to this Order and then your compliance will be confirmed by your CCO and or WA Police;
Not access the internet for, nor collect or be in possession of any document, paper, or any other medium used for displaying words, either in the written or printed form, that describes sexual activity with a child and/or children;
Within 48 hours of the making of this order, advise a CCO of every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or information, possessed or used by you, whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device, alternatively within 48 hours of obtaining every such computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device;
Enable device locking or password access of your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic devices; Not provide or disclose such passwords or other means used to access any computer, telecommunications and/or electronic device, or any online accounts, to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer;
Upon request, permit a CCO or WA Police at any location nominated by them, to access any computer, telecommunication and/or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device related activities, and provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords or any other means used to unlock or access the device; Should any other entity be required to access a device for instances such as technical advice, approval must be sought in advance from a CCO;
Not delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, any data including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS), search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device, whether or not the device is capable of connecting to the internet, without the approval in advance by a CCO or WA Police;
When requested, advise Police of the names of all of your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services used by you and all screen name(s), user name(s), and email addresses; and
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.

Sch B - Orders made on 7 August 2025

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
KO
Associate to the Judge
8 AUGUST 2025