The State of Western Australia v James-Ind [No 4] - [2025] WASC 198

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- JAMES-IND [No 4] [2025] WASC 198
CORAM:   SEAWARD J
HEARD:   8 MAY 2025
DELIVERED          :   23 MAY 2025
PUBLISHED           :   23 MAY 2025
FILE NO/S:   SO 5 of 2018
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
ROBERT ALAN JAMES-IND
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether necessary to make restriction order to ensure adequate protection of community - Whether community can be adequately protected by imposition of supervision order - Whether the respondent will substantially comply with standard conditions of a supervision order

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Interim supervision order discharged
Amended supervision order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	T Hollaway
Respondent	:	D J McKenzie

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Respondent	:	David McKenzie Legal Pty Ltd

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307
Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1
The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53
The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412
The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387
The State of Western Australia v Hill [No 2] [2024] WASC 70
The State of Western Australia v James-Ind [2019] WASC 176
The State of Western Australia v James-Ind [No 2] [2022] WASC 343
The State of Western Australia v James-Ind [No 3] [2024] WASC 406
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235
The State of Western Australia v Nelson [2021] WASC 460
The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [2022] WASC 61
The State of Western Australia v Pendleton [2023] WASC 267
The State of Western Australia v Rodd [No 2] [2024] WASC 432
The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [2019] WASC 427
The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330

SEAWARD J:

Introduction

On 13 May 2019, McGrath J declared Mr Robert Alan James‑Ind to be a 'Dangerous Sexual Offender' under the now‑repealed Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed) (DSO Act). McGrath J also determined Mr James‑Ind's risk could be adequately managed in the community, and ordered that he be subject to a supervision order with 45 conditions for 5 years commencing on 4 June 2019. This meant that the supervision order made by McGrath J expired on 4 December 2024.
Pursuant to s 125 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), Mr James‑Ind's previous supervision order continued as a supervision order upon the commencement of the HRSO Act and is taken to have been made as a supervision order under the HRSO Act. Mr James‑Ind contravened the supervision order and was subsequently re‑released into the community on an amended supervision order.[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v James-Ind[No 2] [2022] WASC 343.
On 26 August 2024, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order, namely a supervision order, in respect of Mr James‑Ind under the HRSO Act.
On 25 October 2024, Lemonis J heard the preliminary hearing and determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing the court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find that Mr James‑Ind is a high risk serious offender.[2]
[2] The State of Western Australia v James-Ind[No 3] [2024] WASC 406.
His Honour ordered that Mr James‑Ind be released pursuant to an interim supervision order under the same conditions as the pre‑existing supervision order pending the determination of this restriction order application.[3]
[3] The State of Western Australia v James-Ind [No 3] [2024] WASC 406 [36].
I have concluded that Mr James‑Ind is a high risk serious offender and that an amended supervision order should be made in respect of him. My reasons for reaching these conclusions are set out below.

Statutory framework and legal principles

Section 36 of the HRSO Act provides that the State may apply to this court for a restriction order in relation to an offender who is subject to a supervision order that is due to expire within one year.
The legal principles regarding restriction order applications have been the subject of various decisions of this court, and were considered by the High Court in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.[4] Further, as observed by Fiannaca J in The State of Western Australia v ZSJ,[5] the jurisprudence established in respect of the DSO Act is also relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act.
[4] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1.
[5] The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [31].
In The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2],[6] Tottle J helpfully summarised these relevant principles as follows (original citations included):
[6] The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 [4].
(a)The objects of the [HRSO] Act are twofold: first, to ensure the adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences and, secondly, to provide for the continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.[7]
[7] HRSO Act, s 8. The term 'community' is defined to include any community and is not limited to the community of Western Australia or Australia, see the HRSO Act, s 4.
(b)The powers conferred by the [HRSO] Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on an offender. The scheme of the [HRSO] Act requires that the court do no more than is necessary to achieve an adequate degree of protection for the community.[8]
[8] The State of Western Australia v Latimer[2006] WASC 235 [24]; The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [2022] WASC 61 [56]; Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [85], [229] ‑ [230].
(c)The [HRSO] Act provides for the community to be protected by making restriction orders in respect of high risk serious offenders. There are two types of restriction orders: a continuing detention order, the effect of which is to detain an offender in custody after he has served his sentence; and, a supervision order, the effect of which is to release the offender into the community subject to compliance with conditions designed to monitor and control an offender's behaviour. Thus, the community may be protected by the provision of care and treatment to the offender while in custody in the hope that the danger posed to the community or sections of it will be reduced or by control continuing to be exercised over the offender in the community.
(d)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 to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.[9]
[9] HRSO Act, s 7(1).
(e)An offence is a serious offence if, among other offences, it is specified in sch 1 div 1 of the Act or it is specified in sch 1 div 2 of the [HRSO] Act and is committed in the circumstances indicated in relation to that offence in div 2.[10]
(f)For the purpose of considering whether the court is satisfied that an offender is a high risk serious offender the court must have regard to each of the matters specified in s 7(3) of the [HRSO] Act.
(g)The State carries the onus of satisfying the court that an offender is a high risk serious offender.[11]
(h)The court must make a restriction order if it finds that the offender is a high risk serious offender.[12]
(i)The expression 'high degree of probability' connotes a standard of proof that is higher than the civil standard but less than the criminal standard and is otherwise incapable of further definition.[13]
(j)The court must assess the level of risk that the offender will commit a serious offence or serious offences of the nature identified in the evidentiary materials supporting the application.[14]
(k)The requirements that the risk be 'unacceptable' and that the restriction order be 'necessary' to ensure 'adequate' protection of the community direct attention to whether the identified risk to the community can be tolerated. That assessment must be made in light of the whole of the burden which would be placed upon the liberty of the offender by the making of a restriction order, including the imposition of any standard supervision order conditions. In this respect the [HRSO] Act does not envisage the possibility that a restriction order will be made to prevent the commission of a serious offence unless the risk of further re‑offending involves a real threat of harm to the community. The evaluative exercise the court must undertake involves balancing the level of the risk that the offender will commit a serious offence together with the magnitude of the harm associated with that risk against the burden that would be placed upon the liberty of the offender by a restriction order for an offence that they have not committed.[15]
(l)The court may assess the level of risk that an offender will commit a serious offence at less than 50% yet still find that to be an unacceptable risk.[16]
(m)In deciding whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.[17]
(n)Section 29 of the Act limits the power of the court to make a supervision order rather than a continuing detention order. The section provides the court cannot make a supervision order unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a respondent will substantially comply with the 'standard conditions' of a supervision order. There are seven standard conditions specified in s 30(2). They include a condition to the effect that the offender will not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.
[10] HRSO Act, s 5(1).
[11] HRSO Act, s 7(2).
[12] HRSO Act, s 48(1).
[13] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28], [34]; The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [2019] WASC 427 [24]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [47].
[14] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [220]. I note that in Garlett v The State of Western Australia Edelman J stated that the application must specify the serious offence within sch 1 of the Act which the State alleges there is an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit but that is not an express statutory requirement. None of the other members of the High Court identified this as a requirement.
[15] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [84], [226] ‑ [227].
[16] The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [2019] WASC 427 [24]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [47].
[17] HRSO Act, s 48(2).
I respectfully agree with, and adopt his Honour's summary.
In addition, the High Court observed in Garlett v The State of Western Australia[18] that the powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on an offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.
[18] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1.
The authorities are settled that the need to ensure adequate protection for the community should form part of the court's determination under s 7 as to whether the offender is a high risk serious offender (the first step in making a restriction order), and not merely the paramount consideration in deciding what form of order should be made in respect of an offender who has been found to be a high risk serious offender (the second step).[19]
[19] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [139], cited with approval in The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412[22] and The State of Western Australia v Rodd [No 2] [2024] WASC 432.
The court, in considering whether it is satisfied of the matters in s 7(1), must have regard to the following matters listed in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act:
(a)any report prepared under section 74 Act for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section;
(b)any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender;
(c)information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;
(d)whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender;
(e)any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme;
(f)whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender;
(g)the offender's antecedents and criminal record;
(h)the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence;
(i)the need to protect members of the community from that risk; and
(j)any other relevant matter.

The evidence

Book of materials

At the hearing of the Application, the State tendered a three‑volume book of materials.[20]
[20] The various documents contained in the book being admissible pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act.
The first volume[21] contains documents including a copy of Mr James‑Ind's criminal record; various Department of Justice prison records; medical records; a chronology of the offending prepared by the State; the Individual Management Plan reports; a copy of the court's previous reasons for decisions; the interim supervision orders made by Lemonis J; and documents relating to Mr James‑Ind's previous offences.
[21] Exhibit 1.
The second volume[22] contains documents including further documents relating to Mr James‑Ind's previous offences, including breaches of his supervision order; and various post‑sentence reports and assessment reports dated between 2012 ‑ 2022, that were considered by McGrath J when making the original restriction order, and when hearing the contravention hearing.
[22] Exhibit 2.
The third volume[23] consists of various reports prepared for and relied on by the State in support of the present application, including:
(a)end of treatment report of Ms Katie Summers, dated 8 March 2024;[24]
(b)HRSO treatment options report of Ms Emma Cashmore, dated 28 April 2025;[25]
(c)psychiatric report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen, dated 19 April 2025;[26]
(d)psychological report of Ms Julie Hasson, dated 23 March 2025;[27] and
(e)community supervision assessment of Ms Julia Adams, dated 29 April 2025.[28]
[23] Exhibit 3.
[24] Exhibit 3.92.
[25] Exhibit 3.93.
[26] Exhibit 3.94.
[27] Exhibit 3.95.
[28] Exhibit 3.96.
The reports of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson were prepared pursuant to s 74 of the HRSO Act and in accordance with s 46(2)(a) of the HRSO Act.

Mr James‑Ind tendered three character references.[29]

Witnesses

[29] Exhibits 4 - 6.

At the hearing, the State called three witnesses, being Dr Wynn Owen, Ms Hasson and Ms Adams. The reports prepared by each witness were contained in the book of materials. Each witness gave evidence explaining their respective conclusions and were subject to cross‑examination.
Mr James‑Ind did not call any witnesses.

Is Mr James-Ind a High Risk Serious Offender?

In deciding whether the court is satisfied that Mr James‑Ind is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the factors contained in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. I consider each of those matters below.
I note that the matters specified are substantially similar (though not identical) to the matters that the court was, by s 7(3) of the DSO Act, required to have regard to in deciding whether a person was a 'serious danger to the community' within the meaning of the DSO Act.[30]

Antecedents and criminal record: s 7(3)(g)

[30] See The State of Western Australia v Pendleton [2023] WASC 267 [52].

In deciding whether a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the person's antecedents and criminal record. That requires that all prior offences be considered, to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act (whether they be serious offences or not). It also requires consideration of the person's antecedents, including the context in which the past offences were committed.[31]
[31] The State of Western Australia v Nelson [2021] WASC 460 [33].
The respondent's criminal record and antecedents are relevant in and of themselves, but are also relevant to whether the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future and as to whether there was any pattern of offending behaviour.[32]
[32] The State of Western Australia v Nelson [2021] WASC 460 [33] referring to the HRSO Act, s 7(3)(c), s 7(3)(d) and s 7(3)(g).
The mere fact that a person has committed previous offences does not necessarily mean that there is an unacceptable risk that they will commit a serious offence in the future if they are not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order. The relevance of a prior criminal record depends on the nature of the offences committed, the number of them and the period of time over which they were committed. Nonetheless, past behaviour is often a good indicator of future conduct.[33]

Personal Antecedents

[33] The State of Western Australia v Hill [No 2] [2024] WASC 70 [30].

Mr James‑Ind's personal antecedents are outlined in the reports of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, as well as [28] ‑ [33] of the decision of McGrath J in the original restriction order reasons.[34] I have not repeated those antecedents in detail here, but note the following key matters.
[34] The State of Western Australia v James-Ind [2019] WASC 176.
By way of overview, Mr James‑Ind is now 54 years of age. He is the eldest of three children born to his parents. Mr James‑Ind reported that his childhood was marked by a father who was aggressive and violent and was frequently absent. His father was also absent from the family home during most of his childhood due to his employment. His father committed suicide when Mr James‑Ind was 21 years of age.
Mr James-Ind did have a warm and meaningful relationship with his mother. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed with a brain tumour when he was 12 or 13 and this led to a difficult period of time for the whole family. Mr James‑Ind's mother lives in Victoria and they maintain a close and supportive relationship.
Mr James-Ind and his siblings ceased contact for most part of the last 25 years. Mr James‑Ind had since recommenced contact with one sibling at Christmas.
At the age of 19 years Mr James‑Ind commenced his first serious relationship. At the age of 22 years he married another woman which lasted for 12 months. From that marriage Mr James‑Ind and his partner had one son. Mr James‑Ind did not have a relationship with his son for many years, but has recently connected with his son and has a commenced a positive relationship with his son who is now 30 years of age.
After the end of that relationship Mr James‑Ind had further relationships with other women.
Mr James-Ind recalled that sexual matters were never discussed at home and that for many years he lacked an adequate understanding of sexual health, intimacy and relationships.

Drugs

Mr James-Ind does not have any history of issues with illicit drugs or alcohol. Consequently, there is no contention by the State that illicit drugs or alcohol contributed to his offending.

Education and employment

Mr James-Ind did not have a pleasant experience at school. He was bullied for his appearance and clothing. There was also retaliatory offence towards the bully. Afterwards, his mother took Mr James‑Ind to a child psychologist. Mr James‑Ind's mother enrolled him at the local Boy's Brigade with the view for Mr James‑Ind to develop some self-esteem and friendship. Unfortunately, Mr James‑Ind's involvement with the local Boy's Brigade led him to become a victim of repeated child sexual abuse over several years.
Academically, Mr James-Ind did not perform well at school. He struggled throughout and had to repeat his first year of high school. After completing his secondary education at 15 years of age Mr James‑Ind was employed in various semi‑skilled and unskilled positions including labouring and delivery driving.
Since being released on the supervision order Mr James‑Ind has obtained work at Fremantle Trailers. On 2 February 2023, he was offered a full‑time contract which he maintained until 22 April 2024. He then ceased working with his employer for a period in 2024 (which coincided with some mental health issues) before recommencing with the same employer.
Mr James-Ind has reported that he enjoys his work, especially since his return to work where is taking on more fabrication work, which he enjoys. Mr James‑Ind's employer verified that Mr James‑Ind has demonstrated a good level of work, is a trustworthy employee and indicated that he would be more than willing to provide a character reference for Mr James‑Ind.

Relationships

Mr James-Ind had a number of relationships prior serving his long‑term sentence. He had his first relationship at the age of 19 with a women named Andrea who was only 15 years old at the time. The relationship ended due to infidelity.
At the age of 22, Mr James‑Ind married his first wife Sandrine within months of meeting her. He reported to Dr Wynn Owen that there were fundamental differences between him and his ex‑wife. The marriage lasted a year during which his ex‑wife became pregnant. Mr James‑Ind was convicted and sentenced for sexual offences and his son was born whilst he was serving his sentence. He denied sexual assault on his ex‑wife and was never charged.
For many years, Mr James‑Ind had no contact with his ex‑wife since then. He reported that his first wife has passed away and that his son has been placed in the foster care system. As mentioned earlier, Mr James‑Ind reconnected with his son recently after his current partner located him through the social media platform, Facebook.
After his first marriage, Mr James‑Ind commenced a relationship with a woman named Linda. According to Mr James‑Ind, their relationship broke down after a few months due to sexual preference differences.
By the age of 30, Mr James‑Ind commenced a relationship with a woman named Kim. This was his longest relationship lasting five years. Whilst he was visiting his brother in Western Australia, he committed sexual offences.
While serving his sentence in Albany, Western Australia, Mr James‑Ind formed a relationship with a fellow prisoner which lasted some years. After he was relocated to Karnet Prison Farm, she relocated to be close to him. Unfortunately, she passed away in a car accident when visiting him.
Since 2019, Mr James‑Ind has had two relationships. The first relationship was with a woman name Michelle. The relationship lasted for a few years and they were married up until 2024. Mr James‑Ind reported to Dr Wynn Owen that they parted on good terms and that he has maintained contact. Mr James‑Ind met his current partner, Ms Grubi, through Michelle. They have now lived together for eight months.
Ms Grubi is the individual with whom Mr James‑Ind breached his supervision order twice by her being in his car without permission in January 2024 and April 2024. Mr James‑Ind reported to Ms Hasson that there have been cohabitation issues with Ms Grubi which has been exacerbated by conflicts with his two housemates.

Mental health

Mr James-Ind's mental health deteriorated in recent years due to personal relationship issues which culminated to an event of actual self‑harm on 29 April 2024.
After the event, he was then referred to a psychiatrist who prescribed him antidepressant medicine. It is reported that Mr James‑Ind has maintained compliance with that medication since and has denied any further self‑harm behaviours or suicidal ideation.

Criminal record and history

Mr James-Ind's criminal history was summarised by McGrath J at [34] ‑ [48] in the original restriction order proceedings and is contained in the various documents in the book of materials. The below summary is taken from the reasons of McGrath J.
By way of overview, Mr James‑Ind's sexual offending involves offences committed against multiple female victims in both Victoria and Western Australia. The offending is summarised in a chronology of offending prepared by the State.[35]
[35] Exhibit 1.3.
Between 1988 and 2002, Mr James‑Ind's criminal record includes in excess of 20 convictions for indecently assaulting women, two convictions for rape and one conviction for attempted rape. The most significant offending occurred in 2003 in Victoria against two adult females and in 2004 in Western Australia against one adult female.
Mr James‑Ind was first convicted of an offence of indecent assault in 1988 when he was 17 years of age. From 1989 to 2003, the nature of his offending can be characterised by him following adult females in and around shopping centres and then touching the victim on the vagina. On other occasions he would ride past an adult woman on a bike and touch the victim on the breast or buttocks. In 1990, Mr James‑Ind entered a neighbour's house, at night, and watched the adult female in bed asleep before touching her leg. He then fled.
In 1994, Mr James‑Ind was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The offending involved Mr James‑Ind following a 19-year-old female to her vehicle mid‑afternoon. He grabbed her and digitally penetrated her vagina. Later that same date, Mr James‑Ind approached a 14‑year‑old female and after forcing her to the ground he attempted to digitally penetrate her vagina. For that offending, Mr James‑Ind was sentenced to 2 years 6 months' imprisonment.
In 1995, Mr James‑Ind was convicted in Victoria for 11 offences of indecent assault. The offences, for which the facts are known, involved the accused approaching women at random in the street and grabbing at the victim's vagina or breasts. For that offending, Mr James‑Ind received a 24 month term of imprisonment.
In 1998, Mr James‑Ind's offending escalated to include acts of burglary. In 1998, Mr James‑Ind entered the house of a 42‑year‑old female and stole her underwear from a bedroom. Subsequently, he turned the gas and water off before returning, purporting to have been sent to repair the systems. He left upon the victim's mother returning.
In 2001 and 2003 he committed his most serious, and violent, sexual offences. In treatment programs and psychological and psychiatric assessments after these offences he expressed awareness that the level of violence in his offending was escalating and the worry that if he were to commit a sexual offence in the future he may kill his next victim.
On 14 December 2001, whilst visiting Western Australia, Mr James‑Ind committed offences against two unrelated young women in separate incidents but on the same date. The first victim, a 23‑year‑old female, was approached at 8.00 am by Mr James‑Ind outside a shopping centre. He grabbed the victim from behind and threatened her with a knife. Despite his hand partially covering her mouth the victim managed to scream and struggle. At that time Mr James‑Ind struck the victim across the face and used derogatory language. He fled due to the continued screaming and struggling by the victim. Mr James‑Ind pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting the victim with intent to facilitate the commission of the crime.
A short time later, at 9.00 am and at another location, Mr James‑Ind grabbed another adult female as she walked along the street. Mr James‑Ind held a knife in front of the victim's face threatening to 'cut her' if she screamed. Mr James-Ind digitally penetrated the victim's vagina whilst making derogatory comments of a sexual nature. He then indecently assaulted the victim by touching her breasts and further digitally penetrated her vagina on two occasions. He further touched the victim's breasts before putting his tongue and then penis in her mouth. He then sexually penetrated the victim by inserting his penis in her mouth.
Following the sexual assault, Mr James‑Ind robbed the victim, at which time he read the victim's identification cards. He then told the victim that she must not report the offence for three hours and that he now knew where she lived. Mr James‑Ind was convicted upon pleading guilty to one count of aggravated indecent assault, one count of deprivation of liberty, one count of armed robbery and six counts of aggravated sexual penetration. Mr James‑Ind was sentenced to a term of 6 years' imprisonment.
In 2003, in Victoria, Mr James‑Ind was convicted of five offences, being one count of indecent assault, one count of recklessly causing injury, two counts of sexual penetration and one count of attempted sexual penetration. Mr James‑Ind approached a 47‑year‑old female who was walking along a street. Mr James‑Ind threatened the victim with a knife. He then indecently assaulted the victim by touching her breast, then digitally penetrated her vagina twice and attempted to penetrate her with his penis. He fled when a passer‑by approached.
Mr James-Ind was sentenced for these offences and also for a further unrelated robbery to a term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non‑parole period of 9 years' imprisonment.
Mr James-Ind also has a history of other offending in Victoria which comprises of convictions for property offences including theft, burglary and stealing a motor vehicle. He has also been convicted of breach and assault offences.

Prison behaviour

As outlined in Ms Hasson's report, Mr James‑Ind did not incur any charges whilst incarcerated between the periods 2004 and 2019 or during his return to custody from 2020 until his release on 2022. Urinalysis testing during this time has also yielded negative results and there have been no new incident reports recorded.

Compliance with Previous Supervision Order

Mr James-Ind has a total of six convictions for breaching the terms of his supervision order.
First, on 19 July 2019, approximately six weeks after his release from prison, Mr James‑Ind was convicted of breaching his supervision order. The details of that breach were that on 14 July 2019, Mr James‑Ind attended Rockingham train station for a pre‑arranged meeting with a female known to him. He entered her vehicle and attended the Rockingham Shopping Centre and Rockingham Foreshore. He was transported in the female's car to the Kwinana train station and caught a train home. Mr James‑Ind did not have approval from his Community Corrections Officer (CCO) to enter a vehicle where a female was present, as was required by the conditions of his supervision order. He pleaded guilty to the breach and received a sentence of 6 months and 1 day imprisonment suspended for 9 months.
Secondly, on 29 June 2020, Mr James‑Ind departed his residence without the handheld component of his Electronic Monitoring Device. On 2 July 2020, he was convicted of this breach and was fined.
Thirdly, on 2 October 2020, Mr James‑Ind breached the conditions of his supervision order by allowing two females aged 41 and 16 years to reside in a caravan at his address without approval of his CCO. He was convicted of two offences and was sentenced to 6 months and 1 day imprisonment (concurrent from 28 November 2020).
Fourthly, on 9 March 2023 (after Mr James‑Ind was released on the amended supervision order), Mr James‑Ind was issued a Written Lawful Instruction (WLI) in relation to condition 39, specifying exactly what was required in relation to diary entries. Mr James‑Ind signed the WLI to acknowledge receipt and to indicate that he understood the requirements. On 25 March 2023, Mr James‑Ind undertook movements without making any record of them in his diary. He was convicted of contravening a requirement of a supervision order on 6 June 2023 and was fined.
Fifthly, on 11 January 2024, Mr James‑Ind contravened his supervision order when he was stopped by police following a meeting with the Serious Offender Management Squad (SOMS). Mr James‑Ind was driving a van with two females in the vehicle, one of whom was his wife whom he was permitted to have in the vehicle but another female, Ms Grubi, was not permitted. Mr James‑Ind was convicted of the breach and was fined.
Sixthly, on 11 April 2024, Mr James‑Ind once again breached his supervision order when a female was found hiding in the backyard of his property. Mr James‑Ind was convicted of the breach and was fined.
The evidence before me also states that Mr James‑Ind has demonstrated positive compliance since the interim supervision order was imposed by Lemonis J on 5 December 2024.

Reports prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act, and the extent to which Mr James‑Ind cooperated in the examination required by that section: s 7(3)(a)

Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson prepared reports as required by s 46(2)(a) of the HRSO Act. Each examined Mr James‑Ind and prepared an independent report in accordance with the requirements prescribed in s 74 of the HRSO Act. In their respective reports, Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson indicated their assessment of the risk that, without a restriction order, Mr James‑Ind would commit a serious offence, and the reasons for their respective assessments. Each also gave oral evidence further explaining their reasoning and were subject to cross‑examination.
I am satisfied that each of the experts are appropriately qualified to proffer the opinions expressed. Set out in these reasons is a summary of the key aspects of the written and oral evidence of the experts.
Each of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson have previously assessed and provided reports in relation to at least one earlier hearing in relation to Mr James‑Ind. I have had regard to those earlier reports, the contents of which are summarised by McGrath J in the original restriction order reasons and the contravention reasons. My reasons focus on the most recent reports and the oral evidence given.
Both Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson noted that Mr James‑Ind was polite and cooperative at their respective interviews. Mr James‑Ind also displayed insight and accepted responsibilities for his current situation. Over the course of the lengthy interviews, both authors reported that Mr James‑Ind's mood and affect was observed to be within the normal range.

Psychiatric Report

Dr Wynn Owen is a medical practitioner who has worked in a broad range of health settings for the past 38 years. He has experience in forensic psychiatry and, in addition to a private forensic psychiatric practice, he has a part‑time consultant appointment with the Western Australian State Forensic Mental Health Service. He has undertaken accredited training in risk assessment of violent and sexually violent individuals in clinical and custodial settings. Dr Wynn Owen has also provided reports and expert testimony to Western Australian courts for more than 20 years, including in proceedings brought under the repealed DSO Act and, subsequently, the HRSO Act.
Dr Wynn Owen prepared his report based upon the interview with Mr James‑Ind on 6 March 2025 at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections; the discussions and correspondence with the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU); the affidavit of Fleur Marie Allen dated 26 August 2024; the Book of Materials for Restriction Order Hearing Volume 1 and Volume 2; the End of Treatment Report by Katie Summers dated 8 March 2024.

Attitude towards past offending

In his report, after setting out the relevant history, Dr Wynn Owen records that Mr James‑Ind accepted and took full responsibility for the offences occurred between 1988 and 1998. Mr James‑Ind also accepted the seriousness of his offending in 2001 and 2003. In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, Mr James‑Ind demonstrated understanding of the long‑term, potentially life long, adverse effects of his actions on the victims. Mr James‑Ind expressed both empathy and remorse whilst recognising that he lacked empathy at the time of his offending.
However, Mr James‑Ind denied there was a primary sexual motivation for these offences. He also denied the sexual arousal in relation to those offences and maintained that the offences 'occurred at the times of increased stress, being isolated, angry and without financial means'.
Overall, Mr James‑Ind did express remorse, victim empathy and a good awareness of the serious long‑term impacts his actions would have had on his victims.

Breaches of supervision orders

In relation to the past breaches of the supervision order that occurred between 2019 and 2024, Mr James‑Ind accepted that most were avoidable had he taken a different approach and attitude to managing comply with the order.
Mr James-Ind acknowledged that it was unhelpful to have an antagonistic attitude toward the COMU. Since Mr James‑Ind experienced a positive relationship with his psychologist registrar, Ms Summers, and some subsequent changes in his thinking, Mr James‑Ind stated that he has realised that the COMU team are there to help him complete the order successfully, and that a positive engagement with them is the best approached. Since this change in thinking, Mr James‑Ind reported to Dr Wynn Owen that he has experienced less stress related to the supervision order and has proactively sought CCO advice and input.
In 2020, Mr James‑Ind was discovered to have been searching for and reviewing pornography portraying rape and sexual violence. Mr James‑Ind's consistent explanation to Dr Wynn Owen in relation to this conduct has been that he wanted to test his current response to such acts to confirm that the behaviours were wrong, and to see the effects on the victims. In examination in chief, Dr Wynn Owen was asked his opinion about the genuineness of this explanation. In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, the explanation seemed flawed. Dr Wynn Owen was unable to determine whether the explanation was deliberately misleading or a case of Mr James‑Ind not being able to see himself as someone who could undertake those activities. Dr Wynn Owen's evidence is that Mr James‑Ind understood that the people in the videos were actors therefore it is difficult to see how he was going to gain real insight as to how a victim might feel, and the duration of viewing the material, together with the extent and type of material suggested a fascination with the material which was consistent with his diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder.

Psychiatric history

Dr Wynn Owen noted that in early 2024, Mr James‑Ind attempted self‑harm and was found by his partner and was referred to the emergency department for urgent treatment. He was then referred to a psychiatrist who prescribed him antidepressant medicine. Mr James‑Ind reported that his depressive symptoms resolved over the following two month period, and that he has no current depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation or intent.

Other discussions

Mr James‑Ind reported to Dr Wynn Owen that he has a low sex drive and denied viewing any pornography since 2020. Dr Wynn Owen noted that this current situation can be contrasted with the comment Mr James‑Ind made to him in 2022, where Mr James‑Ind accepted that he was watching pornographic materials but said that he was watching on legal sites and the participants were actors.

Mr James‑Ind otherwise expressed hopes to Dr Wynn Owen that he be released from his restriction order after these proceedings and should that occur, he would visit his mother in Victoria. Mr James‑Ind stated to Dr Wynn Owen that if a supervision order is imposed, he would be disappointed, but would comply with the conditions of the order. Mr James‑Ind otherwise plans to remain in WA and build a relationship with his family, as well as continue with his current employment.

Psychiatric Diagnosis

Consistent with his previous assessments, Dr Wynn Owen diagnosed Mr James‑Ind with paraphilia - sexual sadism disorder. Dr Wynn Owen also concluded that a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder cannot be made as there is no evidence to support a diagnosis of conduct disorder before the age of 15 (which is a pre‑requisite for such a diagnosis). However, Dr Wynn Owen noted that Mr James‑Ind does show a number of persistent antisocial personality traits, including a failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours deceitfulness; failure to plan ahead; and the offending behaviour evidencing a lack of empathy.

Risk Assessments

Dr Wynn Owen utilised several diagnostic tools as part of conducting his risk assessment and expressing his opinion on the risk of Mr James‑Ind engaging in further serious offending: the Static‑99R, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL‑R) and the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP).

Static‑99R

The Static‑99R is an actuarial tool designed to assess the long‑term potential for sexual recidivism amongst adult males with a sex offence history. The Static‑99R contains 10 items, which are added together to create a total score. Static‑99R scores for non‑indigenous WA sex offenders have been found to be comparable to Static‑99R sample cohort scores. Static‑99R has moderate accuracy in ranking individuals according to their relative risk for sexual recidivism.
Mr James‑Ind's Static‑99R score as assessed by Dr Wynn Owen remains at the level IVb, being well above the average risk range. Offenders in the routine cohort released with the same Static‑99R score as Mr James‑Ind had a sexual recidivism likelihood of 36.0% after 5 years. In routine samples of sexual offenders, the average 5 year sexual recidivism rate is between 5% ‑ 15%.

Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R)

Dr Wynn Owen also utilised the PCL‑R, which assesses the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy. Mr James‑Ind's total score on the PCL‑R (22) did not meet the threshold score required for a finding of a psychopathic disorder (30).

Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP)

The RSVP is an evidence-based set of structured professional guidelines, where 22 individual risk factors from five domains are considered and coded, future sexual violence scenarios postulated and strategies for managing sexual violence developed and recommended based on the relevant risk factors and risk scenarios. Both static and dynamic risk factors are considered.
Dr Wynn Owen identified the following risk factors as being present in relation to Mr James‑Ind: chronicity of sexual violence; diversity of sexual violence; escalation of sexual violence; physical coercion; attitudes that condone sexual violence; problems with self‑awareness (possibly present); problems with stress or coping; problems resulting from child abuse; sexual deviance; violent or suicide ideation; problems with intimate relationships; problems with non‑intimate relationships (moderated); problems with treatment (partially present); and problems with supervision (moderated).
In terms of risk scenarios, Dr Wynn Owen reached the following conclusions:
Nature
Repeat: A repeat offence is the most likely future offence. In the context of stress and decompensation, rape of a stranger female victim with threats to harm, actual physical harm and possibly involving the use of a weapon.
Escalates: An increased level of violence during the sexual assault leads to serious injury or death of the victim.
Escalates and changes: Violent sexual assault of a non-stranger female (intimate partner or friend).
Any new offence will result in both immediate and long lasting psychological trauma and probable physical harm to the victim.
Imminence
The imminence will be related to Mr James-Ind's capacity to manage ongoing chronic stressors and additional acute stressors including relationship/interpersonal stress and financial stress. Considering past time elapsed between offences and the period of 18 months and 2.5 years that Mr James-Ind has subsequently been in the community (albeit under strict supervision) and the additional acute stressors he has managed without committing any new (nonbreach related) criminal offence or sexual offence imminence is likely to be at least some years and if his current learning and attitudes are sustained the likelihood will further reduce.
Frequency/duration
From the previous patterns of offending there could be a cluster of indecent assault type offences over a short period of time, if a rape offence occurs it may be repeated within a year if the first offence is not discovered.
Likelihood
Mr James-Ind has not committed sexual offence since 2003. His current level of cooperation with supervising staff, history of positive engagement with criminogenic psychological intervention until cessation in 2024 with associated treatment gains, assessed moderation in dynamic risks and interpersonal/social protective factors are indicators of a reduction in the likelihood of committing a serious offence in the future.

Opinion

Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr James‑Ind currently presents as a moderate risk of committing a future serious offence if not subject to a restriction order, with the most likely serious offence being a sexual offence (noting that other serious offending may occur in association with a sexual offence as has occurred in the past).
Whilst Mr James‑Ind has consistently denied to Dr Wynn Owen sexual motivation for any of this past offending, in Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, Mr James‑Ind's most significant risk factor is sexual deviance for the following reasons:
The history of adolescent voyeurism, stealing and hoarding underwear, offending by grabbing women's genital area and then penetrative sexual assault, over a period of 15 years prior to long term imprisonment, coupled with his much more recent viewing of extreme violent pornography suggest that notwithstanding his denial sexual deviance is a significant motivating factor in much of his offending. Mr James‑Ind's last sexual offence (and last serious offence) was in 2003.
Dr Wynn Owen also concluded that there are gaps in Mr James‑Ind's self‑awareness relating to deviance and that he has problems with stress management and coping.
In terms of managing stress, Dr Wynn Owen's oral evidence is that Mr James‑Ind has demonstrated in the last 12 months a greater ability to manage stress, but that he clearly has an ongoing need for assistance in this regard and has still not developed entirely successful stress management strategies. The self‑harm attempt being an example.
In terms of sexual deviance, Dr Wynn Owen explained that Mr James‑Ind still does not see himself as having any form of sexual deviance and Dr Wynn Owen believes that this is an outstanding treatment need. Dr Wynn Owen considered that if the deviance is not addressed at all, he had a concern that it would escalate and become a greater risk.
In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, the likelihood of Mr James‑Ind re‑offending as indicated by the Static‑99R tool is moderated by protective factors such as being in a sustained intimate relationship, having family support and contact, being employed and some improvements in his self‑awareness and coping (notwithstanding the latter contributing to his risk profile).
Dr Wynn Owen considered that whilst Mr James‑Ind originally held anti‑authoritarian and adversarial attitudes towards his COMU team, there had been a change in Mr James‑Ind's attitude in this regard, and since that time Mr James‑Ind has been more open with the COMU team and appears to have taken greater responsibility for the management of his supervision order. Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr James‑Ind presented quite differently in this regard in comparison to the two previous times Dr Wynn Owen assessed Mr James‑Ind.
Dr Wynn Owen also considered that it is evident that some of the dynamic risk factors have moderated: Mr James‑Ind's self‑awareness has improved (albeit with no variation with respect to sexual deviance) and his overall coping capacity has improved, notwithstanding the suicide attempt. Being in a current intimate relationship, having employment and having re‑established relationships with his son and one of his brothers are also protective factors which Dr Wynn Owen observes tend to reduce the likelihood of general and sexual offending in males.
Dr Wynn Owen also observed that the period 2022 to 2025 is the longest period of desistance while in the community since Mr James‑Ind was first convicted for a sexual offence in 1987.
Dr Wynn Owen concluded that these protective factors and the positive variations in the dynamic risk factors suggest that the likelihood of future offending is lower than that indicated by Mr James‑Ind's Static‑99R score. In his oral evidence, Dr Wynn Owen estimated that risk to be in the vicinity of 15% as opposed the higher level of 30% as indicated by his Static‑99R score. Dr Wynn Owen considered Mr James‑Ind's risk to still be above that for the average group, which is why he has concluded that Mr James‑Ind's risk is a moderate risk.
Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr James‑Ind would benefit from further psychological counselling particularly to consider and address the outstanding issue of sexual deviance and to assist with ongoing development of skill around problem solving and stress coping mechanisms.
In terms of future management, Dr Wynn Owen did not consider that a detention order would make any positive difference to the risk of re-offending, and rather could increase the likelihood of future offending.
Dr Wynn Owen considered that if a supervision order were imposed, it should provide a lower level external constraint so that Mr James‑Ind can demonstrate self‑management of the risk. Dr Wynn Owen did not consider there to be any need for a curfew. Further, Dr Wynn Owen considered that conditions relating to prior approval of unsupervised contact with females, restrictions on internet browsing and searches and 'projections' (forward planning of activities with pre‑approval by CCO) could be removed while maintaining the requirement for Mr James‑Ind to diarise contacts and report at the next CCO meeting. In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, Mr James‑Ind should be required to continue to allow access to all data storage and internet capable devices at WA Police or CCO request, with deletion of data including apps and browsing history to be prohibited. Dr Wynn Owen's explanation for this opinion in his examination in chief was as follows:[36]
At some point, Mr James-Ind will return to completely unsupervised management living in the community. For this legislation to best demonstrate that he has developed skills and is able to – to manage that risk himself, he needs to be given the opportunity to manage that risk whilst still under a degree of supervision. So my recommendations relate to him reporting post-hoc those sort of contacts because they are still potentially high risk situations. They relate to him continuing to have his Internet use, social media use et cetera monitored but not to have the same prohibited restrictions on them which gives the opportunity for the police and the Community Offender Monitoring Unit to see what has been occurring or to see if deletions have occurred while it also gives Mr James-Ind the opportunity to demonstrate that he doesn't need that additional constraint to manage his own risk. So essentially, it's about what is the next stage should Mr James-Ind be subject to another supervision order and what is the next stage that enables him to demonstrate to the State that he is able to manage any future risk of – of sexual offending.
[36] ts 359.
Dr Wynn Own considered if that if a supervision order were to be made, he would recommend it be made for a duration of two years. Dr Wynn Owen explained that if Mr James‑Ind were not to re‑offend in this two year period then this, taken with the events that have occurred since 2019, would be a sufficient period of time to demonstrate that his risk of committing serious sexual offence would have reduced such that he would be closer to the average risk of re‑offending.

Psychological Report

Ms Hasson is a forensic psychologist registered with the Psychology Board of Australia with over 30 years' experience whose area of expertise includes the assessment and treatment of violent and sexual offenders.
Ms Hasson prepared her report based upon the interview with Mr James‑Ind on 12 March 2025 for more than three and a half hours at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre; discussion with Ms Julia Adams, the Senior Corrections Officers for 75 minutes on various topics; the Book of Materials Volume 1 and Volume 2; and the affidavit of Fleur Marie Allen affirmed on 26 August 2024 and its annexures.

History and breaches

Ms Hasson's report includes a detailed history of Mr James‑Ind's past offending, compliance with the supervision order and record of treatment interventions and programmes, which I will not repeat here.
In examination in chief, Ms Hasson was asked specifically about the breach involving the viewing of pornography and her opinion as to the genuineness of Mr James‑Ind's explanation for that conduct. Ms Hasson's evidence was that she did not consider the explanation to make sense in terms of the rationale for looking at that material to develop empathy, when Mr James‑Ind knew he was watching actors. Ms Hasson considered this issue could have been raised with his treating psychologist at the time, and there were more appropriate ways to address the issue. Ms Hasson's evidence was that she was concerned that this behaviour was offence parallelling behaviour and that it occurred at a time of high stress for Mr James‑Ind. That is, that Mr James‑Ind dealt with the stress he was experiencing by putting himself in a high risk situation which would require a great deal of effort not to progress through a contact offence of some sort.

Risk Assessments

Ms Hasson also used assessment tools as part of her assessment of Mr James‑Ind and his risk of re‑offending, including the Static‑99R, the RSVP and the PCL‑R.

Static-99R

Ms Hasson assessed Mr James‑Ind's Static‑99R score as a 9, placing him at risk level IVb. This level is well above average with offenders in this level having a perceptibly higher risk of re‑offending than the typical offender. This score puts Mr James‑Ind in the 99.9 percentile.
However, Ms Hasson observes that the Static‑99R does not measure all relevant risk factors, and Mr James‑Ind's risk may be higher or lower than that indicated based on dynamic risk factors which are considered as part of using the RSVP tool.

PCL-R

As with Dr Wynn Owen, Ms Hasson concluded that the Mr James‑Ind's PCL‑R score is below the Australian cut‑off for psychopathy. However, Ms Hasson considered Mr James‑Ind's score indicated the presence of many traits of psychopathy including callousness, lack of empathy, impulsivity, and lack of remorse.

RSVP

Ms Hasson identified the following risk factors as being present in relation to Mr James‑Ind: chronicity of sexual violence; diversity of sexual violence; escalation of sexual violence; physical coercion; attitudes that condone sexual violence; problems with self‑awareness (possibly or partially present); problems with stress or coping (partially present); problems resulting from child abuse (partially present); sexual deviance; violent ideation (difficult to assess); problems with intimate relationships; problems with non‑intimate relationships (moderated); non‑sexual criminal activity (limited); problems with planning; problems with treatment (partially present); and problems with supervision.
In terms of risk scenarios, Ms Hasson reached the following conclusions:
Nature
Scenario 1 - Repeat: The most likely future offence will be an opportunistic sexual offence against an adult female stranger. The offending at this level may involve coercive sexual touching involving digital penetration and or penile vaginal penetration (attempted or actual). Mr James-Ind may use a knife or other weapon to gain the compliance of the victim. His offending behaviour may be followed by threats to keep quiet. The victim will likely be approached from behind while engaging in day to day activities.
Scenario 2 - Escalate: The most likely escalation scenario involves coercive sexual assault of an adult female including attempted or forced sexual penetration (penile and digital as well as likely oral penetration). Threats of harm are likely. If the victim resists there may be some physical as well as psychological harm. Presence of a weapon is likely and Mr James-Ind may intentionally cause injury that is serious but not likely to result in the death of the victim.
Scenario 3 - Escalate and Changes: Coercive sexual assault of an adult female including penetration with overt physical violence and credible threats of harm. The level of violence Mr James-Ind engages in may cause serious harm to or death of the victim. In this scenario of escalation and change Mr James-Ind may forcibly enter the home of a woman and commit various acts of sexual violence or he may engage in violent sexual behaviour toward a female partner or acquaintance.
All scenarios are likely to cause significant psychological trauma and physical harm directly and indirectly to the victim, their family and friends and the wider community as Mr James-Ind has previously attacked women of varying ages in broad daylight, whilst they were engaging in ordinary everyday activities and on occasion when witnesses have been present or nearby and when the possibility of detection was high.
Imminence
Imminence of sexual offending will depend on the presence or absence of dynamic risk factors. Mr James-Ind has previously identified feeling unsafe and unable to cope in the community as a factor in prior offending as well as negative emotional states including anger, frustration, stress, feelings of worthless and inadequacy, of not belonging and of not being in control. Grievance thinking including feeling victimised, taken advantage of and mistreated by others is also linked to his offending.
Frequency/Duration
If Mr James-Ind is not caught immediately after re-offending there is potential for him to continue to offend several times seeking new victims in a relatively short period of time. His history shows acute and chronic episodes of sexual offending. Supervision and management are key to manage his risk for the foreseeable future.
Likelihood
Of the three scenarios identified, Scenario 1 and 2 are the most likely as they closely parallel previous offending. Mr James-Ind's lack of concern or empathy for his previous victims may be a factor in any future offending. Mr James-Ind is assessed as posing a well above average risk or reoffending.

Opinion

In Ms Hasson's opinion, Mr James‑Ind continues to present as a high risk of committing a serious offence of a sexual nature if not subject to a restriction order. Ms Hasson considers the following factors to be relevant to Mr James‑Ind's risk of re‑offending:
[I]nferred deviant sexual interests; coping skills deficits and the presence of negative or maladaptive coping mechanisms; emotional regulation difficulties, especially the expression and/or inhibition of angry or aggressive impulses and the presence of weapons are salient factors in most of his serious offences; self-esteem and self-confidence issues; personality features including lack of remorse and empathy, avoidant, self-defeating and self-sabotaging personality traits, engagement in dysfunctional intimate relations; history of poor attachment, family of origin issues and his own history of child sexual abuse; communication and cognitive skills deficits including poor judgement, impulsivity, decision making errors, exposure to destabilisers and a lack of social and emotional support.

Ms Hasson's assessment of Mr James‑Ind's risk of re‑offending took into account events over the past five years since he was originally released on his supervision order. Ms Hasson observed that since he was released on a supervision order, Mr James‑Ind has been deceptive through his actions of lying, omitting and misinforming those tasked with his supervision and counselling, and has been convicted of breaches of the conditions of the supervision order. Ms Hasson also observed that Mr James‑Ind has previously been found to have visited sites to view sexually violent non-consensual pornography, as well as using social media applications to meet women and engage in several sexual relationships, all while insisting that he has low libido, denying sexual preoccupation or using sex as a coping mechanism.
However, Ms Hasson observed that Mr James‑Ind demonstrated some insight into his sexual offending by identifying that his experience of negative emotions and his lack of ability to manage them appropriately contributed to his offending behaviour. In Ms Hasson's opinion, escalation in Mr James‑Ind's offending behaviour appears to be linked to problems in intimate relationships, increasing anger and hostility, grievance thinking and a desire to hurt and humiliate against a background of feeling worthless and rejected.
Ms Hasson's oral evidence was also that when she interviewed Mr James‑Ind, he appeared to managing stress in life well, having made some changes in his life. Ms Hasson's evidence was also that he had made a significant change in the past 12 months in particular, and was now more open in his reporting to CCO and was not showing any non‑compliant behaviours and that if he continued with that it would go well for the future. He had good support with his supervision, stable employment, a relationship and he had reconnected with some family members. Ms Hasson's oral evidence was that in terms of managing stressful situations, Mr James‑Ind was managing well but his skills were still emerging
Ms Hasson also observed that over the past several months, Mr James‑Ind had been able to demonstrate improved compliance and stability in the community, which is a positive and optimistic sign of future compliance, and he has not been convicted of a new sexual or violent offence since 2003.
Ms Hasson observed that many of the risk factors identified above have been explored with Mr James‑Ind and some degree moderated through his participation in programs and individual counselling. As a result, Mr James‑Ind has good insight into his issues and how he can manage high risk situations and has made some progress toward behavioural change and resolving conflict.
In Ms Hasson's opinion, Mr James‑Ind would benefit from some further psychological intervention in relation to two key areas: sexual deviance and relationship and communication skills. In relation to sexual deviance, Ms Hasson would like to see Mr James‑Ind receive additional counselling to help him acknowledge this, so he can manage it going forward. In Ms Hasson's opinion, there is a disconnect between Mr James‑Ind's offending behaviours and how he views himself. Ms Hasson considers that until this can be acknowledged, it is a missing piece of Mr James‑Ind being able to manage the risk in the future. In terms of relationship and communication skills, whilst Mr James‑Ind is currently in a relationship, he has had several and they have not been able to endure for very long and he has very quickly commenced a new relationship.
Ms Hasson's evidence was that she was not confident that if Mr James‑Ind was not on any further supervision order that he would presently have skills to self‑manage his risk.
In her written report, Ms Hasson recommended that if Mr James‑Ind is made subject to a supervision order, that it be for a five year period and that he address areas of outstanding criminogenic treatment need through individual counselling. Ms Hasson explained in her oral evidence that she recommended the period of five years based on how long it would take Mr James‑Ind's Static‑99R score to fall into the average score range, which would be approximately 11 years post‑release. Ms Hasson focussed on the Static‑99R factors as she did not consider Mr James‑Ind had shown improvement in the dynamic factors for a sufficiently sustained period of time. However, in cross‑examination Ms Hasson said that she did not have a problem with a two year supervision order to see if Mr James‑Ind could maintain stability in his emotional self.
In terms of conditions for any supervision order, Ms Hasson agreed that a curfew was not required. Ms Hasson also recommended in her report and in discussions with the COMU team that the conditions regarding female acquaintances remain, owing to the on-going deceptiveness in this regard up until January or February 2024. In relation to the conditions regarding prohibited internet search terms, Ms Hasson recommended in her report that these terms remained banned, on the basis that there was no good reason for Mr James‑Ind to search the internet using these terms. However, in her oral evidence Ms Hasson said that she understood the approach of Dr Wynn Owen to the conditions and the need to give Mr James‑Ind a chance to self‑manage. Ms Hasson agreed that this was an approach, but felt that the ability to monitor the female associations and internet searching post‑hoc should remain.

Other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the respondent: s 7(3)(b)

Treatment Options Report

Ms Emma Cashmore, HRSO Planning officer with the Department of Justice, prepared a treatment options report dated 28 April 2025 which provides an overview of Mr James‑Ind's intervention history and identifies treatment options.
Ms Cashmore summarised Mr James‑Ind's offence specific intervention history in pars [4] to [5] of her report, which identified various treatment interventions between December 2011 and November 2022. Mr James‑Ind had completed the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program at Bunbury Regional Prison in 2012; the Violent Offending Intensive Program at Karnet Prison Farm in October 2013; attended 19 individual psychological sessions between February 2018 and September 2018 with a Departmental psychologist when at Acacia Prison; attended 50 individual psychological sessions at East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre between June 2019 and November 2020 when subject to the supervision order; attended one counselling sessions in February 2021 when in custody following his contravention of the supervision order; and attended a further 50 individual psychological sessions at East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre between November 2022 and February 2024 when released on the amended supervision order.
The report observes that Mr James‑Ind has engaged in other interventions in Victoria.
Ms Cashmore then summarised the findings of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson at pars [6] to [9] of the report. Ms Cashmore notes that there are different expert opinions regarding Mr James‑Ind's risk level and the need for further criminogenic intervention. Accordingly, should a further supervision order be made, a Senior CCO could re‑refer Mr James‑Ind to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team for a re‑assessment as to appropriate intervention.
In her report, Ms Cashmore refers to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team - End of Treatment Report prepared by Ms Katie Summers, dated 8 March 2024. This is the most recent end of treatment report contained in the material before the court.
In her report, Ms Summers records that Mr James‑Ind engaged in 50 psychology sessions between November 2022 and February 2024. The treatment goals during this period of intervention were:
(a)establishing a therapeutic rapport and working alliance (particularly given Mr James‑Ind's mistrust of authority figures);
(b)initially supporting reintegration from custody into the community, and adjustment to supervision and order conditions;
(c)assertive communication (with a particular focus on fostering open communication with relevant members of the risk management team);
(d)exploration of the factors underpinning Mr James‑Ind's anti‑authoritarian attitudes and addressing these attitudes in counselling;
(e)self-management - including emotional identification, expression, and coping; and
(f)sexual self‑management (including deviant sexual preference, use of sex as coping, and possible sexual preoccupation).
Ms Summers records that Mr James‑Ind demonstrated some progress in relation to his capacity to communicate assertively.
Mr James-Ind also continued to deny the existence of sexual preoccupation or engagement in sexual activity as a copying strategy and continued to deny experiencing any deviant sexual thoughts or fantasies involving non‑consensual or violent sexual contact with women. When discussing his previous viewing of pornography depicting violent sexual acts, Mr James‑Ind maintained that he did not view this material for sexual gratification, but rather as a means of acknowledging the fear that a victim may experience, to further strengthen his resolve not to engage in offending behaviour of this nature.
Emotional coping was a significant part of the recent period of intervention. During periods of heightened stress, Mr James‑Ind exhibited a tendency to ruminate on the conditions of his order and externalise blame and responsibility to the Department of Justice staff, indicative of negative emotionality. This was in contrast to periods of relative stability, where Mr James‑Ind was observed to express a more balanced perspective regarding his order. Whilst Mr James‑Ind articulated an intellectual understanding of this tendency, this remained an ongoing difficulty for Mr James‑Ind.
Mr James‑Ind appeared to exhibit some difficulties with self‑regulation in the weeks preceeding the final psychological contact.
Mr James‑Ind's sessions with Ms Summers sessions concluded when Ms Summers ceased her employment with the Department. At the conclusion of the sessions, Mr James‑Ind expressed a preference to take a break from Departmental psychological intervention and counselling more generally, to allow himself the opportunity to implement what he had learned independently. During the final session, Mr James‑Ind presented in a calm and settled mood, with no evidence of the rumination and sense of grievance exhibited in the weeks prior and was able to articulate early warning signs that would signal a deterioration in his functioning.
Ms Summers concluded her report by observing that overall, Mr James‑Ind demonstrated some progress in relation to his capacity to identify and express his emotions, to communicate assertively, and to challenge unhelpful cognitions over the course of their sessions. However, Ms Summers noted that Mr James‑Ind continued to require support and guidance in session to enact his identified coping strategies and to generate balanced and helpful cognitions during periods of heightened stress and emotionality.
Ms Summers considered that given Mr James‑Ind's expressed preference to take a break from further intervention, there appeared to be little benefit in pressing Mr James‑Ind into further intervention at that time. Rather, Ms Summers recommended that Mr James‑Ind be encouraged and empowered to self‑monitor his mental and emotional state, challenge unhelpful attitudes, continue to practice assertive communication, and enact prosocial coping strategies as required, through discussions in supervision, with a referral if issues pertaining to risk emerge or escalate.

Community Supervision Assessment Report

Ms Julia Adams is a Senior CCO within the COMU of the Department of Justice and is Mr James‑Ind's CCO and commenced managing Mr James‑Ind in August 2023. Ms Adams sees Mr James‑Ind on a weekly basis.
Ms Adams prepared a report, which is endorsed by other senior officers in the Department, summarising Mr James‑Ind's response to supervision; programmatic intervention; accommodation and community supports; instances of non‑compliance; and strategies to manage offending behaviours, by reference to the other expert reports I have already considered.
I have summarised here those parts of the report which concern the relationship between Mr James‑Ind and his CCO; Mr James‑Ind's compliance with the conditions of the supervision order and those parts which concern recommendations or observations regarding any conditions to be imposed, if a supervision order is made; as well as relevant aspects of Ms Adams' oral evidence.

Supervision

Ms Adams reports that Mr James‑Ind has been compliant with his reporting regime throughout the term of his supervision order and reports on a weekly basis and generally in a timely manner. Ms Adams reports that Mr James‑Ind's engagement with her when she first commenced was polite, although he was not overtly forthcoming with disclosures, requiring constant prompting, specifically with regards to his sexual functioning and social interactions.
Ms Adams initial discussions largely consisted of initial rapport building, high risk scenarios and evoking increased willingness to provide honest disclosure. In Ms Adams' opinion, Mr James‑Ind is prone to becoming preoccupied with verbalising his negative attitude towards the supervision order, such as his conditions regarding diary entries and projections of movements, and is of the opinion this is restrictive in maintaining a work‑life balance. These views and attitudes remained present until April 2024 when Mr James‑Ind experienced significant deterioration and decline in mental health, resulting in actual self‑harm. From this point forward, Mr James‑Ind demonstrated improved engagement and appeared to be motivated to make positive changes to improve his lifestyle and subsequent circumstances.

Mental Health

Ms Adams reports that Mr James‑Ind's mental health deteriorated during the period of time when he separated from his ex‑wife and commenced a relationship with his current partner. This was evidenced by his defeatist attitude and subdued presentation during supervision appointments. Ms Adams reports that Mr James‑Ind exhibited behaviours such as helplessness and overwhelm and according to his self‑report, he ceased all antidepressant medication and proceeded to self‑medicate with the use of alcohol, stating he was consuming premix bourbon cans each evening. This culminated to an event of actual self‑harm on 29 April 2024 where Mr James‑Ind required assistance and treatment from emergency services. He was conveyed to the Peel Health Campus and discharged the same day. When Mr James‑Ind relocated to his current location, he sought additional assistance with his mental health from his general practitioner.

Accommodation

Mr James‑Ind was previously residing at a property located in the Mandurah area with his ex‑wife which they rented privately. In early 2024, Mr James‑Ind began reporting a deterioration in this property's amenities, which in his opinion meant it was no longer safe for his ex‑wife, who has several health issues. When an alternative accommodation was sourced, his ex‑wife moved into that accommodation, but Mr James‑Ind chose to stay. Ms Adams records that she considers that there was an ulterior motive to this course of events, being Mr James‑Ind's desire to commence contact with a female known to him, and who is now his current partner.
On 29 May 2024, Mr James‑Ind was approved to relocate to alternative accommodation within the Beeliar area, which was provided by Steps to Reducing Offending Behaviour. Mr James‑Ind currently remains at this accommodation location with his new partner and shares the property with a third person. Mr James‑Ind is able to continue residing at this property until he is in a position where he can financially afford private rental. Mr James‑Ind has expressed a preference to obtain a private rental as living in a share house with his partner is not ideal.

Employment

On 5 December 2022, Mr James‑Ind commenced working at Fremantle Trailers until 22 April 2024, which was around the time of his recent mental health decline. Mr James‑Ind then recommenced with that employer later in 2024 and remains there today.
Mr James‑Ind's employer verified that Mr James‑Ind demonstrated a good level of work, is a trustworthy employee and is completing more projects that require fabrication work which he appears to enjoy, and his employer would be more than willing to provide a character reference.

Community Support Networks

Mr James‑Ind has maintained telephone and social media contact with his mother who resides in Victoria. He is also supported by his current intimate partner, as well as friendships formed with a couple who reside near previous his address in Mandurah.
In October 2024, Mr James‑Ind was successful in locating his biological son, and has connected with him in a positive manner and the pair have maintained contact via telephone calls on a weekly basis since that time. Mr James‑Ind has also reunited with one of his estranged brothers. Ms Adams gave evidence that these relationships are emerging and positive.
Mr James‑Ind married Ms Dibben in July 2023 and in March 2024, he reported to his CCO that the relationship had ended.
Mr James‑Ind met his current partner, Ms Grubi, via his ex‑wife. Mr James‑Ind sought permission from the COMU for Ms Grubi to attend his property to visit socially with his ex‑wife and that request was refused in December 2023. Despite COMU suspicions that Mr James‑Ind and Mr Grubi had commenced an intimate relationship, COMU proceeded to approve contact in a gradual manner, so as to ascertain Mr James‑Ind's genuine interest in the relationship. Ms Adams records that this proved difficult due to Mr James‑Ind reporting different motives for the contact each week. Whenever COMU has made contact with Ms Grubi, that contact has been reflective of her infatuation, love and on‑going positive support for Mr James‑Ind, and Mr Grubi has occasionally sought guidance as to how best to support Mr James‑Ind. Mr James‑Ind has reported feeling content within the relationship. Ms Adams gave oral evidence that this relationship is largely positive and pro‑social.

Non-compliance with the supervision order

I have previously outlined Mr James‑Ind's convictions for failing to comply with the terms of the supervision order.
In her report, Ms Adams also details that since his release on the amended supervision order on 17 October 2022, Mr James‑Ind has incurred a total of 21 breaches of the conditions which did not result in formal charges. These breaches largely relate to his failure to record movements/interactions in his diary and failing to submit projections for his attendance at various locations. There have been several other occasions linked to inappropriate use of Google platforms, namely recording reviews at East Perth Adult Community Corrections, and damaging Global Positioning System portable charging devices, all of which have resulted in verbal and written warnings being issued, or additional written lawful instructions being imposed.

Response to interim supervision order

Mr James‑Ind has demonstrated positive compliance with the interim supervision order imposed on 5 December 2024, with his primary focus being on increasing his financial stability, seeking alternative accommodation and developing his relationships with his partner, son and brother.

Monitoring of movements and curfew

In both her report and oral evidence, Ms Adams explained that over the period Mr James‑Ind has been subject to a supervision order, COMU has relaxed some of the requirements on Mr James‑Ind following his compliance. These include reducing the extent to which Mr James‑Ind is required to detail proposed attendances at locations in advance, and the removal in its entirety of a curfew requirement.

Conditions if a supervision order is imposed

In both her report and oral evidence, Ms Adams provide information of the practical operation of various draft conditions, if imposed.
In relation to the draft conditions filed by the State, Ms Adams agreed that draft condition 32 (the requirement to keep a diary of movements, activities and associations) would capture a requirement for Mr James‑Ind to keep a record of any contact with females if the words 'as and when directed by a CCO' are added.
Ms Adams also confirmed that if a supervision order were made, COMU would not require 21 days to be ready to implement that supervision order, and in the case of Mr James‑Ind COMU would be ready immediately upon the order being made.

Information as to whether or not the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future: s 7(3)(c) and whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour: s 7(3)(d)

A person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future if they have an inclination, tendency or disposition to commit serious offences generally, or in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim.[37]
[37] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178].
In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR,[38] Murray AJA stated that:
[propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder.
[38] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178] (Murray AJA).
Mr James‑Ind's criminal history and the evidence relating to his offending conduct reveals a pattern of Mr James‑Ind approaching adult women, not known to him, in public places and then either indecently assaulting or sexually penetrating the victim. There is no particular pattern as to the age of the women. The offending behaviour has tended to occur when Mr James‑Ind was experiencing a period of stress and/or a negative emotional state.
I am also satisfied on the basis of Mr James‑Ind's criminal record, and the evidence regarding his offending conduct, that Mr James‑Ind has a tendency to commit serious sexual offences against women.

Efforts to address offending behaviour and whether Mr JamesInd's participation in any rehabilitation program has had any positive effect: s 7(3)(e) and (f)‑

I must also consider if Mr James‑Ind has made any efforts to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including by participating in any rehabilitation programs, and further, whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect.
Mr James‑Ind's history of treatment interventions and programs is outlined in the reports of Dr Wynn Owen, Ms Hasson and Ms Cashmore. I also have before me various reports regarding different components of that treatment. It is not necessary to set out each of these treatment programs in detail, save to observe that Mr James‑Ind has a history of individual and group counselling and programs.
What is relevant to observe, is that in the opinion of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, Mr James‑Ind has engaged in a positive manner with these treatments and programs and has made significant progress as a result. This has enabled Mr James‑Ind to develop many self‑management and coping skills. However, both Dr Wynn Owen and the Ms Hasson are of the opinion that notwithstanding this progress, Mr James‑Ind has some outstanding needs that would benefit from further psychological treatment, being in relation to sexual deviance and relationship/communication skills. Both Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson are of the opinion that development of these skills is necessary for Mr James‑Ind to fully develop skills to self‑manage his risk of re‑offending in the future.

The risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order: s 7(3)(h)

I have outlined above the evidence given by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson regarding their opinion, having employed the various diagnostic tools explained above, that Mr James‑Ind is a moderate (Dr Wynn Owen) or a high (Ms Hasson) risk of committing further serious sexual offences if not the subject of a restriction order.
That expert opinion evidence was given having regard to Mr James‑Ind's activities and progress since he has been the subject of a supervision order, and also takes into account what each expert considers to be Mr James‑Ind's on‑going or outstanding treatment needs.
Having carefully considered that expert evidence, and all the other evidence before the court, I am satisfied that if not subject to a restriction order, there is a moderate to high risk that Mr James‑Ind would commit a serious sexual offence.

The need to protect members of the community from that risk: s 7(3)(i)

Both Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson stated that in the event that Mr James‑Ind re‑offended in the future, it would involve a violent sexual assault upon a female. In my view, there is a need to protect the community from this risk.

Any other relevant matter: s 7(3)(j)

Mr James‑Ind also tendered three character references.
The first being from Mr Paul Alkins, Managing Director of St Rob - Steps to Reducing Offending Behaviour which is a registered charity and not‑for‑profit organisation that works towards reducing the likelihood of adults committing offences by providing various services, including counselling, employment and accommodation. Mr Alkins first met Mr James‑Ind soon after he was released in 2019 and Mr James‑Ind is now living at St Rob accommodation.
Mr Alkins's character reference records that Mr James‑Ind has provided support to other St Robs residents by sharing his story as well as assisting St Robs with maintenance works and managing several of their properties. Mr Alkins states that they would have given Mr James‑Ind more work, but the electronic monitoring and notification requirements have made that difficult. Mr Alkins states that over the years Mr James‑Ind has become very helpful, caring and a real mentor to other 30 residents of St Robs and has become a caring man who assists others to avoid the path he took.
The second is from Mr James‑Ind's partner, Ms Keyra Grubi. Ms Grubi says that she has been in a relationship with Mr James‑Ind for the past 15 months and they have been living together for the past 12 months. Ms Grubi describes Mr James‑Ind as kind, thoughtful, honest, giving, patient, understanding and loving to her and everyone in their life. Ms Grubi's parents have also met Mr James‑Ind and also think Mr James‑Ind is wonderful. Ms Grubi outlines that Mr James‑Ind has recently connected with his son and reconnected with his estranged younger brother. Ms Grubi believes that once the electronic monitoring is removed, Mr James‑Ind will be able to make friends.
The third is from Mr James‑Ind's son, Ryan Johnson. Mr Johnson is 30 years of age and met his father in December 2024 for the first time and has now moved to Western Australia to build a relationship with his father and support him. Mr Johnson states that in the time he has known his father, he has come to know him as a caring and calm individual and has watched him care and support his partner through health struggles and also support other members of the community. Mr Johnson also states that Mr James‑Ind is employed full‑time, and enjoys that work, often doing additional shifts and showing off his latest accomplishments at work.

Conclusion as to whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender

The plurality in Garlett v The State of Western Australia observed that when a court is determining whether a risk that an offender will commit a serious offence is unacceptable, it is required to make a judgment about the nature and extent of the prospective harm. It is also required to have regard to the evidence relevant to the nature of the offending and the circumstances of the offender. Importantly, what is required is a 'practical evaluation concerned with the circumstances of the particular offending and the particular offender'.[39]
[39] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 at [73] and [84].
Further, s 7 and s 48 of the HRSO Act 'do not envisage the possibility that a restriction order might be made to prevent the commission of a serious offence, whether of the same kind or of another kind, unless the risk of further offending involves a real threat of harm to the community'.
Having considered all of the material before me, I am of the view that whilst Mr James‑Ind has not re‑offended since 2003, and has made some encouraging progress since he has been released on supervision order, there remains an unacceptable risk that if released, Mr James‑Ind will commit a serious sexual offence against or in relation to female adult/s unknown to him. It is obvious that this risk exposes the community to a real threat of harm. The potential for psychological and physical harm to be caused to victims of sexual assault is well known and it is essential to protect the community from such a risk.
That risk is greatest if Mr James‑Ind is experiencing a period of high stress, and continues to remain especially given Mr James‑Ind's continuing denial of his deviance. Since his release on his supervision order, Mr James‑Ind has, until recently, struggled with the conditions of his supervision order and has breached the conditions of that order on six occasions that have resulted in charges and convictions. One of those breaches included reviewing pornography of a type similar to his offending behaviour. Mr James‑Ind's explanation for viewing that pornography, together with his continuing denial of sexual deviance, is a matter of concern to both Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson. Both consider this to be an area where Mr James‑Ind would benefit from further psychological counselling and treatment to enable Mr James‑Ind to fully accept, understand and self‑manage his risk.
Mr James‑Ind has also experienced a period of stress resulting in a decline in his mental health and a self‑harm attempt only last year in 2024. Since this time, Mr James‑Ind has improved in his attitude towards his supervision order. However, that period of improvement has only been since 2024. Mr James‑Ind has yet to have a consistent period of time of a meaningful length without breaches or without negative responses to stressful situations.
Accordingly, having regard to all of the matters referred to in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act, whilst Mr James‑Ind has clearly made progress, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that if Mr James‑Ind were to be released without any restriction there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. In particular, I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit an offence within s 5(1) of the HRSO Act, namely, an offence within sch 1 subdiv 3 which is of a sexual nature, or that he will commit a serious offence that is of a similar nature and is otherwise within s 5(3) or (4) of the HRSO Act.
Both Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson gave cogent and reliable evidence that supports this finding and the other material before the court is also cogent and reliable. Whilst the issue was not conceded by Mr James‑Ind, his counsel submitted that in light of the expert evidence he could not advance a direct submission to the contrary.

Should a continuing detention order or a supervision order be imposed?

The effect of s 48(1) of the HRSO Act is that upon finding Mr James‑Ind to be a high risk serious offender, I must either make a continuing detention order or a supervision order.
The State only seeks a supervision order, and provided a draft set of conditions for such a supervision order. However, s 48(1)(b) of the HRSO Act provides that the power to make a supervision order is subject to the operation of s 29 of the HRSO, which provides that a court cannot make a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order as made. The onus of so satisfying the court is on the offender.
Having found that Mr James‑Ind is a high risk serious offender, and bearing in mind as a paramount consideration the need to ensure adequate protection of the community, I am satisfied that I should make a supervision order.
Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson's evidence is that Mr James‑Ind's risk of serious offending is able to be managed in the community on a supervision order.
The totality of the evidence before the court is that Mr James‑Ind has made good progress since he was released on a supervision order, including a much improved attitude to supervision and relationship with COMU officers. The evidence of Ms Adams is that some conditions have been removed or reduced in scope following compliance by Mr James‑Ind. Mr James‑Ind has also not committed a serious offence since being released on the supervision order.
In all the circumstances, I am therefore satisfied that not only is a supervision order the appropriate restriction order to make, but also that if released on a supervision order Mr James‑Ind will comply with the standard orders of that supervision order.
There is a question as to the length of the supervision order and the appropriate conditions.
In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, if Mr James‑Ind is made subject to a supervision order, it should be for a period of two years, and should involve a reduction in some of the conditions to provide Mr James‑Ind with an opportunity to self‑manage. In particular, Dr Wynn Owen considered that no curfew was required; Mr James‑Ind should no longer be required to seek permission from his supervisor before he meets with new people or females; and Mr James‑Ind should no longer be prohibited from using particular search terms on the internet. However, Dr Wynn Owen considers that Mr James‑Ind's contacts and associations should still be recorded and monitored post‑hoc by COMU, and the ability to monitor Mr James‑Ind's internet activity post‑hoc should also remain. Dr Wynn Owen considered that this would provide both an opportunity to self‑manage and monitoring to ensure protection for the public.
Whilst in her written report Ms Hasson recommended a period of five years and the retention of some of these conditions, in oral evidence Ms Hasson did not dispute the validity of Dr Wynn Owen's opinion and indicated she did not have a difficulty with proceeding on this basis, provided Mr James‑Ind's activities were still monitored post‑hoc.
Having considered the evidence before me, I consider that the proposal put forward by Dr Wynn Owen is appropriate for ensuring protection of the public whilst also being an option of least restriction on Mr James‑Ind. It will provide Mr James‑Ind with an opportunity to self‑manage and to demonstrate the progress he has made and his ability to manage stress over a longer period of time. At the same time, retaining conditions that enable COMU and WA Police to monitor Mr James‑Ind's activities post‑hoc will put in place a system to help identify any behaviour of concern sufficiently early to enable protection of the public.

Conclusion and orders

Subject to hearing from counsel, I propose to make orders to the following effect:
1.That, having found the respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), a supervision order in relation to the respondent is to be made for a period of 2 years on the conditions set out in Annexure A to these reasons.
2.The interim supervision order made by Hon Justice Lemonis on 25 October 2024 is discharged.
I will hear further from counsel as to the appropriate start date for the supervision order.

Annexure A

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE SEAWARD

ON 23 MAY 2025

Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 2 years from 23 May 2025, on the following conditions:

You, ROBERT ALAN JAMES-IND, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street, East Perth WA 6000 as required by the CCO.

Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court.

Notify a CCO of every change of your name, home address, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens.

Be under the supervision of a CCO and follow any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32).

Not leave 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

Reside (live) at [redacted] and spend each night there (period can be defined by a CCO). You can only stay at a different address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you.

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

Report to a CCO at your approved address between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm on the day the order commences or as otherwise directed by a CCO.

Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.

Not start, change or increase any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO.

Tell the CCO the name and details of any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work that you are going to start.

If your job needs you to work at different places, you must tell the CCO of each new place where you work on that day of work, or as otherwise directed by your CCO.

Attendance at programs or treatment

Consult and engage with any medical practitioner, psychologist, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO.

Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious sexual re-offending, as directed by a CCO.

Reporting to WA Police

Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the High Risk Serious Offender Team (HRSOT) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 within 48 hours of your release from custody, and report to and receive visits from Police as directed by the OIC of the HRSOT or their delegate.

If asked to, let Police Officers enter and search your home and/or vehicle, and search you and allow the Police Officers to seize (take) any items they believe to contravene the conditions of this Order. The police officer is to tell you they are using this power before acting pursuant to it.

Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under condition 17.

Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device that you possess or use, including its location, that can store digital data or information, whether or not it can connect to the internet.

If asked to by the CCO or WA Police, let them access any device capable of storing digital data so they can determine your device-related activities and give them any passwords, screen names, usernames or email addresses needed to unlock or access the device.

When requested, tell the Police the names of all of your internet service providers, all telephone services you use and all screen names, usernames and email addresses.

Not tell anyone your passwords used to access any device referred to in condition 20 or any online accounts, except under condition 21, and not let anyone use any device referred to in condition 20, except a CCO or Police Officer.

Without the prior approval of a CCO or Police Officer, not delete or otherwise remove or disguise any search histories or logs that can identify your activities on any computer or telephone in your possession that you have used to access the internet.

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

Agree to the exchange of any information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out the Order.

Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with or may spend time with and, where appropriate, to tell them information about you, including your offending history.

Restrictions on contact with Victims

Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO and the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice, you must have no contact with the victims of your sexual and violent offending.
Contact in this condition and condition 27 means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim.
Unless contact with the victim is permitted by condition 26, if you see any of the victims, you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them, and you must look away from the victim at all times.

Criminal Conduct

Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which also involves sexual offences, indecent or obscene acts, indecent material (including child exploitation material), violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.

Medications/Mental Health

Engage with mental health services and obey the instructions of the treating psychiatrist about treatment and medication.

Let any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and their opinions about your level of risk of re‑offending and compliance with treatment.

Attend any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor as directed by the CCO. If you consent, undergo medication treatment, including anti‑depressant medication or anti-libidinal treatment as directed by the CCO, in consultation with a medical practitioner.

Prevention of high-risk situations

Keep a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations as directed by the CCO and show this diary to the CCO and Police upon request as and when directed by a CCO.

Report any new social association or relationship by you with any person to your CCO when you next report to them.

If told to do so by your CCO, tell anyone that you have a social association or relationship with about your past offending, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
HY
Associate to the Hon Justice Seaward
23 MAY 2025