The State of Western Australia v Jonsson [No 5] - [2025] WASC 203

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- JONSSON [No 5] [2025] WASC 203
CORAM:   WHITBY J
HEARD:   23 MAY 2025
DELIVERED          :   23 MAY 2025
FILE NO/S:   SO 1 of 2011
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
STEPHEN MICHAEL JONSSON
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Restriction order application - Whether restriction order should be made - Whether continuing detention order or supervision order appropriate - Supervision order made

Legislation:

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

Result:

Restriction order made
Supervision order for term of 5 years made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	T C Loo
Respondent	:	R Wilson

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent	:	Robert Wilson

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

Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Jonsson [No 2] [2014] WASC 275
Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30
The State of Western Australia v Jonsson [2012] WASC 439
The State of Western Australia v Jonsson [No 3] [2019] WASC 463
The State of Western Australia v Jonsson [No 4] [2024] WASC 493
The State of Western Australia v UJG [No 2] [2023] WASC 77

WHITBY J:

Introduction

On 19 November 2012, the respondent was declared a dangerous sexual offender under the now repealed Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act). The respondent was made subject to a continuing detention order (CDO) by McKechnie J.[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Jonsson [2012] WASC 439 (Jonsson).
On 1 August 2014, McKechnie J rescinded the CDO and released the respondent to a supervision order for a term of five years, effective from 6 August 2014.[2]
[2] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Jonsson [No 2] [2014] WASC 275.
On 20 December 2019, Archer J (as her Honour then was) ordered that the respondent be subject to a further supervision order for five years, effective from 10 January 2020 (2019 SO).[3]
[3] The State of Western Australia v Jonsson [No 3] [2019] WASC 463 (Jonsson [No 3]).
In 2020 the DSO Act was repealed upon the commencement of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). Pursuant to s 125 of the HRSO Act, an order made under the DSO Act continues in effect and is taken to have been made under the corresponding provision of the HRSO Act.
On 6 November 2024, the State of Western Australia (State) applied for a further restriction order pursuant to s 36 of the HRSO Act (application). The State seeks the following orders:
(1)A restriction order, namely a supervision order, to be imposed under section 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 in relation to the Respondent.
(2)Orders pursuant to section 46(2)(a), (b) and (d) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020.
(3)An order that, with effect from the date of such order, the supervision order made by the Honourable Justice Archer on 20 December 2019 is to continue until the pending proceedings are finally determined or until another specified date.
On 29 November 2024, the application was before Forrester J for a preliminary hearing. Her Honour was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender and the 2019 SO should continue in the interim.[4]
[4] The State of Western Australia v Jonsson [No 4] [2024] WASC 493.

Materials

At the hearing, the State, with the consent of the respondent, tendered a book of materials dated 6 May 2025.[5] The book of materials contains background material including the respondent's criminal record, chronology of offending, records relating to the respondent's history in prison, individual management plans, transcript and records relating to the respondent's previous offences and criminal hearings and post sentence reports and materials.
[5] Exhibit 1.
The book of materials also contains the following reports prepared for the purposes of the application:
(1)HRSO treatment options report of Luke Carmichael dated 10 April 2025;
(2)psychiatric report of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 29 March 2025; and
(3)psychological report of Julie Hasson dated 4 April 2025.
The State also tendered a community supervision assessment endorsed by Ms Jennine Merigan dated 6 May 2025.[6]
[6] Exhibit 2.
The State also relies upon its written submissions dated 9 May 2025 and a minute of proposed supervision order.
The respondent elected not to give or call any evidence and did not seek to cross‑examine Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, Ms Julie Hasson or Ms Jennine Merigan.
Counsel for the respondent concedes that the respondent is a high risk serious offender and that a supervision order is appropriate. Nonetheless, I am required to determine whether I am satisfied of these matters.

Statutory framework and legal principles applicable to the application

The objects of the HRSO Act are to provide for:
(1)the detention in custody or the supervision of a high risk serious offender (HRSO) to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and
(2)continuing control, care or treatment of a HRSO.[7]
[7] HRSO Act s 8.
A 'serious offence' is defined by s 5 of the HRSO Act which relevantly provides:
5.Term used: serious offence
(1)An offence is a serious offence if -
(a)it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 1; or
(b)it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 2, and is committed in the circumstances indicated in relation to that offence in that Division.
(2)An offence is a serious offence if -
(a)it was an offence under a written law that has been repealed; and
(b)the offender's acts or omissions that constituted the offence under the repealed provision would constitute a serious offence under subsection (1).
(3)An offence is a serious offence if it is an offence of conspiracy, attempt or incitement to commit an offence that is a serious offence under subsection (1) or (2).
Section 36 of the HRSO Act provides that the State may apply to the Supreme Court for a restriction order in relation to an offender who is subject to a supervision order that is to expire within one year.
The powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on the offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.[8]
[8] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 [55] - [56].
The State has the onus of satisfying the court that the respondent is a HRSO in accordance with s 7(1).[9] In considering whether it is satisfied that a person is a HRSO, the court must have regard to the matters set out in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. The matters are as follows:
[9] HRSO Act s 7(2).
(1)any report prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act for the hearing of the application, and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section (s 7(3)(a));
(2)any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender (s 7(3)(b));
(3)information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future (s 7(3)(c));
(4)whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender (s 7(3)(d));
(5)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 program (s 7(3)(e));
(6)whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the offender (s 7(3)(f));
(7)the offender's antecedents and criminal record (s 7(3)(g));
(8)the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence (s 7(3)(h));
(9)the need to protect members of the community from that risk (s 7(3)(i)); and
(10)any other relevant matter (s 7(3)(j)).
Further, the court must disregard the possibility that the respondent might be temporarily prevented from committing a serious offence by imprisonment, remand in custody, or the imposition of bail conditions.[10]
[10] HRSO Act s 7(4).
The words 'high degree of probability' import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt but are otherwise not capable of further definition.[11] The court is required to identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, and then consider whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard by acceptable and cogent evidence.[12]
[11] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
[12] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [34].
A restriction order means a continuing detention order or a supervision order.[13] A continuing detention order is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.[14] A supervision order is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers to be appropriate in accordance with s 30 of the HRSO Act.[15] The standard conditions of a supervision order include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.[16]
[13] HRSO Act s 3.
[14] HRSO Act s 26(1).
[15] HRSO Act s 27(1).
[16] HRSO Act s 30(2)(f).

Issues to be determined

As a threshold issue, the application must meet the requirements of s 36 of the HRSO Act. The application does meet those requirements in the respondent's case because:
(1)on 6 November 2024 (that is the date the application was made), the respondent was subject to the 2019 SO; and
(2)the 2019 SO was due to expire on 9 January 2025, that is within 12 months of the date of the application.
Those threshold requirements having been satisfied, the issues I must decide on the application are:
(1)is the respondent a HRSO within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act?; and, if so
(2)should the court make an order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (a continuing detention order or CDO)[17] or that he be released into the community subject to conditions that the court considers appropriate (supervision order or SO)?[18]
[17] HRSO Act s 26.
[18] HRSO Act s 27.
In order to determine these issues, I will consider the matters specified in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act.

Offending history of the respondent, propensity to commit serious offences in the future and patterns of offending - s 7(3)(c), (d) and (g)

I must consider the respondent's antecedents and criminal record including all prior offences to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a HRSO within the meaning of the HRSO Act (whether they are serious offences or not). I must also have regard to the context in which the past offences were committed.[19]
[19] The State of Western Australia v UJG [No 2] [2023] WASC 77 [35].
The respondent's criminal record and antecedents are not only relevant in and of themselves, but are also relevant to whether the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future, and whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour.[20]
[20] HRSO Act s 7(3)(c) ‑ (d); The State of Western Australia v UJG [No 2] [36].
I set out the respondent's relevant criminal history.
In April 2004, the respondent indecently dealt with a child under the age of 13 by rubbing her vagina. The facts of that offending were summarised by McKechnie J as follows:[21]
The complainant in this matter was seven years old and the offender was 39 years old at the time of the offence. The complainant and the offender are known to each other, as the offender was previously befriended by the complainant's father.
In April 2004 the offender was invited for dinner at the complainant's father's residence. On this occasion, the complainant and her three siblings were visiting their father for the evening. At the conclusion of dinner he was told to catch a taxi home. He repeatedly asked if he could stay overnight, a request that was eventually agreed to by the complainant's father.
Later in the evening the complainant's father showed the offender to the rear spare room whilst the complainant slept in the games room with her three siblings and her father. Whilst everyone was asleep, the offender entered the games room and picked up the complainant. He carried her back to the rear bedroom and laid her on the bed. He lay down next to the complainant, who was still sleeping, and he commenced to stroke her hair prior to placing his hand under her underpants and rubbing her vagina with his hand. The complainant began to wake up, and on seeing the offender, she stated she needed a drink. She stood up from the bed and left the room.
[21] Jonsson [13].
The respondent was not convicted of this offence until 2008.
In November 2006, the respondent indecently dealt with a girl under the age of 13 years by touching her vagina. He pleaded guilty and was convicted in September 2007. This was the first conviction on his criminal record. McKechnie J summarised the facts of this offending as follows:[22]
The offender is a 42-year-old male who suffers from an intellectual disability. He resides by himself, in his own home. However, he requires the care of a person from the disability services to visit him each day to assist him with daily tasks. The complainant is an 11‑year‑old female. She resides with her mother, father and siblings ... The offender is a friend of the victim's family. He regularly visits the family for meals and regularly spends a night at that address.
On Monday 27 November 2006 the offender went to the [victim's] house and spent the evening with the victim and her family, after staying over dinner. The victim's parents allowed the offender to sleep the night in their home as it was too late for him to catch a train home. At about 12.30 am on Tuesday 28 November 2006, the victim was asleep in her bedroom. She was lying in her bed, wearing pyjamas.
The offender has entered the victim's bedroom, he has rubbed his hand on the victim's stomach and on her legs, causing her to wake from her sleep. The offender has then placed his hand between the complainant's legs and rubbed her vagina. This incident lasted for five to 10 seconds and his hand remained on the outside of the victim's pyjamas. The offender removed his hand from in between the complainant's legs and moved forward to the complainant's face and quickly kissed her on the cheek.
The complainant pushed the offender away with her hands and immediately walked out of her bedroom. She went to her older sister's bedroom and informed her of the incident and as a result the victim told her parents and the victim's father drove the offender home. On 12 December 2006 the offender participated in a video record of interview with detectives. A support person from disability services was present during that interview.
The offender readily admitted entering the complainant's bedroom, touching her down there and then kissing her on the cheek. He stated he did not know why he behaved in the manner and was aware that his actions were wrong.
[22] Jonsson [9].
On 13 September 2007, the respondent was placed on a two‑year intensive supervision order (ISO) for this offence.
On 21 March 2008, the respondent committed the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm which also constituted a breach of the ISO. The victim of the assault was the respondent's housemate and also had an intellectual disability.
On 2 September 2008, the respondent came before the court for the assault occasioning bodily harm charge. By this time, the respondent had also been charged with the April 2004 offence of indecent dealing. The respondent pleaded guilty to the indecent dealing offence. The sentencing judge dealt with the breach of the ISO and the indecent dealing offence at the same time by extending the original ISO and placing the respondent on a further 12‑month ISO. On the same day the Magistrates Court placed the respondent on a 12‑month community‑based order for the assault occasioning bodily harm offence.
On 5 September 2010, the respondent detained an 8‑year‑old girl with intent to cause detriment to her. McKechnie J summarised the facts of this offending as follows:[23]
On Sunday, 5 September 2010 at about 1 pm, the complainant, an eight‑year-old female, was at Glendalough Train Station in company with her mother. The complainant and her mother were returning home after having attended a church service. The mother attempted to purchase a ticket at the ticket dispenser on the lower level on the train station only to find the dispensing machine out of order.
The accused attempted to engage in conversation with the mother and complainant, however, was dismissed. The mother then told her daughter that they would try the machine on the upper concourse. The complainant went ahead of her mother and ran up the escalator. The complainant's mother called her daughter and said she was going to the toilet and she was to wait at the top of the escalator for her.
The mother went into the public toilet and whilst inside the toilet, she heard a loud scream and a voice calling out, 'Mum'. The mother recognised the voice as her daughter's and that she sounded a lot closer than being at the top of the escalator.
The mother exited the female toilet and opened the door of the male public toilet adjacent. When she opened the door, she saw her daughter inside the male toilet and an adult male standing behind her daughter. The complainant ran to her mother and they both left the immediate area. Police were called and the complainant's mother pointed out the offender to attending police.
The offender was apprehended walking west along Scarborough Beach Road. At the time of offending, the offender was subject to a prohibition order made by the District Court of Western Australia prohibiting the offender from, without reasonable excuse, associating or having contact with any child unless the relevant parent or guardian of that child is present and able to view the child at all times.
[23] Jonsson [15].
On 10 February 2011, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 14 months' imprisonment with parole eligibility.
I am satisfied that the respondent's criminal history indicates that he has a propensity to commit serious sexual offences of indecently dealing with girls under 13 years of age. The respondent's propensity to commit serious sexual offences against young girls is consistent with his diagnosis of paedophilia, specifically to young girls.[24]
[24] Exhibit 1 page 540 [46].

Relevant personal history - s7(g)

The respondent is now 61 years old. He was born in New South Wales and was one of five sons to his parents. The respondent did not have a loving relationship with his parents or siblings and was subject to physical abuse by his father.
He hit his head by slipping on the floor between the age of 1 ‑ 2 years old. From an early age the respondent has displayed prominent behavioural problems. He was institutionalised from the age of 10 to 19.
At the age of 29, he returned to live with his parents in Albany but his relationship broke down with them.
Since the age of 3, he has been a client of the Disability Services Commission (including its predecessors and Eastern states equivalents) as he has a mild intellectual impairment. The respondent does not have a diagnosed psychiatric condition but, as I will detail, he has been assessed as fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of paedophilia.

Reports and assessments - s 7(3)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (j)

Evidence of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska (Forensic Consultant Psychiatrist)

Dr Gosia Wojnarowska is a qualified expert within the meaning of the HRSO Act.[25] Dr Wojnarowska interviewed the respondent on 13 March 2025 and prepared a report dated 29 March 2025.[26]
[25] HRSO Act s 3; Exhibit 1, pages 533 - 534 [8].
[26] Exhibit 1, pages 532 - 548.
The respondent presented at the interview with his support worker. The interview was for a duration of one hour.[27]
[27] Exhibit 1, page 533 [6].
At the interview, the respondent reported that life is 'great' and that he did not want anything in his life to change. Further, he expressed that if the order was to cease, he would no longer leave his home or even his room as he would disengage from all activities in order to protect himself and not become a suspect of sexual crime.[28]
[28] Exhibit 1, pages 539 - 540 [37], [43].
Dr Wojnarowska reported there has been no change to her diagnostic formulation of the respondent. Her diagnosis remains as paedophilia, non‑exclusive type, attracted to female children.[29]
[29] Exhibit 1, page 540 [45] - [46].
Dr Wojnarowska undertook an assessment of the respondent's risk of reoffending using the Static‑99R, Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R), Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) and the Assessment of Risk and Manageability for Individuals with Development and Intellectual Limitations who Offend Sexually (ARMIDILO-S) assessment tools.

Static‑99R

Static‑99R is an actuarial tool that is intended to position offenders in terms of their relative degree of risk of sexual recidivism.[30]
[30] Exhibit 1, page 540 [49].
Under the Static‑99R tool, the respondent's score placed him in the '(IVb) Above Average Risk' range.[31] According to Dr Wojnarowska high risk offenders with the same score as the respondent had a 36% to 45% likelihood of committing a new sexual offence within five years.[32]

PCL-R

[31] Exhibit 1, page 542 [55].

[32] Exhibit 1, page 542 [55].

The PCL‑R assesses the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy.[33]
[33] Exhibit 1, pages 540 - 541 [50].
Under the PCL‑R tool, the respondent's overall score was 9 and has not changed since Dr Wojnarowska's last assessment. The score suggests that the respondent's personality does not conform into the clinical construct of psychopathy.[34]

RSVP

[34] Exhibit 1, page 542 [57].

The RSVP is a clinical judgment framework that requires consideration of a number of separate factors or domains. Using the RSVP tool, Dr Wojnarowska found the following risk factors for the respondent to be present:[35]
(1)sexual violence history;
(2)psychological domain;
(3)mental disorder;
(4)social adjustment; and
(5)manageability.

ARMIDILO-S

[35] Exhibit 1, pages 542 ‑ 543 [59] ‑ [65].

ARMIDILO-S is a comprehensive risk review and community management instrument designed for use with adults with cognitive impairment. It was designed to assist in identification and management of risk for sexually inappropriate behaviour.[36]
[36] Exhibit 1, page 541 [52].
Dr Wojnarowska found the following risk factors for the respondent to be present:[37]
(1)emotional and coping ability;
(2)self-efficacy - his external attribution style, poor problem solving skills and manipulation of his environment to get his needs met;
(3)history of interpersonal difficulties with a significant number of people, including his parents;
(4)impulsivity; and
(5)formal diagnosis of paedophilia.
[37] Exhibit 1 pages 544 ‑ 547.
Dr Wojnarowska also identified the following protective factors for the respondent:[38]
[38] Exhibit 1 pages 544 ‑ 547.
(1)actively seeking contact and engaging with his support staff;
(2)his awareness of high risk situations for him and his strong reliance on his carers and other external factors, such as his GPS, to remain offence‑free;
(3)his persistence in performing tasks that are pleasurable to him, for example looking after animals;
(4)his trusting relationship with his case manager and carers;
(5)deriving enjoyment from a sense of achievement, for example looking after his vegetable patch and chickens;
(6)his consistent living arrangements;
(7)he responds well to redirection from his support workers when he is told to stop looking at children; and
(8)the support he receives through encouragement, finances, transport and appropriate accommodation to create a daily routine that promotes the ability to attend activities and facilitates social contact.

Dr Wojnarowska's opinion

Dr Wojnarowska's opinion is that the respondent, if not subject to a restriction order, remains a high risk of reoffending in order to return to the safety of prison.[39]

Dr Wojnarowska's recommendations

[39] Exhibit 1, page 548 [98].

Dr Wojnarowska recommends that should the respondent be subject to a supervision order, the conditions should be gradually relaxed, offering the respondent more independent time in the community and the duration of the order should be for another two years.[40]

Evidence of Julie Hasson (Forensic Psychologist)

[40] Exhibit 1, page 548 [99] ‑ [100].

Julie Hasson is a forensic psychologist with over 30 years' experience.[41] Ms Hasson interviewed the respondent on 25 March 2025 for a total of 95 minutes[42] and prepared a report dated 4 April 2025.[43]
[41] Exhibit 1, page 550.
[42] Exhibit 1, page 550.
[43] Exhibit 1, pages 549 ‑ 572.
The respondent presented at the interview with his support worker and arrived 45 minutes late. It was revealed, after discussions with COMU, the respondent's support team misread the appointment letter and he is dependent on those around him to ensure he meets his obligations by telling him where and when he needs to be at any given time.[44]
[44] Exhibit 1, page 551 [1].
Ms Hasson reported that the respondent's comprehension and capacity to engage in the assessment process or in conversation more generally had deteriorated since his last interview in October 2019.[45]
[45] Exhibit 1, page 552 [3].
Ms Hasson assessed the respondent's risk of recidivism using the Static‑99R, RSVP and PCL-R tools.

Static‑99R

The respondent scored 3 on the Static‑ 99R. This placed the respondent at a moderate risk of reoffending. Ms Hasson reported the decline in risk score since her 2019 assessment was due to the respondent now being over 60 years of age resulting in a reduction of two points.[46]

RSVP

[46] Exhibit 1, pages 561 - 562 [57] - [58].

Ms Hasson found the following risk factors to be present for the respondent:[47]
[47] Exhibit 1, pages 562 - 566 [62] - [83].
(1)chronicity of sexual violence;
(2)diversity of sexual violence;
(3)physical and psychological coercion;
(4)escalation of sexual violence in sexual violence;
(5)problems with self‑awareness;
(6)problems with stress or coping;
(7)problems resulting from child abuse;
(8)sexual deviance;
(9)sexual health;
(10)major mental disorder;
(11)problems with intimate relationships;
(12)problems with non-intimate relationships; and
(13)problems with treatment.

PCL-R

Ms Hasson determined using the PCL‑R tool that the respondent's score does not fit the construct of psychopathy.[48]

Risk scenarios

[48] Exhibit 1, page 567 [86].

Ms Hasson is of the opinion that the main risk scenario for the respondent involves sexual assault against an unsupervised child in public. Such offences could range from fondling/touching to penetration.[49]

Ms Hasson's recommendations

[49] Exhibit 1, pages 567 ‑ 568 [87], [93].

Ms Hasson recommends that the respondent be made a HRSO and be subject to a supervision order and that:[50]
[50] Exhibit 1, page 572 [115].
(1)a supervision order for a period of two years would be sufficient;
(2)capacity building is made a priority so the respondent feels confident that his risk can be managed personally by him with the support of others so that his fears and concerns about no longer being subject to a supervision order and especially GPS monitoring are assuaged;
(3)the curfew condition be removed;
(4)the respondent spend time in the community without GPS monitoring; and
(5)further rehabilitation and educational efforts are made in the domains of emotional recognition, expression and regulation; sexuality and relationships; increasing autonomy, personal agency and self‑efficacy and that he is aware of his rights and obligations.

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

Evidence of Luke Carmichael (HRSO Planning Manager)

Mr Carmichael is a HRSO Planning Manager for the Department of Justice and produced a report dated 10 April 2025 which summarises the respondent's treatment options available through the Department of Justice.[51]
[51] Exhibit 1, pages 529 ‑ 531.
Mr Carmichael reported that upon subsequent liaison by email, Dr Wojnarowska confirmed she did not recommend any criminogenic intervention for the respondent at this time.[52]
[52] Exhibit 1, page 531 [531].
Mr Carmichael reported he liaised by telephone with Ms Hasson regarding her reported outstanding treatment needs in relation to the respondent. Ms Hasson confirmed her opinion that the respondent appears to have the capacity to engage in intervention for behavioural change with an appropriate leave of support and perseverance.[53]
[53] Exhibit 1, page 531 [10].
Further, Ms Hasson advised that the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) does not necessarily have to be the service charged with delivering that intervention. Although, Ms Hasson did agree that there was likely a benefit in a FPIT clinician being involved in the respondent's management and intervention in the future.[54]
[54] Exhibit 1, page 531 [11].
Mr Carmichael confirmed there has been a FPIT referral completed by the respondent's Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO) on 4 April 2025, although the status of that referral is currently unknown.[55]

Evidence of Jennine Merigan (SCCO)

[55] Exhibit 1, page 531 [12].

Ms Merigan is the respondent's current SCCO and produced a report dated 6 May 2025 which summaries the respondent's order performance, behaviours to be managed and strategies to manage offending behaviours.[56]
[56] Exhibit 2.
Ms Merigan has had contact with the respondent during his scheduled supervision sessions since March 2024. Ms Merigan reported the respondent's fortnightly supervision sessions occur at the respondent's home rather than requiring the respondent to attend the Adult Community Corrections (ACC) Centre.[57]
[57] Exhibit 2, page 3.
Ms Merigan reported there has been no instances of non‑compliance detected since the imposition of the 2019 SO. As a result, there have been a number of reductions and/or variations made (where possible) to the scope and application of conditions of his 2019 SO.[58]
[58] Exhibit 2, pages 3 ‑ 4.
Ms Merigan's report concludes with 38 proposed conditions of a supervision order should the court consider the respondent suitable for one.[59]
[59] Exhibit 2, pages 13 ‑ 16.

Rehabilitation of the respondent - s 7(3)(e) and (f)

In 2019, Archer J said '[i]t is apparent that little has been achieved in attempting to address the causes of the respondent's offending. This is no doubt contributed to by the respondent's intellectual disability'.[60]
[60] Jonsson [No 3] [70].
Ms Hasson reported that despite engaging in individual counselling over a three‑year period and past participation in programs, the respondent has not directly addressed his offending behaviour nor his emotional regulation difficulties. Further, the respondent is adept to stonewalling and avoiding discussions on topics he does not want to explore by stating 'it's too hard'.[61]

The risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence - s 7(3)(h)

[61] Exhibit 1, pages 568 ‑ 569 [97].

Dr Wojnarowska reported, if the respondent was not supervised, he is likely to seek contact with children. It is her opinion the respondent may not go through the process of grooming but will approach an unsupervised child on the street and entice them to follow him to a secluded area and offend against the child. Dr Wojnarowska is of the opinion that, given time and opportunity, the respondent may sexually penetrate a child.[62]
[62] Exhibit 1, page 501 [68].
Further, Dr Wojnarowska reported that the most likely risk scenario is the respondent befriending a family who have young girls. In the past he has demonstrated a capacity to appear 'harmless and funny and helpful'. A possible offence scenario may involve the respondent inappropriately touching a young female outside of her clothing in the genital areas and of attempting to kiss her.[63]
[63] Exhibit 1, page 502 [69].
Dr Wojnarowska reported that an escalating scenario could involve coercive sexual assault of a girl including penetration with overt physical violence to overcome any resistance from the child and this could cause serious harm to, or death of, the child.[64]
[64] Exhibit 1, page 502 [70].
Ms Hasson reported that, despite being in the community for the past decade, the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence has been managed and controlled externally to him as his freedom has been extremely limited. Ms Hasson is of the opinion that the respondent's level of risk and deficits in personal awareness of high risk situations remains unchanged from earlier assessments.[65]
[65] Exhibit 1, page 570 [104].
I accept the evidence of both Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson that the respondent presents a high risk of committing a future serious offence (within the meaning of the HRSO Act) if not subject to a restriction order.

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

Dr Wojnarowska is of the opinion that the respondent's most likely risk scenario is that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence against a child in the context of the respondent befriending a family who have young girls and that he could cause serious harm, or death to, a child.[66]
[66] Exhibit 1 pages 501 ‑ 502.
Ms Hasson states that all scenarios of the respondent's risk of reoffending are likely to cause significant psychological trauma and physical harm directly and indirectly to the victim, their family and friends and the wider community.[67]
[67] Exhibit 1, page 567 [90].
In these circumstances, there is a clear need to protect members of the community from the risk of the respondent offending in the ways identified.

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

The respondent's current NDIS plan allows for total supports of $654,276.96 over 12 months and will be reassessed on 29 October 2025.[68]
[68] Exhibit 1, page 507.

Assessment and conclusion

Is the respondent a HRSO?

In order to determine whether the respondent is a HRSO, I must be satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order against him in order to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence.
The court is required to be satisfied of two things - firstly, the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence is unacceptable and secondly, that it is necessary to make a restriction order.
I am satisfied that the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence is unacceptable. There is cogent evidence from Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson to the effect that the respondent is at high risk of offending in the future by committing a serious sexual offence against a girl under the age of 13 years, either through befriending a family with a girl of that age or by spontaneously offending. The harm caused to victims of such offending would be severe and represents an unacceptable risk.
I am also satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of acceptable and cogent evidence, that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community from the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. In particular, having regard to the offending history of the respondent, his outstanding treatment needs which he is unable and unwilling to address, the evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson in relation to his high risk of reoffending and the respondent's complete reliance on external controls to address his high risk of reoffending, the likelihood that the respondent will seriously reoffend in the future is such that the community could not be adequately protected unless a restriction order is made.
I therefore declare the respondent a HRSO.

Continuing detention order or supervision order?

Having found that the respondent is a HRSO and that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence, I must decide whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order.
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.[69]
[69] HRSO Act s 48(2).
The court should impose the order which is least invasive or destructive to the respondent's right to be at liberty while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate degree of protection to the community.[70]
[70] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [21].
A supervision order, under s 48(1)(b) of the HRSO Act, is least invasive or destructive of the respondent's right to be at liberty. I must, therefore, consider whether the release of the respondent on a supervision order ensures an adequate degree of protection to the community.
I also cannot make a supervision order unless I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of such an order.[71]
[71] HRSO Act s 29(1).
The respondent has the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions.[72]
[72] HRSO Act s 29(2).
In order to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, I must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community from the unacceptable risk of the respondent committing a serious offence.[73]
[73] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52].
In Hart,[74] Fiannaca J considered the construction of the phrase 'substantially comply with', as it appeared in s 23(1B) of the DSO Act (now repealed). His Honour determined that those words should be given their ordinary meaning consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall objectives of which are to adequately protect the community and mitigate the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious sexual offence. As these words are identical to the words of the HRSO Act (and are contained within an identical section of the HRSO Act), this construction is equally applicable to s 29(1) and s 29(2) of the HRSO Act.
[74] Hart [52].
Counsel for the State submits that the risk to the community of the respondent committing a serious offence can be managed and the protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent's release on a supervision order.[75]

Will a supervision order provide adequate protection for the community?

[75] Applicant's outline of written submissions [143].

Adequate protection for the community does not require that there is no risk of the respondent reoffending, rather it requires that any risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level.[76]
[76] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393 [103].

I am satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be achieved if the respondent is made subject to a supervision order. Since being subject to the 2019 SO, the respondent has not committed any serious offences.
The 2019 SO has achieved, in my view, the objective of the supervision order, that is to ensure the adequate protection of the community and the victims of the respondent's serious offences.

Has the respondent satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions set out in the HRSO Act?

I am satisfied that the respondent has demonstrated substantial compliance with the 2019 SO and that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a new supervision order. Further, the respondent has expressed to Dr Wojnarowska that he does not want the 2019 SO removed and that he likes wearing the GPS bracelet.[77]
[77] Exhibit 1 page 539 [41].

Supervision order conditions

I am satisfied that the conditions of the supervision order proposed by the ACC Centre[78] as amended by the proposed supervision order dated 19 May 2025, are appropriate.
[78] Exhibit 2.
Although the evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson was that the duration of the supervision order should be 5 years, I am satisfied that, given it is the wish of the respondent to continue under a supervision order and given the respondent's circumstances, it is appropriate that the duration of the supervision order should be 5 years. There is flexibility within the terms of the supervision order to tailor the conditions to the circumstances of the respondent.
Accordingly, the respondent is released into the community subject to the supervision order in the terms attached and marked Annexure A.

Annexure A

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 5 years from 23 May 2025, on the following conditions:

You, STEPHEN MICHAEL JONSSON, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at (address suppressed) within 48 hours of being issued this Order and advise the officer of your current name and address;
Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the court;
Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens;
Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes complying with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);
Not leave or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO;
Not commit serious offence during the period of the Order;
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31;

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Residence

Take up residence at (address suppressed) and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

Be under the supervision of a CCO and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO for the duration of the Order, including receiving visits at your residential address or attendance at other locations;
Not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO;

Reporting to WA Police

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

Attendance at programs or treatment

Consult, attend appointments, and engage with, any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO;
Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO;

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

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

Restrictions on contact with Victims

Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your sexual offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice; or is conducted in a manner approved in advance by the CCO, such latter approval being not to be given except with the express consent of the victim;
Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your sexual offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture and must look away from such victim at all times;
Report to the CCO and WA Police any direct or indirect contact with the victims of your sexual offending on the next occasion you report to the CCO or Police;

Criminal conduct

Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;
Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204 or s 557K of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) or s 17(1) Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021 (WA);
Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996 (WA);
Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA);

Prevention of high-risk situations

Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO;
Have no contact with any child under the age of 18 years, whether such contact is in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless:
a.the contact is authorised in advance by the CCO and such contact is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO;
b.the contact is necessary to complete a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required to complete the transaction, and another adult is present;
('Contact' under this condition and the following two conditions means any form of interaction or communication whether by word, gesture, expression or touch and whether in person, in writing, by telephonic or electronic means, but does not include the bare minimum interaction or communication necessary between an adult and child to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication);
Where any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18 years is initiated by the child, unless the contact is permitted under the condition immediately above, you must withdraw immediately from the presence of the child;
Provide details of any contact with a child under the age of 18 years both to your CCO and to the Police on the next occasion you report to that person or agency;
Report to your CCO on the next occasion you report to that person or agency the formation of any domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with a person who has children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time;
Not conduct computer searches for, nor collect or possess in either electronic or permanent form, images of children, whether indecent or not, with the exception of images of your immediate family that are not indecent images. Possession of such images depicting a child or children may be authorised by a CCO;
Whilst in any public place, not be in present possession of any children's toy, game or confectionary, or any inanimate object capable of constituting an enticement to children, unless such possession is for a legitimate purpose;
Not form any domestic relationship with a person who has a child or children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time;
As directed by a CCO, make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current Order to anyone with whom you commence a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer; and
Have no contact with, membership of or affiliation with clubs, associations or groups where membership is primarily for children; and to cease/cancel such memberships if directed to do so 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.
CS
Associate to the Hon Justice Whitby
23 MAY 2025