The State of Western Australia v JXK [No 3]

This case involves a review of a continuing detention order (CDO) made under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). The Respondent, JXK, is a high risk serious offender who has been subject to a CDO since June 2021. The State of Western Australia applied for a review of the CDO, seeking to affirm the order. The key legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Respondent remained a high risk serious offender and, if so, whether the CDO should be affirmed or rescinded and a supervision order made. The court also had to consider the availability of suitable accommodation for the Respondent, as it was a significant factor in the decision-making process.

The court found that the Respondent remained a high risk serious offender, as there was an unacceptable risk that he would commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order. The court was satisfied that the Respondent's risk of serious reoffending had not changed nor reduced since the initial hearing. The availability of suitable accommodation for the Respondent was a crucial factor in determining whether a supervision order should be made. Initially, no such accommodation was available, which led to the adjournment of the Review Application. However, shortly before the resumed hearing, a suitable accommodation option emerged, which allowed the court to consider making a supervision order.

The court decided to rescind the CDO and make a supervision order for a period of 7 years, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to the reasons. The court imposed stringent conditions on the supervision order to ensure the community's protection and to mitigate the risk of the Respondent committing further serious offences. These conditions included restrictions on contact with victims, prohibitions on alcohol consumption and possession of pornographic materials, and requirements for electronic monitoring and regular reporting to Community Corrections Officers and Police. The court also made suppression orders concerning the Respondent's name and the address of the proposed residential accommodation to protect the viability of the supervision order and the availability of the accommodation option for the Respondent.