The State of Western Australia v Latimer [No 12] - [2023] WASC 333

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- LATIMER [No 12] [2023] WASC 333
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   23 DECEMBER 2022, 23 FEBRUARY 2023 & 28 AUGUST 2023
DELIVERED          :   28 AUGUST 2023
PUBLISHED           :   29 AUGUST 2023
FILE NO/S:   SO 26 of 2006
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
EDWARD WILLIAM LATIMER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Contravention proceedings - Application under s 53 and s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) for amended supervision order - Whether respondent proved on balance of probabilities to have contravened the supervision order - Whether the supervision order should be rescinded, affirmed, amended or extended

Legislation:

Criminal Code 1913 (WA)
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Supervision order amended

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	F M Allen
Respondent	:	D J McKenzie

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office (WA)
Respondent	:	David McKenzie

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

Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4
Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30
The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219
The State of Western Australia v CA [2023] WASC 144
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [No 11] [2019] WASC 241
The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330

FORRESTER J:

Introduction

This is a contravention hearing under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act) in respect of the respondent, Edward Latimer.
As at the date of the application, the respondent was subject to a 10 year supervision order, which commenced on 31 July 2019.
The State alleges the respondent has contravened the supervision order on four occasions, and has applied for an order rescinding the supervision order and making a continuing detention order.
The matters I must decide are:
(1)whether, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent has contravened the supervision order; and if so
(2)whether the supervision order should be rescinded and a continuing detention order made or whether the respondent should be permitted to remain on the supervision order with or without amendment or extension.
For the reasons which follow:
(1)I am satisfied that the respondent has contravened the supervision order;
(2)I am satisfied that the supervision order can be amended in such a manner that the community will be adequately protected against the unacceptable risk that, if not subject to restriction, the respondent will commit a serious offence; and
(3)I am satisfied, having regard to the amended conditions, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of such an order.
Accordingly, the respondent will be released on an amended supervision order.

Background

On 30 October 2006, Murray J found the respondent was a serious danger to the community and made a continuing detention order in relation to him pursuant to s 17 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (the DSO Act).
Between 2007 and 2013 that order was reviewed annually pursuant to s 29 and s 31 of the DSO Act. On each occasion, the continuing detention order was affirmed.
In 2014, at the seventh annual review Jenkins J rescinded the continuing detention order and released the respondent on a supervision order for five years commencing on 2 July 2014.
On 20 April 2015, Hall J found that within approximately six months of being released on the supervision order, the respondent contravened a condition of the supervision order on two occasions, by sexually propositioning women he did not know in public places. His Honour also found that the respondent remained a serious danger to the community and that there was an unacceptable risk that he would commit a serious sexual offence unless he was detained in custody for his control, care and treatment. Accordingly, his Honour rescinded the supervision order and made a continuing detention order in respect of the respondent.
On 20 April 2016, Fiannaca J reviewed the continuing detention order and declined to rescind the order.
On 20 April 2017, Martino J conducted a review of the continuing detention order. His Honour decided that the respondent remained a serious danger to the community and declined to rescind the continuing detention order.
On 9 July 2019, Derrick J conducted the third periodic review of the continuing detention order. His Honour found that the respondent remained a serious danger to the community but that the risk he presented to the community could be adequately managed by releasing him into the community on a supervision order of 10 years' duration, with appropriate conditions[1] (the Supervision Order). The respondent was released on the Supervision Order on 31 July 2019.
[1] The State of Western Australia v Latimer [No 11] [2019] WASC 241.
On 26 August 2020, the DSO Act was repealed and the HRSO Act was enacted. Pursuant to s 125 of the HRSO Act, the Supervision Order continued as if it were made under the HRSO Act.
On 25 January 2021, the respondent committed an offence pursuant to s 202 of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA). On 22 July 2022, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 20 months' imprisonment in respect of that offence, backdated to 2 February 2021. The respondent was not made eligible for parole.
On 13 September 2022, the State made an application pursuant to s 53(1)(b) of the HRSO Act for an order under s 55 of the HRSO Act that the Supervision Order be rescinded and a continuing detention order be made in relation to the respondent. In the alternative, the State sought such amendment of the Supervision Order as the court considered appropriate.
On 28 September 2022, I made an interim detention order in relation to the respondent, on the basis that I was not satisfied that the community could be adequately protected from the unacceptable risk of the respondent committing a serious offence if he were to be released on the Supervision Order.
The hearing of the State's application was to take place on 23 December 2022. While evidence was heard on that date, the hearing was adjourned at the request of the respondent, in order for further information to be obtained regarding National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding and available accommodation.
I continued to monitor the progress of the inquiries relating to those matters since that date and the matter came before me on 28 August 2023 for a final hearing.
The respondent has been in custody for 331 days on an interim detention order pending the determination of the application, his sentence of imprisonment having expired on 1 October 2022. While the Supervision Order is extended by the period he was in custody serving his term of imprisonment,[2] it has continued to run during the time he has been in custody on the interim detention order.
[2] HRSO Act s 57.
The respondent had been on the Supervision Order for 551 days before his arrest in February 2021. Accordingly, as at today's date, he has served 2 years and 152 days of the Supervision Order, with 7 years and 214 days remaining.

Evidence adduced by the State

At the first hearing, the State tendered a Book of Materials comprised of three volumes, containing the criminal history of the respondent and detailed evidence relating to it, including statements of material facts and transcripts, prior judgments in relation to the respondent, the respondent's custodial history, program completion reports relating to various programs undertaken by the respondent while in custody, and parole and other assessment reports.
Pursuant to s 54 and s 74 of the HRSO Act, a report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, was ordered. That report, dated 13 December 2022, was provided to me. Ms Joanne Collyer, Senior Counselling Psychologist, produced a Treatment Progress Report dated 12 December 2022. Finally, I was provided with a Performance Report of Julie Dabala, a Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO), endorsed by Amy Goode, a Team Leader with the Community Offender Management Unit, dated 16 December 2022.
Dr Wynn Owen, Ms Collyer, Ms Dabala and Ms Goode all gave evidence at the contravention hearing and were cross‑examined by the respondent's counsel.
The State has also adduced further evidence since the initial hearing, being updates as to the NDIS funding available to the respondent, and information about accommodation available to the respondent, including a Desktop Spatial Analysis.[3]
[3] Exhibits 3 - 5.

Alleged contravention offences

In February 2021, the respondent was charged under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act with two contraventions of the Supervision Order.
In its application, the State relies on those two alleged contraventions, as well as two alleged contraventions arising out of the offending committed on 25 January 2021.

Contravention one (PE 5242/2021)

Condition 50 of the Supervision Order states that the respondent must not be in possession of any pornographic material, in either hard copy or digital form, or access or view pornography on the internet.
On 2 February 2021, detectives from the Sex Offender Management Squad (SOMS) attended the respondent's home address for the purpose of conducting a compliance check. After a cursory review of the respondent's mobile phone revealed matters of concern, the phone was seized, and further analysis revealed a number of photographs depicting women in varying stages of undress, including images displaying graphic and full frontal nudity, sent to the respondent from several different telephone numbers which appeared to be linked to sex workers.[4]
[4] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 282.
The respondent claimed that he did not check his messages.
The respondent pleaded guilty to the offence on 28 September 2022.[5]

Contravention two (PE 5243/2021)

[5] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 287.

During the same compliance check on 2 February 2021, detectives from SOMS searched the respondent's home and located a 'People' magazine and 'The Picture' magazine, which featured images of naked women.[6] This again was said to have breached Condition 50 of the Supervision Order.
[6] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 283.
The respondent claimed that he had had the magazines since he was released on the Supervision Order, but was told he could keep them.
The respondent pleaded guilty to the offence on 28 September 2022.[7]
[7] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 287.
On 27 February 2023, a global fine of $1,500 was imposed on the respondent for the offences the subject of charges PE 5242/2021 and 5243/2021.

Contraventions three and four

On 25 January 2021, the respondent stood waiting on the train platform in Midland. During that time, he paid attention to bystanders including two females aged 13 and 14 years. Whilst standing near these teenagers, the respondent touched and moved his penis in a shaking back and forth manner on the outside of his pants on two occasions.
When the train arrived, the respondent entered the same train carriage as several people including the teenagers, a woman by herself and a woman with a pram containing a young child of approximately five years of age. Once on the train, the respondent paid attention to each of these people at some time. The two teenagers sat across and further down the train from the respondent. The respondent put his hand down his pants and masturbated, aware of the other members of the public in the vicinity. This upset the teenagers, one of whom began crying. The other took photographs of the respondent.[8]
[8] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 313 - 314.
The respondent claimed that he did not wait on the platform prior to getting on the train and did not see the teenagers on the platform.[9]
[9] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 306.
The respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of doing an obscene act in public contrary to s 202 of the Criminal Code. On 22 July 2022, he was sentenced in the District Court to a term of imprisonment of 20 months backdated to 2 February 2021.[10]
[10] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 318.
The State contended this offending amounted to a breach of Condition 28 of the Supervision Order, that the respondent not commit an offence under s 202 of the Criminal Code.
The State also contended that this offence constituted a breach of standard Condition 6 of the Supervision Order, which requires that the respondent not commit a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 36A.

Has the respondent contravened the supervision order as alleged?

Contraventions one and two

The respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of contravening the Supervision Order. In those circumstances, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he has contravened the Supervision Order.

Contravention three

The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge of committing an obscene act in public, contrary to s 202 of the Criminal Code. As such, he has necessarily also admitted a breach of Condition 28 of the Supervision Order. Accordingly, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that he has contravened the Supervision Order.

Contravention four

The applicant submitted I should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent committed the offence of indecently dealing with a child of or over the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years, on the basis of his plea of guilty to the offence under s 202 of the Criminal Code. If I am so satisfied, that would constitute a breach of Condition 6 of the Supervision Order: that the respondent not commit a serious offence.[11]
[11] The offence of indecently dealing with a child of or over the age of 13 and under the age of 16 is a 'serious offence' under the HRSO Act: sch 1, item 17.
Condition 6 of the Supervision Order was that the respondent not commit a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 s 36A during the period of the Order.[12] That condition was a standard condition of a supervision order under the DSO Act.[13]
[12] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 212.
[13] DSO Act s 18(1)(f).
It was submitted by the State that:
[T]he material facts of that offence as read out to the court by the State Prosecutor (and accepted by the respondent's counsel) [in the District Court] on 22 July 2022 would underpin all the facts and elements of an offence of 'indecently dealing with a child over the age of 13 and under the age of 16', contrary to s 321(4) of the Code.[14]
[14] Applicant’s outline of submissions for interim detention order filed 27 September 2022 [16].
The facts as stated by the State Prosecutor were as follows:
On the morning of Monday, 25 January 2021, the offender went to a shopping centre at Midland where he purchased an electric scooter and some items from Coles which he carried in a blue shopping bag. At the time of the incident the offender was of slight build, red hair and had beard. On this day he was wearing olive or light grey coloured pants and a similar coloured T-shirt which was tucked into his pants.
At approximately 10.30 am the offender was seen on CCTV footage entering the Midland Train Station using a smart card to enter the platform carrying a large box with an electric scooter and the blue shopping bag containing items he had earlier purchased.
The offender entered the train platform and stood on the platform, the train had not yet arrived and he stood on the platform whilst he waited. During this time he paid attention to female passer-by, including two teenage children aged 13 and 14 years' old who were sitting on chairs on the platform.
Whilst standing nearby to these females the offender on the outside of his pants touched and moved his penis in a shaking back-and-forth action. On a second occasion shortly after the first, he again touched and moved his penis on the outside of his clothing, this time for a longer duration.
When the train arrived several people got onto the train. This included the two teenage children, a woman who was by herself and a young woman pushing a pram accompanied by her young children aged approximately five years and under. The offender paid attention to each of these people at some time once they got onto the train.
The train carriage consisted of bench seating along the windows on each side of the train. The offender sat on a bench seat facing the train platform.
The two teenage children sat down on the opposite bench seat further up the train carriage to the offender and the offender looked at them whilst they were seated there. The female pushing the pram and the lone female sat towards the other end of the train carriage.
After he sat down the offender was aroused by the young women and teenage children that he had been looking at. He put his hand down his pants and masturbated in the presence of the passengers on the train. At the time of doing this the offender was aware that there were other members of the public in the vicinity, including the two teenage children and the female pushing the pram with her young children.
The offender's actions were witnessed by teenage children and it upset them and made one of them cry. One of the female teens took photographs of the offender who was masturbating on the train on a mobile phone. In his record of interview with the police the offender was shown the photographs and accepted that he was the person depicted.
On 2 February 2021 the offender was arrested and a search was executed at his home where police located items which he was seen carrying in the CCTV footage as well as receipts confirming the purchases made on 25 January 2021 at Midland.
The offender participated in an electronic record of interview in which he denied the offending. He claimed that he did not wait on the platform prior to getting onto the train and did not see the young girls, aged 13 and 14, on the platform.
At the time of the offending the offender was subject to a supervision order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act. The offender's been remanded in custody since the date of his arrest on 2 February 2021.[15]
[15] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 304 - 306.
Those facts were accepted by the respondent's counsel.[16]
[16] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 309.
Pursuant to s 84(3) of the HRSO Act, before the court makes a decision or order on the hearing of an application for an order under s 55 of the HRSO Act, the court must hear evidence called by the State and, if the offender elects to give or call evidence, hear evidence given by or on behalf of the offender. Subject to s 84(5), the ordinary rules of evidence apply to evidence given or called under s 84(3).
Subsection (5) provides that the court may receive in evidence:
(a)any document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the offender; or
(b)anything relevant contained in the official transcript of any relevant proceeding against the offender; or
(c)any relevant material that was tendered to the court, or that informed the court, in a relevant proceeding against the offender; or
(d)any relevant material of the kind mentioned in section 7(3) relating to the offender.
I am therefore entitled (but not obliged) to receive in evidence anything relevant contained in the official transcript of the sentencing proceedings of the respondent, which is contained in the Book of Materials.[17]
[17] Book of Materials, Vol 1, 302.
Despite the respondent's counsel informing the court at sentencing that the respondent accepted the facts as read, in my view the respondent was entitled, if he wished, to controvert the facts which are additional to the essential elements of the offence to which he pleaded guilty under s 202 of the Criminal Code.[18] However, at the contravention hearing, I was informed that the respondent did not seek to do so.
[18] Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70.

The facts read at the sentencing hearing established that the respondent had committed an indecent act in the presence of a child who was of or over the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years. The facts established that he was aware he was in the presence of the child. The facts did not give rise to any defence or excuse from criminal responsibility. In those circumstances, the elements of the offence of indecently dealing with a child of or over the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years are made out.
Accordingly, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent breached Condition 6 of his Supervision Order by committing a sexual offence as defined in s 36A of the Evidence Act 1906.

Statutory framework and legal principles

The objects of the HRSO Act are:
(a)to provide for the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and
(b)to provide for continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.[19]
[19] HRSO Act s 8.
The jurisprudence established in respect of the DSO Act is relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act, with necessary adaptation.[20]
[20] The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [31].
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.[21]
[21] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 [55] - [56].
If an offender is charged with an offence under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act, s 53 provides that the State may make an application for an order under s 55.
On such an application, if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender has contravened, is contravening, or is likely to contravene a condition of a supervision order, the court must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order, or, subject to s 29, release the offender of the supervision order. In the latter case, the supervision order may be amended and, in some cases, extended.[22]
[22] HRSO Act s 55.
It is to be assumed that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender; the court is not required to make that determination again.[23]
[23] The State of Western Australia v CA [2023] WASC 144 [28].
In deciding which order to make, the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[24]
[24] HRSO Act s 55(3).
A continuing detention order is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.[25] 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.[26]
[25] HRSO Act s 3, s 26(1).
[26] HRSO Act s 3, s 27(1).
The court cannot release an offender on a supervision order unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.[27]
[27] HRSO Act s 29, s 55.
The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.[28]
[28] HRSO Act s 30(2)(f).
In Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart, Fiannaca J observed that, in determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order':
[t]he court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious … offence.[29]
[29] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52(6)].
Even if the court is satisfied that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the court must not release the offender unless satisfied that a supervision order will ensure an adequate degree of protection to the community.[30]
[30] The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [38].

Evidence adduced at contravention hearing

Dr Peter Wynn Owen

Dr Wynn Owen interviewed the respondent on 1 December 2022 and prepared a report dated 13 December 2022. He reported that the respondent was polite and cooperative, his mood was stable, and he displayed no thought disorder.[31]
[31] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [44] - [47].
The respondent largely denied responsibility in relation to all the offending the subject of the contravention charges. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen:
(1)in relation to contravention one, that he did not look at the pornographic images on his phone;[32]
(2)in relation to contravention two, that he challenged whether the magazines were pornographic and his possession of them was in contravention of his conditions;[33]
(3)he denied any of the conduct the subject of contraventions three and four, reporting he pleaded guilty because he 'didn't want to drag the girls through court, I have got a bit of decency'.[34]
[32] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [28].
[33] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [29].
[34] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [26].
The respondent denied to Dr Wynn Owen having any sexual thoughts or fantasy, either currently or when he was in the community. He also denied physical arousal and claimed not to masturbate. As Dr Wynn Owen observed, this denial is significantly at odds with the respondent's reported behaviour leading up to his arrest.[35]
[35] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [31].
During his time in the community, the respondent regularly attended counselling sessions with Mr Summerton which decreased in frequency from weekly to fortnightly, then monthly over 2019 to 2021. Mr Summerton informed Dr Wynn Owen that the respondent had improved help seeking, willingness to accept the support of others and his ability to recognise and manage his emotional states while in the community.[36]
[36] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [33] - [34].
Mr Summerton told Dr Wynn Owen that, at the time of the respondent's arrest, he was planning to cease treatment with the respondent, having achieved, in his opinion, as much as could be achieved from psychological intervention.[37]
[37] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [35].
In evidence, Dr Wynn Owen said that, in the interview with the respondent, he observed a reduction in the degree of reactivity the respondent displayed. His self‑regulation had slightly improved, which was a noticeable change from Dr Wynn Owen's previous interview with the respondent. However, other aspects, such as the respondent's partial denial of past offending and denial of sexual interest or motivation were 'quite unchanged'.[38]
[38] ts 125.
The respondent had a grant of NDIS funding. However, Dr Wynn Owen expressed the view that the respondent's plan (as it then was) was unlikely to vary his offending risk.[39]
[39] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [37] - [38].
The respondent expressed appreciation for the support of NDIS and Uniting WA in relation to his accommodation, budgeting and daily living activities, but attributed his ability to manage in the community primarily to his ownership of a dog, and the structure it provided. However, the respondent had a distorted belief that he had 'been for 2 years without committing a crime'. He was not prepared to accept any challenge to this statement, notwithstanding his sexual offence conviction, saying 'I can sit here with a clear conscience'.[40]
[40] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [40].
Dr Wynn Owen confirmed the previous diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and non-verbal learning disorder.[41]
[41] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [48], ts 125.
Dr Wynn Owen applied the Static‑99R, an actuarial tool that is intended to position offenders in terms of their relative degree of risk for sexual recidivism based on commonly available demographic and criminal history information that has been found to correlate with sexual recidivism in adult male sex offenders. The respondent's score placed him in the Well Above Average Risk range. Offenders released from prison with the same Static‑99 score as the respondent had a 30.7% likelihood of committing a new sexual offence within 5 years and a 42.8% likelihood of reoffending within 10 years.[42]
[42] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [51] - [53].
Dr Wynn Owen utilised the RSVP to report the respondent's risk factors that had varied since prior assessment. The respondent's historical risk factors include chronicity of sexual violence, diversity of sexual violence and physical coercion in sexual violence, and problems resulting from child abuse. Chronicity and diversity are strongly associated with risk of future sexual offending.[43]
[43] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [57], [62].
Extreme minimisation and denial, problems with self‑awareness, problems with intimate and non‑intimate relationships, non‑sexual criminality, problems with planning, treatment and supervision were all considered present by Dr Wynn Owen. Further problems with stress and coping were present but moderated to some extent with intervention. The risk factor problems with substance abuse have been present in the past, although the respondent has not tested positive to drugs or alcohol in the community in 2019 to 2021 or in prison since.[44]
[44] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [59] - [73].
Dr Wynn Owen identified the respondent's risk scenarios would likely be a repetition of his most frequent past offending; opportunistic, likely against females ranging from children to older adults, and may include a combination of open or covered masturbation, making sexually suggestive statements or gestures and may result in an escalation of offending. Any future offending is likely to result in immediate and long term psychological adversity for the victim.[45]
[45] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [75] - [77].
While Dr Wynn Owen accepted the most likely future offence may not be 'serious' within the meaning of the HRSO Act, there is a potential for rapid escalation, given the respondent's poor impulse control and poor emotional and sexual self‑management.[46] He ultimately remained of the opinion that the respondent is at high risk of committing a serious offence in the future, if not subject to restriction.[47]
[46] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [81].
[47] ts 133.
Dr Wynn Owen pointed to the following as evidence of the respondent's high risk of future serious sexual offending:
(1)the respondent's Static-99R likelihood score in the Well Above Average Risk range;
(2)the respondent's learning difficulty and frontal lobe deficits which restrict his capacity to benefit from treatment and impair his capacity for self-control and self-regulation;
(3)the presence of a range of dynamic risks, particularly an unwillingness or inability to disclose sexual thinking, lack of self-awareness and problems with relationships;
(4)the respondent's inability to comply with his previous supervision order, as demonstrated by the contraventions;
(5)his continued challenge and refusal to acknowledge his breaches when presented with apparently unequivocal evidence to the contrary;
(6)that it is unlikely that the respondent would benefit from psychological intervention unless a substantial change was made in his stance of offending denial and denial of sexual interest.[48]
[48] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [80] - [85].
Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that, if the respondent were released on the Supervision Order, he would benefit from engagement with a Forensic Psychologist to assist with the stresses and challenges of community reintegration. Dr Wynn Owen considered the conditions of the Supervision Order appropriate, but noted that it is not possible to wholly manage the risk of the respondent committing impulsive opportunistic sexual offending in a public place without requiring the respondent to be supervised whenever he is outside his place of residence.[49] However, Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that a supervision order would definitely mitigate risk. He said that the greater the degree of structured and supervised time involved, the greater the reduction in risk. The respondent would be highly unlikely to offend if he were in company with a support worker at any time he left his home.[50]
[49] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [86i], [86iii], ts 137.
[50] ts 137 - 138.
In evidence, Dr Wynn Owen observed that it may be appropriate to allow the respondent to access legal adult pornography as a potential sexual outlet, because that may reduce the likelihood of him acting in a sexually inappropriate manner.[51] He also allowed for the possibility that the fact that the consequences of the respondent's offending included the loss of his dog, which had been very important to him, might operate as a deterrent to future offending in a way that other consequences have not.[52]
[51] ts 136.
[52] ts 147 - 148.
Dr Wynn Owen considered that, if the respondent was to be placed on a continuing detention order, he would be unlikely to gain from ongoing psychological intervention, such that it could be reduced to intermittent contact to maintain therapeutic alliance, with a plan to return to regular sessions at least fortnightly six months prior to release.[53]

Ms Joanne Collyer

[53] Psychiatric Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 13 December 2022 [86ii], ts 127 - 128.

Ms Collyer, a Senior Counselling Psychologist, prepared a report dated 12 December 2022 in relation to the respondent.
The respondent has previously been subject to limited programmatic intervention due to his enduring stance of denial of his offending and his limited capacity to participate in group programs, but has engaged in individual psychological intervention with Mr Summerton since 2014.[54]
[54] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [6].
A neuropsychological assessment undertaken with the respondent in 2012 identified that he likely suffers from non‑verbal learning disorder, a developmental learning disability which often results in deficits with non‑verbal problem solving and an ability to read social cues, with poor internalisation of rules to assist planning and execution of interpersonal interactions.[55]
[55] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [7].
Strategies to mitigate confusion and improve the respondent's capacity to adhere to conditions involve repetition of expectations and boundaries and establishing routine and predictable schedules.[56]
[56] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [7].
On his release on the Supervision Order, the respondent continued to see Mr Summerton, who described the respondent as having made significant improvements in response to counselling, increased help‑seeking, positive occupation in the community and a decrease in observed antisocial commentary.[57] The respondent reportedly engaged in counselling in a more responsive manner due to a sustained period of greater emotional equilibrium, greater curiosity and improved reflection.[58] This was reflected by the respondent's account that he enjoyed the conversations and having 'check ins' with Mr Summerton.[59]
[57] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [10] - [11], [26].
[58] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [12], [26].
[59] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [17].
The respondent did, however, continue to display difficulties reporting perceived challenges he was experiencing, and his stance of denial persisted, which compromised his capacity to explore a number of facets of treatment and risk management.[60]
[60] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [12].
Ms Collyer reported that, ultimately, Mr Summerton believed treatment had reached a point where further intervention was unlikely to yield significant additional gain on identified criminogenic targets, and the frequency of sessions was reduced. Mr Summerton has since opined that the change and reduction in supports around the respondent may have impacted his stability and contributed to the subsequent contravention behaviours.[61] Similarly, Ms Collyer considered that dissolution of the respondent's relationship with Mr Summerton was likely to have an impact, given the respondent's lack of other positive relationships.[62]
[61] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [13].
[62] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [31].
The respondent continues to deny engaging in sexual thinking, fantasy, arousal or masturbation. He did express he would like a relationship, primarily for the companionship, but also 'relayed a convoluted account of his capacity to achieve sexual partners and to meet their sexual needs'.[63]
[63] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [21].
Ms Collyer reported that, during his last period in the community, the respondent made positive progress in treatment and in the community.[64] A brief return to custody in late 2019 for breaching an exclusion zone resulted in the respondent demonstrating a greater capacity to comply with his conditions and a significant improvement in his response to counselling. This coincided with the respondent experiencing positive interactions with the professional staff involved in his case. However, he continued to have difficulty accepting help, responding defiantly, consistent with his desire to be seen as competent. The respondent's most notable positive experience was his adoption of a dog, providing an important sense of connection for him.[65]
[64] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [28].
[65] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [11].
The respondent told Ms Collyer with pride about his achievements in the community, in particular keeping his appointments, maintaining a vegetable garden, learning to cook and, adoption and care of the dog. However, as with Dr Wynn Owen, the respondent effectively denied his offending in describing his period in the community as a 'good solid two years'. When asked by Ms Collyer what would assist him in a more prolonged successful period in the community, the respondent stated 'much the same thing' in reference to gardening, his dog and support persons.[66]
[66] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [18], [24].
The respondent identified that boredom and perhaps a lack of structure to his days may have triggered the circumstances relating to his return to prison.[67] Whilst he recognised having activities to do was important for him, the respondent told Ms Collyer he struggled at times with too much contact with people and discussed undertaking activities where contact with people was less intensive such as working with animals or in a horticultural setting.[68]
[67] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [24].
[68] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [20].

It appeared to Ms Collyer that treatment had reached its limits, viewed from the lens of criminogenic risk targets. However, there are supportive features for the respondent, such as good working relationships with professionals, engagement in positive activities and the capacity to develop an emotional and bonded connection with his pet dog.[69] Further, given the respondent's previous experiences in the community, the most recent period was significant.[70]
[69] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [28].
[70] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [30].
If the respondent was to be released on a supervision order, Ms Collyer expressed the view that the priority should be accessing professional community supports such as NDIS and Uniting WA, and a focus on external management, including assistance with planning and predicting his days.[71]
[71] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [36] - [37].
Ms Collyer also recommended continued engagement with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team to assist the respondent re‑establishing himself in the community with the ultimate goal that use of this service would be ultimately dissolved.[72]
[72] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [36].
If the respondent was to be placed on a continuing detention order, Ms Collyer was of the view that psychological intervention would not be indicated until six months prior to his next review or potential release into the community.[73]

Performance Report of Julie Dabala dated 16 December 2022

[73] Treatment Progress Report of Ms Joanne Collyer dated 12 December 2022 [38].

To the extent Ms Dabala repeated information already referred to in the summaries of the reports and evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Collyer, I accept it but do not need to repeat that evidence in these reasons.

Respondent's performance on the Supervision Order

Ms Dabala reported that on 7 September 2019, the respondent entered an exclusion zone for 6 minutes. He later explained he had needed to urinate and had gone into a laneway to do so. On 21 September 2019, he again entered the exclusion zone for a minute, this time going into the IGA looking for a toilet. He spent nine days in custody before pleading guilty and receiving a global penalty of $300 for the two contraventions.
On 7 September 2020, the respondent received a verbal warning for leaving his home prior to his 6.00 am curfew. The respondent had taken his dog for a walk, and had apparently made an error as to the time due to his phone settings.[74]

Behaviour in custody

[74] Report of Ms Julie Dabala dated 16 December 2022, 4.

The respondent has had four adverse behavioural reports, all related to verbal abuse and threats.[75]

NDIS Support

[75] Report of Ms Julie Dabala dated 16 December 2022, 5.

Ms Dabala set out the respondent's NDIS support in her report. However, that has been updated since, as I will set out below.

Proposed conditions

Ms Dabala recommended a total of 51 conditions for the court's consideration, in the event that the respondent was considered suitable for release on a supervision order.[76] However, under s 55 of the HRSO Act, the order available to the court, if the respondent is to be released, is to amend the Supervision Order.
[76] Report of Ms Julie Dabala dated 16 December 2022, 7 - 11.
Ms Dabala further reported that, if he is released on the Supervision Order, the respondent will be subject to exclusion zones in relation to areas of antisocial behaviour, drug and alcohol use and vulnerable people. A diary condition is not considered appropriate having regard to the respondent's literacy and numeracy limitations, but his self‑reporting will be verified by other methods.[77]

Availability of Accommodation

[77] Report of Ms Julie Dabala dated 16 December 2022, 7.

Unfortunately, but inevitably, after the respondent was remanded in custody in February 2021, his accommodation was returned to the use of the Department of Communities.

Evidence received since 23 December 2022

NDIS Approval and Accommodation

The respondent's approved NDIS plan dated 7 June 2023 enables the respondent to have supported independent living, with a full time carer, including night time support. It also assists with support to enable him to attend community activities, funding for occupational therapy, specialist behaviour intervention support and 20 hours of behaviour management and training.
The respondent 'strongly opposes' the 24/7 support funded for him. He wants to live independently. However, he has engaged with the various support agencies, except for the disability services staff, who do not have clearance for prison visits. The disability services agency has indicated that it is prepared to accommodate the respondent at a newly purchased home, which is within an affordable range given the respondent's income. The house has sufficient room for a carer, and is fully enclosed by fencing.
The Community Offender Monitoring Unit has some concerns regarding the proposed address, having regard to the occupants of one of the neighbouring properties. However, arrangements have been made to make some minor additions to the property to further minimise the risk, and I am satisfied that they are appropriate to do so.

Should the Supervision Order be rescinded, affirmed, amended or extended?

As I have found that the respondent has contravened the Supervision Order on four occasions, I am now required to consider what action to take, pursuant to s 55(1) of the HRSO Act. Section 55(1) states:
(1)If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates has contravened or is contravening a condition of a supervision order, the court must —
(a)rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or
(b)except as provided in section 29, make an order amending the conditions of the supervision order, or extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to the supervision order, or both; or
(c)except as provided in section 29, make an order affirming the supervision order without amendment or extension.
In deciding which order to make, the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
Before determining that the Supervision Order should not be rescinded, I must be satisfied that a supervision order will adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. I must also be satisfied that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order.

Analysis

The evidence before the court is to the effect that, in the absence of restriction, the respondent remains at high risk of committing a sexual offence, including a serious offence within the meaning of the HRSO Act.
The conditions proposed by Ms Dabala, which are supported by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Collyer, are extensive and very strict. However, while those conditions directly address the respondent's risk factors, neither of the expert witnesses consider that any condition short of constant supervision can practically prevent the respondent committing an offence of the kind he has a propensity to commit, should he decide to commit such an offence. Further, there is no way to predict whether the respondent's conduct will on any given occasion escalate to very significant contact offending, as it has in the past.
The evidence also compels a conclusion that there are many features of the respondent's personality and intellectual and cognitive functioning which mean his risk of reoffending is unlikely to markedly reduce over time, except by reason of advancing age. The experts agree that treatment for the respondent's criminogenic factors has likely reached its limits. His denial stance and failure to disclose on issues of importance, as well as his problems with self‑awareness and relationships, have been enduring, and his risk of re‑offending has remained largely unchanged since he was first declared to be a dangerous sexual offender under the DSO Act in 2006.
However, when released on the Supervision Order, the respondent did make significant progress in other areas, such as engagement with professionals, willingness to seek help, and occupation in the community. There is likely to have been some winding back of that progress, given his remand in custody since February 2021. However, there is no reason on the evidence to consider that that progress cannot be achieved again, and even built on, with appropriate support, including transitional assistance.
Importantly, the respondent has NDIS funding, which provides for a full time carer. His plan also includes assistance in managing daily activities, and will enable planning of appropriate structure and routine. He will be funded for behavioural support and management, and occupational therapy support. It is not anticipated at this stage that psychological intervention by the Department will be required or of significant value.
The respondent is entitled to refuse or accept the support for which he has been funded. However, as his counsel acknowledged at the hearing, should the respondent decide he does not wish to take up the support, at least to a certain extent, he may not be in a position to comply with the order I propose to make.
I am required to make an order which is the least invasive, while still protecting the community adequately from the unacceptable risk the respondent were to pose if he were not under restriction.
The respondent has been offered accommodation and funding which in combination provide the capacity to provide the respondent with full time care, including at night.
Having regard to this evidence, and the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen, it is my view that it is appropriate to impose a condition that the respondent not leave or be away from his approved residence unless accompanied by a person approved by a CCO.
The State submitted that either the respondent's funding, or his willingness to take up the supports offered, might change in the future. If they do, the conditions imposed on the respondent may need to be altered or the appropriateness of a supervision order reconsidered. Until then, I am satisfied that this proposed condition is appropriate and reasonable to manage the respondent's risk.
At the most recent hearing, I was informed that, while the respondent would prefer that no such condition be imposed, he recognises that the protection of the community means that such a condition may be considered necessary. He also acknowledges that it will assist to prevent him from breaching his order and enable him to build a life in the community. Accordingly, he was willing to abide by an order with such a condition included.
In my view, that condition, in combination with the other conditions of the Supervision Order, will ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent would, if not subject to restriction, commit a serious offence.
I am also satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the Supervision Order.
I propose to amend the Supervision Order to use the terminology of the HRSO Act, as opposed to the terminology of the DSO Act, and to add the condition requiring the respondent to be accompanied while outside his residence. I have also made other minor amendments to the Supervision Order, the final version of which appears as an appendix to these reasons.[78]
[78] Subject to a redaction of the approved address.
I am satisfied that the outstanding term of the Supervision Order is presently sufficient and that it is not necessary to extend the term.
The respondent will be released on the amended Supervision Order from 18 September 2023, being a date not less than 21 days from 28 August 2023.

APPENDIX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SO 26 of 2006

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant

-and-

EDWARD WILLIAM LATIMER Respondent

_______________________________________________________________________

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE DERRICK
ON 9 JULY 2019 AS AMENDED BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER ON
28 AUGUST 2023

_________________________________________________________________________

The Court, having found pursuant to section 7 and section 17 of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 that the Respondent is a serious danger to the community;

AND the Court having ordered that the Respondent be the subject of a supervision order pursuant to section 17(1)(b) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 for a period of 10 years from 31 July 2019 (the Supervision Order);

AND the Court having determined on 28 August 2023 that the Respondent has contravened the Supervision Order:

The Respondent is to be released on the Supervision Order, from 18 September 2023, being a date not earlier than 21 days from the date this order is made, on the following amended conditions:

You, EDWARD WILLIAM LATIMER, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer at the place and within the time stated in the order and advise the officer of your current name and address.
Report to and receive visits from, a Community Corrections Officer as directed by the court.
Notify a Community Corrections Officer of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens.
Be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (the HRSO Act).
Not leave, or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Community Corrections Officer.
Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order.
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the HRSO Act.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Residence

Take up residence at [address redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to you.

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

Report to a CCO at your approved address within normal business hours on the day of release from custody under this order.
Be under the supervision of a CCO, and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.
Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such arrangements having regard to any employment commitments of you.
Not commence or change employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of the CCO.

Attendance at programs or treatment

Consult and engage with any psychiatrist, psychologist, 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.

Reporting to WA Police

Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Management Squad at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 within 48 hours of your release from custody, 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.
If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your person, residence and/or vehicle for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order, and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officers believe to contravene the conditions of the order.
Remain at your premises and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle under the provisions of the HRSO Act.
Upon request, permit a CCO or WA Police to access any computer, telephone, or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer related activities, and provide to the CCO or Police Officer any passwords, or any other means used to unlock or access the device.
Not provide passwords used to access any device referred to in condition 18 or any online accounts to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer and not allow any person other than a CCO or Police Officer to access any device referred to in condition 18.
With respect to any computer or telephone in your possession that is connected to the internet or has been used by you to access the internet, not delete or otherwise remove or disguise any search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, without the approval in advance of a CCO or Police Officer.
Upon request, advise Police of the names of all of your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services used by you, and all internet user names or identities used by you.

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 offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice.
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 offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture, and must avert your gaze from such victims at all times.
Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.

Criminal conduct

Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves indecency, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.
Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203 or s 204 of the Criminal Code1913 (WA) or s 17(1) Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021.
Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996.
Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014, and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the prescriber.

Curfew

Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the HRSO Act, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.
When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or front yard of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
When subject to a curfew under this order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew.

Medications/Mental Health

Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re‑offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice.

Prevention of high-risk situations

Not to leave or be away from your approved address unless accompanied by a person approved in advance by your CCO, without reasonable excuse.
With the exception of public transport, not enter in or on any vehicle where a female is present, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO.
Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO.
Not permit any female to enter any residential address in which you reside, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO.
Report any unsolicited interaction with females at your residential address to the CCO and the Serious Offender Management Squad at your next scheduled appointment.
Not approach females in public places and request sexual behaviour with or by them.
Not possess, or consume, or use or purchase alcohol.
Not to attend or remain at any licensed premises, with the exception of cafés and restaurants, unless permitted or required to do so for any one of the following reasons:
a)For the purpose of averting or minimizing a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
b)For a purpose, and for the duration, approved in advance by a CCO;
c)On the order of a CCO or a Police Officer.
Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.
To provide a valid sample for testing pursuant to condition 43.
Not remain in the presence of any person who is affected by alcohol, or prohibited substances, or who you reasonably ought to know is affected by alcohol or prohibited substances, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place or remove the person consuming prohibited drugs from your residence.
Not enter the premises of, or access the services of, escort agencies or sex workers, unless approved in advance by a CCO.
Not to be in possession of any pornographic material, in either hard-copy or digital form, or access or view pornography on the internet.
Report at your next contact with your CCO the formation of any friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with a person.
Upon request, make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence a friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer.

________________________________

THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AS
Associate to the Honourable Justice Forrester
29 AUGUST 2023