The State of Western Australia v Lawrence [No 2] - [2023] WASC 183

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- LAWRENCE [No 2] [2023] WASC 183
CORAM:   VANDONGEN J
HEARD:   19 DECEMBER 2022, 15 FEBRUARY 2023 & 3 APRIL 2023
DELIVERED          :   2 JUNE 2023
PUBLISHED           :   2 JUNE 2023
FILE NO/S:   SO 14 of 2020
(formerly HRSO 5 of 2020)

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
ARTHUR THOMAS LAWRENCE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Contravention proceedings - Application under s 53 and s 55(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) for amended supervision order

Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Supervision order amended

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr B D Meertens
Respondent	:	Mr T Hager

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Respondent	:	Legal Aid (WA)

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

Maxwell v The Queen [1996] HCA 46; (1996) 184 CLR 501
The State of Western Australia v ACW [No 4] [2023] WASC 14
The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [2023] WASC 144
The State of Western Australia v Lawrence [2020] WASC 462
The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 3] [2023] WASC 50

VANDONGEN J:

Introduction

On 27 July 2021, Curthoys J found that the respondent, Arthur Thomas Lawrence, was a high risk serious offender for the purposes of s 7 of the High Risk Serious Offender Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), and he made a supervision order in accordance with s 48(1)(b) (original supervision order).
The State subsequently alleged that Mr Lawrence had contravened the original supervision order[1] and, on 7 April 2022, an application was made pursuant to s 53(2)(a) of the HRSO Act for an order under s 55 that it be rescinded, and that a continuing detention order be made (Application). In the alternative, the State applied for an order that the supervision order be amended. The State also applied for an order pursuant to s 53(2)(b) of the HRSO Act that Mr Lawrence be detained in custody in the interim.
[1] The State also alleged, in the alternative, that Mr Lawrence was likely to contravene a condition of his supervision order, relying on s 55(2) of the HRSO Act. However, that allegation was not pursued.
As the Senior Community Corrections Officer who is attached to the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU), Ms Gabriella Serrano, explained in her Performance Report dated 13 December 2022:
Mr Lawrence appears before the Court in relation to contraventions of his HRSO [supervision order]. He was released to this Order on 17/08/2021 and has remained in custody since 20/01/2022, with a three week remand period also noted in November 2021. He has therefore completed less than five months of the HRSO SO in the community. The current contravention proceedings commenced after alcohol and cannabis use was detected in the community for which Mr Lawrence was charged and convicted. This occurred whilst Mr Lawrence was subject to a Suspended Imprisonment Order for breaching his curfew on 31/10/2021 and for removal of his GPS electronic monitoring device on 03/11/2021 and also followed a period of evident instability in relation to Mr Lawrence's mental health, relationships, accommodation and motivation to comply with his HRSO SO requirements.
On 6 May 2022, an order was made that the Application be heard on 19 December 2022, together with several other orders that were designed to facilitate that hearing. An order was also made pursuant to s 53(2)(b) of the HRSO Act that Mr Lawrence be detained in custody while proceedings on the Application were pending.
The Application was heard by me on 19 December 2022, 15 February 2023 and then on 3 April 2023. The Application was not finally dealt with until 3 April 2023 because there was no suitable accommodation available to Mr Lawrence until that time.
By 3 April 2023, suitable accommodation had become available for Mr Lawrence at a residential rehabilitation facility (the Facility), which describes itself as a 'not for profit welfare organisation that provides residential recovery and reintegration services for men and women who need assistance from personal crisis.' Although the Facility was not targeting substance misuse at the time, the evidence suggested that should Mr Lawrence enter the Facility, it would be adjusted to cater to his needs related to drugs and alcohol misuse.
Ultimately, the only substantive issue that I was required to determine was whether I should exercise the power in s 55(1)(b) of the HRSO Act to make an order amending a condition of the original supervision order by requiring Mr Lawrence to reside at a different address to the one specified in that order.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 3 April 2023 I made an order pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the HRSO Act amending the address specified in condition 8 of the original supervision order. I also made an order that the original supervision order, as amended, was to take effect on 3 April 2023, together with other ancillary orders.
Following are my reasons for making those orders.

Statutory framework and relevant legal principles

The State commenced these proceedings by filing the Application with the Court pursuant to s 53(2) of the HRSO Act. Section 53 provides as follows:
(1) This section applies to -
(a) an offender who is brought before the Supreme Court under a warrant issued under section 51(3) or 56(7)(d); and
(b) an offender who is charged with an offence under section 80(1).
(2)In relation to the offender, the State may apply for -
(a) an order under section 55; and
(b) an order for the offender to be detained in custody while proceedings on the application for an order under section 55 are pending.
(3) The application must state what order is sought under section 55.
There is no suggestion that Mr Lawrence was brought before the Court under a warrant. Accordingly, for s 53 to apply to Mr Lawrence it must be shown that at the time the Application was made he was 'an offender who is charged with an offence under section 80(1)', for the purposes of s 53(1)(b).
Section 55 of the HRSO Act is in the following terms:
(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.
(2) …
(3) In deciding which order to make under subsection (1) or (2), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
Recently, in The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [2023] WASC 144 [28] - [35], Fiannaca J set out the relevant legal principles to be applied where an application is made for an order under s 55(1) of the HRSO Act. In my view the principles that are relevant to this matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)Unlike a restriction order application made under s 35 of the HRSO Act, when an application is made pursuant to s 53 for an order under s 55, the court has already found that it was necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. It has also found that it was appropriate to make a supervision order.
(b)Section 53(1)(b) of the HRSO Act does not extend to a person who has been charged and convicted before an application is made under s 53(2).[2]
(c)Where s 53 applies, and the State seeks an order under s 55, the court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender has, relevantly, contravened a condition of the supervision order.[3] Upon being so satisfied, the court then must make at least one of the orders provided for in s 55(1)(a), (b) or (c).
(d)In deciding which order to make under s 55(1)(a), (b) or (c) the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. The court should choose the order that is least invasive of the respondent's right to be at liberty, provided the community will be adequately protected. If the court is not satisfied that the community could be adequately protected by releasing the respondent again on the supervision order, with or without amendment or extension (which includes a situation in which the court is simply left in doubt), it must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order.
(e)If the court is considering making an order under s 55(1)(b) to amend the conditions of a supervision order, that power must be exercised subject to s 29. Relevantly, this means that the offender bears the onus of satisfying the court, on the balance of probabilities, that they will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order as amended.
(f)The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the standard conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.[4]
(g)Factors that are relevant to that assessment include the respondent's history of compliance and non‑compliance, their attitude to the conditions of the supervision order, their capacity to comply with the conditions, what measures are in place to ensure they substantially comply, and the relative importance of any breach that might occur in terms of the breach's impact on the practical effect of the supervision order.[5]
(h)An application made pursuant to s 53 of the HRSO Act, for an order under s 55, must be decided based on evidence that is properly admitted at the hearing. The ordinary rules of evidence apply, except to the extent that they are modified by s 84(5), which permits the court to receive in evidence certain specified material.
(i)Pursuant to s 84(3), before the court makes a decision or order on the hearing of an application it must, if the evidence is admissible, hear evidence called by the State. The court must also hear evidence given by or on behalf of the offender, if the offender elects to adduce such evidence.
[2] The State of Western Australia v ACW [No 4] [2023] WASC 14. See also, The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 3] [2023] WASC 50; The State of Western Australia v CA[No 3].
[3] HRSO Act s 55(1).
[4] The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [34].
[5] The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [35].

The evidence

During the various hearings of the Application the State tendered, without objection, a book of materials containing the following documents:
Materials provided by the Department of Justice
a.the Application;
b.Mr Lawrence's criminal record;
c.the transcript of the reasons for decision of Curthoys J in the restriction order application proceedings;
d.the original supervision order;
e.the Department of Justice's charge history for Mr Lawrence, for the period 17 August 2021 to 31 August 2021;
f.a sentence summary for Albany Regional Prison;
g.substance use test results for the period 17 August 2021 to 31 August 2022;
Post-release documents and materials
h.an affidavit of Ms Gabriela Serrano, dated 8 April 2022;
i.particulars of contravention allegations pursuant to sections 53 and 55 of the HRSO Act (Particulars);[6]
[6] A copy of the Particulars is annexed to these reasons as Annexure A.
Contravention materials
j.several statements of material facts, prosecution notices and transcripts of proceedings before the Magistrates Court, relating to charges preferred against Mr Lawrence for contravening a supervision order contrary to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act;
Historical assessment reports
k.a psychiatric report by Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, dated 7 April 2021, as well as an addendum to that report dated 5 July 2021;
l.a community supervision assessment by Senior Community Corrections Officer, Ms Emma Cashmore, dated 8 April 2021, as well as an updated assessment dated 30 June 2021;
m.a neuro-psychological assessment report by Dr Elizabeth Vuletich, dated 21 June 2021;
Further materials provided by the Department of Justice
n.an end of treatment report by Clinical Psychologist, Mr Gary Duggan, dated 15 February 2022;
o.a parole assessment by Ms Serrano, dated 29 June 2022;
Contravention reports
p.a treatment progress report by Senior Forensic Psychologist, Ms Catherine Korda, dated 17 November 2022;
q.a psychiatric report by Dr Wojnarowska, dated 4 December 2022; and
r.a performance report by Ms Serrano, dated 13 December 2022.
At the hearing on 3 April 2023, the State also tendered the following documents, again without any objection:
(a)Certificate of Incorporation for the Facility;
(b)Diploma of Community Services of the manager of the Facility;
(c)Document Headed 'Men's Schedule for Feb 6th to June 1st 2023';
(d)The Facility's Authority to Obtain Medical Information; and
(e)Resident's Application Form for the Facility, in blank.
In addition to the documentary evidence that I have referred to, the State also adduced oral evidence from Dr Wojnarowska, Ms Korda and Ms Serrano on 19 December 2022, and further oral evidence from Ms Serrano on 3 April 2023.
In the circumstances there is little utility in summarising all the evidence that was adduced by the State. None of the evidence was challenged, and I was not required to make any findings in relation to any disputed fact. I will only refer to the evidence to the extent that it is necessary to explain my reasoning.

Analysis

The Application raises the following three questions:
(a)Does s 53 of the HRSO Act apply to Mr Lawrence?
(b)If s 53 of the HRSO Act does apply to Mr Lawrence, am I satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lawrence has contravened a condition of the original supervision order?
(c)If I am so satisfied, which of the orders in s 55(1)(a), (b) or (c) should be made?
I will deal with each of those questions in turn.

Does s 53 of the HRSO Act apply to Mr Lawrence?

As I have already noted, s 53 of the HRSO Act applies to Mr Lawrence if he is 'an offender who is charged with an offence under section 80(1)' at the time the Application was made.
The Application was filed with the court on 7 April 2022.
On 19 January 2022 Mr Lawrence was charged with two offences under s 80(1), namely those set out in prosecution notices with charge numbers FR 376/2022, and FR 378/2022.
Mr Lawrence pleaded guilty to each of those charges on the following day, 20 January 2022. However, he was not convicted until he was sentenced on 21 April 2022,[7] which was after the Application had been made.
[7] Maxwell v The Queen [1996] HCA 46; (1996) 184 CLR 501.
On 21 January 2022 Mr Lawrence was charged with a further offence under s 80(1), namely that set out in a prosecution notice with charge number PE 2800/2002.
Mr Lawrence pleaded guilty to that charge on 10 February 2022. He was similarly not convicted until he was sentenced on 21 April 2022, which was after the Application had been made.
Accordingly, s 53 applied to Mr Lawrence because, when the Application was made, he was an offender who was charged with an offence under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act.

Has Mr Lawrence contravened a condition of the original supervision order?

In the Particulars the State alleged that Mr Lawrence had contravened several conditions of the original supervision order. The State also relied on evidence of certified copies of prosecution notices, statements of material facts relating to those prosecution notices, and transcripts of various related proceedings in the Magistrates Court. None of that evidence was challenged by Mr Lawrence.
In addition to the contraventions that it asserted are established by that evidence, the State also relied on what is set out in a report dated 13 December 2022 authored by Ms Serrano. In that report Ms Serrano provided details of several occasions on which Mr Lawrence failed to comply with the conditions of the original supervision order. Those incidents of non‑compliance, which occurred during the period 23 August 2021 to 19 January 2022, include attending licensed premises, not abiding by urinalysis requirements, possession of a small amount of cannabis, contravening the curfew condition, consuming alcohol and cannabis, deleting material from his mobile phone, failing to attending scheduled counselling, and interfering with his GPS monitoring device. Dr Wojnarowska also referred to several contraventions in her report dated 4 December 2022.
It is not clear whether Mr Lawrence has admitted to all the contraventions referred to by Ms Serrano and Dr Wojnarowska.
In addition to the contraventions that resulted in prosecutions, verbal and written warnings were issued to Mr Lawrence.
Mr Lawrence did not contest the State's allegation that he had contravened a condition of the original supervision order. In fact, counsel for Mr Lawrence conceded at the hearing on 19 December 2022 that he had contravened the conditions of the supervision order as set out in the Particulars. This concession was properly made.
I find that Mr Lawrence has contravened several conditions of the original supervision order.

What order provided for in s 55(1)(a), (b) and (c) should be made?

The parties agreed that the court should make an order under s 55(1)(b) of the HRSO Act, namely an order amending the conditions of the original supervision order. Specifically, the parties submitted that condition 8 of the original supervision order, which required Mr Lawrence to take up residence at a specified address and to spend each night at that address, or at a different address approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer, be amended by providing for a different address. Both parties submitted that condition 8 should provide that Mr Lawrence is required to live at the Facility.
Notwithstanding the position taken by the parties, it is for the court to decide which of the orders provided for in s 55(1) should be made.
In the circumstances of this case the questions to be determined are firstly, whether the court is satisfied that the community would be adequately protected against an unacceptable risk that Mr Lawrence would commit a serious offence were he to be released on an amended supervision order, bearing in mind that the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community; and secondly, whether Mr Lawrence has established to the necessary standard that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of such a supervision order.
The starting point is to appreciate that Mr Lawrence did not commit any serious offence[8] during the time that he was subject to the original supervision order. Although Mr Lawrence was only at liberty for about five months, the significance of this cannot be underestimated in light of his very extensive criminal record. In that regard, Mr Lawrence's criminal record reveals that he has been convicted of a great many criminal offences, some of which were committed as long ago as 1991, when he was a child. He has persistently committed robbery, burglary, stealing, and other property offences over a lengthy period. He has also been convicted of assault, escaping lawful custody, possession of prohibited drugs, and weapon‑related offences.[9]
[8] Mr Lawrence was convicted of an offence of criminal damage relating damaging a GPS electronic monitoring device, as well as some relatively minor cannabis-related offending.
[9] The facts relating to Mr Lawrence's previous offending, including any that were 'serious offences' for the purposes of s 5 of the HRSO Act, were comprehensively set out by Derrick J in The State of Western Australia v Lawrence [2020] WASC 462 [19] - [63].

As Dr Wojnarowska said in her report dated 4 December 2022, prepared pursuant to s 74 of the HRSO Act:
Mr Lawrence has had a persistent pattern of offending since the age of 13. He had only brief periods in the community in between imprisonments and it appears that punishment has not been a deterrent for future reoffending.
Accordingly, although Mr Lawrence had only been required to comply with the terms of the original supervision order for a relatively short period of time, and he was non-compliant during that time, it did appear to have the desired effect of ensuring that he did not commit any serious offences while he was in the community. Mr Lawrence did not comply with some of the conditions of that order, including while he was serving a suspended term of imprisonment. The fact of non-compliance is of obvious concern as it may at least indicate that there is a risk of reoffending. However, it must be remembered that the conditions in a supervision order are a means to an end, namely, to provide protection of the community against the risk of the commission of a serious offence, and they are not an end in themselves.
Dr Wojnarowska first assessed Mr Lawrence in early 2021, pursuant to s 74 of the HRSO Act. She then provided a report dated 7 April 2021 to be used for the purposes of the State's application for a restriction order, which was heard by Curthoys J on 26 and 27 July 2021. In that report Dr Wojnarowska said the following:
A number of factors have contributed to Mr Lawrence's offending which include: antisocial personality disorder; substance use disorder; coping skills deficits and the presence of negative or maladaptive coping mechanisms; emotional and behavioural dysregulation difficulties; history of poor attachment, family of origin dysfunction and his own history of abuse and neglect; communication deficits and impulsivity. Exposure to destabilisers and limited social and emotional support are significant risk factors for future re-offending.
Taking into consideration my clinical assessment and the application of PCL-R and HCR-20 v3, I am of the opinion that Mr Lawrence is at high risk of re-offending. The protective factors identified in HCH-20 v3 (sic) indicate that this risk can be adequately managed in the community if he is subject to the relevant legislation under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act (2020).
Subsequently, Dr Wojnarowska prepared a further report dated 4 December 2022 for the purposes of the Application. In that report she said that she was still of the view that Mr Lawrence was at a high risk of violently reoffending. However, she remained of the opinion that this risk could be adequately managed in the community if he was subject to the regime provided for by the HRSO Act, notwithstanding the fact that he had contravened the original supervision order. Dr Wojnarowska's opinion was not the subject of challenge in cross-examination. I accept Dr Wojnarowska's evidence in this regard.
In her most recent report Dr Wojnarowska also said that:
Mr Lawrence has been struggling to adhere to the order conditions due to his poor coping skills, limited cognitive ability and tendency to resort to alcohol and drug use when subject to environmental stressors. Therefore, he requires close supervision and support in the community. Ideally this should be provided not only by his COMU team and police but also by an Aboriginal mentor. Mr Lawrence appears to respond well to seniority as evidenced by his engagement with the forensic psychologist, Mr Duggan.
His supervision conditions which include GPS monitoring, curfew, exclusion zones, drug and alcohol abstinence and other relevant conditions have been discussed with Mr Lawrence and his CCO. Mr Lawrence is of the opinion that he would be able to adhere to the conditions if released as he is now aware of what is expected of him.
Mr Lawrence should re-engage with his psychologist psychological [sic] to address factors relevant to his risk of reoffending, targeting his coping skills and PTSD symptoms.
Mr Lawrence also requires engagement in a substance use program such as Next Step or similar. Placement in a residential drug and alcohol dependence treatment service such as Palmerston, Shalom House or Cyrinian House would be beneficial to Mr Lawrence in the community.
Mr Lawrence would benefit from treatment with antidepressant medication (SSRI) to augment psychological treatment of his PTSD. This treatment would also assist with stabilising his mood and treating his anxiety symptoms.
In her oral evidence on 19 December 2022, Dr Wojnarowska reported that since she last examined him for the purposes of the restriction order application, she had noticed several changes:
Mr Lawrence reported that he has a better understanding of the order requirements now after he was charged with the contraventions and placed in prison. He is certainly less anxious about being able to adhere to the order, should he be released to the community. In my view, he feels more confident. He has been treated with anti-depressant medications, which had some effect on his anxiety levels. So these will be the changes that I've noticed.
Dr Wojnarowska also gave the following evidence:
Mr Meertens: Thank you. Moving on to the HCR, version 3. Now, it's the case, isn't it, Doctor, that in your report that you prepared for the restriction order hearing last year, you went through a checklist for all the factors which were relevant for you to consider on the HCR version 3. Is that correct?
Dr Wojnarowska: That's correct.
Mr Meertens: Okay. Thank you. And has there been any change - well, again, you identified certain risk factors as being present in Mr Lawrence, similar to last year?
Dr Wojnarowska: That's correct. Yes.
Mr Meertens: Were there any changes - any significant changes in those risk factors?
Dr Wojnarowska: So in his insight, I would say that he presented as more insightful on this occasion, in his ability to manage his anxiety, and perhaps his motivation to adhere to the order conditions and confidence that he would be able to.
Mr Meertens: Yes, okay. All right. But overall, has there been any change in your assessment of his overall risk of serious reoffending, overall?
Dr Wojnarowska: No, there has not.
Mr Meertens: No. Okay. And it was high last year and still high. Is that right?
Dr Wojnarowska: That's correct.
Mr Meertens: Okay. And after using the HCR-20, version 3, it allows the clinician who's using the tool to arrive at certain likely risk scenarios. Is that right?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Meertens: Has there been any change in Mr Lawrence's likely risk scenarios based on the HCR-20 version 3 that you utilised?
Dr Wojnarowska: No, there isn't.
Mr Meertens: Okay. So what is his likely - most likely risk scenario?
Dr Wojnarowska: So most likely risk scenario would be Mr Lawrence experiencing conflict within the family situation or his relationships, feeling rejected by his environment, being bored due to lack of employment, and resorting to substance use, with all the consequences.
Mr Meertens: Yes. Leading on, possibly, to his reoffending?
Dr Wojnarowska: That's correct.
However, Dr Wojnarowska noted that it would be to Mr Lawrence's benefit if he were able to live at a residential rehabilitation facility that provides him with strict boundaries and support. In that regard, Dr Wojnarowska gave the following evidence:
Mr Meertens: All right. Now, just one issue which you deal with in your report. It appears that at the time you interviewed him, at least, Mr Lawrence was planning to reside with his sister, the same sister that he lived with before he went back to custody?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Meertens: Yes. And you're aware now that Mr Lawrence's sister has indicated to Ms Serrano, amongst others, that she's no longer willing to accommodate Mr Lawrence long-term. Do you understand that?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes.
Mr Meertens: Okay. At most, on present information, she's prepared to have him live with her for approximately two months, until - - -?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes.
Mr Meertens: - - - a place becomes available at [the Facility]. Sorry. You know that, don't you?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes.
Mr Meertens: Yes?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, I do.
Mr Meertens: Yes, yes. All right. And so going to when you're interviewing him, there appears to be now a change of - because as I understand it, Mr Lawrence would like to or wants - is willing to go to [the Facility]. There has been one change of plans, at least, about where he's going to go to. Does that alter your view in any way on his risk?
Dr Wojnarowska: No, it doesn't. In my view, this is a protective factor now that he is willing to engage with [the Facility].
Mr Meertens: Yes. And, Doctor, are you familiar with the program which is - that people undergo or people attend - sorry, the program that people participate in at [the Facility] if they have a substance use problem? I don't mean in detail. Are you familiar with the program?
Dr Wojnarowska: I - I understand that they're provided with drug and alcohol counselling. This is a program only for men, and there is a set of very specific requirements in relation to the liberty of coming and going.
Mr Meertens: Yes. And in your opinion, would it be to Mr Lawrence's benefit to reside at a place like [the Facility], which is a residential rehabilitation facility?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, very much so.
Mr Meertens: And would that be because he has a further opportunity to try and address his substance use disorder?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, in a structured and prohibitive environment that he requires at this point in time.
Mr Meertens: Yes. And just while we're still on the topic of [the Facility], are you also aware from the materials that have been provided to you that in 2019 he was previously at [the Facility] and he was exited from the program because he tested positive to drugs? You're - - -?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes. That was in 2019. He was tested positive for methamphetamines, yes.
Mr Meertens: Yes. Okay. And that being his history, do you have any reason to have any confidence that he might do differently this time if he's placed at [the Facility]?
Dr Wojnarowska: Well, if - he did have a period in the community, and apart from the last testing in, I believe, January 2022, his - there drug results were negative for methamphetamine. There were positive for cannabis and, I believe, on two occasions, for alcohol, but the drug of a major concern is methamphetamine, and he did not use it in the community even at the times when he was under stress and seeking help by presenting himself to hospital on three occasions.
Mr Meertens: Yes. So, Doctor, in summary, putting it in perhaps its most positive light for Mr Lawrence, are you saying that although there has been contraventions when he was released on the supervision order, it doesn't appear from any of the evidence that he started using amphetamines again?
Dr Wojnarowska: That's correct.
Mr Meertens: Okay. And that's the positive thing?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes.
Mr Meertens: Okay. Thank you. Now, do you have any view on whether Mr Lawrence's high risk as you've assessed it could be adequately managed if he is re-released on a supervision order, this time with an amendment to condition 8 that he lives at [the Facility]. Do you have any view on whether - - -?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, I do.
Mr Meertens: Yes. And what is that view, what's your view on whether it can be - - -?
Dr Wojnarowska: That he can be managed in the community on a supervision order.
45Dr Wojnarowska was also asked about one of the contraventions of the original supervision order, which related to Mr Lawrence having removed an electronic device:
Mr Meertens: Yes. Thank you. All right. And, of course, you've been provided with all the materials relating to his contraventions when he was in the community last?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes.
Mr Meertens: I just want to ask you about one of the contraventions in particular, what might be regarded as one of the more serious ones, and that was when he detached the strap from his electronic monitoring device when he was in Royal Perth Hospital and then left the hospital - - -?
Dr Wojnarowska: That's correct.
Mr Meertens: Yes. Any comment - - -?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes.
Mr Meertens: Any comment or observation you want to make about that contravention
Dr Wojnarowska: So Mr Lawrence told me that initially when he was desperate to get help on that night, he did not feel that - he wanted to be seen by a psychiatrist or a psychologist. That was not facilitated in the hospital, in the emergency department. He felt desperate. And at that time, he had the thought of wanting to get away, basically, to escape or abscond. He then changed his mind and - although not directly, but after several hours I understand he returned home, and he waited there for the police. During that time, he did not engage in any criminal activity as far as we know. He did not take methamphetamine and did not drink alcohol. He was tested afterwards, and the tests were negative.
Mr Meertens: Yes?
Dr Wojnarowska: So although he had an intention to abscond, he did not act on those thoughts and in the end did not, as I said, engage in any criminal activity.

46When Dr Wojnarowska was asked about the contraventions, in cross-examination, she gave the following evidence:
Mr Hager: And would it be fair to say, Doctor, that he has now a better understanding of the need to comply with the conditions of the supervision order, given he has been in custody on a sentence for breaches of the earlier order?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, that's my impression. That's correct.
Mr Hager: And there is a motivation in your dealings with him for the purpose of this proceeding, a motivation on his part to adhere to the conditions of his supervision order?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, he certainly presented as highly motivated on this occasion, yes.
Mr Hager: And again, he's able to sort of, in your dealings with him, manage his anxiety better, and he would be less likely to be perhaps overwhelmed by the burden of such a strict order?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes, that's my view.
Mr Hager: And the fact that he has been at [the Facility] before and tested positive - referring, of course, back to 2019 - that doesn't cause you such significant concern as to move your opinion as to the suitability of that address or accommodation?
Dr Wojnarowska: No, because as I mentioned, there was a period of time in the community that despite all of the stressors, he managed to abstain from methamphetamines.
Mr Hager: Is there any significance to be attached to the fact that his breaches of the supervision order were, as they were, particular to the use of drugs and, at the higher end of the scale, the removal of the strap or the device, rather than a serious offence the likes of which he has been sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment before?
Dr Wojnarowska: That's correct. That's very important. He did not reoffend in a violent manner during that period of time.
Mr Hager: And in your reports - and indeed, your oral evidence - you've given evidence as to the personal deficits he suffers from, drawing some of which from his early years. He's clearly not a person who can't make changes and can't make progress when suitably treated?
Dr Wojnarowska: Absolutely.
Mr Hager: And the presence of his sister and other family members not as a fellow resident at a house is still a supportive or protective measure, isn't it, them wanting to be part of his life?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes. Yes.
Mr Hager: There's nothing physically wrong with him, noting his - some health deficits or some health issues, there's nothing physically wrong with him that would stop him or prevent him from being able to satisfactorily engage in a supervision order in the community?
Dr Wojnarowska: No.
47When I asked Dr Wojnarowska about her views regarding the desirability of ensuring that Mr Lawrence be released to reside at the Facility, as opposed to his sisters' address, she gave the following evidence:
Vandongen J: You were asked some questions by Mr Hager about [the Facility], and I think you said in answer to questions he put to you that he was preferable to his sister's home and that it was the best case for Mr Lawrence?
Dr Wojnarowska: Yes.
Vandongen J: Can you explain why?
Dr Wojnarowska: In my view, Mr Lawrence requires drug and alcohol rehabilitation. It would be much better if that drug and alcohol rehabilitation took place in a residential facility that provides him with strict boundaries and provides him with support just beyond a few hours of counselling that he would receive should it be just done on the - in the community.
Vandongen J: One of the factors that you - - -?
Dr Wojnarowska: So - - -
Vandongen J: Sorry, go on?
Dr Wojnarowska: So he will be - I would say that apart from counselling, they are going to put in place supervision of his whereabouts, and he has a very good understanding that should he be non-compliant, he will - he would be expelled from the facility.

The overall effect of Dr Wojnarowska's evidence is that although there have been a number of changes that have occurred since the original supervision order was made, including the fact that Mr Lawrence is now less anxious about, and has more insight and motivation in relation to, his ability to adhere to a supervision order, he is still at a high risk of re-offending. Nevertheless, Dr Wojnarowska was of the view that this risk could be adequately managed in the community if Mr Lawrence was subject to a supervision order, particularly if he were to be required to live at the Facility, where he would be assisted with drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and be subject to strict boundaries.
Dr Wojnarowska appreciated that Mr Lawrence has contravened the original supervision order on several occasions. However, she believed that it was notable that he had not committed any serious offences while he was in the community, and he did not consume methylamphetamine, even while under stress. The most serious contravention occurred when he removed his electronic monitoring device when he was feeling desperate about his situation and was not able to access psychiatric or psychological assistance. Even then, having initially wanted to abscond, he changed his mind and returned home, where he waited for the police. There is nothing to suggest that he engaged in any criminal activity during the time that he was not able to be monitored. Further, he did not take methamphetamine or drink alcohol.
Ms Serrano has acted as Mr Lawrence's substantive Community Corrections Officer in the COMU since August 2021, and, apart from brief periods of leave, was in that role when he failed to comply with the terms of the original supervision order. In preparation for the contravention hearing, Ms Serrano authored a Parole Assessment dated 29 June 2022, a Performance Report dated 13 December 2022, and an affidavit dated 8 April 2022. Ms Serrano also subsequently prepared an Updated Performance Report dated 7 February 2023, which was primarily concerned with options for Mr Lawrence's accommodation were he to be released subject to an amended supervision order. The following summary is from Ms Serrano's Performance Report of 13 December 2022:
Overall, Mr Lawrence accepted his contraventions and admitted to the detected alcohol and cannabis use which as noted above occurred during a period of ongoing instability. He has attributed his drug and alcohol use primarily to poor relationships with his family, including his children. He has also consistently expressed frustration with his HRSO SO requirements although he currently reports that he is motivated to comply with all requirements. When he was in the community he regularly voiced opposition to his conditions related to not attending licensed venues and requirements to reside at an approved address subject to curfew. He stated this affected his capacity to form relationships with women and whilst he confirmed he was not seeking a serious relationship, he wanted to engage in casual relationships with women however felt his conditions restricted his ability to do so.
While in the community Mr Lawrence also frequently expressed frustration with the lack of independence and freedom he felt he had at his sister's address. Presently, [the Facility]. have confirmed their willingness and ability to accommodate Mr Lawrence, subject to a place being available (as noted above there are not currently places available and this is unlikely to change until January 2023). This accommodation appears to be an option generally however given that it is a residential rehabilitation facility it is anticipated that it will result in greater restriction in movement and autonomy of Mr Lawrence when compared to the accommodation with his sister. As noted above Mr Lawrence has also struggled to demonstrate consistent motivation to enter and remain at this facility. An accommodation assessment of this property was completed by the COMU and a Desktop Spatial Analysis was completed by the WAPF, details of which are outlined above.
Dr Wojnarowska did not recommend any amendments in relation to Mr Lawrence's current HRSO SO conditions. It is noted however that his sister Ms Lawrence is no longer willing or able to accommodate him long-term at her home and therefore the address in Condition 8 would need to be amended. Mr Lawrence's sister has advised she will accommodate him briefly if he has a confirmed placement in residential rehabilitation and is waiting to enter the facility. Random urinalysis, review by his General Practitioner, engagement in counselling and pro-social pursuits including employment have been identified by Dr Wojnarowska as remaining relevant to managing Mr Lawrence's risk in the community.

Ms Korda assessed Mr Lawrence, and then authored a Treatment Progress Report dated 17 November 2022, pursuant to s 74 of the HRSO Act. She reported that Mr Lawrence has engaged with most of his clinical psychologist sessions with Mr Duggan, attending eight out of ten of those sessions. She noted that he had typically engaged well with those sessions, though was at times negatively impacted by frustrations of being subject to a supervision order, as well as by symptoms of anxiety. Ms Korda indicated that while Mr Lawrence had insight into his behaviour resulting from previous treatment, he remains vulnerable to problematic decision-making and falling into old patterns when stressed or emotional.
At the hearing on 19 December 2022, Ms Korda said in her oral evidence that the Forensic Psychologist Intervention Team (FPIT), through which Mr Lawrence was engaging with counselling with Mr Duggan, would not provide further counselling to Mr Lawrence if he were to move to the Facility. She explained that this is because Mr Lawrence would be provided with in-patient residential rehabilitation, and that maintaining contact with Mr Duggan outside of that rehabilitation could become overwhelming and confusing. However, she confirmed that the possibility remains for Mr Lawrence to re-engage with a psychologist from FPIT once he is no longer residing at the proposed accommodation.
Ms Korda also drew attention to Mr Lawrence's perceived lack of support, and indicated that it would be beneficial for him to engage with external service providers (like appropriate church groups, or a formal mental health service) alongside the resources available through the Department of Justice. This would allow Mr Lawrence to broaden his social network and transition into a lifestyle without substance use or criminality.
Ultimately, Ms Korda opined that if would be beneficial if any conditions that Mr Lawrence were subject to did not impede him from accessing familial support or from engaging in gainful employment. She explained that Mr Lawrence's management would benefit from a framework which allowed greater freedom, thus motivating him to comply with the requirements of his order and encouraging independence.
There was nothing in Ms Korda's report, or in her oral evidence, which suggested that the risk that Mr Lawrence might commit a serious offence was such that a supervision order would be insufficient to ensure the adequate protection of the community.
At the hearing on 19 December 2022, the issue of accommodation was identified as one of the most important components of Ms Serrano's Performance Report, and most of her oral evidence was concerned with that issue. Mr Lawrence had previously lived at his sister's residence as required by the supervision order. Ms Serrano identified in her Performance Report and her oral evidence that this accommodation was no longer suitable for a variety of reasons.
Ms Serrano had been in contact with the manager of the Facility. Her Performance Report confirmed that the Facility would be willing to house Mr Lawrence for up to a year, though Mr Lawrence had expressed that he would like to stay there only for a period of three months. As at 12 December 2022, however, there was no availability at the proposed accommodation, and Ms Serrano stated that this would be unlikely to change prior to January 2023 at the earliest.
In her Updated Performance report dated 7 February 2023, Ms Serrano provided an update in relation to Mr Lawrence's accommodation. She also provided further information regarding Mr Lawrence's behaviour in custody and contact with his family, as well as a very detailed and helpful description of the Facility. In addition to meeting with the manager of the Facility, Ms Serrano obtained several documents relevant to the Facility, including a resident's application form, a schedule for the first six months of 2023, and a brochure relating to the residential housing offered by the Facility. Ms Serrano also provided the court with the following information about the Facility:
[The manager] has also confirmed that [the Facility] is run as a not for profit charity. The nature of [the Facility's] function as a residential rehabilitation facility was also explored with [the manager], noting Mr Lawrence was released to [the Facility] as part of his 2019 Parole Order on the understanding it was a residential rehabilitation facility. [The manager] confirmed that previously the facility had primarily targeted substance misuse including administering substance use testing and operating a detoxification facility however currently the business is not operating in this manner. [The manager] clarified that this is primarily due to the composition of the current participants in his program who do not require intensive drug and alcohol use intervention, with several participants having been in the program for some time (one up to 18 months) and most engaging in employment throughout the day. [The manager] however commented that should Mr Lawrence enter the program, it would be adjusted to cater to his needs related to drug and alcohol misuse, this would include possibly contracting a counsellor … to engage in sessions with Mr Lawrence. [The manager] advised [the counsellor] previously engaged in sessions with participants in the program. He confirmed the program has no set length however it is noted the application form provided states there is a minimum of six months engagement required. Nil alcohol, drug use or smoking is permitted for participants in the program. [The manager] also provided the businesses updated website which describes itself as a 'not for profit welfare organization that provides residential recovery and reintegration services for men and women who need assistance to recover from personal crisis.'
[The manager] otherwise confirmed there is a staff member at the residence between 8am to 4pm only. Some evening classes and activities also operate throughout the week, which appear to include general relationship and living skills, and faith-based teachings. He advised the current participants require minimal supervision and can leave the property as required however should Mr Lawrence reside at the facility he would be closely monitored and require permission to leave the residence. [The manager] confirmed that Mr Lawrence could attend appointments for potential housing however he would transport Mr Lawrence and attend with him personally. He also considered that Mr Lawrence could be given permission to attend appropriate employment, noting that he could put Mr Lawrence forward for potential demolition work with WA Site Clean who employ several of the other participants.
[The manager] remains willing to accommodate Mr Lawrence and also advised that he attends Acacia Prison in a separate capacity as a prison chaplain. In this regard he committed to checking in with Mr Lawrence at the prison, however regrettably at this time there are no vacancies available at [the Facility].
[The manager] has confirmed he is aware of Mr Lawrence's current Court proceedings and was able to provide an estimate of three to four months of when a place may become available. In confirming this timeframe, he took into account the overwhelming stability of the current participants which made it unlikely that participants would be leaving imminently, however he did advise two were looking to transition out in the next few months. In relation to the deposit required, [the manager] confirmed that he could reduce the upfront payment to $500 (which covered two week's rent) however Mr Lawrence would still need to pay a $200 administration fee soon after. Mr Lawrence's prison gratuities are presently below $60 and it is unknown if he has any funds to pay for the upfront payment despite his claims. The Department of Justice via COMU may consider if there is merit to paying the deposit on behalf of Mr Lawrence if required.

Ms Serrano gave evidence at the hearing on 3 April 2023. She said that she had discussed the potential for Mr Lawrence to be placed at the Facility, and that he had indicated to her that he was willing to take up that placement. She also said, in cross-examination, that Mr Lawrence had been booked in to see one of the departmental psychologists in the event of his release on an amended supervision order, and anticipated that he would be offered further counselling on a regular basis while he was in the community, subject to the availability of the psychologist.
At the hearing on 3 April 2023, counsel for the State advised me that a place for Mr Lawrence had become available at the Facility. I was also told that if the court was minded to amend the original supervision order to enable him to take up residence at the Facility then the necessary arrangements could be made immediately.
I had previously raised concerns about how long Mr Lawrence would be able to stay at the Facility. This is because the evidence before me tended to suggest that it was unlikely the Facility would permit him to stay there for much longer than 12 months. I was also concerned with the question of whether Mr Lawrence would be assisted with drug and alcohol counselling and rehabilitation were he to be released to live at the Facility on an amended supervision order.
In response to these concerns, counsel for the State in effect submitted that apart from the Facility there were at that time no other suitable places for him to live while subject to the supervision order. Further, the State's position was that it was really up to Mr Lawrence, with the assistance of the COMU, to take the further steps needed to secure suitable subsequent accommodation in a timely manner. In that regard, counsel referred me to condition 8 of the original supervision order, which contemplates that Mr Lawrence's residential address may change with the prior approval of a Community Corrections Officer.
Counsel also informed me that the State had considered the evidence relating to the programs that may be available to Mr Lawrence at the Facility. In light of that evidence, the State maintained the submission that it was appropriate for the court to amend the original supervision order by providing that it is a condition of his release that he live at the Facility.
Unsurprisingly, Mr Lawrence's counsel did not take issue with the State's position.

Consideration

Bearing in mind that the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community, I am of the view it is appropriate to amend the original supervision order pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the HRSO Act. I would do that by amending condition 8 of that order to require that Mr Lawrence reside at the Facility. I am satisfied that the community would be adequately protected against an unacceptable risk that Mr Lawrence would commit a serious offence were he to be released under the original supervision order, which has been amended in that way. I am also satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lawrence will substantially comply with the standard conditions set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act.
I have reached these conclusions for the following reasons.
Firstly, Mr Lawrence has been in the community while subject to the original supervision order for approximately five months. The purpose of that order was to ensure that the community was adequately protected from the risk that he might commit a serious offence. As I have already noted, Mr Lawrence did not commit any serious offences in the community. The significance of this cannot be underestimated having regard to Mr Lawrence's entrenched history of persistent offending.
Secondly, the unchallenged expert psychiatric evidence of Dr Wojnarowska is that while Mr Lawrence is at high risk of committing a serious offence, and although he has contravened a number of the conditions of the original supervision order, that risk is still capable of being adequately dealt with in the community under a supervision order. The expert psychological evidence of Ms Korda was to similar effect.
Thirdly, while I do have some concerns about some of Mr Lawrence's contraventions, as many of them suggest that he may have been attempting to hide the fact that he had been using cannabis and alcohol, the most serious of his contraventions occurred when he unsuccessfully tried to see a psychiatrist or a psychologist in hospital because he was experiencing anxiety symptoms and breathing difficulties. According to Mr Lawrence, when it became clear to him that the hospital could not provide him with assistance he felt desperate and wanted to escape, and so he removed the electronic monitoring device. Significantly, soon after removing the device Mr Lawrence changed his mind and returned home, where he waited for the police.
Therefore, the circumstances in which Mr Lawrence removed the electronic monitoring device do not suggest that it was done with a view to committing a serious offence, or to avoid being monitored generally. Instead, it occurred when he was anxious and stressed. While he was in the community, unmonitored, he did not engage in any criminal activity, or consume any methamphetamine or alcohol, and he did not try to abscond permanently. The fact that he voluntarily returned home and waited for the police is very much to Mr Lawrence's credit, and supports a conclusion that the risk that he may commit a serious offence can be sufficiently managed in the community under a supervision order.
Fourthly, Dr Wojnarowska is of the view that Mr Lawrence needs close supervision and support in the community, combined with engagement in a substance use program, preferably at a residential treatment service. In my view, if Mr Lawrence is subject to the conditions of the original supervision order, amended so that he is required to live at the Facility, there will then be a sufficient framework around which that supervision and support can be provided.
Mr Lawrence has clearly found it difficult to comply with the conditions of the original supervision order. He has reported that he felt overwhelmed, anxious and frustrated by the length of the order, and by the number of conditions with which he was required to comply. This is not surprising given that he has had poor coping skills, there are some limitations in his cognitive abilities, and he tends to resort to alcohol and drugs when under stress.
However, the contraventions occurred when he was living with his sister. Without in any way intending to say anything that reflects badly on Mr Lawrence's sister, or on her home environment, it is obvious that she could not (and cannot now) provide the level of supervision and support that Dr Wojnarowska believes is necessary.
The circumstances existing at the time the original supervision order was made, and which existed when Mr Lawrence contravened that order, had changed by the time of the hearing before me on 3 April 2023. Most significantly, a place at the Facility had become available for Mr Lawrence. Although the Facility was not operating as a residential rehabilitation facility at that time, Ms Serrano's evidence was that the Facility's manager had confirmed the Facility would adjust its offering to cater to Mr Lawrence's needs relating to drug and alcohol misuse, and that this may include contracting a counsellor to engage in sessions with him. Ms Serrano also gave evidence that she anticipated that the Department of Justice would offer Mr Lawrence counselling on a regular basis while he was in the community, subject to the availability of the psychologist.
Given Ms Serrano's evidence about the structure and support that Mr Lawrence is likely to receive if he were to live at the Facility, Dr Wojnarowska's evidence about the changes she has seen in Mr Lawrence, and Mr Lawrence's stated willingness to adhere to the conditions of a supervision order, I am of the view that the risk he will commit a serious offence while in the community can be adequately managed by amending the existing supervision order to require him to live at the Facility.
It will be up to Mr Lawrence, with the assistance of the Department, to take timely steps to secure alternative accommodation in the time allowed. Condition 8 of the original supervision, as amended, contemplates that Mr Lawrence may live at a different address, but only if that address is approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer. It would plainly not be in Mr Lawrence's interests for him to sit on his hands and wait until his residency at the Facility must come to an end before he then tries to obtain alternative appropriate accommodation.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, and pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the HRSO Act, I order that the supervision order that was made by Curthoys J on 27 July 2021 be amended, by deleting condition 8 and replacing it with the following:
Take up residence at [the Facility] 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.
A copy of the supervision order, as amended, is annexed to these reasons as Annexure B.

Annexure A

PARTICULARS OF CONTRAVENTION ALLEGATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 53 AND 55 OF THE HRSO ACT

On 27 July 2021 in the Supreme Court, Curthoys J found that the respondent was a high risk serious offender and that it was necessary to make a restriction order in relation to him under s 48(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 ('the Act') - see pp 66-75 of the transcript of His Honour's oral reasons for decision delivered on that date (which is annexed to the affidavit of Gabriela Alexandra Serrano affirmed 8 April 2022 and marked 'B').
Curthoys J was satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order and made a supervision order in relation to him for a period of 5 years, which came into effect on 17 August 2021 ('the SO').
Following his release into the community on 17 August 2021, the respondent contravened a condition/requirement of the SO on several occasions, as particularised below.

Contravention # 1 (same facts as MC PER 45439/21)

Condition 7 of the SO provides that the respondent 'Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31'.
Pursuant to condition 7, on 17 August 2021 an electronic monitoring device ('EMD') was securely attached to the respondent's ankle.
At about 1.00 am on 3 November 2021, the respondent was at Royal Perth Hospital, Perth. Whilst at the hospital, he pulled the strap out from his EMD, then departed the hospital leaving the EMD in his room.
At about 8.00 am on 3 November 2021, police located the respondent at his home address of [redacted] and arrested him.
The respondent was charged with an offence under s 80(1) of the Act, the subject of prosecution notice MC PER 45439/2021.
On 25 November 2021, the respondent appeared in Perth Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment, suspended for 9 months from that date ('the SIO'), to be served cumulatively upon the sentences imposed in relation to charge MC PER 46443/21 (see below).
The respondent subsequently breached the SIO as a result of committing further offences and on 21 April 2022 in Perth Magistrates Court, the court ordered him to serve the term of 4 months imprisonment which had been suspended, cumulatively upon other sentences imposed.
The respondent's conduct in removing the EMD from his ankle was in contravention of condition 7 of the SO, as by doing so he could not be monitored by GPS tracking.

Contravention # 2 (same facts as MC PER 46443/21)

Condition 4 of the SO provides that the respondent '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)'.
Condition 21 of the SO provides that the respondent 'Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time'.

On 17 August 2021, a CCO issued a written lawful instruction ('WLI') to the respondent directing him to not leave his residential address of [redacted] between the hours of 6.00 pm and 6.00 am.
At about 11.54 pm on 31 October 2021, the respondent was given permission to leave his residential address so that he could attend Royal Perth Hospital after contacting his case managers and complaining of chest pains.
In the hour after 11.54 pm, GPS monitoring of the respondent's movements via the EMD attached to his ankle indicated that he was in the vicinity of the suburbs of Cloverdale and Lathlain, after which he returned home. At no time did the respondent attend Royal Perth Hospital in accordance with the permission granted to him.
Police charged the respondent with an offence under s 80(1) of the Act, the subject of prosecution notice MC PER 46443/21.
On 25 November 2021, the respondent appeared in Perth Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, suspended for 9 months, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in relation to charge MC PER 45439/21.
The respondent subsequently breached the SIO as a result of committing further offences and on 21 April 2022 in Perth Magistrates Court, the court ordered him to serve the term of 3 months imprisonment which had been suspended, concurrent with other sentences imposed.
The respondent's conduct in failing to comply with the imposed curfew, by leaving his home and failing to attend Royal Perth Hospital in accordance with the permission granted to him, was in contravention of conditions 4 & 21 of the SO, and the WLI.

Contravention # 3 (same facts as MC PER 1821/21)

Condition 20 of the SO provides that the respondent '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 provider'.
On 30 December 2021, the respondent was required to attend 30 Moore Street, East Perth for urinalysis. The respondent complied with the requirement and provided a sample of urine.
On 4 January 2022, the urinalysis result was received from PathWest, with the respondent's sample returning a positive result for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with a concentration of 43 ug/L. The cut-off threshold is 15 ug/L. This result indicated that the respondent had used/consumed cannabis in the period before he provided a sample.
Police charged the respondent with an offence under s 80(1) of the Act, the subject of prosecution notice MC PER 1821/21.
On 14 January 2022, the respondent appeared in Perth Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined $500 (global).
The respondent's use/consumption of cannabis was in contravention of condition 20 of the SO.

Contravention # 4 (same facts as MC PER 1823/21)

Condition 27 of the SO provides that the respondent 'Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis testing or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by a CCO or by police officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place'.
Condition 28 of the SO provides that the respondent 'Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 27'.
On 7 January 2022, the respondent was required to attend 30 Moore Street, East Perth for urinalysis. The respondent complied with the requirement and provided a sample of urine.
On 12 January 2022, the urinalysis result was received from PathWest with a creatinine level of 1.0 mmo/L. The Australian/New Zealand standard 4308:2008 states that urine with a creatinine level less than 1.9 mmo/L is a dilute sample.
Police charged the respondent with an offence under s 80(1) of the Act, the subject of prosecution notice MC PER 1823/21.
On 14 January 2022, the respondent appeared in Perth Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined $500 (global).
The respondent's conduct in providing a dilute sample of urine, which rendered it void for the purposes of proper analysis, was in contravention of condition 28 of the SO.

Contravention # 5 (same facts as MC PER 2800/21)

Further to contraventions # 4, on 14 January 2022 the respondent was again required to attend 30 Moore Street, East Perth for urinalysis. The respondent complied with the requirement and provided a sample of urine.
On 18 January 2022, the urinalysis result was received from PathWest with a creatinine level of 1.3 mmo/L. The Australian/New Zealand standard 4308:2008 states that urine with a creatinine level less than 1.9 mmo/L is a dilute sample.
Police charged the respondent with an offence under s 80(1) of the Act, the subject of prosecution notice MC PER 2800/21.
On 21 April 2022, the respondent appeared in Perth Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with sentences also imposed on that date for breaching the SIO imposed on 25 November 2021 (see paras 10 & 19 above).
The respondent's conduct in providing a dilute sample of urine, which rendered it void for the purposes of proper analysis, was in contravention of condition 28 of the SO.

Contravention # 6 (same facts as MC FRE 376/22)

On 19 January 2022, police attended the respondent's residence in Spearwood, where he was taken into custody by police in relation to another matter.
Police conducted a basic pat search of the respondent during which a small clip seal bag containing approximate 1 gm of cannabis was located in a pocket on the right side of his shorts.
Police charged the respondent with an offence under s 80(1) of the Act, the subject of prosecution notice MC FRE 376/22.
On 21 April 2022, the respondent appeared in Perth Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, to be served cumulatively upon the sentences imposed on other charges (see paras 10, 19 & 37 above).
The respondent's possession of cannabis, which is a prohibited drug, was in contravention of condition 20 of the SO.

Contravention # 7 (same facts as MC FRE 378/22)

Further to Contravention #6, Condition 26 of the SO provides that the respondent is 'Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol'.
When police attended the respondent's residence in Spearwood on 19 January 2022, he was required to provide a sample of breath for alcohol testing, as provided by condition 27 of the SO.
Prior to undergoing the preliminary breath test, the respondent acknowledged to police that he had consumed a can of bourbon premix shortly before their arrival.
The respondent returned a positive reading to alcohol after which please placed him under arrest and took into Cockburn Police Station for further testing.
The respondent underwent a breath test at the Station and which gave a reading of 0.05 gm of alcohol per 210 L of breath.
Police charged the respondent with an offence under s 80 (1) of the Act, the subject of prosecution notice MC FRE 378/22.
On 21 April 2022, the respondent appeared in Perth Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed on other charges (see paras 10, 19, 37 & 42 above.
The respondent's consumption of alcohol was in contravention of condition 26 of the SO.

Annexure B

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE CURTHOYS ON 27 JULY 2021 AS AMENDED BY THE HON JUSTICE VANDONGEN ON 3 APRIL 2023

Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, 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, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 5 years commencing 17 August 2021, on the following conditions:

You, ARTHUR THOMAS LAWRENCE, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer at the place and within the time stated in the order and advise the officer of the person's 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 the person's name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens.
Be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32).
Not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Community Corrections Officer.
Not commit a serious offence as defined in Section 5 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, during the period of the Order.
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Residence

Take up residence at [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, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.
Disclose to the CCO the name and details of any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work in which you intend to commence and allow this employment, education, training or volunteer work to be confirmed by a CCO.

Attendance at programs or treatment

Consult and engage with any psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO; including any programs designed to address your offending behaviour.

Reporting to WA Police

Report to WA Police at times and at locations as directed by a CCO or WA Police.
If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your 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 Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the Order.
Remain at your residence and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020.

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 serious 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 victim at all times.

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 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 provider.

Curfew

Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, 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 curtilage 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

Disclose to the CCO on the next occasion you report to that person or agency any medical practitioner you see or consult with, to allow for oversight and monitoring to occur regarding your treatment or proposed treatment.
Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware, or suspect that you have ceased, or intend to commence taking medication or undergoing pharmaceutical treatment contrary to the advice of a medical practitioner, or if you appear to have ceased to consult with that medical practitioner on such treatment.

Prevention of high-risk situations

Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol.
Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis testing 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.
Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 27.
Not to go or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for 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 a duration, approved in advance by a CCO;
c.On the order of a CCO or Police Officer.
Not to 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.
Not to apply for, acquire or hold a license to possess any firearm, ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article.
Report at your next contact with your CCO, the formation of any friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person.
Advise a CCO of every telecommunication device in your possession and upon request, permit a CCO or WA Police to access your telecommunication devices, at any location nominated by the CCO or WA Police for the purpose of ascertaining your activities and associations.
Not to delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, by another person, any data on your telecommunication devices, including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS), or logs capable of identifying your activities and associations.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
KB
Associate to the Judge
2 JUNE 2023