The State of Western Australia v Lewis [No 4]
[2025] WASC 371
•4 SEPTEMBER 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- LEWIS [No 4] [2025] WASC 371
CORAM: MCGRATH J
HEARD: 4 SEPTEMBER 2025
DELIVERED : 4 SEPTEMBER 2025
PUBLISHED : 4 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S: SO 8 of 2019
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
JONATHON NEAL LEWIS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Contravention proceedings - Application for interim detention pending determination of contravention proceedings - Need to ensure adequate protection of the community
Legislation:
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 53, s 56
Result:
Respondent detained in custody pending determination of contravention proceedings
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms T Hollaway |
| Respondent | : | Mr T Hager |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) |
| Respondent | : | Geoffrey Miller Chambers |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4
The State of Western Australia v Lewis [2019] WASC 429
The State of Western Australia v Lewis [No 2] [2020] WASC 377
The State of Western Australia v Lewis [No 3] [2022] WASC 148
MCGRATH J:
Introduction
The State has filed an application under s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act) commencing contravention proceedings in respect of the respondent. The State seeks an order under s 53(2)(b) of the HRSO Act that the respondent be detained in custody pending the finalisation of the contravention proceedings.
The issue that I must decide is whether the respondent may be released on an interim supervision order pending the determination of the new contravention proceedings or be detained in custody. Counsel for the respondent submitted that given the circumstances, the interim detention of the respondent is not opposed. At the hearing of the application, I found that submission was properly made and accordingly, ordered that the respondent be detained in custody pending the determination of the contravention proceedings. I stated that I would subsequently publish reasons for the orders made at the hearing. I now do so.
Procedural history
On 1 October 2019, the State applied for an order in respect of the respondent under s 14 and s 17(1) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act).[1] The State contended in that application that the respondent is a serious danger to the community and that he should be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment, or alternatively, should he be released, he should be subject to a supervision order under the DSO Act.
[1] Application by the State of Western Australia dated 20 September 2019.
On 20 November 2019, I heard the division 1 hearing and determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might, under s 7(1) of the DSO Act, find that the respondent is a serious danger to the community.[2] I also ordered that the respondent be detained in custody until the conclusion of the application.
[2] The State of Western Australia v Lewis [2019] WASC 429.
On 21 October 2020, I determined that the respondent was a high risk serious offender for the purposes of the HRSO Act.[3] I determined that it was necessary that the respondent be subject to a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. Further, I determined that a supervision order under s 27 of the HRSO Act would provide adequate protection of the community.
[3] The State of Western Australia v Lewis [No 2] [2020] WASC 377.
On 31 August 2021, the State applied for an order under s 55 of the HRSO Act alleging that the respondent had contravened conditions of the supervision order.
On 1 September 2021, Allanson J ordered that the respondent remain in custody on an interim detention order pending the outcome of the State's application.
On 29 March 2022, Archer J determined that the respondent should be released on the existing supervision order but with amendments to the conditions and with an extension of the period during which he would be subject to that order (Amended Supervision Order).[4]
[4] The State of Western Australia v Lewis [No 3] [2022] WASC 148.
On 19 March 2025, the respondent was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment backdated to 22 November 2024. The respondent's earliest release date is 21 November 2025.
On 26 August 2025, a magistrate issued an arrest warrant under the HRSO Act for contraventions and further likely contraventions. On 27 August 2025 the arrest warrant was served on the respondent in prison.
The alleged contraventions
In support of the application, the State relies upon the affidavit of Ms Allen, legal practitioner, affirmed 26 August 2025 and the affidavit of Mr Wyatt, Community Corrections Officer, affirmed 25 August 2025.
Since the commencement of the Amended Supervision Order on 29 March 2022, the respondent has contravened a condition of the Amended Supervision Order on six occasions contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act.
The State has filed a particularisation of the contraventions in the following terms:
Contravention #1-3 (PE 22687 - 22689 of 2022 (also related to IND 1114 of 2022)
5.Condition 6 of the Amended Supervision Order states that the Respondent must, "Not commit a serious offence during the period of the order".
6.Condition 40 of the Amended Supervision Order states that the Respondent must, "Not conduct computer searches for, collect, access, or be in possession of in either electronic or permanent form, images of children including drawings or sketches whether indecent or not …".
7.Condition 49 of the Amended Supervision Order states that the Respondent must, "Not delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised by another person, any data …".
8.On 8 June 2022, Police Officers from the High Risk Serious Offender (HRSO) Team attended the residential address of Mr Lewis.
9.Whilst at the address officers conducted a compliance search, with the consent of Mr Lewis. A download and review of his mobile device revealed a number of contraventions.
10.A Google search history on 7 June 2022 between 12:43pm and 1:08pm was deemed to be Child Exploitation Material (CEM). The images contained within the search history were of cartoon children performing sexual acts. These children being from the popular television show 'The Simpsons'.
11.Mr Lewis' internet browser history cache revealed that at varying intervals between 28 May and 7 June 2022 Mr Lewis used the internet to access various images containing cartoon CEM. In total Mr Lewis accessed 118 images of CEM containing cartoon or animated children.
12.These images included Bart and Lisa Simpson between the ages of 8-12 engaging in sexual intercourse, anal intercourse and oral sex, images of adolescent Bart Simpson engaging in sexual intercourse with Homer and Marge Simpson, images of Meg Griffin from Family Guy as a teenager aged 15-17 engaging in sexual intercourse including with her brother Chris Griffin aged between 13-15, images titled "baby's play" depicting cartoon baby engaging in oral sex and being masturbated by adult female, images of teenagers from American Dad engaging in sexual intercourse with adults.
13.During the video interview Mr Lewis stated he had viewed the images on the internet and described them as "Bart and Lisa having sexual intercourse". Mr Lewis denied using the material to masturbate to or for sexual gratification. He agreed that he had been searching for incestuous adult pornography and that had eventually progressed to searching for the Simpsons.
14.Mr Lewis was convicted of an offence of use a carriage service to access child pornography material (s 474.22 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)). This offence is deemed a serious offence as defined in the Act as listed in the HRSO Regulations (charge PE 22687/22[5] and IND 1114 of 2022).[6]
[5] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexures I, L, M.
[6] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexures F, G, H.
15.As part of the facts of the Indictable offence the Respondent had accessed various google images of female child and teenage actresses that were not child abuse material.
16.The searches for all of these materials also contravened condition 40 of the Amended Supervision Order (charge PE 22688/22).[7]
[7] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexures G, J, L, M.
17.The review of Mr Lewis device also detected two deleted screenshots. One was a blank screen and the other a cartoon image of a teacher and child. The deletion of any data violates Condition 49 of the Amended SO (charge PE 22689/22).[8]
[8] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexures K, L, M.
18.On 29 November 2022, the Respondent appeared before Judge Gething in the Perth District Court, where he was convicted of IND 1114 of 2022 and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, backdated to 8 June 2022. The Respondent served 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment, following which he was released on a recognisance on 7 October 2024.
19.On 6 December 2022, the Respondent appeared before Magistrate Campione in the Perth Magistrates Court. The Respondent was convicted of charges PE 22687 - 22689 of 2022 and sentenced to 7 months' imprisonment for each charge, to be served concurrently with his term of imprisonment imposed on 29 November 2022.
20.Mr Lewis was released from prison on 7 October 2024 back on to the Amended Supervision Order.
Contraventions #4-6 (PE 65989 - 65991 of 2024)
21.On 21 November 2024, Police from the HRSO Team attended Mr Lewis's home address for the purpose of completing a Notice of Reporting Obligations Meeting and a compliance search.
22.During the process of conducting a compliance search on Mr Lewis's mobile device, several Google searches attracted the interest of police.
23.On 4 November 2024 Mr Lewis conducted a Google search on his mobile device for Ariana Greenblatt who is a 17-year-old actor in breach of condition 40 (PE 65989/24).[9]
24.On 19 November 2024 Mr Lewis conducted a Google search on his mobile device for and then watched Dad and Daughter Taboo Porn in breach of condition 40 (PE 65990/24).
25.On 20 November 2024 Mr Lewis had conducted a google search on his mobile device for Alyvia Alyn Lind a 17-year-old child actor in breach of condition 40 (PE 65991/24).
26.On 19 March 2025, the Respondent appeared before Magistrate De Maio in the Perth Magistrates Court. The Respondent was convicted of charges PE 65989 - 65991 and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, which was backdated to 22 November 2024.
[9] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexures N, O, P.
Likely to contravene the Amended Supervision Order
In addition, the State submits that there are a number of relevant circumstances that support the contention that the respondent is likely to contravene the Amended Supervision Order.
In relation to the allegation that the respondent is also 'likely to contravene' a condition of the Amended Supervision Order, and is at a heightened, elevated risk of reoffending in a serious manner, the State relies upon the affidavit of Mr Wyatt, and previous reports of Dr Wojnarowska, psychiatrist and Ms Hasson, psychologist.
Both the 2022 'serious offence' and the 2024 contraventions occurred soon after the respondent's re-release into the community. The respondent expressed difficulties with coping and experiencing boredom and isolation on both occasions. The offences on 7 June 2022 occurred 70 days after the respondent's release on the Amended Supervision Order.[10] The respondent admitted to his community corrections officer that he subconsciously breached his Order and reoffended for the reason that it was becoming too hard in the community and being in custody is easier.[11]
[10] Affidavit of Mr Wyatt [30].
[11] Affidavit of Mr Wyatt [31].
The first 2024 contravention offence occurred 29 days after the respondent's release following his sentence of imprisonment.[12] The 2024 contravention charges follow what appeared to be an increase in access to online pornography, suggesting increased sexual preoccupation in contrast to disclosures in supervision where the respondent tended to minimise his level of sexual preoccupation.[13]
[12] Affidavit of Mr Wyatt [33].
[13] Affidavit of Mr Wyatt [40].
On 24 October 2024, a review of the respondent's mobile phone revealed the respondent's internet search history included the website 'Pornhub' and the search immediately showed animated videos from the television series 'The Simpsons'.[14] A verbal warning was issued.
[14] Affidavit of Mr Wyatt [26], [35].
In April 2025, the respondent informed his community corrections officer that he had become bored and lonely and subsequently used the internet to conduct the searches that he was charged with pursuant to s 80 of the HRSO Act. He also admitted to having ongoing sexual thoughts about children, specifically, teenage girls.[15]
[15] Affidavit of Mr Wyatt [42].
Dr Wojnarowska prepared a psychiatric report dated 8 March 2020 for the Respondent's DSO hearing. Dr Wojnarowska diagnosed the respondent with hebephilia.[16] Dr Wojnarowska expressed the opinion that the respondent is likely to continue with his daily routine while becoming preoccupied with online activity which could culminate in both non-contact and contact offences against pubescent females.[17]
[16] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexure T, page 204 [56].
[17] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexure T, page 208 [76].
Ms Hasson prepared a psychological report dated 17 February 2022 for the respondent's 2022 contravention proceedings. Ms Hasson expressed the opinion that the respondent's most likely offending scenario is an offence committed against a female child known to the respondent. Non-contact sexual offending may occur via the use of internet or social media. If the respondent has access to a child, a contact offence involving penile/vaginal penetration is likely.[18] Ms Hasson stated that the imminence of sexual offending will depend on the presence or absence of dynamic risk factors (loneliness, depressed mood, social isolation, and the like).[19]
[18] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexure T, page 258 [78].
[19] Affidavit of Ms Allen, Annexure T, page 258 [81].
The State submits that the respondent is capable of committing a serious sexual offence opportunistically or intentionally and that the current conditions of the Amended Supervision Order do not allow for adequate management of that risk.[20]
[20] Affidavit of Mr Wyatt [69].
Relevant legislative provisions
The State brings the application under s 53 and s 56 of the HRSO Act. Section 53 of the HRSO Act provides:
State may seek orders
(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.
Section 56 of the HRSO Act, relevantly, provides:
(1)This section applies if an offender who is subject to a supervision order is before the Supreme Court and proceedings on an application made under section 53 in respect to the offender are pending (the pending proceedings).
(2)The court may at any time in the pending proceedings -
(a)if the offender is detained in custody, order the offender to be released, subject to subsection (3); or
(b)if the offender is not detained in custody, order the offender to be detained in custody.
(3)The court cannot order the offender to be released unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that -
(a)releasing the offender is justified by exceptional circumstances; and
(b)the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order, including any amendments to the standard conditions made under subsection (7)(b).
(4)The onus of proof as to the matter described in subsection (3)(b) is on the offender.
The respondent is in custody pursuant to an arrest warrant under the HRSO Act. Therefore, I must apply s 56(3) of the HRSO Act.
I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of both matters specified in s 56(3) before I can order the respondent's release.
The term 'exceptional circumstances' used in s 56(3) is not defined in the HRSO Act. The term should therefore be given its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, exceptional circumstances are circumstances that are unusual, out of the ordinary, in some way special, or an exception to the general trend of cases.
As to the phrase 'substantially comply', this was considered by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart,[21] in the context of contravention proceedings. I apply the reasoning of Fiannaca J.
[21] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52].
The standard conditions of the supervision order referred to in s 56(3)(b) are those set out in s 30(2), which provides:
A supervision order in relation to an offender must require that the offender -
(a)report to a community corrections officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the offender's current name and address; and
(b)report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court; and
(c)notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens; and
(d)be under the supervision of a community corrections officer and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); and
(e)not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer; and
(f)not commit a serious offence during the period of the order; and
(g)be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.
The relevant questions to be decided are therefore as follows:
1.Is the respondent's release justified by exceptional circumstances?
2.If released, will the respondent substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order, including any additional conditions which could be made prior to release?
Assessment of the application
I now turn to the assessment of whether the respondent should be detained in custody until the determination of the contravention proceedings.
I am satisfied, on the basis of the alleged contraventions that I have outlined, that the State has established that the protection of the community against the risk of the respondent committing a serious offence under the HRSO Act requires that he be detained.
When the contravention offences are viewed together, and in light of other evidence that the State relies upon, there appears to be good reasons for the authorities to be concerned about their ability to manage the respondent in the community.
On the basis of the information that I have at the time of hearing this application, I am not satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions if released. In particular, I am not satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the conditions regarding supervision by a community corrections officer and compliance with all reasonable directions issued by such an officer. In addition, there appears a heightened risk of reoffending, including sexual offending.
Further, I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances have not been established that justify the respondent's release. The respondent did not submit that exceptional circumstances can be established.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondent must be detained in custody to ensure the adequate protection of the community pending the determination of the contravention proceedings.
Conclusion
Therefore, the respondent will be detained in custody pending the determination of the contravention proceedings.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
CEM
Associate to the Hon Justice McGrath
4 SEPTEMBER 2025
0
4
1