The State of Western Australia v Long [No 2]
[2025] WASC 268
•4 JULY 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- LONG [No 2] [2025] WASC 268
CORAM: MCGRATH J
HEARD: 4 FEBRUARY 2025, 27 FEBRUARY 2025 & 20 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED : 4 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S: SO 6 of 2024
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
WESLEY LONG
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order - Whether necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether community can be adequately protected by a supervision order - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Result:
Restriction order made
Supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms T-M Hollaway |
| Respondent | : | Ms C Brennan |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Respondent | : | Aboriginal Legal Service (WA) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297
Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116
The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412
The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235
The State of Western Australia v Long [2024] WASC 237
MCGRATH J:
On 11 June 2024, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of the respondent under s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).[1] The State contends by that application that the respondent is a high risk serious offender and that it is necessary that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment and, in the alternative that should he be released, then he be subject to a supervision order under the HRSO Act.
[1] Application for Restriction Order filed 11 June 2024.
The State submitted that whilst the respondent should be subject to a restriction under the HRSO Act, it would be open for the Court to find that a supervision order would adequately manage the risk of the respondent reoffending.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that a restriction order should not be made under the HRSO Act, but that if the court determined that the order should be made, then the respondent should be released on a supervision order and not detained.
On 28 June 2024, the preliminary hearing was heard before Quinlan CJ who determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing the Court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. Quinlan CJ ordered that the respondent be subject to an interim supervision order (ISO) pending the determination of the application.
Quinlan CJ stated that the ‘assessment in this case is a difficult one' observing that while the respondent has a demonstrated history of serious violence towards intimate partners, his offending was many years ago and when he is removed from the environment in which the murder offence occurred, he has not demonstrated any aggressive or violent behaviour or problematic substance use.[2] Quinlan CJ stated that if the respondent is able to abstain from alcohol, the State may have a real difficulty satisfying the court 'to a high degree of probability' that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence.[3] Quinlan CJ observed that there is no evidence of the risk of the respondent committing any other kind of serious offence within the meaning of the HRSO Act other than the risk of committing a violent offence. Quinlan CJ stated that the issue is whether the respondent can be kept away from alcohol.[4] I agree with Quinlan CJ's observations.
[2] The State of Western Australia v Long [2024] WASC 237 [28].
[3] The State of Western Australia v Long [2024] WASC 237 [28].
[4] The State of Western Australia v Long [2024] WASC 237 [28] ‑ [29].
Quinlan CJ imposed the ISO with 14 conditions. In addition to the standard conditions required by s 7 of the HRSO Act, the Chief Justice imposed only the following seven conditions:
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence
8.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 CCO assigned to you;
9.To remain at [redacted] Community while subject to this Order and not to leave [redacted] Community without prior permission of the CCO;
10.To abide by any [redacted] Community by-laws;
Restrictions on contact with Victims to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
11.Directions under condition 4 may include any direction in relation to contact with the family of the victim of your murder conviction.
Prevention of high-risk situations
12.Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol;
13.Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or any 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; and
14.Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 13.
Since the commencement of that ISO on 28 June 2024, the respondent has not been in breach. He has been compliant with all directions and his urinalysis tests have all proven negative.
The ongoing challenge for the respondent is his entrenched abuse of alcohol and consequent offending. Regrettably, the respondent has a propensity, when intoxicated with alcohol, of inflicting violent assaults on his intimate partners. The respondent has a criminal history marked by 16 convictions of violent offences against three separate intimate partners. The respondent murdered one of his former intimate partners when intoxicated.
After careful reflection, I have determined that it is necessary that the respondent be subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. That risk involves the respondent becoming intoxicated and then inflicting violence on his intimate partner. I have further determined that subjecting the respondent to a supervision order for a period of two years is appropriate. In imposing a period of two years, I am mindful that the respondent has been subject to the interim supervision order since 28 June 2024. The supervision order that I impose will comprise some additional conditions to the present interim supervision order. I have decided to impose the further conditions after receiving a significant amount of evidence including expert evidence.
Legal principles
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
The State may make an application for a restriction order where a person is a serious offender under custodial sentence pursuant to s 35 of the HRSO Act. The term 'serious offender under custodial sentence' is defined in s 3:
serious offender under custodial sentence means a person -
(a)who is under a custodial sentence for a serious offence; or
(b)who -
(i)is under a custodial sentence for an offence or offences other than a serious offence; and
(ii)has been under that sentence at all times since being discharged from a custodial sentence for a serious offence;
At the time this application was made, the respondent was serving a term of imprisonment for a 'serious offence' as defined by s 3 and s 5 of the HRSO Act.
A 'serious offence' is defined by s 5 of the HRSO Act, which relevantly provides:
5.Term used: serious offence
(1) An offence is a serious offence if -
(a) it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 1; or
(b)it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 2, and is committed in the circumstances indicated in relation to that offence in that Division.
(2) An offence is a serious offence if -
(a)it was an offence under a written law that has been repealed; and
(b)the offender's acts or omissions that constituted the offence under the repealed provision would constitute a serious offence under subsection (1).
(3)An offence is a serious offence if it is an offence of conspiracy, attempt or incitement to commit an offence that is a serious offence under subsection (1) or (2).
The respondent has committed offences that come within this category. The respondent has also committed a number of offences that are not characterised as serious offences. Offences of other types may be relevant in assessing the risk of serious offences being committed in the future because other offences may be connected to behaviour which has the real potential to lead to serious offending.[5]
[5] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246 [10].
Section 7(1) of the HRSO Act provides that an offender is a high risk serious offender if the Court 'is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence'. The State has the onus of satisfying the Court that a person is a high risk serious offender. This is a greater standard than a finding on the balance of probabilities and less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt but is otherwise incapable of further definition.[6] This does not necessarily mean that the risk must be at some high percentage of probability; a risk may be less than 50% yet still be unacceptable.
[6] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28] (Steytler P and Buss JA).
If the Court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk of the kind described in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, it necessarily follows that the person concerned is a high risk serious offender.[7] However, the Court must identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, and then consider whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard, that being to a high degree of probability, furnished by acceptable and cogent evidence.[8]
[7] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [66], [68] (Wheeler JA); Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [21] (Steytler P and Buss JA).
[8] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [34] (Steytler P and Buss JA).
In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,[9] Corboy J identified that there is arguably a material difference between s 7(1) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act2006 (WA) (DSO Act), read with s 17, and s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, read with s 48.[10] His Honour observed that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act requires that the Court be satisfied that 'it is necessary to make a restriction order', stating:[11]
It is arguable that the words 'necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community' introduce a further evaluative element over and above an evaluation of whether the risk of an offender committing a serious offence is unacceptable.
[9] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387.
[10] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [133].
[11] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [135].
Corboy J recognised in The State of Western Australia v Garlett that the current form of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act requires that the need to ensure adequate protection of the community should form part of the Court's determination of whether the offender is a high risk serious offender (the first step in making a restriction order), and should not merely be the paramount consideration in deciding what form of order should be made in respect to an offender who has been found to be a high risk serious offender (the second step).[12]
[12] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [139].
In The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3],[13] Quinlan CJ agreed with Corboy J's construction of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act.
[13] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario[No 3] [2021] WASC 412.
I also agree with Corboy J's construction of the HRSO Act. Therefore, the Court is required to make two evaluative judgments under s 7 of the HRSO Act, being first, whether the risk of future offending is unacceptable and, second, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community.
The Court could find that it is not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community despite the Court finding that the risk of future offending was unacceptable. As Quinlan CJ observed, it would be a rare situation that the Court would find that it was not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community notwithstanding that it has been found that the risk of future offending was unacceptable.[14] Quinlan CJ gave the example where 'other external restraints on an offender (such as a post-sentence supervision order under the SentenceAdministration Act 2003 (WA)) may provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence (such that a restriction order is not 'necessary')'.[15]
[14] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario[No 3] [2021] WASC 412 [21].
[15] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario[No 3] [2021] WASC 412 [21].
A finding that there is an unacceptable risk involves a balancing exercise requiring the Court:[16]
[T]o have regard to, among other things, the nature of the risk (the commission of a serious sexual offence, with serious consequences for the victim) and the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition whilst having regard, on the other hand, to the serious consequences for the respondent if an order is made (either detention, without having committed an unpunished offence, or being required to undergo what might be an onerous supervision order).
[16] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116 [46].
An unacceptable risk in the context of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act is therefore a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations. These may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of serious offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted), and the consequences of finding that an unacceptable risk exists.
I am required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of the respondent offending and the nature of the offence to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent has already been punished for the offences he has committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that he is subject to further control or detention.[17]
[17] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [63] (Wheeler JA).
Section 7(3) of the HRSO Act sets out a number of matters that the Court must have regard to in considering whether a person is a serious danger to the community. Those matters are:
(3)In considering whether it is satisfied as required by subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following -
(a)any report prepared under section 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section;
(b)any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender;
(c)information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;
(d)whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender;
(e)any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme;
(f)whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender;
(g) the offender's antecedents and criminal record;
(h)the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence;
(i)the need to protect members of the community from that risk;
(j) any other relevant matter.
I note that s 7(3)(j) of the HRSO Act provides that the list of matters to be considered by the Court is not limited by those otherwise delineated in s 7(3).
While s 7(3)(g) of the HRSO Act provides that the Court must have regard to the offender's criminal record in deciding whether a person is a serious danger to the community, the mere fact that a person has committed previous offences does not necessarily mean that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious offence in the future. The relevance of a prior criminal record would depend on the nature of the offences committed, the number of offences, and the period of time over which they occurred. However, past behaviour is often a good indicator of future conduct.
If the Court determines that an offender is a high risk serious offender, then the Court is required to make a restriction order.[18]
[18] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 48.
The term 'restriction order' is defined in s 3 of the HRSO Act to mean 'a continuing detention order' or 'a supervision order'. The terms 'continuing detention order' and 'supervision order' are defined in s 26 and s 27 respectively, in similar terms to those that were used in the DSO Act.[19]
[19] Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) s 17.
Section 26 of the HRSO Act provides:
(1)In this Act a continuing detention order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment.
(2)A continuing detention order has effect in accordance with its terms from the time the order is made until rescinded by a further order of the court.
Section 27 of the HRSO Act provides:
(1)In this Act a supervision order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers appropriate, in accordance with section 30.
(2)A supervision order has effect in accordance with its terms -
(a) from a date stated in the order; and
(b) for a period stated in the order.
(3)The date from which a supervision order has effect must not be earlier than 21 days after the date the order is made unless the court is satisfied that the implementation of the order from an earlier date is practically feasible.
In making a determination between those two alternatives, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.[20]
[20] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 48(2).
However, other considerations do apply. The use of the word 'adequate' in the section indicates that a qualitative assessment is required. It cannot be assumed that the most preventative action is detention and that therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order.[21]
[21] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [14].
Given the more onerous nature of a continuing detention order, the scheme of the HRSO Act requires that the Court do no more than is necessary for the continuing control, care or treatment of the offender to achieve an adequate degree of protection of the community.[22]
[22] The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 [24]; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [15].
Section 29 of the HRSO Act provides that the Court cannot make a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order. The onus of proof is on the respondent pursuant to s 29(2) of the HRSO Act.
The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the general 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.[23]
[23] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52].
The term 'standard condition', in relation to a supervision order, is defined by s 3 of the HRSO Act as meaning a condition that under s 30(2) must be included in the order. Section 30(2) of the HRSO Act provides seven conditions that must be included in any court ordered supervision order. Therefore, the respondent must satisfy the Court that he will substantially comply with those standard conditions before the Court can make a supervision order. The seven standard conditions set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act require that the person:
(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.
Evidence
The State tendered a Book of Materials in three volumes that comprised the relevant material pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act.[24] The State relied upon the oral testimony of three witnesses, namely Dr Petch, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist; Dr Riordan, Consultant Forensic Psychologist; and Mr Cook, Senior Community Corrections Officer at the Department of Justice.
[24] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials.
The respondent did not give evidence nor adduce any evidence.
I now turn to the matters relevant to determining whether or not the respondent is a high risk serious offender pursuant to s 7 of the HRSO Act. I will do so by considering the evidence in the context of the HRSO Act.
Factors under s 7 of the HRSO Act
History of offending and antecedents - s 7(3)(c), s 7(3)(d) and s (7)(g)
In deciding whether a person is a high risk serious offender, the Court must have regard to the person's antecedents and criminal record. That requires that all prior offences be considered, to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act.
The criminal record and antecedents are relevant in and of themselves, but are also relevant as to whether the person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future,[25] and as to whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour.[26]
Antecedents
[25] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 7(3)(c).
[26] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 7(3)(d).
The respondent is an initiated Martu man who has led a traditional nomadic existence in the Western Desert communities. The respondent is now 58 years of age and normally resides at the [redacted] Community.
The respondent holds strong cultural beliefs, indicating the development of an internal set of morals, beliefs and values that have been explicitly taught and implicitly derived from Dreamtime stories and song lines connected to the land and communities of the Martu people in the East Pilbara.[27]
[27] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, pages 843 - 844 [32].
The respondent was brought up by a variety of family members in different remote locations and had limited contact with his father, who was an alcoholic and died when the respondent was very young.
The respondent was one of nine children in his family. During his childhood, violence in the community was normalised.
The respondent ceased his formal education in primary school. However, he considers that a strength of his is his 'cultural knowledge of kinship ties and knowledge of cultural Lore'.[28]
[28] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Not Our Way Completion Report, page 638.
The respondent commenced consuming alcohol from his mid to late teens and he has progressed to having a chronic alcohol problem which severely impacts his social functioning and has had a corrosive effect in his life.
The respondent reported he has never consumed cannabis or other illicit drugs. This reporting is consistent with urinalysis testing by the respondent.
The respondent has had a number of significant relationships with female partners. The most significant partner was the victim in the respondent's murder conviction.
The respondent has one son who lives in the same community as the respondent.
The respondent presents with complicated and chronic medical needs. In 1984, following a motorbike accident, the respondent suffered a closed head injury but no intracranial abnormality was demonstrated. The respondent has been diagnosed with diabetes Type 2 and in 1991 he was diagnosed to have cirrhosis of the liver secondary to a hepatitis B infection and chronic alcohol misuse.
In 2017, the respondent suffered an acute myocardial infarction and was subsequently diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease and a heart murmur.[29]
[29] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 845 [35].
The respondent is currently employed in the Community store and is also engaged with the Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa Rangers (KJ Rangers).
Relevant criminal history
The respondent has committed a significant number of offences in Western Australia. The respondent's offending history is outlined in his criminal record which forms part of the material relied upon by the State.[30] The offending history is summarised, in part, in a chronology of offending which was received in evidence.[31] I will outline the index offending and then turn to the respondent's other convictions.
Index offence
[30] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal Record of the Respondent, pages 1 - 14.
[31] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Chronology of Offending, pages 15 - 21, 555 - 606.
The index offence is the only serious offence committed by the respondent. On 24 May 2005, the respondent committed the offence of murder contrary to s 279 of the Criminal Code (WA) and received a sentence of life imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 9 years.[32]
[32] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Transcript of proceedings 9 June 2006, pages 550 - 553.
The factual circumstances of the offending involved the respondent consuming alcohol heavily with his female de facto partner for several hours. Subsequently, the respondent and his partner became involved in an argument resulting in the respondent stabbing his partner twice, with one stab wound being to the centre of her back and the other to the victim's upper left breast through the ribcage and into her heart. This stab wound was inflicted with considerable force causing damage to two ribs and penetrating to a depth of 14 cm. The respondent left the premises but immediately afterwards telephoned emergency services. The learned sentencing judge found that the respondent was very intoxicated at the time of the offence.
Other offending
The respondent has committed other offences of violence in respect to his intimate partners. The offences are not deemed as serious offences under the HRSO Act. However, the offences are relevant in assessing whether the respondent should be subject to a restriction order. The respondent has been convicted of 16 separate offences against three different intimate female partners between 1986 and 2006. The offending comprises unlawful wounding, assault occasioning bodily harm, common assault, and aggravated assault, with the victims being female. The offending has been characterised by the respondent's abuse of alcohol and subsequent infliction of violence after a domestic argument commenced with his partner at the time. Further, the respondent has demonstrated during his offending that he will use items as a weapon to inflict the violence on his intimate partners.
Since the respondent has been in the community for the past 41 months, his one conviction has been for breaching a police order for which he was fined in the Magistrates Court. That offending involved the respondent being in a licenced premises with a protected person and thereby in breach of a police order and his bail condition.[33]
Propensity to commit serious offences in the future ‑ s 7(3)(c) & whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour ‑ s 7(3)(d)
[33] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Adult Community Corrections Parole Assessment, pages 721 - 722.
The word 'propensity' is taken to have its ordinary meaning in the context of the criminal law. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR, Murray AJA stated that:[34]
[Propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder.
[34] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178] (Murray AJA).
The State submits that it is open to find that the respondent has a propensity to commit intimate partner violence given that he has been convicted of one serious offence under the HRSO Act (being murder) and has been convicted of 16 separate offences involving intimate partner violence inflicted on three different partners over an extended period.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that given the passage of time and the lack of any charges or convictions for violent offending during the respondent's 35 months in the community since July 2021, there is a lack of cogent evidence to support the finding that the respondent presently has the propensity to commit such offences.
I do not accept the reasoning that the respondent no longer has the propensity to commit intimate partner violence because he has not offended whilst being supervised in the community since his release from incarceration. The respondent has been supervised and not permitted to consume alcohol during that period given that he has been required to live in a dry community and has been subject to urinalysis testing. I am satisfied that the respondent does have a propensity to commit intimate partner violence against females. In particular, the respondent commits such offences when intoxicated with alcohol and whilst armed with a weapon.
Efforts to address offending behaviour and whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect ‑ s 7(3)(e) and s 7(3)(f)
I must also consider if the respondent has made any efforts to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including by participating in any rehabilitation programs and whether or not the participation has had a positive effect.
The respondent has undertaken a number of courses including the Think First Cognitive Skills Program, Indigenous Family Violence Program and Not Our Way Program.
The Think First Cognitive Skills Program was undertaken in 2011 and comprised 30 sessions delivered over 60 hours. It is reported that the respondent attended every session punctually and that 'he appeared to have made gains in the areas of ability to solve problems and awareness of consequences'.[35] Further, throughout the course, the respondent was able to acknowledge that alcohol was a problem in respect to his offending.[36] The respondent identified long term goals as including addressing his alcohol abuse and family problems.
[35] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Think First Cognitive Skills Program Report, page 625.
[36] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Think First Cognitive Skills Program Report, page 623.
In respect to the Indigenous Family Violence Program, which was conducted in 2011 with 80 hours of coursework, the respondent demonstrated significant remorse for his offending.[37] The report stated that the respondent made 'valid efforts throughout the programme towards his own learning, particularly in wanting to change his negative cognitions to ensure positive relationships in the future'.[38] The program facilitators concluded that the respondent made some treatment gains and was demonstrating an acceptance of his responsibility for his behaviour.
[37] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Think First Cognitive Skills Program Report, pages 627 - 628.
[38] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Think First Cognitive Skills Program Report, page 628.
In respect to the Not Our Way Program, which was conducted in 2015, the program targeted the criminogenic needs in respect of family violence offending for Aboriginal men.[39] The facilitator concluded that the respondent had achieved some treatment gains which was exhibited in his decision to remain abstinent of alcohol and that he was able to understand the link between his alcohol use and offending behaviour.[40]
[39] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Think First Cognitive Skills Program Report, page 636.
[40] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Not Our Way Completion Report, page 638.
In addition, the respondent has undertaken individual counselling whilst in Acacia Prison. During the counselling sessions, the respondent expressed a desire to abstain from alcohol. Further, in 2019 the respondent participated in substance abuse interventions run by Mission Australia.
Both Dr Petch and Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that the respondent now understands the connection between his alcohol consumption and his offending.[41]
Psychological reports prepared under s 74 and extent to which the respondent cooperated with examination - s 7(3)(b) - Dr Riordan
[41] ts 28 - 29 (4/2/2025); ts 67 (4/2/2025).
Dr Riordan, consultant psychologist, produced a report dated 14 January 2025,[42] and gave evidence at the hearing.[43]
[42] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, pages 835 ‑ 886.
[43] ts 59 (4/2/2025).
Dr Riordan stated that there was no evidence that the respondent suffers from a cognitive impairment or neurodevelopmental condition that would affect his learning ability.[44] Further, Dr Riordan stated that there was no supporting assessment either from a standardised intellectual test or adaptive behaviour scale to support such a diagnosis.[45]
[44] ts 72 (4/2/2025).
[45] ts 72 (4/2/2025).
Dr Riordan undertook an assessment of the respondent's risk of reoffending utilising the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, 2nd Edition (PCL‑R), the Violent Risk Scale Second Edition (VRS‑2) and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA-V3).
Utilising the PCL‑R, Dr Riordan determined that the respondent fell within the low range and did not meet the clinical cut‑off score for psychopathy.[46] Dr Riordan confirmed that the respondent does not have an anti-social personality disorder.[47]
[46] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 863 [120].
[47] ts 74 (4/2/2025); Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 863 [121].
Utilising the VRS‑2, Dr Riordan determined a number of risk factors that are relevant in determining the respondent's risk of violence. In respect to the static variables, the respondent scored a total of 13 out of a possible 18.[48] In respect to the dynamic variables, which are considered important risk predictors, the respondent scored 40 out of a possible 60. Therefore, the respondent's total score combining both scales is 53 out of a possible 78 which places him in the 'Level IV - Above Average Risk' category. Dr Riordan stated that individuals within Level IV require intensive monitoring, intervention and supervision, with the prognosis from effective treatment expected to take several years before sustained risk reduction is achieved.[49]
[48] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, pages 865 - 872 [126] - [158].
[49] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 873 [161].
Dr Riordan assessed the respondent's risk of intimate partner violence utilising the SARA‑V3. Dr Riordan determined that there were a number of factors present in respect to intimate partner violence.[50]
[50] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, pages 875 ‑ 880.
In respect to scenarios for future risk of violence, Dr Riordan stated the most likely scenario would be that the respondent assaults an intimate partner and that the precipitating factors to such offending would concern the respondent feeling jealousy, mistrust and paranoia towards his intimate partner.[51]
[51] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, pages 880 - 881 [195].
Dr Riordan assessed the respondent as presenting with a chronic risk of reoffending in a violent manner with that risk increasing should the respondent be in an intimate relationship in a community, where alcohol is not restricted, or in the presence of other persons who might pressure him to consume alcohol.[52]
[52] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 881 [199].
Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that the respondent is at 'an above average risk' of committing a further serious offence under the HRSO Act without restrictions. In Dr Riordan's opinion, the most significant external constraint to manage the risk of the respondent is the proper management of his alcohol abuse. Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that if the respondent was not subject to a supervision order, his ability to remain sober would be compromised.[53] Consequently, there was a significant risk that the respondent would engage in acts of violence against an intimate partner.
[53] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 883 [207] - [208].
Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that any supervision order imposed should be at least three years, inclusive of the time he has already spent on the ISO for the reason that this would provide an opportunity for the respondent to develop appropriate skills to manage any potential relapse into alcohol abuse.[54]
Psychiatric report prepared under s 74 and extent to which the respondent cooperated with examination - s 7(3)(a) - Dr Petch
[54] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 886 [216].
Dr Petch expressed the opinion that the respondent has an intellectual disability, alcohol use disorder and antisocial personal disorder.[55]
[55] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, pages 804 - 809.
In respect to the respondent's intellectual capacity, Dr Petch expressed the opinion that there is evidence throughout the course of his life that the respondent may have suffered from a mild intellectual disability with no formal diagnosis ever being made, but he was unable to make a finding that a disability was present.[56] Dr Petch referred to the identification of deficits in previous psychological reports concerning difficulties in vocabulary and comprehension with his reading and writing and having problem solving deficits.[57] Further, there was an inability to achieve gains in treatment programs.
[56] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, page 805.
[57] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, page 806.
Dr Petch stated that the respondent's alcohol misuse disorder is very severe and enduring, though it is currently in remission due to his controlled environment.[58] With respect to the respondent's alcohol abuse, Dr Petch stated that without ongoing intervention and the control of the environment in the context of his interim supervision order, the risk of relapse into further alcohol use is significant. Further, Dr Petch stated that the risks should the respondent relapse are serious.[59] Dr Petch did recognise that 'it is extremely positive at the current time', after an extended period in the community, the respondent has not reverted to alcohol use.[60]
[58] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, page 807.
[59] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, page 809.
[60] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, page 808.
The respondent was assessed using the Historical Clinical and Risk Management 20, version 3 (HCR‑20 V 3) which is a structured guide for assessing people who have committed violent offences. Dr Petch stated that all of the historical risk factors are present in respect to the respondent. Those risk factors include a history of violence, antisocial behaviour, relationship problems, employment difficulties, major mental disorder (intellectual disability), substance misuse, traumatic experiences, violent attitudes and a poor history of treatment and/or supervision response.[61]
[61] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, pages 815 ‑ 818.
The PCL‑R assesses the extent to which an individual's personality structure forms to the clinical construct of psychopathy. The score obtained is an important component of other risk assessment tools including Structural Clinical Guides. Dr Petch determined that on the PCL-R checklist the respondent recorded a score of 20 which is in the middle range and does not meet the threshold for psychopathy.[62]
[62] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Petch, page 814.
Dr Petch concluded that in his clinical opinion, the respondent was at a high level of risk to the community of further serious violent offending. Dr Petch stated the propensity of the respondent to commit serious offending is underpinned by his intellectual disability and anti‑social personality disorder (both of which are permanent) in combination with his alcohol use disorder.
Dr Petch stated that the respondent has a well‑established tendency to commit violent offences in the context of domestic relationships whilst using alcohol. Dr Petch said the propensity to commit these offences is substantially driven by intoxication and if that can be managed his overall risk is likely to be significantly moderated.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that there are limitations in respect to the reasoning of Dr Petch and, therefore, the reliability of his findings and opinion.
First, Dr Petch was not assisted by a Martu interpreter. Therefore, Dr Petch may not have understood that the first language of the respondent is Martu. Dr Riordan was of the view that conducting her assessment of the respondent without an interpreter was a significant limitation and that it is the best practice for any sort of psychological assessment to be conducted in a person's first language.[63]
[63] ts 69 (4/2/2025).
Second, the assessment instruments were not normalised specifically on First Nation populations. Dr Riordan recognised that the selection of static and dynamic instruments used in her report had been based upon emerging research evidence to support the validity and reliability for use in the Aboriginal Australian population. Notwithstanding that effort to reduce cultural bias, it is acknowledged that such bias can remain.[64]
[64] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, pages 836 - 837 [7] - [8].
Third, Dr Petch stated that the respondent 'did not progress beyond primary school', 'has not worked' and 'has consistently shown difficulties in multiple areas of functioning'. Counsel submitted that in contrast, Dr Riordan stated that the respondent had indeed worked in roles entirely consistent with work that is often undertaken by men in remote and regional areas, such as mustering and doing fencing work on stations. Counsel submitted that Dr Petch had adopted a particularly Euro-Caucasian-centric concept. I accept that submission.
Fourth, counsel for the respondent stated that Dr Petch failed to take into account that the respondent ceased going to school not due to any intellectual academic challenges, but rather due to external social and cultural reasons.
Fifth, Dr Petch was of the opinion that the respondent suffered from an intellectual disability and antisocial personality; Dr Riordan did not share those professional opinions. Counsel for the respondent stated that Dr Petch formed the clinical opinion that the respondent has an intellectual disability, however Dr Petch confirmed he could not determine a positive diagnosis as he had not performed the individualised standardised intelligence testing required for diagnosis pursuant to the DSM-V.[65]
[65] ts 34 (4/2/2025).
Whilst both Dr Petch and Dr Riordan found the respondent to be substantially below the threshold required for a diagnosis of psychopathy, they each determined significantly different scores on the same psychopathy testing with Dr Petch scoring the respondent at a total of 20 and Dr Riordan at a total of 11, which both experts agreed were outside an acceptable margin of error.[66]
[66] ts 48 (Dr Petch - 4/2/2025) and ts 73 (Dr Riordan - 4/2/2025).
Dr Riordan, in her report, stated that she had found no evidence to suggest that the respondent had a diagnosable cognitive impairment or neurodevelopmental condition that would preclude or significantly impair his capacity to learn.[67] In cross‑examination, Dr Riordan agreed that, based on her experience in carrying out assessments on Aboriginal men, the respondent did not present out of the ordinary in terms of that cohort.[68]
[67] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 874 [165].
[68] ts 72 (4/2/2025).
Accordingly, counsel for the respondent states that Dr Petch's assessment of the respondent suffering an intellectual disability, and his diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, is flawed. Therefore, in turn, this raises questions regarding the reliability of Dr Petch's overall conclusion as to the respondent's risk of reoffending.
I am not satisfied that the respondent suffers from an intellectual disability nor anti-social personality disorder. I do not accept the conclusion that the respondent has never been employed. The findings of anti-social personality disorder and intellectual disability are factors taken into account by Dr Petch in his ultimate finding concerning the risk of the respondent offending by inflicting acts of violence on intimate partners.
Therefore, I approach Dr Petch’s findings with caution. However, Dr Petch’s assessment of the nature of the risk for the respondent reoffending was consistent with Dr Riordan’s assessment. Both experts expressed the opinion that the respondent is at risk of committing a serious act of violence against an intimate partner resulting in serious harm to that partner. Both experts expressed the opinion that the respondent is not yet in a position to manage his alcohol abuse and that external constraints are required in order for him to do so. Both experts reached the same conclusion that the abuse of alcohol is the significant underlying factor in the respondent committing acts of violence against intimidate partners.
Other reports or assessments relating to the respondent - s 7(3)(b)
Community Supervision Assessment Reports
Mr Cook, Senior Community Corrections Officer, gave evidence at the hearing.[69] I also received a Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 24 January 2025.[70] Mr Cook also prepared a Parole Assessment report dated 15 January 2024.[71]
[69] ts 82 (4/2/2025).
[70] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, pages 886 ‑ 887.
[71] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Parole Assessment Report dated 15 January 2024, pages 720 - 726.
Mr Cook stated that during the term of his parole period, the respondent generally reported as directed and is engaged with his supervision and completed substance abuse counselling.[72] During his parole order, the respondent was issued with three non‑compliance warnings including one which was in respect to being sighted in a licensed premises on 28 May 2023 and again on 30 May 2023 and then returning a positive breath analysis test for alcohol on 31 May 2023.[73]
[72] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Parole Assessment Report dated 15 January 2024, page 721.
[73] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Parole Assessment Report dated 15 January 2024, page 722.
Mr Cook confirmed that overall the respondent has demonstrated sound engagement with his parole and interim supervision order under the HRSO Act and has maintained appropriate contact with the police when required to do so.
In respect to urinalysis testing, the respondent has returned both valid and negative results. Whilst subject to his parole period, the respondent completed 10 urinalysis tests between 2 November 2021 to 7 August 2023 and returned negative results.
The respondent is currently employed at the [redacted] Community store and has been employed there since December 2024. The respondent also engages with the KJ Rangers on a casual basis concerning land management and cultural surveying.
Mr Cook confirmed that if the respondent was subject to a supervision order, he would continue to be closely monitored and supervised by the risk management group, including police officers, community corrections officers and management staff from the Department of Justice. This risk management of the respondent would include in‑person and telephone contact with him and unscheduled home visits, as well as regular review of risk factors.[74]
Electronic monitoring of the respondent
[74] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Mr Cook, page 898.
A mandatory condition that must be imposed as a standard condition for a supervision order is electronic monitoring, pursuant to s 30(g) of the HRSO Act. Counsel for the respondent submits that mandatory electronic monitoring is disproportionate to the nature of the risk that the applicant will offend by inflicting acts of violence on an intimate partner after consuming alcohol.
Counsel submitted the mandatory nature of an electronic monitoring requirement is incompatible with the respondent's life as a Martu man and the importance of both his reintegration into the community and overall wellbeing to be able to fully reconnect with his family and engage in cultural practices that are essential to his identity. Given that community integration and cultural connection is a protective factor for the respondent (and thereby, the community) in terms of a reduction in the risk of the respondent reoffending, it is incongruent to impose a supervision order that has mandatory electronic monitoring. Therefore, it is submitted that even if the Court is satisfied that the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence is unacceptable, the Court should not be satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community.
Counsel submitted that the community will be adequately protected if the respondent is not encumbered by the mandatory provision which will stop him fully integrating with community and his family, which is in itself are significant protective factors.
An issue that arises, is whether electronic monitoring of the respondent would serve any benefit in managing the risk of him reoffending in the community. Mr Cook gave evidence that supports a finding that electronic monitoring allows the authorities to be able to determine the location of the respondent at any time to ensure that he has not left the [redacted] Community without permission. The risk that arises, if the respondent was to leave the [redacted] Community, is that he will then be leaving a dry community and may visit other towns such as Newman and attend licensed premises.
At the hearing, I received further evidence in the form of correspondence from Community Corrections, regarding the manner in which the Department permits the respondent to leave the [redacted] Community to go on Country for cultural reasons and to work with the KJ Rangers.[75]
[75] Exhibit 2, Email correspondence report from Community Corrections dated 31 March 2025.
The approach of Community Corrections is to grant permission to the respondent to leave [redacted] for the purpose of cultural reasons or to undertake work with the KJ Rangers. This is done by making a direction under the conditions of the ISO, to travel out of [redacted] Community to go to Country or other remote communities. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make an order for temporary suspension pursuant to s 31(4) of the HRSO Act.
The Community Corrections officers are made aware of the proposed travel of the respondent, understanding that the GPS will not monitor him in the remote area. However, the respondent is required to ensure that the monitoring device is charged for 90 minutes per day and further that the device remains on his body. This approach ensures that should the respondent enter a town area, he may be monitored by way of the electronic monitoring device. Therefore, the authorities will be able to identify his location and to ensure that he is not entering a town with licensed premises.
The correspondence evidence (Exhibit 2) confirms that although there has been no permanent removal of electronic monitoring devices in respect to any high risk serious offender, there has been temporary suspensions granted with a specific time period after proper appraisal and an order being made under s 31(4) of the HRSO Act.
I accept the submission of counsel for the State that the approvals that have been given to the respondent to attend Country by a direction under the conditions of the ISO, are practically no different to the suspensions that have occurred in respect to other offenders pursuant to s 31(4) of the HRSO Act.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the wearing of electronic monitoring and having to charge the device for 90 minutes per day is an imposition. It may be so, but I am satisfied that at this time it is appropriate that the respondent be subject to electronic monitoring. The testimony of Mr Cook supports that finding.
I accept the submission of counsel for the State that the Community Corrections officer and the Community Offender Monitoring Unit have been receptive to the respondent's cultural activities and, where appropriate, have allowed him to engage in those activities appropriately.
Assessment and conclusion
After considering the evidence in respect to the factors under s 7(3) of the HRSO Act, and finding that evidence to be acceptable and cogent, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the respondent currently presents an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious violent offence under the HRSO Act. I make that finding for the following reasons.
The respondent has a history of committing violent offences towards intimate partners. Whilst the respondent has only committed one serious offence, being that of murder, he does have an extensive record of violence and has inflicted assaults on 16 separate occasions on three separate partners and on most occasions, utilising weapons.
I am satisfied that the likely scenario for future offending will be entering an intimate relationship and returning to the abuse of alcohol. The risk of the respondent inflicting violence on an intimate partner when intoxicated with alcohol may be characterised as a significant risk.
Dr Riordan assessed the respondent as being at above average risk for committing a serious offence under the HRSO Act and that would be most likely to occur within a relationship with a female partner. Further, in that regard, the most salient factor in that future offending would be the misuse of alcohol and then consequently using a weapon to escalate the level of violence.[76]
[76] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 880 [195].
Both Dr Riordan and Dr Petch formed the opinion that the respondent is not yet able to manage his substance abuse problem himself and that external constraints are required to ensure that he abstains from alcohol. A key factor in the respondent not reoffending is that he remain in a dry community and be subject to monitoring and supervision.
Both experts agree that the respondent has outstanding treatment needs. I accept that finding but I am mindful that the respondent has positively engaged in the past with treatment courses and has successfully done so. Whilst the respondent has exhibited a positive and responsive attitude to embracing treatment, it is important that he be managed with sufficient scrutiny in the community to ensure he does not relapse into the abuse of alcohol and then commit a serious offence by inflicting violence on female members of his own community.
As Dr Riordan states, regrettably the respondent 'presents with a history of very limited success in being able to live in the community without resorting to the use of alcohol and engaging in further intimate partner violence'.[77]
[77] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 881 [199].
Accordingly, I am satisfied there is a high likelihood that the respondent will commit a serious violent offence in the future and that risk is an unacceptable risk.
In respect to the evaluative judgement as to whether it is necessary to make the restriction order, I am of the opinion that it is so. I make that finding based on the experts' opinion, particularly Dr Riordan, in respect to the respondent's risk of reoffending and committing a serious offence being at a high risk or above average risk. The respondent has a history of being in intimate relationships. This may be seen as demonstrative of a person who is able to engage and form normal bonds with other persons but, in respect to my assessment, it also supports the finding that the respondent is a person who will always be able to form relationships.
Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that supervision and monitoring of issues such as substance abuse and relationship problems will assist in mitigating the respondent's risk and should be prioritised as the primary risk management strategy for the respondent.[78]
[78] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, page 883 [208].
I am satisfied that, should the respondent remain in the community, he will need the assistance of a supervision order to assist him to reduce the likelihood of relapse to alcohol misuse and to monitor any future intimate relationship.
Having determined that a restriction order should be made, it is necessary for me to determine whether a supervision order should be made.
The Court must choose the order that is the least invasive to the respondent's liberty, while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.
In considering whether a supervision order will adequately protect the community, it is necessary to take into account any conditions which can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the respondent, his care and treatment, and the adequate protection of victims of offences committed by the respondent.[79]
[79] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 30(5).
I must also be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has established that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order under s 30 of the HRSO Act. I am so satisfied of this.
In my view, there are conditions that may be imposed under a supervision order that will provide adequate protection of the community.
In this case, the State understandably accepts that it is appropriate for the respondent to continue in the community on a supervision order. I agree with that submission. It is wholly consistent with the expert testimony and the entire evidence led at the hearing.
I turn to the conditions to be imposed. I have previously observed that Quinlan CJ imposed a limited number of conditions. His Honour did not have the benefit of the entire evidence which I have received and, in particular, the testimony of Dr Petch, Dr Riordan and Mr Cook. Having had that benefit, I consider that the conditions as outlined in Annexure A to this judgment should be imposed. I have imposed a number of conditions beyond the ISO conditions. I do so only after careful reflection.
I consider that it is necessary that agencies are able to exchange information concerning the monitoring progress of the respondent. Further, it will enhance monitoring to require the respondent to inform his Community Corrections officer regarding any intimate relationship that he forms. In addition, a condition permitting a CCO or a police officer to speak to the respondent’s partners and if necessary, disclose the respondent’s offending history is appropriate.
In respect to the condition that the respondent be directed to attend and engage with professional services as directed, I consider the condition ensures that the respondent attends any necessary support and continues any treatment. I acknowledge that the respondent has a sound history of engaging. I do not accept that in order to manage the risk it is necessary to permit Community Corrections or WA Police to access any communications utilised by the respondent nor permit Community Corrections to enter his home and search at any time. The proposed conditions permitting such inspections and entry are most intrusive and not necessary.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent. Further, I have determined that the risk of reoffending may be adequately managed in the community with the imposition of a supervision order for a period of two years.
ANNEXURE ONE
SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MCGRATH ON 4 JULY 2025
Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the HRSO Act, makes a supervision order (Order) in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 2 years from 4 July 2025, on the following conditions:
You, WESLEY LONG, must:
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT
Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the place and time they direct following the Order being issued and advise the CCO of your current name and address.
Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court
Notify a CCO of any change to your name, where you live, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens.
Be under the supervision of a CCO and follow any reasonable direction of the CCO (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the HRSO Act).
Not leave or remain out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO.
Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order.
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence
Reside (live) at [redacted] Community and spend each night at [address redacted]. You can stay at a different address only if that address is approved in advance by a CCO.
To remain at [redacted] Community while subject to the Order and not to leave [redacted] Community without prior permission of a CCO.
To abide by the [redacted] Community by-laws.
Attendance at programs or treatment
Attend and engage in all appointments as directed. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support persons, as directed by a CCO.
Reporting to WA Police
Report to the WA Police at times and locations as directed by a CCO or a police officer.
Disclosure/Exchange of information
Agree to the exchange of any information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out the Order, including confidential information.
Allow a CCO, a police officer, and other people or agencies approved by a CCO, to interview any potential or current intimate partners, and where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offending history, if deemed necessary by a CCO.
Restrictions on contact with victims
Any direction under Condition 4 may include a direction in relation to contact with the family of the victim of your murder conviction, if a CCO considers this appropriate to manage your risk during the term of the Order.
Criminal conduct
Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves either sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.
Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA).
Prevention of high-risk situations
Report at your next contact with a CCO the formation of any romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any adult female.
If directed by a CCO, tell any adult female about your past offending and the current Order, which can be confirmed by a CCO or a police officer. This may involve a CCO assisting you to tell an adult female some of this information.
Not purchase, consume or use alcohol.
Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis, breath or any other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by a CCO or by a police officer including going with such people to another place for a sample to be taken.
Not go to, or inside, or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
a)For the purpose of avoiding or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
b)For a purpose, and duration approved in advance by a CCO or police officer; or
c)On the order of a CCO or police officer.
_______________________________
THE HON JUSTICE MCGRATH
I have received a copy of this Order. I have had it explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it.
Signed by the Respondent _________________________________
WESLEY LONG
In the presence of: _________________________________
Name and address: _________________________________
_________________________________
Date: _________________________________
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 JULY 2025
0
10
1