The State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 2]

[2023] WASC 196

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MEEHAN [No 2] [2023] WASC 196

CORAM:   FORRESTER J

HEARD:   10 MAY 2023

DELIVERED          :   7 JUNE 2023

PUBLISHED           :   7 JUNE 2023

FILE NO/S:   SO 18 of 2022

BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Applicant

AND

ALBERT JOHN MEEHAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether necessary to make restriction order to ensure adequate protection of community - Whether community can be adequately protected by imposition of supervision order - Whether the respondent will substantially comply with standard conditions of a supervision order

Legislation:

Criminal Code
Dangerous Sexual Offences Act 1995 (WA) (repealed)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Supervision Order made

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	D McDonnell
Respondent	:	T McCulloch

Solicitors:

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

Cases referred to in decision:

Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4

Director of Public Prosecutions v Williams [2007] WASCA 206

Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30

The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212

The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 198 A Crim R 149

The Director of Public Prosecutions v Decke [2009] WASC 312

The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387

The State of Western Australia v Meehan [2023] WASC 6

The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330

Table of Contents

Introduction

The application

Materials

Statutory framework and legal principles

Respondent's antecedents and criminal record: s 7(3)(g) HRSO Act

Criminal History

Family background and relationships

Education and employment

Substance abuse

Medical and psychiatric history

Conduct while in custody

Previous Response to Supervision

Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the respondent: s 7(3)(b) HRSO Act

Pre-Sentence Reports

Parole Assessment Reports

Community Supervision Assessment

Treatment Options Report and Addendum Treatment Options Report

Any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of the respondent's offending behaviour, including whether the respondent had participated in any rehabilitation program: s 7(3)(e) HRSO Act

Cognitive Brief Intervention Program

Indigenous Family Violence Program

Cognitive Brief Intervention Program

Pathways Program

Connect and Respect Program

Reports prepared for the purposes of the restriction order hearing: s 7(3)(a) HRSO Act

Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 30 April 2023

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Revised, 2013 (VRAG-R)

Static-99R (2016 revision)

Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, Second edition, 2003 (PCL-R)

Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20 Version 3 (HCR-20 V3)

Risk assessment

Report of Dr Ben Bannister, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, dated 13 April 2023

Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R)

Violence Risk Scale (VRS)

Information indicating whether or not the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future: s 7(3)(c) HRSO Act; and

Whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the respondent: s 7(3)(d) HRSO Act

The risk that, if the respondent were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence: s 7(3)(h) HRSO Act

Is the respondent a high risk serious offender?

Continuing Detention or Supervision Order?

Will the respondent substantially comply with the standard conditions?

SCHEDULE A

Introduction

1. This is an application made by the State of Western Australia on 8 November 2022 for a restriction order to be made in respect of the respondent, Albert John Meehan, pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).

2. On 13 January 2023, a preliminary hearing pursuant to s 46 of the HRSO Act was held before Fiannaca J.[1]  Fiannaca J was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the court might find the respondent to be a high risk serious offender.  His Honour ordered that the application for a restriction order be heard on 10 May 2023, and that the respondent be made subject to an interim detention order pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the HRSO Act.

   [1] The State of Western Australia v Meehan [2023] WASC 6.

3. On the application for a restriction order, the matters I must decide are:

   (1)whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act; and, if so

   (2)whether to make an order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (a continuing detention order)[2] or that he be released into the community subject to conditions that the court considers appropriate (supervision order).[3]

   [2] HRSO Act s 26.

   [3] HRSO Act s 27.

The application

1. When the application was made on 8 November 2021, the respondent was serving a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months, imposed by O'Neal DCJ on 5 November 2019.[4] That sentence was imposed for an offence of doing an act, with intent to harm, as a result of which bodily harm was caused, contrary to s 304(2) of the Criminal Code (WA).

   [4] Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 1 filed 15 March 2023, 365 - 370 (Book of Materials Vol 1).

2. The sentence was backdated to 21 November 2018,[5] and thus expired on 20 January 2023.

   [5] Book of Materials Vol 1, 370.

3. The offence of doing an act, with intent to harm, as a result of which bodily harm was caused is a serious offence under the HRSO Act.[6]

   [6] HRSO Act s 5 and sch 1, sub div 3 item 15.

4. Accordingly, the respondent was, at the time the application was made, 'a serious offender under custodial sentence'[7] who was not a serious offender under restriction within the meaning of s 35 of the HRSO Act.

   [7] HRSO Act s 3, s 5.

Materials

1. The State produced a Book of Materials comprised of two volumes, containing the criminal history of the respondent and detailed evidence relating to it, including statements of material facts and transcripts, the respondent's custodial history, program completion reports relating to the various programs undertaken by the respondent while in custody, parole and other assessment reports, and reports prepared for this hearing, specifically:

   (1)report of Dr Wynn Owen, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 30 April 2023; and

   (2)report of Dr Ben Bannister, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, dated 13 April 2023;

   (3)Community Supervision Assessment of Gabriela Serrano, Senior Community Corrections Officer, dated 20 April 2023; and

   (4)Treatment Options Report of Valerie Thatcher, HRSO Planning Manager, dated 19 April 2023; and

   (5)Addendum Treatment Options Report of Tara Stagg, HRSO Planning Manager, dated 8 May 2023.

2. While the materials in the Books of Materials are generally admissible pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act, without more, they do not necessarily constitute 'acceptable and cogent evidence'.  To that extent, opinions expressed in those documents which were not the subject of oral evidence, particularly the more historical opinions, are of very limited if any, utility in assessing current risk in these proceedings.

Statutory framework and legal principles

1. The objects of the HRSO Act are:

   (a)to provide for the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and

   (b)to provide for continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.[8]

   [8] HRSO Act s 8.

2. The powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on the offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.[9]

   [9] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 [55] - [56].

3. The term 'high risk serious offender' is defined in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act as follows:

   An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that it 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 adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.

4. A 'restriction order' means a continuing detention order or a supervision order.[10]  A continuing detention order is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.[11]  A supervision order is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers to be appropriate in accordance with s 30 of the HRSO Act.[12]

   [10] HRSO Act s 3.

   [11] HRSO Act s 3, s 26(1).

   [12] HRSO Act s 3, s 27(1).

5. The State has the onus of satisfying the court in accordance with s 7(1).[13]

   [13] HRSO Act s 7(2).

6. When considering whether it is satisfied that a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the matters set out in s 7(3).  Further, the court must disregard the possibility that the respondent might temporarily be prevented from committing a serious offence by imprisonment, remand in custody, or the imposition of bail conditions.[14]

   [14] HRSO Act s 7(4).

7. The jurisprudence established in respect of the Dangerous Sexual Offences Act 1995 (WA) (repealed) is relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act, with necessary adaptation.[15]

   [15] The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [30] - [31].

8. The words 'high degree of probability' import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt but are otherwise not capable of further definition.[16]  The court is required to identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, thereafter considering whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard by acceptable and cogent evidence.[17]

   [16] The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 198 A Crim R 149 [28] ‑ [34].

   [17] The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 198 A Crim R 149 [34].

9. In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,[18] Corboy J held that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act (in conjunction with s 48) requires the court to assess two separate matters.  The first is whether a risk that an offender will commit a serious offence is unacceptable.  The second is, if the risk is found to be unacceptable, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against a risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.

   [18] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [135].

10. In Garlett v The State of Western Australia,[19] the court said:

    Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the Court's judgment as to the nature and extent of the harm said to be in prospect.  Further, whether a restriction order is 'necessary' to protect against that risk requires recognition of what would otherwise be the offender's entitlement to be at liberty, an entitlement not lightly to be denied.

    [19] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 [73].

11. The meaning of 'unacceptable risk' was considered by Wheeler JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams:[20]

    In my view, an 'unacceptable risk' in the context of s 7(1) is a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations which may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of sexual offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted) and the consequences of making a finding that an unacceptable risk exists.  That is, the judge is required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of the person offending and the offence likely to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding that the person has already been punished for whatever offence they may have actually committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that the person is subject to further control or detention.

    [20] Director of Public Prosecutions v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 [63].

12. If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that the offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must make a continuing detention order or, except as provided in s 29, a supervision order.

13. In deciding whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[21]

    [21] HRSO Act s 48.

14. In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,[22] Corboy J stated:

    … the court should choose, as between a continuing detention order and a supervision order, the order that is 'least invasive or destructive' of a person's right to be at liberty while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.  That constraint also applies in determining the non-standard conditions (if any) of a supervision order.  Moreover, as Hall J pointed out in Director of Public Prosecutions v Decke,[23] '[i]t cannot simply be assumed that the most assured preventative is detention and therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order'.

    [22] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [143].

    [23] The Director of Public Prosecutions v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [14].

15. The HRSO Act does not require that there be no risk of reoffending.  The question is whether the risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level that ensures adequate protection of the community.[24]

    [24] The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [33].

16. The court cannot make a supervision order in relation to an offender unless satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.[25]

    [25] HRSO Act s 29.

17. The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.[26]

    [26] HRSO Act s 30(2)(f).

18. In determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order':

    [t]he court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious … offence.[27]

    [27] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australiav Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52].

Respondent's antecedents and criminal record: s 7(3)(g) HRSO Act

Criminal History

1. I gratefully adopt the summary of the respondent's adult criminal history as outlined by Fiannaca J at the preliminary hearing in this matter:

   The respondent is now 36 years of age.  He has a significant history of offending commencing when he was a child.  That history includes a serious offence, as defined in the Act, that was committed when the applicant was a juvenile.  However, the applicant does not rely on that offence for the purposes of the application, and I do not consider that it has any relevance for the determination of whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender.  That is not to say that it might not take on significance when psychiatric and psychological assessments are conducted of the respondent …

   The respondent has numerous convictions for violent offences from 2005 to 2019, including one offence of assaulting a police officer, five offences of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm, one offence of aggravated unlawful wounding, one offence of aggravated grievous bodily harm, one offence of aggravated common assault, and one offence of doing an act, with intent to harm, that resulted in bodily harm, which is the offence for which he is currently serving a term of imprisonment.  The respondent also has a conviction for dangerous driving causing death in 2004, and convictions for aggravated dangerous driving causing death and aggravated dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm, which arose out of the same incident in 2011.

   The respondent has numerous convictions as an adult from 2004 to 2019 for a variety of other offences, including burglary and dishonesty offences, stealing motor vehicles and disorderly type offences.  He also has numerous convictions for breaching community based orders and suspended imprisonment orders and for breaches of bail undertakings.  Finally, he also has a conviction for escaping lawful custody in 2005, which arose from the same incident in which he committed the offence of assaulting a public officer, to which I have referred.

   Serious offences

   The respondent's criminal history includes convictions for five serious offences within the meaning of the Act. 

   …

   Dangerous driving causing death - 2004

   The first serious offence was an offence of dangerous driving causing death in 2004.

   On 13 February 2004, the respondent was driving a stolen vehicle from Kununurra, heading towards Wyndham.  His cousin, the victim of the offence, was a passenger in the front passenger seat.  The respondent fell asleep at the wheel and drifted onto the gravel shoulder, before being woken by the victim.  The respondent tried to correct the steering, which resulted in the vehicle rolling over before coming to a stop.  The victim was ejected from the vehicle and suffered injuries from which he later died.

   On 16 August 2004, the respondent was sentenced in the District Court to a term of 18 months' imprisonment for that offence.

   Aggravated dangerous driving causing death - 2011

   The second serious offence was the aggravated dangerous driving causing death in 2011.  As will appear below, this offence was committed by the respondent a relatively short time after he had been released from prison, having served a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed on 9 June 2009.

   On 25 January 2011, the respondent was driving a stolen vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol and cannabis, and while speeding.  He lost control of the vehicle after falling asleep at the wheel.  The vehicle rolled several times before coming to a rest.

   The first victim was thrown from the vehicle and killed instantly.  She was not wearing a seatbelt.

   The second victim suffered a badly broken leg, and a broken bone in his foot.  The respondent was also charged with aggravated dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm in relation to that victim.  While that offence is not a serious offence under the Act, it is a relevant aspect of his offending that informs the risk that he would commit a serious offence.

   On 12 September 2011, the respondent was sentenced in the District Court to a term of 4 years' imprisonment.  This was part of a total effective sentence of 5 years, as will appear below.

   Aggravated grievous bodily harm - 2011

   The third serious offence was an offence of aggravated grievous bodily harm, the circumstance of aggravation being that the respondent was in a family and domestic relationship with the victim.  The victim was the respondent's de facto partner at the time, DNW.  Again it should be noted that the respondent committed this offence a relatively short time after he had been released from prison, having served the term imposed on 9 June 2009, which was for offences of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and aggravated unlawful wounding also committed against DNW.

   In the early morning of 26 March 2011, the respondent returned home after a day and night of drinking alcohol and consuming cannabis.  When he got home, he had an argument with DNW.  He punched her to the face, and then used a pair of scissors to stab her in the arm, chest and upper back, causing the skin to break.  The sentencing judge noted that there was some evidence that there may have been five stab wounds in total.

   One of the chest wounds punctured DNW's lung, and, without medical intervention, could have resulted in her death.  The sentencing judge noted that DNW was already in a bad way when help arrived, having trouble breathing, which was a side effect of the puncture to her lung.

   After he had injured DNW, the respondent continued to kick her.  DNW's mother pulled her into a room and shut the door, as the respondent was running at DNW with a knife raised.

   It was clearly a sustained brutal attack, and was committed in the presence of DNW's mother and some children who were upset and screaming while the respondent engaged in the violent offending.

   On 12 September 2011, at the time the respondent was sentenced for the aggravated dangerous driving causing death and aggravated dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm, the respondent was also sentenced in the District Court for this offence to a term of one year's imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with the sentence for the aggravated dangerous driving causing death, resulting in a total effective sentence of 5 years.

   Doing an act, with intent to harm, which resulted in bodily harm - 2018

   The last of the serious offences was an offence of doing an act, with intent to harm, as a result of which bodily harm was caused to the victim, who was the respondent's de facto partner at the time, KLC.  This offence was committed two months into the term of a suspended imprisonment order that had been imposed for an offence of aggravated unlawful assault causing bodily harm, and which was also committed against KLC.

   On 11 October 2018, the respondent was at home with KLC when, either in the evening or the early hours of the morning, he flew into a rage with her for unknown reasons.  He pushed KLC against a wall and punched her in the nose, causing her to fall to the ground.  He then kicked KLC to various parts of her body.  He also punched her several times to the head.  He then dragged her by the hair into another room.

   As KLC sat in a chair with her head in her hands, the respondent told her to get changed, as she was covered in blood.  He punched her again when she refused.  He then took her into the backyard.  There, KLC struck the respondent, who then left the scene.

   As a result of the respondent's violence, KLC suffered a broken and bloodied nose, swelling to her face and bruises to her body.  She also suffered two lacerations to her scalp which required staples to close.

   On 5 November 2019, the respondent was sentenced for this offence to a term of 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment.  The sentencing judge, O'Neal DCJ, noted that the offence involved 'a sustained violent attack on a vulnerable woman', and that the injuries she received were 'a serious example of bodily harm'.

   Other relevant offences

   It is apt to refer to other offences of violence, which at least indirectly will affect the assessment of the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence, as they show both his propensity for violence, and a pattern of offending.  In some instances, there was potential for much greater physical harm to the victim than actually occurred.  Without ignoring the offence of assaulting a police officer, the most significant offences are those involving violence towards his de facto partners and another family member.

   On 1 December 2006, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to a suspended term of 10 months' imprisonment in the Broome Magistrates Court in relation to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm.  The facts were that, on 15 July 2006, the respondent swung a stick at the victim, his de facto partner, DNW.  She raised her arm to protect her face, resulting in a small abrasion on her arm.  The respondent then punched DNW several times and, when her sister attempted to assist DNW, he threatened her.

   On 12 March 2008, the respondent was convicted and sentenced in the Broome Magistrates Court to 12 months' imprisonment for an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm.  The facts were that the respondent pushed the victim, his de facto partner, DNW, to the ground and kicked her several times.  DNW suffered a sore and swollen jaw.

   On 8 June 2009, the respondent was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in the Albany District Court in relation to offences of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and aggravated unlawful wounding.  The circumstance of aggravation in each case was that the respondent was in a family or domestic relationship with the victim, DNW.  The facts were that the respondent smashed a wine bottle over DNW's head, causing the bottle to smash and resulting in several bleeding lacerations to the back of her head.  He then chased DNW and swung a metal pole at her several times, striking her to the left hand, upper arm, left foot, and thigh.  DNW required six stitches to her head.

   The next conviction for an offence of violence was in the Perth Magistrates Court on 21 February 2018, when the respondent received a Community Based Order for an offence of aggravated common assault, which occurred on 10 May 2017.  That offence was committed by the respondent on his sister-in-law, DFU.  In a fit of anger, the respondent flipped over a dining table, where DFU was seated with her partner.  The table legs broke off.  The respondent picked up one of the table legs and hit the victim over the head with it, causing a minor abrasion.  He then strangled the victim using both hands around her neck.

   That offence was committed a relatively short time after the respondent was released from prison, having completed the full sentence of 5 years imposed on 12 September 2011…

   On 8 August 2018, the respondent was convicted and sentenced in the Perth Magistrates Court to a term of 9 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, for an offence of aggravated unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm, the circumstance of aggravation being that the respondent was in a family and domestic relationship with the victim, KLC.  That offence occurred on 2 April 2018, when the respondent grabbed KLC around the neck with both hands and threw her to the ground, causing her to fall on her shoulder.  He then kicked and punched KLC as she lay on the ground.  KLC suffered a cut to her left eye, swelling and a suspected dislocated shoulder.

   It was while the respondent was subject to the suspended sentence for that offence that he committed the last serious offence on 11 October 2018.[28]

Family background and relationships

[28] The State of Western Australia v Meehan [2023] WASC 6 [21] - [52].

1. The respondent was born in Perth, but raised between Wyndham and Oombulgurri Community.  He reported that he identified with the Kwini people and their culture.  English is his second language.[29]

   [29] Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 2 filed 1 May 2023, 535 - 536 [7] (Book of Materials Vol 2).

2. The respondent was one of five siblings born to his parents' union; he is the second youngest.  He is particularly close to his youngest sister, who is currently in custody.[30]  He recalled that his father was an alcoholic who assaulted his mother on numerous occasions, and also physically abused him and his siblings.[31]  He reported that he suffered further abuse at the hands of relatives at the age of about eight or nine.[32] 

   [30] Book of Materials Vol 2, 535 - 536 [7].

   [31] Book of Materials Vol 2, 536 [8].

   [32] Book of Materials Vol 2, 535 - 536 [7].

3. His parents were unfortunately both deceased by the time he was 10 years old.[33]  After this, he and his siblings were fostered with caregivers who he felt were not interested in his welfare, and he reported that his feelings of neglect preceded his first offending.  His offending helped him fit in with an antisocial peer group, and gave him a sense of belonging.  He had no positive male influences and often ran away to spend time with his grandparents.[34]

   [33] Book of Materials Vol 2, 535 - 536 [7].

   [34] Book of Materials Vol 2, 536 [8].

4. The respondent has had four serious relationships.  The first was during his late teens, and ended when he was imprisoned.  His second relationship, with DNW, lasted for about three years, after which it became intermittent for a number of further years.  The relationship, which resulted in a daughter now aged 17 years of age, was marred by violence and drug use, and the respondent was convicted of a number of violent offences against DNW.  He does not presently have any contact with his daughter.[35]

   [35] Book of Materials Vol 2, 536 [10].

5. At the age of about 23 or 24 years, the respondent engaged in a year‑long relationship with another woman.  The relationship did not involve violence, which the respondent attributed to the fact that his partner was 'not a junkie'.  While he claimed she was an alcoholic, he said she was 'calm' and not 'bossy' and did not provoke him.  This relationship produced a son, now 13 years old.[36]

   [36] Book of Materials Vol 2, 536 [11].

6. The respondent's most recent relationship was with the victim of the index offence.  He claimed their relationship conflict was due to her being a 'drug addict'.[37]

   [37] Book of Materials Vol 2, 537 [12].

7. While the respondent has indicated a desire to spend time with his children, it is unclear whether he will be able to do so immediately on his return to the Kimberley.[38]  He informed Dr Wynn Owen that he was in regular telephone communication with a woman in Broome, who he has known since they were both children, and that she had said she loved him and planned to relocate to Kununurra if he were to be released there.[39]  However, at the hearing, evidence was given to the effect that the respondent had said he regarded the woman more as a friend, although there was potential for the relationship to develop.[40]

Education and employment

[38] Book of Materials Vol 2, 569.

[39] Book of Materials Vol 2, 516 [130].

[40] ts 56.

1. The respondent left school prior to completing year 10, at age 16.  He went to reside near Kununurra and was placed on the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme, on which he has remained for the majority of his working life, although he has mainly been reliant on unemployment benefits as a result of spending significant time in custody.[41]

   [41] Book of Materials Vol 2, 536 [9].

2. In custody, the respondent has completed a number of Certificates, including in Horticulture, Rural Operations and Construction Pathways.[42]

   [42] Book of Materials Vol 1, 476.

3. The respondent expressed to Dr Wynn Owen a desire to find regular employment on his release, such as an apprenticeship or in horticulture.[43]

Substance abuse

[43] Book of Materials Vol 2, 522 [203].

1. The respondent reported using alcohol from the age of 10 years, and daily abuse since then.  He told Dr Wynn Owen he first tried cannabis when he was about 10 or 11 years of age,[44] but told Dr Bannister he first tried it when he was 15 years old and since then had typically used it daily.  His only periods of abstinence were when he was imprisoned.[45]

   [44] Book of Materials Vol 2, 513 [103].

   [45] Book of Materials Vol 2, 537 [14].

2. The respondent told Dr Bannister that he began using amphetamines intravenously in 2017, describing his use as intermittent up until he was imprisoned for the index offending.[46]  He told Dr Wynn Owen he did not use amphetamines until 2018 but, as Dr Wynn Owen observed, in 2009 the respondent's counsel told a magistrate that the respondent was intoxicated by both cannabis and amphetamines.[47]  There are also other significant anomalies in the history the respondent gave as to his amphetamine use.[48]

   [46] Book of Materials Vol 2, 537 [14].

   [47] Book of Materials Vol 1, 393.

   [48] Book of Materials Vol 2, 514 [105].

3. The respondent reporting having tried heroin once.  He claimed only to use substances when on his own.[49]

Medical and psychiatric history

[49] Book of Materials Vol 2, 537 [14].

1. The respondent told Dr Bannister he had never been diagnosed with any mental illness, and did not have any major health issues.  However, medical records do suggest that the respondent had some abnormal heart activity, as a result of which it was recommended in June 2022 that he have some tests.  Those do not yet appear to have been conducted.[50]

Conduct while in custody

[50] Book of Materials Vol 2, 537 [15]; Vol 1, 202.  The medical notes record that in November 2022 the respondent refused them, preferring to have them on his release in January 2023.

1. During his most recent term in custody, most of which he served in the West Kimberley Regional Prison, the respondent was charged with six prison offences, four for insubordination or misconduct, one for threatening language, and one for consume or possess alcohol.[51]  He was allegedly involved in a number of other incidents, including being out of bounds, engaging in abusive or threatening conduct, possession of drug paraphernalia, gambling, fighting[52] and misusing the prison telephone system.[53]

   [51] Book of Materials Vol 1, 18.

   [52] Book of Materials Vol 1, 18 - 24.  Due to the redactions of the material, it is not possible to determine the respondent's alleged involvement, if any, in at least two of the incidents, and in two others he appears to have not been the perpetrator.  In two cases, the incident was related to COVID-19.

   [53] See also Book of Materials Vol 2, 565.

2. The respondent was tested for illicit substances or alcohol on eleven occasions between August 2020 and 13 November 2022.  He tested negative on ten of them, returning a positive alcohol result once on 17 February 2022.[54]

   [54] Book of Materials Vol 1, 313 - 314.

3. The respondent was first considered for parole in January 2021 but the decision was adjourned to enable the respondent to participate in the Pathways program.[55]  In May 2021, the decision on parole was again adjourned because the respondent did not have suitable accommodation or any appropriate parole plan.[56]

   [55] Book of Materials Vol 1, 157.

   [56] Book of Materials Vol 1, 157.

4. In September 2021, despite the respondent having completed the Pathways program and the Connect and Respect program, he was denied parole.  On 21 December 2022, it was resolved that the respondent should be released on a Post-Sentence Supervision Order (PSSO) when his sentence expired.[57]

   [57] Book of Materials Vol 1, 156.

5. Individual Management Plans recorded the respondent as being a 'quiet prisoner' who interacted well with others.  He performed his employment duties as required and did not require prompting or constant direction.  He was not regarded as a management issue.[58]

   [58] Book of Materials Vol 1, 169, 174, 179, 184.

6. As the respondent is subject to an interim detention order, the PSSO to which he is subject continues, although it is due to expire on 19 January 2024.[59]

Previous Response to Supervision

[59] Book of Materials Vol 2, 566 - 567.

1. The respondent was made subject to a Community Based Order on 2 August 2004 but it was cancelled on 1 February 2005 as a result of reoffending.

2. The respondent was granted parole on 23 May 2005 but it was cancelled on 23 November 2005 as a result of re‑offending.  He was granted parole (after a further term of imprisonment) on 30 November 2007, but on 6 January 2008 that parole order was suspended until the respondent's term expired.

3. A Community Based Order was imposed on the respondent on 21 February 2018, but he wholly failed to comply with the order, and failed to respond to the Department's numerous attempts to contact him.  He claimed he had been experiencing issues with homelessness and high levels of stress with family issues.[60]

   [60] Book of Materials Vol 1, 412.

4. Two Intensive Supervision Orders and a Suspended Imprisonment Order were imposed on the respondent on 8 August 2018.  However, the respondent's compliance was short‑lived and he re-offended by committing the index offence in October 2018.

Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the respondent: s 7(3)(b) HRSO Act

Pre-Sentence Reports

1. I have had access to pre-sentence reports relating to the respondent from 2004,[61] 2011[62] and 2018.[63]  In each case, the respondent appeared to express genuine remorse for his offending, but lacked good recall of the circumstances of the offending as a result of his state of intoxication at the time of the offence.  In all cases, it was recommended that the respondent have substance abuse counselling, with the most recent report author recommending that the appellant engage in a long term residential rehabilitation program, a family violence program and individual psychological intervention. 

Parole Assessment Reports

[61] Book of Materials Vol 1, 323.

[62] Book of Materials Vol 1, 343.

[63] Book of Materials Vol 1, 412.

1. I have also had access to parole assessment reports from 2007,[64] 2008[65] and 2010,[66] which indicate that the respondent usually had limited plans for his release.  Due to his preference to spend time on parole in Kununurra, some programs were not available to him on release.  In 2010, his poor performance on previous orders was considered to suggest a doubtful capacity to comply with parole.  It was strongly recommended that he complete the Indigenous Family Violence Program before release.[67] 

   [64] Book of Materials Vol 1, 421.

   [65] Book of Materials Vol 1, 424.

   [66] Book of Materials Vol 1, 430.

   [67] Book of Materials Vol 1, 433.

2. A 2015 parole assessment indicated that, while the respondent was assessed as suitable for the Stopping Family Violence Program, he objected to engaging in any program which included Aboriginal content.  He was unable to engage in the Think First Program, because it was unavailable.[68]  His unwillingness to address his offending behaviour and his continued abuse of illicit substances was considered to demonstrate an elevated risk to the community and his release on parole was not supported.[69]

   [68] Book of Materials Vol 1, 447.

   [69] Book of Materials Vol 1, 449.

3. In 2020, parole was not supported having regard to the respondent's proposal to reside in a remote community and the lack of available supports and controls in that community.[70]  Despite the fact that he completed the Pathways program in March 2021, his early release was still not supported in April 2021.[71]  Following completion of the Connect and Respect Program, and having identified appropriate accommodation, his release on parole was supported in September 2021.[72]  However, parole was not granted.

Community Supervision Assessment

[70] Book of Materials Vol 1, 463 - 464.

[71] Book of Materials Vol 1, 483 - 484.

[72] Book of Materials Vol 1, 500.

1. Ms Serrano noted that the respondent engaged appropriately in his interview with her.  She considered that he minimised the extent of the family violence perpetrated by him, although accepted that the assaults occurred and also accepted responsibility.

2. The respondent indicated he would not participate in programmatic intervention in certain custodial settings, citing a fear for his safety.  He did express a willingness to comply with the general conditions of a supervision order, although he acknowledged that he may experience difficulties abstaining from alcohol and illicit substances.  While he indicated a preference to reside in Kununurra, he was open to a supervision order in the metropolitan area if required, although he expressed the concern that he would have less community support in Perth and methylamphetamine availability would be more of an issue.[73]

   [73] Book of Materials Vol 2, 569 - 570.

3. Ms Serrano indicated that the respondent is 14^th on the waiting list for HRSO supported accommodation, and he would first have to complete an engagement period with Uniting WA, which can be up to six months.  No other suitable accommodation has been found in Perth for him.[74]

Treatment Options Report and Addendum Treatment Options Report

[74] ts 54 - 59.

1. Ms Thatcher, an HRSO Planning Officer, and Ms Stagg, an HRSO Planning Manager, prepared reports based on the Book of Materials, Departmental records, and the s 74 reports, as well as consultation with the respondent's Senior Community Corrections Officer. 

2. Both stated that, if the respondent is released on a supervision order to a regional location, individual face-to-face psychological treatment will not be available, although telehealth counselling will be available, once the respondent reaches the top of the waiting list.[75]

   [75] Book of Materials Vol 2, 505 [10]; Exhibit 2; ts 45 - 46.

3. If the respondent is made subject to a continuing detention order, his preferences as to his custodial location will limit the treatment options available to him.  There are Violent Offending and Pathways programs available in the West Kimberley Regional Prison, depending on his prisoner status.[76]  Further, there will also be telehealth psychological counselling available to him in custody, although that is subject to a referral and, again, a waiting list.[77]

Any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of the respondent's offending behaviour, including whether the respondent had participated in any rehabilitation program: s 7(3)(e) HRSO Act

Cognitive Brief Intervention Program

[76] Book of Materials Vol 2, 505 [12] - [13].

[77] ts 47 - 48.

1. The respondent completed this program in November 2009.  The completion report recorded that the respondent engaged in positive discussion and participated in a positive manner, but there was a lack of evidence to support improvement in his critical reasoning and consequential thinking.[78]

   [78] Book of Materials Vol 1, 429.

2. The respondent's recollections of his programmatic interventions were limited.  He said that the Pathways program was 'helpful' and claimed to have used learned concepts in resolving a conflict, but was unable to articulate any specific learnings.  He could also recall little from the Connect and Respect program.[79]

Indigenous Family Violence Program

[79] Book of Materials Vol 2, 546 [62].

1. The Indigenous Family Violence Program, which the respondent completed in May 2010, is a low intensity program designed to address violence within Indigenous families.  The completion report recorded that the respondent identifies strongly with his traditional culture and has a full knowledge of traditional lore.  He appeared to understand the content of the sessions but expressed the belief that he was entitled to act on his emotions, and it was 'his right' to physically assault his partner 'because she deserved it'.  Only when challenged did the respondent offer alternative solutions.[80]

   [80] Book of Materials Vol 1, 437.

2. The respondent acknowledged that he needed to learn how to control his anger and jealousy and use alternative methods to deal with his issues.  He claimed to have decided that there was no place for drugs in his future.[81]

   [81] Book of Materials Vol 1, 437.

3. Ultimately, the respondent was regarded to have made some treatment gains, including having a greater understanding of the factors underlying his offending and accepting some responsibility for his behaviour.  It was suggested he could benefit from a community based Family Violence Program and alcohol and drug relapse prevention program.[82]

Cognitive Brief Intervention Program

[82] Book of Materials Vol 1, 438.

1. The respondent completed this program again in 2012, in Casuarina Prison.  On this occasion, he demonstrated a good understanding of impulsivity and risk taking and contributed strongly in discussions regarding consequences.  There was evidence of improvement in his problem solving and other areas evaluated.[83]

Pathways Program

[83] Book of Materials Vol 1, 439.

1. The respondent declined to participate in the Pathways Program in January 2016, on the basis that he was going to serve his full sentence.[84]

   [84] Book of Materials Vol 1, 451.

2. During his most recent sentence, the respondent was recommended for the Pathways Program, although he was unsure about engaging, saying he knew what to do.[85]  However, he did complete the Pathways Program in March 2021.

   [85] Book of Materials Vol 1, 455.

3. The respondent was reported to have impressed as an active group participant who contributed regularly.  He developed some strategies to manage his substance misuse, his poor emotional regulation and coping skills and antisocial thinking.  However, he was consistently late, and would 'regularly wander off' during breaks.[86]

   [86] Book of Materials Vol 1, 489.

4. The respondent acknowledged that he was easily influenced regarding drug and alcohol use, and that he has a 'quick temper' while under the effect of substances, which has led to his violent offending.  He initially impressed as being in the pre‑contemplative phase regarding his substance misuse, but progressed to using more meaningful language as the program continued.  Despite appearing genuine in his desire to sever ties with antisocial peers, he had limited strategies to do so, tending to focus on avoidance.[87]

   [87] Book of Materials Vol 1, 489.

5. The respondent displayed an ability to empathise with his victim and reflected on the impacts of his actions on his children.  He also displayed the ability to challenge antisocial thinking patterns, but continued on other occasions to demonstrate firm antisocial beliefs.  The facilitators identified a 'tendency to switch between healthy and negative thinking patterns'.

6. The respondent was regarded as having made gains in his emotional regulation but also demonstrated the ability to seek help in doing so.[88]

   [88] Book of Materials Vol 1, 491.

7. The treatment gains made by the appellant were considered emerging and yet to be tested in the community.  In all cases, he was regarded as needing to consolidate his gains and it was noted that he would need support to do so.[89]

   [89] Book of Materials Vol 1, 489 - 491.

8. When questioned about this program pending parole assessment in March 2021, the respondent was unable or unwilling to articulate what he had learned.[90]

Connect and Respect Program

[90] Book of Materials Vol 1, 481.

1. The respondent attended two sessions of this program in October 2020 but failed to attend and then contracted COVID-19, which prevented him continuing.  Until then, he had presented as a willing participant but no treatment gains were possible in the limited time he attended.[91]

   [91] Book of Materials Vol 1, 466 - 468.

2. He completed the program in August 2021.  He was reported to have demonstrated a commitment to the content and participated readily. 

1. The facilitators observed that the respondent had a high level of confidence in his strategies to manage adverse behaviours, but they expressed some concern that his reliance on his confidence was not a substitute for sound strategies to deal with his issues.  They described significant shifts in his thinking and understanding of certain concepts, but noted that he will ultimately have to put the strategies he plans to use into practice in the community.[92]

[92] Book of Materials Vol 1, 495.

Reports prepared for the purposes of the restriction order hearing: s 7(3)(a) HRSO Act

Report of Dr Wynn Owen dated 30 April 2023

1. Dr Wynn Owen interviewed the respondent on two occasions,[93] and recorded that he was cooperative with the process.[94]  Dr Wynn Owen asked the respondent about his criminal history in some detail and reported that, except when discussing the offences of dangerous driving occasioning death, the respondent did not express remorse for his conduct or victim empathy.  At times, the respondent sought to downplay his offending, disputing the facts and minimising his responsibility, claiming he was intoxicated.  Ultimately, while he allowed that he 'maybe did bad things', he claimed he was 'not a bad man'.[95]

   [93] Book of Materials Vol 2, 507 [9].

   [94] Book of Materials Vol 2, 521 [190].

   [95] Book of Materials Vol 2, 511 - 513 [71] - [92].

2. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he realised alcohol was a factor in his offending, but said 'I feel like there is no help, no anything for me.  I help myself, drown my sorrows.  I know it's a bad thing to do …'[96]  He also acknowledged that methylamphetamine was a contributor to his offending, despite his inconsistent reporting of his historical use of that substance.  Dr Wynn Owen considered the respondent's amphetamine use to be of 'significant relevance to future offending risk'.[97]

   [96] Book of Materials Vol 2, 513 [102].

   [97] Book of Materials Vol 2, 514 [106].

3. Dr Wynn Owen observed that the respondent has spent a total of less than 2½ years in the community since 2004.[98]  He said that the respondent expressed frustration when talking about his past as he considered it of limited relevance to his future, and regarded the HRSO Act as a tool specifically designed to target Indigenous offenders and keep them imprisoned.[99]  Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent made general statements about his readiness and preparedness for release, and the respondent expressed the view that he should be allowed to demonstrate this rather than be judged on his past.  However, he was unable to offer any new strategies to avoid reoffending, and remained ambivalent about the need for treatment.[100]

   [98] Book of Materials Vol 2, 516 - 517 [133].

   [99] Book of Materials Vol 2, 521 [190].

   [100] Book of Materials Vol 2, 521 [191] - [194].

4. Dr Wynn Owen diagnosed the respondent with Substance Use Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder.  The latter involves 'a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others' and is indicated by other diagnostic criteria, including impulsivity or failure to plan ahead, irritability and aggressiveness and a lack of remorse.[101]

   [101] Book of Materials Vol 2, 523 [211].

5. Dr Wynn Owen used a number of risk assessment tools, while noting that they were not specifically developed for use with Indigenous Australian offenders, and, in the absence of more validation research, the results should be considered critically.[102]

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Revised, 2013 (VRAG-R)

[102] Book of Materials Vol 2, 523 [215].

1. The VRAG-R is an actuarial risk tool designed to assess the likelihood of violent (not limited to 'serious' violent offences) or sexual reoffending among male offenders.  The respondent's score was in the second highest risk category.  Those with the same score as the respondent on release had a 58% likelihood of committing a violent offence within 5 years and a 78% likelihood of committing a violent offence within 12 years.[103]

Static-99R (2016 revision)

[103] Book of Materials Vol 2, 524 [218] - [220].

1. The Static-99R is a tool designed to assess risk of sexual reoffending.  The respondent's Static 99‑R score was in the Level III or 'Average risk' range.  Those released with the same score had a 4.6% likelihood of committing a new sexual offence within 5 years and 7.2% within 10 years.[104]

Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, Second edition, 2003 (PCL-R)

[104] Book of Materials Vol 2, 524 [222].

1. The respondent's score on the PCL-R did not meet the threshold for prototypical psychopathy.  While his profile indicated high levels of social deviance and antisocial lifestyle and behaviours, these might have been artificially elevated to some extent by endemic police and criminal justice system attitudes towards Indigenous Australians.  Further, the construct of psychopathy has not been validated in its application to Indigenous Australians, particularly those from remote and regional Australia with a culturally traditional background.[105]

Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20 Version 3 (HCR-20 V3)

[105] Book of Materials Vol 2, 524 - 525 [225] - [227].

1. The HCR-20 V3 serves as an assessment, monitoring and management tool which considers the presence of a number of historical and dynamic factors for further interpersonal violence.[106]

   [106] Book of Materials Vol 2, 525 [229].

2. The historical risk factors of problems with violence, other antisocial behaviour, relationships, employment, substance use, personality disorder, traumatic experiences, violent attitudes and treatment or supervision response were all present. 

3. Of the clinical (or current) risk factors, recent problems with insight, violent ideation or intent, instability and treatment or supervision response were all present.

4. Future problems with professional services and plans, personal support and treatment or supervision response were also present. 

5. The risk factor relating to future problems with living situation may be present, but cannot be evaluated until accommodation arrangements are identified.  Apart from this, and an absence of indicators of major mental illness, all HCR-20 factors were coded.[107] 

Risk assessment

[107] Book of Materials Vol 2, 525 - 529 [231] - [260].

1. Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the respondent's function in relationships has probably been impaired by a number of developmental factors, including poor early attachment with resulting trust and communication issues and poor parental modelling including modelling of violence and substance abuse, as well as male entitlement.  His early use of alcohol and drugs prevented the respondent developing alternative coping strategies.  Emotional dysregulation in combination with intoxication has, in Dr Wynn Owen's view, been the trigger for much of the respondent's offending.  His patterns of behaviour have been perpetuated, in part, by his poor treatment response and ambivalent engagement and compliance with supervision and treatment, together with long periods of incarceration.[108]

   [108] Book of Materials Vol 2, 529 - 530 [262] - [264].

2. Future violent behaviour is likely to be in the context of substance use and intoxication and poor management of anger or other negative affect, in the context of an interpersonal situation which the respondent perceives to be conflictual.  In Dr Wynn Owen's view, such violence is likely to result in physical and psychological harm to the victim and weapons are likely to be involved.[109]

   [109] Book of Materials Vol 2, 530 [266] - [267].

3. The respondent's risk of committing a further offence of dangerous driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm is more difficult to assess.  His decision making and consequential thinking are impacted when he is intoxicated and that, combined with his personality traits, can result in behaviour which puts others at risk.  However, the respondent has not committed any further driving offences since 2011.  While his time in the community since then has been limited, this still demonstrates some capacity for restraint in this area.[110]

   [110] Book of Materials Vol 2, 531 [274] - [276].

4. Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that, while there is a high likelihood of future violence, likely within months of unsupervised release, it is difficult to assess the risk of that offending being 'serious' offending within the meaning of the HRSO Act.  However, it is clear that a proportion of the behaviour will fall into that category, with the risk increased by the escalation in severity of the respondent's conduct in 2017 and 2018.[111]

   [111] Book of Materials Vol 2, 530 [266] - [268].

5. Ultimately, having regard to his clinical assessment and application of the risk assessment tools, Dr Wynn Owen expressed the opinion that the respondent presents a high risk of committing a serious violent offence in the future if not subject to a restriction order.  This opinion was based on the respondent's history of violent offending, antisocial personality disorder and associated traits, his substance abuse, poor emotional recognition and management, and poor problem solving and conflict resolution skills as well as his undeveloped coping mechanisms.[112]

   [112] Book of Materials Vol 2, 532 [286] - [287].

6. Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that a high level of intervention will be required to prevent future violent behaviours, with initial reliance on external supports and rapid responsivity.  Treatment (including individual therapy with a forensic psychologist), assistance with accommodation and support regarding employment or other meaningful structured activities, as well as developing appropriate social supports will be required if the respondent is to progress to self-management of his risk of reoffending.[113] 

   [113] Book of Materials Vol 2, 531 [272], 532 [290].

7. In evidence, Dr Wynn Owen said that the respondent's lack of insight into the role of his personality characteristics and a lack of awareness of the need for treatment other than as a means to facilitate release may impact on the respondent's compliance with treatment and supervision.  He did not consider the respondent would deliberately flout conditions, but would more likely act impulsively and do so.[114]

   [114] ts 25.

8. Dr Wynn Owen was hesitant to endorse a release of the respondent to his nominated accommodation in Kununurra, despite acknowledging the obvious benefits a release to country and the proximity to family would bring for the respondent.  Dr Wynn Owen pointed out that, in order to learn new behaviours, the respondent would need the behaviour to be discussed, understood, modelled and reinforced repeatedly over an extended period.  However, some of the respondent's family members have histories which suggest antisocial attitudes, and the respondent is likely to be immediately challenged in such an environment.  Given that any individual psychological intervention will only be available by video link (which Dr Wynn Owen considered to be 'diluted' in effect when compared with face‑to‑face counselling), and the reduced capacity of police to be immediately responsive, Dr Wynn Owen was concerned that the respondent would be set up to fail.[115] 

   [115] ts 27.

9. Dr Wynn Owen said that, if released in Perth, the respondent would have better wraparound support and mentoring to build relationships and develop prosocial engagements, which is a very important part of reintegration.[116] 

   [116] ts 28.

10. If the respondent were to be released to community supervision, Dr Wynn Owen recommended a term of 3 years, with conditions relating to substance use and relationships.  He considered that any longer would be likely to cause resentment and impair motivation.  On the other hand, if the respondent can remain in the community offence free for such a period, that would be a considerable behavioural change.[117]

Report of Dr Ben Bannister, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, dated 13 April 2023

[117] Book of Materials Vol 2, 532 - 533 [290].

1. Dr Bannister interviewed the respondent for over three hours.  He also spoke with the respondent's Senior Community Corrections Officer, Ms Serrano, and had access to Volume 1 of the State's Book of Materials.[118]

   [118] Book of Materials Vol 2, 535 [5].

2. Dr Bannister found the respondent to be a polite and affable man who engaged well with the assessment and did not exhibit any behaviour indicative of any apparent cognitive deficits.[119]  He did sometimes provide responses which were 'somewhat glib and lacking depth' and 'engaged in moments of unsophisticated impression management'.[120]

   [119] Book of Materials Vol 2, 535 [6].

   [120] Book of Materials Vol 2, 535 [6].

3. The respondent claimed to have generally positive interactions with people.  He acknowledged a tendency to get angry when unable to communicate with his children, and he had been told he had a bad temper and was quick to anger.  He admitted that he could become aggressive in certain circumstances and said he preferred to be alone to regulate his emotions.[121]

   [121] Book of Materials Vol 2, 537 [16].

4. The respondent told Dr Bannister that the conflict giving rise to the index offence occurred because it was 'hard to walk away from a black woman … you never hear the end of it'.  He denied stabbing the complainant or striking her in the head with the bottle of alcohol.  He said that the complainant 'probably stabbed herself'.  He said they were both under the influence of amphetamines.  He did not express any victim empathy.[122]

   [122] Book of Materials Vol 2, 541 - 542 [31].

5. The respondent expressed remorse for his dangerous driving offences.[123]  As to his doing grievous bodily harm in 2011, he broadly accepted the facts as being correct, but denied kicking the victim several times.[124]

   [123] Book of Materials Vol 2, 542 [33].

   [124] Book of Materials Vol 2, 542 [34].

6. In relation to the remainder of his criminal offending, the respondent struggled to recall his offending against DNW, claiming he was intoxicated.  He essentially denied the 2018 offence against DFU, saying he hit the table with his fist and it collapsed, causing her injuries.  He denied strangling her.  He denied kicking KLC in August 2018.

7. In general, the respondent told Dr Bannister that he had previously thought violence was the way to address issues, such behaviour having been modelled for him as a child by adults in his community.  He articulated some insight into his violence and claimed to have realised it was not a functional way of solving problems.  However, he also claimed his family violence offending was a result of being 'young and stupid', that his victims were drug users, and that his violence depended on their actions; he felt that there were occasions where he was compelled to be violent in order to regulate their behaviour.  He admitted that much of his offending was impulsive, but said some was planned.[125]

   [125] Book of Materials Vol 2, 542 - 543 [39].

8. The respondent indicated that he hoped to be released to live with his youngest sister and her partner in Kununurra.  He hoped the latter would be able to help him get employment, having regard to his influential position in the community.  The respondent also cited two prosocial supports and said he intended to re‑focus on his sporting endeavours as a further prosocial activity.[126]

   [126] Book of Materials Vol 2, 548 [70].

9. The respondent did not want to be released in the Perth metropolitan area, as it was not close to his children, and he felt he would be more likely to face greater antisocial influence in Perth.[127]  He did not feel that avoiding antisocial influences would be challenging, as no friends would come and visit him.  He thought there would be value in repeating the Pathways Program, and engaging in the Violent Offender Treatment Program.  He was also willing to undertake individual counselling, but did not feel he required it.  He did accept that community supervision would be important.[128]

   [127] Book of Materials Vol 2, 548 [71].

   [128] Book of Materials Vol 2, 548 [72].

10. The respondent was not able to identify any high risk situations he might encounter, and had superficial means of addressing any such situations.  He said he intended to avoid cannabis, as it made him paranoid.  While he would abstain from alcohol if required, he would enjoy a social drink if permitted to do so.[129]

    [129] Book of Materials Vol 2, 548 [73].

11. Dr Bannister was of the view that the respondent's 'psychologically impoverished childhood' likely normalised violence for him and reinforced beliefs supportive of pro-criminal behaviours.  The respondent reported suffering physical, emotional and sexual abuse which, in combination with exposure to antisocial networks and substance abuse appear to have impeded his ability to develop healthy and adaptive coping mechanisms, respectful and functional relationships, emotion regulation, genuine empathy and problem solving skills.  Dr Bannister was of the view that, instead, the respondent appears to have come to the belief that the world is unsafe, and became attuned to perceived threat or contempt from others.  As a result, he developed an entitled sense, with a focus on meeting his own needs, regardless of the impact on others.  It has also likely resulted in his engagement in dysfunctional and violent relationships in which he forcefully avoids vulnerability and seeks to control the behaviour of others in order to assert 'compensatory power'.[130]

Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R)

[130] Book of Materials Vol 2, 549 [74].

1. Dr Bannister also used the PCL-R, finding that the respondent did not meet the clinical cut-off score for psychopathy, but did score in the high range.  His scores related comparatively more to his antisocial behaviours.[131]

Violence Risk Scale (VRS)

[131] Book of Materials Vol 2, 550 [78].

1. The VRS was used to assess the respondent's current risk of recidivism.  The VRS is a structured clinical judgment tool designed, in part, to assess risk and predict violent and general recidivism.  Risk assessment research literature offers considerable support as to its reliability and moderate predictive validity.[132]  Dynamic factors with higher ratings on a four‑point scale identify treatment targets linked to violent offending.[133]

   [132] Book of Materials Vol 2, 550 [80], [83].

   [133] Book of Materials Vol 2, 550 [82].

2. The respondent's total score for Static Variables was 16 from a possible 18, having regard to his age, his previous criminal convictions and when he committed them, their violent components, his prior release failures or escapes and his unstable family upbringing.[134]

   [134] Book of Materials Vol 2, 551 - 552 [87] - [94].

3. As for the 20 dynamic risk factors, the respondent's score was 49 out of a possible 60.  The respondent has a continual pattern of violence throughout his life, has pro‑criminal attitudes and peers, exhibits interpersonal aggression, poor emotional regulation and cognitive distortions with limited insight, has used weapons in his offending, is a poly‑substance abuser, has unstable relationships, lacks adequate community supports and his release may well be to the same environments which precipitated acts of violence in the past.[135]

   [135] Book of Materials Vol 2, 552 - 556 [95] - [116].

4. With a combined score of 65 out of a possible 78, the respondent is in the Level V category of risks and needs, which is considered 'well above average' risk (which Dr Bannister later clarified is the highest level and traditionally would be termed 'high').[136]  People in this category 'typically have multiple criminogenic needs, often chronic, severe and entrenched, likely across psychological, interpersonal and lifestyle domains'.  Frequently, they will require intensive monitoring and supervision and concentrated and lengthy psychological intervention.[137]

   [136] Book of Materials, Vol 2, 583.

   [137] Book of Materials Vol 2, 557 [119] - [120].

5. The three-year violence recidivism rate for offenders in the Level V category with the respondent's score was 49.4% with a 95% confidence interval between 39.7% and 59.2%.  The five‑year violence recidivism rate was 65.6% with a 95% confidence interval between 56.6% and 73.6%.  The three‑year general recidivism rate for this category of offenders with the respondent's score was 75.5% and for five years, 88.6%.[138]

   [138] Book of Materials Vol 2, 557 [121].

1. In his report, and again in an email communication with the State dated 28 April 2023, Dr Bannister emphasised the difficulty in predicting, with any accuracy, the likelihood of the respondent committing a serious offence, within the meaning of the HRSO Act.  However, he was prepared to say that, in his view, the respondent's overall risk 'could translate to a scenario whereby [the respondent] commits an offence or offences deemed serious under the [HRSO Act], in short, that the level of risk of [the respondent] committing a future serious offence if not subject to a restriction order reflects his current assessed risk, which is well above average/high'.[139]

   [139] Book of Materials Vol 2, 558 [126] - [129], 583.

2. The primary areas of treatment need for the respondent relate to ongoing cognitive distortions and pro‑criminal attitudes, poor emotion management, substance use and relapse prevention, and family violence.[140]

   [140] Book of Materials Vol 2, 557 [122].

3. Dr Bannister observed that in many risk-relevant areas, the respondent is in a 'pre‑contemplative state of change'.  In others, while he has recognised he has issues, he is yet to comprehensively address them by taking active and concrete steps.  Further, he does not appear to have meaningful recall of information from his previous programs, although this does not appear to be as a result of any lack of capacity for learning.  Dr Bannister opined that, if the respondent is to maximise learning from future interventions, he will ideally be internally driven to achieve positive outcomes.[141]

   [141] Book of Materials Vol 2, 557 - 558 [123] - [124].

4. Dr Bannister recommended that the respondent engage in further group based, high intensity treatment focussed on the areas of violence and substance abuse.  Further, he should be restricted from drug and alcohol use, encouraged (with robust support) to secure full time employment, stable accommodation and to establish prosocial community pursuits and networks.[142]

   [142] Book of Materials Vol 2, 559 - 560 [133] - [135].

5. In evidence, Dr Bannister expressed the view that, while the support and supervision in Perth would be significantly greater than in Kununurra, that had to be balanced with the importance of the respondent being on country, with access to his family networks, including his children.  In Dr Bannister's opinion, if the intervention the respondent requires can be provided in Kununurra, that was the better option.[143]

   [143] ts 40.

6. If the respondent were to be released, Dr Bannister recommended a supervision order of at least 3 years would be required.[144]

Information indicating whether or not the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future: s 7(3)(c) HRSO Act; and

[144] ts 43.

Whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the respondent: s 7(3)(d) HRSO Act

1. As Dr Wynn Owen observed, a common feature of the respondent's offending is that has been against women, usually those with whom he has been in an intimate relationship.  It occurred in circumstances in which the respondent was intoxicated, either by alcohol or methylamphetamine, or both.  The offending occurred in the context of 'dissatisfaction with partner behaviour' or the escalation of a verbal disagreement.  While he has assaulted his victims with his fists, kicked them or put his hands around their throat, he has also used improvised weapons.  The use of attempted strangulation in 2017 and 2018 demonstrates escalation, in Dr Wynn Owen's view.

2. I accept the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen in this regard, and find that there is such a pattern of offending behaviour by the respondent. 

3. In my view, the respondent has a propensity, as that term was defined by Murray AJA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR,[145] to commit serious offences in the future, at least as long as his treatment needs, particularly in relation to his emotional dysregulation, remain outstanding, and while he relies on poorly defined strategies to resist relapse into substance use.

The risk that, if the respondent were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence: s 7(3)(h) HRSO Act

[145] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 198 A Crim R 149 [70].

1. In my view, the opinions of Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister as to the respondent constituting a high risk of committing a serious offence unless subject to a restriction order are based on and themselves constitute acceptable and cogent evidence, and I accept those opinions.

2. I am cognisant of both Dr Wynn Owen's and Dr Bannister's reservations in expressing an opinion as to the risk of the respondent specifically committing a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the HRSO Act, as opposed to his risk of committing a violent offence, and consider those reservations to be valid.

3. However, in my view, an assessment of the respondent's offending, including with the more recent use of attempted strangulation, and the absence of any significant treatment gains despite intensive programmatic intervention, compels a conclusion that the respondent does pose a significant risk of committing a 'serious offence' if not subject to restriction. 

Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? 

1. The respondent conceded that he is a high risk serious offender.[146]  Notwithstanding his concession, it is necessary that I be satisfied to the required standard that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.

   [146] ts 20 - 21.

2. I have already outlined that, in my view, the respondent poses a significant, if not high, risk, of committing a serious violent offence if released without being subject to restriction. 

3. Following his previous releases from custody, the respondent has quickly returned to old intimate relationships or become involved in new ones.  He has rarely been without a partner.  At the same time, he has rapidly re‑engaged in substance misuse.  In circumstances in which he has not addressed his emotional dysregulation, and appears to consider that his will alone will be sufficient to enable him to abstain from substance abuse, the likelihood of him violently reoffending on release is, in my view, very high.  The likelihood of him reoffending by way of a serious offence is less well‑defined, but remains significant.  In this regard, the fact that the difference in the extent of the injury involved in a 'serious' offence as opposed to an offence which is not a 'serious' offence can be minimal should not be disregarded.

4. The type of the offence is likely to be a violent offence causing serious injury to an intimate partner.  It will likely involve an improvised weapon, and be exacerbated by inhibition due to intoxication.  The risk of severe, or even fatal, injury is substantial, particularly having regard to the fact that the respondent has more recently attempted strangulation in the course of the offending. 

5. I must have regard to the consequences of making a finding of unacceptable risk.  The respondent has already served his sentence.  Even if he is released on a supervision order, such an order is extremely onerous, and involves substantial restriction of a person's movement, social interaction and privacy.  While an order is not intended to be punitive, the number and extent of the conditions necessary often tend to have that effect. 

6. Notwithstanding those consequences, I am satisfied, to a high degree of probability, that the risk the respondent poses, and the likelihood of that risk eventuating, warrant a finding that, in the absence of restriction, that risk is an unacceptable one.  It follows in this case that I am satisfied, also to that high degree, that a restriction order is necessary to provide adequate protection to the community against that unacceptable risk. 

7. Accordingly, I am satisfied, on the basis of acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, that the respondent is a high risk serious offender.

Continuing Detention or Supervision Order? 

1. The State does not accept that a supervision order will adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk posed by the respondent.  On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that a supervision order will be adequate to protect the community against that risk. 

2. The respondent intends, if permitted, to reside in Kununurra.  Ms Serrano has indicated in her report that the respondent can be effectively monitored and supervised if he were to do so.  Ms Serrano also indicated that the respondent can engage in individual psychological intervention with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team by videoconference from Kununurra.  While this is a valid alternative to the provision of face‑to‑face services, it does depend on a greater level of engagement on the part of the respondent and, as noted, Dr Wynn Owen in particular considers it to be far less effective.

3. In relation to accommodation, the only realistic option in Kununurra involves the respondent residing with his sister's partner.  The respondent's sister is, on the most recent information, presently in residential rehabilitation, but usually resides at the premises.  The respondent's brother‑in‑law is 'long-term sober' and is reported to have pro‑social values and to be an active member of the community, being involved with a number of Aboriginal organisations.  He has indicated a willingness to assist the respondent to gain employment. 

4. Kununurra Adult Community Corrections have expressed reservations as to the respondent's brother‑in‑law's awareness of the respondent's offending, the possible use of alcohol and substances by others at the address, and visitors to the home.  A Desktop Spatial Analysis of the premises by WA Police notes police attendance in the last 12 months for family violence issues, involving the respondent's brother‑in‑law and his partner.  It noted the proximity of known drug‑related activity, and a number of licensed premises within 2km of the property. 

5. If that accommodation were considered unsuitable, there is, realistically, no other accommodation available in the short to medium term.  While the level of support and services in Perth might be better than Kununurra, and even significantly so, it is moot if the lack of accommodation means that the respondent cannot be released at all.  While the Kununurra option is not ideal, that is not the test.  I must be satisfied that the community will be adequately protected. 

6. On the basis of the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that the combination of supervision, available treatment, and strict conditions which can be made part of a supervision order will be sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection to the community.  In particular, drug and alcohol monitoring, reporting and monitoring of relationships, GPS monitoring and a curfew will all provide sufficient structure, control and supervision.  These conditions will provide the authorities with the ability to detect risk factors, such as being in a relationship and substance use.  They will also enable the authorities to detect any deterioration in the respondent's compliance, and thus identify any increased risk on his part.  Further, with individual psychological counselling to address the respondent's outstanding treatment needs, it is to be hoped that the respondent's support from prosocial community members, and his interaction with family will provide a sound reintegration process. 

7. On this basis, I am satisfied that a continuing detention order is not necessary to ensure an adequate level of protection of the community. 

Will the respondent substantially comply with the standard conditions?

1. I must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.  Those standard conditions are those set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act. 

2. The respondent has expressed a willingness to comply with the general conditions of a supervision order.  He acknowledged he would find it difficult to comply with conditions requiring abstinence from drug and alcohol use, but accepted the need to do so. 

3. The respondent's previous compliance with community supervision has been poor.  However, caution is required when assessing the likelihood of him complying with the standard conditions of a supervision order based on his past performance, when the level of monitoring, supervision and support involved with a supervision order is of a wholly different nature to any order to which the respondent has previously been subject. 

4. It is to be expected that the respondent will find the level of restriction imposed by the supervision order extremely challenging, particularly initially.  However, the requirement is that I be satisfied that the respondent will 'substantially' comply with the standard obligations.  On the basis of the evidence before me, he is motivated to do so, and, importantly, has the capacity to do so.  While his motivation is, at this stage, extrinsic rather than intrinsic, the level of supervision and support to be applied takes that into account. 

5. The respondent has accepted that he will need to abstain from substances, including alcohol, and he will be closely monitored in this regard, thus removing one of the primary triggers for his offending and lack of compliance in the past.  Obviously, any breach of these conditions is likely to trigger prompt action by his supervisors.  In the interim, the individual psychological counselling is intended to assist him to manage the emotional dysregulation which is the other primary feature of his previous offending. 

6. In light of these matters, I am satisfied that the respondent has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. 

7. In my view, the appropriate term of the order is three years, and the appropriate conditions are set out in Schedule A to these reasons. 

SCHEDULE A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SO 18 of 2022

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA  Applicant

-and-

ALBERT JOHN MEEHAN  Respondent

_________________________________________________________________________

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER
7 JUNE 2023

_________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Act, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of three years from 5 July 2023, not being a date not earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions:

You, ALBERT JOHN MEEHAN, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT

1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the Kununurra Adult Community Corrections Centre (Kimberley) at Level 1/39 State Government Offices, Corner Konkerberry Drive and Messmate Way Kununurra, Western Australia (WA) within 48 hours of this Order being issued and advise the officer of your current name and address.

1. Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by that CCO.

2. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens.

3. Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the Act).

4. Not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO.

5. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order.

6. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the Act.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence

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

Employment (paid or unpaid), volunteering, education or training

1. Not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO.

Attendance at programs or treatment

1. Attend appointments, receive visits from, consult and engage with any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.

1. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO.

1. Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of any treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re­offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Corrective Services.

Reporting to WA Police

1. Report to WA Police at times and at locations as directed by a CCO or WA Police.

1. 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 to search your person. and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the Order.

1. Remain at your residence and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search under condition 14 of this Order.

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

1. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information.

Restrictions on contact with Victims

1. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice.

1. 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.

1. Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.

Criminal conduct

1. 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.

1. 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

1. Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the Act, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.

1. When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or verge of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew.

1. 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.

Prevention of high-risk situations

1. Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations if and as directed by the CCO and present this diary to the CCO and Police Officer upon request.

1. Not to remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by alcohol and/or prohibited drug, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO.

1. Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place or exit the person with the prohibited drugs.

1. Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol.

1. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.

1. Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 29.

1. Not go or remain at any licensed premises unless (with the exception of cafés or restaurants) 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.

1. 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.

1. As and when directed by your CCO, make full or part disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence a friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer.

2. Advise a CCO of every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or information, possessed or used by you, whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device.

3. Not allow any person other than a CCO or WA Police access to any computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device referred to in condition 34, without prior approval of the CCO.

4. Enable device locking or password access of your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic devices; Not provide or disclose such passwords or other means used to access any computer, telecommunications and/or electronic device referred to in condition 35, or any online accounts, to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer.

5. Upon request, permit a CCO or WA Police at any location nominated by them, to access any computer, telecommunication and/or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device related activities, and provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords or any other means used to unlock or access the device; Should any other entity be required to access a device for instances such as technical advice, approval must be sought in advance from a CCO.

6. Not delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, any data including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS), search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device, whether or not the device is capable of connecting to the internet, without the approval in advance by a CCO or WA Police.

_______________________________

THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

AT

Associate to the Honourable Justice Forrester

7 JUNE 2023