The State of Western Australia v Mills - [2022] WASC 224

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MILLS [2022] WASC 224
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   24 JUNE 2022 & 4 JULY 2022
DELIVERED          :   4 JULY 2022
PUBLISHED           :   5 JULY 2022
FILE NO/S:   SO 8 of 2022
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND

DWAINE ANTHONY MILLS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law – High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) – Preliminary hearing – Whether reasonable grounds for belief that restriction order might be made – Whether interim detention order is desirable – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 3, s 30, s 31, s 35(1), s 46(1), s 58(2)(c)
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 66

Result:

Application for interim supervision order adjourned

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	D S McDonnell
Respondent	:	K E Turtley-Chappel

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Respondent	:	AP Legal

Cases referred to in decision:

The State of Western Australia v Mills [2011] WASCSR 19
The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405
The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65

QUINLAN CJ:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 4 July 2022 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

On 2 May 2022, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of Mr Dwaine Anthony Mills under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act).
Mr Mills is currently a sentenced prisoner. He is due to be released on 17 July 2022.
The preliminary hearing of the application came before me on 24 June 2022.
At the hearing on 24 June 2022, Mr Mills conceded there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Court might find that Mr Mills is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the Act (see s 46(1) of the Act). I accepted that concession and made programming orders for the hearing of the restriction order application on 8 March 2023, including orders that Mr Mills undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a qualified psychologist for the purposes of preparing reports.
On 24 June 2022, the State also advised that it sought an order that Mr Mills be subject to an interim supervision order under the Act until the final determination of the restriction order application.
At the time of the hearing on 24 June 2022 however, the Prisoners Review Board was yet to determine whether to order that Mr Mills be subject to a post‑sentence supervision order under the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) upon his release. Mr Mills sought an adjournment of the State's application for an interim supervision order until after the Prisoners Review Board had made its determination. The State consented to that adjournment and the matter was adjourned to today.
On 29 June 2022 the Prisoners Review Board ordered that Mr Mills be subject to a post‑sentence supervision order upon his release.
Mr Mills submitted that having regard to the protection and supervision provided by the post‑sentence supervision order, it was not necessary or desirable for the protection of the community that an interim supervision order is made at this time. I accept that submission and will therefore adjourn the State's application for an interim supervision order to 19 August 2022 at which time Mr Mills' compliance with the post‑sentence supervision order will be reviewed.
My reasons for making that order, and for being satisfied on 24 June 2022 that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the Court might find that Mr Mills is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the Act, are as follows.

The law

Pursuant to s 46 of the Act, the main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to decide whether the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Court might find that Mr Mills is a high risk serious offender.
A 'high risk serious offender' is a person in relation to whom the Court is satisfied by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in order to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.
A 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act, relevantly, includes acts of aggravated armed robbery.
I do not have to be satisfied that a restriction order will be made. It is sufficient if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an order might be made. To say that something might occur, is to say that it is possible, and belief is an inclination of mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting, a proposition. For there to be reasonable grounds for belief requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405 [20] ‑ [21] (Allanson J); The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65 [16] (Quinlan CJ).

Is Mr Mills under a custodial sentence?

An initial issue arises as to whether Mr Mills is a serious offender under custodial sentence.
Under s 35(1) of the Act, the State may apply for a restriction order in relation to a serious offender under custodial sentence who is not a serious offender under restriction.
Under s 3 of the Act, a 'serious offender under custodial sentence' includes a person who is under a custodial sentence for offences other than a serious offence, and has been under that sentence at all times since being discharged from a custodial sentence for a serious offence.
Mr Mills is currently serving a custodial sentence for offences that are not serious offences under the Act. Those offences are: assault occasioning bodily harm; endangering the life, health or safety of a person; stealing; and threats to injure, endanger or harm any person.
Those offences were committed on 19 February 2017, when Mr Mills was on parole for serious offences, being two counts of aggravated armed robbery. His parole was cancelled. In any event s 66 of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) provides a person sentenced to imprisonment who is released under a parole order remains subject to that sentence until discharged from it. The sentence for the serious offences expired on 18 June 2018.
He was sentenced for the non‑serious offences on 22 March 2018 and the sentence was backdated to commence on 1 May 2017. He is currently serving that sentence and has been serving it at all times since being discharged from the sentence for the serious offences.
I am therefore satisfied Mr Mills falls within the definition of a serious offender under custodial sentence within the meaning of s 35 of the Act.

The evidence

The evidence before me consisted of the following.
The State relied upon the affidavit of Mr Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022 which contains Mr Mills' criminal history dating back to 1992, and several reports in relation to him.
The State also relies upon an affidavit of Ms Nadine Minnock, affirmed on 17 May 2022, which relates to Mr Mills' proposed accommodation upon release.
Mr Mills also adduced evidence for the purpose of the preliminary hearing. Mr Mills affirmed an affidavit on 15 June 2022, annexing a number of documents, which he relied upon to show that he had 'never stopped trying to rehabilitate [himself]'.[2] Those documents include various documents indicating his seeking out any available rehabilitative programs, an addiction recovery process program report, a program completion report and certificates of attainment of training program units in pursuit of registered training certifications.
[2] Affidavit of Dwaine Anthony Mills affirmed 15 June 2022, 4.
In a handwritten submission to the Prisoners Review Board attached to his affidavit, Mr Mills said with admirable frankness 'my past history I acknowledge gives the Board – or anyone else for that matter – justification to interpret that I may continue to be a high risk of re-offending'.[3]
[3] Affidavit of Dwaine Anthony Mills affirmed 15 June 2022, 13 (Letter to Parole Board with an application for review of parole dated 9 January 2022, with covering letter dated 10 January 2022).
Mr Mills also relied on the affidavits of Mr Dylan Geoffrey Brown affirmed on 15 June 2022 and his mother, affirmed on 15 June 2022. Those affidavits relate to his proposed accommodation, family supports and employment prospects upon release.
Mr Mills has an extensive criminal record dating back to 1992, when he was still a child.
Mr Mills is now 42 years of age. He has no history of mental illness but a long history of substance abuse. In addition, he was diagnosed as a child with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Scotopic Sensitivity, which is a condition which affects a person's ability to clearly see the written word when subject to artificial light conditions.[4]
[4] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 258 (Pre-Sentence Report dated 15 January 2007).
Mr Mills experienced extreme difficulties in school, most likely as a result of his diagnosed ADD and Scotopic Sensitivity.[5] These circumstances resulted in Mr Mills' lack of reading and writing skills which affect other areas of his life.[6]
[5] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 258 (Pre-Sentence Report dated 15 January 2007).
[6] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 258 (Pre-Sentence Report dated 15 January 2007).
Mr Mills also had a turbulent upbringing. His mother and father separated when he was three years old, as a result of his father's violence towards his mother. He and his brother later reconnected with their biological father, however he was murdered in 1997. Mr Mills has three half siblings, with whom he enjoys a relationship as he does with his mother.[7] He has a 15‑year‑old daughter, who now resides with his mother.[8]
[7] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 54 (The State of Western Australia v Mills [2011] WASCSR 19).
[8] Affidavit of Nadine Minnock affirmed 17 May 2022, 1.
The serious offences providing the basis for the State's application are two counts aggravated armed robbery that Mr Mills committed on 22 November 2010 together with other offences. Mr Mills was 30 years old at the time.
The facts of that offending were as follows. On 8 March 2010, Mr Mills was in the company of a co‑offender. Both arrived at the victims' home at about 8.30 pm, forced open the front door by kicking in and charged into the front lounge room brandishing a replica handgun. Mr Mills was wearing a balaclava to conceal his face. Inside the house, they encountered a 60‑year‑old man and a 59‑year‑old woman watching television. Mr Mills ordered them to lie on the floor and pointed the replica gun at them. Another victim, a 32‑year‑old female, came into the room and Mr Mills pointed the gun at her. Mr Mills and the co‑offender demanded money from the victims. Mr Mills followed the third victim as she went to get her 7‑year‑old daughter from the bedroom, while holding the replica handgun to the third victim's head.[9]
[9] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 54 (The State of Western Australia v Mills [2011] WASCSR 19 [3]).
Upon returning to the lounge room, Mr Mills held the gun to the male victim and demanded money and the safe. The male victim replied that there was no safe. Mr Mills and the co‑offender then demanded the victims hand over other items, including handbags and car keys. Mr Mills and the co‑offender then left the house, taking with them two handbags, one of which Mr Mills knew to contain the victim's heart medication. Mr Mills also drove the car from the garage of the house. It was an aggravating factor that the 7‑year‑old girl witnessed the handgun being pointed at her family members.[10]
[10] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 54 (The State of Western Australia v Mills [2011] WASCSR 19 [4]).
Mr Mills pleaded guilty to these offences and was sentenced to a total of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment.
Mr Mills was released to parole on those offences and by all accounts he initially did well on parole and was taking steps towards his rehabilitation.
On 19 February 2017 however, Mr Mills committed the offences for which he is currently serving a sentence of 4 years imprisonment: assault occasioning bodily harm; endanger life, health or safety of a person; stealing; and threats to injure, endanger or harm any person. While those offences were not serious offences within the meaning of the Act, the circumstances of the offending provides some insight into the risks of future offending that Mr Mills may pose.
On that day, Mr Mills had accompanied a co‑offender to a train station where the co‑offender had arranged to meet another person for the purposes of a drug deal. In fact, it was the co‑offender's purpose to steal money from the other person. Mr Mills was not initially aware of the co‑offender's other purpose.
When they arrived, the co‑offender proceeded with his plans to steal the money. The co‑offender threatened the victim. Mr Mills decided to assist by pretending to be armed with a handgun, what was in fact a spanner. Mr Mills' co‑offender attacked the victim and there was a struggle.
Mr Mills joined the attack and he and the co‑offender punched and kicked the victim. Mr Mills in particular struck the victim twice in the head with the spanner and caused a 4 cm laceration above his eyebrow. Later in the altercation, Mr Mills drove his car at the victim and his co‑offender while they were wrestling on the ground. While his intention was to have the victim let go of his co‑offender, in doing so the front of the car struck the head of the victim.
Turning then to Mr Mills' other antecedents.
As I have indicated, he has a long history of polysubstance abuse which includes opiates, amphetamines and cannabis.[11]
[11] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 260 (Pre-Sentence Report dated 15 January 2007).
Mr Mills has undertaken a number of programs with varying success. He completed, for example, the Violent Offender Treatment Program in 2016 and received mostly positive feedback, although he reoffended after being released on parole later that year.[12]
[12] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 290 (Violent Offender Treatment Program (VOTP) Completion Report, dated 09 August 2016).
In 2017, Mr Mills was enrolled to complete the Think First Program. However, he attended only 13 out of the scheduled 30 sessions. Some of his absences were due to legitimate reasons such as legal and social visits. For those that he did attend, Mr Mills was punctual and completed all of the set exercises. The report shows that he was an active, willing participant, sharing his own personal examples and listening to others while they described their experiences and feelings.[13]
[13] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 303 (Program Non-Completion Report, dated 23 August 2017).
During the program, Mr Mills made several gains. For example, he was able to identify a pattern of peer pressure and illegal drugs contributing towards his offending.[14] On 11 August 2017, Mr Mills approached the Think First facilitators and requested to leave the program due to family issues which had intensified upon the release of his brother from prison that week. The facilitators attempted to persuade Mr Mills to remain in the program. Mr Mills said he could not concentrate and needed to sort things out at home, but requested to be considered for inclusion in the next Think First program in the hopes that his family issues might have resolved by then.[15]
[14] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 304 (Program Non-Completion Report, dated 23 August 2017).
[15] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 305 (Program Non-Completion Report, dated 23 August 2017).
Mr Mills was enrolled to complete the same program in May 2019. That course was cancelled due to unforeseen operational requirements. Similar feedback to his first Think First program attendance was provided on the sessions that were attended (being a punctual, active participant, comfortable in the group).[16]
[16] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 305 (Program Non-Completion Report, dated 12 September 2019).
It is apparent from Mr Mills own affidavit that he has endeavoured to attempt to engage in further programs while he has been in prison. He self-referred to the Department's Solid Steps Alcohol and Other Drugs Recovery program, which application was unsuccessful. He was advised of the unsuccessful application on 20 July 2021.
Very shortly thereafter, he was assessed to participate in a program with the Whitehaven Clinic, an addiction treatment and recovery centre. The report from that clinic dated 23 November 2021 describes the program at the commencement in the following terms:[17]
Our program director … conducted an initial assessment with Dwayne Mills at Casuarina Prison on 4th August 2021 as he had requested participation in the Whitehaven Clinic's Addition Recovery Process Program.
This is an individualised one-on-one program paid for by participants therefore indicating a strong desire to change drug using behaviours.
Dwayne has voluntarily completed 13 one-on-one counselling sessions. Counselling sessions are 90 minutes in duration, completing a total of 19.5 hours one-on-one counselling to date.
[17] Affidavit of Dwaine Anthony Mills affirmed 15 June 2022, 39 (Whitehaven Parole Application Support Report – Addiction Recovery Process Program, dated 23 November 2021).
The report from the Whitehaven Clinic appears to be, on the material provided to me, the first psychological report in relation to Mr Mills and his substance use. In a detailed 13-page report, Mr Mills' progress in that program is discussed and concludes with the following summary:[18]
The work that Dwayne has done with me shows that he is extremely capable of changing his future direction should he choose. He has demonstrated considerable insight into his past action and why he does what he does. He is aware of his psychologically based fears and triggers and understands the benefits of staying emotionally and mentally healthy.
Since initial engagement I have seen excellent progress in Dwayne's growth and capacity for change. One of the biggest realisations for Dwayne was understanding the underlying cause of his drug use and the impact of anxiety and anger on his mental well-being – and working through this to develop strategies to deal with triggers on a day-to-day basis.
Dwayne has gained a significant breakthrough in understanding in how his suppressed anger and emotions contributes to his drug use. This self-awareness combined with an ongoing focus on maintaining emotional and mental healthiness, will contribute to provide a solid platform from which to make the necessary changes to improve his quality of life in a sustainable way without resorting to drug use.
[18] Affidavit of Dwaine Anthony Mills affirmed 15 June 2022, 49 (Whitehaven Parole Application Support Report – Addiction Recovery Process Program, dated 23 November 2021).
As I indicated earlier, that program was a self-referred program which is required to be paid for by the participants.
Following that report, Mr Mills engaged with ReSet towards the end of the program with Whitehaven. The report from the ReSet case worker dated 26 February 2021 stated that:[19]
Mr Dwayne Mills was referred to the ReSet program on 4 October 2020 and has engaged in the program from 4 November 2020. Since the engagement with ReSet we have met with Mr Dwayne Mills on eight occasions on a fortnightly basis. During this time Mr Dwayne Mills exhibited positive and eager behaviour. Mr Dwayne Mills was punctual, engaging in support plan, reflective of past offending, reflective of current circumstances in custody and future with his family.
Mr Dwayne Mills has showed a mature outlook that has enabled a growing insight into offending and plans to not re-offend. Mr Dwayne Mills has stated he looks forward to gaining meaningful employment and has gained many qualifications as well as reuniting with his family.
Mr Dwayne Mills has requested ReSet support in various aspects of his life to assist him to re-integrate back into the community and achieve his support plan goals.
[19] Affidavit of Dwaine Anthony Mills affirmed 15 June 2022, 57 (ReSet Program Letter to Prisoners Review Board, dated 26 February 2021).

Mr Mills has been at Casuarina Prison since 1 April 2017 and has been rated medium security since September 2020. He has been employed as the regethermic cook for his unit since November 2019 and is considered an above average worker. He has been described as polite and respectful, however on occasion has been reported to be abusive and belligerent. He has received a number of prison charges between 31 May 2017 and 10 November 2020, during which time he has provided some positive results to illicit substances including one in 2020.[20] The material however suggests, and counsel have confirmed, that there is no evidence of positive use of drugs since 2020. Accordingly, for the past 18 months Mr Mills appears to have been drug-free.
[20] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 323 (Parole Assessment Report, dated 12 April 2021).
Mr Mills proposes to reside with his mother upon his release, where his daughter also resides. His mother and the residence were assessed by a Community Corrections Officer on 9 April 2021 and deemed suitable.[21] Mr Mills is supported in the community by other family members who provided support letters attached to his affidavit, and two of his family members affirmed affidavits in support of him.
[21] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 324 (Parole Assessment Report, dated 12 April 2021).
In 2021, Mr Mills had proposed employment with a bricklayer and had a person confirm willingness to employ him.[22] It is unclear whether that remains the case, and Mr Mills' brother stated in his affidavit that his immediate intention is to utilise his positive professional relationships to assist Mr Mills in obtaining employment.[23] Mr Mills' mother has also been strongly supportive of him, as has his brother.
[22] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 325 (Parole Assessment Report, dated 12 April 2021).
[23] Respondent's Submissions (Affidavit of Dylan Geoffrey Brown affirmed on 15 June 2022).
Turning to my assessment.

Assessment

As noted above, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a court might find Mr Mills to be a high risk serious offender.
My reasons for that conclusion can be briefly stated.
Mr Mills has a significant history of violent offending and has most recently committed serious offences within the meaning of the Act in 2010.
While that is some time ago, by Mr Mills' own account, his past offending supports the reasonable belief that he may continue to be a high risk of re-offending. That belief, based on the material before me, is very much influenced by two matters: substance abuse and anti‑social peers. Those are both matters that have been addressed very positively in recent times.
What will now be important is for an assessment to be made as to his capacity to remain substance‑use free in the community and to avoid the influence of anti-social peers. While the indications are very positive, Mr Mills' relapse into reoffending on the last occasion he was in parole are such that in my view there are reasonable grounds to believe that a court might find that he is a high risk serious offender. It was for that reason that I made orders for the hearing of the restriction order application.
Turning then to the application for an interim supervision order.

Interim supervision order

As I indicated, the State submits that it is desirable that I should make such an order which would supersede the post‑sentence supervision order that Mr Mills will be subject.
The post‑sentence supervision order which was imposed by the Prisoners Review Board on 29 June 2022 contains conditions that Mr Mills is:
(a)to report to adult community corrections within 72 hours of his release;
(b)to comply with the lawful orders of any community corrections officer;
(c)to have no direct or indirect contact with the victim;
(d)to have no direct or indirect contact with his co-offender;
(e)not to use or be in possession of any illicit drugs;
(f)to attend random urinalysis for all illicit substances as directed by the community corrections officer and provide a valid sample;
(g)to attend programs and counselling as directed;
(h)not to associate with nominees, associates or members of outlaw motorcycle gangs;
(i)not to possess any firearm, ammunition, offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article without appropriate licences;
(j)to advise his community corrections officer of his residential address and not to change that address without the prior approval of the community corrections officer; and
(k)not to leave the State of Western Australia without the prior approval of the community corrections officer.
As I have indicated, Mr Mills proposes to live with his mother at her home in a regional Western Australian location.
While the interim supervision order proposed by the State would impose some additional restrictions on Mr Mills, most of the proposed conditions that are designed to ensure the protection of the community are presently addressed by the post‑sentence supervision order.
The State identified two principal matters that it submits distinguish the proposed interim supervision order and the post‑sentence supervision order (in addition to the greater capacity for supervision by the Western Australian police).
The two matters are the requirement that Mr Mills be subject to electronic monitoring and the second is that he be subject to a curfew.
In relation to the first matter, electronic monitoring, the State submits that electronic monitoring remains an important and useful tool in relation to the supervision of offenders. Mr Mills' counsel submitted that in the circumstances, electronic monitoring of Mr Mills was not necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. She referred to, and relied upon, a report from the senior community corrections officer dated April 2021 to the effect that 'there does not appear to be an identifiable need for Mr Mills to be subject to the global positioning system or to electronic monitoring'.[24] In that regard, it is not suggested that there are particular areas or zones that might give rise to a risk of re-offending in relation to which Mr Mills should be excluded. Conditions of that type are more relevant, for example, to offenders who present a risk of sexual offending where it is necessary that the offender be excluded from certain areas such as schools or entertainment precincts. There is nothing to suggest that those considerations apply to Mr Mills. As I have indicated, his offending in the past has generally been associated with drug use and anti-social peers. The conditions of the post‑sentence supervision order specifically address those circumstances.
[24] Affidavit of Daniel Sean McDonnell affirmed on 2 May 2022, 325 (Parole Assessment Report, dated 12 April 2021).
While I accept that electronic monitoring may also provide an additional means of surveillance of any offender under community supervision, at present I do not consider that that matter is necessary or desirable in Mr Mills' case.
The second matter raised by the State was the condition for a curfew. The State indicated that a curfew may have some benefit as Mr Mills' past most recent offending both occurred at night. It is to be remembered that those offences were committed in 2010 and 2017. Whilst they do have the commonality of being committed at night, there does not appear to be a causative relationship between those matters save that the offences committed in 2010 did involve an entry into a home. The offences nevertheless were offences which again were the result of anti-social peers and drug use.
In the circumstances, I cannot conclude on the available material that a curfew is an important part of enabling Mr Mills to avoid the two matters which appear to reflect so significantly on his risk.
I am also influenced by the fact that in my assessment, and according to the evidence that has been filed, one of the critical matters for Mr Mills' rehabilitation and for the protection of the community will be for him to obtain employment. Obtaining employment and continuing his strong family relationships are, on the material available to me, the most important matters to ensuring that Mr Mills remains offence free and that the community is protected. In the absence of further evidence as to the employment that Mr Mills may be able to obtain, in my view, it is appropriate that conditions not be in place that might impede the kind of employment he might obtain without a clear benefit from such a condition being demonstrated.
For those reasons, I am not satisfied that it is desirable to make an interim supervision order at this time given the conditions under which Mr Mills is currently subject pursuant to the post-sentence supervision order.
There is another reason for that which is that were I to make an interim supervision order, Mr Mills' post-sentence supervision order would be cancelled. While I cannot predict the outcome of the State's restriction order application, in the event that the requirements of s 7of the Act are not satisfied and a restriction order not made, there would remain no remaining supervision on Mr Mills. That is an outcome to be avoided.
Nevertheless, I accept that, depending upon how Mr Mills performs under the post‑sentence supervision order, it may be necessary that the degree of supervision that he is subject should increase. In that regard it is of significance that the imposition of an interim supervision order under the Act can be imposed by the Court at any time in the propending proceedings.
For this reason, in order to ensure adequate protection of the community, I will not dismiss the application for an interim supervision order but will adjourn the application so that it remains within the control of the Court.
In that regard, if the interim supervision order is adjourned to a date to be fixed, I am satisfied that it provides sufficient notice to Mr Mills, and in the event that there was evidence to suggest that it was desirable to impose further restrictions, it would be open to the Court to make an interim supervision order even in his absence.
For those reasons, in addition to the orders sought by the State on the restriction order application which I made on 24 June 2022, I make an order today that the State's application for an interim supervision order be adjourned to 19 August 2022 at which time the next preliminary hearing day for high risk serious offender matters is heard.
I also direct Mr Mills to attend the examinations by the two qualified experts on the dates and times as directed by his community corrections officer under the post‑sentence supervision order made on 29 June 2022.
I direct Mr Mills to attend court on 19 August 2022.
Finally, I direct the State to provide the Court and Mr Mills with a report regarding his compliance with the post‑sentence supervision order prior to the hearing on 19 August 2022.

I certify that the preceding paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
SC
Associate to the Honourable Chief Justice Quinlan
5 JULY 2022