The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] - [2024] WASC 348

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MILLS [No 4] [2024] WASC 348
CORAM:   MUSIKANTH J
HEARD:   27 MAY & 2 AUGUST 2024
FINAL SUBMISSIONS FILED 12 AUGUST 2024

DELIVERED          :   25 SEPTEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   SO 8 of 2022
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
DWAYNE ANTHONY MILLS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Contravention proceedings - Application under s 53 and s 55(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Whether likely to be substantial compliance with standard conditions of supervision order - Supervision order rescinded - Continuing detention order made

Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 53, s 55

Result:

Supervision order rescinded and continuing detention order made

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr D S McDonnell
Respondent	:	Mr D J McKenzie

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Respondent	:	David McKenzie Legal Pty Ltd

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

Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4
Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 45 FLR 430; (1978) 22 ALR 128
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153
The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219
The State of Western Australia v De-Abreu [No 2] [2024] WASC 303
The State of Western Australia v Decke [No 6] [2024] WASC 339
The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351
The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126
The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 3] [2024] WASC 18
Trustees of the Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins [2006] HCA 6; (2006) 227 CLR 278

MUSIKANTH J:

On 26 April 2023, Vandongen J (as his Honour then was) found the respondent to be a high risk serious offender pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act).[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126.
On the same day, the respondent was made subject to a 5-year supervision order containing some 37 conditions.[2]
[2] The terms of the supervision order are reflected at [121] of his Honour's decision.
On 24 January 2024, the State commenced proceedings pursuant to s 53 of the Act alleging the respondent contravened the supervision order on numerous occasions.
On 25 January 2024, Derrick J made orders pursuant to s 56(2)(b) of the Act that the respondent be detained in custody pending final determination of the proceedings.
The issues I must decide are:
(a)Whether the respondent has contravened the supervision order.[3]
(b)If so, whether the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order (as made, affirmed, or amended).[4]
[3] Act s 55(1).
[4] Act s 29, s 55(1)(b).
For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied as to the first matter but not as to the second.
Accordingly, I rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order against the respondent.[5]
[5] Act s 55(1)(a).

Contravention offences, uncharged contraventions

In support of its application, the State alleges the respondent engaged in a total of 17 breaches of the supervision order (contravention offences).
The respondent has been charged with the 17 contravention offences. He has pleaded guilty and been sentenced with respect to 11 of them.
Proceedings relating to the remaining six contravention offences await finalisation.
The respondent does not dispute he contravened the supervision order in any of the respects relied upon by the State, and the State's evidence in this regard was unchallenged.
The State also adduced evidence that the respondent attracted many 'non-compliance warnings' after engaging in conduct which likely involved further breaches of the supervision order but which did not lead to formal charges (uncharged contraventions).
This evidence too was unchallenged.
Details of the contravention offences and uncharged contraventions are reflected in the Annexure to these reasons.[6]
[6] The information in the Annexure is drawn from the Affidavit of Roxanne Stockton affirmed 25 January 2024 and annexures thereto.

Statutory framework

If an offender is charged with contravening a supervision order,[7] the State may make an application under s 53 of the Act.
[7] Act s 80(1).
If the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender has contravened a condition of the supervision order, the court must, pursuant to s 55(1), either:
(a)amend, extend, or affirm the supervision order subject to s 29;[8] or
(b)rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order.[9]
[8] Act s 55(1)(b), (c).
[9] Act s 55(1)(a).
However, the court may not make, amend, or affirm a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender: s 29(2).
The standard conditions are set out in s 30(2) of the Act.
Relevantly, the standard conditions include the offender reporting to and receiving visits from a community corrections officer (CCO), notifying the CCO of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least two days before the change happens, and complying with any reasonable direction of the CCO.
The standard conditions also include the offender being subject to electronic monitoring, not leaving Western Australia, and not committing a serious offence.

Evidence adduced by the State

In support of the contravention application, the State tendered a three-volume book of materials.
The book included:
(a)the respondent's criminal record;
(b)an affidavit of Roxanne Stockton affirmed 25 January 2024 (Stockton affidavit);
(c)various records prepared by the Department of Justice in relation to the respondent's time in custody, including his charge history, board secretariat decision slips, incident reports, and substance use test results;
(d)prosecution notices and statements of material facts relating to the contravention convictions, and related sentencing hearing transcripts; and
(e)several reports prepared pursuant to s 74 and s 75 of the Act.
Two reports in the book of materials had been prepared for the purposes of the restriction proceedings before Vandongen J:
(a)a report by Professor Natalie Pyszora, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 22 January 2023; and
(b)a report by Ms Julie Hasson, a consultant forensic psychologist, dated 17 January 2023.[10]
[10] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126 [20(d)] and [20(e)], respectively.
The State also led oral evidence from two witnesses at the hearing before me:
(a)Ms Hasson, who provided a further report dated 14 May 2024 for the purposes of the contravention proceedings (Hasson report);[11] and
(b)Ms Shae Hazzard, a team leader with the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU) and co-endorsee, with Jennine Merigan and Tara Jones, of a report dated 25 July 2024 (Merigan report).
[11] Psychological risk assessment dated 14 May 2024 (Hasson report).
No objection was taken to any of the State's evidence.

Assessment of evidence

Evidence before Vandongen J

The respondent is a 44-year-old man.
The respondent's antecedents including his criminal history are set out in the decision of Vandongen J in The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2],[12] and a table listing the serious and other relevant offences committed by the respondent may be found at [44] of his Honour's decision.
[12] [2023] WASC 126 [35] - [45].
It is unnecessary in these reasons to say more about the respondent's criminal record other than to note:
(a)the respondent has a long history of violent offending dating back to when he was 12 years old; and
(b)in consequence of some of his violent offending, the respondent served numerous terms of direct imprisonment between September 1998 and 17 July 2022 (being the start date of a post-sentence supervision order made by the Prisoners Review Board in June 2022 (PSSO)).
I adopt without repeating Vandongen J's summary of aspects of the evidence of Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson, both as derived from their reports prepared for the purposes of the restriction order hearing[13] and as given at that hearing.[14]

Ms Roxanne Stockton

[13] Which, as noted above, also formed part of the materials before me.

[14] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126 [51] - [67], [75], [80] - [81], [86], [89] - [92], [102], [117].

Ms Stockton is a Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO) with the COMU.
She was the respondent's primary case manager since 4 August 2023. She deposes to details of his contravention offences and uncharged contraventions.[15]
[15] Stockton affidavit [7] - [9].
As will be seen from the Annexure, those contraventions are said to have occurred on more than 30 different occasions between 19 May 2023 and 3 January 2024 and to have involved, among other things, the respondent:
(a)failing to attend for urinalysis;
(b)failing to provide a valid urinalysis sample;
(c)using a prohibited drug namely methylamphetamine / providing a urinalysis sample positive for that drug;
(d)failing to spend a night at his approved address;
(e)failing to comply with his imposed 'curfew';
(f)failing to notify the COMU of his intention to reside at a secondary address;
(g)engaging in aggressive behaviour towards a phlebotomist (being a staff member of, or agent providing a service on behalf of, the Department of Justice); and
(h)failing to comply with lawful directions from a CCO.[16]
[16] Stockton affidavit [7] - [9].
Ms Stockton also gave unchallenged affidavit evidence that, while in the community on the supervision order, the respondent had engaged in many 'concerning behaviours' impacting the management of the risk of the respondent committing serious offences.
Those behaviours included the respondent:
(a)avoiding urinalysis (in addition to on the occasions referred to in the Annexure) and engaging in deception regarding substance misuse;
(b)using medical certificates to circumvent conditions despite the medical condition not preventing compliance;
(c)failing to contact the COMU as instructed;
(d)displaying aggressive behaviour towards COMU staff and a SCCO; and
(e)associating with a high risk serious offender.[17]
[17] Stockton affidavit [10].
In Ms Stockton's view, the respondent is likely to further contravene the supervision order due to 'ongoing concerns for the respondent's dishonesty, ongoing grooming and manipulation of supports in his life, and participation in behaviours relating to his risk scenarios'.[18]
[18] Stockton affidavit [12].
I digress to observe that Ms Stockton expressed this opinion shortly before Derrick J made the interim detention order on 25 January 2024.

Ms Julie Hasson

The sources relied upon by Ms Hasson for the purposes of preparing her report included a 2 hour 45 minute interview with the respondent.

The respondent's insight

According to Ms Hasson:
(a)the respondent adopted a 'victim stance' for much of the interview, having stated the conditions of the supervision order were never explained to him and that he did not understand the conditions;[19] and
(b)the respondent thought any breaches would result in a 'fine only' as he was accustomed to the 'greater leniency' afforded when he was subject to the PSSO.[20]
[19] Hasson report [23].
[20] Hasson report [23].
However, when shown a copy of the supervision order with his initials beside each condition, the respondent 'deflected responsibility or awareness' as to the terms of his supervision order.[21]
[21] Hasson report [23].
Ms Hasson further observed that the respondent justified and minimised his behaviour on the supervision order, externalising responsibility.[22]
[22] Hasson report [25].
According to Ms Hasson, the respondent provided numerous 'explanations, excuses and justifications' for not meeting the obligations of his order,[23] for example:
[23] Hasson report [26].
(a)testing positive to amphetamines due to passive ingestion from other people who were smoking near him;[24]
(b)working late, having an unreliable car, and not wanting to catch public transport due to anxiety and fear in public;[25]
(c)being unable to participate in a counselling session because his partner suffered a migraine and he needed to take her home;[26]
(d)being unwilling to engage in counselling with male psychologist due to past childhood sexual abuse;[27]
(e)having trouble providing urine and that his samples were diluted because he drank too much water;[28]
(f)having an injured shoulder which caused him pain when trying to provide a urine sample and groaning in pain which led the collector to believe he may have been attempting to direct attention away from using a deceptive device;[29]
(g)failing to attend urinalysis on one occasion because he was engaging with a lawyer by video and phone calls, and that he was unable to provide evidence of the meetings because his mother erased her call history and he had been unable to use his own phone due to low battery or no credit; [30]
(h)not being able to follow instructions from his SCCO to attend for urinalysis or report to a community corrections centre due to the presence of outlaw motorcycle gang members or affiliates;[31] and
(i)not realising he could be heard by the wider public when using abusive language describing the phlebotomist.[32]
[24] Hasson report [25].
[25] Hasson report [26].
[26] Hasson report [26].
[27] Hasson report [26].
[28] Hasson report [26].
[29] Hasson report [26].
[30] Hasson report [26].
[31] Hasson report [32].
[32] Hasson report [27].
Further, according to Ms Hasson the respondent:
(a)did not apologise for his comments but rather doubled down on his view that the phlebotomist behaved unfairly towards him;[33]
(b)accepted minimal accountability or personal responsibility for his use of illicit drugs, instead blaming his peer associations and external events;[34] and
(c)sought to justify his use of other people's mobile phones by stating he had insufficient credit or a flat battery, despite the importance of having a charged phone with sufficient credit to abide by various order conditions.[35]
[33] Hasson report [27].
[34] Hasson report [30].
[35] Hasson report [31].
Ms Hasson notes the respondent expressed an awareness that his use of methylamphetamine was a serious breach of the supervision order, and an understanding of the link between drug use, antisocial peers, criminal lifestyle and offending behaviour.
However, it was only with 'considerable challenging of his explanations' that the respondent was 'eventually' able to accept some responsibility for making 'several bad choices and decisions while in the community'.[36]
[36] Hasson report [30].

According to Ms Hasson, the respondent did not acknowledge behaving in an aggressive manner towards staff members including a former supervising SCCO between April and June 2023.
Ms Hasson believes this denial indicated a serious lack of self-awareness on the respondent's part and deficits in perspective taking.[37]
[37] Hasson report [27].
That said, Ms Hasson also notes the respondent's:
(a)ability to refuse to help others in a violent context showed progress in peer refusal and not wanting to behave aggressively;[38] and
(b)positivity about his accomplishments in not involving himself in other people's business and therefore avoiding further offending,[39] and the relationships he has built with his neighbours and the local community.[40]
[38] Hasson report [34].
[39] Hasson report [34].
[40] Hasson report [36].
According to Ms Hasson, the respondent espoused 'antiauthority views' towards those charged with supervising, monitoring, and managing him in the community, consistent with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.[41]
[41] Hasson report [37].
However, she observed that:
(a)challenging the respondent's views resulted in him being able to recognise and accept the involvement of the COMU and Serious Offender Management Squad in managing his risk of reoffending and in helping him remain offence free; and
(b)review of the conditions of his supervision order also allowed the respondent to understand and acknowledge the rationale for their existence and inclusion.[42]

Compliance with supervision order conditions

[42] Hasson report [37].

Ms Hasson considers the respondent's explanations in relation to his contravention offences indicate significant deficits in executive functioning and highlight problems with: communication, stress management, peer refusal skills, consequential thinking, assertiveness, independence, a lack of personal agency and/or internal locus of control.[43]
[43] Hasson report [38], [40].
She also observes the respondent is 'very dependent' on his partner and on external management techniques which subsequently restrict his behaviours. She notes that the respondent had 'requested certain exclusion zones to assist him to manage some risky situations … and a condition preventing him from consuming alcohol'.[44]
[44] Hasson report [40].
However, Ms Hasson opines that in asking for further exclusions the respondent may be setting himself up for additional confrontation and antagonism towards those tasked with ensuring he complies.[45]
[45] Hasson report [40].
According to Ms Hasson, the number and frequency of the respondent's contraventions and concerning behaviours suggest he did not take the order seriously, or did not wish (or was unable) to learn from his mistakes, or did not have the motivation or skill to make the necessary changes to abide by the supervision order.[46]
[46] Hasson report [41].
Further, it appeared to Ms Hasson that the familial and social supports available to the respondent were 'not a significant prosocial influence' on him and did not hold him to account or provide guidance on ensuring he met the supervision order conditions.[47]
[47] Hasson report [41].
Ms Hasson notes the respondent expressed a preparedness to be more willing to disclose difficulties, issues and concerns with those supervising and supporting him, and an awareness that he needs to accept the realities of the supervision order and work on shifting and changing his attitude around some of the conditions.[48]
[48] Hasson report [43].

According to Ms Hasson, the respondent expressed positive views towards engagement in counselling provided it was with a female. The respondent stated he would be more cooperative 'toward the involvement of adult community corrections in his supervision and management in the community'.[49]
[49] Hasson report [43].

Ms Hasson considers that the most significant risk factor for the respondent is a relapse into substance abuse. [50]
[50] Hasson report [44].
Ms Hasson highlights the importance of ensuring clear, firm boundaries are in place, and that the respondent has a complete understanding of any imposed supervision order.[51]

Psychological functioning and risk assessment

[51] Hasson report [44].

Ms Hasson opines that the respondent fulfils the criteria of personality disorder, substance use disorder, and possibly alcohol use disorder.[52]
[52] Hasson report [57] - [58].
Ms Hasson records the following conclusions with respect to his historical risk, clinical risk and risk management factors using the Historical-Clinical Risk Management 20 version 3 (2013): [53]
(a)historical risk factors included history of violence; antisocial behaviour; relationship problems; employment difficulties; substance abuse; personality disorder; history of problems with traumatic experiences; a poor history of treatment and/or supervision response; and the presence of violent attitudes;[54]
(b)clinical risk factors included problems with insight, instability, and treatment or supervision response;[55] and
(c)risk management factors included professional services and plans, living situation and personal support, treatment or supervision response, and stress or coping.[56]
[53] Hasson report [62].
[54] Hasson report [65].
[55] Hasson report [67] - [73].
[56] Hasson report [75] - [82].

Ms Hasson goes on to note:
(a)the respondent minimised his risk of reoffending in a violent manner and overestimated his compliance with the supervision order;[57]
(b)the respondent downplayed his substance abuse problems, and minimised, justified, rationalised and excused his use of amphetamines or methylamphetamines in an attempt to deflect from the risk-enhancing aspect of his substance use, despite his previous awareness that substance use was linked to his offending;[58]
(c)although the respondent readily acknowledged problematic use of alcohol, he indicated that alcohol misuse had never been a factor in prior offending; seemingly unaware that his alcohol abuse had in the recent past been linked to his offending behaviour;[59] and
(d)violent ideation or intent remained a risk factor for the respondent to be cognisant of in the future.[60]
[57] Hasson report [67].
[58] Hasson report [67].
[59] Hasson report [67].
[60] Hasson report [69].
Ms Hasson also considers:
(a)'instability' to be present with respect to the respondent and recommends 'close monitoring' of the indicators of affective, behavioural, and cognitive instability;[61]
(b)problems in any of those areas would likely suggest an increase in acute or imminent risk, especially where related to substance abuse 'which inevitably leads to violent offending and other criminal behaviour if not dealt with quickly';[62]
(c)the respondent has limited insight into having a need for treatment, and remained ambivalent about the need to engage in further counselling to address outstanding issues;
(d)the respondent requires 'significant assistance' to sustain behaviour change and to ensure the adoption of new habits;
(e)engaging in individual counselling might also assist the respondent with the challenges of living in the community, to maintain abstinence from substance abuse, and to improve his ability to manage stress, adopt new coping strategies, develop problem solving and emotional regulation skills, as well as with his relationships and connections;
(f)however, the respondent's motivation to engage in such counselling was 'low';[63] and
(g)the clinical risk factor of 'treatment or supervision response' was present. This risk factor includes problems with attending scheduled assessments and appointments, completing required activities, observing conditions of supervision, being compliant with medication, and not engaging in behaviours that counter the aims of intervention, management, and supervision.[64]
[61] Hasson report [71].
[62] Hasson report [71].
[63] Hasson report [68].
[64] Hasson report [72].
In the last-mentioned respect, Ms Hasson considers the respondent has made 'little effort' to meaningfully engage in supervision or counselling. This was evidenced by the number of contraventions and concerning behaviours in which he repeatedly engaged while on the supervision order.[65]
[65] Hasson report [73].
Ms Hasson considers the respondent will require 'significant levels of external supervision and control imposed on him' until he is able to develop internal control over his drug dependency, antisocial associations, and serious offending.[66]
[66] Hasson report [76].
In oral testimony, Ms Hasson explained further:
… in a really structured environment – [the respondent] is quite calm; he is managing really well; he is coping really well; he is thinking more clearly … But when he is out in the community and life gets busy and everything else and he wants to do things and then he is told no or he has to wait, that's when things start to go awry for him.[67]
[67] Transcript of proceedings on 2 August 2024 (ts 2 August 2024) page 151.
Ms Hasson observes that the respondent plans to rely on 'a very limited yet seemingly mostly appropriate social network', though notes that the respondent has 'a much larger acquaintanceship of negative influences that he needs to appropriately manage', that there will most certainly be challenges in the future and that the respondent's experience in managing these challenges is 'very limited'.[68]
[68] Hasson report [77].
Ms Hasson expresses significant concerns regarding the respondent's dependent and codependent relationship with his current partner which Ms Hasson considers 'exacerbates an external locus of control, and ability and willingness to be fully compliant with' the conditions of the supervision order.[69]
[69] Hasson report [77].
According to Ms Hasson the most likely difficulties with respect to the respondent include that he may:
(a)have problems observing some of the conditions of supervision;
(b)have problems complying with rules of supervising agencies;
(c)engage in behaviours which are contrary to the aims of intervention, management, and supervision; and
(d)have problems benefiting from, showing progress in, or responding to, supervision and management strategies in the future.[70]
[70] Hasson report [79].
Ms Hasson considers the respondent's antisocial personality to be a significant factor in how he is likely to respond to long-term supervision and management.[71]
[71] Hasson report [79].
She also notes there may be further contextual impediments including relationship instability, relapse into substance abuse, lack of access to transport and financial strain.[72]

Scenarios for future violence

[72] Hasson report [79].

Ms Hasson considers:
(a)the respondent's risk of re-offending is 'high';[73]
(b)the respondent has not been able to reside in the community for extended periods of time previously without engaging in offending behaviour; [74]
(c)illicit substance abuse and the presence of antisocial and antiauthority attitudes and peers increases the imminence of risk of future violence; [75]
(d)if the respondent relapses into illicit substance abuse, then the imminence of his risk of violence increases substantially and it is likely the respondent will continue to offend until he is apprehended;[76] and
(e)the respondent's past offending demonstrates 'persistence and habituation'.[77]
[73] Hasson report [91].
[74] Hasson report [91].
[75] Hasson report [91].
[76] Hasson report [91] - [92].
[77] Hasson report [92].
According to Ms Hasson:
(a)the respondent has 'yet to make' sufficient treatment gains or demonstrate he can manage his substance abuse risk in the community over an extended period of time;[78]
[78] Hasson report [93].
(b)the respondent will require 'significant support and assistance' if he is to achieve abstinence and engagement in a prosocial lifestyle;[79]
[79] Hasson report [93].
(c)the respondent's connections with antisocial peers is a 'significant risk factor' for him, and the presence or emergence of antisocial cognitions and negative and pessimistic thinking are also risk factors;[80] and
[80] Hasson report [94].
(d)the respondent has numerous treatment needs including in relation to:
(i)antisocial personality traits;
(ii)criminal attitudes and beliefs towards violence and weapons;
(iii)antisocial peers;
(iv)minimisation, rationalisation and justification of offending;
(v)externalisation of blame;
(vi)substance use;
(vii)cognitive skills deficits;
(viii)relationship and interpersonal skills deficits; and
(ix)lack of extensive prosocial support systems.[81]

Ms Hasson's conclusions

[81] Hasson report [97].

Towards the end of her report, Ms Hasson concludes:
(a)the respondent continues to present as a high risk of committing a serious violent offence if not subject to a restriction order;[82]
(b)any 'possible non-compliance' with a supervision order can be reduced and engagement enhanced 'through the development of a collaborative working partnership' between the respondent and those responsible for his supervision, monitoring and treatment;[83] and
(c)should the respondent remain in custody, individual counselling should recommence with a focus on his identified treatment needs.[84]
[82] Hasson report [98].
[83] Hasson report [102].
[84] Hasson report [109].
Significantly, Ms Hasson's report does not express a view as to the likelihood of the respondent substantially complying with the standard conditions of a supervision order.
That said, the following question was put to Ms Hasson by counsel for the respondent in cross-examination:
What's your opinion about [the respondent's] ability now to comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order compared to before?[85]
[85] ts 2 August 2024, page 161.
Ms Hasson responded:
I think one of the main things is that when I saw him – and he had had breaches before and he had gone to court. And he was just left in the community. Then, all of a sudden he was returned to custody. And that was, for him, completely unexpected. So I think part of that is him recognising and realising, "Okay. There is a very serious – I'm not just going to be able to keep doing what I want to do whenever I want to do it and a slap on the wrist." So that hasn't happened. So I think there's a realisation that non-compliance can come with some very real consequences that are going to adversely impact him.[86]
[86] ts 2 August 2024, page 161. Emphasis added.
The exchange then continued:
[McKENZIE, MR:] Yes. And this time he will be given the supports to encourage him to do all the things necessary to be able to comply with an order?---He had them before. So there's not a lot different. The only difference mainly will be a male – a female psychologist, rather. But it's whether or not he is now recognising and willing to actually use those supports. Because they're there and everyone – you know, it's much easier if everybody is going along on the same page and wanting him to do well, including himself. So the supports are there, the supervision is there. You know, whatever he needs will be there to help him get through. Hopefully, he's willing to accept that level of support this time around.
Yes.
MUSIKANTH J: How … does he develop the insight, frankly, into realising he can benefit from those supports beyond simply in response to any orders that the court might make?---Yes.
What might assist in that process?---Really, quite a heavy onus is going to be on the treating psychologist. And I also do treatment myself. It's a really difficult thing to do, and particularly when we get quite resistant clients who don't really see the benefit. They're just coming along because it's mandated by the court and they have to. So that's going to require a lot on the skill of the psychologist to find a way to work with him and to demonstrate to him and to point him in the right direction or ow is this going to benefit you? Sometimes we will certainly involve the family in that and how this will benefit everybody else. But it's just – it's hard work and it will require him to come to the party. But we often work with little tiny weenie glimmers of motivation and then we just keep pushing and keep prodding along. And hopefully, he will engage. If he doesn't, then I have no doubt that the psychologist will terminate the treatment. But she will certainly keep trying and keep trying because [the respondent] is a population we work with. But it's not easy and it's going to take time.
…
McKENZIE, MR: … But in [the respondent's] case there is a glimmer of motivation isn't there?---I think there is certainly a glimmer of hope. If he – the main thing will be – and I guess this sort of further answers your Honour's question – is that if he really wants to remain in the community and be with his partner and be with his daughter and his mum, that's his motivation. So whatever it takes to achieve that, he needs to be willing to do. And I think he does want to be back in the community and he does want all of those things. But living in the community is really difficult, very stressful, very hard and there's competing demands and he needs better coping skills to manage that… Even if one engages in counselling with a different motivation there are side benefits that - - -?---Absolutely.
- - - you might actually - - -?---Yes.
- - - start to engage in the helpful aspects of the process?---Yes – yes. And that can take time. Because – and it will take time just based on [the respondent's] personality. It's not going to be easy. It will take time. But we do see good progress in clients that eventually get on board.
… In your report you said at one point that progress isn't always linear?---It's not.
And it won't be with Mr - - -?---No.
… But the hope is that there's progress?---Yes, definitely, yes…[87]
[87] ts 2 August 2024, pages 161 - 162. Emphasis added.
When previously asked whether the respondent had any intrinsic motivation to engage meaningfully in treatment, Ms Hasson answered 'When I had seen him, no'.[88]
[88] ts 2 August 2024, page 150.
As to the respondent's behaviour in counselling sessions, Ms Hasson stated the respondent 'tended to use counselling sessions to vent frustrations around the order conditions and resentments and hostilities.'[89]
[89] ts 2 August 2024, page 150.
Ms Hasson also noted the respondent seemed 'to deal with problems in a really avoidant manner'. According to Ms Hasson, this involved, 'missing appointments, finding reasons why he can't get to supervision or counselling. And then when it's not related to those issues, he tends to relapse into substance abuse. Recently in the community, it was amphetamines and also alcohol misuse'.[90]
[90] ts 2 August 2024, page 150.
Ms Hasson was asked about a recommendation by Ms Stockton that an express curfew condition form part of any amended supervision order, and whether such a condition would make a difference in circumstances where a CCO had effectively already given the respondent a curfew direction which he breached on a number of occasions.
Ms Hasson responded:[91]
When it's just sort of a direction, it doesn't have as much impact for him. So he copes and functions very well in prison because everything is very structured. There's very immediate consequences. He knows the rules. He does well in that environment. And so the difference between making it a [condition of the order] and making it, say, a lawful instruction or something like that is more in the perceived power or seriousness that it involves. And so for [the respondent], where he thinks he can skirt around things; where he thinks he can push the boundaries; he is more likely to do so.
[91] ts 2 August 2024, page 155.
Ms Hasson opined that such an express condition would contribute to the respondent being more forward-thinking, to be able to think about consequences, problem-solve, make effective decisions, and communicate with his family (regarding the timing of family events), and to engage them in supporting him to adhere to the order.[92]
[92] ts 2 August 2024, pages 155 - 156.
When asked how difficulties with the respondent accepting authority might be resolved, Ms Hasson opined that the respondent noted a combative relationship with his previous supervising officer but seemed to have formed a better relationship with his current supervising officer.[93]
[93] ts 2 August 2024, pages 156 - 157.
That said, Ms Hasson observed that the respondent had not yet been in the community with his current supervising officer, and had not been given many direct instructions, so there 'has not been an opportunity for any conflict so far'.[94]
[94] ts 2 August 2024, page 157.
Ms Hasson noted the respondent 'was certainly not happy with many of the directions given to him by Community Corrections'.[95]

Dr Sarah Barbas

[95] ts 2 August 2024, page 157.

Dr Sarah Barbas, a senior clinical and forensic psychologist with the Forensic Psychological Assessment Team of the Department, provided a treatment progress report with respect to the respondent.[96]
[96] Report of Dr Sarah Barbas dated 21 May 2024 (Barbas report).
Dr Barbas conducted two interviews with the respondent in April 2024 spanning a total of three hours.[97]
[97] Barbas report [3].
The respondent's account to Dr Barbas of his contravention offences reflected a heavy reliance on others, including his partner, to enforce external controls over his behaviour.[98]
[98] Barbas report [25], [30].
According to Dr Barbas, the respondent made limited gains throughout intervention which have targeted specific outstanding treatment needs associated with having: a violent lifestyle, violence cycle, criminal attitudes, criminal peers, interpersonal aggression, emotional control, impulsivity, weapon use, insight into violence, substance use and cognitive distortions. [99]
[99] Barbas report [29].
These treatment needs remain outstanding for various reasons.[100]
[100] Barbas report [29].
According to Dr Barbas:
(a)the respondent demonstrated an ongoing tendency to externalise blame for non-compliance on his literacy and comprehension deficits, as well as those involved in his care, and his attitudes were reflective of significant and prevailing anti-authoritarian views;[101]
(b)the respondent's involvement in past group and individual interventions indicate he has the capacity for new learning, though his ability to make gains from intervention was dependent on the extent of his intrinsic motivation to change and insight into the benefits of such treatment as personally relevant;[102]
(c)the respondent had not yet provided evidence of his ability to apply learned skills to high-risk situations;[103]
(d)the respondent was able to describe the recent contraventions in the context of situations that led him to seek out antisocial peers and substance use, which subsequently increased the likelihood of offending behaviour; [104]
(e)however, while the respondent appeared to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions in this regard, he similarly externalised blame and adopted a victim stance for his supervision failures.[105]
[101] Barbas report [30].
[102] Barbas report [31].
[103] Barbas report [31].
[104] Barbas report [32].
[105] Barbas report [32].
Like Ms Hasson, Dr Barbas does not in her report express a view on whether the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.
Dr Barbas recommends the respondent receive ongoing individual counselling through the Department's Forensic Psychological Intervention Team to address his outstanding treatment needs should a continuing detention order be imposed.[106]

Dr Marie McCann

[106] Barbas report [35].

Dr McCann, a clinical neuropsychologist contracted to the Department, provided a neuropsychological report with respect to the respondent following a 30-minute interview with and 2-hour observation and cognitive assessment of him the month before.[107]
[107] Report of Dr Marie McCann dated 15 July 2024 (McCann report) [8] - [9].
According to Dr McCann, the respondent's:
(a)developmental history was significant for early life psychosocial stressors and trauma, with the respondent having been exposed to domestic violence in his childhood and as a teenager, and his father being murdered; and
(b)medical and psychiatric history was significant (and relevant) for among other things: antisocial personality disorder, substance misuse disorder, multiple concussions when younger, ADHD and SLD with impairment in reading.[108]
[108] McCann report [24], [57].
The respondent informed Dr McCann he:
(a)left mainstream schooling at the beginning of grade seven when he was transferred to a behavioural support centre for children with severe behavioural problems;[109]
(b)later attempted high school but dropped out within a few weeks noting his struggle to engage due to his behaviour problems and inability to read or write fluently;[110] and
(c)first used heroin and cannabis at around 10 years of age and was regularly using those substances 'until he ceased all illicit drug use "8 or 9 years ago"'.[111]
[109] McCann report [31].
[110] McCann report [31].
[111] McCann report [30].

Upon further questioning, the respondent informed Dr McCann of 'occasional' methylamphetamine use 'in the past'.[112]
[112] McCann report [30].
The respondent reported struggling with learning and memory, and noted some minor difficulty following court proceedings when complex language was used.[113]
[113] McCann report [34].
He also reported improvements in his impulse control which had previously been an issue and described his mood as 'largely good'.[114]
[114] McCann report [34] - [35].
After performing an assessment on the respondent using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition,[115] Dr McCann among other things noted:
(a)the respondent's test results indicated 'average' verbal attention span, visual attention, visual working memory, and verbal and language abilities, 'low average to average' visual attention, verbal working memory, processing speed, learning and memory, and 'low average' nonverbal and visuospatial abilities;
(b)with respect to executive functioning:
(i)the respondent was not observed to be rigid or disinhibited, and showed largely intact self-monitoring;
(ii)the respondent produced average results on measures of his cognitive flexibility and on a measure of his response to initiation, and his approach to devise and implement a plan to achieve a goal whilst adhering to a set of rules was highly efficient and successful; and
(iii)the respondent's performance on measures of his cognitive inhibition was impaired, falling within the extremely low range.[116]
[115] McCann report [43].
[116] McCann report [43] - [55].
Dr McCann noted that the respondent's remaining executive functions were broadly intact.[117]
[117] McCann report [64].
Dr McCann considered there was no evidence of significant impairment in any one cognitive domain that would suggest the presence of an intellectual disability or neurocognitive disorder.[118]
[118] McCann report [62].
According to Dr McCann:
(a)the respondent's impaired cognitive inhibition may cause him to react impulsively and to engage in poorly conceived, prematurely expressed, unduly risky actions, or in actions that are inappropriate to the situation;[119]
(b)although he may struggle to inhibit:
(i)the respondent was able to correct or control his responses moments later, demonstrating insight and a capacity to correct behaviour;
(ii)the respondent's intact cognitive skills suggested he had capacity to attend to, understand and critically weigh information relevant to making informed decisions, and to plan ahead, assisting to manage impulsive behaviour.[120]
[119] McCann report [66].
[120] McCann report [67].
Regarding treatment needs, Dr McCann considers the respondent will require structure and guidance when first being given directions, and may benefit from targeted psychological intervention (ideally with a female clinician) to help address the impairment in his inhibition and learn strategies to help him to control impulsive behaviours.[121]
[121] McCann report [69].
Dr McCann also suggests the respondent should be encouraged, through psychological intervention or a structured treatment program, to abstain from relapsing into previous alcohol usage patterns when out in the community given alcohol is well known to impact cognitive inhibition and decision making.[122]

Performance reports

[122] McCann report [69].

In addition to her affidavit, Ms Stockton also provided a performance report dated 22 May 2024 (Stockton report).
The Stockton report was co-endorsed by Ms Aimee Good and Ms Jones, and later supplemented by the Merigan report.

Stockton report

Progress whilst subject to the supervision order

According to the Stockton report, although the respondent was generally compliant with his attendance at supervision [sessions], his engagement was of concern.[123]
[123] Stockton report, page 536.
Relevantly, the Stockton report notes the respondent:
(a)presented with an unwillingness to address the risk factors related to his offending substance use;[124]
(b)engaged in deceit and dishonesty, particularly regarding use of illicit substances;[125]
(c)demonstrated a level of avoidance of communication with the COMU and engagement in urinalysis;[126]
(d)lacked a willingness to accept assistance when opportunities were provided to him through counselling and alternative case management strategies;[127]
(e)lacked transparency with the COMU, limiting their ability to provide assistance to him to improve his compliance and engagement with the conditions of the supervision order;[128]
(f)attempted to share responsibility of the supervision order obligations with his partner;[129]
(g)appeared to have been utilising medical certificates to avoid complying with the supervision order;[130] and
(h)demonstrated a pattern of avoidance resulting in directions to urinalysis being averted, an inability to comply with written lawful instructions, and a failure to maintain and establish contact with the COMU.[131]
[124] Stockton report, page 536.
[125] Stockton report, page 536.
[126] Stockton report, page 536.
[127] Stockton report, page 536.
[128] Stockton report, page 536.
[129] Stockton report, page 536.
[130] Stockton report, pages 546 - 547.
[131] Stockton report, pages 547 - 548.
The Stockton report also:
(a)outlines examples of the respondent's aggression and hostility towards staff;[132] and
(b)expresses concerns about the respondent's movements and sporadic attendance at 'unknown residential addresses' in circumstances where, although the respondent indicated the residences were owned by family and friends, he was known to have had antisocial peer associations, to whom he had correlated his illicit substance use, and it was unclear as to who those individuals were and where they resided.[133]

Prosocial supports

[132] Stockton report, page 549.

[133] Stockton report, pages 550 - 552.

According to the Stockton report:
(a)the respondent identifies his partner as his primary support;[134]
(b)the respondent's partner presented as inconsistent in her level of protectiveness for the respondent;[135]
(c)the respondent identified his partner as being present when the respondent has allegedly passively consumed methylamphetamine, and during the stealing charges occurring on 1 and 2 January 2024, despite the respondent claiming his partner was unaware of his behaviour;[136]
(d)the COMU had to primarily contact his partner to follow up or issue directions due to the respondent's failure to maintain an independent point of contact; and
(e)the respondent became hostile, defensive and/or passive in his manner towards the COMU when his partner did not provide the direction or instruction to be communicated to him, or when she refused to participate in sessions. This resulted in minimal case management progress.[137]

Employment and proposed accommodation

[134] Stockton report, page 560.

[135] Stockton report, page 552.

[136] Stockton report, pages 552 - 553.

[137] Stockton report, page 536.

The Stockton report goes on to note:
(a)the respondent has not been employed since June 2023;[138]
(b)should he be released on a supervision order, the respondent proposes to reside with his partner and her father at an address where he resided for most of the time he was subject to the supervision order; and
(c)the respondent also wishes to be able to attend at his mother's address as a secondary residence without prior approval on the weekends as he had been permitted to do before late 2023.

Proposed further conditions

[138] Stockton report, page 562.

According to the Stockton report:
(a)when reflecting on his performance whilst subject to the supervision order, the respondent stated he was 'not ready' for it, and he is now receptive of the supervision order and accepting of the conditions to manage his risk in the community;[139]
(b)having identified his alcohol consumption whilst on the supervision order was problematic, the respondent advised he would request conditions that prohibit alcohol consumption;
(c)however, the respondent denied the need for formal residential rehabilitation, believing alcohol and substance use counselling sufficient;[140]
(d)condition 8 of the supervision order required the respondent to gain approval from a CCO prior to any change of address or spending the night at new addresses, thus giving greater insight into his family/peer associations and any associated risk; [141]
(e)in October 2023, the respondent was provided with a definition of what hours contributed as 'spend each night' in line with condition 8 (ie. 10 pm to 5 am); [142] and
(f)the respondent had since demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with that instruction, complained those timeframes were unreasonable and wished for them to be extended.[143]
[139] Stockton report, page 558.
[140] Stockton report, page 558.
[141] Stockton report, pages 561 - 562.
[142] Stockton report, page 562.
[143] Stockton report, page 562.
The Stockton report:
(a)proposes a prohibition on the purchase, possession, consumption or use of alcohol, and an amendment to condition 20 of the supervision order such to allow for alcohol testing, should the court consider the respondent suitable for re-release on such an order;
(b)notes the respondent has admitted there was a strong correlation between his alcohol and substance use while he was subject to the supervision order;
(c)proposes that 'standalone' curfew conditions be imposed if the court releases the respondent on a supervision order;
(d)notes that such curfew conditions would provide structure in the respondent's adjustment to the community and construction of a plan for him to self-manage over time; and
(e)proposes the respondent be required to consult with a CCO and obtain their approval before commencing any employment.[144]

Merigan report, evidence of Ms Hazzard

[144] Stockton report, pages 561 - 562.

According to the Merigan report:
(a)the respondent met with Ms Merigan on three occasions, one by telephone and twice in person, between May and July 2024;[145]
[145] Merigan report, page 580.
(b)there was also further telephone contact with the respondent on 19 July 2024 to discuss the outcome and recommendations contained in the McCann report;[146]
(c)the respondent engaged well during recent contacts;
(d)whilst the respondent accepted 'some responsibility' for his non‑compliance on the supervision order, he nevertheless apportioned 'some blame' towards departmental employees for the issues he experienced relating to non-compliance;
(e)the respondent identified his diagnosis of ADHD, limited literacy skills, lack of understanding regarding the conditions, transport, and employment obligations as additional factors impeding his ability to previously comply;[147]
(f)the respondent acknowledged his understanding of what would be required of him should he be re-released;
(g)he also identified strategies he could employ to assist with his compliance, including utilising public transport, scheduling supervision sessions to align with receiving his Centrelink payments, and engaging with counselling psychologist, Ms Hamlett;[148]
(h)during recent discussions, the respondent stated his intention to pursue employment opportunities should he be released into the community;
(i)the respondent however indicated he wished to take some time to reintegrate living and focusing on the supervision order conditions and requirements to assist with compliance;
(j)the respondent also 'reported intentions' to return to substance abuse counselling to address his entrenched substance misuse and alcohol consumption; and
(k)the respondent would be supported by the COMU with referrals to appropriate counselling agencies 'should he remain a willing participant in intervention'.[149]
[146] Merigan report, page 581.
[147] Merigan report, page 580.
[148] Merigan report, page 580.
[149] Merigan report, page 581.
In her oral testimony, Ms Hazzard said the respondent had the conditions of his last supervision order explained to him in the presence of his partner.[150]
[150] ts dated 2 August 2024, page 168.
In addition, according to Ms Hazzard, the conditions are revisited during supervision sessions to ensure they are understood.[151]
[151] ts dated 2 August 2024, page 169.
The only further recommendation Ms Hazzard could offer to assist the respondent comprehending those conditions was for the COMU to provide visual materials.[152]
[152] ts dated 2 August 2024, page 169.

Has the respondent contravened the supervision order?

In support of its contention that the respondent has breached the supervision order, the State relies upon the certified prosecution notices recording the respondent's 11 convictions; a certified copy of the respondent's criminal history; and transcripts of proceedings in the Magistrates Court.
I accept this unchallenged evidence, and am comfortably satisfied the State has, on the balance of probabilities, established that the respondent has contravened the supervision order.

Should the supervision order be rescinded, affirmed, amended or extended?

I may only affirm, amend, or extend the supervision order if I am satisfied, also on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions. Otherwise, I must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order.[153]
[153] Act s 55(1).
The paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[154]
[154] Act s 55(3).

Will the respondent substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order?

At the hearing, the State advised it was 'not opposed' to an order being made re-releasing the respondent subject to an amended supervision order.[155]
[155] ts 2 August 2024, page 146.
In further written submissions filed following the conclusion of the hearing, the State clarified it had:
(a)submitted that if the court was satisfied the respondent had contravened conditions of the supervision order, the State did not seek the rescission of the supervision order under s 55(1)(a) of the Act; and
(b)ultimately sought an order under s 55(1)(b) of the Act to amend the conditions of that order.[156]
[156] State's written submissions dated 12 August 2024, [2]. Emphasis added.
However, the State went on to say that it 'makes no submission that the Court should not be satisfied the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of the [s]upervision [o]rder …'.[157]
[157] State's written submissions dated 12 August 2024 [5]. Emphasis added.
Ultimately, it is a matter for the court to determine if it is so satisfied.
According to the respondent, the court should be so satisfied.
In this regard, the respondent effectively submits the court should infer that he:
(a)has a willingness and motivation to comply with the standard conditions;
(b)is more likely to comply with his supervision order if some of the conditions are amended as proposed (in the Stockton report);[158]
(c)intends abstaining from using drugs or alcohol and to comply with urinalysis and breath testing;
(d)is planning what is needed to ensure his compliance;
(e)(now) has an understanding of the consequences of breaching conditions; and
(f)will enjoy every support of the CCO, psychologist and other members of the risk management team to comply.[159]
[158] See paragraph [115] above.
[159] Respondent’s submissions dated 9 August 2024, [10.1] - [10.8].
The respondent relies on the following evidence in support these propositions:
(a)Ms Hasson's evidence to the effect that:
(i)the respondent had expressed a preparedness to be more willing to disclose difficulties, issues and concerns with those supervising and supporting him, and an awareness that he needs to accept the realities of the supervision order and that he needs to work on shifting and changing his attitude around some of the conditions (curfew, urinalysis, being refused permission to undertake certain activities);[160]
[160] Hasson report [43].
(ii)the respondent 'seems to have formed a better relationship with his current supervising officer';[161]
(iii)if an amendment were to be made to the supervision order expressly imposing a curfew, it would carry 'more weight and more authority' because it would come from a judge (as distinct from a CCO);[162]
(iv)the respondent had requested that he also be subject to alcohol testing being 'something he felt he needed and that was something he believes he can comply with';[163]
(v)being returned to custody was 'completely unexpected' for the respondent, and part of that was him recognising and realising the seriousness of what had occurred and that 'non-compliance can come with some very real consequences that are going to adversely impact him'; [164]
(vi)there was a 'glimmer of hope' with the respondent that he would hopefully engage with the psychologist;[165]
(vii)to the effect that the proposed curfew condition would be helpful to the respondent in terms of planning skills;[166] and
(b)Ms Hazzard's evidence to the effect that additional help could be given to the respondent in the form of visual aids to assist him to better understand particular conditions of any supervision order.[167]

Legal principles - substantial compliance, onus of proof

[161] ts 2 August 2024, page 156.

[162] ts 2 August 2024, pages 156 - 157 (read with page 155).

[163] ts 2 August 2024, page 157.

[164] ts 2 August 2024, page 161.

[165] ts 2 August 2024, page 162.

[166] ts 2 August 2024, page 163.

[167] ts 2 August 2024, page 169.

In Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart,[168] Fiannaca J made a number of observations in an earlier legislative context which apply equally to the provisions of the Act,[169] namely:[170]
(1)The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and of the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious [offence].
(2)The question of what will be substantial compliance will be a matter of judgment that will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.
(3)The assessment is to be made in the context that it is one aspect of the broader exercise of determining whether the community can be adequately protected if the respondent is released again subject to a supervision order.
(4)It is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of the section, in context, that the word 'substantially' is used in a relative sense and involves an assessment of the degree of compliance that the respondent is likely to achieve.
(5)While the prospect of trivial or minor contraventions will not (and ordinarily should not) preclude a finding that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the assessment of whether the respondent will substantially comply involves considerations other than simply whether any potential breach will be trivial or minor.
(6)The 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]. [171]
[168] Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [30].
[169] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 [30]. See also The State of Western Australia v Decke [No 6] [2024] WASC 339 [55].
[170] Adapted to the present legislative context.
[171] Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [30].

In The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2],[172] Archer J referred to several further factors identified by Fiannaca J in Hart as relevant to an assessment of whether an offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions.[173]
[172] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351.
[173] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 [33] - [34]. See also The State of Western Australia v Decke [No 6] [2024] WASC 339 [60].
In the context of this matter those factors are:
(a)The respondent's history of compliance and non-compliance.
(b)The respondent's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular, whether the respondent is likely to deliberately flout the conditions).
(c)The respondent's capacity to comply with the conditions.
(d)Measures in place to ensure the offender will substantially comply.
(e)The relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order in achieving the objects of the Act.
(f)The respondent's motivation to remain offence free and in the community.
(g)Abstinence from drugs.
(h)The respondent's conduct while in prison.
(i)Demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management, and life skills.
A finding that the respondent has contravened the supervision order will not necessarily result in a continuing detention order.[174]
[174] The State of Western Australia v Gorham (No 2) [2022] WASC 351 [31].
Given the onerous nature of supervision orders, missteps are to be expected.[175]
[175] The State of Western Australia v Gorham (No 2) [2022] WASC 351 [31].
The frequency or regularity of contraventions might inform the question of whether the offender will substantially comply.[176]
[176] The State of Western Australia v Gorham (No 2) [2022] WASC 351 [31].
As noted earlier, the court cannot make, amend, or affirm a supervision order unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order (as made, amended or affirmed).
It follows that the court must be satisfied that it is more probable,[177] or more likely,[178] than not that the respondent will comply.
[177] Eg. Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, 374.
[178] Eg. Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153 [55].
Noting the inquiry is focused on predicting future behaviour, the exercise necessarily involves a process of inferential reasoning.
Drawing an inference involves something more than mere conjecture or surmise.[179]
[179] Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 45 FLR 430; (1978) 22 ALR 128, 132 - 133.
What is required are circumstances raising a more probable inference in favour of what is alleged.[180]
[180] Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1, 5.
The evidence must give 'rise to a reasonable and definite inference not merely to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability'.[181]
[181] Trustees of the Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins [2006] HCA 6; (2006) 227 CLR 278 [34].
Further, even if the court is satisfied the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions, it must not release the respondent unless satisfied the supervision order would ensure an adequate degree of protection to the community.[182]
[182] The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [38].
I now turn to address each of the factors relevant to an assessment of whether the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.

History of compliance and non-compliance

In my view, this factor is best considered in the context of the respondent's conduct whilst in the community between November 2022 and January 2024 (initially on the PSSO and subsequently on the supervision order).
As Vandongen J effectively noted, the respondent was largely compliant with PSSO and had not committed any violent serious offences since his release on 17 July 2022.[183]
[183] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126 [111].
However:
(a)in November 2022 and February 2023 the respondent was issued with written warnings for his non-compliance with that order;
(b)in February 2023 the consequences of any future non-compliance were explained to him; and
(c)in March 2023 a prosecution notice was issued to the respondent alleging a breach of his PSSO for failing to attend psychological counselling and urinalysis testing on 24 February 2023, to which offence he pleaded guilty and for which a fine was imposed.[184]
[184] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126 [73] - [74]; [110] - [111].
Moreover, as appears from the Annexure:
(a)less than a month after Vandongen J made the supervision order, the respondent breached it by failing to attend a community corrections centre for urinalysis as directed;
(b)during the ensuing eight-month period the respondent again breached the supervision order some 37 times, for the most part several times every month; and
(c)continued to breach the supervision order despite attracting non-compliance warnings for most breaches, and convictions and sentences for 11 of them.

Attitude to conditions of supervision order

As has been observed, the respondent has expressed a preparedness to be more willing to disclose difficulties, issues and concerns with those supervising and supporting him, and an awareness that he needs to accept the realities of the supervision order and that he needs to work on shifting and changing his attitude around some of the conditions (curfew, urinalysis, and being refused permission to undertake certain activities).[185]
[185] Hasson report [43].
He has indicated he would be more cooperative 'toward the involvement of adult community corrections in his supervision and management in the community'.[186]
[186] Hasson report [50].
However, as has also been noted the respondent:
(a)'deflected responsibility or awareness' as to the terms of his supervision order;[187]
(b)'justified and minimised his behaviour during the time he spent on the supervision order externalising responsibility for his failures';[188]
(c)provided numerous 'explanations, excuses and justifications'[189] for not meeting the obligations of his order;
(d)did not acknowledge behaving in an aggressive manner towards any staff members including a former supervising SCCO between April and June 2023; and
(e)espoused 'antiauthority views' towards those charged with supervising, monitoring, and managing him in the community.[190]
[187] Hasson report [23].
[188] Hasson report [25].
[189] Hasson report [26].
[190] Hasson report [37].
It goes without saying the above matters give rise to significant concerns as to what the respondent's attitude might ultimately be should he be released on an amended supervision order.
I do not consider it possible to reach a safe conclusion as to whether the respondent would likely flout the conditions deliberately were he to be re-released on the supervision order.
That said, it would be difficult to conclude that none of the respondent's past breaches were deliberate given their sheer number, frequency, and variety.

Capacity to comply with conditions

As has been observed, there is expert evidence before the court to the effect that:
(a)the respondent has significant deficits in executive functioning and problems with communication, stress management, peer refusal skills, consequential thinking, assertiveness, independence, a lack of personal agency and/or internal locus of control;[191]
(b)the respondent relies on his partner and other external management techniques;
(c)the respondent requested certain exclusion zones to assist him to manage some risky situations and a condition preventing him from consuming alcohol[192] though this may be setting him up for additional confrontation and antagonism;[193]
(d)the number and frequency of the respondent's contraventions and concerning behaviours suggest the respondent lacks sufficient motivation or skill to make the necessary changes to abide by the supervision order and to pursue a prosocial lifestyle;[194] and
(e)the respondent's impaired cognitive inhibition may cause him to react more impulsively and engage in actions that are poorly conceived, prematurely expressed, unduly risky, or inappropriate to the situation.[195]
[191] Hasson report [38], [40].
[192] Hasson report [40].
[193] Hasson report [40].
[194] Hasson report [41].
[195] McCann report [66].
Nonetheless, according to Dr McCann, the respondent's broadly intact self-monitoring suggests that while he may struggle to inhibit, he is able to correct or control his responses moments later, demonstrating insight and a capacity to correct behaviour.[196]
[196] McCann report [67].
I also note that Ms Hasson's evidence that the respondent 'seems to have formed a better relationship with his current supervising officer'.
However, as Ms Hasson observes, the respondent has not yet been in the community with that officer and there 'has not been an opportunity for any conflict so far'.[197]
[197] ts 2 August 2024, page 157.
It follows, in my view, that it is presently unclear how the respondent might in fact react to his new CCO issuing any directions with which he may not be inclined to comply.

Measures in place to ensure substantial compliance

Should the respondent again be released on a supervision order, it is proposed that the measures would remain as they were before with only the following additions:
(a)a condition prohibiting the purchase, possession, consumption or use of alcohol (unless approved in advance by a CCO);
(b)'alcohol' also being a substance in respect of which urinalysis or other testing would be required as directed by a CCO or police officer;
(c)an 'express' curfew condition; and
(d)a condition that the respondent does not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of a CCO.[198]
[198] Stockton report, page 563.
The respondent breached his urinalysis and substance conditions on numerous occasions while on the supervision order.
Accordingly, and whilst I accept it was the respondent himself who requested the inclusion of an alcohol testing condition, I query how such a variation alone would contribute to, let alone ensure, substantial compliance.
Regarding the proposed 'express curfew condition', I note that by condition 8 of the supervision order made on 26 April 2023 the respondent was in any event required to take up residence at a particular address and unless working night shifts to:
spend each night or a portion (which may be further defined via an instruction from a CCO) of each night at the address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to [the respondent].
As is apparent from the Annexure, the respondent breached condition 8 on several occasions.
I understand that what is proposed by an 'express' curfew condition is that a curfew requirement be imposed under s 32 of the Act.
The purpose of such a requirement is to:
allow for the movements of [an offender] subject to a supervision order to be restricted during periods when there is a risk of the [respondent] committing a serious offence.[199]
[199] Act, s 32(2).
However, where such a requirement is imposed by the court, it is a CCO who:
(a)must specify both where an offender must remain and for which periods;[200] and
(b)may give directions as to when an offender may leave a specified place; the period of any authorised absence; when the respondent must return; the route and method of travel to be used during the offender's absence; and the manner in which the respondent must report their whereabouts.[201]
[200] Act, s 32(3) read with s 32(1).
[201] Act, s 32(7).
Hence, even if an 'express' curfew requirement were imposed, the respondent would still need to abide by directions given to him by a CCO.
Perhaps even more so than before.
As has been observed, the respondent has espoused anti‑authoritarian views.
Moreover, as would be apparent from the Annexure, most of his breaches of the supervision order in effect involved failures to follow directions by those responsible for his supervision, monitoring, and management within the community.
Regrettably, in my view, the above matters do not assist a conclusion that incorporating an express curfew requirement would likely enhance the respondent's prospects of future compliance.
Nor would it seem likely to me that the respondent would necessarily comply merely because any curfew requirement would carry 'more weight and more authority' because it would be imposed by a judge as part of any amended supervision order.
In this connection I note that each of the 37 conditions of the supervision order of 26 April 2023 was imposed by a judge; namely, Vandongen J.
Still, there were some 38 breaches.
It is also not immediately apparent to me how adding a condition requiring the respondent to obtain prior approval from a CCO before commencing or changing employment, training or volunteer work would lead to substantial compliance.
I also note Ms Hazzard's evidence to the effect that additional help could be given to the respondent in the form of visual aids to assist him better understanding particular conditions of any supervision order.
However, it is presently unclear to me that such a measure, whether on its own or in combination with the other proposed amendments, would sufficiently reduce the risks of substantial further breaches occurring.

Relative importance of any breach that might occur

As has been noted, most of the respondent's breaches of the supervision order have effectively involved failures to follow directions given by those responsible for his supervision, monitoring, and management within the community.
Those directions have among other things required him to attend for urinalysis; provide valid samples for that purpose; spend nights or portions thereof at his approved residential address; notify his CCO of his intentions to reside at his secondary address; return to his home address before a particular time; and make contact with the COMU.
Although none of the respondent's breaches involved the commission of a serious offence as defined, compliance with the reasonable directions of a CCO remains critical to the effectiveness of any supervision order and to the efficacy of the supervision regime contemplated by the Act itself.
Indeed, one of the immutable standard conditions which forms part of any supervision order is that an offender must do just that.[202]
[202] Act, s 30(2)(d). Emphasis added.
Hence where, as here, directions given by CCOs have been repeatedly breached, it is generally no minor matter.
Further, and significantly, as Derrick J observed when making an interim detention order in relation to the respondent:
(a)it is apparent the supervision order has not deterred the respondent from using methylamphetamines on a regular basis since release,[203] nor was there evidence to suggest it would deter him in future;[204]
(b)the respondent has attempted to conceal his methylamphetamine use from those responsible for his supervision and management; and
(c)there is a clear link between the respondent's use of methylamphetamine and his commission of serious violent offences, such that if the respondent continues using methylamphetamine and becomes more entrenched in its use, it is 'near on inevitable' that he will commit a serious offence involving the use of physical violence and weapons in company with others carrying with it the risk of trauma and injury to any victim.[205]
[203] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 3] [2024] WASC 18. [38].
[204] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 3] [2024] WASC 18 [42].
[205] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 3] [2024] WASC 18 [41] read with [40].
Moreover, as Ms Hasson notes:
(a)the respondent's risk of re-offending is 'high', and illicit substance abuse and the presence of antisocial and antiauthority attitudes and peers increases the imminence of risk of future violence;
(b)if the respondent relapses into illicit substance abuse, the imminence of his risk of violence increases substantially and it is likely the respondent will continue to offend until he is apprehended; and
(c)the respondent's past offending demonstrates 'persistence and habituation'.
In my view, the combined effect of the above circumstances leads inevitably to the conclusion that if the respondent were to be released on a supervision order, at this stage, there is an appreciable risk that any further breaches that might occur will not be 'insignificant'.

Motivation to remain offence free, abstinence from drugs

Noting there is a 'clear link' between the respondent's use of methylamphetamine and his commission of serious violent offences, I will address these factors together.[206]
[206] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 3] [2024] WASC 18 [40]-[41]. See also Hasson report [91] ‑ [92].
As has already been observed, Ms Hasson noted the respondent:
(a)lacked 'sufficient motivation or skill to make the necessary changes to abide by the supervision order and to pursue a prosocial lifestyle';[207] and
(b)would require 'significant levels of external supervision and control imposed on him' until he is able to develop internal control over his drug dependency, antisocial associations, and serious offending.[208]
[207] Hasson report [41].
[208] Hasson report [76].
However, Ms Hasson also gave oral evidence to the effect that she considered there was 'certainly a glimmer of hope', the respondent 'does want to be back in the community … [b]ut living in the community is really difficult, very stressful, very hard and there's competing demands and he needs better coping skills to manage that …', and 'it will take time just based on [the respondent's] personality. It's not going to be easy ... [b]ut we do see good progress in clients that eventually get on board'.[209]
[209] ts 2 August 2024, pages 161 - 162.
Whilst Ms Hasson's oral remarks are undoubtedly positive and give rise to hope, the fact remains that a substantial number of the respondent's breaches of the supervision order related to conditions concerning prohibited drug use, directions that he attend for urinalysis testing for such drugs and/or provide valid samples for urinalysis testing.
In my view, the inescapable inference is that over a sustained period while on the supervision order, the respondent was unable to abstain from substance abuse despite repeated warnings, convictions and sentences.
Ms Merigan reports the respondent intends to return to substance abuse counselling to address his entranced substance misuse and alcohol consumption.[210]
[210] Merigan report, page 581.
That too is a positive sign. However, I do note that the respondent was late for his appointment with Next Step in August 2023, then failed to self-refer for counselling support with that program, attended only two of three of Next Step's substance abuse counselling sessions in late 2023, and evidently provided a false or misleading explanation regarding his non-attendance on the third occasion.[211]

Conduct while in prison

[211] Hasson report, [52] - [53]; Stockton report, page 537.

According to the Stockton report:
(a)the respondent underwent three urinalysis tests whilst subject to his interim detention order, namely on 4 February 2024, 19 March 2024 and 10 May 2024;
(b)the first test was positive for cannabis though within the window period of his remand in custody and no action was taken as a result, the second test was negative, and the results of the third test were pending analysis as at the date of the report;
(c)in early April 2024, the respondent was 'observed abusing other prisoners'. He was warned and advised continued display of this behaviour would result in a loss of privileges;
(d)the respondent advised he had not attended any prison intervention or programs whilst subject to the interim detention order; and
(e)in early May 2024, the respondent claimed he had been 'engaging with a custodial counsellor', and that such engagement had been 'beneficial'.[212]
[212] Stockton report, pages 557 - 558.

As already noted, Ms Hasson in her oral evidence testified that the respondent 'copes and functions very well in prison because everything is very structured. There are very immediate consequences. He knows the rules. He does well in that environment'.[213]

Demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management, life skills

[213] ts 2 August 2024, page 155.

According to the Stockton report, the respondent's outstanding treatment needs are associated primarily with his involvement with antisocial peers, antisocial attitudes, communication skills and susceptibility to substance use.[214]
[214] Stockton report, page 561.
Further, as has been observed, Dr Barbas considers:
(a)the respondent's involvement in past group and individual interventions indicate he has the capacity for new learning;
(b)the respondent's ability to make gains from intervention is, however, dependent on the extent of his intrinsic motivation to change and insight into the benefits of such treatment as personally relevant.[215]
[215] Barbas report [31].
As has also been noted, Ms Hasson:
(a)opines that the respondent's insight for the need for treatment was limited, he remained ambivalent about the need to engage in further counselling to address outstanding issues (despite the respondent requiring 'significant assistance' to sustain behaviour change and to ensure the adoption of new habits);[216]
(b)considers the respondent's motivation to engage in such counselling was 'low';[217]
(c)notes the respondent appeared to have made 'little effort' to meaningfully engage in supervision or counselling, and that this was evidenced by the number of contraventions and concerning behaviours which he repeatedly engaged while on the supervision order;[218] and
(d)when asked whether the respondent had any intrinsic motivation to engage meaningfully in treatment, answered 'When I had seen him, no'.[219]
[216] Hasson report [68].
[217] Hasson report [68].
[218] Hasson report [73].
[219] ts 2 August 2024, page 150.
Whilst I accept the respondent himself requested he be subject to alcohol testing, and that this was something which he both felt he 'needed' and believed he could comply with, the practical reality is that he still suffers from substance addition.
Moreover, as Derrick J has observed, if the respondent continues using methylamphetamine and becomes more entrenched in its use, it is 'near on inevitable' he will commit a serious offence involving the use of physical violence and weapons in company with others carrying with it the risk of trauma and injury to any victim.[220]
[220] The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 3] [2024] WASC 18 [41] read with [40].
I accept Ms Hasson's evidence to the effect that the respondent's return to custody was 'completely unexpected' by him, that he recognised both the seriousness of what had occurred and also the 'very real consequences' of non-compliance.
That said, on the evidence presently before me, the respondent has yet to meaningfully engage in supervision or counselling in circumstances where he requires 'significant assistance' to sustain behaviour change and ensure the adoption of new habits.
It follows, in my view, that I do not consider there is presently a sufficient basis for me to infer the respondent has in fact made any demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management, or life skills.

Conclusion

The respondent engaged in close to 40 breaches of his supervision order within the space of less than eight months.
The overwhelming majority those breaches go to the very heart of the supervision regime itself; namely a failure by the respondent to follow directions given to him by those responsible for his supervision in the community.
Evidently, none of the convictions, sentences, or non-compliance warnings which the respondent successively attracted over that period were sufficient to deter either the number or frequency of his breaches.
To compound matters, the respondent has espoused anti‑authoritarian views towards those responsible for his supervision, and sought to minimise, justify, rationalise, deflect, and excuse his conduct.
That said, sight cannot be lost of the fact that some nine months have now elapsed since Derrick J made the interim detention order.
Nor can it be ignored that positive signs have emerged from some of what the respondent has recently said suggesting his level of insight, both with respect to his breaches and the benefits of engaging with counselling, may have started to improve thus giving rise to 'hope'.
However, it would seem contrary to the statutory scheme for a combination of only words and hope to be permitted to prevail over experience when it comes to determining the prospect of substantial compliance with the standard conditions of a supervision order.
At least that would appear to be so where, as here, the breaches have been recent, numerous and frequent, where no gains in treatment including for long-standing substance abuse have yet been demonstrated, and where any relapse into illicit substance abuse will substantially increase the imminence of the risk of violent offending.
In all the circumstances, I am regrettably of the view that there is presently insufficient evidence from which I can infer, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of his supervision order should he again be released into the community (even with the proposed amendments).
Accordingly, I rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in its place.

Recommendations for ongoing treatment and management

Consistent with the recent observations of Whitby J in De‑Abreu,[221] I similarly note as follows:
(a)By s 64(2)(a) of the Act the State is required to ensure a review of the continuing detention order I now make is carried out as soon as practicable after the expiration of 12 months.
(b)It follows that a review of the respondent's detention under the continuing detention order will hopefully occur relatively shortly after the expiration of 12 months from today.
(c)Those responsible for the respondent's day-to-day detention are reminded the respondent is being detained in prison for control, care and treatment, and not for punishment.
(d)Every reasonable effort should be made to ensure the respondent's treatment needs are assessed, and that options for his release are explored, to optimise the chances of him being released soon after the next review date.
[221] The State of Western Australia v De-Abreu [No 2] [2024] WASC 303 [221] - [222].
Relevant to the last matter:
(a)Dr Barbas has recommended the respondent receive ongoing individual counselling through the Department's Forensic Psychological Intervention Team to address his outstanding treatment needs should a continuing detention order be imposed;[222]
(b)Ms Hasson has recommended that should the respondent remain in custody, individual counselling should recommence with a focus on his identified treatment needs;[223] and
(c)Dr McCann has opined the respondent may benefit from targeted psychological intervention ideally with a female clinician.[224]
[222] Barbas report [35].
[223] See [73(c)] above. As to those treatment needs, see [72(d)] above.
[224] See [105] above. See also [106] above.
The court requests that those responsible for the respondent's control, care and treatment make every effort to ensure prompt effect is given to the experts' recommendations, and the respondent is encouraged to engage with whatever support may be provided, so progress may hopefully be seen by the time of his next review.

Annexure – Contravention offences and uncharged contraventions

Date	Details	Status
1	19 May 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to attend a community corrections centre for urinalysis as directed (breach of condition 20).	Uncharged contravention
2	6 June 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to provide a valid sample for urinalysis (breach of condition 21).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
3	7 June 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to comply with a lawful direction from a community corrections officer (breach of condition 4).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
4, 5	16 June 2023; 21 June 2023	2x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to provide a valid sample for urinalysis (breach of condition 21).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
6	21 June 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by using a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine (breach of condition 18).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
7	30 June 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by not providing a valid urinalysis sample (breach of condition 20).	Contravention offence, finalisation pending
8	7 or 10 July 2023[225]	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to attend a urinalysis test appointment as directed and subsequently failing to provide a sample (breach of conditions 4 & 20).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
9, 10	12 July 2023; 14 July 2023	2x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by providing a urinalysis sample which tested positive for amphetamine and methylamphetamine (breach of condition 18).	Uncharged contravention
11	19 July 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by using a prohibited drug (breach of condition 18).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
12	4 August 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by using a prohibited drug (breach of condition 18).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15 August 2023	6x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to spend each night or a portion of such night at his approved residential address (breach of condition 8).	Uncharged contraventions
19, 20	22 August 2023; 24 August 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to provide a valid urinalysis sample (breach of condition 21).	Uncharged contraventions
21, 22, 23, 24	31 August 2023; 7, 11, 12 September 2023	4x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to notify the Community Corrections Officer of his intentions to reside at his secondary address as directed (breach of conditions 4 and 8).	Uncharged contraventions
25	1 September 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to attend urinalysis as directed (breach of condition 20).	Uncharged contravention
26	6 September 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order to not assault, threaten, insult or behave in an intimidating manner to a member of the Departmental staff or any agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice (breach of condition 35).	Uncharged contravention
27, 28	8 September 2023; 11 September 2023	2x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to comply with a direction of the community corrections officer to contact the COMU as directed (breach of condition 4).	Uncharged contravention
29	19 September 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by using a prohibited drug (breach of condition 18).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
30, 31	7-8 October 2023; 9-10 October 2023	2x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to reside overnight at approved address (breach of condition 8).	Contravention offence, finalisation pending
32	21 October 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to return to his approved residential address by 10:00 pm as directed (breach of conditions 4 and 8).	Uncharged contravention
33	2 November 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to provide a valid urinalysis sample (breach of condition 21).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
34	2 November 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by using a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine (breach of condition 18).	Contravention offence, convicted and sentenced
35, 36	4 November 2023; 15 November 2023	2x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by not abiding by his curfew as directed (breach of conditions 4 and 8).	Contravention offence, finalisation pending
37	24 December 2023	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by failing to spend a portion of a night at his approved address (breach of conditions 4 and 8).	Uncharged contravention
38	3 January 2024	1x Being subject to a supervision order, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order by not returning to his home address before 10:00 pm on 3 January 2024 (breach of condition 8).	Contravention offence, finalisation pending

[225] Cf. Stockton affidavit [7(v)], Book of documents vol 1 page 67 and prosecution notice relating to PE 34772/2023 Book of documents vol 1 page 222.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
JR
Associate to the Judge
25 SEPTEMBER 2024