The State of Western Australia v Paraha

The State of Western Australia sought a restriction order against Paraha under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA). Paraha was serving a term of imprisonment for manslaughter that expired on 26 January 2025. The application for the restriction order was heard while Paraha was still in prison, awaiting his release. The court was required to decide whether the State had met the requisite criterion for the court to fix a date for the hearing of the State's application and whether it was appropriate to impose an interim detention order in the meantime.

The court examined the criteria for imposing a restriction order, which included the likelihood that the person will reoffend and the risk they pose to the community. The court considered the State's evidence and submissions, which included details of Paraha's criminal history and the circumstances of his current offence. The court also considered the submissions made by Paraha's legal representative, who argued that the State had not met the requisite criterion for the court to fix a date for the hearing of the State's application and that it was not appropriate to impose an interim detention order.

The court found that the State had met the requisite criterion for the court to fix a date for the hearing of the State's application. The court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Paraha posed a significant risk to the community if released without restrictions. The court also found that it was appropriate to impose an interim detention order, which would require Paraha to be detained in a suitable facility until the hearing of the State's application. The court considered that this was necessary to protect the community and to ensure that Paraha did not reoffend before the hearing of the application.

The court fixed a date for the hearing of the State's application and ordered that Paraha be detained in a suitable facility until the hearing. The court also directed that Paraha be provided with access to legal representation and that the State provide any relevant information to his legal representative. The court noted that the interim detention order was not a final determination of the State's application and that Paraha would have the opportunity to challenge the order and the evidence against him at the hearing.