The State of Western Australia v Reid [No 2] - [2023] WASC 331

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- REID [No 2] [2023] WASC 331
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   23 AUGUST 2023
DELIVERED          :   29 AUGUST 2023
FILE NO/S:   SO 12 of 2022
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
PATRICK JOSEPH REID
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High-risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether community can be adequately protected by supervision order - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Restriction order made
Supervision order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms D S McDonnell
Respondent	:	Ms A Fedele

Solicitors:

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

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

Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297
Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116
The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412
The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235
The State of Western Australia v Reid [2022] WASC 355

MCGRATH J:

Introduction

On 6 July 2022, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of Mr Reid under s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).[1] The State contends that Mr Reid is a high risk serious offender and that it is necessary that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment and, in the alternative, that should he be released, then he be subject to a supervision order under the HRSO Act.
[1] Application for Restriction Order filed 6 July 2022.
On 21 October 2022, Derrick J heard the preliminary hearing and determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing the Court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find that Mr Reid is a high risk serious offender.[2] Derrick J ordered that Mr Reid be released pursuant to an interim supervision order pending the determination of this restriction order application.
[2]The State of Western Australia v Reid [2022] WASC 355.
The applicant submitted that a supervision order under the HRSO Act would adequately manage the risk of Mr Reid reoffending.[3] On behalf of Mr Reid, counsel submitted that he should not be subject to a restriction order.
[3] Applicant's written submissions dated 22 March 2023.
I have determined that it is necessary that Mr Reid be subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. I have further determined that subjecting Mr Reid to a supervision order for a period of three years under s 27 of the HRSO Act will provide adequate protection to the community.
In these reasons, I will consider the following:
1)The relevant legal principles;
2)The evidence received at the hearing;
3)A consideration of the factors under s 7 of the HRSO Act; and
4)Assessment and conclusion.

Legal principles

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

The State may make an application for a restriction order where a person is a serious offender under custodial sentence pursuant to s 35 of the HRSO Act. The term 'serious offender under custodial sentence' is defined in s 3:
serious offender under custodial sentence means a person -
(a)who is under a custodial sentence for a serious offence; or
(b)who -
(i)is under a custodial sentence for an offence or offences other than a serious offence; and
(ii)has been under that sentence at all times since being discharged from a custodial sentence for a serious offence;
At the time this application was made, Mr Reid was serving a term of imprisonment for a 'serious offence' as defined by ss 3 and 5 of the HRSO Act.
A 'serious offence' is defined by s 5 of the HRSO Act which relevantly provides:
5.Term used: serious offence
(1)      An offence is a serious offence if -
(a)     it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 1; or
(b)it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 2, and is committed in the circumstances indicated in relation to that offence in that Division.
(2)      An offence is a serious offence if -
(a)it was an offence under a written law that has been repealed; and
(b)the offender's acts or omissions that constituted the offence under the repealed provision would constitute a serious offence under subsection (1).
(3)An offence is a serious offence if it is an offence of conspiracy, attempt or incitement to commit an offence that is a serious offence under subsection (1) or (2).
Mr Reid has committed offences that come within this category. Mr Reid has also committed a number of offences that are not characterised as serious offences. Offences of other types may be relevant in assessing the risk of serious offences being committed in the future because other offences may be connected to behaviour which has the real potential to lead to serious offending.[4]
[4] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246, [10].
Section 7(1) of the HRSO Act provides that an offender is a high risk serious offender if the Court is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. The State has the onus of satisfying the Court that a person is a high risk serious offender. This is a greater standard than a finding on the balance of probabilities and less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt, but is otherwise incapable of further definition.[5] This does not necessarily mean that the risk must be at some high percentage of probability; a risk may be less than 50% yet still be unacceptable.
[5] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
If the Court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk of the kind described in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, it necessarily follows that the person concerned is a high risk serious offender.[6] However, the Court must identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable and then consider whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard, that being to a high degree of probability, furnished by acceptable and cogent evidence.[7]
[6] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297, [66], [68] (Wheeler JA); Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [21] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
[7] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,[8] Corboy J identified that there is 'arguably a material difference between s 7(1) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act2006 (WA) (DSO Act), read with s 17, and s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, read with s 48'.[9] His Honour observed that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act requires that the Court be satisfied that 'it is necessary to make a restriction order', stating:[10]
It is arguable that the words 'necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community' introduce a further evaluative element over and above an evaluation of whether the risk of an offender committing a serious offence is unacceptable.
[8] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387.
[9] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387, [133].
[10] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387, [135].
Corboy J recognised in The State of Western Australia v Garlett that the current form of s 7(1) requires that the need to ensure adequate protection for the community should form part of the Court's determination of whether the offender is a high risk offender (the first step in making a restriction order), and should not merely be the paramount consideration in deciding what form of order should be made in respect of an offender who has been found to be a high risk serious offender (the second step).[11]
[11] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387, [139].
In The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario,[12] Quinlan CJ agreed with Corboy J's construction of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act.
[12] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario[No 3] [2021] WASC 412.
I also agree with Corboy J's construction of the HRSO Act. Therefore, the Court is required to make two evaluative judgments under s 7 of the HRSO Act being first, whether the risk of future offending is unacceptable and, second, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community.
The Court could find that it is not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community, despite the court finding that the risk of future offending was unacceptable. As Quinlan CJ observed, it would be a rare situation that the Court would find that it was not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community notwithstanding that it has been found that the risk of future offending was unacceptable.[13] Quinlan CJ gave the example where 'other external restraints on an offender (such as a post-sentence supervision order under the SentenceAdministration Act 2003 (WA)) may provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence (such that a restriction order is not 'necessary')'.[14]
[13] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario[No 3] [2021] WASC 412, [21].
[14] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario[No 3] [2021] WASC 412, [21].
A finding that there is an unacceptable risk involves a balancing exercise requiring the Court:[15]
… to have regard to, among other things, the nature of the risk (the commission of a serious offence, with serious consequences for the victim) and the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition whilst having regard, on the other hand, to the serious consequences for the respondent if an order is made (either detention, without having committed an unpunished offence, or being required to undergo what might be an onerous supervision order).
[15] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116, [46].
An unacceptable risk in the context of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act is therefore a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations. These may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of serious offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted) and the consequences of finding that an unacceptable risk exists.
I am required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of Mr Reid offending and the nature of the offence to be committed, if the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Reid has already been punished for the offences he has committed, it is necessarily in the interests of the community to ensure that he is subject to further control or detention.[16]
[16] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297, [63] (Wheeler JA).
Section 7(3) of the HRSO Act sets out a number of matters that the court must have regard to in considering whether a person is a serious danger to the community. Those matters are:
(3)In considering whether it is satisfied as required by subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following -
(a)any report prepared under section 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section;
(b)any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender;
(c)information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;
(d)whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender;
(e)any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme;
(f)whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender;
(g) the offender's antecedents and criminal record;
(h)the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence;
(i)the need to protect members of the community from that risk;
(j) any other relevant matter.
I note that s 7(3)(j) of the HRSO Act provides that the list of matters to be considered by the court is not limited by those otherwise delineated in the subsection.
While s 7(3)(g) of the HRSO Act provides that the court must have regard to the offender's criminal record in deciding whether a person is a serious danger to the community, the mere fact that a person has committed previous offences does not necessarily mean that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious offence in the future. The relevance of a prior criminal record would depend on the nature of the offences committed, the number of offences, and the period of time over which they occurred. However, past behaviour is often a good indicator of future conduct.
If the court determines that an offender is a high risk serious offender, then the court is required to make a restriction order.[17]
[17] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 48.
The term 'restriction order' is defined in s 3 of the HRSO Act to mean 'a continuing detention order' or 'a supervision order'. The terms 'continuing detention order' and 'supervision order' are defined in s 26 and s 27 respectively in similar terms to those that were used in the DSO Act.[18]
[18] Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), s 3.
Section 26 of the HRSO Act provides:
(1)In this Act a continuing detention order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment.
(2)A continuing detention order has effect in accordance with its terms from the time the order is made until rescinded by a further order of the court.
Section 27 of the HRSO Act provides:
(1)In this Act a supervision order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers appropriate, in accordance with section 30.
(2)A supervision order has effect in accordance with its terms –
(a) from a date stated in the order; and
(b) for a period stated in the order.
(3)The date from which a supervision order has effect must not be earlier than 21 days after the date the order is made unless the court is satisfied that the implementation of the order from an earlier date is practically feasible.
In making a determination between those two alternatives, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.[19]
[19] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 48(2).
However, other considerations do apply. The use of the word 'adequate' in the section indicates that a qualitative assessment is required. It cannot be assumed that the most preventative action is detention and that therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order.[20]
[20] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312, [14].
Given the more onerous nature of a continuing detention order, the scheme of the HRSO Act requires that the Court do no more than is necessary for the continuing control, care or treatment of the offender to achieve an adequate degree of protection of the community.[21]
[21] The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235, [24]; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312, [15].
Section 29 of the HRSO Act provides that a court cannot make a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order. The onus of proof is on the respondent offender pursuant to s 29(2) of the HRSO Act.
The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.[22]
[22] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4, [52].
The term 'standard condition', in relation to a supervision order, is defined by s 3 of the HRSO Act as meaning a condition that under s 30(2) must be included in the order. Section 30(2) of the HRSO Act provides seven conditions that must be included in any court-ordered supervision order. Therefore, the respondent must satisfy the Court that he will substantially comply with those standard conditions before the court can make a supervision order. The seven standard conditions set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act require that the person:
(a)report to a community corrections officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the offender's current name and address; and
(b)report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court; and
(c)notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens; and
(d)be under the supervision of a community corrections officer and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); and
(e)not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer; and
(f)not commit a serious offence during the period of the order; and
(g)be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.

Evidence

The State tendered a Book of Materials that comprised the relevant material.[23] The State's evidence relied upon the oral testimony of four witnesses, namely, Dr Wojnarowska, consultant forensic psychiatrist; Ms Hasson, forensic psychologist; Ms Cashmore, Acting HRSO Planning Manager at the Department of Justice and Ms Cromie, Senior Community Corrections Officer at the Department of Justice and author of the Updated Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 17 August 2023.[24]
[23] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials.
[24] Exhibit 2, updated Community Assessment Report dated 17 August 2023.
Mr Reid did not give evidence nor adduce any evidence.
I now turn to the matters relevant to determining whether or not Mr Reid is a high risk serious offender pursuant to s 7 of the HRSO Act. I will do so by considering the evidence in the context of the HRSO Act.

Factors under s 7 of the HRSO Act

History of offending and antecedents - s 7(3)(c), s 7(3)(d) and s 7(3)(g)

In deciding whether a person is a high risk serious offender, the Court must have regard to the person's antecedents and criminal record. That requires that all prior offences be considered, to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act (whether they be serious offences or not). It also requires consideration of the person's antecedents, including the context in which the past offences were committed.

The criminal record and antecedents are relevant in and of themselves but are also relevant to whether the person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future,[25] and as to whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour.[26]

Antecedents

[25] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 7(3)(c).

[26] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 7(3)(d).

Mr Reid is an aboriginal man, born in Wyndham on 6 September 1974 and is therefore 38 years of age. Mr Reid was the second youngest of five children born to his parents' union.
Mr Reid grew up in the east Kimberley region of Western Australia. Mr Reid reported that he had a happy childhood with his family and extended family. He reported that whilst in his earlier years his parents consumed alcohol, he never witnessed any partner or domestic violence. However, in later years he observed his brother's violence and aggression directed towards women.
Mr Reid denied any history of being the victim of physical, sexual or emotional abuse, abandonment or neglect. Mr Reid attended boarding school in Broome for high school, which he enjoyed with positive relationships with his peers, teachers and boarding house staff.
Mr Reid has a very limited employment history since leaving school, having worked briefly as a stockman. Mr Reid is currently in receipt of Centrelink payments.
Mr Reid commenced consuming alcohol with his family when he was 15 years of age, which established a pattern of heavy consumption of alcohol. However, he has had long periods of abstinence from alcohol. Mr Reid also has been a long-term and regular user of cannabis.
In respect to his physical health, Mr Reid reported that he is in good health although, he is treated with medication to manage high cholesterol.

Relevant criminal history

Mr Reid has committed a significant number of offences in Western Australia.[27] Mr Reid's offending history is outlined in the criminal record which forms part of the material relied upon by the applicant.[28] The offending history is summarised, in part, in a chronology of offending which was received in evidence.[29] I will outline the index offending and then turn to Mr Reid's other convictions, delineating the offences that may constitute serious offences under s 5 and sch 1 of the HRSO Act.
[27] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal record of Mr Reid.
[28] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal record of Mr Reid.
[29] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Chronology of Mr Reid's offending prepared by the Applicant.
Mr Reid's criminal record includes convictions for offences of violence, particularly against his female partner. Mr Reid has spent significant periods of his adult life incarcerated, although there have been long periods in the community where Mr Reid has not offended.
Mr Reid's criminal record includes convictions for a number of 'serious offences' within the meaning of the HRSO Act, specifically manslaughter contrary to s 280(1) of the Criminal Code, criminal damage by fire contrary to s 444(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and the index offending being one charge of with intent to harm, did an act causing bodily harm, contrary to s 304(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Index offence

The index offence comprises one count of with intent to harm, did an act causing bodily harm, contrary to s 304(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. The offending involved the victim, who was at the time the partner of Mr Reid's sister, riding a bicycle down the street. Mr Reid was a passenger in a car when he saw the victim on the bicycle. Mr Reid had, earlier that day, provided the victim with money in order to buy cannabis. The victim had not returned with the cannabis as anticipated by Mr Reid. Consequently, Mr Reid made the driver of the vehicle stop and he approached the victim. At that time Mr Reid asked the victim about the cannabis to which the victim replied that he had smoked the drugs. This caused anger in Mr Reid who punched the victim to the head region, causing him to fall on the footpath.
Mr Reid then stomped on the side of the victim's head. He then circled around the victim before jumping in the air and landing with his foot on the victim's head. The victim appeared to be unconscious by this time. Mr Reid then stomped on the victim's head a final time and then walked away.
The victim suffered swelling and lacerations to the right side of his head but no brain injury.
Mr Reid admitted to the police that he intended to harm the victim because he was upset that the victim had smoked his cannabis.
The learned sentencing judge found that the offence was not premediated but resulted from a loss of self-control.[30]

Manslaughter offence

[30] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Transcript of sentencing hearing held on 14 June 2021, p 298 - 311.

Mr Reid was convicted after trial of one offence of manslaughter in August 1994, but was acquitted of the count on the indictment, being murder. Mr Reid was sentenced to 5 years and 4 months' imprisonment, the sentence having been reduced from 6 years to take account of the time that he had spent in custody.
The manslaughter offending involved Mr Reid and the victim drinking near the Halls Creek townsite with a number of other persons. Mr Reid and the victim had been in a relationship for approximately three or four months.
Mr Reid and the victim commenced arguing, resulting in Mr Reid threatening to hit the victim. Mr Reid and the victim then went to the Halls Creek hotel where they continued drinking at separate bars. An hour or so after they arrived at the hotel, Mr Reid approached the victim and requested that she accompany him home. The victim refused, causing Mr Reid to become angry, punching the victim in the face and knocking her to the ground where she hit her head. Mr Reid then punched the victim again when she was on the ground.
Mr Reid departed the hotel and commenced walking back to his car. The victim followed him and he again punched her to the face. Mr Reid and the victim then appeared to resolve the argument and together they returned home in a nearby community.
On arrival at the community, the argument recommenced with Mr Reid picking up a boomerang that was behind the seat of the vehicle and punching the victim again. As the victim ran away Mr Reid threw the boomerang at her, striking her body. Mr Reid then struck the victim several more times to the torso and the legs with the boomerang until it broke. He then picked up a piece of hose and struck the victim with it several more times while she was on the ground. He also kicked and punched her body several more times before picking up a metal window louvre and striking her on the side and legs with it.
During the ongoing assault the victim fell to the ground and struck the back of her head heavily on the edge of the concrete verandah and the ground. She lost consciousness. Mr Reid then poured hot liquid from a cooking pot over the victim's chest and legs. The victim failed to respond so Mr Reid picked up a smouldering stick from a campfire and prodded her with it. When the victim again failed to respond, Mr Reid dragged her to the side of the house and hosed her down with cold water in an attempt to revive her.
Finally, Mr Reid dragged the victim inside and changed her clothes. He then realised the victim had no pulse or heartbeat. Mr Reid gave her CPR and successfully regained a pulse. He then telephoned an ambulance. On his return, the victim had again stopped breathing and did not have a heartbeat. By the time the ambulance arrived the victim was deceased.

Arson offence

The third serious offence, being an act of arson contrary to s 444(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, was committed in July 2009. The offending occurred when Mr Reid and others went to an address in Halls Creek to confront a 15 year old boy and other family members over an incident that occurred the previous day. The occupants of the residence refused to leave the residence. Mr Reid then set fire to some bicycles in the rear yard, which caused the bicycles to be damaged beyond repair. Mr Reid's explanation to the police was that at the time he committed the offence he believed the bicycles were stolen and were being stripped for parts by a member of the household. The learned sentencing judge imposed a 12 month community based order with a requirement that Mr Reid complete 80 hours of community work.[31]

Other offending

[31] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal record of Mr Reid, p 1 - 6.

In 2017, Mr Reid was convicted of one count of aggravated unlawful wounding contrary to s 301 of the Criminal Code. The offending involved a dispute between Mr Reid's son and his brother in law who was 20 years of age. Mr Reid's son telephoned him saying that the brother in law had punched him in the chest for changing the television channel. Mr Reid responded by attending the premises armed with a machete. Mr Reid swung the machete at the brother in law's head, causing a deep cut above his eye.

Propensity to commit serious offences in the future ‑ s 7(3)(c) & Whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour ‑ s 7(3)(d)

The word 'propensity' is taken to have its ordinary meaning in the context of the criminal law. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR, Murray AJA stated that:[32]
[propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder.
[32] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [178] (Murray AJA).
The State submits that Mr Reid's criminal record demonstrates a propensity or tendency to commit serious offences generally.[33] I am satisfied that Mr Reid has the propensity to commit offences of violence against persons. Mr Reid has committed acts of violence against persons over an extended period.

Efforts to address offending behaviour and whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect ‑ ss 7(3)(e) and 7(3)(f)

[33] Applicant's written submissions dated 22 March 2023, [65].

I must also consider if Mr Reid has made any efforts to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including by participating in any rehabilitation programs. Further, I must consider whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect.
Mr Reid's history of treatment interventions and programs is outlined by both Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson. I have also received the relevant reports from the facilitators of the respective programs.
Mr Reid has undertaken treatment or programmatic intervention courses over an extended period. Mr Reid has completed the Cognitive Skill-Think Frist Program (Cognitive Skills Program), the Not Our Way Family and Domestic Violence Program (Not Our Way Program) and the Pathways Program. The relevant reports from the programs formed part of the applicant's material. I have considered those reports and will provide a succinct summary.
In 2008, Mr Reid completed the Cognitive Skills Program. The report stated that Mr Reid was motivated and mature in his attitude towards the program. Mr Reid was able to demonstrate a good level of assertiveness and confidence in his communications and was able to develop a good relapse prevention plan that included moving away from his community and making new friends. The report also stated that Mr Reid was able to demonstrate that he could control his impulsivity, which was perceived to be a factor in his offending. However, the report stated that despite achieving gains throughout the program, Mr Reid appeared to have limited emotional awareness and vocabulary for emotions. The facilitators recommended that Mr Reid engage in an Indigenous learning program targeted at improving communication with his family.
In 2022, Mr Reid completed the Not Our Way Program. The Program targets the criminogenic needs of Aboriginal men in respect to family violence offending. The report stated that Mr Reid was focussed, although mostly silent during group discussions. The report stated that whilst he made gains in the areas of emotional regulation and accepted responsibility for his offending, he displayed limited empathy towards the victim of his manslaughter offence.
In 2022, Mr Reid completed the Pathways Program which aims to address cognitive behaviours for offenders who have an occurring problem with alcohol and other substances, and criminal conduct.
The facilitators confirmed that Mr Reid presented as a focussed and engaged participant who was willing to explore factors relating to his illicit substance use and offending. The report stated that Mr Reid had made treatment gains in relation to his illicit substance use. However, the report stated that his gains were yet to be tested in the community and expressed the view that Mr Reid may benefit from further alcohol and drug counselling to support him in the community.

Psychiatric reports and extent to which the respondent cooperated with psychiatric examinations ‑ s 7(3)(a)

Dr Wojnarowska

Dr Wojnarowska, forensic psychiatrist, produced one report dated 12 February 2023 and gave oral testimony at the hearing of the application.[34] Mr Reid cooperated with Dr Wojnarowska during the psychiatric examination.[35]
[34] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023.
[35] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 410.
Dr Wojnarowska diagnosed Mr Reid with antisocial personality disorder, as evidenced by his history of breaking the law, acting impulsively and lacking regard for the safety of others.[36] Further, Dr Wojnarowska diagnosed Mr Reid with substance use disorder (alcohol and cannabis dependence), currently in remission.[37]
[36] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 411.
[37] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 411.
Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid's presentation and history was suggestive of high levels of anxiety, threat sensitivity, and a tendency to respond aggressively to perceived threats. Further, there were indications of low mood and preoccupation with negative thinking. Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid has a history of emotional dysregulation and stress resilience deficits.[38]
[38] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 416.
Dr Wojnarowska undertook an assessment of Mr Reid's risk of future offending utilising the Hare Psychology Check-list-Revised (PCL-R), Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA-V3) and the Historical, Clinical Risk Management 20 Version 3 (HCR-20 v3) tools. In cross-examination, Dr Wojnarowska confirmed that the tools were designed for all offenders and not just aboriginal offenders.[39] Dr Wojnarowska confirmed that the HCR-20 v3 tool 'needs to be used with caution so as to minimise overestimated risk of aboriginal offenders'.[40] However, Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid presented as a person who understood very well the implications of his offending and that he did not believe that the interim supervision order was unfair or contrary to his culture.[41]
[39] ts 68 (23/8/2023).
[40] ts 68 (23/8/2023).
[41] ts 69 (23/8/2023).
Dr Wojnarowska utilised the Hare Psychopathy Check-list-Revised (PCL-R), which assesses the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy. The PCL-R score is recognised as a useful indicator of likely future recidivism for general, violent offending. The score obtained from this test can be an important component of other risk assessment tools, including structured clinical guides. Mr Reid received a total score of 14 with equal distribution across two factors, which was consistent with his diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.[42] In her testimony, Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid does not fit the construct for psychopathy.[43]
[42] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 412.
[43] ts 69 (23/8/2023).
The SARA-V3 is a set of structured professional judgment guidelines for the assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence.[44] The factors considered in the SARA-V3 are divided into three domains, namely factors related to intimate partner violence, perpetrator risk factors reflecting the psychosocial adjustment and background of the person, and victim vulnerability factors. Dr Wojnarowska stated an intimate relationship is likely to trigger some unresolved psychological problems resulting in jealousy, which could potentially lead to relapsing into alcohol abuse. The risk is then elevated for physical violence towards a partner.
[44] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 411.
Dr Wojnarowska stated there are multiple risk scenarios including domestic violence against an intimate partner. The violence is more likely to manifest itself when he is intoxicated. Further, he is likely to reoffend when experiencing withdrawal symptoms from the use of cannabis. The severity of any violence could potentially be extreme.[45]
[45] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 420.
The HCR-20 v3 is a broad band violence risk assessment instrument. Dr Wojnarowska observed that Mr Reid has historical problems with substance abuse, negative social interactions and relationships with violence. Accordingly, there is an elevated risk with 3 of the 10 possible HCR-20 v3 risk factors. Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid is motivated and appears insightful to the benefits of professional services assisting with his reintegration to the community.[46]
[46] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 418.
During her testimony, Dr Wojnarowska stated that there have been two extended periods when Mr Reid did not reoffend whilst in the community. Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid's explanation for not reoffending was that he had a young family during those periods and he felt responsible as a father to provide.[47]
[47] ts 74 (23/8/2023).
Dr Wojnarowska expressed the opinion that given her clinical assessments, Mr Reid is at a high risk of committing a serious offence as defined in the HRSO Act, if not subject to a restriction order.[48]
[48] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 420.
Dr Wojnarowska expressed the opinion that Mr Reid's risk of committing a serious future offence is manageable in the community, noting that he has already demonstrated a good adherence to the conditions of his interim supervision order and that his long term goals are realistic and he has developed a feasible relapse prevention plan.[49] During her testimony, Dr Wojnarowska confirmed that Mr Reid has been compliant and not breached his interim supervision order and that his performance has been better than expected.[50] Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid should engage in individual psychological counselling to address his emotional deficits, propensity for violence, criminogenic needs, peer association and personal relationships.[51]
[49] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 420.
[50] ts 66 (23/8/2023).
[51]Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 420.
Dr Wojnarowska said that if Mr Reid is placed on a supervision order, that order should not exceed the duration of five years.[52] During her testimony, Dr Wojnarowska stated that given Mr Reid has served nearly a year on the interim supervision order, any supervision order imposed should take that time period into account. Therefore, a supervision order of four years in duration is appropriate in her opinion.[53] Dr Wojnarowska stated that whilst Mr Reid has made cognitive gains, the difficulty is translating those gains to emotional gains given he is a person who has been impulsive for most of his life.[54] Therefore, a longer period of supervision will provide him the support to 'withstand the stressors in life'.[55] Dr Wojnarowska also stated that when Mr Reid forms a relationship with a new partner, he should be subject to a supervision order at that 'crucial time'.[56] Dr Wojnarowska stated that Mr Reid's most violent offending occurred within the context of domestic relationships.[57]

Psychological and other assessments ‑ s 7(3)(b)

Ms Hasson

[52] ts 65 (23/8/2023).

[53] ts 65 (23/8/2023).

[54] ts 77 (23/8/2023).

[55] ts 77 (23/8/2023).

[56] ts 65, 76 - 77 (23/8/2023).

[57] ts 65 (23/8/2023).

Ms Hasson, Clinical Psychologist, stated that Mr Reid engaged well in the interview process, answering all questions spontaneously and with a reasonable quality and quantity of information.[58]
[58] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 424.
Ms Hasson stated that Mr Reid presents with many traits consistent with a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder.[59] Further, in addition to those anti-social personality traits, Mr Reid's behaviour demonstrates an entrenched pattern of angry and aggressive outbursts, which have often been expressed in a callous manner.[60] Ms Hasson stated that Mr Reid has a propensity to arm himself with various weapons when angered and this increases the possibility of him causing serious harm to others and thereby committing a serious violent offence.
[59] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 428.
[60] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 428.
During his interview, Mr Reid displayed a lack of awareness as to the severity of his behaviour but expressed regret and remorse concerning the death of his former partner.
Further, Mr Reid was able to acknowledge that violence in intimate relationships is unacceptable and he recognised that jealousy and other negative feelings were a significant risk factor for him.[61] Ms Hasson observed that fighting appears to be a normalised way of resolving conflicts for Mr Reid.[62]
[61] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 433.
[62] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 433.
Ms Hasson used the PCL-R, SARA V-3 and HCR-20 v3 diagnostic tool to assess Mr Reid's risk of future offending.
Mr Reid's total score on the SARA V-3 diagnostic tool was 33 (99^th percentile), which placed him in the high risk category for reoffending against a future intimate partner or family member.[63]
[63] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 446.
Mr Reid's total score on the PCL-R confirmed that he does not present with the more prototypical interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy. Rather, Mr Reid's risk factors are his antisocial lifestyle that is impulsive and irresponsible, and his limited remorse and poor behavioural controls.[64]
[64] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 440.
Using the HCR-20 v3 diagnostic tool, Ms Hasson identified a number of risk factors including a history of problems with violence and with relationships, substance abuse, personality disorder, violent attitudes, problems with treatment or supervision response (partially present), and problems with stress or coping (maybe present).
Ms Hasson identified possible risk scenarios for future offending.[65] First, that Mr Reid, whilst intoxicated with alcohol or illicit substances, will assault an intimate partner with a weapon with the potential for harm being significant. Second, Mr Reid will assault an acquaintance or family member due to a perceived slight or in retaliation to a wrong doing and inflict life threatening violence.
[65] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 445.
Ms Hasson stated that historically Mr Reid has used illicit substances and/or alcohol, which has resulted in him offending often in a serious and violent manner. Ms Hasson said the adequacy of his coping and emotional regulation skills is yet to be tested in a significant manner while in the community and that his skills in these domains are still considered to be merging and not consolidated. Whilst Mr Reid has participated in programs to address the history of violence and substance abuse with some treatment gains noted, he has outstanding treatment needs that would be best achieved through engagement in individual counselling.[66]
[66] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 448.
Ms Hasson stated that Mr Reid requires maintenance and ongoing substance abuse counselling to assist him with abstinence, and that he would benefit from further intervention, focusing on internal risk factors and behavioural and emotional regulation.[67] During her testimony, Ms Hasson confirmed that Mr Reid is 'in a better position of his understanding of his own behaviours', which is positive, but that the risk of offending remains when in a 'heightened emotional state'.[68] Ms Hasson stated that Mr Reid 'is motivated to change' but he must manage challenges that cause heightened emotional states.[69]
[67] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 448.
[68] ts 86 (23/8/2023).
[69] ts 86 (23/8/2023).
Ms Hasson expressed the opinion that the length of the supervision order should be two years. Ms Hasson stated the reason a two-year period is preferred is because Mr Reid resides in the regions and that the conditions, in particular GPS monitoring, is more onerous. In order for Mr Reid to have access to work opportunities, cultural opportunities and to be able to move in the regional community, the supervision order should be for the least required period.[70] Further, Ms Hasson stated that Mr Reid has made good progress without contravention in the community and therefore, a reduced period will recognise the progress and be a form of reward.[71] In respect to the contention that Mr Reid should be subject to a supervision order at the time he forms a relationship with a new partner, Ms Hasson stated that it is not known if or when Mr Reid will enter a new relationship. Therefore, the period of the supervision order should not be extended for that reason.[72]

Proposed HRSO Treatment Options Report – Ms Stagg

[70] ts 80 (23/8/2023).

[71] ts 80 (23/8/2023).

[72] ts 81 (23/8/2023).

Ms Stagg of the Department of Justice prepared a HRSO Treatment Options Report dated 14 March 2023.[73] Ms Cashmore, Acting HRSO Planning Manager, gave evidence.
[73] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, HRSO Treatment Options Report of Ms Stagg dated 14 March 2023, p 400 ‑ 403.
Ms Stagg confirms that on 15 December 2022, Mr Reid was referred to the Kindley Mental Health and Drug Services (KMHDS) to commence engagement in drug and alcohol counselling. Mr Reid diligently has engaged in two counselling appointments with further appointments scheduled.[74]
[74] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, HRSO Treatment Options Report of Ms Stagg dated 14 March 2023, p 401.
Further, a referral was made to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) on 6 January 2023. Ms Stagg reported that Mr Reid was placed on a wait list and there are no Departmental psychologists currently available to service that location. Ms Cashmore confirmed that Mr Reid has now been allocated a psychologist and to date he has attended one appointment and is scheduled to attend his second appointment in the next fortnight.[75]
[75] ts 99 (23/8/2023).
Ms Stagg recommended that if Mr Reid remained in the community under a supervision order, he should continue to engage with KMHDS to address his substance abuse until such time that service provider determines he no longer requires support. Ms Stagg confirmed that service providers were contacted to determine whether it was possible to deliver one-on-one family and domestic violence counselling in Halls Creek. Regrettably, Anglicare advise that there is insufficient resources to deliver additional services in Halls Creek and therefore, Mr Reid cannot be given assistance at this time. Mr Reid is on the waitlist for FPIT with telehealth and videolink psychological intervention being considered.

Community Supervision Assessment Reports

Ms Benadives prepared an Updated Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023.[76] I received an updated Community Supervision Report dated 17 August 2023.[77] Ms Cromie gave evidence at the hearing.
[76] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, dated 20 March 2023, p 450 ‑ 468.
[77] Exhibit 2, Updated Community Supervision Report dated 17 August 2023.
Ms Benadives confirmed that since Mr Reid's release from the Broome Regional Prison, the Kununurra Adult Community Corrections office has supervised him. Mr Reid has demonstrated positive compliance with no breaches. Further, Mr Reid has presented for supervision in person on nine occasions and 18 supervision sessions were conducted by telephone.
Mr Reid reports on a weekly basis and remains consistent with meeting his obligations.[78] Ms Benadives states that Mr Reid appears to be motivated to address his treatment needs, has accepted the conditions of his interim supervision order, and has shown a willingness to comply informing that this motivation is now intrinsic and derived from his desire to lead a prosocial lifestyle void of any criminality.[79]
[78] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 458.
[79] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 458.
Mr Reid has fully complied with the requirement that he report to the Halls Creek police station once a month.
In addition, Ms Benadives confirms that Mr Reid has engaged in weekly sessions of alcohol and drug counselling with the KMHDS via telephone. Mr Reid has been subject to five random breath analysis tests conducted by the Halls Creek police whilst in the community with negative results returned.[80]
[80] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 459.
Mr Reid has undertaken the Certificate III in Civil Construction Plant Operations supported by the East Kimberly Job Pathways.[81] The course facilitator reported that Mr Reid has a good opportunity to obtain employment given he has a current driver's licence and he has shown positive motivation by arriving early for class and attending every day.[82]
[81] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 461.
[82] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 461.
In respect to accommodation, Mr Reid is currently residing with his mother and aunt in a two bedroom duplex in Halls Creek. Mr Reid's mother confirmed her ongoing support.[83] Mr Reid has applied for government housing however, there is a waitlist for eight years for a single accommodation.
[83] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 462.
Ms Benadives produced a draft supervision order, which was considered appropriate to manage Mr Reid's risk in the community should he be released.[84]
[84] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 466 ‑ 468.
The Updated Community Supervision Report dated 20 March 2023 confirms the very positive compliance by Mr Reid. The report states that Mr Reid continues to demonstrate positive compliance with no instances of non-compliance. Further, Mr Reid has returned negative results to random urinalysis and breath tests. In respect to the intervention for his alcohol and illicit substance abuse, the counsellor at the KMHDS confirmed that Mr Reid is confident in his abstinence and relapse prevention.[85]
[85] Exhibit 2, Updated Community Supervision Report dated 17 August 2023.
The Updated Community Supervision Report dated 20 March 2023 states that Mr Reid continues to reside with his mother and aunt without issues and that he will continue to do so.[86] Ms Cromie stated that Mr Reid is currently on a public housing waitlist for accommodation in Halls Creek. Whilst Ms Cromie was unable to confirm the extent of the waitlist in Halls Creek she stated that the waitlist for public housing in Kununurra is 12 years.[87]
[86] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 March 2023, p 462.
[87] ts 101 (23/8/2023).
Mr Reid meets his reporting obligations to the local police station and is proactive in communicating with officers concerning any movements in the community.[88] Mr Reid has not breached any condition of the interim supervision order. Ms Cromie gave testimony that Mr Reid has been fully cooperative with no problems at any time.[89]

The risk that a serious offence will be committed if a continuing detention or supervision order is not made ‑ s 7(3)(h)

[88] Exhibit 2, Updated Community Supervision Report dated 17 August 2023, p 4.

[89] ts 103 (23/8/2023).

The psychiatric and psychological evidence supports the finding that Mr Reid is at a high risk of committing further serious offences. Both Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson expressed the opinion that Mr Reid is at high risk of committing a future serious offence if not subject to a restriction order.[90] This assessment of risk takes into account his ongoing treatment needs. I have outlined the evidence that supports that finding. Mr Reid has undertaken a number of treatment programs. He appeared to be an engaged participant in the courses and programs. However, it is clear that the treatment programs have not adequately mitigated the risk that a serious offence may be committed if a continuing detention or supervision order is not made. Mr Reid is progressing well but there is more to be done in order to address the risk.

The need to protect members of the community from that risk ‑ s 7(3)(i)

[90] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 5 March 2023, p 420; Report of Ms Hasson dated 21 February 2023, p 448.

I find that there is a need to protect the community from the risk that Mr Reid will commit a serious violent offence. Both Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson have expressed the opinion that there is a real risk that Mr Reid will commit offences of violence. I have outlined that evidence when considering the reports of Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson.

Any other relevant matter - s 7(3)(j)

Mr Reid is aware of the link between his alcohol and substance abuse and offending. The abuse of alcohol and illicit substances are significant risk factors and despite having recently completed an intensive substance abuse program with treatment gains, Mr Reid requires ongoing support to ensure that he does not relapse.
Mr Reid was involved in several non-critical incidents during his most recent period of incarceration, including an assault on his brother in law in March 2021.[91] He was employed as a laundry worker from August 2021 and was considered by authorities to be an above average worker.[92]
[91] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, p 456.
[92] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, p 456.

Assessment and conclusion

Counsel for Mr Reid submitted that I should not be satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order. That submission is contrary to the evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson, who expressed the opinion that Mr Reid is a high risk serious offender who should be subject to a supervision order.
After considering the evidence in respect of the factors in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act, and finding that evidence to be acceptable and cogent, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the respondent currently presents an unacceptable risk to the community and that he would commit a serious offence. Further, I am satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community. Mr Reid has demonstrated over an extended period that he is not able to maintain an intimate relationship without acts of violence being perpetrated on his partner. Mr Reid has been diligently engaging with his interim supervision order and is making real advances in his rehabilitation. However, the risk remains. The professional assistance provided under a supervision order will support Mr Reid in the community.
Therefore, I am satisfied that a restriction order must be made under the HRSO Act to ensure the adequate protection of the community against that risk. Both Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson gave cogent and reliable evidence that supports this finding.

Continuing detention order or supervision order

I must now decide whether Mr Reid should be detained pursuant to a continuing detention order or be released into the community under a supervision order. The applicant accepts that a supervision order will adequately manage the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. I am of the view that the applicant's submission is properly made.
The court must choose the order that is the least invasive to Mr Reid's liberty, while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.
In considering whether a supervision order will adequately protect the community, it is necessary to take into account any conditions which can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of Mr Reid, his care and treatment, and to ensure adequate protection of victims of offences committed by Mr Reid.[93]
[93] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 30(5).
I must also be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Reid has established that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order under s 30 of the HRSO Act.
The evidence fully supports a finding that a supervision order will adequately protect the community. In particular, Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson expressed the opinion that the risk may be managed in the community by a supervision order. Dr Wojnarowska observed that Mr Reid has demonstrated a sound adherence to the conditions of his interim supervision order and that he has developed a feasible relapse plan. Further, Mr Reid's motivation to rehabilitate is reflected in his engagement with programs and the community. I am also mindful that Mr Reid has been meeting his obligations under the interim supervision order in the community.
I find that this is a case where the protection of the community may be properly and satisfactorily advanced by a supervision order, rather than a continuing detention order. Further, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Reid will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order as set out under s 30 of the HRSO Act.
In my view, there are conditions that may be imposed under a supervision order that will provide adequate protection of the community. The proposed conditions were not opposed by Mr Reid. As Mr Reid continues to engage well with the supervision and reporting requirements of the supervision order, consideration may be given by the authorities to reducing the extent of the restrictions and directions during the period of the supervision order.
The conditions that are to be imposed are outlined in the supervision order, which is attached as Annexure One. The conditions are extensive and serve to manage the risk in the community. The conditions include a requirement that Mr Reid reside with his mother in the accommodation, which has proven to be most suitable.
In respect to the duration of the supervision order, there were differing opinions expressed by Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hasson regarding the appropriate period. Ms Hasson expressed the opinion that a supervision order should be of at two years duration. Dr Wojnarowska stated that the duration of the supervision order should be five years but that the period fixed by the Court should take into account the period served under the interim supervision order. I will impose a supervision order of three years duration. In imposing a supervision order of three years duration, I am mindful that Mr Reid has been subject to an interim supervision order for nearly one year. I am also mindful that Mr Reid is progressing very well in the community being compliant and engaged. A supervision order of three years will provide Mr Reid with support and guidance for an appropriate period.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to Mr Reid to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. Further, I have determined that the risk of reoffending may be adequately managed in the community with the imposition of a supervision order for a period of three years.

ANNEXURE ONE

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MCGRATH ON 29 AUGUST 2023

Pursuant to s 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of three years on the following conditions:

You, PATRICK JOSEPH REID, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the Halls Creek Adult Community Corrections Centre (3 Darcy Street, Halls Creek WA) on the day of imposition of this Order and advise the officer of your current name and address.
Report to and receive visits from a CCO as directed by the court.

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

Be under the supervision of a CCO and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of s 31 or s 32 of the HRSO Act.

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

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

Be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31 of HRSO Act.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence

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

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.
Not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO.

Attendance at programs or treatment

Attend all appointments and receive visits from any psychiatrist, social worker, psychologist, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO.

Reporting to WA Police

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

If requested, permit WA Police to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle or your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this Order and allow seizure of any items that WA Police believe to contravene the conditions of the Order.

Remain at your residence and/or vehicle when WA Police conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle.

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

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

Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other persons or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offending history.

Restrictions on contact with Victims

Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your violent offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice, or in a manner approved of in advance by the CCO.
Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to condition 17, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your violent offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture.
Report to the CCO and WA Police any direct or indirect contact with the victims of your violent offending within 48 hours of such contact occurring.

Curfew

Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to s 32 of the HRSO Act, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.
When subject to a curfew under this Order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or front yard of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO, WA Police, or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
When subject to a curfew under this Order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence who may answer the telephone or door are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew.

Criminal Conduct

Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA), and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the prescriber.
Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA).

Prevention of high-risk situations

Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol without prior approval of a CCO.
Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by WA Police, including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.
Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 26 of this Order.
Not go or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
a.    For the purpose of averting or minimizing a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person.
b.   For a purpose, and for a duration, approved in advance by a CCO.
c.    On the order of a CCO or WA Police.
Not to remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, is affected by alcohol or prohibited substances unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO.
Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs or alcohol are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place, or remove the persons consuming prohibited drugs or excessive alcohol from your residence.

Not to be in possession of any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article and not to apply for, acquire or hold a license to possess any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article.

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

You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a staff member of the Department of Justice or an agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice.
_____________________________
THE HON JUSTICE MCGRATH

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
NA
Associate to the Honourable Justice McGrath
29 AUGUST 2023