The State of Western Australia v Reynolds [No 2] - [2025] WASC 272

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- REYNOLDS [No 2] [2025] WASC 272
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   23 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   23 JUNE 2025
PUBLISHED           :   7 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   SO 13 of 2024
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution

AND

NATHAN JOHN REYNOLDS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Application for restriction order - Whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether community can be adequately protected by supervision of the respondent

Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 5, s 7, s 29, s 30, s 35, s 48

Result:

Supervision order made

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution	:	T Hollaway
Respondent	:	Mr T Hager

Solicitors:

Prosecution	:	State Solicitor's Office (WA)
Respondent	:	Mr T Hager

Cases referred to in decision:

Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30
The State of Western Australia v Reynolds [2024] WASC 494
The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 23 June 2025 and has been edited from the transcript)

Background

This is the State's application under s 35 and s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act) dated 1 November 2024. Under div 2 of the Act, an application can be made for a restriction order in the event that the court finds that a person is a high risk offender. In relation to the application, I admitted into evidence four volumes of books of materials (BoM) as exhibit A and an addendum report of Dr Yewers dated 20 June 2025 as exhibit B.
A preliminary hearing was held before her Honour Forrester J on 29 November 2024. At that hearing, Forrester J was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find, in accordance with s 7 of the Act, that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. At these proceedings, Forrester J adjourned the State's application for an interim detention order and the application for an interim supervision order until 14 January 2025. Forrester J listed the matter for final determination for today.
The material background both in terms of the criminal record of the respondent and his personal circumstances are set out fairly comprehensively in the decision of Forrester J and there is no necessity in these reasons to repeat everything that her Honour set out in her reasons, delivered that day.[1]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Reynolds [2024] WASC 494 (Reynolds) [15] - [38].
On 14 January 2025, Lemonis J held that the respondent could be released to his post sentence supervision order (PSSO) that was imposed by the Prisoner Review Board. Lemonis J adjourned the State's application for an interim supervision order sine die. The matter was adjourned for a PSSO performance review on 4 March 2025 with an updated performance report.
On 4 March, 19 March and 26 March 2025, the matter came before his Honour Fiannaca J, who delivered reasons extemporaneously on 26 March 2025. On those occasions, his Honour was not satisfied that an interim supervision order would provide adequate protection for the community, and therefore on 26 March 2025, Fiannaca J, in effect, confirmed the interim detention order that he had previously made and that has been in place until today pending the determination of this restriction order application.[2]
[2] Unpublished Reasons of his Honour Justice Fiannaca, 26 March 2025; BoM, Vol 2, 857 - 863.

Legislative background

The relevant legislative background can also be found in the remarks of Forrester J.[3] The first question is whether the respondent is a high risk offender. The meaning of that term is set out in s 7 of the Act. Again, the principles in relation to that term and its application have been well established in a number of decisions that were comprehensively reviewed by the State in their written submissions for this application.[4] They are not controversial so far as this application is concerned and they need not be repeated.
[3] Reynolds [7] - [12].
[4] Applicant's Outline of Submissions for Restriction Order Hearing on 23 June 2025, 17 June 2025 [20] ‑ [46] (Submissions); See also Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215.

Evidence

Importantly, both in respect of the determination of whether the respondent is a high risk offender and for the purposes of deciding on the appropriate form of a restriction order, I shall in brief summary, make reference to the extremely helpful written reports of the expert witnesses and to the evidence they gave in court today.

Professor Natalie Pyszora

The first of those is Professor Natalie Pyszora, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. Professor Pyszora produced a report dated 27 April 2025. That report comprehensively sets out Mr Reynolds' background and provides assessments of his condition in varying circumstances.[5]
[5] BoM, Vol 4, 1329 - 1399.
I need not recount all the detail of Professor Pyszora's very comprehensive report. It chronicles the personal and criminal history and the psychiatric conditions of the respondent. It adopts and analyses some of the standard psychiatric tools for predictive behaviour in relation to the respondent, particularly in relation to the prospect of further violence and offending, in particular, offending in a manner that would constitute serious offences for the purposes of the Act.[6]
[6] The Act, s 5.
Professor Pyszora concluded that Mr Reynolds has an established pattern of offending behaviour including serious offending within the meaning of the Act. He has significant outstanding criminogenic treatment needs including antisocial personality disorder, antisocial cognitions, antisocial companions, family and relationship stressors, substance abuse, lack of employment, lack of education and lack of prosocial leisure or recreational activities. Professor Pyszora's view was that the respondent presents a high risk of committing a serious offence if those risk factors are not managed.[7]
[7] BoM, Vol 4, 1394.
She considered that Mr Reynolds has a clear propensity for offences of intimate partner violence as well as violence directed towards others. In her recommendations, Professor Pyszora stated that if Mr Reynolds is not subject to a restriction order, he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence. Professor Pyszora set out aspects of Mr Reynolds' treatment needs and also provided very helpful guidance and advice on the nature of the conditions that would assist in mitigating the risk that she had very clearly identified.[8]
[8] BoM, Vol 4, 1395 - 1396.
Professor Pyszora prepared an addendum psychiatric report, dated 20 May 2025, after she had considered the BoM, and that report contained an updated risk assessment. This updated risk assessment gave an increased PCL-R score[9] of 22 compared to the previous score of 20. Other measures had not significantly changed. In her addendum report, Professor Pyszora's recommendation also had not significantly changed. She reiterated that if the respondent were not subject to a restriction order, he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence within the meaning of the Act.[10]
[9] The PCL-R is a standardised rating scale used to identify traits of psychopathy including those related to criminality. See BoM Vol 4, 1384.
[10] BoM, Vol 4, 1413.
In the addendum report, Professor Pyszora gave evidence of an important development, and that was that the respondent had agreed to have his antipsychotic medication changed to a monthly depot injection.[11] In her oral evidence, Professor Pyszora explained the benefit of that was that this was a far more secure way of ensuring that the respondent took and absorbed his medication and provided a much greater degree of confidence that the medical impact of that medication would follow.
[11] BoM, Vol 4, 1404.
There were further very helpful features of Professor Pyszora's oral evidence. Professor Pyszora explained the availability of treatment of the respondent when in custody as compared to the availability of treatment should the respondent be released on a supervision order. Professor Pyszora explained that for various reasons related to the management of the respondent as a prisoner, he had not been able to complete the treatment programs that are available within the prison system for things such as intimate partner violence.
In addition, Professor Pyszora identified in broad terms two pharmacological needs of the respondent. One was the antipsychotic medication that he is now receiving monthly by depot. The second was substance dependence medication. Professor Pyszora explained that these had not been available at Hakea, where the respondent was being held, but would be available to the respondent if he was released on supervision to the community.
I understood from Professor Pyszora's evidence that on balance, the treatment of the respondent was likely to be better if he was released on supervision, than if he remained in prison. Professor Pyszora also observed from her meeting of the respondent in April 2025, that there was some improvement. This related to the respondent's decision to take the antipsychotic medication by monthly depot. Professor Pyszora also observed that the respondent's mental health had generally improved. She considered that this was an important factor in Mr Reynolds' risk of reoffending. Professor Pyszora observed that the respondent had family support, which she regarded as very important.
I also noted, importantly, Professor Pyszora's evidence that, in her observation, the respondent had rapidly responded to antipsychotic medication. That is, her clinical assessment is that the respondent is responding positively to the intervention of medication in terms of his psychosis. That adds some force to the importance of the fact that he is now receiving that medication as a monthly depot.
Professor Pyszora gave evidence about the impact of that medication. Following a short adjournment for Professor Pyszora to verify or check certain information, she gave evidence that the antipsychotic medication reaches a level of stability within the patient after the fourth injection. The uncontroversial evidence was that the fourth injection is scheduled to take place in early August 2025.
Professor Pyszora's opinion was that she would expect that the antipsychotic medication and its effect on the respondent to have fully stabilised by August 2025 and that, given the respondent's generally positive response to such medication, she would expect that to produce an improvement in his condition.

Compliance

Professor Pyszora gave important evidence regarding the critical question before me about whether the court could be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the orders.
I pause to observe that an important distinction needs to be made in relation to the application of s 30(2) of the Act. Under s 3 of the Act, 'standard condition' means the conditions under s 30(2) which must be included in the order. Section 30(2) sets out the mandatory conditions of a supervision order. In contrast, s 30(5) provides that the supervision order may contain other terms that the court considers appropriate to ensure adequate protection of the community, for the rehabilitation treatment of the offender, or to ensure adequate protection of victims of serious offences committed by the offender.
Under s 29 of the Act the court must be satisfied of the following before imposing a supervision order:
29.Limitation on power to make or amend supervision order
(1)A court cannot make, affirm or amend a supervision order in relation to an offender unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with
It is important to recognise that the level of the court's satisfaction under s 29 relates to the mandatory conditions under s 30(2), not the additional conditions under s 30(5). The evidence of Professor Pyszora in that regard was considered and thoughtful. Professor Pyszora's view was that if the supervision order merely required the matters contained in s 30(2), then she did not think the court could have confidence that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent would substantially comply with the conditions. However, the raft of additional conditions that have been proposed were such that Professor Pyszora considered that they provided a protective measure such that the court could be satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the mandatory conditions.
In effect I understood that to mean that, in considering the level of satisfaction I am required to evaluate under s 29, Professor Pyszora's view was that the management and infrastructure inherent in the additional conditions could give sufficient confidence to the court that the respondent was more likely than not, that is, on the balance of probabilities, to substantially comply with the mandatory conditions under s 30(2).
I will briefly come to the detail of that infrastructure and the personnel and management that attend the supervision orders, as was very helpfully explained by the senior community corrections officer (CCO), Ms Chloe Jones. In relation to Professor Pyszora's evidence, I should finally add that she considered that any supervision order would need to be in place for five years.

Dr Tara Yewers

A written psychiatric report and oral evidence was also given by Dr Tara Yewers, a counselling psychiatrist. Her written report was dated 11 May 2025 and, as I have already observed, an addendum report dated 20 June 2025 following consideration of the BoM was prepared and filed by Dr Yewers.
Dr Yewers' report and evidence were similarly comprehensive, thoughtful, and of great assistance. Dr Yewers also concluded that the respondent presents as a well above average risk for violent recidivism, with elevated risk in relation to intimate relationships. Dr Yewers concluded that the respondent presented a high risk of committing future serious offences in terms of the Act if not subject to a restriction order. Dr Yewers also considered that a period of five years would be appropriate for the duration of the supervision order.[12]
[12] BoM, Vol 4, 1453 - 1454.
Dr Yewers also provided helpful recommendations in terms of appropriate conditions.[13] Dr Yewers was less direct about her level of confidence as to the likelihood of the respondent's substantial compliance with the standard conditions but it was certainly the case that in her view, the additional conditions went some way to assist in ensuring that the respondent was more likely to comply with the standard conditions.

Chloe Jones

[13] BoM, Vol 4, 1454 - 1455.

Finally, a written report dated 26 May 2025 and oral evidence was provided by Ms Chloe Jones, a senior CCO. That report was endorsed by her team leader, Ms Amy Goode, and further endorsed by their manager, Sheree Hahn. Again, both the written report and the oral evidence from Ms Jones were comprehensive, thoughtful and very helpful.
Ms Jones has been the CCO for the respondent most recently while in prison, although her role while the respondent remains in prison is relatively limited. Ms Jones explained it is likely, however, that if the respondent is released on a supervision order, she would be the CCO with direct responsibility for the respondent.
Ms Jones helpfully explained the process by which management of the supervision, implementation and oversight of the proposed orders is undertaken. She explained in some detail the collaborative approach of the CCOs, team leaders, manager, representatives of the relevant police departments, and the forensic psychologist. She also explained the arrangements for psychological treatment and counselling that would be available to the respondent if he was released from detention and subject to a supervision order.
Ms Jones also gave evidence, which was consistent with the evidence of Dr Yewers, that the respondent had manifested a degree of positive motivation in being able to re-engage with his family and community by being released on supervision. Ms Jones gave evidence that, for example, the discussion she had with the respondent in relation to employment opportunities, even when faced with some obvious barriers, was productive and that the respondent engaged in seeking to find solutions to apparent barriers to his employment. All of that Ms Jones found to be some indication of the respondent's motivation and constructive attitude to the prospect of being released on supervision.

Conclusion as to whether Mr Reynolds is a high risk offender

Turning to the statutory regime, given the history of the matter outlined by both Forrester J and Fiannaca J, and mostly importantly the assessments of Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers, I have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is, for the purposes of s 7 of the Act, a high risk serious offender. Indeed, counsel for the respondent sensibly conceded the point. Nevertheless, it is important for the court to independently evaluate the issue. But in the circumstances, I find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender for the purposes of s 7.

Conclusions as to the appropriateness of a supervision order

Section 48 of the Act provides that if the court hearing a restriction order application finds that the offender is a high risk serious offender, then the court must either make a continuing detention order or, except as provided in s 29 of the Act, make a supervision order in relation to the offender. In deciding which of those options to adopt, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[14]
[14] The Act, s 48(2).
I turn, then, to s 29. Section 29 provides that: 'A court cannot make, affirm or amend a supervision order in relation to an offender unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order as made, affirmed or amended'. That is the section that I gave some attention to in the context of Professor Pyszora's evidence at [20] - [24] of these reasons. Subsection (2) provides that the onus of proof in relation to that matter is on the offender.
The real question exercising the court's consideration on this application is whether the court can be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that this respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions. The State conceded on the basis of the evidence that it was open to me to so find, that is, that it was open to the court to find that, in all the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, the court could be satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions.
Against that, there is a disturbing history of a failure to comply with conditions. In 2022, for example, the respondent damaged a component of his GPS monitoring device.[15] That is a matter of very serious concern. The State quite properly pointed to a very poor history of compliance with orders in the community and a very poor history of compliance with orders, and indeed, with the law, when returned to the community.
[15] Submissions [164]; BoM, Vol 4, 1314 - 1323.
The State also quite properly pointed to the fact that the apparent improvement in the respondent's mental health, including his monthly depot of the antipsychotic medication, had not been tested in the community.[16]
[16] Submissions [165].

Both the State and the respondent's counsel pointed to the fact that previous behaviours had not been subject to a regime under the Act for serious offenders and that the onerous severity of the proposed supervision orders provided a layer of protective measure. As I have already said, the degree of infrastructure, management and personnel can give the court a much greater degree of satisfaction that it is more likely than not that this respondent will substantially comply with the standard orders.
In my view, this is a finely balanced evaluation. The respondent has not just a very poor but an appalling history of violence and lack of control. That is particularly disturbing in relation to intimate partner violence. His inability to cope when returned to the community and his lack of compliance with orders on return to the community reflect on him very poorly.
Nevertheless, largely based on the very careful, thoughtful expert evidence of Professor Pyszora, and the other evidence that has been given today, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that with all the conditions as proposed, the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions. Accordingly, I conclude that it is appropriate to make a supervision order in the terms that are essentially agreed between the State and counsel for the respondent.

Duration and commencement

That supervision order is to be for a period of five years and will not take effect until two weekdays after the scheduled fourth injection in August 2025, of the antipsychotic medication.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
GP
Associate to the Honourable Justice Solomon
7 JULY 2025