The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 5]
[2025] WASC 481
•14 NOVEMBER 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SLATER [No 5] [2025] WASC 481
CORAM: HOWARD J
HEARD: 1, 17, 22, 27 and 30 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED : 12 NOVEMBER 2025
PUBLISHED : 14 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S: SO 7 of 2021
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
KEITH RONALD SLATER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Contravention proceedings - Application for supervision order to be rescinded and continuing detention order made - Respondent detained on interim detention order - Respondent contravened conditions of supervision order - Respondent contravened standard conditions - Whether the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions - Whether the community can be adequately protected - Compliance with standard conditions to be considered with the end of the enabling of attaining the general objects of the Act, namely the adequate protection of the community - Elevation of conditions to standard conditions - Supervision order amended
Legislation:
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 7, s 8, s 29, s 55, s 56
Result:
Supervision order amended
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms T Hollaway |
| Respondent | : | Ms S Auburn |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Respondent | : | Legal Aid WA |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297
Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4
Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116
The State of Western Australia v Brown [No 11] [2023] WASC 4
The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424
The State of Western Australia v Slater [2021] WASC 298
The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] [2021] WASC 465
The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 3] [2023] WASC 22
The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 4] [2024] WASC 241
The State of Western Australia v TJD [No 5] [2020] WASC 421
HOWARD J:
Introduction
On 8 February 2023, the respondent, Mr Slater, was deemed by Forrester J[1] to be a high risk serious offender pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act).[2]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 3] [2023] WASC 22 (Slater [No 3]).
[2] Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references from here are to this Act.
He was placed on a supervision order for a period of five years from 1 March 2023 (Supervision Order).[3]
[3] Book of Materials Volume 1, 36 - 93. I have described references to the Book of Materials by marking the volume in which they can be found, followed by 'BoM' and the page numbers of the document.
The conditions to the Supervision Order are Annexure A to these reasons (Conditions).[4], [5]
[4] 1 BoM pages 94 - 100.
[5] 1 BoM pages 1 - 2.
These reasons concern the State's application dated 9 May 2024 for orders under s 55 of the Act (Application).
Primarily, the State's Application seeks an order that:
Upon the Court being satisfied that the Respondent has contravened a condition of the supervision order made on 8 February 2023, an order that the supervision order be rescinded, and a continuing detention order be made in relation to the Respondent.
As the State's proposed detention order makes plain, the continuing detention order sought is for an indefinite term.[6]
[6] Draft detention order filed on 26 August 2025.
I have set out the procedural history from 9 May 2024 until the first hearing of the application before me on 1 September 2025 in Annexure C to these reasons. Some of that procedural history is recited in these reasons.
The time from the making of the Application until the hearing need only be stated to show it is unsatisfactory. That is so when the purpose of the hearing is to determine, in effect, whether Mr Slater should continue to be detained or may be released on a supervision order. That the delay may reflect broader resourcing difficulties in applications of this nature does not render it any more satisfactory when the question is one of a person's liberty.
On 13 May 2024, Fiannaca J ordered that Mr Slater be detained in custody until further order of the Court, pursuant to s 56(2)(b) of the Act. Mr Slater remains detained pursuant to that order.
It is common ground that Mr Slater contravened the Conditions of the Supervision Order as particularised by the State; I have extracted them in 'Annexure B' to these reasons (Contraventions).[7]
[7] 1 September 2025 ts 267.
Mr Slater has been convicted in relation to each of the Contraventions and has, as at the date of the first hearing before me, served all sentences imposed upon him in respect of them.
I am satisfied under s 55(1) of the Act that Mr Slater contravened the particularised Conditions of his Supervision Order.
Relevant statutory provisions
Subsection 53(2) of the Act provides:
(2) In relation to the offender, the State may apply for —
(a) an order under section 55; and
(b) an order for the offender to be detained in custody while proceedings on the application for an order under section 55 are pending.
Section 55 provides:
(1) If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates has contravened or is contravening a condition of a supervision order, the court must —
(a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or
(b) except as provided in section 29, make an order amending the conditions of the supervision order, or extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to the supervision order, or both; or
(c) except as provided in section 29, make an order affirming the supervision order without amendment or extension.
…
(3) In deciding which order to make under subsection (1) or (2), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.
Section 29 of the Act provides relevantly:
(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 the standard conditions of the order as made, affirmed or amended.
(2) The onus of proof as to the matter described in subsection (1) is on the offender.
As stated, I am relevantly satisfied of the Contraventions and so I must make one of the orders set out in s 55(1) of the Act.
By s 29 of the Act, I cannot affirm or amend the Supervision Order unless Mr Slater satisfies me that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions.
A 'standard condition' under the Act is defined as:
standard condition, in relation to a supervision order, means a condition that under section 30(2) must be included in the order.
Section 30(2) of the Act, in turn, provides:
(2) A supervision order in relation to an offender must require that the offender —
(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.
There was no dispute before me that Conditions 1 - 7 were 'standard conditions' within the meaning of the Act.
There was also no challenge to the State's submission that nine of the 24 Contraventions involved non‑compliance with a standard condition: namely Contraventions 1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20, 23 and 24.
Mr Slater's 'serious offences'
Mr Slater's history of committing 'serious offences' was set out by the Chief Justice in The State of Western Australia v Slater:[8]
[15]The evidence reveals that Mr Slater has a long history of offending. That offending includes violent offending and offences of a sexual nature. His offending includes aggravated indecent assault, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault with intent to rob, assault of a public officer, stealing and various motor vehicle offences.
[16]Relevantly, in 1985, Mr Slater was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault. This offending involved Mr Slater entering a bedroom and assaulting two females (age unknown) while they were in their beds.
[17]In 1988, Mr Slater was convicted of one count of indecent assault. A psychological report from Ms Mary‑Anne Martin dated 26 February 2014 reported that this offending occurred when Mr Slater entered the room of a woman (age unknown) at a hostel at 1.00 am.
[18]In 2005, Mr Slater was convicted of two counts of indecent assault. Again, Ms Martin reported that this offence occurred at around 5.00 am. Mr Slater approached a woman on the side of the road and asked her to give him a lift. She agreed to give him a lift and while in the car Mr Slater assaulted her.
[19]In 2011, Mr Slater indecently assaulted a female prison officer while in custody at Bunbury Regional Prison. He was convicted of unlawful and indecent assault and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
[8] The State of Western Australia v Slater [2021] WASC 298 [15] - [19].
Mr Slater's last 'serious offence' was set out by Forrester J in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 3] (Slater [No 3]):[9]
[12]In the early hours of the morning on 14 September 2013, the respondent, armed with a small kitchen knife, approached a residence in Nollamara. The respondent smashed a glass panel next to the door to gain entry. This woke the victim, a 29‑year‑old female who was home alone. She turned her bedroom light on.
[13]The respondent opened the bedroom door slightly. He held the small kitchen knife in one hand and used his free hand to reach in and turn the bedroom light off.
[14]The respondent entered the bedroom, pointing the knife at the victim. He demanded money, at which point the victim moved towards her handbag. The respondent grabbed the victim's right arm and pulled her towards him. The victim told the respondent she was getting her handbag. She took a small purse out of her handbag and told the respondent she had no money. Out of fear, she told the respondent she had bank cards and would give him the PIN numbers for them. The respondent asked for gold, but declined when the victim offered him jewellery.
[15]The respondent told the victim he needed something else before pushing her down onto the bed so she was lying on her back and getting on top of her. The victim unsuccessfully tried to get the respondent off her.
[16]The victim pleaded with the respondent not to do what he was doing. However, the respondent pressed the knife against the victim's neck and proceeded to kiss the victim with an open mouth and touch her breast under her bra with his free hand. The victim begged the respondent to stop. The respondent said, 'I need something. I'm going to lick you out.' The victim pleaded the respondent not to. The respondent then got off the victim and said he was going to leave. The victim directed the respondent out and called the police.
[17]The respondent's DNA was found on the victim's doona and pyjama top. He was arrested on 10 October 2013.
[18]The respondent's explanation for the offending was that he had taken speed, 'went loopy' and thought he was being chased. He claimed he could not recall how he ended up in the house, and did not know if he had a knife. The respondent did remember kissing the victim and that she was crying.
[9] [2023] WASC 22.
In respect of those acts, he was convicted of offences against:
1.s 401(2)(a) of the Criminal Code;
2.s 324 of the Criminal Code; and
3.s 393(d) of the Criminal Code.
In respect of those three offences, a total effective sentence of eight years' imprisonment was imposed from 10 October 2013. It expired on 9 October 2021.
Evidence adduced in the Application
Without objection, the State tendered four volumes of a Book of Materials (BoM): these became Exhibits 1 ‑ 4.[10] I have read and considered the materials within those exhibits which have been the subject of submissions or oral evidence.
[10] 1 September 2025 ts 262.
In addition, on 1 September 2025, the State called:
1.Dr Tara Yewers, a counselling psychologist who prepared reports dated 20 January 2022;[11] 23 February 2022;[12] and 21 August 2024;[13]
2.Chantal Spiccia, a senior clinical and counselling psychologist within the Department's Forensic Psychological Assessment Team (FPAT), who had prepared a letter to the court dated 6 August 2025 (which was in lieu of an HRSO Treatment Progress Report);[14] and
3.Aimee Goode, a team leader at the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU), who had endorsed an updated Performance Report dated 18 August 2025.[15]
[11] 2 BoM pages 660 - 708.
[12] 2 BoM pages 709 - 710.
[13] 3 BoM pages 801 - 837.
[14] 4 BoM pages 873 - 874.
[15] 4 BoM pages 875 - 879.
Ms Goode gave further evidence on 17 October 2025. She also:
1.endorsed an updated performance report dated 26 September 2025 which became Exhibit 5;[16] and
2.authored an email dated 29 October 2025 which became Exhibit 7.[17]
[16] 17 October 2025 ts 328.
[17] 30 October 2025 ts 421.
Each of the State witnesses were cross‑examined by counsel for Mr Slater.
Mr Slater and his evidence
Mr Slater's history of offending is set out elsewhere but, suffice for present purposes, to say that it is extensive.
Further, the evidence is that Mr Slater has a history of chronic suicidal ideation and a number of previous suicide attempts. In addition to his violent and sexual offending behaviours and substance abuse, he presents with emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, coping, poor problem‑solving and interpersonal aggression.[18]
[18] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM page 779.
Also, the significance of which will be set out below, Mr Slater has recently turned 60 in prison.
Mr Slater gave evidence in person and was cross‑examined.
Mr Slater's evidence was that he had been on drugs for 40 years and since he was a 'kid'.[19]
[19] 17 October 2025 ts 334 and 338.
He accepted that he has found it difficult to stop using drugs.[20]
[20] 17 October 2025 ts 332, 334 and 349.
While Mr Slater did not unreservedly accept that there was a link between his drug use and his offending,[21] he was clear that when he mixed alcohol with drugs there was a link to his offending.[22]
[21] See, for example, 17 October 2025 cf ts 331 with 336.
[22] 17 October 2025 ts 331 and 336.
Without equivocation, Mr Slater accepted his offending, the Contraventions that were put to him, and his behaviour in the prison.
In answer to his counsel's question as to whether anything had changed for him during this last term of imprisonment, he responded by saying that he had his 60th birthday in prison and 'I'm getting too old for the drugs, and I want to give it up'.[23]
[23] 17 October 2025 ts 332.
In his evidence he accepted that he needed more help with abstaining from drug use than his own willpower,[24] and expressed a willingness to accept that help.[25] Again, I accept that Mr Slater was sincere in that evidence, but it needs to be placed into the context of either the ambivalence or reluctance that he has, on occasions, expressed to COMU or to the experts conducting assessments as to his need for, and openness to, external help.
[24] 17 October 2025 ts 332 and 336.
[25] 17 October 2025 ts 334 and 335.
Mr Slater accepted that he had relapsed into drug use while he was undergoing the individual counselling with Ms Summers.[26]
[26] 17 October 2025 ts 341 - 342.
Mr Slater more than once gave evidence to the effect that he wanted to go to 'rehab'. I took him to be referring to an intense residential program, because he indicated he could not do that because he was being electronically monitored. That is consistent with both his preference and understanding as reported to COMU, for example, in the Updated Performance Report dated 18 August 2025.[27]
[27] 4 BoM pages 875 - 879.
In his evidence he expressed a preference to engage with services at Palmerston because he knew where that was.[28] (I note here that evidence was given before further evidence was given by representatives of Palmerston and Cyrenian House).
[28] 17 October 2025 ts 335 - 336.
I found Mr Slater to be sincere in his desire not to use drugs again if he were to be released into the community. Of course, Mr Slater's sincere intentions cannot be the end of the assessment.
I also accept as sincere Mr Slater's stated motivation to avoid drugs because of his desperation to stay out of prison.
Section 29 limitation
The State submits that the Court cannot make, affirm or amend the Supervision Order under s 55 of the Act because it cannot be satisfied that Ms Slater will substantially comply with the standard conditions.[29]
[29] State's outline of submissions filed 26 August 2025 (State's submissions) [3(a)] and [75].
The enquiry I must make under s 29 of the Act directs attention to whether there will be substantial compliance with the 'standard conditions' rather than all conditions.
I accept the State's submission that the words in s 29 of the Act 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes and objects of the legislation.[30]
[30] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52(1)]. I note that case concerned the now repealed Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA).
The objects of the Act are:
8.Objects of this Act
The objects of this Act are -
(a)to provide for the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and
(b)to provide for continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.
One can see, then, that the paramount consideration in s 55(3) of the Act 'to ensure adequate protection of the community' is a specific outworking of one of the Act's express objects.
Fiannaca J, in Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart,[31] (noting that his Honour was dealing with the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) and not the current Act) after a full review of the then authorities set out the following as an appropriate approach to considering whether there will be substantial compliance with the then analogous provisions:
[…]
(2)The question of what will be substantial compliance will be a matter of judgment that will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.
(3)The assessment is to be made in the context that it is one aspect of the broader exercise of determining whether the community can be adequately protected if the respondent is released again subject to a supervision order.
(4)It is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of the section, in context, that the word 'substantially' is used in a relative sense and involves an assessment of the degree of compliance that the respondent is likely to achieve.
(5)While the prospect of trivial or minor contraventions will not (and ordinarily should not) preclude a finding that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the assessment of whether the respondent will substantially comply involves considerations other than simply whether any potential breach will be trivial or minor.
(6)The court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community … .
(7)Factors that are relevant to that assessment would include the respondent's history of compliance and non-compliance and the factors set out at [50] above.
[31] [2019] WASC 4 [52].
Fiannaca J at [50] of that judgment said:
In the context of predicting future conduct, the factors identified in Kim v Witton translate into questions concerning the respondent's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular whether he is likely to deliberately flout the conditions), his capacity to comply with the conditions, what measures there are in place to ensure he would substantially comply, and the relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order in achieving the objects of the Act. … In particular, where engagement in counselling is to be a condition of the supervision order, the respondent's willingness to engage in a meaningful way, rather than just attend the counselling session, will be a relevant consideration, given the significance of counselling as a means of monitoring risk as well as assisting in the reduction of risk. (citations omitted)
Archer J, as she then was, helpfully listed the relevant factors as follows:
(1)the offender's history of non-compliance;
(2)the offender's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular whether he is likely to deliberately flout the conditions);
(3)his capacity to comply with the conditions;
(4)what measures there are in place to ensure he would substantially comply;
(5)the relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order in achieving the objects of the [HRSO] Act;
(6)the respondent's motivation to remain offence free and in the community;
(7)any willing participation in a sex offender treatment program. [I have taken this, under the current Act, to be willing participation in relevant treatment programs];
(8)abstinence from drugs;
(9)conduct while in prison; and
(10)demonstrated gains in treatment, self‑management, and life skills.[32]
[32] The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 [52].
Without derogating, in any way, from the approach taken by Fiannaca J and Archer J in the above cases, the observations of the Chief Justice in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] (Slater [No 2])[33] are analogously applicable and I have sought to bear them in mind in my assessment. The Chief Justice said:
[26]This points up an important aspect of any consideration of alleged contraventions of an interim supervision order. Compliance with an interim supervision order (and, indeed, any supervision order) is an important matter, and the importance of such compliance should not be understated. Nevertheless, it must be recognised, having regard to the text and structure of the Act as a whole, that an interim supervision order is not an end in, and of, itself. An interim supervision order is a means to an end: the end being the protection of the community against the risk of serious offences.
[27]In that sense, a supervision order or an interim supervision order will have served its purpose if it protects the community from serious offences, even if compliance with the conditions of the order, in the particular case, has not been perfect. The Court must always keep in mind that the object of the Act to be achieved is the adequate protection of the community from the commission of serious offences.
…
[29]… That is, as Mr Slater has not committed a serious offence, it cannot be said that the interim supervision order has 'failed'. Moreover, on the basis of the material before me, in my view it cannot be said that Mr Slater has, while on the interim supervision order, come remotely close to committing a serious offence.
[33] [2021] WASC 465.
I have set out below my observations on each of the factors identified respectively by Fiannaca J and Archer J. Obviously enough, while the listing of factors is helpful, the purpose of doing so is to facilitate the proper assessment required under s 29(1) of the Act.
In short, however, I note at this point that I consider that notwithstanding the number of Contraventions, if one considers that compliance with the standard conditions is to be considered against the enabling of attaining the general object of the Act, there has been substantial compliance. I have in this respect come to a different conclusion from that reached by Fiannaca J in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 4] (Slater [No 4]).[34] I do so, naturally enough, with some reluctance and with great respect. Of course, I have had the benefit of a greater length of time in which to consider the matters than was afforded to his Honour. Also, Mr Slater has been represented before me by counsel who have had a much greater opportunity to prepare and respond than did Mr Slater's then counsel before Fiannaca J.
[34] [2024] WASC 241 [55] and following.
In any event, whether or not I agree with Fiannaca J as to the position prior to the making of the interim detention order, I am engaged in an exercise now of whether Mr Slater can satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions going forward.
Again, by reference to an assessment which is considering the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community,[35] I am satisfied that Mr Slater will substantially comply with the standard conditions if I were to amend or affirm the Conditions of the Supervision Order under s 55(1)(b) or (c) of the Act.
[35] See the quotation from Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52(6)].
I note here, in passing, that it is always possible for a CCO to effectively elevate a non-standard condition imposed into a standard condition by giving a direction under Condition 4. That appears to be the case with a number of the Mr Slater's Contraventions considered below where, for example, the curfew dealt with in other conditions, was also made the subject of a CCO direction so that any breach would breach both the curfew condition and, then, a standard condition.
The respondent's history of non-compliance
I have set out below the Contraventions of the Supervision Order and made observations on them. I also note that Slater [No 2] ([31] and following) set out earlier alleged contraventions.
The respondent's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular whether he is likely to deliberately flout the conditions)
I have considered this further below under my consideration of the Contraventions.
The respondent's capacity to comply with the conditions
I have considered this further below under my consideration of the Contraventions.
What measures there are in place to ensure the respondent would substantially comply
I have considered these below when considering the programs available and Mr Slater's capacity to engage with them.
The relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order in achieving the objects of the [HRSO] Act
I have considered this below in dealing with what may be drawn from Mr Slater's Contraventions.
The respondent's motivation to remain offence free and in the community
I have set out Mr Slater's evidence in this Court. I accept that Mr Slater is very motivated to remain offence‑free and in the community. However, notwithstanding that, I think the more significant issues are whether there are supports in the community that would be available so as to assist him become and stay drug and offence‑free.
Very properly, Mr Slater's counsel did not suggest that his motivation and willpower would be sufficient in and of themselves.
Any willing participation in a sex offender treatment program
As noted above, I have taken this to be willing participation in relevant treatment programs.
I have set out below the therapy Mr Slater engaged in while he was on the Supervision Order. I have also set out his participation in programs while on the interim detention order and I have considered the evidence as to why he has not participated in the modified therapeutic community on offer at Casuarina Prison.
Abstinence from drugs
On the evidence before the Court, since being detained by the order of Fiannaca J, Mr Slater has had his urine tested in custody:
1.in July 2023, January, May, June and July 2024 on seven occasions, and provided a negative result on each;[36] and
2.on four occasions since September 2024, each of which returned a negative result.
[36] COMU's Performance Report dated 18 September 2024; 3 BoM pages 838 and 851. That report noted that on one occasion in April 2024 Mr Slater had refused to provide a sample. And, later disclosed that he had used methylamphetamine on occasion (two days after his admission to Hakea Prison).
As will be obvious from the review of the Contraventions, Mr Slater was not able to abstain from drugs in the community while on the Supervision Order, although he did return, also, a number of negative tests.
Conduct while in prison
COMU's Performance Report dated 18 September 2024 detailed six incidents in prison between November 2023 and 30 August 2024 (including one disobeying of an order to provide a urine sample as noted above).[37]
[37] 3 BoM pages 838 and 850 ‑ 851.
Further, the COMU Updated Performance Report dated 18 August 2025[38] recorded that:
1.on 26 September 2024, a fight was observed between four prisoners. While Mr Slater was not part of the fight, his behaviour during the incident was inappropriate given his aggression towards an officer. He was issued a verbal warning;
2.on 1 November 2024, Mr Slater was observed out of bounds and received a three‑day loss of recreation privileges;
3.on 22 December 2024, Mr Slater was again observed out of bounds and was issued a verbal warning;
4.on 30 December 2024, Mr Slater was seen on CCTV passing an item to another prisoner (later identified as drug paraphernalia) and received an administrative sanction;
5.on 23 March 2025, Mr Slater refused a direct order to move cells and became verbally abusive. This matter was referred back to the Unit for resolution;
6.on 7 May 2025, Mr Slater was observed smashing the common room television valued at $367.00 by throwing an unknown item at it. Mr Slater was formally charged and ordered to pay the restitution for the value of the television;
7.on 18 June 2025, Mr Slater was seen out of bounds between the Oval and November Block and attempting to communicate with November Block Prisoners. When presented with his behaviour by a female officer he became abusive stating 'I don't give a fuck you slut'. His behaviour was addressed by the Unit Senior Officer; and
8.on 23 July 2025, Mr Slater was found out of bounds and made abusive remarks to officers when spoken to. An administrative sanction, a warning was issued.
[38] 4 BoM pages 876 - 877.
Those incidents are of themselves, in the context of detention, serious and of concern.
They clearly demonstrate that, perhaps unsurprisingly, Mr Slater still has unresolved difficulties in enacting pro‑social, emotional coping strategies when under stress.
Some light may be shed on Mr Slater's behaviour in prison by Ms Summers' observations that Mr Slater did present on occasions in an agitated or dysregulated state. In that therapy he was introduced to mindfulness, cognitive defusion and breathing exercises and, when enacted, he appeared visibly calmer.[39] Mr Slater's behaviour in prison may be further indicative of his ongoing issues relating to impulsivity, poor consequential thinking and problem‑solving, and difficulty tolerating distressing emotions as identified by Ms Summers.[40]
[39] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM page 780.
[40] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM page 780.
In the absence of any other evidence by way of context as to whether the incidents reflect particularly poor, or relatively common, prisoner behaviour, I have considered the comparatively minor official responses to most of the incidents identified (e.g. a verbal or other warning) as something of a gauge as to how serious they were when considered against a prison cohort.
Of course, none of those observations is intended to minimise the apparent loss of control or non‑compliance with the rules there evidenced.
Demonstrated gains in treatment, self‑management and life skills
I have considered these matters, predominantly, in my consideration of Ms Summers' End of Treatment Report. I have sought to capture her most relevant observations in quotations below.
Mr Slater's participation in therapeutic services previously
While on the supervision order Mr Slater attended 19 individual psychological appointments between March and November 2023 with a counselling psychologist registrar of the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT).
The End of Treatment Report[41] reported that during the counselling period, Mr Slater was remanded in custody on several occasions for contraventions of the supervision order, and these included a three-month gap in counselling between June and September 2023 and another month‑long gap between October and November 2023. Unsurprisingly, Ms Summers reported that: 'contributed to difficulty in building momentum in targeting the aforementioned treatment goals and counselling'.[42]
[41] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM page 778.
[42] 3 BoM page 779.
Ms Summers reported:
Mr Slater experienced several lapses to illicit substance use throughout the intervention period (evidenced by the return of positive urinalysis results and self-disclosure). These were predominantly lapses to cannabis use, however additionally included lapses to amphetamine use (contributing to his final return to custody). It is noted that Mr Slater often disclosed these lapses to the author during psychology sessions, and expressed his awareness of the author's obligations for this information to be passed onto his Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO). He explained his candidness [sic] in relation to these lapses, stating: 'if I keep lying then no one can help me'. Mr Slater appeared open to exploring the factors that had precipitated and perpetuated these lapses. He identified that poor emotional coping (he described using cannabis to 'relax'), poor boundary‑setting and peer refusal skills, and high-risk antisocial cognitions permissive of drug use and antisocial behaviour as relevant factors to his ongoing substance use.
Mr Slater's behaviour whilst subject to the order in the community appeared indicative of ongoing issues related to impulsivity, poor consequential thinking and problem-solving, and difficulty tolerating distressing emotions. This was exemplified towards the end of the intervention period, whereby he disclosed injecting an unknown substance (a tablet which he reportedly crushed and mixed with water), as a means of attempting to 'flush' his system of illicit substances, in preparation for urinalysis testing. He denied any suicidal intent associated with this behaviour; however, it highlighted the ongoing risk that his outstanding criminogenic treatment needs pose on the potential for harm or misadventure.
Overall, Mr Slater's criminogenic treatment needs related to his history of violence and sexual offending remain outstanding. Some progress was made in terms of his motivation and willingness to engage in counselling, and what appeared to be a shift to a contemplative stage of change in relation to his substance use. Mr Slater demonstrated an understanding of the relationship between thoughts, emotions, and behaviours; and with assistance and guidance in session was observed to challenge unhelpful and antisocial cognitions, and enact prosocial emotional coping strategies. Despite this, he continued to struggle to implement strategies independently outside of the counselling environment, and it is considered that he will require considerable long-term assistance to translate these burgeoning insights into sustained behavioural change.[43]
[43] 3 BoM pages 780 - 781.
Under a description of 'Treatment Outcome', Ms Summers opined that:
Mr Slater appeared to move from a pre-contemplative stance towards engagement in criminogenic intervention, to a contemplative and at times preparatory stance.[44]
[44] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM page 779.
Ms Summers concluded her Report:
Mr Slater's criminogenic treatment needs remain outstanding. His continued lapses to illicit substance use served as a responsivity factor and barrier to meaningful engagement in treatment targeting his other criminogenic treatment needs, during this period of intervention. It is therefore recommended that his substance use be targeted as a treatment priority. This might include referral for a period of residential rehabilitation (which Mr Slater has expressed motivation and willingness to engage in) or a period of intensive outpatient substance use counselling.
…
It is noted that Mr Slater did demonstrate a capacity to establish a therapeutic rapport with the author during this period of intervention. This, in combination with his growing ambivalence towards the negative aspects of continuing to lead an antisocial and substance-using lifestyle indicates that he may respond favourably to criminogenic intervention should his therapy‑interfering behaviours and responsivity factors be addressed in the first instance.[45]
[45] 3 BoM page 781.
Ms Summers considered that, in effect, there may be value in Mr Slater being re‑referred to the FPIT for further individual psychological counselling.[46]
[46] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM pages 778 and 781.
That suggestion appears not to have been contemplated further by COMU in its responses to this Court.
As will be seen, I have placed significant reliance on Ms Summers' observations as:
1.she had a rapport with Mr Slater;
2.she has spent the longest time with him;
3.the therapy she conducted was engaged in the community; and
4.it is the most detailed reporting of gains made by him via therapy in a community setting.
Since being in detention, pursuant to the interim detention order made by Fiannaca J on 13 May 2024, it was said that Mr Slater has not participated in any therapeutic prison programs.[47] (It is unclear whether individual counselling was not extended to Mr Slater during this time in detention because of resourcing constraints or otherwise.)
[47] Updated Performance Report dated 18 August 2025: 4 BoM page 875.
That may be correct as far as it goes, but it does not present the whole picture. In August 2024, Mr Slater completed a three‑day drug and alcohol course 'Standing On Solid Ground' with the Wungening Aboriginal Corporation and following that course has continued to engage in individual counselling through it.[48] For example, Wungening Aboriginal Corporation has visited him on nine occasions since February 2025.
[48] Performance Report dated 18 September 2024: 3 BoM pages 838 and 851.
By COMU's Performance Report dated 18 September 2024,[49] it is apparent that Mr Slater had, by then, agreed to be re‑referred to Uniting WA and was required to engage with Uniting WA for a minimum six‑month period before being able to be offered accommodation options. Mr Slater has completed this minimum six‑month engagement period with Uniting WA.[50] It was not clear from the evidence what was required by that six‑month engagement with Uniting WA. In all of the circumstances, however, I think it safe to infer that the engagement with Uniting WA over that period was intended to assess whether Mr Slater may be successfully housed in the community.
[49] 3 BoM pages 838 and 844 ‑ 845.
[50] Updated Performance Report dated 18 August 2025: 4 BoM pages 875 and 877.
It is clear from the evidence that therapists considered that a residential rehabilitation program may be of assistance to Mr Slater.[51] It is equally clear that Mr Slater expressed throughout a motivation and willingness to engage in such a program[52] and, indeed, that continued to be Mr Slater's position in his evidence before this Court.
[51] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM pages 778 and 781.
[52] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM pages 778 and 781; Performance Report dated 18 September 2024: 3 BoM pages 838 and 840.
Notwithstanding those matters, it is equally plain from the evidence that there is no community residential rehabilitation option available because Mr Slater would be subject to electronic monitoring at the least, and, for other programs, the relevant facilities accommodated both males and females which precluded anyone with a history of sexual offending.[53]
[53] See, for example, Performance Report dated 18 September 2024: 3 BoM pages 838 and 841.
From the evidence, a program which appears to have been considered most suitable for Mr Slater was the Solid Steps program run at the Mallee Rehabilitation Centre at Casuarina Prison. Dr Yewers described the program as:
… a voluntary nine-month alcohol and drug recovery program that is delivered five days a week at the Mallee Rehabilitation Centre in the form of group work, individual counselling sessions and wellbeing activities. The Mallee Centre is located at Casuarina Prison but run as a live-in therapeutic community that is separated from the general prison population.[54]
[54] Dr Yewers' report dated 21 August 2024: 3 BoM page 817 [93] and FN 55.
Mr Winton, from Palmerston, gave evidence that Palmerston was a partner in the Solid Steps program and described it as a 'modified' therapeutic community which is planned to be a sterile unit.[55] Mr Winton's understanding was that the Mallee Unit houses those in the Solid Steps program, with some additional prisoners from crisis care, but otherwise they were separated from the general prison population.[56]
[55] 30 October 2025 ts 429.
[56] 30 October 2025 ts 429.
Ms Goode's evidence was that the counselling which Mr Slater was receiving through the Wungening Aboriginal Community was far less intensive than he would receive in the Solid Steps program.[57]
[57] 1 September 2025 ts 305.
Mr Slater's evidence in this Court was emphatic that he would not contemplate a move to Casuarina Prison because of his fears to his safety based on other inmates who were there. Mr Slater had reported that position to COMU at least by 18 September 2024.[58] He remained of that position to the end of the hearing, notwithstanding the evidence subsequently given as to the make up of the population in that unit or program.
[58] Performance Report dated 18 September 2024: 3 BoM pages 838 and 841.
Mr Slater was not cross‑examined on his evidence as to why he would not go to Casuarina Prison for the Solid Steps program.[59] I accept his evidence on this point. If Mr Slater genuinely holds those fears, as I accept he does, then whether they may be assessed by others as not accurate does not detract from the obvious impediment that such fear would play in Mr Slater engaging therapeutically with the Solid Steps program. There was no evidence before the Court to suggest that Mr Slater's concerns had been investigated or discounted by reference to evidence.
[59] 17 October 2025 ts 341.
Consequently, if there is an implicit submission of the State that Mr Slater will not engage in therapeutic services in the community because he had not participated in the Solid Steps program, I would not accept that submission.
Assessment of Contraventions
Quite rightly, counsel for Mr Slater did not seek to minimise or excuse the number of Contraventions.
They occurred from 1 March 2023 regularly through to April 2024.
None of them is for a defined serious offence.
The State, as I understand it, relies on the Contraventions to bear on:
1.whether Mr Slater has discharged his onus under s 29(1) of the Act;
2.Mr Slater's 'attitude' to future compliance with any conditions which might be imposed under s 55(1) of the Act; and
3.whether the community can be adequately protected otherwise than by the making of a continuing detention order.
To assess those submissions, it is necessary to consider in a little more detail the Contraventions.
In doing so I have adopted the numbering of the Contraventions as per the State's particulars which appear in Annexure B to these reasons.
Drug and alcohol use
| Contravention number | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? |
| 2 | 23 May 2023 | Positive result for cannabis | 3 BoM pages 782 ‑ 783 PE 26935 of 2023 | N |
| 3 | 26 May 2023 | Positive result for methamphetamine | 3 BoM page 783 PE 27365 of 2023 | N |
| 7 | 18 August 2023 | Positive result for methamphetamine | 3 BoM page 784 PE 42059 of 2023 | N |
| 9 | 11 September 2023 | Positive result for methamphetamine and cannabis | 3 BoM page 785 PE 46191 of 2023 | N |
| 10 | 2 October 2023 | Positive result for cannabis | 3 BoM page 785 PE 49503 of 2023 | N |
| 13 | 30 October 2023 | Positive result for methamphetamine and cannabis | 3 BoM page 786 PE 55313 of 2023 | N |
| 15 | 9 November 2023 | Positive result for amphetamine | 3 BoM page 787 PE 57754 of 2023 | N |
| 17 | 21 November 2023 | Positive result for amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylamphetamine and cannabis | 3 BoM page 788 PE 60987 of 2023 | N |
| 18 | 7 March 2024 | Positive result for methamphetamine | 3 BoM pages 788 ‑ 789 PE 15369 of 2024 | N |
| 19 | 11 March 2024 | Positive result for amphetamine and methylamphetamine | 3 BoM page 789 PE 1537 of 2024 | N |
| 22 | 27 March 2024 | Positive result for amphetamine, methylamphetamine and cannabis | 3 BoM pages 789 ‑ 790 PE 19486 of 2024 | N |
| Alcohol | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? |
| 6 | 16 June 2023 | Breathalyser reading of .018 | 3 BoM page 784 PE 30670 of 2023 | N |
| Failing to provide urinalysis | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? |
| 11 | 19 October 2023 | Attended Community Corrections site, provided a medical note but did not provide urine analysis | 3 BoM page 786 PE 55308 of 2023 | N |
| 21 | 28 March 2024 | Directed to and attended COMU to provide urine sample. Despite requests failed to do so | 3 BoM page 789 PE 18274 of 2024 | N |
Breach of curfew
| Contravention number | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? | |
| 1 | 13 May 2023 | Left nominated address three times at 11.11 pm, 11.26 pm and 11.45 pm | 3 BoM page 782 PE 24789 of 2023 | Y | |
| 5 | 1 June 2023 | Reached nominated address approximately one hour after the curfew began after visiting a relative at RPH | 3 BoM pages 783 ‑ 784 PE 28342 of 2023 | Y | |
| 12 | 29 October 2023 | Left nominated address for 13 minutes to go to the chemist | 3 BoM page 786 PE 55310 of 2023 | Y | |
| 23 | 17 April 2024 | On 17 April left nominated address several times through the curfew hours | 3 BoM page 790 PE 22299 of 2024 | Y | |
| 24 | 18 April 2024 | Left nominated address through curfew hours at least for half an hour | 3 BoM page 791 PE 22300 of 2024 | Y | |
| Entry into an exclusion zone | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? |
| 20 | 27 March 2024 | Crossed through a Reserve which was an exclusion zone | 3 BoM page 789 PE 18273 of 2024 | Y |
Failure to comply with e-monitoring
| Contravention number | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? |
| 8 | 9 September 2023 | Allowed GPS device to run out of battery - appears not to have left nominated address | 3 BoM pages 784 - 785 PE 46190 of 2023 | Y |
| 14 | 3 November 2023 | Failure to keep e‑monitoring equipment in working condition - appears not to have left the nominated address | 3 BoM page 787 PE 55312 of 2023 | Y |
| 16 | 17/18 November 2023 | Failure to keep e‑monitoring equipment in working condition - appears not to have left the nominated address | 3 BoM pages 787 - 788 PE 58621 of 2023 | Y |
Comply with CCO directions
| Contravention number | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? |
| 1 | As per curfew above | |||
| 5 | As per curfew above | |||
| 8 | As per e‑monitoring above | |||
| 12 | As per curfew above | |||
| 14 | As per e‑monitoring above | |||
| 16 | As per e‑monitoring above | |||
| 20 | As per curfew above | |||
| 23 | As per curfew above | |||
| 24 | As per curfew above |
Other
| Contravention number | Date | Description | Reference | Standard condition? |
| 4 | 1 June 2023 | Failure to hand over mobile phone | 3 BoM page 783 PE 27367 of 2023 | N |
Clearly, Mr Slater's 11 contraventions for positive results for drug use and one positive result for alcohol use are of concern.
They show that Mr Slater did not abstain from drug and alcohol use during the Supervision Order. By way of context, I should note that in addition to these positive tests, Mr Slater also returned 18 negative results from tests between 3 March 2023 and 18 April 2024.[60]
[60] Performance Report dated 18 September 2024: 3 BoM pages 838 and 842 ‑ 843.
The observations which the Chief Justice made in Slater [No 2] appear to me to be, with respect, analogously applicable in considering the Contraventions and, with respect, are significant. I have quoted [26], [27] and [29] from the Chief Justice's judgment in [53] above.
Further, in this context I also note the findings which Forrester J made in February 2023 before she placed Mr Slater on the Supervision Order. Her Honour stated:
[235]… In the time he was subject to the Interim Supervision Order, the respondent failed to take any real steps towards dealing with his substance misuse issues, or, indeed, engage in any other programmatic intervention.
[236]It is telling that despite this, during the time he was on the interim supervision order, the respondent did not commit any offence of a violent or sexual nature. While not minimising the seriousness of the offence for which he is presently imprisoned, the Interim Supervision Order achieved its object: the protection of the community from serious offending on the part of the respondent, and further, from any violent offending.[61]
[61] [2023] WASC 22.
Mr Slater's drug use while on the supervision order, when coupled with his not having committed a serious offence, does not gainsay Dr Yewers' opinion expressed (quoted in [128] below) as to Mr Slater's risks of offending.
It does suggest, however, that, at least during the Supervision Order, there was no necessary relationship between drug and alcohol use and the committing of a serious offence. That is, Mr Slater used drugs and alcohol on occasion without that leading to the commission of a serious offence.
Further, as the Chief Justice and Forrester J noted, it may suggest that the conditions on the Supervision Order did contribute to Mr Slater not committing a serious offence. I consider that while Mr Slater has not always appreciated the Conditions imposed on him, they have contributed to Mr Slater not committing a serious offence while in the community on the Supervision Order.[62]
[62] In saying this, I must acknowledge that Dr Yewers found that suggestion a difficult one to comment upon: 1 September 2025 ts 293.
The fact that Mr Slater attended and provided samples which led to the 12 drug and alcohol Contraventions rather supports the observations that Ms Summers made as to Mr Slater's disclosures to her of his relapsing.[63]
[63] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM pages 778 and 780 ‑ 781.
In saying that I note, of course, that Contraventions 11 and 21 were a failure to provide a sample. In both cases, however, Mr Slater did attend as directed.
The breach of curfew Contraventions are each a breach of a standard order. While his curfew was dealt with in Conditions 27 - 29, it was also brought within Condition 4 by CCO orders.
Of course, those contraventions are of significance, particularly to the assessment to be conducted under s 29 of the Act.
However, in my view, none of the contraventions of the curfew (and, without more, Contravention 20) appear to be particularly serious. I accept, of course, that any breach of a condition on a supervision order is a serious matter. But it is in the nature of criminal law and the assessments to be made under the Act that, notwithstanding that all types of certain offending is properly to be characterised as 'serious', a grading of the particular conduct under that rubric is still required.
The Contraventions to do with the e-monitoring are not to be minimised and each is a breach of a standard condition. Nonetheless, in none of them does it appear that the equipment was not maintained properly or recharged appropriately for the purpose of disguising Mr Slater leaving the nominated address. In each case, it appears that Mr Slater had not left the nominated address.
As I understand the State's submissions, the most serious of the Contraventions was Contravention 23 which appeared to carry significant weight with Fiannaca J in making the interim detention order in Slater [No 2] [57].
The short facts of Contravention 23 appear at [58] and following of Annexure B. It may be accepted, of course, that Contravention 23 was a clear breach of a direction to remain at the nominated hotel/motel between 1800 hours and 0600 hours by a CCO and that Mr Slater crossed the road and engaged with various members or groups of the public, including 'intoxicated females'.
Contravention 23 occurred within a day of Mr Slater being released from custody on 16 April 2024. Given his history of opportunistic offending with great respect, again, I do not accept that 'the only next step would be the commission of an offence'.[64]
[64] Cf Slater [No 2] [2024] WASC 241 [57] (Fiannaca J).
I again differ with great respect from Fiannaca J and note that in the context of a history of opportunistic offending, there was nothing to prevent Mr Slater opportunistically offending against the intoxicated women save for his own decision making which may well have been influenced by his being the subject of the relevant Conditions at the time.
Paramount consideration from s 55(3): adequate protection of the community
There is, in my view, a significant overlap in the considerations as to whether Mr Slater has discharged his onus under s 29(1) of the Act and whether the community can be adequately protected under s 55(3) of the Act, and I have considered them together, effectively, below.
I have quoted s 55(3) of the Act above which provides that the paramount consideration in deciding which of the relevant three mandated options available to the Court should be ordered.
To assess whether the community would be adequately protected one needs to start by answering the implicit question of 'from what?'.[65]
[65] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [63] (Wheeler JA); Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116 [44], [45], [46] (Buss JA); see also the application of those stated principles to the current Act in The State of Western Australia v Brown [No 11] [2023] WASC 4 [45] (Derrick J).
Before a person may be deemed to be a 'high risk serious offender', the court must be satisfied under s 7(1) of the Act that it is necessary to make a Restriction Order:
To ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.
By definition, a supervision order is a 'Restriction Order' and so although s 55(3) of the Act does not expressly denote what the community is to be adequately protected from, in my view it is, at the least, the risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. That, in my view, flows from the purpose, context and words used in the Act.
Forrester J, in Slater [No 3],[66] found that Mr Slater was:
… at least a moderate risk of committing a serious offence of a violent, sexual nature. … the impact of such offending can be devastating and long lasting.[67]
[66] [2023] WASC 22.
[67] [2023] WASC 22 [229].
That finding by Forrester J made in February 2023 continues to be supported by the expert evidence led by the State including by reference to assessments made in the second half of 2024 using various scales: see the report of Dr Yewers dated 21 August 2024: 3 BoM page 801 [9] ‑ [11], [107], [166].
I now make the same finding.
Dr Yewers opined, and there was no challenge to this opinion:
[168]The most likely risk scenario for a sexual offence is that Mr Slater relapses to substance use and offends while under the influence. Substance intoxication will increase his impulsiveness, recklessness, and disinhibition. Methamphetamine/ amphetamine use may bolster his sex drive and sex-seeking behaviours. The sexual offence may occur in the context of a break and enter but may also be targeted towards a female that Mr Slater has previously met (although may not know well). Mr Slater's sexual behaviour is most likely to be kissing, touching genitalia and breasts, and beseeching for further sexual interaction. He may inflict physical injury by rough handling the victim, and psychological harm through his sexual assault, use of a weapon, threats and intimidation. Notwithstanding, the seriousness of the harm inflicted will be influenced by Mr Slater's choice/use of weapon, victim compliance, and the vulnerability of the victim (by way of age and capacity to resist).
[169]The most likely risk scenario for Mr Slater to commit a violent offence also involves drug intoxication. Under these circumstances, he may reoffend by breaking into a home at nighttime to obtain money or goods to fund his drug use, noting that he could concomitantly sexually assault the victim. His crimes are unlikely to involve any significant planning or preparation, but he may have a weapon in his possession. The weapon might be used to assist in gaining entry and/or to obtain the compliance of the victim through threats and intimidation. The victims may be strangers or someone he has previously met or associated with. The level/extent of harm might vary from rough handling and punching to a more severe injury. The seriousness of the physical injury will be impacted by Mr Slater's choice of weapon and the ability of the victim to resist or escape.
[170]Other possible scenarios for violence similarly involve Mr Slater being intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol, however his victim choice may be indiscriminate and someone that Mr Slater perceives to be thwarting him or mocking him. In his intoxicated state, he is likely to be reactive, unpredictable and disproportionate.
…
[172]… He is currently assessed as 'well above average' risk for both sexual and violent recidivism with numerous dynamic factors present that are relevant to his risk. The key risk factors remain unchanged from my previous assessment and include substance use, emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, antisocial attitudes, and distorted thinking that is lacking in insight.[68]
[68] Dr Yewers' report dated 21 August 2024: 3 BoM pages 835 and 836.
In making the Supervision Order, Forrester J stated:
[235]While the respondent has many criminogenic factors which require addressing, the most fundamental is his substance abuse. In the time he was subject to the Interim Supervision Order, the respondent failed to take any real steps towards dealing with his substance misuse issues, or, indeed, engage in any other programmatic intervention.[69]
[69] [2023] WASC 22 (emphasis added).
Again, the undisputed expert evidence led in this Application continues to bear out that finding by Forrester J. I would make the same finding. Obviously enough, however, the evidence is not to the effect that any substance use by Mr Slater will cause him to commit a serious offence.
As has now been stated in numerous cases, the use of the word 'adequate' in s 55(3) of the Act indicates that a qualitative assessment is required and it cannot be assumed that the most preventative action is detention and therefore the protection of the community will always favour such an order.[70]
[70] See for example Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [63] ‑ [64] (Wheeler JA); The State of Western Australia v Brown [No 11] [2023] WASC 4 [45] (Derrick J).
Hall J, as he then was, in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393 (Griffiths), said:
[107]The Act does not require that there be no risk of re‑offending. Such a requirement could never be met and the effect would be that no person to whom the Act applies would ever be released. The requirement is that any risk be reduced to a reasonably acceptable level.[71]
[71] [2015] WASC 393.
In The State of Western Australia v TJD[No 5] [2020] WASC 421, Archer J put the oft‑cited principles summarised by Beech J, as he then was, in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [33] into a list as follows (omitting citations):
1.The use of the word 'adequate' indicates that a qualitative assessment is required.
2.In considering whether a supervision order would adequately protect the community, account must be taken of conditions which can be imposed so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the respondent, and his or her care and treatment.
3.The [DSO Act] does not require that there be no risk of reoffending. Such a requirement could never be met and would mean no person to whom the [DSO Act] applies would ever be released.
4.The question is whether the risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level that ensures adequate protection of the community. That requires a weighing of the nature and degree of risk in the context of methods for the management and reduction of that risk.
5.If, after considering all the evidence, the court is left in doubt as to whether the conditions of a supervision order would adequately protect the community, because the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the court must expressly decline to rescind the continuing detention order.[72]
[72] The State of Western Australia v TJD [No 5] [2020] WASC 421 [44].
As to the last of those principles, I confess to having a little difficulty with it as expressed. The evaluative exercise required necessitates an assessment of the future. No person, let alone a judge making the required assessment under the Act, could be certain that the conditions of a supervision order will adequately protect the community. In common parlance, without certainty, it may be said that there is doubt. I have taken the last of the principles, then, to essentially be a statement of the importance of the paramount consideration and the protective mindset which it directs should be adopted.
I turn now to potential conditions.
Potential conditions and consideration
In considering which of the three mandated options available to the Court under s 55(1) of the Act should be adopted, it is necessary to take into account any condition that can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure adequate protection of the community: see, for example, in addition to DAL [No 2] [33] quoted above, Griffiths [103] (Hall J).[73]
Housing
[73] His Honour was considering, then, the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) but I consider the approach articulated is analogously applicable to the current Act.
One factor (and potential condition) which, practically, looms large is where Mr Slater might live if he were to be released on a Supervision Order.
The self-evident significance of that was reinforced by Mr Slater's evidence in this Application. One of the Conditions to the Supervision Order was that Mr Slater reside at a particular address which was his sister's house. Mr Slater's evidence was that his nephew was selling drugs from that address which, obviously enough, was of no assistance to Mr Slater refraining from substance use and abuse.
By the time of the Application being heard, even if the Court had been minded to consider that address again (which would seem unlikely), Mr Slater's sister had indicated to COMU that she had withdrawn her offer of temporary accommodation.[74]
[74] Updated Performance Report dated 18 August 2025: 4 BoM page 877.
Understandably, in Dr Yewers' oral evidence she opined that if Mr Slater were to be released into the community he would need both stable accommodation where he was not exposed in his day to day life to people who were using drugs and substantial reintegration support around him.[75]
[75] 1 September 2025 ts 270.
In cross-examination, Dr Yewers, in answer to a question of what would be necessary for Mr Slater to be effectively managed in the community, said:
I think that he needs stable accommodation. He needs - he will need a lot of scaffolding and reintegration support. He should not be associating with antisocial or drug-using persons. He should have constructive activities to fill his day. He should have treatment of his criminogenic needs.[76]
[76] 1 September 2025 ts 291.
The Updated Performance Report dated 18 August 2025[77] informed the Court that Mr Slater had been re-referred to Uniting WA for a housing placement in April 2024 and had been placed onto a waitlist.[78]
[77] 4 BoM page 875.
[78] 4 BoM page 877.
Ms Goode, a team leader at COMU, gave oral evidence on 1 September 2025 that Mr Slater had been offered a 'program house'.[79] At the time of her giving that evidence, WA Police had not had the opportunity to prepare what is called a 'desktop spatial analysis' of the house. I suppressed the address of the house.
[79] 1 September 2025 ts 306 - 308.
I note that the WA Police's desktop spatial analysis was communicated to the Court by an 'Update [sic] Performance Report' dated 26 September 2025 which became Exhibit 5 and was tendered at the hearing on 17 October 2025.
There was nothing of real significance which emerged from the desktop spatial analysis which caused me to consider that the location of the house would present, of itself, difficulties in managing Mr Slater's risk to the community.
Indeed, the location of the house was sufficiently removed from his sister's house and was conveniently located for some of the services available in the community at Fremantle.
Although COMU had stated in that report that the property would be held until the end of October 2025, I was told without objection by the State on 17 October 2025 from the Bar table that the earliest date that it would be available would be 29 October 2025.[80]
[80] 17 October 2025 ts 328.
In answer to a question as to how long the offer made to Mr Slater would remain open, Ms Goode's evidence on 1 September 2025 was:
There is not a fixed timeframe. The Community Offender Monitoring Unit leadership team review that list every fortnight. We have a significant number of the 10 houses available tied up waiting for court outcomes. We would respectfully request it not be months on end for a delay of the decision, but if we were informed the decision might be forthcoming in one month, two months, three months, then the house will be held for that period.[81]
[81] 1 September 2025 ts 311.
However, at the conclusion of the evidence on 30 October 2025, the position appeared to be that COMU, if there was not to be an ex tempore decision on 30 October 2025, would consider withdrawing the offer of the house.[82]
[82] Exhibit 7 being an email from Ms Goode to the State Solicitor's Office [7]; 30 October 2025 ts 421.
By further notification to the Court on 31 October 2025, COMU had reassessed its position and was able to confirm that the house would continue to be held awaiting the Court's decision. That followed my chambers communicating with the parties after Court on 30 October 2025 informing them that I had a high level of confidence that the reasons and decision in the Application could be completed on or before 7 November 2025.
Reintegration support
Ms Goode gave evidence as to the 'reintegration support' which Uniting WA could provide to Mr Slater from his release over 24 months.[83]
[83] 1 September 2025 ts 307 - 308.
The reintegration support does not include counselling or other therapeutic services. So, it was plain that the support which Uniting WA could provide Mr Slater would, in no way, be sufficient in and of itself to address his needs, nor to adequately manage the risk posed to the community.
Nonetheless, it appears to me that the reintegration support would be of real assistance in important practical respects for Mr Slater's transition to the community.
Therapeutic services in the community
As noted, previously one-on-one counselling was provided to Mr Slater in the community by Ms Summers, a psychologist with the FPIT. While, unsurprisingly, the 19 sessions did not 'resolve' Mr Slater's needs, that counselling appears clearly to have been of some benefit, notwithstanding Mr Slater's Contraventions.
Of great significance is that Mr Slater was open to, and did, establish a rapport with the psychologist. And from her End of Treatment Report, it is plain that with that rapport Mr Slater was introduced to emotional regulation strategies and he moved from a pre-contemplative stance towards engagement in criminogenic intervention, to a contemplative and at times preparatory stance.
As I noted, Ms Summers had suggested that Mr Slater may be re‑referred to the FPIT for individual psychological intervention.[84]
[84] End of Treatment Report: 3 BoM page 781.
There is no evidence as to whether similar counselling may be available through that Team should Mr Slater be released and re‑referred. That is unfortunate.
The COMU Updated Performance Report noted that Ebenezer Aboriginal Corporation provided social‑emotional wellbeing support to First Nations men both pre and post‑release from prison. It noted that contact with Ms Summers had not, at that stage, been facilitated.[85] Mr Slater did not give evidence as to his attitude towards the Ebenezer Aboriginal Corporation and some of the COMU material before the Court suggested he may have expressed ambivalence about engaging with it. That report also noted Mr Slater's intention, if released, to continue individual counselling with the Wungening Aboriginal Corporation.[86]
[85] 4 BoM pages 875 and 878.
[86] 4 BoM page 876.
In evidence on 1 September 2025, both Ms Goode and Ms Spiccia touched on community‑based drug and alcohol treatment and program services at Cyrenian House and Palmerston.[87]
[87] 1 September 2025 ts 298, 299, 312, 316 - 317 and 318.
Following the conclusion of the hearing on 1 September 2025, I was concerned that the Court did not have sufficiently detailed information about the programs which may be available in the community if Mr Slater was released on a supervision order. I ordered a further report as to any services or possible engagement with services if Mr Slater was to be released into the community.
COMU by its Updated Performance Report, Exhibit 5 tendered 17 October 2025, provided some further information about the services which would be available by Palmerston in Fremantle or Cyrenian House in Perth.
Notwithstanding the Updated Performance Report tendered as Exhibit 5, I continued to be concerned that the Court did not have sufficiently detailed information available to it. Accordingly, I invited the State to make contact directly with the appropriate people at Palmerston and Cyrenian House as to the following matters:
1.the individual counselling and group therapies which may be available to Mr Slater on or after his release - including the physical location of such therapies;
2.the process by which those agencies would make an assessment of Mr Slater's suitability for the above;
3.the waitlists, if any, for the above;
4.whether assessments may take place before Mr Slater be released and, if not, when such assessments would be likely to occur; and
5.whether either service offers residential therapy to an individual, subject to electronic monitoring.
I further invited representatives from those agencies, if they were prepared to give evidence, to do so directly rather than through the medium of COMU.
By consent, I gave leave for the State to provide expert reports and COMU performance reports to those agencies to assist them to provide evidence to the Court.
Representatives from both agencies were prepared to give evidence, for which the Court is grateful. This allowed the Court to gain an appropriate level of detail as to the services which may be provided. Accordingly:
1.on 27 October 2025 Ms Iannantuoni, who is the non‑residential services general manager at Cyrenian House, gave evidence; and
2.Mr Winton, who is the general manager of operations at Palmerston, gave evidence at his first availability on 30 October 2025.
Further, an email from Mr Winton to the State dated 24 October 2025 was tendered and became Exhibit 6.[88]
Cyrenian House
[88] 27 October 2025 ts 403.
Cyrenian House is a specialist alcohol and other drug treatment provider.
Cyrenian House would not provide a residential program or service to Mr Slater. It could provide him with a day program if, at least initially, Mr Slater was accompanied by a chaperone. There is no evidence before the Court that Mr Slater could access such a chaperone and so, practically, I do not need to consider that option further.
From Ms Iannantuoni's evidence it appears, broadly, Cyrenian House could provide to Mr Slater:
1.individual one-on-one counselling; and, or
2.a group therapy called moral reconation therapy (MRT).
Cyrenian House considered that they would not need to further separately assess Mr Slater as they had had the benefit of the reports sent to them by COMU.
The counselling that could be offered would be at Cyrenian's Central site which is on Fitzgerald Street, Perth and which could be commenced without a waitlist. Understandably, the continuing availability would depend on Mr Slater meeting the service's expectations regarding his participation and motivation. That assessment could occur while he was still in detention.
The Cyrenian Central site is accessible from the city by a bus route.
The counselling would be once a week for a 50 minute session. How many sessions would be available to Mr Slater was not explored in the evidence.
The MRT program was developed from the US prison system and runs once a week for 60 minutes.
Ms Iannantuoni described it as a program which was confronting and aimed to challenge the behaviour of the participants. She described it as a 12‑step program which was rules based and one's progression between steps was dependent on the group's assessment.
As part of the MRT, participants have a workbook which they are to complete and which forms part of the assessment of their progress.
Again, Cyrenian House was prepared to facilitate Mr Slater's immediate access to the MRT program.
However, having reviewed the material sent, Cyrenian House would only offer the MRT program to Mr Slater via an AVL platform or by the telephone. That was because of concerns as to how Mr Slater may respond to the challenging program and to ensure that staff and other members of the group were safe.
In subsequent evidence, in Exhibit 7, COMU could provide AVL equipment at its East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre for Mr Slater to participate in the MRT program. COMU also stated that Mr Slater would be able to use his personal mobile telephone, if he had one or could afford one from his own resources to purchase. There was no evidence whether Mr Slater would be able to purchase a mobile telephone if he did not already own one and so the practicalities of his participation were not explored in evidence. It was plain, however, that COMU or the Department more generally, would not provide a device to Mr Slater.
Ms Iannantuoni expressed some reservations as to the benefit that Mr Slater may obtain by individual counselling because of issues with his prior motivation and engagement. She observed that the individual counselling was not as challenging or intensive as the MRT Program.
Palmerston
As noted above, an email from Mr Winton gave information as to Palmerston's activities at both its Fremantle and Northbridge sites and was tendered as Exhibit 6.
Palmerston is a not‑for‑profit organisation the core business of which is treatment for alcohol and drugs issues.
The following is a summary of evidence that Mr Winton gave about Palmerston's relevant services. Mr Winton did not give evidence of any residential service which may have been available to Mr Slater. I have taken it that no such service would be available through Palmerston (which is consistent with the position more generally as observed above).
From here, I have concentrated on the offerings available at Palmerston's Fremantle site given its greater closeness to the house that Mr Slater has been offered.
The Fremantle services are integrated with Next Step which is another not‑for‑profit which provides alcohol and drug detoxing through GPs who practise on‑site. The integrated medical services at the Fremantle site provide opioid substitution treatment and medications to individuals withdrawing from substance misuse.
The evidence was that with the exception of the integrated medical services provided by Next Step at Fremantle, Palmerston's offerings would be the same whether at the Fremantle or at the Perth/Northbridge site.
Individual counselling is available. Palmerston is funded for a brief intervention model of between six to 12 individual counselling sessions at which point the client is clinically reviewed to see if a more intensive approach is required. Palmerston has funding for a maximum of 12 sessions but can then refer to a network of specialist services.
Having reviewed the materials sent by the State, Mr Winton thought that one-to-one counselling for the alcohol and drug treatment would be the most appropriate introduction to the programs.
The referral on after the 12 sessions of counselling would include the possibility of longer treatment with Next Step and then other agencies such as Communicare who work with men's behavioural change.
In addition, there are three different group programs available, namely: SMART Recovery; Road to Recovery and On Track.
Each of those programs is available immediately.
Mr Winton said that the programs were different because they had different degrees of treatment.
The SMART Recovery program is an ongoing program which occurred weekly. The SMART Recovery program seeks to address people's goals for the week before and then the week coming up and is an ongoing peer‑based recovery support modality.
The SMART Recovery program seeks to help individuals gain control over their addictive behaviour, achieve a balanced lifestyle and lead meaningful lives. The groups do not spend time going over the past but focus on the present and work on making changes to improve an individual's lifestyle.
The Road to Recovery program is a weekly group program. It is an early recovery exploration and education program for people early in their recovery and is a three‑session program. It runs weekly and explores what people may experience during their recovery and covers the topics of: starting recovery; making a change; relationships; lapse and relapse.
The On Track program is delivered once a week for a 90‑minute period. It is a four‑session program which clients graduate from after four sessions. However, they can come back and re‑do that as a more senior part of the program delivery as peer engagement is important to that program (as well as to the SMART Recovery program).
The On Track program is for people who have a history of repeat offending and alcohol or drug use. The program seeks to build insight into addictive behaviours and develop a motivation for change, and develop relapse prevention recovery planning skills.
The Road to Recovery and On Track programs were described as being more intense programs than the SMART Recovery program and were more targeted at the reason that people chose to use substances.
Palmerston would not recommend an order in which the programs might be engaged in as such. It noted that the SMART Recovery program may suit some people where they can participate at a more minimum level where the other programs require a higher level of engagement.
Assessment of potential conditions
I assess that the house being offered through Uniting WA is both suitable and will contribute to the reduction of the risk to the community.
The reintegration support which can be provided by Uniting WA over the first 24 months of a release will also, I assess, be of assistance in Mr Slater making a successful transition back into the community and for him to access services.
Central with the provision of suitable housing, are the available services which may allow Mr Slater to work principally on his drug and alcohol issues, and then on his behavioural issues. The latter have and continue to contribute to his disposition to drug and alcohol use and other anti‑social behaviours.
In considering that, there seems to me to be two core issues. The first is the services available, and the second is Mr Slater's willingness and capacity to engage successfully with them.
In respect of the services available, they appear to be:
1.individual and group therapies at Palmerston;
2.individual and group therapies at Cyrenian House;
3.further or continuing engagement with Wungening Aboriginal Corporation; and
4.mentoring or other peer‑like support through Ebenezer Aboriginal Corporation.
As Mr Slater's counsel submitted at the end of the hearings before me, none of these is 'ideal'.[89]
[89] 30 October 2025 ts 434.
A residential rehabilitation program (at the start of any release) may well have been closer to 'ideal' but none is available - not just for Mr Slater, but for any of the cohort of male sexual offenders who are to be electronically monitored.
Conditions 13 ‑ 16 of the Conditions imposed by Forrester J on the supervision order deal with therapeutic programs or treatment effectively by leaving that to the directions of a CCO.
Given the evidence that was led in the hearings about therapeutic and support services which would be available to Mr Slater in the community, I consider that it would be preferable that a more express plan be included in the conditions of any supervision order.
I do not consider it would be useful, from a therapeutic point of view, for me to select the programs and impose those on Mr Slater. For example, it appears to me that the services provided by Palmerston at Fremantle with the availability of integrated medical services may well be the most desirable of what is available coupled with other therapeutic options. However, if Mr Slater saw that differently, then that would not be a promising place to start. And, Mr Slater did not give considered evidence as to his willingness to commit to a particular program at an agency or agencies.
Also, as noted, Ms Summers had made, with respect, the very sensible suggestion that Mr Slater may be re‑referred to the FPIT. In circumstances where there may, for example at Palmerston, be a comparatively limited number of individual counselling sessions available, I would wish to understand whether such a re‑referral would take place if a supervision order were to be granted and how that might be captured in a condition or conditions.
From the above, I consider that there are services available in the community which, while not ideal, nor as extensive as would be ideal, nonetheless would allow Mr Slater to meaningfully address his drug and alcohol use and other needs which contribute to his anti‑social and criminal behaviours.
The second core issue, of course, is Mr Slater's willingness and capacity to engage and maintain engagement with the services available in the community.
I have found Mr Slater to be motivated to do so. However, such statements may not, by themselves, be a reliable indicator of what will be required by way of persistent willingness, nor of his capacity to give effect to his motivation.
I consider the following as supporting his willingness and capacity:
1.Mr Slater's engagement with Ms Summers in one‑on‑one counselling;
2.his engagement with Wungening Aboriginal Corporation, including completing the three‑day course I referred to above;
3.his persistent wish to attend a residential rehabilitation program (which is not, for reasons discussed above, available);
4.his evidence, supported by Ms Summers' End of Treatment Report, to the effect that he has moved from 'ambivalence' as to his drug use and offending towards the start of making lasting changes; and
5.the services which are available in the community which are intended to enhance Mr Slater's own capacity to continue to make changes.
As explored by his counsel in his evidence, the period of detention on the interim detention order made by Fiannaca J is now some 18 months. While some may consider that this last period of detention will not have acted as a pro‑social circuit‑breaker for Mr Slater when previous periods of incarceration have not, I consider that this period is likely to be different. That is because I consider:
1.it has been a stark indicator to him of his future if conditions on a supervision order are not complied with, whereas previously the breach of conditions had led to either short periods of imprisonment or fines; and
2.Mr Slater turned 60 in prison during this period of detention which appeared from his evidence to have a significant impact upon him.
That is, I consider that this last term of imprisonment may well, in context, act as the sort of specific deterrence that is hoped for in a sentencing exercise.
In assessing whether conditions can adequately protect the community from Mr Slater committing a sexual or violent serious offence, I have considered the following:
1.Mr Slater's last serious offence was committed in September 2013 - more than 12 years ago.
2.While Mr Slater relapsed into substance use on the supervision order, there was no evidence that he came close to committing a serious offence.
3.Mr Slater has not sought to disguise his whereabouts so as to commit or attempt to commit a serious offence via his breaches of curfew or the maintenance of the monitoring equipment.
4.While he is assessed as a higher risk of sexual or violent offending, that risk will reduce if he is able to successfully engage with therapeutic services addressing his drug and alcohol use.
I consider that the conditions which have been previously imposed on Mr Slater have had an impact on the likelihood of him committing a serious offence. I consider that they have contributed to the adequate protection of the community.
I consider that there are conditions (which as seen still need to be considered in their formulation) which, with Mr Slater's motivation and the therapeutic programs available, will provide adequate protection of the community from the risk of Mr Slater committing a serious offence of a sexual or violent nature.
Again, with respect, I would adopt the Chief Justice's observations in Slater [No 2] that it is:
… unrealistic to suppose that [Mr Slater's] progress while on supervision will follow a perfectly straight line. That is, indeed, why supervision is required.[90]
[90] Slater [No 2] [52].
When viewed against the question of whether there will be compliance with the standard conditions in a supervision order in a manner and extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order (namely the adequate protection of the community) I have already stated that I consider there will be such substantial compliance.
Steps from here
In part because of the time constraints on the preparation of these reasons,[91] but more significantly to allow a number of matters to be addressed, I first released a draft of these reasons to the parties on the afternoon of 6 November 2025.
[91] As will be apparent from other parts of these reasons, I have been most conscious that the Application be assessed on its merits with the possibility of Mr Slater being provided with appropriate housing in the community. If COMU were to withdraw that offer then it would, in effect, determine the Application.
Quite properly, COMU had been concerned that if Mr Slater were to be made subject to a supervision order, that it not take effect immediately on the publishing of reasons. Quite properly, COMU (and, of course, the Court) wants to ensure that all transitional matters that can be addressed and put in place are dealt with before Mr Slater is released.
It seems to me that should be done between the provision of the draft of these reasons and the formulation of conditions for a supervision order.
That would allow COMU to consider these reasons (albeit in draft) and to engage with Mr Slater in a way that is outside of this adversarial process to determine which of the therapeutic services available he will commit to and how that might be recorded, in line with these reasons, in conditions.
With that occurring, I consider I will be greatly assisted in finally assessing whether I can reach the necessary state of satisfaction mandated by s 55(3) of the Act.
At the time of releasing the draft of these reasons (which draft concluded immediately above) to the parties, the State informed my chambers that Mr Slater had been arrested on two charges for offences alleged to have occurred on 29 October 2002. The State supplied a certified prosecution notice and a statement of material facts.
The first charge is against s 401(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, namely an aggravated home burglary where the circumstances of aggravation was the doing of bodily harm.
The second charge is against s 317 of the Criminal Code, namely an unlawful assault and the doing of bodily harm.
The State did not suggest that those historical charges should make a difference to the Supervision Order and the conditions I contemplated making by the above reasons. I have proceeded on that basis.
The day after the draft reasons were released, the State requested a date to be listed early in what was then the following week so that '[Mr Slater] can hear directly from the Court the outcome and conditions'.[92]
[92] State's email to my chambers dated 7 November 2025.
I listed the matter for the afternoon of Tuesday, 11 November 2025. However, due to some technical difficulty, it appears the parties did not receive notice of that listing. The matter was re-listed for the morning of 12 November 2025.
Notwithstanding the suggestions that I had made in paragraphs [223] ‑ [226] inclusively, COMU decided not to engage with Mr Slater. And, by the State's email of 7 November 2025, COMU sought to push the operative date for the commencement of the amended supervision order further back from what it had previously indicated to the Court would be practicable.
Counsel for the State was left in the difficult position of seeking the later release date in circumstances where COMU had decided, for unexplained reasons, not to take up the suggestions I had made in the draft reasons to engage with Mr Slater to address matters which may facilitate his release.
In any event, counsel for the State indicated that it was practicable for Mr Slater to be released on the date which COMU had previously advised the Court - namely 18 November 2025.
ANNEXURE A
Conditions on the Supervision Order made 8 February 2023 by Forrester J
ANNEXURE B
Particulars of Contravention applications[93]
[93] The following are taken from BoM Vol 3, page 782. Certain matters have been shown as having been redacted.
Contravention 1 – conditions 4 and 27 – PE 24789 of 2023
Condition 27 of the Respondent's supervision order (the SO) provides that the Respondent Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.
Condition 4 of the SO provides that the Respondent 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.
Further to this, on 1 March 2023 the Respondent was issued with a direction from his Community Corrections Officer (CCO) not to leave your designated residence at [redacted] between the hours of 18.00 and 06.00 on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays without permission from a Community Corrections Officer. This direction was also signed by the Respondent to acknowledge his understanding.
On 13 May 2023, the Respondent left his home address three times, at 11.11pm, 11.26pm and 11.45pm. These movements were all recorded by the Respondent's GPS tracking device, which he is required to wear as a condition of his SO.
On 14 May 2023, police attended the Respondent's home address in relation to the breaches. The Respondent was spoken to and made partial admissions to going to see David, who was not home at the time. The admissions were captured on the attending officer's body worn camera.
Contravention 2 – condition 26 – PE 26935 of 2023
Condition 26 of the SO provides that the Respondent: Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 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 and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider.
On 23 May 2023, the Respondent was directed to provide a sample for urinalysis testing. The Respondent attended and provided the sample as directed.
On 26 May 2023, the sample returned a positive result for cannabis with a 11‑nor‑delta‑9terahydrocannabinol-9carboxylic acid detected, above the AS/NSZ 4308.2008 cut off threshold of 15 ug/L.
Contravention 3 – condition 26 – PE 27365 of 2023
On 26 May 2023, the Respondent provided a sample for urinalysis testing.
On 31 May 2023, the sample returned a positive result for methamphetamine with a concentration of 1481 ug/L.
Contravention 4 – condition 44 – PE 27367 of 2023
Condition 44 of the SO provides that the Respondent: Not delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, any data including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS), search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device, whether or not the device is capable of connecting to the internet, without the approval in advance by a CCO or WA Police.
On 1 June 2023, Serious Offender Management Squad (SOMS) officers attended the Respondent's address and requested that the Respondent hand over his mobile phone for inspection. The Respondent stated that the phone was damaged approximately one week ago and he had disposed of it.
Contravention 5 – conditions 4 and 27 – PE 28342 of 2023
On 1 June 2023, electric monitoring revealed that the Respondent wandered in the Perth CBD area near St Mary's Cathedral and Royal Perth Hospital between 5.31pm and 5.53pm and only started making his journey home after 6.00pm, arriving home at approximately 7.05pm, one hour after his curfew began. The Respondent did not make any attempt to contact his CCO in relation to his movement.
On 2 June 2023, when the Respondent's CCO discussed the curfew violation, the Respondent claimed that he attended the hospital to visit a sick family member.
Contravention 6 – condition 33 – PE 30670 of 2023
Condition 33 of the SO provides that the Respondent Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol.
On 16 June 2023, the Respondent underwent a breath analysis preliminary test which gave a reading of 0.018 grams of alcohol. Police body worn camera recorded the breath test and the Respondent's admission to consuming alcohol – I had one can, that's all.
Contravention 7 – condition 26 – PE 42059 of 2023
On 18 August 2023, the Respondent provided a sample for urinalysis testing.
On 22 August 2023, the sample returned a positive result for methamphetamine with a concentration of 728 ug/L.
Contravention 8 – conditions 4 and 7 – PE 46190 of 2023
Condition 7 of the SO provides that the Respondent Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.
On 15 August 2023, the Respondent was issued a Written Lawful Instruction (WLI) pertaining to conditions of his GPS device. The WLI noted the Respondent's requirement to charge the device for a minimum of three hours a day.
On 9 September 2023 at about 8.33am, an Electronic Monitoring Officer (EMO) attempted to contact the Respondent and inform him to charge his GPS, following receipt of a low battery alert. Contact could not be established with the Respondent. Multiple vibration alerts were set to the GPS unit, however the Respondent failed to charge the device.
At 1.50pm, an EMO attended the Respondent's location and provided him with a wall charger and an on-body charger, advising him to charge the device for a period of two hours.
At 2.02pm, another low battery alert was received, indicating the Respondent's had removed the device from charge.
At 3.35pm, the Respondent's GPS device shut down, and he was not subject to electronic monitoring for a period of 57 minutes.
Contravention 9 – condition 26 – PE 46191 of 2023
On 11 September 2023, the Respondent was directed to attend urinalysis and complied with the direction.
On 14 September 2023, the sample returned a positive result for both methylamphetamine and cannabis. During supervision that same day, the Respondent made admissions to using methylamphetamine, as well as injecting an "unknown tablet" to flush his veins.
Contravention 10 – condition 26 – PE 49503 of 2023
On 2 October 2023, the Respondent was directed to attend urinalysis and complied with the direction.
On 4 October 2023, the sample returned a positive result for cannabis, 11‑nor‑delta‑9terahydrocannabinol-9 carboxylic acid detected, above the AS/NSZ 4308.2008 cut off threshold of 15 ug/L. The concentration in this sample was 77 ug/L and the Urine THC Creatine ratio was 5.0.
Contravention 11 – condition 34 – PE 55308 of 2023
Condition 34 of the SO provides that the Respondent Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.
On 19 October 2023, the Respondent was directed to attend East Perth Adult Community Corrections. The Respondent provided a medical note that stated he was unfit for work to the phlebotomist and left without speaking to his CCO. The medical note did not excuse him from providing a sample of his urine for analysis.
Contravention 12 – conditions 4 and 27 – PE 55310 of 2023
On 15 August 2023, the Respondent was issued a WLI pertaining to condition 27 of the SO. The WLI noted the Respondent's requirement to remain at his address between the hours of 6.00pm and 6.00am every day.
On 29 October 2023 at 6.59pm, the Respondent breached his curfew by leaving his address and returned home at 7.12pm. The Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU) attempted to contact the Respondent by phone during this incident but he did not answer the call. The Respondent also made no attempt to contact COMU.
On 2 November 2023, when questioned about this incident, the Respondent stated that he went to the chemist to get his medication.
Contravention 13 – condition 26 – PE 55313 of 2023
On 30 October 2023, the Respondent attended East Perth Adult Community Corrections for urinalysis.
On 3 November 2023, the sample returned a positive result for methamphetamine with a concentration of 443 ug/L, and cannabis with a concentration of 43 ug/L.
Contravention 14 – condition 4 – 55312 of 2023
On 15 August 2023, the Respondent was issued a Written Lawful Direction (WLD) pertaining to his electronic monitoring stating keep all your electronic monitoring equipment safe and secure and in proper working condition as instructed by an Electronic Monitoring Officer and not interfere with, render inoperable, cause damage to, destroy, remove, deface or later the operations of the transmitter that is fitted to your person. The WLD also stated the Respondent could not enlist the assistance or support of another person to interfere with the transmitter.
On 3 November 2023 at 1.19am, an alert was received that the base unit of the Respondent's electronic monitoring device had been disconnected and the battery was low.
At 3.34am, security was dispatched to the Respondent's home address and it was identified that the unit was plugged in but the alerts had not been restored.
At 10.30am, an Electronic Monitoring Officer attended the Respondent's address to check the unit again and it was confirmed that the beacon had been moved onto a stereo where it should have been placed on the dining table as instructed to the Respondent.
Contravention 15 – condition 26 – PE 57754 of 2023
On 9 November 2024, the Respondent was directed and attended East Perth Adult Community Corrections for urinalysis.
On 14 November 2023, the sample returned a positive result for amphetamine, 242 ug/L which is above the cut-off threshold of 150 ug/L.
Contravention 16 – condition 4 – PE 58621 of 2023
On 15 August 2023, the Respondent was issued a WLD pertaining to his electronic monitoring stating keep all your electronic monitoring equipment safe and secure and in proper working condition as instructed by an Electronic Monitoring Officer and Electronic Monitoring Offender Information Sheet 1 Track Unit" and "Not interfere with, render inoperable, cause damage to, destroy, remove, deface or alter the operations of the transmitter. Any such interferences and or damage will be considered a breach of your order and constitutes a criminal offence which will result in you being returned to custody.
On 17 November 2023 at 6.05pm, officers at the Electronic Monitoring Office received a tilt/tamper alert and power disconnect alert regarding the Respondent's base unit/beacon at his home address. The Electronic Monitoring Officer made contact with an unknown person at the Respondent's address and advised them of the alerts. At 6.23pm, the power was restored to the base unit/beacon and the alerts were resolved.
On 18 November 2023 at 11.19am, officers at the Electronic Monitoring Office received a tilt/tamper alert regarding the Respondent's base unit/beacon at his home address. At 11.21am, the tamper alert was resolved.
There were no known power outages in the Forrestfield correlating to these times.
The Respondent's explanation – I can't leave it in my room or on the table all the time.
Contravention 17 – condition 26 – PE 60987 of 2023
On 21 November 2023, the Respondent was directed to attend East Perth Adult Community Corrections Office for urinalysis. He stated: why are you trying to put me in prison you fucking twat.
The sample provided on 21 November 2023 returned a positive result to amphetamine, methylamphetamine and cannabis. The concentration of amphetamine was 1347 ug/L, the concentration of methylamphetamine was 3035 ug/L and the concentration of cannabis was 431 ug/L.
Contravention 18 – condition 26 – PE 15369 of 2024
On 7 March 2024, the Respondent attended East Perth Adult Community Corrections for urinalysis.
On 12 March 2024, the sample returned a positive result for methamphetamine with a concentration of 402 ug/L.
Contravention 19 – condition 26 – PE 15371 of 2024
On 11 March 2024, the Respondent attended East Perth Adult Community Corrections for urinalysis.
On 13 March 2024, the sample returned a positive result for amphetamine with a concentration of 837 ug/L and methylamphetamine with a concentration of 801 ug/L.
Contravention 20 – condition 4 – PE 18273 of 2024
Under Condition 4 of the SO, the Respondent was issued with a WLI which stated You are hereby directed to not enter any of the following geographical exclusion zones at any time unless otherwise directed by a Community Corrections Officer: (d) Juniper Reserve.
On 27 March 2024 between 6.18am and 6.23am, the electronic monitoring device notified COMU that the Respondent had entered into the exclusion zone. The Respondent was tracked on Juniper Way, crossed through the Juniper Reserve onto Calliandra Way.
Contravention 21 – condition 35 – PE 18274 of 2024
On 28 March 2024, the Respondent was directed to attend the Community Offender Management Unit to provide a sample of urine. Despite numerous requests, the Respondent failed to provide a valid sample.
Contravention 22 – condition 26 – PE 19486 of 2024
On 27 March 2024, a Senior Community Corrections Officer issued the Respondent with a clear verbal direction via telephone to attend urinalysis testing at East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre prior to 11.00am. The Respondent attended as directed and provided a sample for urinalysis testing.
On 4 April 2024, the sample returned a positive result for amphetamine (690 ug/L), methylamphetamine (>5,000 ug/L) and cannabis (THC ratio 2.9; urine creatinine - 11.2 mmol/L).
Contravention 23 – condition 4 – PE 22299 of 2024
On 16 April 2024 the Respondent was released from custody and was issued a WLI stating Not leave your designated residence at Comfort Inn Suites, Good Earth Perth, 195 Adelaide Terrace Perth 6000 between the hour of 18:00 (6:00pm) and 06:00 (06:00am) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays without permission from a Community Corrections Officer.
The Respondent was further verbally approved the ability to go downstairs to remain in the vicinity of the entrance to have a cigarette before returning back to his room, by his CCO.
On 17 April 2024, the Respondent was identified as leaving his residence of curfew several times throughout the curfew hours. His tracking data identifies him as being present outside of the curfew location for an extended period of time, crossing the road and walking down several alley ways of neighbouring buildings.
Inquiries with the Comfort Inn and Perth City Camera room identified the Respondent loitering around the front of the hotel. The Respondent has further been identified through CCTV footage engaging with several members of the public, varying from groups of intoxicated females across the road from his curfew location to occupants of the hotel and other persons loitering also in the area.
CCTV identifies the Respondent out the front for between 10.15pm and 11.22pm. The GPS tracking identifies an even greater period of time however CCTV is unable to capture this. At no point is the Respondent sighted with a cigarette in his hand.
Contravention 24 – condition 4 – PE 22300 of 2024
On 18 April 2024 the Respondent is identified as again leaving his residence of curfew several times throughout his curfew period. The Respondent's tracking data identifies him as being present outside the location for an extended period of time, crossing the road to the Quality Ambassador Hotel.
CCTV from the hotel identifies the Respondent as leaving the hotel at approximately 6.30pm and approaching the Quality Ambassador Hotel at approximately 7.00pm. The Respondent is at no point identified as having a cigarette in his hand.
ANNEXURE C
Procedural History
On 9 May 2024, the State filed an application seeking orders rescinding the Supervision Order made by Forrester J and imposing a continuing detention order.
That application was first brought on before Fiannaca J on 10 May 2024.
The matter was listed urgently ahead of Mr Slater appearing in the Magistrates Court on three charges of contravening the Supervision Order between 17 and 19 April 2024, at which time he was residing in emergency accommodation provided by COMU.
It should be noted that because the matter was brought on urgently, Mr Slater did not have the advantage of representation who had had an opportunity to provide Mr Slater with advice, nor to receive instructions from him on the interim detention order.[94]
[94] The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 4] [2024] WASC 241 [2], [3].
At the conclusion of that hearing, Fiannaca J made an interim detention order[95] and the matter was listed for hearing on 27 September 2024.
[95] The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 4].
Programming orders were also made then for the provision of a psychological report by 30 August 2024, and any reports authored by the Department by 6 September 2024. The balance of the application was adjourned to 13 May 2024.
At the time of the making of the interim detention order, Mr Slater's previous accommodation was no longer available to him and no accommodation was available through COMU.
The State filed the first and second volumes of the Book of Materials[96] on 22 July 2024.
[96] Volumes 1 - 4 of the Book of Materials became Exhibits 1- 4: 1 September 2025 ts 262.
The third volume of the Book of Materials was filed on 20 September 2024 and included:
(a)a psychological report authored by Dr Yewers and filed 21 August 2024;
(b)a letter in lieu of treatment progress report endorsed by Chantal Spiccia and filed on 30 August 2024; and
(c)an updated performance report authored by COMU (Jennine Merigan) and filed on 18 September 2024.
On 25 September 2024, the respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing listed on 27 September 2024 to allow time for Mr Slater to be assessed by a neuropsychologist.
I vacated the hearing and listed the matter for directions on 23 October 2024 to hear from the State as to the availability of a neuropsychologist to assess Mr Slater and an anticipated timeline for its completion.
That hearing was vacated on 16 October 2024, and I made orders re‑listing the substantive hearing on 10 April 2025. Programming orders were made for the provision of a neuropsychological report prepared by Dr Vidovich by 13 February 2025, any other supplementary report by 20 March 2025, and any reports authored by the Department by 20 March 2025.
On 11 February 2025, the State advised that Dr Vidovich would be unable to complete the neuropsychological report by the time ordered and anticipated its completion by 11 April 2025.
The hearing on 10 April 2025 was consequently vacated and the substantive hearing relisted on 1 September 2025.
Ahead of that hearing, the State filed a fourth volume of the Book of Materials which comprised:
(a)the neuropsychological report authored by Dr Vidovich and filed on 11 April 2025;
(b)a letter in lieu of treatment progress report endorsed by Chantal Spiccia and filed on 7 August 2025; and
(c)an updated performance report authored by COMU (Pauline Stuart) and filed on 19 August 2025.
The first day of the hearing was 1 September 2025.
By that date, COMU had sent a request for additional information by a desktop spatial analysis (on about 28 August 2024) but had not received such information at the time of that hearing.[97]
[97] 1 September 2025 ts 306 and 314.
Ms Goode anticipated receipt of the information by 12 September 2025.[98]
[98] 1 September 2025 ts 307.
Following the taking of the evidence which was then available, I adjourned the hearing to 17 October 2025 and ordered that the State provide a desktop spatial analysis and updated report as to the assessment of accommodation by 12 September 2025 and any other report authored by the Department by 26 September 2025.
On 12 September 2025, the State advised that it had been unable to finalise the desktop spatial analysis and provided an estimated completion of 19 September 2025.
An updated performance report authored by COMU (Pauline Stuart) was filed on 30 September 2025, which included an assessment as to the suitability of accommodation. No separate desktop spatial analysis was ultimately provided.
At the hearing before me on 17 October 2025, Ms Goode was recalled by the State to provide further detail about services which may be available in the community.
Following that hearing, I posed a list of questions to be provided by the State to a representative of each Palmerston and Cyrenian House and requested that they give evidence if they were willing to do so.
Following the State's email on 21 October 2025, I reiterated my desire to hear from representatives of the agencies directly and noted my mindfulness of the indicative date given for when the offer made to Mr Slater by Uniting WA may expire and the need for the matter to be brought back before me with more urgency. I listed the matter for directions the following day as a result of the communication with the State.
On 22 October 2025, the State confirmed contact with Palmerston and Cyrenian House and advised that the accommodation was presently held with a date for earliest occupancy of 29 October 2025.
On 24 October 2025, the State requested leave to supply the Performance Report and Update Performance Reports to representatives of Cyrenian House and Palmerston.
I indicated that I would make such orders and consented to those reports being provided on 24 October 2025.
I heard evidence from Nicola Iannantuoni of Cyrenian House when the matter came back before me on 27 October 2025.
On 29 October 2025, the State provided a response from COMU to the questions posed by me on 17 October 2025. That response indicated that the impact on continually holding accommodation for Mr Slater would be reconsidered should I not be in a position to hand down my decision on 30 October 2025. That email was eventually tendered and became Exhibit 7.[99]
[99] 30 October 2025 ts 421.
Michael Winton of Palmerston gave evidence at the hearing before me on 30 October 2025.
I indicated at that hearing that I would deliver my reasons and a decision as expeditiously as possible and sought an indication as to whether there had been some change in the attitude that the accommodation would be held by United WA to allow that to occur.[100]
[100] 30 October 2025 ts 433.
The State was unable to provide an indication on that occasion and said that it would do so the following day.[101]
[101] 30 October 2025 ts 434.
In the evening of 30 October 2025, I advised the parties that I held a high level of confidence that the decision would be made, and reasons given, prior to 12.00 pm on 7 November 2025.
On 31 October 2025, the State provided a response from COMU advising of a new proposed release date of 18 November 2025 should a decision be handed down prior to 7 November and that a further revised proposed release date would be provided if the decision were not able to be handed down prior to that date.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
TM
Associate to Justice Howard
14 NOVEMBER 2025
0
12
1