The State of Western Australia v Sloane [No 2]
[2016] WASC 416
•20/12/2016
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SLOANE [No 2] [2016] WASC 416
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASC 416 | |
| 20/12/2016 | |||
| Case No: | DSO:4/2015 | 10 OCTOBER, 6 & 16 DECEMBER 2016 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 16/12/16 | |
| 20 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Continuing detention order rescinded Supervision order imposed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ROBERT JOHN SLOANE |
Catchwords: | Dangerous sexual offenders Annual Review Whether supervision order would provide adequate protection to the community Supervision order accepted as appropriate by the State Whether risk of reoffending can be adequately managed by a supervision order |
Legislation: | Dangerous Sexual Offender Act 2006 (WA), s 33 |
Case References: | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dick [No 5] [2013] WASC 357 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Sloane [2015] WASC 381 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Decke [2009] WASC 312 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Applicant
AND
ROBERT JOHN SLOANE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Dangerous sexual offenders - Annual Review - Whether supervision order would provide adequate protection to the community - Supervision order accepted as appropriate by the State - Whether risk of reoffending can be adequately managed by a supervision order
Legislation:
Dangerous Sexual Offender Act 2006 (WA), s 33
Result:
Continuing detention order rescinded
Supervision order imposed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms S Markham
Respondent : Mr D J McKenzie
Solicitors:
Applicant : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent : David McKenzie Legal Pty Ltd
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dick [No 5] [2013] WASC 357
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Sloane [2015] WASC 381
Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Decke [2009] WASC 312
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235
- HALL J:
Introduction
1 This is the first annual review of a continuing detention order made under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act) by Simmonds J on 9 October 2015: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Sloane [2015] WASC 381. This application has been brought in the name of the State as the DSO Act has been recently amended to allow for applications to be made by the DPP in the name of the State: s 7A DSO Act.
2 On the hearing of this review, the issue was whether Mr Sloane could be released on a supervision order with conditions that would adequately protect the community from the risk that he would commit further serious sexual offences. In this regard, there was evidence that Mr Sloane had made significant progress in the last 12 months. The evidence established that management in the community was now a viable option. Suitable accommodation was also available, as it had not been at the original hearing. In these circumstances, it was accepted by the State that release of Mr Sloane on a supervision order is now appropriate.
3 At the conclusion of the hearing, I was satisfied that adequate protection of the community could be ensured by releasing Mr Sloane on a supervision order. However, the accommodation had not yet been vacated by an existing tenant. There was some uncertainty as to exactly when this would occur. In these circumstances, it was necessary to adjourn the proceedings. The accommodation subsequently became available on 16 December 2016 and a supervision order was made on that day.
4 I ordered that the supervision order would not become effective for 21 days. Section 33(1)(b)(ii) provides that a supervision order cannot take effect earlier than 21 days after the date on which the review is concluded. Some doubt was expressed as to the applicability of that provision as it commenced on 10 September 2016 and the application was filed on 5 September 2016. There was evidence that a 21-day period was required in any event to ensure that supervision arrangements were put in place. In these circumstances the parties agreed that the 21-day period should apply, though the matter was not the subject of argument and a ruling was not sought. Accordingly, I rescinded the continuing detention order and made a supervision order to take effect 21 days after the hearing finally concluded. The terms of that supervision order appear as an annexure to these reasons. The address of the accommodation has been redacted as it is the subject of a suppression order.
Object of this review
5 A person who has been detained in custody under the DSO Act must be the subject of an annual review. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the person continues to be a serious danger to the community and, if so, whether the appropriate order is continued detention or release on supervision: s 33 DSO Act.
6 If the person is no longer a serious danger to the community the detention order must be rescinded. If the person continues to be a danger consideration must be given to whether detention or release on supervision is appropriate. In respect of this latter decision, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community: s 33(3) DSO Act.
7 The clear intention of the annual review process is to allow for the possibility of a change of circumstances. Detention under the DSO Act is not a punishment for past offending; it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent the risk of future serious sexual offending from being realised. If circumstances change such that the risk of re-offending reduces or can be adequately managed in the community, then the continuing need for detention must be considered: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dick [No 5] [2013] WASC 357.
8 It is significant to deprive a person of his liberty, not for something he has done but for something that he might do in the future. In order to justify detention on these grounds, the evidence must be acceptable and cogent and establish the existence of a serious danger to the community to a high degree of probability: s 7(2) DSO Act. Such a finding requires satisfaction that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious sexual offence if not placed under a supervision order or detained.
9 The risk of re-offending may change over time. It may be affected by age, health and the successful completion of treatment. The availability of new technology or resources in the community may also affect whether the risk of re-offending can be managed on a supervision order.
10 The justification for making a continued detention order is the existence of an unacceptable risk of serious sexual offending that cannot be adequately controlled by conditional release. However, detention also serves the purpose of allowing treatment and care in a secure environment: s 17 DSO Act. This confirms an obligation on the part of prison authorities to facilitate change by offering programmes and access to counselling.
11 If the risk changes or resources improve to enable more efficacious conditions then the need for detention may dissipate. In these circumstances, continuing detention may be unjust.
12 The annual review process is intended to ensure that detention only continues where necessary. It mitigates the otherwise potentially draconian effect of imprisoning people for crimes that they have not committed. Annual reviews are not, therefore, merely a welfare check; they are an exercise of judicial power to confirm, vary or rescind a detention order. Continuing detention should not be ordered unless that course is justified by the circumstances existing at the time of the review. The court should choose the order that is least invasive of the person's right to be at liberty, whilst ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community: The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235; Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Decke [2009] WASC 312.
Background
13 Mr Sloane's personal history and his history of offending were detailed by Simmonds J in DPP v Sloane [37] - [64]. As Simmonds J noted at [58], Mr Sloane's serious sexual offending is confined to five offences all of which were committed on or about 25 March 2003 in respect of the same victim. He was convicted after trial of these offences. He received a total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for the sexual offences and for a number of other offences committed at the same time. On 12 November 2004, he was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment cumulative for four other offences (that had, in fact, been committed earlier than the 2003 offences). These other offences were of a violent nature and one of them was an indecent assault, but they were not serious sexual offences within the meaning of that phrase in the DSO Act: s 3 DSO Act and s 106A Evidence Act 1906 (WA).
14 In the 12 years that Mr Sloane was serving his sentence of imprisonment, he undertook a number of treatment programmes. He completed the Pathways programme in 2012, the Think First programme in 2013 and the Sex Offenders Deniers programme in 2013. The Pathways programme provides treatment for individuals with a history of offending behaviour and substance abuse problems. Mr Sloane's engagement with that programme was described positively with a number of treatment gains identified. The Think First programme is designed to help individuals develop and apply problem solving skills that enable them to manage their lives and avoid future re-offending. Whilst Mr Sloane had some initial problems with his engagement in this programme, his performance was ultimately described in positive terms and he was considered to have made treatment gains. The Sex Offenders Deniers programme is aimed at individuals who have denied committing sexual offences of which they have been convicted. Mr Sloane's performance in respect of this programme was less successful and it was recommended that there be future intervention to address his antisocial attitudes and tendency to gravitate towards antisocial peers. All of these programmes had been undertaken prior to the initial hearing before Simmonds J.
15 At the time of the first hearing, there were essentially two factors that combined to make Mr Sloane unsuitable for a supervision order. The first of these was that there were unmet treatment needs regarding Mr Sloane's past propensity for violent offending. The second factor was the unavailability of suitable accommodation. At that time, there was no suitable accommodation available and none likely to become available in the near future. There was an identified need for Mr Sloane to engage with an accommodation provider and to develop an individual reintegration and transition support plan.
Evidence on this annual review
16 At the hearing of this review, the State tendered a book of materials. There was no objection to the tender. In addition to historic materials the book included the following:
(1) prison records;
(2) a Department of Corrective Services individual management plan dated 12 April 2016;
(3) medical records;
(4) a completion report in respect of the Violent Offenders Treatment programme dated 17 June 2016;
(5) a psychiatric report from Dr Wojnarowska dated 26 September 2016
(6) a treatment progress report from Ms Tanya Wilson-Brown, senior clinical psychologist dated 2 September 2016; and
(7) a community supervision assessment by Ms Jane Henshall, a senior community corrections officer with the Department of Corrective Services dated 29 September 2016.
17 The applicant called Dr Wojnarowska, Ms Wilson-Brown and Ms Henshall to give oral evidence.
18 Mr Sloane elected not to give or adduce any evidence on the application.
Prison and medical records
19 There have been some reported prison incidents in the last 12 months, but none of a serious nature. On one occasion Mr Sloane made an inappropriate request to be moved to another cell, on another occasion he was found sleeping in his bed after 8.00 am and on one occasion he made an unscheduled hospital attendance. The hospital attendance occurred in circumstances where Mr Sloane was experiencing chest pain, and I will refer further to this shortly.
20 Mr Sloane is classified as a medium security prisoner and the individual management plan states that he is not considered to be a management issue. He functions well in the prison system and maintains his cell and personal hygiene to a required level. Whilst willing to work, his ability to do so has been constrained by a heart condition.
21 As noted above, Mr Sloane presented to the prison hospital suffering chest pain on 29 January 2016. He was assessed by a nurse and it was deemed necessary to transport him to hospital for further treatment. A report from a cardiologist notes that Mr Sloane has a past history of heart disease and that he suffered an acute myocardial infarction in July 2015. On presentation in January 2016, he reported experiencing chest pain that was intermittent, of short duration and usually happened after exertion. He was returned to prison on 2 February 2016 and further tests were arranged. His heart condition has since been largely managed through medication, with regular consultations with the prison doctor.
Psychiatric evidence - Dr Wojnarowska
22 Dr Wojnarowska interviewed Mr Sloane at Acacia Prison on 17 September 2016. She reported that Mr Sloane continued to deny the offences that occurred in 2002 and 2003, maintaining that any form of sexual contact between him and the victims had been consensual. However, she noted that Mr Sloane had made progress since he was first convicted. At that time he had been unwilling to accept any responsibility for the offences, maintaining that he had been set up, whereas he is now prepared to take some responsibility for his life and what he has done. In particular, he said that '95% was my fault; for drinking, for engaging with anyone on the streets, doing drugs'. Dr Wojnarowska considered that Mr Sloane's recognition of these risk factors was a significantly positive factor in regard to manageability of the risk of re-offending.
23 Dr Wojnarowska noted that Mr Sloane had a long history of generalist offending, including many offences involving the use of violence. In response, Mr Sloane said that he grew up on the streets and had no empathy. His past conduct had been characterised by a need to get drugs and alcohol. He talked about his 'rough upbringing' but did not attempt to use this as a justification for his violence. However, he said that his time in prison had allowed him to reflect on his life and to understand other people's perspectives. Dr Wojnarowska noted that it would be difficult to comment on how genuine these claims were, however it was clear that he had gained intellectual insight into what changes were required of him.
24 When questioned about his attitude towards women, Mr Sloane said that he understood that he had been possessive and thoughtless in the past. He recognised that this attitude, combined with alcohol and drug use, had resulted in interpersonal and domestic violence. He also spoke about his past antisocial lifestyle, which glorified violence. He said that this 'gang mentality' was no longer part of him and that he now sees any type of violence as being wrong. When questioned about self-defence, he was able to distinguish self-protection from excessive physical force.
25 In regard to drug and alcohol use, Mr Sloane accepted that this had been a significant negative influence in his past. He reported being abstinent from cannabis for the last three years and from alcohol for nine years. Dr Wojnarowska noted that this was in accordance with prison records. His last urinalysis in October 2015 was negative for alcohol and illicit drugs. Mr Sloane acknowledged the risk of relapse into drug use in the community but believed he could avoid such a risk. He accepted that total abstinence would, and should, be required if he was released into the community.
26 Dr Wojnarowska noted that since the hearing in 2015, Mr Sloane had undertaken both individual counselling and a group treatment programme. The individual counselling had initially been on a weekly basis, but more recently had been fortnightly. He admitted that his attitude to counselling at the beginning was quite negative. However, with time he had started enjoying the sessions and had formed a good relationship with his therapist. Exploring his past had given him a new perspective on his violence. He said he no longer felt the need to prove himself and his anger was markedly diminished. He also said that the counselling sessions gave him the opportunity to practice newly acquired communication skills and talk about his plans if released into the community.
27 Dr Wojnarowska had spoken to the therapist, Dr Dylan Galloghly, who confirmed that Mr Sloane had engaged well and had been willing to discuss his past offending and his history of violence in detail. There had been no evidence of impression management, callousness or grandiosity in Mr Sloane's interactions with his therapist. However, given his stance of denial in relation to the serious sexual offences, the aims of therapy have been to assist Mr Sloane with developing skills that he would require in the community to lead a pro-social life. These include managing conflict without resorting to violence, managing stressors without resorting to drugs or alcohol, addressing intimacy issues and improving his attitudes towards women. Dr Galloghly was optimistic regarding Mr Sloane's ongoing engagement with therapy, whether it be in a prison setting or in the community.
28 Mr Sloane had also engaged with a group programme, the Violent Offender Treatment programme, which was completed in June 2016. He had attended 59.75 of the 62 sessions and had valid explanations for those that he had missed (ill-health). Dr Wojnarowska had access to the treatment completion report and noted the facilitator's positive comments in regard to Mr Sloane's engagement. That report stated that Mr Sloane was 'consistently punctual and demonstrated a commitment to the programme by engaging in and completing all tasks required of him. He offered reflective comments during follow up sessions and shared his thoughts about previous sessions and how he could apply the content to his life. He was an 'attentive and engaged participant throughout the programme'. He was considered to be 'open and honest in his analysis of his offence cycle'. Some concerns were expressed regarding his emotional awareness and management of his emotions. The report recommended that he be given support by external agencies in maintaining a pro-social attitude and behaviour. This should include encouragement to engage in employment, the building of pro-social peer networks through recreation and clubs, and support and assistance in managing day to day tasks.
29 In regard to the psychiatric diagnosis, Dr Wojnarowska said that Mr Sloane presents with a long history of offending which developed in the context of exposure to criminal activity since childhood, compounded by the early loss of his mother. The primary diagnosis is anti-social personality disorder in the context of a history of alcohol and substance abuse. Dr Wojnarowska noted that Mr Sloane's sex offending was part of his violent offending history rather than being indicative of any sexual deviance. In this respect, risk factors that related to violent offending were also relevant to any risk of future sexual offending. Dr Wojnarowska did not consider that Mr Sloane's tendency to aggressive behaviour was a barrier to him being supervised in the community.
30 Dr Wojnarowska applied actuarial tools as well as guided clinical judgment instruments to make an assessment of Mr Sloane's risk of re-offending. She concluded that his risk of sexual re-offending remains high and is associated with his high risk of generalist violent recidivism, the presence of an antisocial personality, psychopathic traits and alcohol use disorder. She said that his treatment goals are being addressed and consolidated in his individual therapy. His management in the community would be challenging due to his past disrespect for authority and his institutionalisation. However, in the last year some gains in treatment have been made and it is expected that with the same level of engagement and motivation he will continue to make progress.
31 Dr Wojnarowska said that Mr Sloane's treatment needs continued to be substantial. If he is released into the community it is desirable for the frequency of his counselling sessions to be increased to weekly. This would enable him to better deal with some of the stressors of transition. Close supervision with zero tolerance for breaches, especially for those related to alcohol and drug consumption, was considered to be necessary to protect the community. Dr Wojnarowska also suggested that conditions should also include a strict curfew, GPS monitoring and restriction on attending places such as drug rehabilitation facilities, hospitals (unless for an approved reason) or any areas frequented by vulnerable people. Mr Sloane would benefit from supported accommodation from a service provider, such as Outcare.
Treatment progress report - Ms Wilson-Brown
32 Ms Wilson-Brown is a senior clinical psychologist employed with the Forensic Psychological Service of the Department of Corrective Services. For the purposes of preparing the report for this review she interviewed Mr Sloane on 1 August 2016 and 4 August 2016 and also consulted with Mr Sloane's treating psychologist, Dr Galloghly.
33 I will only refer to treatment progress in the last 12 months. Mr Sloane's prior history of treatment has been referred to earlier and has been detailed in the judgment of Simmonds J.
34 Mr Sloane commenced the Violent Offending Treatment programme on 18 January 2016 and completed that programme on 1 June 2016. Ms Wilson-Brown referred to the treatment completion report and to the facilitator's comments on Mr Sloane's positive engagement with the programme. She did express concerns that the facilitators did not have access to the details of Mr Sloane's most recent offending. She said that for this reason, issues arising from the circumstances of those offences were not explored. However, his general history of violent offending was explored and factors that contributed to this history were identified. Mr Sloane developed a risk management plan as part of his participation in the programme. In this plan he identified that he would like to be self-employed, that he had already made changes to appropriately manage his anger and that he needed to remain abstinent from alcohol and illicit substances.
35 Ms Wilson-Brown said that there had been 18 individual counselling sessions with Dr Galloghly. Dr Galloghly had described Mr Sloane's engagement in counselling as initially resistant but his attitude shifted relatively early and he then displayed generally very good engagement and willingness to explore topics in counselling. The therapeutic relationship with Dr Galloghly was considered to be a positive one and if released on a supervision order, Dr Galloghly would continue to see Mr Sloane on a weekly basis, initially with a focus on his reintegration into the community and managing practical difficulties such as securing employment while continuing to address his identified treatment needs. Ms Wilson-Brown noted that in her discussions with Mr Sloane, she did not detect any hostility to those responsible for his management and that his communication skills had markedly improved. He maintained his attention and willingness to engage throughout both interviews and displayed a positive attitude to avoiding further offending.
36 In her conclusions, Ms Wilson-Brown said that treatment gains had been observed in Mr Sloane's understanding of assertive communication skills, his recognition of the cognitive emotional, behavioural and environmental factors precipitating his violent offending, an awareness of his learning style that has facilitated his participation in treatment interventions, a shift in his previously held hostile attitude towards women, an understanding of high risk situations, the development of basic relationship and intimacy skills, and an awareness of problem solving strategies. He has been able to demonstrate some of these gains in the prison environment. However, it is difficult to determine whether these gains will be retained over time. Ongoing individual counselling would assist in reviewing these skills and maintaining the gains.
37 Ms Wilson-Brown said that, despite his progress, Mr Sloane had a number of identified continuing treatment needs. She said that future treatment should continue to explore instances of anger and should reinforce the use of appropriate coping responses rather than aggressive or passive/aggressive responses. She said that release planning requires further development and should continue to be a treatment focus. Mr Sloane requires ongoing development and monitoring of his support network in WA. Maintaining familial supports in NSW should remain a focus as these will likely act as a long term protective factor. Whilst Mr Sloane continues to present with some suspiciousness and hostility to authorities, his demonstrated gains in engaging with therapeutic and case management staff is positive progress in this area. If released on a supervision order, further counselling and supervision by a community corrections officer would be required in order to ensure that he is continuing to access and utilise supports in a constructive manner.
The Community Supervision Assessment Report - Jane Henshall
38 Ms Henshall is a senior community corrections officer with the Public Protection Unit of the Department of Corrective Services. She prepared a community supervision assessment report for Mr Sloane dated 29 September 2016.
39 Mr Sloane has no family or friends in Western Australia. He is originally from New South Wales and has some family there. He has reasonably regular contact with his grandmother, with whom he has a close relationship. Ms Henshall spoke to Mr Sloane's grandmother who said that travelling to Western Australia would not be possible, however she would continue to provide support by telephone contact.
40 Prior to the 2015 hearing, Mr Sloane had been engaged with Uniting Care West in attempts to identify appropriate accommodation. However, in February 2016 this engagement was terminated and Mr Sloane was transferred to the alternative service provider, Outcare. His Outcare case workers have said that Mr Sloane has presented to them as respectful, though he initially said that he did not require much assistance and did not believe that he needed to engage with them for an extended period of time. It would appear that Mr Sloane initially believed that he could locate accommodation without assistance, however this proved impossible and he has returned to Outcare. At the time of the hearing, Outcare was in the process of transitioning a client into private accommodation and this would make available DSO supported accommodation in the community. It was believed that this accommodation would become available within the next 21 days. This is one of the properties that has previously been used successfully to transition DSO's into the community.
41 At the time of the hearing a desktop analysis of the Outcare accommodation conducted by the WA Police became available. The property is a ground floor unit in a block of units in suburban Perth. Spatial analysis identified that there were a number of shopping precincts, parks, churches and recreational facilities within 2 km of the proposed address. Given Mr Sloane's risk profile the most relevant matters appear to be a hostel for homeless young people that is located approximately 300 m away and a number of licenced premises located approximately 900 m from the proposed residence. However, Ms Henshall confirmed that these could be designated as exclusion zones for the purposes of GPS monitoring. Exclusion zones could also, of course, extend to any other areas that were considered to raise potential risks. GPS monitoring is available at the proposed residence.
Findings
42 Mr Sloane remains at high risk of re-offending. The factors that contribute to that risk include antisocial personality traits, a propensity to aggression and past misuse of drugs and alcohol. Whilst maintaining the stance of denial Mr Sloane has addressed a number of the factors which are relevant to the risk of his re-offending. In particular, he has undertaken programmes which have given him insight into his propensity for violence. He has developed a number of techniques for deflecting anger and remaining calm. He appears to have made significant progress in this regard, particularly in the last 12 months.
43 Mr Sloane's treatment gains have been reinforced by individual counselling. Whilst he continues to have treatment needs in this regard, all the indications are that these needs can be met in the community. Supervised release into the community can provide him with the opportunity to test and reinforce his learnt management techniques. He does require significant support, particularly given his lack of friends or family in Western Australia. However, he now recognises the need for this support. Continued engagement with his psychologist on a weekly basis, intensive management by community corrections officers and support by Outcare workers should minimise the risk of frustration and anger.
44 As noted earlier, Mr Sloane's serious sexual offending is not a product of any sexual deviance. Rather, it has been an aspect of his violent offending. One of the most significant factors contributing to the violent offending has been alcohol and drug abuse. The fact that Mr Sloane has been abstinent for many years and expresses a strong commitment to remain abstinent are important protective factors. Of course, drugs and alcohol are not freely available in a prison environment and remaining abstinent in the community, faced with the many stressors that that life in the community presents, will be considerably more difficult. However, Mr Sloane's positive attitude can be reinforced by conditions that will prohibit him using drugs or alcohol, being in the presence of those who are using drugs and alcohol and from attending licensed premises. Regular and random urinalysis will also act as a significant deterrent to future use. Mr Sloane has recognised that drugs and alcohol are important risk factors and he appreciates that any failure in regard to such conditions would likely lead to his return to custody.
45 The availability of suitable accommodation is also an important consideration. Accommodation was not available at the 2015 hearing and that was a factor that weighed heavily against his release on a supervision order. Suitable accommodation is now available. GPS tracking and exclusion zones could readily be implemented to ensure that possible risk areas are avoided.
46 A number of proposed conditions were annexed to Ms Henshaw's report. The State accepted that those conditions were suitable and would provide the community with an adequate level of protection. I consider that the appropriate length of time for a supervision order in this case is five years. Mr Sloane appears to have made significant changes in his life and it is likely that management controls can be steadily reduced over that five-year period. It must also be recognised that Mr Sloane's family all reside in New South Wales and it is probable that he will want to return there when his supervision order expires. In these circumstances, the order should be no longer than is reasonably necessary.
Conclusion
47 For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the continuing detention order should be rescinded and that Mr Sloane should be placed on a supervision order of five years duration. The conditions of that order will be in the terms of the annexure to these reasons. The order will take effect 21 days from the conclusion of the review proceedings.
48 At the hearing of the review, I also ordered that the street address of the proposed residence be suppressed, including the suburb. The proposed residence is one that has been used by Outcare for this purpose for some time. Revealing the address would likely result in it being withdrawn from future use. Suppression of the address will not prejudice the effectiveness of the supervision order, given the stringent terms of that order.
ANNEXURE
YOU (THE RESPONDENT) must:
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT
1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer at the place and within the time stated in the order and advise the officer of the person's current name and address.
2. Report to and receive visits from, a Community Corrections Officer as directed by the court.
3. Notify a Community Corrections Officer of every change of the person's name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens.
4. Be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 19A or 19B), and
5. Not leave, or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Community Corrections Officer, and
6. Not commit a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A during the period of the Order, and
7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 19A.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
The following conditions incorporate the above standard conditions and are suggested to strengthen and add to the standard conditions required by the Act for the more effective management of the offender in the community.
Residence
8. Take up residence at [suppressed] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to you.
9. Not leave or remain out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Manager of the Department of Corrective Services and, if so permitted, abide by all conditions of such permission whilst absent from the State.
Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
10. Report to a CCO at Central West Metropolitan Adult Community Corrections, Level 2, 30 Moore Street, East Perth WA 6004, within normal business hours on the day of release from custody under this order, and thereupon advise the CCO of your current name and address.
11. Be under the supervision of a CCO, and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO.
12. Report to, and receive visits from a CCO, at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such arrangements having regard to any employment commitments of you.
13. Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations if and as directed by a CCO and present the diary to a CCO or Police Officers upon request.
14. Notify the CCO of any change of your name at least 2 business days before the change is due to happen.
15. Not commence or change employment without the prior approval of the CCO.
Attendance at programs or treatment
16. Consult and engage with any psychiatrist, psychologist, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.
17. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious sexual re-offending, as directed by a CCO.
Reporting to WA Police
18. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad (SOMS), at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth, WA 6000, within 48 hours of your release from custody, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Management Squad or his/her delegate, (OR)
19. If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence, vehicle and/or search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order. Allow the seizure of any such material that the Police Officers believe to contravene the conditions of the Order.
20. When requested, advise Police of the names of all of your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services used by you and all internet user names or identities used by you.
21. Permit a CCO or WA Police to access any computer or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer activities, and provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords required for access.
Disclosure/exchange of information
22. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information.
23. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offence history.
Restrictions on contact with victims
24. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your sexual offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Corrective Services.
25. Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your sexual offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture, and must avert your gaze from such victim at all times.
26. Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
Criminal conduct
27. Not commit any sexual offence, as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A.
28. Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.
29. Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204, s 204A, s 204B, s 217, s 218, s 219, s 220 or Criminal Code 1913 (WA).
30. Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996.
31. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs or substances including, but not limited to, cannabis.
Curfew
32. Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 19B of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time.
33. When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or curtilage of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
34. When subject to a curfew under this order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew.
Medications/mental health
35. Attend any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor as directed by the supervising CCO.
36. Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Corrective Services.
37. Undertake any medication regime in accordance with a medical practitioner's direction, and to comply with all testing to monitor your compliance with that treatment as directed by a CCO.
Prevention of high-risk situations
38. Not hitchhike, not accept lifts in vehicles from any female who is unaware of your offending history, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
39. Not allow any female hitchhiker to enter any vehicle under your control.
40. Not allow any female to enter any vehicle under your control unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO.
41. Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorized in advance by the CCO.
42. Not possess, consume or use alcohol.
43. Not go or remain at any alcohol licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
(a) For the purpose of averting or minimizing a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
(b) For a purpose, and for a duration, approved by a CCO;
(c) On the order of a CCO or Police Officer.
44. 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.
45. Not remain in the presence of females who are affected by alcohol, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
46. Not remain in the presence of any person affected by a prohibited drug.
47. Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place.
48. Not to enter the premises of, or access the services of, escort agencies or sex workers.
49. Make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer.
2
4
1