The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2]
[2025] WASC 339
•21 AUGUST 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- THORNE [No 2] [2025] WASC 339
CORAM: MUSIKANTH J
HEARD: 11 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED : 21 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S: SO 21 of 2024
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
TYRONE JAMES THORNE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal Law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order - Whether necessary to make restriction order to ensure adequate protection of community - Whether community can be adequately protected by imposition of supervision order - Whether respondent will substantially comply with standard conditions of a supervision order - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Result:
Supervision order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr J Lloyd |
| Respondent | : | Mr T Hager |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Respondent | : | Tony Hager |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4
Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116
The State of Western Australia v AB [No 3] [2022] WASC 126
The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219
The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [2022] WASC 189
The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387
The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351
The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104
The State of Western Australia v JKX [No 3] [2023] WASC 23
The State of Western Australia v MAM [2022] WASC 100
The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 8] [2023] WASC 80
The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] [2024] WASC 348
The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 7] [2022] WASC 342
The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [2023] WASC 148
The State of Western Australia v Thorne [2025] WASC 306
The State of Western Australia v White [No 7] [2023] WASC 432
MUSIKANTH J:
This is an application for a restriction order to be made in respect of the respondent, Tyrone James Thorne, pursuant to s 35 and s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).
On 2 April 2025, a preliminary hearing was held before Fiannaca J pursuant to s 46 of the HRSO Act to determine whether Mr Thorne should be detained in custody pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the HRSO Act.
At the preliminary hearing, Fiannaca J was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the court might find Mr Thorne to be a high risk serious offender and ordered that he be detained in custody until the final determination of the State's application.[1]
[1] See The State of Western Australia v Thorne [2025] WASC 306.
The final restriction order hearing was heard before me on 11 August 2025.
On an application for a restriction order, the matters I must decide are:
(a)whether Mr Thorne is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act; and, if so
(b)whether it is appropriate to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order.
For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied Mr Thorne is a high risk serious offender and have decided the appropriate disposition is a supervision order.
Evidence
At the hearing, the State tendered a two-volume book of materials[2] and an email from the Western Australia Police providing a desktop spatial analysis of Mr Thorne's proposed address were he to be released on a supervision order or no restriction order at all.[3]
[2] Exhibit 1.
[3] Exhibit 2.
The books of materials (BOM) among other things contained:
(1)Mr Thorne's criminal record together with a chronology of his offending prepared by the State Solicitor's Office.
(2)Department of Justice (Department) records relating to Mr Thorne's imprisonment.
(3)A multi-disciplinary foetal alcohol spectrum disorder adult assessment report dated 3 August 2018 authored by a paediatrician and clinical neuropsychologist registrar (PATCHES report).
(4)A report by psychologist Ms Erin Sweeny dated 4 April 2022 (Sweeny report).
(5)A parole assessment report by the Department dated 21 January 2023 (Parole assessment report).
(6)A victim-offender mediation unit report dated 9 February 2023.
(7)A treatment assessment report dated 27 September 2024 by the Department.
(8)Prisoner Review Board notes from 2024.
(9)A post-sentence supervision order report by the Department dated 10 January 2025.
(10)National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding regime plans and approval letters relating to Mr Thorne including for the period commencing 29 April 2025 and ending 28 April 2026.
(11)Three reports by forensic consultant psychiatrist Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 8 July 2025 (Wojnarowska 2025 report), 9 September 2016 (Wojnarowska 2016 report), and 29 June 2003 (Wojnarowska 2003 report).
(12)A report by forensic consultant psychiatrist Dr Ben Bannister dated 14 July 2025 (Bannister report).
(13)A High Risk Serious Offender treatment options report authored by a HRSO planning manager dated 16 July 2025.
(14)An Adult Community Corrections community supervision assessment dated 4 August 2025 (CSA report) co-authored by, among others, Ms Nicole Bennetts a senior community corrections officer with the Department's Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU).
In addition, at the hearing, the State led oral evidence from Dr Wojnarowska, Dr Bannister and Ms Bennetts.
Legal principles
An offender is a high risk serious offender for the purposes of the HRSO Act if the court is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.[4]
[4] HRSO Act s 7(1).
This requires the court, first, to be satisfied that a risk that an offender will commit a serious offence is unacceptable and, secondly, that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against a risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.[5]
[5] The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [2023] WASC 148 [18]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [2022] WASC 189 [245]; The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [136(d)].
An unacceptable risk is one that is not trivial or transient.[6]
[6] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [136(b)], [138]; The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [2023] WASC 148 [20]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [2022] WASC 189 [20].
In determining whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community, the court makes two evaluative assessments; one of 'necessity' and the other of 'adequacy'.[7]
[7] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [136(a)], [138]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [2022] WASC 189 [19].
In Italiano,[8] in the context of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (now the HRSO Act), Buss JA (as his Honour then was) observed that a finding that there is an 'unacceptable risk' is an evaluative and predictive finding of fact involving a balancing exercise in which the court was required, on the one hand, to have regard to, among other things, the nature of the risk (the commission of a [serious] offence with serious consequences for the victim) and the likelihood of the risk materialising and, on the other hand, the serious consequences for the offender (either detention, without having committed an unpunished offence, or being required to undergo what might be an onerous supervision order) if an order was made.[9]
[8] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116.
[9] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116 [46].
As Corboy J explained in Garlett,[10] the factors identified by Wheeler JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams[11] and Buss JA in Italiano,18 and the balancing exercises to which their Honours referred, would be most relevant to the determination of whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community.[12]
[10] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387.
[11] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams[2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [68]. 18 Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116 [46].
[12] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [136(c)].
The approach is:
(a)finding whether the risk is unacceptable by reference to whether it was trivial or transient (which is treated as an exhaustive definition of 'unacceptable risk'); and only then
(b)undertaking the balancing exercise with reference to whether it is necessary to make an order to adequately protect the community.[13]
[13] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [136] - [139]; The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [2023] WASC 138 [18] - [22]; The State of Western Australia v JKX [No 3] [2023] WASC 23 [71] - [75]; The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 8] [2023] WASC 80 [18] - [23]; The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104 [19] - [25]; The State of Western Australia v Dragon [No 2] [2022] WASC 189 [20] - [21]; The State of Western Australia v AB [No 3] [2022] WASC 126 [27] - [34]; The State of Western Australia v White [No 7][2023] WASC 432 [36] - [42]; The State of Western Australia v MAM [2022] WASC 100 [18] - [20].
The State bears the onus of satisfying the court that the offender is a high risk serious offender, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability.[14] The words 'high degree of probability' are incapable of further definition.[15] They import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt.[16]
[14] HRSO Act s 7(2).
[15] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
[16] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
In considering whether an offender is a high risk serious offender, the court may have regard to any relevant matter,[17] but must consider the matters set out at s 7(3)(a)-(j).[18] These matters are addressed below.
[17] HRSO Act s 7(3)(j).
[18] HRSO Act.
Antecedents and criminal record – s 7(3)(g)
Family background
Mr Thorne is a 39-year-old man of Aboriginal decent born in Bunbury. He is the youngest of his four siblings.
As a young person, Mr Thorne's home life was characterised by parental violence and substance abuse, particularly alcohol consumption.[19]
[19] Sweeny report [2] (BOM v1, 463). See also Bannister report [11] (BOM v2, 591).
Significantly, Mr Thorne has been diagnosed with severe foetal alcohol syndrome disorder (FASD) due to constant exposure to high levels of alcohol in utero, coupled with a suspected intellectual disability.[20]
[20] Wojnarowska 2025 report [36] (BOM v2, 575). See also Sweeny report [17] (BOM v1, 466); PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449).
Mr Thorne's intellectual disability has severely limited his capacity to learn.[21] His cognitive ability was assessed as a teenager to range between more than one to more than two standard deviations below the average.[22]
[21] Wojnarowska 20 report [58] (BOM v2, 434 - 435).
[22] Wojnarowska 2003 report (BOM v1, 432 - 433).
Throughout his childhood, Mr Thorne was reportedly delayed across all developmental milestones.[23] He was unable to walk until the age of four and required extensive speech therapy due to his significant language delays.[24]
[23] PATCHES report [3.1] (BOM v1, 446).
[24] Wojnarowska 2016 report (BOM v1, 441).
Socially, Mr Thorne had no friends his own age and tended to gravitate toward younger children. He was described as a hyperactive child both at home and at school. He got into frequent fights and, at times, was suspended from school for his behaviour.[25]
[25] Wojnarowska 2016 report [7] (BOM v1, 441).
Mr Thorne attended school until the age of fifteen but struggled academically.[26] He was placed in special education classes from a young age and, despite the extra assistance, never learnt to read or write.[27]
[26] Bannister report [12] (BOM v2, 591).
[27] Bannister report [12] (BOM v2, 591).
Since completing school, Mr Thorne has engaged in 'a bit of labour' but has otherwise never held any employment.[28] Due to his disability, he is entitled to the disability pension and received NDIS funding approval in 2024 to assist with the day-to-day management of his disabilities. His NDIS funding approval was recently renewed in 2025.
[28] Cf. Wojnarowska 2025 report [55] (BOM v2, 578), [85] (BOM v2, 583); Bannister report [14] (BOM v2, 591).
Despite his tumultuous childhood, Mr Thorne reports having had a close relationship with his mother and siblings who remain supportive factors in his life.[29] He reports that his relationship with his father was close, however his father sadly passed away in 2017.[30]
[29] CSA report (BOM v2, 622). See also Wojnarowska 2025 report [11] (BOM v2, 571), [103] (BOM v2, 585).
[30] Bannister report [10] (BOM v2, 590).
Mr Thorne has two children with a former partner.[31] He reports that his relationship with his children's mother was 'good' but that it went 'sour' when they had children together.[32] He has no contact with his children or their mother.
Substance use
[31] Sweeny report [5] (BOM v1, 463). See also prison medical notes (BOM v1, 85).
[32] Sweeny report [5] (BOM v1, 463 - 464).
Mr Thorne has a long-entrenched history of alcohol and cannabis abuse dating back to his adolescence.[33] He acknowledged having engaged in daily drinking, with heavier binges when more alcohol was available.[34]
[33] Wojnarowska 2025 report [96]-[97] (BOM v2, 584 - 585); Bannister report [18] (BOM v2, 592). See also Wojnarowska 2003 report (BOM v1, 428).
[34] Wojnarowska 2025 report [96] - [97] (BOM v2, 584 - 585).
Mr Thorne also acknowledged having used methylamphetamine, and his criminal record indicates he was convicted for having possessed that substance as recently as April 2024.[35]
Criminal history
[35] Criminal history of Mr Thorne (BOM v1, 1).
Mr Thorne has an extensive criminal history dating back to 2001 when he was 16 years old.
In total, Mr Thorne has accumulated 103 convictions including for theft, providing false details, burglary, possession of weapons, trespass, breach of community orders, street drinking, escaping legal custody, obstructing a public officer, disorderly behaviour, property damage, possession of illicit substances, and traffic related offences.[36]
[36] Criminal history of Mr Thorne (BOM v1, 1 - 15).
Of particular significance are his sexual offences, three of which are considered serious offences as defined in s 5, read with sch 1 div 1, of the HRSO Act.
Mr Thorne has six convictions for obscene acts, two convictions for the indecent assault of children under the age of 13, and one conviction for the sexual penetration of an adult female without consent.
The three serious offences are discussed by Fiannaca J in The State of Western Australia v Thorne [2025] WASC 306 (interim decision) at [40] - [48].
Efforts to address cause(s) of offending behaviour, whether participation in any rehabilitation programme has had positive effect– s 7(3)(e) and (f)
Over his 22 years of offending, Mr Thorne has been given many opportunities to complete criminogenic programs designed to assist offenders with rehabilitation.
In 2004, Mr Thorne was enrolled in a Sex Offender Treatment and Substance Abuse Counselling Program as a condition of an intensive supervision order.[37] This program was deemed unsuccessful as Mr Thorne re-offended during the period of the order.[38]
[37] Sweeny report [8] (BOM v1, 464).
[38] Sweeny report [8] (BOM v1, 464).
In 2014, Mr Thorne attended the Community Cognitive Brief Intervention program but did not complete the program in its entirety.[39] Departmental records indicate he had difficulty understanding the course content and needed assistance expressing his ideas and thoughts.[40]
[39] Community Cognitive Brief Intervention program report (BOM v1, 436 - 437). See also CSA report (BOM v2, 623).
[40] CSA report (BOM v2, 623).
In 2016, Mr Thorne successfully completed the Intellectually Disabled Diversion Programme with the assistance of an Aboriginal mentor.[41]
[41] See PATCHES report [3.7] (BOM v1, 447).
In 2017, Mr Thorne was referred to the Aboriginal Alcohol and Drug Service but 'failed to attend all appointments and his referral was consequently discharged'.[42]
[42] PATCHES report [3.5] (BOM v1, 446).
Around the same time, Mr Thorne was referred to a psychologist with the Department. He was seen for one session in September 2017 but subsequently failed to attend four other appointments.[43]
[43] Sweeny report [11] (BOM v1, 465).
In 2020, Mr Thorne again attended two psychological counselling assessment sessions, but his engagement was considered poor with no other information about the sessions available.[44]
[44] Sweeny report [11] (BOM v1, 465).
More recently, in 2023, Mr Thorne was given occupational therapy for a brief period. However, his treatment ceased in August 2023 due to inappropriate sexual comments made by Mr Thorne towards his female occupational therapist.[45]
[45] Wojnarowska 2025 report [12] (BOM v2, 571).
Significantly, Mr Thorne has recently been considered unsuitable for programmatic intervention because of his cognitive difficulties[46] including for sex offender treatment programs offered by the Department.[47] As such, Mr Thorne will require intervention measures specifically tailored to his level of cognitive functioning.[48]
[46] Wojnarowska 2025 report [87] (BOM v2, 87). See also HRSO treatment options report [10] - [11] (BOM v2, 567-568); Treatment options report [9] (BOM v2, 564).
[47] Sweeny report [22] (BOM v1, 469). See also Parole Assessment report (BOM v1, 476); Treatment Options report (BOM v2, 564).
[48] Wojnarowska 2025 report [87] (BOM v2, 87). See also Bannister report [124] (BOM v2, 616).
In this connection, it has been opined that Mr Thorne may benefit from 'a behavioural treatment approach'[49] and from continuous involvement of Sexuality Education, Counselling, Consultancy Advice (SECCA) to whom he was referred in 2023.[50]
[49] Bannister report [114] (BOM v2, 614).
[50] Wojnarowska 2025 report [117] (BOM v2, 587).
The opinion has also been expressed that Mr Thorne's individual therapeutic intervention should focus on his outstanding needs relating to anger, impulsivity childhood trauma, and antisocial personality variables as well as assisting with more robust emotional management, coping skills and exploration of factors that contributed to violence.[51]
[51] Wojnarowska 2025 report [117] (BOM v2, 587).
Reports prepared under Section 74 of the HRSO Act - s 7(3)(a)
Two reports were prepared pursuant to Fiannaca J's orders of 2 April 2025 for the purposes of s 74 of the HRSO Act: the Bannister report and the Wojnarowska 2025 report.
Wojnarowska 2025 report
The Wojnarowska 2025 report records Mr Thorne having diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, and FASD.[52]
[52] Wojnarowska 2025 report [59]-[62] (BOM v2, 579).
Dr Wojnarowska had previously diagnosed Mr Thorne with Conduct Disorder, Alcohol and Cannabis Abuse, FASD, Maternal Substance Use and a GAP scale 65, in 2003,[53] and with FASD, intellectual disability, Alcohol Use Disorder and antisocial personality traits, in 2016.[54]
[53] Wojnarowska 2025 report [33] (BOM v2, 574); Wojnarowska 2003 report (BOM v1, 429).
[54] Wojnarowska 2025 report [36] (BOM v2, 575); Wojnarowska 2016 report (BOM v1, 442).
According to Dr Wojnarowska, Mr Thorne has obvious cognitive impairments such as memory deficits, concrete thinking, comprehension difficulties,[55] a lack in abstract thinking, difficulties with concentration, and limited insight.[56]
[55] Wojnarowska 2025 report [58] (BOM v2, 579).
[56] Wojnarowska 2025 report [58] (BOM v2, 579).
Dr Wojnarowska assessed Mr Thorne's risk of future offending utilising the following assessment instruments: Hare Psychopathy Check-list - Revised (PCL-R), Assessment of Risk and Manageability for Individuals with Development and Intellectual Limitations who Offend Sexually (ARMIDILO-S), Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP), and Static-99R.
The PLC-R instrument measured Mr Thorne for clinical psychopathy. The results confirm Mr Thorne has elevated factors consistent with him being impulsive, sensation seeking, and unstable but that he does not reach the threshold for clinical psychopathy.[57]
[57] Wojnarowska 2025 report [73] (BOM v2, 581).
The Static-99R was employed as comparative assessment for sexual re‑offending. The results indicate that compared with other sexual offenders, Mr Thorne is in the 'above average risk' category.[58]
[58] Wojnarowska 2025 report [70] (BOM v2, 581).
The RSVP and ARMIDILO-S instruments were employed to identify the factors associated with Mr Thorne's risk of sexual re‑offending.[59]
[59] Wojnarowska 2025 report [68] (BOM v2, 580).
The results indicate that:
(a)Mr Thorne does not express any opinions or attitudes supportive of condoning sexual violence;[60]
(b)Mr Thorne accepts responsibility for his offending and is aware of the impact of his behaviour on his victims;[61]
(c)Mr Thorne's offences are similar in nature being opportunistic, targeted at vulnerable victims and undertaken with high levels of intoxication;[62]
(d)Mr Thorne's latest serious sexual offence is a clear escalation from his previous offending;[63]
(e)there is an association between Mr Thorne's alcohol intoxication and his offending behaviour;[64]
(f)Mr Thorne understands the need to abstain from consuming alcohol but is easily led by others who invite him to drink;[65]
(g)Mr Thorne uses alcohol consumption as a maladaptive coping strategy for his stress;[66]
(h)Mr Thorne has developed some insight into this maladaptive coping strategy but has not yet developed any mature coping strategies;[67] and
(i)Mr Thorne presently remains highly reactive and impulsive but can control his emotions in a pro-social environment.[68]
[60] Wojnarowska 2025 report [78] (BOM v2, 582).
[61] Wojnarowska 2025 report [79] (BOM v2, 582).
[62] Wojnarowska 2025 report [75] (BOM v2, 581).
[63] Wojnarowska 2025 report [75] (BOM v2, 581).
[64] Wojnarowska 2025 report [91] (BOM v2, 584).
[65] Wojnarowska 2025 report [98] (BOM v2, 585).
[66] Wojnarowska 2025 report [79] - [80] (BOM v2, 582).
[67] Wojnarowska 2025 report [79] - [80] (BOM v2, 582).
[68] Wojnarowska 2025 report [80] (BOM v2, 582).
Overall, Dr Wojnarowska concludes that Mr Thorne is at high risk of serious sexual reoffending if not made subject to a restriction order.[69]
[69] Wojnarowska 2025 report [112] (BOM v2, 586).
Dr Wojnarowska posits that Mr Thorne is most likely to re-offend sexually against a child or vulnerable victim while intoxicated, and to do so, if subject to psychosocial stressors like housing or relationship instability.[70]
[70] See Wojnarowska 2025 report [104] - [106] (BOM v2, 585).
According to Dr Wojnarowska, the warning signs which signify a greater risk of Mr Thorne reoffending in the community are if he: engages in obscene acts, relapses into substance use, increases contact with antisocial peers, or withdraws from psychological counselling.[71]
[71] Wojnarowska 2025 report [109] - [110] (BOM v2, 586).
Dr Wojnarowska opines that Mr Thorne's impulsivity and poor coping strategies remain key outstanding treatment needs which are important factors to consider for his management in the community.[72]
[72] Wojnarowska 2025 report [80] (BOM v2, 582).
However, in Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, the risk posed by Mr Thorne of committing a serious offence can be managed in the community if he is subject to a five-year community supervision order.[73]
[73] Wojnarowska 2025 report [113] (BOM v2, 586).
Should Mr Thorne be released into the community, Dr Wojnarowska recommends his risk would be reduced by him continuing drug and alcohol counselling sessions with SECCA, commencing anti-libidinal treatment, and continuing engagement with NDIS support workers.[74]
Bannister report
[74] Wojnarowska 2025 report [115] - [121] (BOM v2, 587).
Dr Bannister does not attribute any further diagnoses to Mr Thorne beyond those previously identified by Dr Wojnarowska.
Consistent with Dr Wojnarowska’s observation, Dr Bannister observed Mr Thorne to have a 'concrete, simplistic and black-and-white cognitive style' attributable to his cognitive impairment.[75]
[75] Bannister report [7] (BOM v2, 590).
To assess Mr Thorne's risk of recidivism, Dr Bannister employed the PCL-R and Violence Risk Scale: Sex Offender Version (VRS:SO) assessment instruments.
Consistent with Dr Wojnarowska's findings, the results obtained from the PCL-R confirmed that Mr Thorne does not reach the threshold for clinical psychopathy.[76] Although some levels were noted to be elevated, Dr Bannister attributed the elevation to the overlap between psychopathy and intellectual disability.[77]
[76] Bannister report [67] (BOM v2, 605).
[77] Bannister report [67] (BOM v2, 605).
The VRS:SO is a structured clinical judgment tool, comprising seven static (historical) and 17 dynamic (changeable) factors, empirically or conceptually linked to sexual recidivism. The instrument is designed to assess risk and predict sexual recidivism, to measure and link treatment changes to sexual recidivism, and to inform the delivery of sexual offender treatment.[78]
[78] Bannister report [69] (BOM v2, 605).
Mr Thorne scored 49 out of a possible 72 on the VRS:SO metric placing him in the 'high-risk category' of sexually re-offending.[79] According to Dr Bannister, Mr Thorne's VRS:SO score suggests that if he is not subject to an order, he has between a 26.2% to 41.9% chance of sexually reoffending within the next five years; between a 37.5% to 50.0% chance of sexually reoffending within the next 10 years; between a 43.6% to 55.5% chance of violently reoffending within the next five years; and between a 54.3% to 67.2% chance of violently reoffending within the next 10 years.[80]
[79] Bannister report [105] (BOM v2, 613).
[80] Bannister report [108]-[111] (BOM v2, 613 - 614).
Overall, Dr Bannister concludes that Mr Thorne poses a high risk of serious offending if not subject to either a continuing detention order or supervision order.[81]
[81] Bannister report [122] (BOM v2, 616).
According to Dr Bannister, the most serious risk scenario for Mr Thorne re-offending would involve a relapse into alcohol and/or drug use leading to a serious offence being committed.[82]
[82] Bannister report [117] (BOM v2, 615).
Dr Bannister considers Mr Thorne's offending has been facilitated by deficits caused by his FASD and intellectual disability, which have in turn been exacerbated by his alcohol use.[83] He suggests that offending is a maladaptive coping mechanism.[84]
[83] Bannister report [123]-[124] (BOM v2, 616).
[84] Bannister report [123] (BOM v2, 616).
Dr Bannister considers Mr Thorne has a range of outstanding treatment needs including sexual preoccupation/compulsivity, cognitive distortions, emotional control, insight, substance use, impulsivity, and compliance issues with supervision.[85]
[85] Bannister report [124] (BOM v2, 616).
Having regard to his cognitive disabilities, Dr Bannister opines that typical criminogenic treatments would likely be ineffective as a treatment. He recommends Mr Thorne be given a behavioural treatment approach focused on modifying the behavioural aspects of Mr Thorne's anti-sociality, including his drug and alcohol use, and self-regulation.[86]
[86] Bannister report [124] (BOM v2, 616).
Dr Bannister emphasises that if Mr Thorne is made subject to a supervision order, implementation of such an order should accommodate his limited cognitive ability by ensuring he has a consistent structure, focusing on fostering partnership with him rather than attempting to exert control over him, and taking any behavioural indicators into account when making decisions about his compliance with any order.[87]
[87] Bannister report [128] - [129] (BOM v2, 617).
Other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment - s 7(3)(b)
PATCHES report
As noted earlier, the PATCHES report is a multi-disciplinary FASD assessment report. It reflects the results of a multidisciplinary assessment conducted on Mr Thorne in July/August 2018 to assess for the presence of FASD.
According to the report, Mr Thorne has very severe FASD and a suspected neurological disability.[88] His overall intellectual functioning was assessed by the authors of the PATCHES report to fall within the extremely low range or in within the bottom 0.1st percentile.[89]
[88] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449), [5.7] (BOM v1, 454).
[89] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449).
Mr Thorne's neuropsychological profile was assessed to be significantly impaired across almost all functions tested including brain structure/neurology, attention, memory, academic achievement, language, executive functions and adaptive functioning.[90]
[90] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449), [5.1] (BOM v1, 450).
The authors of the report comprehensively outline that Mr Thorne's mental capacity is impaired in the following respects:
(1)His attention abilities are impaired, both for basic auditory attention and more complex attention.[91]
(2)His language skills, memory, and executive functioning is well below age expectations.[92]
(3)He demonstrated a vulnerability in sustaining his working memory.[93]
(4)He is easily confused and agreeable causing him to be socially vulnerable and easily led or influenced by others.[94]
(5)He has a reduced ability to control his emotional responses and appreciate the consequences of his actions.[95]
(6)He struggles to manage situations when there were multiple demands placed upon him and may become cognitively overwhelmed.[96]
(7)He finds it very difficult to understand new information, particularly if complex, in large amounts and/or in written format.[97]
(8)He has difficulty keeping task rules in mind, even when presented repeatedly, resulting in many errors.[98]
[91] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449).
[92] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449).
[93] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449).
[94] PATCHES report [4.2.1] - [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449), [5] (BOM v1, 450), [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
[95] PATCHES report [3.9] (BOM v1, 447).
[96] PATCHES report [5.3] (BOM v1, 452).
[97] PATCHES report [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
[98] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449).
The authors consider that Mr Thorne's widespread cognitive impairment, coupled with his previous substance abuse, may have had the following practical implications on his offending behaviour and risk of recidivism:[99]
(1)His low intellect and cognitive deficits suggest he may be socially vulnerable and easily led or influenced by others, and he may lack awareness of the consequences of certain behaviours.
(2)His observed agreeable and easily-confused nature places him at risk of engaging in antisocial and/or criminal activities behaviours at others' urging.
(3)His reduced ability in controlling his responses suggest he may struggle to control his responses and find it hard to contain his emotions and behaviour when he becomes distressed. Coupled with his low intellect, he may act without much prior consideration of the consequences of his behaviour.
(4)His reduced cognitive ability may lead him to become cognitively overwhelmed and he may struggle to manage situations when there are multiple demands placed on him. This may lead to him becoming frustrated and place him at risk of impulse recidivism due to his difficulty controlling his emotions and behaviour.
(5)He will likely struggle to remember information, even if it is presented repeatedly. This means that he will require assistance and reminders for any conditions or counselling appointments.
(6)His substance use history may place him at risk of substance-related antisocial behaviour and recidivism, and/or participate in antisocial behaviour without an adequate level of consciousness.
[99] PATCHES report [5.3] (BOM v1, 452).
Conscious of Mr Thorne's complex cognitive and substance related needs, to assist Mr Thorne transition back into the community, the authors of the PATCHES report suggest that he would benefit from:
(1)Written and spoken information being presented in small amounts, with simple language, and accompanied by simple visual aids.[100]
(2)Frequent reminders and prompts in simple and clear formats, so he does not forget information or get confused.[101]
(3)Additional time to process information and formulate responses.[102]
(4)Ongoing and intensive support to manage his substance use in the community.[103]
(5)Assistance to ensure he does not associate with negative peers who may take advantage of him.[104]
(6)Support and assistance in managing his day-to-day activities, particularly to help ensure he attends any required appointments and/or adheres to any order conditions.[105]
(7)Occupational therapy to assist his difficulty with fine motor coordination.[106]
[100] PATCHES report [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
[101] PATCHES report [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
[102] PATCHES report [4.2.2] (BOM v1, 449).
[103] PATCHES report [5.5] (BOM v1, 454).
[104] PATCHES report [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
[105] PATCHES report [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
[106] PATCHES report [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
The strategies proposed by the authors of the PATCHES report are designed to assist Mr Thorne but will not completely resolve his cognitive limitations. They note Mr Thorne's FASD and mental impairments are permanent disabilities and cannot be 'outgrown' or 'cured'.[107]
Sweeny report
[107] PATCHES report [5.2] (BOM v1, 451).
The Sweeny report, which dates back to 2022, was prepared by Ms Sweeny pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) to assist the court to sentence Mr Thorne for his last serious offence committed in 2020.
Ms Sweeny assessed Mr Thorne's recidivism using both the Static‑99R and ARMIDILO-S models.
The Static-99 results indicate Mr Thorne was, in 2022, in the 'well above average risk' category of re-offending, and that the factors elevating his risk were his history of prior sexual offences, victim characteristics and prior non-sexual violence.[108]
[108] Sweeny report [18] (BOM v1, 467).
The ARMIDILO-S model identified Mr Thorne's 'stable client' risk factors to be:[109]
Poor supervision compliance; poor treatment compliance; sexual preoccupation/sexual drive; offence management; emotional coping ability; relationships; impulsivity; substance abuse and additional issues such as antisocial tendencies and periods of transience Mr Thorne can encounter.
[109] Sweeny report [20] (BOM v1, 467).
While the 'stable environmental' factors were not clear when applying the model, Ms Sweeny noted that, especially when Mr Thorne had in the past been subject to 'general supervision orders', communication among support people/services may not have been 'as straightforward and coordinated as it could be', and that at such times, his needs 'may get overlooked and consistency of supervision [adversely] impacted',[110] and that '[s]pecialised management of his risk and needs is required, inclusive of strong collaboration between all parties'.[111]
[110] Sweeny report [21] (BOM v1, 467).
[111] Sweeny report [24] (BOM v1, 468).
According to Ms Sweeny, Mr Thorne's poor impulse control remained a major risk factor to further reoffending, especially when he is intoxicated.[112] She considered that Mr Thorne's impulsivity and impaired judgement were linked to his intellectual disability and alcohol consumption.[113]
[112] Sweeny report [22] (BOM v1, 467).
[113] Sweeny report [22] (BOM v1, 467).
Ms Sweeny ultimately concluded Mr Thorne continued 'to have high treatment needs and be of high risk to the community'.[114]
[114] Sweeny report [27] (BOM v1, 468).
Ms Sweeny opined that, if Mr Thorne re-entered the community, he would require extensive support with his daily living.[115] She stated that Mr Thorne's treatment needs do not appear to have been adequately addressed, and that he will require intensive, specialist intervention.[116]
[115] Sweeny report [17] (BOM v1, 466).
[116] Sweeny report [27] (BOM v1, 469).
Ms Sweeny recommended that Mr Thorne be intensively monitored, supervised and supported to prevent negative influence from peers and to enable him to comply with his reporting obligations.[117]
[117] Sweeny report [26] (BOM v1, 468).
She further added that 'interventions will need to take into consideration [Mr Thorne's] cognitive impairments and therefore information should be presented simply, in small amounts and with visual aids'.[118]
CSA report
[118] Sweeny report [26] (BOM v1, 468).
The CSA report among other things focuses on the practical supports which would be available to Mr Thorne were he to be released on a community supervision order or with no restriction order at all.
According to the report, if released into the community Mr Thorne would have significant interagency supports in place through NDIS funding and NDIS allied health providers.
NDIS allied health supports would be co-ordinated and managed by Ms Brest, specialist support coordinator at Lighthouse Health Group,[119] whose role would be to ensure consistency in Mr Thorne's treatment and to ensure the NDIS funding is not misused.[120]
[119] ts dated 11 August 2025, 80 - 81 (Ms Bennetts).
[120] ts dated 11 August 2025, 82 (Ms Bennetts).
I infer that the NDIS funding scheme approved for Mr Thorne relevantly provides financial cover for the following supports:[121]
(1)Specialist behavioural intervention support for up to 45 hours per year.
(2)A behaviour management plan which includes training in behaviour management strategies for up to 20 hours per year.
(3)Access to occupational therapy (OT) for up to 40 hours per year, and access to other therapy or training for up to 15 hours per year.
(4)Employment assistance for seven hours per week.
(5)Access to community supports for 12 hours per week delivered as a 1:1 individual support.
(6)Supported Independent Living (SIL) at a support worker to NDIS participant ratio of 1:3.
[121] NDIS funding scheme (BOM v2, 561 - 562).
A significant component of Mr Thorne’s NDIS regime is his access to SIL accommodation, which provides Mr Thorne access to 24‑hour support from one support worker employed to provide support at the SIL accommodation between three NDIS participants.
According to the CSA report, were Mr Thorne to be released into the community he would initially be the sole occupant at the proposed SIL accommodation and would receive one-on-one support until another NDIS participant were to be housed there.[122]
[122] CSA report (BOM v2, 629).
A spatial desktop analysis of the proposed address provided by the police reveals that there have been no incidents at the proposed property.[123]
[123] Exhibit 2.
Post Sentence Supervision Order
If not made subject to a restriction order, relevantly, Mr Thorne would continue to be subject to a post sentence supervision order (PSSO) until 3 April 2026. The conditions of the PSSO are detailed in the CSA report.[124]
[124] CSA report (BOM v2, 625).
The PSSO is the most recent of numerous community-based orders granted in favour of Mr Thorne. The results of his previous community-based orders demonstrate there is a general theme of non‑compliance with community-based sanctions as summarised in the following table:[125]
[125] Cf. Post Sentence Supervision Order report (BOM v1, 525); Adult Community Parole Assessment (BOM v1, 475); CSA report (BOM v2, 623).
Order Start Date Expiry Date Termination Date Termination Type PSSO
04/04/2025 03/04/2026 N/A Unable to serve due to detention order Re-released on Parole Order
04/12/2023 04/04/2025 20/03/2024 Revoked – conditions not complied with Parole Order 16/05/2023 04/04/2025 20/10/2023 Suspended – conditions not complied with Conditional Bail - IDDP Court 07/07/2020 03/08/2020 08/08/2020 Completed –Conditions Lifted Conditional Bail – IDDP Court 09/04/2020 20/07/2020 20/07/2020 Completed –
Conditions
LiftedConditional Bail – IDDP Court 09/03/2020 30/03/2020 30/03/2020 Revoked -
Warrant
IssuedCommunity Based Order x 3 09/12/2019 08/06/2020 12/08/2020 Completed –
Breached
During TermCommunity Based
Order X 227/05/2019 26/01/2020 09/12/2019 Cancelled –
Re-offendedIntensive
Supervision Order16/03/2017 15/03/2018 24/08/2018 Cancelled –
Re-offendedCommunity Based
Order02/09/2014 01/03/2015 03/03/2015 Completed –
Breached
During TermCommunity Based
Order06/04/2014 05/11/2014 02/09/2014 Cancelled –
Re-offendedCommunity Based
Order28/02/2014 27/08/2014 07/05/2014 Cancelled –
Re-offendedCommunity Based
Order10/04/2008 09/10/2008 17/06/2008 Completed -
SatisfactorilyCommunity Based
Order29/03/2005 28/03/2006 28/03/2006 Completed –
Breached
During TermConditional Bail 28/09/2004 13/10/2004 13/10/2004 Completed -
SentencedIntensive
Supervision Order19/04/2004 18/04/2005 18/04/2004 Completed -
Satisfactorily
The most recent community-based order (being a parole order) was granted in May 2023 and was breached twice by Mr Thorne before it was revoked. Both breaches were connected to the consumption of illicit substances or alcohol.
It has been posited that Mr Thorne has struggled to remember information and the essential requirements of his community-based orders leading to his consistent non-compliance with such orders.[126]
[126] Bannister report [53] (BOM v2, 601).
It is unclear whether the current PSSO conditions differ from any of the previous community-based conditions breached by Mr Thorne.
Propensity to commit serious offences in the future - s 7(3)(c)
A person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future if they have an inclination, tendency or disposition to commit serious offences generally, or in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim.[127]
[127] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178].
In the interim decision, Fiannaca J at [84] concluded that Mr Thorne has:
… a tendency… to behave in a way that involves a lack of impulse control, including sexual impulses, which is attributable at least in part to his cognitive impairments and may be related to his alcohol and/or drug use, and which creates the potential for Mr Thorne to commit serious sexual offences of the kind he has committed, both against children and against an adult, opportunistically.
His Honour reached his conclusion based on the information then available to the court, and without the benefit of the Wojnarowska 2025 report and the Bannister report which were filed subsequently.
According to both court appointed experts, Mr Thorne's offending is often unplanned, impulsive, opportunistic and committed while intoxicated.[128]
[128] Bannister report [89] (BOM v2, 608); Wojnarowska 2025 report [24]-[28] (BOM v2, 573), [59] (BOM v2, 579), [75] (BOM v2, 581).
Indeed, Dr Bannister considers that Mr Throne's 'impulsivity' to be a 'key behavioural indicator' directly linked to Mr Thorne's offending behaviour.[129]
[129] Bannister report [99] (BOM v2, 611).
Given Mr Thorne's offending history, and the opinions of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister, I am satisfied that Mr Thorne has a tendency, through his impulsivity and substance misuse, to behave in a manner which creates the potential for Mr Thorne to commit serious sexual offences of the kind he has previously committed.
Pattern of offending behaviour – s 7(3)(d)
A 'pattern' as it relates to behaviour, is recurrent way of acting by an individual or group towards a given object or in a given situation.[130]
[130] TheState of Western Australia v Narrier [No 7] [2022] WASC 342 [229].
Mr Thorne's pattern of offending behaviour is clear. His offences are mostly associated with repeated breaches of community orders and reporting obligations,[131] offensively antisocial behaviour and/or sexual gratification. He tends to self-intoxicate with illicit substances and offend in an unplanned, impulsive, and opportunistic manner.[132]
Risk of commission of serious offence if offender not subject to restriction order and need to protect community – s 7(3)(h)&(i)
[131] As to which see [99] above.
[132] Bannister report [89] (BOM v2, 608); Wojnarowska 2025 report [59] (BOM v2, 579).
The unchallenged psychiatric evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister is that Mr Thorne poses a high risk to the community of committing a serious offence if not made subject to a restriction order.
Dr Bannister posits that Mr Thorne continues to have vulnerabilities which place him at risk of future anti-social behaviour. These behaviours include: his susceptibility to negative influence, lack of consequential thinking, acquiescence, and poor impulse control.[133]
[133] Bannister report [115] (BOM v2, 614 - 615).
Dr Wojnarowska considers Mr Thorne remains highly reactive and impulsive. In her view, the three key behaviours which need to be managed in order to protect the community are Mr Thorne's sexual urges, boredom and substance misuse (particularly alcohol).[134]
[134] ts dated 11 August 2025, 57 (Dr Wojnarowska).
Significantly, Mr Thorne has no plan in place to manage any of these problematic behaviours.[135] While he claims to be aware of his substance misuse,[136] he consistently reports that illicit substances are his only defence mechanism to manage stressful situations.[137]
[135]Cf. Sweeny report [27] (BOM v1, 469); Bannister report [97] (BOM v2, 611).
[136] Wojnarowska 2025 report [98] (BOM v1, 585).
[137] Wojnarowska 2025 report [80] (BOM v2, 582); Sweeny report [27] (BOM v1, 469).
Mr Thorne's lack of insight into his substance misuse does not bode well for managing his risk without a restriction order, particularly given there is a 'clear link between [his] sexual offending and substance use'.[138]
[138] Bannister report [95] (BOM v2, 610).
I am satisfied the expert evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister is acceptable and cogent evidence to find that Mr Thorne is at a high risk of committing a serious offence if not made subject to a restriction order.
Is Mr Thorne a high risk serious offender?
At the hearing, counsel for Mr Thorne properly accepted that Mr Thorne was a high risk serious offender as defined by s 7 of the HRSO Act. [139]
[139] ts dated 11 August 2025, 50 (opening submissions).
Based on the acceptable and cogent evidence before me, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that if Mr Thorne were to be released without a restriction order there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence.
Specifically, I am satisfied there is an unacceptable risk that he will seriously offend sexually against a vulnerable female victim while adversely affected by alcohol or an illicit substance.
In reaching this conclusion, I have not ignored the fact that Mr Thorne will, until 3 April 2026, be subject to the PSSO; being a measure designed to dissuade him from engaging in offending behaviours.
However, having considered Mr Thorne's history of non‑compliance with community orders, bail conditions, reporting obligations, and parole conditions,[140] I am satisfied further protective measures are necessary to adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk of Mr Thorne committing another serious offence.
[140] As to which see [99] - [100] above.
It follows that I find that a restriction order must be made under the HRSO Act to ensure the adequate protection of the community against that risk.
Should a continuing detention order or a supervision order be imposed?
The effect of s 29 of the HRSO Act is that I must make a continuing detention order unless Mr Thorne satisfies me, on the balance of probabilities, that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.[141]
[141] HRSO Act s 29(1) - (2).
A supervision order must contain those standard conditions as well as any other conditions the court thinks appropriate for the purposes of rehabilitation, or protection of the community or victims.[142]
[142] HRSO Act s 30(5).
The standard conditions, which are set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act, are 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;
(b)report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court;
(c)notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least two days before the change happens;
(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 s 31 or s 32 of the Act);
(e)not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer;
(f)not commit a serious offence during the period of the order; and
(g)be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31 of the Act.[143]
[143] HRSO Act s 30(2) read with the definition of 'standard condition' in s 3.
Further, even if I am satisfied Mr Thorne will substantially comply with the standard conditions, he is not to be released unless I am satisfied the supervision order would ensure an adequate degree of protection to the community.[144]
Will Mr Thorne substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order?
[144] The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [38].
The meaning of the phrase 'substantially comply' was considered by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart,[145] in an earlier legislative context and applies equally to the provisions of the HRSO Act:
(1)The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and of the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious [offence].
(2)The question of what will be substantial compliance is 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 offender 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 offender is likely to achieve.
(5)While the prospect of trivial or minor contraventions will not (and ordinarily should not) preclude a finding that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the assessment of whether the offender 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 offender 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 by management and mitigation of the risk that the offender will commit a serious [offence].
[145] Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. See also The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] [2024] WASC 348.
In Western Australia v Gorham [No 2],[146] Archer J referred to several further factors identified by Fiannaca J in Hart as relevant to an assessment of whether an offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions.[147]
[146] The State ofWestern Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351.
[147] The State ofWestern Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 [34]. See also The State ofWestern Australia v Mills [No 4] [2024] WASC 348 [132].
In the context of this matter those factors are:
(1)Mr Thorne's history of compliance and non-compliance.
(2)Mr Thorne's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular, whether Mr Thorne is likely to deliberately flout the conditions).
(3)Mr Thorne's capacity to comply with the conditions.
(4)Measures in place to ensure the offender will 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 Act.
(6)Mr Thorne's motivation to remain offence free and in the community.
(7)Abstinence from drugs.
(8)Mr Thorne's conduct while in prison.
(9)Demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management, and life skills.
History of non-compliance
The bulk of Mr Thorne's non-serious offending consists of convictions for breaching community-based orders and for failing to comply with his reporting obligations.
Mr Thorne has thirteen convictions related to breaching community orders, nine connected to breaching bail conditions, and fourteen related to failing to comply with his reporting obligations.[148]
[148] Criminal history of Mr Thorne (BOM v1, 1 - 13). See also Wojnarowska 2025 report [29] (BOM v2, 573 ‑ 574).
Relevantly, Mr Thorne's most recent order releasing him into the community on parole in 2023 was suspended and later revoked for non‑compliance.
The suspension occurred on 23 October 2023 because Mr Thorne breached his curfew conditions, refused to return home with his support workers and returned an alcohol breath analysis result of 0.143.[149]
[149] See prisoner review board note (BOM v1, 516 - 517).
On 20 March 2024, Mr Thorne's parole order was then revoked because he was convicted of possessing methylamphetamine having tested positive for that substance.[150]
Attitude towards supervision conditions
[150] See prisoner review board note (BOM v1, 520 - 521).
While Mr Thorne's poor history of compliance with community‑based orders in the past is plainly relevant to the court's consideration as to whether he is likely to comply substantially with the standard conditions of any supervision order, that history cannot be viewed in isolation.
Both Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister effectively concluded that Mr Thorne's historic non-compliance with such orders is far more attributable to his cognitive limitations than to any wilful disobedience.[151]
[151] ts dated 11 August 2025, 73 (Dr Bannister). See also Wojnarowska 2025 report [88] (BOM v2, 583); Bannister report [53] (BOM v2, 601).
In her most recent report, Dr Wojnarowska observed that Mr Thorne had started to develop some insight into his offending, expressed a desire to progress in a positive manner and was even willing to 'give [antilibidinal] medication a go'.[152]
[152] Wojnarowska 2025 report [54] (BOM v2, 578), [79] (BOM v2, 582).
Further, I consider the combined effect of the evidence of Dr Bannister and Dr Wojnarowska to be that Mr Thorne is genuinely motivated to comply with the standard conditions and remain free in the community but has difficulty doing so due to his disabilities.[153]
Capacity to comply
[153] Cf. ts dated 11 August 2025, 63 (Dr Wojnarowska); 70 (Dr Bannister).
As has been observed throughout these reasons, there is a considerable amount of expert evidence before the court to the effect that Mr Thorne:
(a)has significantly impaired executive functioning;
(b)has poor attention abilities and a vulnerability in sustaining his working memory;
(c)is unable to read or write;
(d)has a reduced ability to control his emotional responses and appreciate the consequences of his actions; and
(e)finds it very difficult to understand new information, struggles to manage situations when there are multiple demands placed upon him, is easily confused, and may become cognitively overwhelmed.
As Fiannaca J observed in the interim decision, given Mr Thorne's cognitive impairments the primary concern for the court is whether Mr Thorne will adequately comprehend, or even remember, his obligations under a supervision order, even with assistance.[154]
[154] The State of Western Australia v Thorne [2025] WASC 306 [136] read with [142] - [143].
Indeed, Mr Thorne himself informed Dr Bannister that, were he to be made subject to an 'HRSO order' (I infer supervision order), 'he wouldn't know how to hack it'.[155]
[155] Bannister report [54] (BOM v2, 601).
At the final hearing, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister were both asked by counsel to provide a view on whether Mr Thorne had the requisite capacity to comply with the standard conditions.
Dr Wojnarowska effectively concluded that Mr Thorne did have such capacity but would require extensive supervision.[156] She went on to note that the quality and level of the supervision afforded to Mr Thorne would be 'critical' to ensuring he substantially complied with the standard conditions.[157]
[156] ts dated 11 August 2025, 65 (Dr Wojnarowska).
[157] ts dated 11 August 2025, 57, 65 (Dr Wojnarowska).
Dr Wojnarowska recommended that to give Mr Thorne the best chance of complying with his standard conditions:
(1)efforts should be made by his supervisors to present the conditions in a simpler form and, if possible, in a visual form;[158]
(2)the information should be constantly reinforced to him by his supervisors;[159]
(3)his support workers should steer him away from substance use;[160] and
(4)his support workers should assist him in finding areas of his life that are of interest to him to reduce his boredom.[161]
[158] ts dated 11 August 2025, 55 (Dr Wojnarowska).
[159] ts dated 11 August 2025, 58 (Dr Wojnarowska).
[160] ts dated 11 August 2025, 57 (Dr Wojnarowska).
[161] ts dated 11 August 2025, 56 (Dr Wojnarowska).
While agreeing with a proposition that there was a concern Mr Thorne would not personally be able to 'comprehend' each condition of a supervision order (more than 50 were proposed),[162] like Dr Wojnarowska, Dr Bannister nonetheless opined that Mr Thorne did have the capacity to comply with the standard conditions.[163]
[162] ts dated 11 August 2025, 73 (Dr Bannister)
[163] ts dated 11 August 2025, 70 (Dr Bannister)
That said, Dr Bannister similarly accepted that Mr Thorne would need to be 'assisted constantly on a day-to-day basis by his support providers'.[164]
[164] ts dated 11 August 2025, 73. 70 - 71, 73 (Dr Bannister).
In this connection, Dr Bannister relevantly gave evidence to the effect that:
(a)Mr Thorne's 'success in the community' relies upon him having 'considerable support' to assist him get to appointments and provide him with frequent reminders in terms of his behaviour;[165]
(b)he has 'more confidence' that Mr Thorne will be able to understand what restrictions are imposed but 'much less confidence' that he would understand why the conditions are imposed;[166] and
(c)he recommends the focus should at first be on explaining to Mr Thorne what he can and cannot do under the conditions, in blunt terms.[167]
[165] ts dated 11 August 2025, 71 (Dr Bannister).
[166] ts dated 11 August 2025, 70 (Dr Bannister).
[167] ts dated 11 August 2025, 71 (Dr Bannister).
As previously noted, in her 2022 report Ms Sweeny emphasised the need for consistency in any support provided to Mr Thorne in the community to ensure his needs did not get overlooked,[168] for specialised management of his risk, and for 'strong collaboration between all parties'.[169]
[168] Sweeny report [21] (BOM v1, 467).
[169] Sweeny report [24] (BOM v1, 468).
Based on the evidence, it would seem to me that close adherence to each of these recommendations would be vitally important to ensuring Mr Thorne complies with the standard conditions of any supervision order if he were to be released into the community on such an order.
To be clear, given Mr Thorne's cognitive challenges and susceptibility to confusion, it is critical that there be both:
(a)careful co-ordination of; and
(b)close collaboration between,
every COMU officer, allied health professional and NDIS worker involved in Mr Thorne's supervision and care in the community, to ensure his obligations under any supervision order are constantly (and consistently) reinforced - to maximise the chances of him complying with those conditions.
Measures in place to assist compliance
According to Ms Bennetts, should Mr Thorne be released on a supervision order Mr Thorne would have supervision for 24-hours a day at while he is at his SIL accommodation, with an initial support ratio of 1:1, but eventually at a support ratio 3:1, and 18 hours of supervision per week within the community at a support ratio of 1:1.[170]
[170] ts dated 11 August 2025, 77 (Ms Bennetts).
Ms Bennetts was unable to provide a timeframe for when any additional NDIS participants might be placed with Mr Thorne in his proposed SIL accommodation.[171]
[171] ts dated 11 August 2025, 76 (Ms Bennetts).
However, in terms of the 'quality' of supervision, Ms Bennetts gave evidence to the effect that:
(1)Prior to any release of Mr Thorne into the community, there would be interagency discussions around the conditions of a supervision order and 'the best ways to explain that to [Mr Thorne]', including consideration of 'visual aids' to assist his understanding of the conditions.[172]
(2)The COMU team would continue to ensure transparency and consistency in Mr Thorne's treatment by facilitating regular interagency meetings involving, relevantly, Mr Thorne's specialist support coordinator (Ms Brest) and other NDIS supports.[173]
(3)Both Mr Thorne's designated CCO and the proposed SIL accommodation provider are familiar with the HRSO legislation and have experience dealing with cognitively challenged people.[174]
(4)The proposed SIL support worker would familiarise 'themselves with the conditions and [be] in a position to adequately explain as best they can, in simple terms, what can and can't be done'.[175]
(5)A positive behaviour practitioner would be employed to 'provide support to the support workers around what Mr Thorne's specific triggers might be, but also how to, perhaps, divert his behaviour into a more positive manner, as opposed to a negative'.[176]
[172] ts dated 11 August 2025, 99 (Ms Bennetts).
[173] ts dated 11 August 2025, 81 read with 77 (Ms Bennetts).
[174] ts dated 11 August 2025, 86, 96 - 97 (Ms Bennetts).
[175] ts dated 11 August 2025, 86 (Ms Bennetts).
[176] ts dated 11 August 2025, 95 (Ms Bennetts).
The court was informed that the NDIS supports were not there to deal with Mr Thorne's risk issues and could not force him to be under supervision as their assistance was provided 'voluntarily'.[177]
[177] ts dated 11 August 2025, 55 - 56 (Dr Wojnarowska); 77 (Ms Bennetts).
That said, both Dr Bannister and Dr Wojnarowska were of the view that the risk posed by Mr Thorne can be managed in the community with the proposed level of supervision.[178]
Motivation to remain offence free and in the community and abstinence from drugs
[178] ts dated 11 August 2025, 65 - 66 (Dr Wojnarowska); 69 - 70 (Dr Bannister). See also Wojnarowska 2025 report [113] (BOM v2, 586).
Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister both consider Mr Thorne is genuinely motivated to change and live a prosocial life,[179] but struggles to avoid the pitfalls of his antisocial lifestyle.[180]
[179] Wojnarowska 2025 report [89] (BOM v2, 584), [111] (BOM v2, 586); ts dated 11 August 2025, 70 (Dr Bannister).
[180] Wojnarowska 2025 report [111] (BOM v2, 586); Bannister report [57] (BOM v2, 602).
Specifically, the experts opine that Mr Thorne struggles to abstain from alcohol consumption which exacerbates his impulsivity and reactivity leading to an increased risk of offending behaviour.[181]
[181] Wojnarowska 2025 report [98] (BOM v2, 585), [88] (BOM v2, 583); Bannister report [63] (BOM v2, 604); Sweeny report [22] (BOM v1, 467).
Mr Thorne has acknowledged his alcohol consumption is associated with his offending behaviour and proclaimed he needs to cease drinking alcohol but has been unable to do so.[182]
[182] Sweeny report [10] (BOM v1, 464); Wojnarowska 2025 report [98] (BOM v2, 585).
Dr Wojnarowska suggests Mr Thorne uses illicit substances, particularly alcohol, as a coping mechanism for stress.[183] She recorded that Mr Throne quoted alcohol as his sole defence mechanism against external stressors.[184]
[183] Wojnarowska 2025 report [79] (BOM v2, 582), [91] (BOM v2, 584).
[184] Wojnarowska 2025 report [80] (BOM v2, 582).
This does not bode well for Mr Thorne's ability to substantially comply with the standard conditions or his ability to refrain from committing a serious offence. In this connection, I note Dr Wojnarowska considers:[185]
If Mr Thorne were to provide a positive urinalysis sample for methylamphetamine or alcohol breath test in the community… it would be an indication of imminency of his offending.
[185] Wojnarowska 2025 report [120] (BOMv2, 587).
In my view, unless adequate and ongoing support is provided to Mr Thorne in the community, the inescapable inference is that Mr Thorne will be unable to abstain from substance abuse and will be at greater risk of committing a serious offence.
However, I am satisfied on the evidence presently before me that such support will be made available to Mr Thorne in the community for the foreseeable future.
Relative importance of the breaches
Mr Thorne's historic non-compliance, particularly the two most recent parole order breaches, involve the use of alcohol and methylamphetamine.[186]
[186] Cf. prisoner review board note (BOM v1, 516 - 517); prisoner review board note (BOM v1, 520 - 521).
Noting there is a clear association between his intoxication and serious offending behaviour, in my view, these breaches go to the heart of his risk of committing a serious offence in the community.
Mr Thorne's conduct while in prison
Mr Thorne was reported to have been generally respectful and compliant towards prison staff during his terms of imprisonment.[187] He incurred two incident reports for poor behaviour: the first, on 15 August 2021, involving urination in an exposed area,[188] the second, on 10 February 2022, involving a failure to comply with a prison officers order and possessing another inmate's property.[189]
[187] Prisoner records (BOM v1, 162).
[188] Incident description report (BOM v1, 43).
[189] Incident description report (BOM v1, 50).
However, overall Mr Thorne's prison records indicate that he responded well to authority and typically complied with instructions.[190]
Demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management, and life skills
[190] Prisoner records (BOM v1, 162).
As has been explained, Mr Thorne's limited cognitive ability has precluded him from making any significant gains in treatment.
Put simply, Mr Thorne has been considered unsuitable for criminogenic treatment interventions due to the extent of his intellectual disability.[191]
[191] Wojnarowska 2025 report [87] (BOM v2, 87). See also HRSO treatment options report [10] - [11] (BOM v2, 567 - 568); Treatment options report [9] (BOM v2, 564).
Cognisant of his limitations, Dr Bannister recommends Mr Thorne receive behavioural treatment focused on practical methods of modifying the behavioural aspects of Mr Thorne's anti-sociality.[192] However, this treatment has not yet commenced.
Conclusion: substantial compliance
[192] Bannister report [124] (BOM v2, 616).
Having regard to the above matters, particularly the opinion of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister that Mr Thorne has the requisite capacity to comply with the standard conditions and was motivated to do so, to Ms Bennett's evidence concerning the practical measures that will be in place to maximise the prospects of Mr Thorne complying, and the nature and extent of his NDIS funding, I am satisfied Mr Thorne will substantially comply with the standard conditions if released on a supervision order.
I have reached this conclusion on the understanding, and with the expectation, that over the course of the next 25 days, appropriate steps are taken by COMU, in conjunction with Mr Thorne's specialist support co‑ordinator and other relevant NDIS supports, to ensure that prior to Mr Thorne's release into the community:
(a)a comprehensive and carefully calibrated plan is developed to ensure that, from the time of his release, Mr Thorne will have the ongoing and consistent benefit of a co-ordinated and collaborative support network as referred to in [150] above and noting the recommendations in [79], [90] and [144] above;
(b)visual aids are developed, by an appropriately qualified and experienced allied health professional, for consistent use by all members of Mr Thorne's support network, to ensure Mr Thorne understands the conditions of his supervision order and that those conditions are constantly reinforced; and
(c)all relevant persons to be involved in Mr Thorne's future supervision and care in the community are provided with a copy of these reasons, the key reports referred to in these reasons,[193] and any other relevant information needed by them.
[193] Namely the PATCHES report, Sweeny report, Bannister report, Wojnarowska 2003 report, Wojnarowska 2016 report, and Wojnarowska 2025 report.
Are the proposed conditions adequate to protect the community?
At the commencement of the final hearing, the State proposed 59 conditions be imposed upon Mr Thorne in the event the court makes him subject to a supervision order.
Having heard the evidence regarding Mr Thorne's cognitive limitations, I inquired of the State as to whether conferral could occur with a view to some of the proposed conditions being reordered, consolidated and simplified to assist with Mr Thorne's understanding.
Following conferral between the parties, the State provided the court with a revised set of proposed conditions. Subsequently, the State advised that the parties were content with some further draft refinements suggested by the court.
Having regard to the cogent and acceptable expert evidence and recognising the protective purpose of the legislation does not require the risk to the community to be reduced to zero, I am satisfied that the revised proposed conditions (as further refined) are sufficient to adequately protect the community against the risk that Mr Thorne will commit a serious offence.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I make a supervision order in relation to Mr Thorne for a period of five (5) years from 15 September 2025, not being a date earlier than 25 days from the date this Order, subject to the conditions which I now publish. [194]
[194] See Annexure A.
Annexure A
Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that Mr Thorne is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to Mr Thorne, for a period of five (5) years from 15 September 2025, not being a date earlier than 25 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions:
You, TYRONE JAMES THORNE, must:
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT
Within 48 hours of this Order starting, report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street, East Perth WA, and advise the CCO of your current name and address.
Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court.
Notify a CCO of every change to your name, home address, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens.
Be under the supervision of a CCO, and follow any reasonable directions given to you by the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)).
Not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO.
Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order.
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence
Reside at [Suppressed] and spend each night there. You can only stay at a different address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you.
Reporting to and supervision by CCO
On the day of your release, report to a CCO at the prison or at a place directed by a CCO, and allow for fitting of the electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake.
Be under the supervision of a CCO, and follow all lawful orders and directions given to you by the CCO, including visits at your address, at community agencies and in the offices of the Department of Justice.
Not start or change paid or unpaid employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of the CCO.
Reporting to and dealing with WA Police
Report to and receive visits from Police when and where directed, including as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad or their delegate.
Follow all obligations imposed on you pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.
If asked to, let Police Officers enter and search your home and/or vehicle, or search you, and allow Police Officers to seize any items they believe contravene the conditions of this Order. A Police Office is to tell you they are using this power before acting pursuant to it.
Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under the provisions of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020.
Disclosure/exchange of information
Agree to the exchange of information about you between persons and agencies involved in carrying out this Order.
Allow the CCO, WA Police, or any other person or agency approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with, or may spend time with, and where appropriate to tell them information about you including your offending history.
If directed by your CCO:
(a)Tell your CCO or a Police Officer the name, and any other requested details, of any person with whom you have had social contact more than twice; and
(b)Fully or partially disclose your past offending, and the fact that you are subject to this Order, to that person.
Restrictions on contact with victims
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.•
Unless contact with a victim of your sexual offending is allowed under Condition 19 (above), leave where you are immediately without speaking to the victim or gesturing to the victim and you must look away from the victim at all times.
Report to the CCO and WA Police any contact with any victim of your sexual offending within 48 hours of such contact happening.
Criminal conduct
Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, including any sexual offence.
Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, which includes cannabis. This does not apply to a drug that a doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you don't use more than the doctor has old you to use.
Not breach, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997.
Not assault, insult or threaten in any manner any officer of the Department of Justice or any agency performing any function under this Order.
Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence unless you have the prior approval of the CCO.
Curfew
Comply with a curfew requiring you to remain at and not leave your approved address, as directed by a CCO.
When subject to a curfew under this Order during the time when you must be at your approved residence:
(a)Go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you; and/or
(b)Speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew.
When subject to a curfew under this Order, tell all adults at the house, who may answer the telephone or door that you are on a curfew and ask them to tell you about attempts by police or a CCO to contact you.
Contact with females and children
With the exception of public transport, not get into any vehicle including taxis and rideshare vehicles (such as Uber), where a female is present, or allow any female to enter your vehicle, unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by the CCO.
Not enter any residential address in which a female lives or is known to live, unless approved in advance by a CCO.
Not permit any female to enter your home, unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by a CCO.
Report any new domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, to your CCO when you next report to them.
Not form a relationship with a person who has a child, or cares for a child, without the prior approval of a CCO.
Have no contact with any child, whether in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless:
(a)The contact is approved in advance by the CCO and is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO; or
(b)The contact is necessary to complete a purchase of daily items (such as food or groceries at a shop), is limited to the minimum contact required to complete the purchase, and another adult is present.
If a child makes contact with you, leave where you are immediately unless the contact is approved under the condition immediately above.
Not go to concerts, events or places where children usually attend, including places containing children's play equipment, without prior approval of a CCO.
If requested by a CCO or Police Officer, give the CCO or Police Officer the name, address, location and any other details of any contact you have had with a child as requested.
Drugs and alcohol
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 going with them to an appropriate place for a sample to be taken.
Provide a valid sample under Condition 39 (above).
Not possess, use, or purchase any alcohol.
Not go to any licensed premises except for the following reasons:
(a)Avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
(b)If approved in advance by a CCO; or
(c)If a CCO or a Police Officer tells you to do so.
Not remain in the presence of anyone who you know, or should reasonably know, is affected by alcohol or a prohibited drug, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.
Not be anywhere where prohibited drugs are being consumed, or if the prohibited drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of your home, or ask the people consuming prohibited drugs to leave.
Compliance with NDIS requirements, programs, medical and other treatment
Follow any conditions and requirements of any National Disability Service (NDIS) provider that is providing services and/or accommodation to you.
As directed by a CCO, follow the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending.
Attend and engage in all appointments, and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health practitioner, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.
Subject to [Suppressed]:
(a)Take any medication as directed by a medical practitioner and comply with all testing to monitor your compliance with that treatment as directed by a CCO, including pharmaceutical anti-libidinal and/or antidepressant medication;
(b)Allow any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment; and
(c)Let any medical practitioner tell a CCO immediately if they know, or think, that you:
(i)Have, or are going to, stop undergoing pharmaceutical anti-libidinal and or anti-depressant medication against the advice of a medical practitioner; or
(ii)Have stopped consulting with that medical practitioner about any treatment.
Electronic devices
Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device that you possess or use that can store digital data or information whether or not it can connect to the internet (electronic device) including each device's location.
Tell a CCO or Police Officer within 48 hours of using or possessing a new electronic device.
Not let any person, except a CCO or Police officer, use any electronic device you possess without prior approval from your CCO.
If asked to do so by a CCO or Police Officer, let them use any electronic device you possess so they can investigate the device, and tell them any password, access code, or any other information they may need to use the device.
Not delete or allow to be deleted, any data on any electronic device you possess including calls, electronic messages, search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that device, without the approval of a CCO or Police Officer.
Possession of firearms
Not possess (or hold/apply for a licence to possess) any firearm, ammunition, offensive or prohibited weapon, replica, or dangerous article.
_______________________________
THE HON JUSTICE MUSIKANTH
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
JE
Associate to the Hon Justice Musikanth
21 AUGUST 2025
0
18
2