The State of Western Australia v UJG - [2022] WASC 273

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- UJG [2022] WASC 273
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   19 AUGUST 2022
DELIVERED          :   19 AUGUST 2022
PUBLISHED           :   22 AUGUST 2022
FILE NO/S:   SO 11 of 2022
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND

UJG
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law – High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) – Preliminary hearing – Whether reasonable grounds for belief that restriction order might be made – Whether interim supervision order is desirable – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA)
High Risk Serious Offender Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Order made under s 46
Interim supervision order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	D S McDonnell
Accused	:	A Fedele

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Accused	:	Legal Aid - Perth - Criminal Law Division

Cases referred to in decision:

The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASCA 405
The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65

FORRESTER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 19 August 2022 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

On 20 June 2022, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of the respondent (UJG) under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act).
UJG was convicted on his pleas of guilty to the following offences:
(a)two charges of indecently dealing with a child under 13 years (counts 1 and 5);
(b)one charge of indecently dealing with a child over 13 years and under 16 years (count 6);
(c) one charge of possession of an indecent or obscene article (s 32 notice);
(d) one charge of possession of child exploitation material (count 7); and
(e) three charges of aggravated indecent assault (counts 2-4).
On 20 December 2018, UJG was sentenced by Birmingham DCJ to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months' backdated to 28 February 2018.
On a further indictment, UJG was sentenced, following pleas of guilty, for a further three offences of indecent dealing with a child of or over the age of 13 and under 16. He was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment on each offence, to be served concurrently with each other and the sentence imposed on 20 December 2018.
UJG's sentence will expire on 27 August 2022.
The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is for the court to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find that UJG is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the Act.[1]
[1] High Risk Serious Offender Act s 46(1).
If I am so satisfied, the State seeks interim orders pursuant to s 46(2) of the Act, including orders that UJG undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a qualified psychologist for the purpose of preparing reports to be used in the hearing of the restriction order application.
The State also submits that I should impose an interim supervision order pursuant to s 58(5) of the Act.

Legal principles

Pursuant to s 35 of the Act, the State has applied for a restriction order to be imposed in relation to UJG under s 48 of the Act.
UJG is a serious offender under custodial sentence, as that phrase is defined in s 3 of the Act.
As noted above, pursuant to s 46(1) of the Act, the main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to decide whether the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find that UJG is a high risk serious offender.
A 'high risk serious offender' is a person in relation to whom the court is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the person in order to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.[2]
[2] High Risk Serious Offender Act s 7(1).
A 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act includes the offences of indecently dealing with a child under 13 years, indecently dealing with a child over 13 years and under 16 years, possession of child exploitation material, and aggravated indecent assault.
A determination that a person is a ‘high risk serious offender’ requires proof to a high degree of probability. However, at the preliminary hearing stage, the threshold test is lower. At a preliminary hearing, a judge does not need to be satisfied that a restriction order will be made. It is sufficient if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an order might be made. To say that something might occur is to say that it is possible. Belief is an inclination of the mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting, a proposition. For there to be 'reasonable grounds' for belief requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.[3]
[3] The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASCA 405 [20] ‑ [21] (Allanson J); The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65 [16] (Quinlan CJ).

The evidence

The State relied upon the affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed on 20 June 2022, which contains UJG's Western Australian criminal records, transcripts of previous sentencing hearings for other serious and relevant offending, and numerous reports, including pre-sentence reports, parole assessment reports, program completion reports and psychological reports. The most recent psychological report was prepared by Tanina Oliveri, and is dated 2 September 2018.

The index offences

The offences which render UJG liable to the operation of the Act (the index offences) are indecently dealing with a child under 13 years, indecently dealing with a child over 13 years and under 16 years, possession of child exploitation material, and aggravated indecent assault.
The facts of the offences are taken from the remarks of the sentencing Judge on 20 December 2018.[4]
[4] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022 Annexure F (some details are omitted to protect the identity of the victims).
There were three victims on IND 383 of 2018. Two were the biological nieces of UJG and the third UJG’s step-niece. All of the victims referred to him as 'Uncle'.
Count 1 was an offence of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 13. As she regularly did, the victim was staying with offender's mother, with whom UJG was living at the time. On an unknown date between 30 January 2001 and December 2004, when the victim was aged between four and eight, she went to the toilet. UJG followed her into the toilet and closed the door behind him. He removed the victim's underwear and squatted directly in front of her. He took her hand and placed it on his testicles. The victim froze and was confused about what had happened. After a few minutes, UJG let go of the victim's hand, pulled up his underwear and left.
The victim did not report this to anyone until later, when other matters came to the attention of the police.
Counts 2-4 were offences of aggravated indecent assault. They were committed in 2006 upon the sister of the victim in count 1, when she was 17 to 18 years of age. She had first met UJG in 2003 when she was about 13 years of age.
The victim was in the lounge room with UJG, and UJG sat next to her on the sofa. He then ran his fingers up and down her inner thigh (count 2).
UJG then pushed the victim back so that she was lying on the sofa and tickled her breasts and her legs. The victim did not want UJG to do this. She curled up into a ball and said that it was gross, that he was her uncle. UJG said, 'Only by marriage, it's OK, we are not actually related.' The victim pushed him away and went to another part of the house. This constituted count 3 on the indictment.
The offence the subject of count 4 occurred later that same day when the victim was leaving. As she walked towards her car, UJG was behind her. She sat in the vehicle and before she could pull her legs inside the car, UJG placed his hand between her legs and touched her vagina saying 'tickle, tickle'. The victim told UJG to 'get your fucking hands off me'.
Count 5, an offence of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 13, occurred in relation to a sister of the first two victims. She was aged between 10 and 12 years at the time of offending. UJG was then 34 to 35 years of age.
Over the course of UJG's relationship with the victim, he would sometimes follow her and tickle her. While she did not like the attention from him, she described it as tickling as a normal person would. The victim would ask UJG to stop and on occasions he would leave her alone. On other occasions he would ignore her protests.
On a date between December 2014 and January 2016, the victim was at her home when UJG arrived to collect some people. She went to go to the bathroom. Before she could reach the bathroom, UJG grabbed her on the thigh and put his hand next to her vagina. She attempted to push his hands away as UJG attempted to put his hands down her pants. The victim went to the bathroom, locked the door and cried.
Count 6, an offence of indecent dealing with a child over the age of 13 and under the age of 16 occurred in December 2017 against the same victim. The victim was aged 13 years at the time and UJG was 37. The victim was at UJG's mother's home and she went to be with her older cousins who were playing a game together.
UJG entered the room and said, 'If you don't shut your mouth I'm going to start tickling you.' She replied, 'you can't tickle', UJG said, 'I can' and started to tickle her. She told him to stop but he did not. The tickling hurt her, UJG dug his fingers into her ribs and then touched her breasts like he was trying to squeeze them.
UJG's hand touched her nipple. He pulled her towards him and rubbed his hand on her stomach. He moved his hands towards the victim's vagina on the outside of her clothing and she froze not knowing what to do. She curled her body into a ball to prevent UJG from touching her. She could feel his erect penis against her bottom. It was then that one of the older children came and grabbed the victim away.
Count 7 related to UJG's possession of child exploitation material. On 1 February 2018, police conducted a search of UJG's home and found 38 devices with a total storage of 9 terabytes. These items were analysed and a total of 10,220 child exploitation images and 20 videos were located.
The images and videos were categorised according to the Oliver scale as follows:
(a)9,372 images and 4 videos in category 1 showing young girls of various ages between 5 and 13 in sexually provocative clothing and in sexually explicit positions with their genitalia displayed;
(b) 248 images and 6 videos in category 2 which depicted both boys and girls of 5 to 12 years of age engaged in solo masturbation and non-penetrative sexual activity with each other;
(c) 138 images in category 3 which depicted both boys and girls under 13 masturbating adults and each other;
(d) 460 images and 8 videos in category 4 which showed both boys and girls aged between 8 and 13 years engaged in penetrative sexual activity with adults and other children;
(e) one image and three videos in category 5 which depicted a female child of approximately 12 years of age being dominated by a male dressed in a mask who penetrated the child with a device; and
(f) one image in category 6 (anime, cartoon, or virtual image).
In August 2019, on IND 20 of 2019, UJG was sentenced for a further three offences of indecent dealing with a child of or over the age of 13 and under 16, all in relation to the same victim. The victim was 14 years of age at the time of all the offences, which all occurred in the same manner, namely that on each occasion, the victim and UJG were in the dining area of the house queuing up for food. The victim was in front of UJG. He stood close to her, and she could feel his erect penis against her back.

Other criminal history

UJG's first convictions were entered on 17 January 2006, for 9 counts of possession of what was then called 'child pornography'. On 27 January 2006, he was convicted of the related offences of possession of an obscene and indecent article and possession of an indecent publication.
On 7 November 2003, police were called to attend because UJG was threatening self-harm and placing himself and others in potential danger. At that point, UJG told police officers that he had child pornography on his computer at home, and the officers accompanied him to his house.
UJG volunteered his laptop computer and a collection of CDs. It was not until a further inquiry in 2005 that these were analysed and a large quantity of what was called ‘child pornography’ in various forms was found on both the computer and the CDs, as well as a computer seized from UJG in 2004. The police located approximately 3300 still images, 53 movie or video files, 160 cartoon stills or movies and three written stories that depicted children aged between 4 and 14 years in various forms of sexual activity from posing naked to having sexual intercourse with both adults and children. Some images were held to be at the upper end of seriousness including violent acts towards the children involved.
UJG told the police he had stopped looking at child exploitation material after the devices were ceased but recommenced about

6 - 7 months after that.
For these offences, UJG was sentenced to a total effective sentence of eight months' imprisonment.[5]
[5] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 22 June 2022, Annexure K, Annexure L.
UJG was granted parole on 17 May 2006, which expired on 16 August 2006. He was recorded as compliant with supervision.[6]

Personal circumstances and background

[6] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure T.

UJG is 42 years of age. He has one older brother, and two older half-siblings. It was only at the age of 18 that UJG discovered that his older half-siblings had a different father. He reported feeling as though he was raised as an only child due to the age difference between himself and his siblings, and that he always felt inferior and inadequate in comparison to his siblings because they were more confident and socially successful than him. UJG is close to his parents, but the family tended not to discuss their problems and he followed suit by hiding his difficulties from his family.[7]
[7] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
UJG lived with his parents until he was imprisoned for sexual offences at the age of 25 years. On his release on parole in May 2006, he returned to reside at his parents' home until he built a home which he lived in from the age of 30 years old. His parents remain supportive of him; however, UJG states his offending has resulted in a distant relationship with his half-siblings.[8]
[8] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
UJG attended one primary school and one high school and was an above average student. He was victimised by his peers because he was overweight and wore spectacles but established a few friendships with other students in similar situations. He maintained relationships with some high school friends until the age of 22 years old, from which time he had increasingly limited contact and then no contact as his friends all established intimate relationships and married.[9]
[9] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
On finishing school, UJG completed a bachelor's degree in accounting and business law. Whilst studying he worked fulltime in an accounting firm and remained in that position until he was imprisoned in 2006. On his release from prison, he returned to work as an accountant and consistently remained employed until imprisoned again in 2018.[10]
[10] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
UJG became sexually aware and began to masturbate at a normal age. He commenced the use of pornographic material from the age of 16 years and his sexual attraction to underage girls began at 17 years old, whilst coaching children in hockey. He first accessed child exploitative material at 22 years old and continued to access such material multiple times a day for sexual gratification until he was imprisoned in 2006.[11]
[11] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
Within a month of his release from prison in 2006, UJG began accessing adult pornography again. He denied accessing child exploitative material again until the age of 30, when he returned to viewing such material multiple times a day.[12]
[12] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
UJG has never been in an intimate relationship. His first sexual experience was at the age of 19 years old with a sex worker. All his sexual experiences (apart from his offences) have been with sex workers. Between January and June 2017, he engaged with the same sex worker up to a few times a week and treated her as a 'pseudo girlfriend'.[13]
[13] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
At 14 years of age, UJG first used alcohol. He engaged in binge drinking on weekends until imprisoned in 2006. He consumed alcohol minimally on his release from prison in 2007 until 2014, before ceasing use again. At the age of 14, he first used cannabis and has used it about four times since, he otherwise has no other substance abuse issues.[14] At the time of the hearing, he has been alcohol free for approximately three years.
[14] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
From early high school, UJG has suffered from social anxiety and intermittent depression. At 23 years of age, he attempted suicide by running in front of cars which was reported to police and ultimately led to detection of the offences resulting in his conviction in 2006.[15]

Reports

[15] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.

The pre-sentence report prepared for UJG's sentencing in 2006 indicated that, after his initial self-report in 2003, he had ceased using child exploitation material for a period, but resumed about 9 months later, having formed the view that the police did not necessarily view his use as 'serious' (as in warranting charges) given their inaction towards him. The forbidden nature of the material had been a compelling factor in his use of it. However, his viewing was also accompanied by significant negative feelings and self-criticism.[16]
[16] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure P.
His early sexual experiences were with sex workers, and he found them unfulfilling and to accentuate his self-loathing at times.[17] He claimed to have no sexual interest in children beyond the confines of his fantasy and was enthusiastic in terms of attending intervention to address his offending behaviour.[18]
[17] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure P.
[18] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure P.
During his first term of imprisonment in 2006, UJG participated in the Medium Sex Offender Treatment Program. The program was scheduled to finish one day after UJG's scheduled release date, however it was reported that he had made good progress, was a motivated participant in the program and absorbed skills that would reduce the risk of reoffending in a similar manner. Further, he displayed a high level of insight into the factors that contributed to his offending.[19] These treatment gains were later acknowledged as short lived.[20]
[19] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure Q, Annexure R.
[20] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure T.
The author of the pre-sentence report prepared for UJG's sentencing in 2018 reported that UJG denied committing offences against his nieces (apart from one, which he claimed was a 'misinterpretation'). He admitted the pornography offences, saying they were committed out of boredom. He minimised this offending. When asked if he had an attraction to children, he said 'yes and no, not exclusively'. [21]
[21] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure T.

The psychological report prepared for the sentencing in 2018 noted that UJG denied the offences initially, then admitted guilt but minimised his behaviour.[22] He admitted a sexual attraction to underage girls, due to a preference for their physiques, their inexperience, his superiority to them and feeling less threatened and judged by them.[23]
[22] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
[23] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
He said that he believed he had an emotional connection with the one of the victims, that she was 'interested' in him, and that he saw her as a viable sexual partner.[24] When speaking about his offending, UJG was reported to be evasive at times.[25]
[24] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure V.
[25] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U.
Triggers and risk situations that contributed to UJG 's index offending were identified as repeated experiences of victimisation and rejection, boredom, social isolation, having no age-appropriate sexual outlet, low self-esteem and self-confidence, and sexual pre-occupation. These were the same triggers for his previous offending. Concern was raised by the author of the pre-sentence report that UJG was able to clearly identify triggers for his offending but did not seek further professional assistance or intervention to prevent re-offending.[26]
[26] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure T, Annexure U.
UJG denied having an exclusive attraction to children, claiming that as he is getting older, he is becoming less attracted to children.[27]
[27] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure T.
UJG's risk of re-offending was measured as an 'above average risk', and a high risk of reoffending in a sexual manner. The factors of concern noted by the author of the psychological report for the court were the chronicity, escalation and diversity of his sexual offending, the presence of grooming behaviour, denial and minimisation of his sexual offending, admission of a chronic sexual attraction to underage females and chronic problems with self-awareness, stress and coping.[28]
[28] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure U, Annexure V.
UJG applied for parole in relation to his current term of imprisonment and was denied due to unmet treatment needs, assessment as an increased risk to the community and his risk of re-offending.[29]
[29] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure X.
Subsequently, he completed the Intensive Sex Offending Treatment Program and was reported as making notable treatment gains in developing self-awareness, relationship skills, self-esteem and emotional regulation skills. He recognised his risk factors as being an 'attraction to children, being alone with children, social isolation, bottling of emotions, not dealing with issues, negative self-beliefs, and use of pornography'. He developed a self-management plan to assist himself in living a pro-social life. This included the nomination of several goals including engaging in sessions as required by community correction officers and SOMS supports, engaging in professional supports, seeking employment back in accounting, rebuilding old friendships, returning to church and seeking a romantic relationship with an adult woman.[30]
[30] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure AA.

Assessment

UJG has a significant history of sexual offending, complicated by the delays in him being apprehended and sentenced for that offending. The materials produced on this application show UJG to have commenced contact sexual offending and engaged in escalating use of child exploitation material in around 2003. There was a missed opportunity to address his deviant behaviours after an apparent attempt on his part to obtain assistance in 2003. Instead, he continued to access child exploitation material and in 2006 he committed three aggravated indecent assaults against his niece. In 2015 and 2017, he assaulted his other nieces, to whom he had access by reason of his living situation and in 2018 was found to have possession of a very substantial quantity of serious child exploitation material.
UJG's risk factors are significant. Many of them relate to his social isolation, inability to interact with adult peers, low self-esteem, poor coping skills and emotional avoidance. While he has engaged in the ISOTP, there are unresolved treatment needs.
The combination of the significant risk that UJG may lapse into previous behaviours, lifestyle and relationships, together with the severity of the potential outcomes of re‑offending, leads me to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a court might find that UJG is a high risk serious offender.

Interim Supervision Order

UJG has made notable gains in custodial treatment programs. He has reported to have identified triggers, coping mechanisms and goals to aid in his transition back into the community.
UJG has received continuing support from his parents, sister and aunt who are aware of his offending. However, his parents have in the past reported to have ceased contact with UJG's half-brother and his children as a result of supporting UJG's denial that some of the offending happened.[31] Further, UJG continually described his relationships with his parents to be lacking communication about problems and emotions.[32]
[31] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure V.
[32] Affidavit of James Francis Bennett affirmed 20 June 2022, Annexure R, Annexure AA.
UJG reports that he intends to develop pro-social relationships by rebuilding old friendships and returning back to church. He also intends to seek work in accounting. All of those are protective factors.
The nature of UJG's offending behaviour suggests an element of opportunism, although his offending also has predatory features, such as his repeated offending against his 17 year-old niece. On his release he will require intensive supervision to prevent him relapsing into accessing child exploitation material, and he will need to have strict conditions about being in the presence of children, particularly young girls.
The most recent period in custody is the first time UJG has undertaken treatment after authorities became aware of his contact offending. He has participated in intensive treatment which addresses his deviant attractions and risk factors, which manifested in contact offending and possession of large volumes of child exploitation material.
Further time in custody will only continue the social isolation and inadequate peer associations which contribute to UJG's offending behaviour. On the other hand, supervised release will provide him with the opportunity to develop protective support networks, employment, and positive peer groups.
The State has sought that an interim supervision order be imposed in relation to UJG, rather than an interim detention order. In my view, that is appropriate. The present evidence does not satisfy me that, in order to adequately protect the community, UJG must remain in detention pending the final hearing.
Before making an interim supervision order, I must be satisfied that such an order is desirable in order to ensure adequate protection of the community.[33]
[33] High Risk Serious Offender Act s 58(2).
It has been submitted to me on behalf of UJG that the combination of a PSSO to which he would be subject on release and orders which could be made under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 would be sufficient to achieve that adequate protection of the community.
While I accept that, in some circumstances that may be an appropriate combination of orders, there are a number of factors that count against it in this case.
In absence of such an interim supervision order, UJG would be subject to a PSSO which includes conditions that UJG is to:
(1)report to adult community corrections within 72 hours after being released, or as otherwise directed by a community corrections officer;
(2)notify a community corrections officer of any change of address or place of employment within 2 clear working days after the change;
(3)comply with the lawful orders or directions of any community corrections officer;
(4)have no direct or indirect contact with the victims and their immediate family;
(5)comply with the requirements of the Community Protection (Offending Reporting) Act 2004 (WA);
(6)have no unsupervised contact with female children under 18 years of age;
(7)comply with the requirements of any violence restraining order;
(8)attend random urinalysis for all illicit substances as directed by the community corrections officer and provide a valid sample;
(9)not consume alcohol;
(10)not enter licensed premises except cafes, restaurants, and sporting venues or grocery stores which may have a liquor licence, but no purchase of liquor permitted at any venue;
(11)submit to random breath testing as required by police;
(12)comply with mental health treatment as directed by a medical practitioner or a community mental health team member; and
(13)advise a community corrections officer of residential address and not to change that address without the prior approval of the community corrections officer.
The conditions of the PSSO would need to be combined with a number of separate orders under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 in order to adequately protect the community. It is my view, that it is appropriate that all of the supervision of UJG be under one regime to avoid confusion and to ensure continuity of supervision.
I am also conscious of the fact that the application the subject of this decision is being held eight days prior to UJG’s release and that counts against requiring the Commissioner to make assessments and an application, and for a court to determine the appropriate orders that would be required. Accordingly, in this case, it is my view the only appropriate order is an interim supervision order.
I have taken into account the conditions of the PSSO, and the majority of conditions required to adequately protect the community are included in that. However, as I indicated, there are some additional conditions which I consider to be necessary, namely conditions enabling monitoring of and access to UJG's electronic devices, and the reporting of new relationships.
In my view, these additional conditions are essential to ensure adequate supervision of UJG. The conditions in relation to access to and monitoring of UJG's electronic devices will provide checks to ensure that UJG does not access child exploitation material. Given the apparent connection between his access to such material and his contact offending, it is hoped that this will also reduce the risk of contact offending.
In my view, given that the respondent requires conditions preventing him being in the presence of children, electronic monitoring is necessary to ensure that his movement is monitored. In this respect, I have had regard to his proposed residence.
It is also proposed by the State that UJG be prevented from forming a domestic relationship with a person who has a child in their care, is required to report all new relationships formed to a community corrections officer, and on direction from such officer make full disclosure about previous offending to a partner. This would be a protective factor reducing the risk of further offending and may aid in the development of pro-social relationships and a support network for the respondent.
In determining whether to impose an interim supervision order, I am conscious of the lengthy period required for the preparation of qualified expert reports and the fact that the final hearing is not until March of next year.
I am also conscious that the making of an interim supervision order would result in the PSSO being cancelled. This means that if UJG is not declared to be a high risk serious offender after the final hearing, he would not be subject to any restrictions, supervision or program requirements in the community. That would be an undesirable outcome in this case, as everything points to UJG needing considerable support in the community if he is going to succeed on release. However, the PSSO will expire on 26 August 2023. Given the final hearing will not be until 15 March 2023, I am not satisfied that the cancellation of the PSSO significantly weighs against the imposition of an interim supervision order.
In my view, the fact that the PSSO lacks monitoring conditions, relating to both UJG and his devices, as well as conditions regarding his relationship reporting, means that the PSSO is not sufficient to ensure the adequate protection of the community. In my view, the terms of the interim supervision order proposed by the State and as discussed in the course of submissions properly enable UJG's activities to be monitored closely and for preventative action to be taken if there are any indications that the risk of re-offending has increased.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is desirable to make an interim supervision order to ensure adequate protection of the community in this case.
Orders are made in terms of the State's Minute of Proposed Orders dated 15 August 2022, and the conditions of the Interim Supervision Order are as contained in the draft order, subject to the amendment of condition 25 as discussed in submissions.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AT
Associate to the Honourable Justice Forrester
22 AUGUST 2022