The State of Western Australia v Van Beek
[2025] WASC 363
•1 SEPTEMBER 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- VAN BEEK [2025] WASC 363
CORAM: LEMONIS J
HEARD: 30 MAY 2025
DELIVERED : 30 MAY 2025
PUBLISHED : 1 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S: SO 7 of 2025
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK
Respondent
Catchwords:
Application for a restriction order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Consideration of whether the State has met the requisite criterion for the Court to fix a date for the hearing of the State's application - Consideration of whether an interim supervision order should be made
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)
Result:
Criterion under s 46 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) is met
Date set for hearing of application and ancillary orders made for the provision of expert evidence at that hearing
Interim Supervision Order made
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | T Loo |
| Respondent | : | A Fedele |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Respondent | : | Legal Aid (WA) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30
The State of Western Australia v Bradbury [2025] WASC 90
The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20
The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405
The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215
The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65
(These reasons were delivered orally on 30 May 2025. They have been amended to correct matters of language and to include extracts from authorities and full citations.)
LEMONIS J:
On 6 May 2025, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of the respondent, Daniel Joseph Van Beek under s 35 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).
Mr Van Beek is currently in custody serving a term of imprisonment of 9 years that commenced on 27 July 2016. He is due to be released from custody on 26 July 2025. That term of imprisonment is in respect of a number of 'serious offences' as defined in the HRSO Act. Mr Van Beek is therefore a serious offender under custodial sentence within the meaning of that phrase as defined in s 3 of the HRSO Act. Thus, s 35(1) applies to him.
Section 35(3) of the HRSO Act only permits the State to make its application if there is a possibility that Mr Van Beek might be released from custody within the period of one year after the application is made. That possibility arises here.
Section 43(1) of the HRSO Act requires that there be a preliminary hearing in respect of the State's application, which is the hearing listed before me today. The State provided helpful written submissions for the purposes of the hearing.
Preliminary hearing
The main purpose of the preliminary hearing before me today is for me to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find, pursuant to s 7 of the HRSO Act, that Mr Van Beek is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of that Act.[1] If I am not so satisfied, then I cannot fix a day for the hearing of the State's application for a restriction order.
[1] HRSO Act, s 46(1).
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 it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.[2] A restriction order is made under s 48 of the HRSO Act in the form of either a continuing detention order or a supervision order. A supervision order contains mandatory conditions and any additional conditions that the court imposes.[3]
[2] HRSO Act, s 7(1).
[3] HRSO Act, s 30.
Section 7 of the HRSO Act sets out the matters to which the court must have regard in assessing whether a person is a high risk serious offender. These matters are comprehensively addressed in the State's written submissions.
In TheState of Western Australia v Williams [No 2],[4] I considered the judgment of Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ, and the judgment of Edelman J, in Garlett v Western Australia, which concerned a constitutional challenge to the HRSO Act.[5] Their Honours addressed the application of s 7 and s 48.
[4] TheState of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 [22] - [37].
[5] Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 (Garlett).
Having regard to the judgments in Garlett, I expressed the following view, to which I adhere:[6]
Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the court's judgment as to the nature and extent of the possible harm. The assessment of the nature and extent of the possible harm directs attention to the possible serious offences that might be committed and the harm they may cause. It also directs attention to the likelihood that the offender might commit such offences (that is, the likelihood the risk might eventuate). The extent to which deterrent factors have operated to reduce risk in the past feeds into the assessment of current and future risk, as does the offender's historical and current response to rehabilitation. These are all factors that inform the assessment of whether the risk is 'unacceptable'. They are by no means exhaustive. …
If the risk is found to be 'unacceptable', the nature and extent of that unacceptable risk then informs the assessment of whether a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. And, as Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ explained, the assessment of whether the order is necessary requires recognition that an offender's entitlement to be at liberty is not lightly to be denied.
[6] Williams [39] - [40].
Further, in Garlett, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ observed that:[7]
While the requirement of an evaluation under s 7 depends upon the offender having been convicted of a "serious offence", ss 7 and 48 do not envisage the possibility that a restriction order might be made to prevent the commission of a serious offence, whether of the same kind or of another kind, unless the risk of further offending involves a real threat of harm to the community. (footnote omitted).
[7] Garlett [84].
In respect of the issue before me on this preliminary hearing, Quinlan CJ observed in The State of Western Australia v Winder that:[8]
For the purposes of this hearing, I do not have 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. I emphasise the word might. To say that something might occur, is to say that it is possible. Belief is an inclination of 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.
[8] The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65 [16] (Quinlan CJ). See also The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405 [20] ‑ [21] (Allanson J).
Mr Van Beek is represented today by counsel, Ms Fedele, who is very experienced in this area. Ms Fedele quite properly concedes that the criterion set out in s 46 of the HRSO Act is met.
For the relatively brief reasons which follow, I accept that concession and I am satisfied that the criterion in s 46 is met. I will therefore make an order setting a hearing date for the restriction order application and ancillary orders to facilitate the hearing of that application.
Evidence
In support of the application, the State relies on an affidavit of Mr Conall Burke affirmed 6 May 2025 and two affidavits of Ms Heather Applin affirmed 20 May 2025 and 28 May 2025 respectively. Mr Burke is a solicitor employed by the State Solicitor's Office. Ms Applin is a Senior Community Corrections Officer.
Mr Burke's affidavit contains details of Mr Van Beek's criminal history, as well as attaching several reports and assessments in relation to him. These reports include two psychological reports and one psychiatric report, as well as program completion and treatment assessment reports.
The most recent expert report available to me is the psychological report of Ms Hasson dated 26 September 2017. Otherwise, the most recent report available is the Post Sentence Supervision Order report that was finally endorsed on 24 April 2025.
Criminal history
Mr Van Beek is currently serving a term of imprisonment of 9 years. That term of imprisonment was imposed by Bowden DCJ on 20 October 2017 and backdated to 27 July 2016. It was imposed in respect of seven serious offences as that phrase is defined in the HRSO Act. Those seven offences comprised seven offences of aggravated sexual penetration without consent, being an offence under s 326(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) (Code). The circumstance of aggravation was that the victim of all of the offences was Mr Van Beek's former de facto partner.
The offending occurred at two separate points in time. Three of the offences were committed on 6 March 2015 and four of the offences were committed on 14 March 2015. At the time the offending was committed, there was a violence restraining order in favour of the victim and the conduct the subject of the offending breached that order. The first set of offending caused such pain to the victim that she vomited. The second set of offending involved Mr Van Beek tying the victim up with rope.
There can be no doubt it was very serious offending as is reflected by the term of imprisonment of 9 years that his Honour imposed.
Further to these matters, Mr Van Beek also committed a further 13 offences against the victim of this offending. This included two further serious offences, being offences against s 338E(1) of the Code. The first such offence was committed on 31 October 2012 and was an offence of pursuing the victim with an intent to intimidate in circumstances of aggravation, those circumstances again being that the victim of that offending had been in an intimate relationship with him. The offending was constituted by Mr Van Beek phoning the victim's mobile more than 50 times and sending her more than 40 text messages which were of an extremely intimidating and abusive nature.
Mr Van Beek committed a further such offence on 29 April 2013. In that set of offending, Mr Van Beek sent the victim 55 abusive, intimidatory and threatening text messages and telephoned her 20 times over a six‑hour period. He also attended a camp at which the victim was at with her children, that camp being a camp for victims of domestic violence. While he was there, the victim was intimidated by, and feared violence from, Mr Van Beek.
Furthermore, on 5 June 2018, Mr Van Beek was also sentenced to a term of 6 months' imprisonment for an offence of common assault in circumstances of aggravation, which is an offence under s 313(1)(a) of the Code and five offences of breaching a family violence restraining order, being offences under s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). These offences were also committed against the victim of the offences for which Mr Van Beek was sentenced by his Honour Bowden DCJ. The term of imprisonment of 6 months was ordered to be served concurrently with the term of imprisonment of 9 years imposed by his Honour.
Personal circumstances
Mr Van Beek is now 35 years of age.
Tragically, as a child, Mr Van Beek suffered abuse and was brought up in an environment where he was exposed to others being abused. His childhood was also characterised by much instability. In that respect, he attended 24 primary schools and 8 high schools. Mr Van Beek ultimately completed school through to the end of year 10.[9] It was around this time that Mr Van Beek left the family home.
[9] Psychologist's report dated 5 January 2014, page 168 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
Since leaving school, Mr Van Beek has worked in a number of different roles in the automotive industry and also worked in farming and landscaping.[10]
[10] Ibid.
Mr Van Beek has two living children and tragically another child died not long after birth, which greatly distressed Mr Van Beek.
Mr Van Beek commenced using cannabis at around 15 years of age and used it daily for a significant period of time. During times of particularly heavy cannabis use, Mr Van Beek used methylamphetamine to 'stay awake'. Mr Van Beek has also used other illicit drugs, however that use has not been enduring.[11] Drug use remained a problem in prison, as is demonstrated by Mr Van Beek being found on four occasions while in prison to be in possession of drugs otherwise than as prescribed. These incidents all occurred though in November 2019.[12] There was a further alleged incident of being in possession of naloxone and buprenorphine in November 2024, but I do not know whether that incident has been proven.
Reports, testing and attempts at rehabilitation
[11] Psychologist's report dated 5 January 2014, page 169 of the affidavit of Mr Burke and Psychologist's report dated 26 September 2017, page 179 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
[12] Page 26 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
In terms of the reports, testing and attempts at rehabilitation, a psychiatric assessment was undertaken in respect of Mr Van Beek in 2013. The psychiatrist was of the opinion that Mr Van Beek did not have a major depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder or bipolar affective disorder.[13]
[13] Psychiatrist's report dated 19 August 2013, page 163 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
A psychologist assessment of Mr Van Beek was undertaken in 2014. The tests undertaken as part of that assessment indicated that Mr Van Beek exhibited clinical symptoms of severe depression, severe anxiety and severe stress.[14] The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment conducted at that time indicated that without intensive intervention Mr Van Beek is likely to continue to repeat his pattern of behaviour towards his then partner.[15]
[14] Psychologist's report dated 5 January 2014, page 170 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
[15] Psychologist's report dated 5 January 2014, page 171 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
A further psychological assessment was undertaken in 2017. That report was obtained in respect of the offending for which Mr Van Beek is currently in prison. The psychologist was of the opinion that the sexual offending was primarily motivated by anger and that Mr Van Beek's behaviour appeared to be a way in which he chose to express his feelings of anger and hostility towards his then partner.[16] The testing undertaken of Mr Van Beek at that time, known as the Static‑99R, place Mr Van Beek at an average risk for committing another sexual offence.
[16] Psychologist's report dated 26 September 2017, para 29, page 181 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
Further, Mr Van Beek underwent parole assessment in May 2023. The parole assessment report stated that he was not recommended for release on parole because, amongst other reasons, he had not had the opportunity to adequately address all of his criminogenic needs.[17] Since then, Mr Van Beek has completed the Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program. The completion report for that program states that he presents with ongoing risks, particularly relative to his coping, relationship skills and self-esteem. The report also stated that he had developed a comprehensive risk management plan that evidenced understanding of his high-risk areas and identified both internal and external management strategies.[18]
[17] Parole assessment report, page 204 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
[18] Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report, pages 219 and 220 of the affidavit of Mr Burke.
The PSSO Report records that during his current imprisonment, Mr Van Beek has completed the Medium Intensity Sex Offender Program and the Pathways Program, and that completion reports pertaining to those programs indicated emerging gains and steadily increasing insight.[19] The PSSO Report also records that Mr Van Beek has participated in short-term family violence programs and private psychological counselling.[20]
[19] PSSO Report, page 3.
[20] Ibid.
A Post Sentence Supervision Order has not yet been imposed, although the recommended terms of such an order are set out on page 2 of the PSSO report.
Available accommodation
As to accommodation, I have said previously that accommodation is predominantly relevant to risk assessment and has many features that may not necessarily point in the same direction regarding risk.[21]
[21] The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20 [57] .
Mr Van Beek has accommodation available with his pastoral carer and the pastoral carer's wife. I am not satisfied that there are any material concerns with this accommodation. A potential concern was that in Ms Applin's discussions with the carer, he said that he believes Mr Van Beek's assertions that he is innocent of the offences for which he is currently in custody. I cannot be satisfied of what was said without hearing from the carer, as it could possibly be a misunderstanding of what was said, or as to what was meant to be conveyed. If it was said, it is troubling. However, I do not consider that it suggests that the carer condones such behaviour, or will condone such behaviour if it were to occur going forward.
Mr Van Beek also has positive support from others in the community who are pro-social and have been willing to let him live at their home.
My assessment
Conclusion regarding preliminary hearing
In all of these circumstances, and having regard to the matters outlined in the State's written submissions, I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the court might find that Mr Van Beek is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act. The offences I consider he might be found to be an unacceptable risk of committing include offences of sexual penetration without consent against an intimate partner (s 326 of the Code), pursuing an intimate partner with intent to intimidate them (s 338E of the Code) and deprivation of liberty in respect of an intimate partner (s 333 of the Code).
In that respect, the serious offences that Mr Van Beek has committed reflect a consistent pattern of intimidation of his then partner over several years, culminating in the very serious offences for which is now in custody.
Interim supervision order
The State says it is appropriate to make an interim supervision order pending the final determination of the application under s 35.
Ms Fedele says that the post-sentence supervision order expected to be imposed provides adequate protection of the community.
Section 58(5) of the HRSO Act provides the court with the discretion to make such an order in this proceeding with effect until the proceedings are finally determined, or until another specified date.
Where there is an existing restriction order application, s 58(2) imposes two preconditions to the exercise of that discretion. They are:
1.the offender to whom the pending proceedings relate is not in custody;[22] and
2.the court is satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an order under s 58.[23]
[22] HRSO Act, s 58(2)(b).
[23] HRSO Act, s 58(2)(c).
Given the first of these preconditions, such an order must operate with effect from Mr Van Beek being released from prison.
In the The State of Western Australia v Bradbury,[24] at [66] - [76], I set out the approach to be taken, which I adopt without repeating.
[24] The State of Western Australia v Bradbury [2025] WASC 90.
As I said at [76] of Bradbury, the task before me is not a balancing exercise between the PSSO on the one hand, and the proposed interim supervision order on the other, to determine which is more appropriate. Rather, the principal question is whether, to ensure the adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an interim supervision order. In making that assessment, an important factor to take into account is the extent to which the proposed PSSO affords protection to the community.
The conditions of the proposed interim supervision order prevent Mr Van Beek from being with anyone he knows, or should know, is affected by prohibited drugs, and prohibits him from being anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used. These conditions prevent him from returning to the company of drug users. They are important conditions that reduce the risk of Mr Van Beek relapsing into drug use. They will operate as a powerful deterrent against Mr Van Beek associating with people who are drug users or suppliers. Similarly, the ability of police officers to search Mr Van Beek's home will operate as a powerful deterrent against Mr Van Beek being in possession of and using drugs.
I also consider that, at present, a curfew is desirable.
Also, Mr Van Beek's serious offences have been directed at prior partners. The proposed supervision order enables close monitoring of any potential new relationships, including having the person informed of Mr Van Beek's prior behaviour.
The matters I have just described are not addressed by the proposed Post Sentence Supervision Order.
I consider that these deterrent factors, and closer monitoring, are important factors in protecting the community that are not achieved by the PSSO that might be imposed.
I am therefore satisfied that to ensure the adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an interim supervision order, and I am satisfied I should exercise the discretion to make such an order.
I am also satisfied that the proposed conditions of the interim supervision order are appropriate, subject to two relatively minor changes being made to the proposed conditions 12 and 33, which will be reflected in the final form of the order.
In addition to the standard conditions, the proposed order contains conditions that enable Mr Van Beek to be closely monitored, and contains specific procedures directed to preventing him from being in high risk situations. I am also satisfied that the conditions are expressed in language that clearly sets out what Mr Van Beek cannot do, and what he must do.
Conclusion
In conclusion, for these reasons, I am satisfied that the criterion in s 46 of the HRSO Act is met. I will therefore make an order fixing the date for hearing of the State's application for a restriction order.
Further, in accordance with s 46(2), I will also order that Mr Van Beek undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, and I will make orders facilitating the preparation of their reports.
I consider it would be beneficial for those reports to include the author's opinion in respect of the following additional matters:
1.The topics that should be addressed in a supervision order, if such an order were imposed.
2Any particular areas of treatment or support which the author considers would assist Mr Van Beek to integrate into the community.
I am satisfied that an interim supervision order should be imposed pending the determination of these proceedings or until further order of the court. I will order that the interim supervision order be with effect from a date to be discussed with counsel until these proceedings are finally determined, or until further order.
The conditions of that order, which commences on 27 July 2025, are attached to these reasons.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
SO 7 of 2025
IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant
-and-
DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK Respondent
INTERIM SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE LEMONIS
ON 30 MAY 2025
With proceedings pending on a restriction order application and the Court being satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make an order under section 58 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, the Court orders that the Respondent be subject to an interim supervision order pursuant to section 58(5) of the Act, from 26 July 2025 until these proceedings are finally determined or until further order of the Court, on the following conditions:
You, DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK, must:
STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT
Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the prison at the time of your release and advise the officer 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 of 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 direction given to you by the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);
Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO;
Not commit a serious offence as defined by the Act the during the period of the Order;
Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31;
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence
Reside (live) at [redacted] and spend each night there (period can be defined by a CCO). You can stay at a different address only if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;
Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO
On the day of release report to a Community Corrections Officer at the prison or at a place directed by a CCO and allow for fitting of electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake;
Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such arrangements having regard to any employment commitments you have;
Not start, change or increase any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO;
Attendance at programs or treatment
Attend and engage in all appointments as reasonably directed and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO;
Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of any treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice;
Permit any medical practitioner or medical practitioners to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware or suspect that you have, or intend to cease undergoing medical treatment contrary to the advice of the medical practitioner or medical practitioners, or you have apparently ceased to consult with that medical practitioner or medical practitioners on such treatment;
Reporting to WA Police
Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, PERTH WA 6000, or their delegate at a nominated Police station within 48 hours of your release from custody and report to and receive visits from Police where and when directed by the Officer-in-Charge of SOES or another officer;
If asked to, allow Police Officers to enter and search your home and/or vehicle, and search you and allow the Police Officers to seize (take) any items they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order. The police officer is to tell you they are using this power before acting pursuant to it;
Remain at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your home and/or vehicle under the preceding condition;
Disclosure/Exchange of Information
Agree to the exchange of any information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out the Order, including any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor;
Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies 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;
Restrictions on contact with Victims
Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, have no contact with the victims of your serious offending and any current or previous partners who are victims of your offending. Contact in this condition means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim;
Unless contact with the victim is permitted by Condition 20, if you see any victim, you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them, and you must look away from the victim at all times;
Report any contact with your victims of your offending to the CCO and WA Police within 48 hours of such contact occurring. Contact in this condition means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim;
Criminal conduct
Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which also involves sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;
Not possess any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article;
To comply with the requirements of any current Violence Restraining Order;
Not possess 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 your doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you don’t use more than the doctor has told you to use;
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; or
(b)speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, if they call to check you are at home;
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;
Prevention of high-risk situations
Report any new friendship or relationship (someone you have contact with more than once) by you with a female to your CCO when you next report to them;
If told to do so by your CCO, tell anyone with that you have a friendship or relationship with (someone you have contact with more than once) about your past offending, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer;
Not get into any vehicle, except for public transport, where a female is present unless the identity of that person has been approved in advance by the CCO;
Not enter any home where a female lives unless approved in advance by a CCO except for the address the subject of condition 8;
Not let any female enter your home unless the identity of that person has been approved in advance by a CCO;
Not to possess, use or purchase any 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 pursuant to Condition 36;
Not to be with anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by a prohibited drug, unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by a CCO;
Not stay anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used or, if drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of the house, or ask the people using prohibited drugs to leave your home;
Not go to any licensed premises, other than cafes, restaurants and sporting clubs, except for the following reasons:
(a)Avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; or
(b)For a reason and duration approved in advance by a CCO; or
(c)If a CCO or Police Officer tells you to do so;.
Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or information, that you own or use, within 48 hours (2 business days), whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device;
Not allow any person other than a CCO or WA Police access to any computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device referred to in condition 41, without prior approval of the CCO;
Enable device locking or password access of your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic devices; Not give or disclose such passwords or other means used to access any computer, telecommunications and/or electronic device referred to in condition 41, or any online accounts, to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer;
Upon request, allow a CCO or WA Police at any location nominated by them, to access any computer, telecommunication and/or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device related activities, and provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords or any other means used to unlock or access the device; Should any other entity be required to access a device for instances such as technical advice, approval must be sought in advance from a CCO;
Not delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, any data including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS), search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device, whether or not the device is capable of connecting to the internet, without the approval in advance by a CCO or WA Police;
You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a member of the departmental staff or an agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice.
_______________________________
THE HON JUSTICE LEMONIS
I have received a copy of this Order. I have had it explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it.
Signed by the Respondent: ____________________________________ DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK
In the presence of:
_________________________________
Name and address:
_________________________________
Date: _________________________________
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
OM
Associate to the Hon Justice Lemonis
1 SEPTEMBER 2025
0
6
3