The State of Western Australia v Walker - [2024] WASC 222

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- WALKER [2024] WASC 222
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   24 MAY 2024
DELIVERED          :   19 JUNE 2024
PUBLISHED           :   21 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S:   SO 4 of 2024
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND

BRIAN MARCEL WALKER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal Law – High risk serious offender – Preliminary hearing – Whether reasonable grounds for belief that restriction order might be made – Whether an interim supervision order is desirable – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Orders made pursuant to s 46(2) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Interim Supervision Order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms T Hollaway
Respondent	:	Ms A Fedele

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	The State Solicitor's Office (WA)
Respondent	:	Legal Aid (WA)

Cases referred to in decision:

Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Allen [2006] WASC 160
The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 405
The State of Western Australia v Winder [2021] WASC 65

FORRESTER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 19 June 2024 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

On 23 April 2024, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of the respondent under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act2020 (WA) (Act).
The respondent was convicted on his own plea of guilty of the offences of grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning bodily harm and on 22 July 2021 was sentenced by Vernon DCJ to a term of 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. The respondent's sentence will expire on 18 July 2024.
A preliminary hearing was listed in respect of the State's application. The main purpose of a preliminary hearing is for the court to decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the court might find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the Act.[1]
[1] HRSO Act s 46(1).
On 24 May 2024, I found that there were reasonable grounds for such a belief, and thus ordered that the matter be listed for a final hearing, and that appropriate reports be ordered. These are my reasons for doing so.

Legal principles

The State's application was made pursuant to s 35 of the Act, for a restriction order to be imposed in relation to the respondent under s 48 of the Act.
The respondent 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 primary 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 Mr Walker 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 it 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] HRSO Act s 7(1).
A 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act includes the offence of grievous bodily harm.[3]
[3] HRSO Act s 3, sch 1 div 1 sub div 3 item 14.
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.[4]
[4] The State of Western Australia v PAS [2020] WASC 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 following materials:
(1)affidavit of Fleur Marie Allen affirmed 23 April 2024 which annexed the respondent's criminal record, transcripts of previous sentencing hearings for other serious and relevant offending as well as numerous reports including a psychological report, a presentence report and program completion reports.
(2)affidavit of Heather Applin affirmed 14 May 2024;
(3)affidavit of Tanya-Maree Hollaway affirmed 21 May 2024;
(4)affidavit of Heather Applin affirmed 21 May 2024;
(5)Post-Sentence Supervision Order dated 14 June 2024 (PSSO);
(6)an accommodation update report dated 14 June 2024; and
(7)PSSO report dated 31 May 2024.

The index offence

The offence which renders the respondent liable to be dealt with under the Act (the index offence) is grievous bodily harm.
On 19 January 2020, the respondent and the victim were both residents of the same residential facility. The respondent was in the hallway with a large kitchen knife outside the victim's room. The victim opened the door and, on seeing the respondent with the knife, attempted to defend himself by striking out at the respondent and then attempted to retreat into his room.
A struggle took place, during which the victim fell to the ground on his back before rolling onto his stomach. The respondent raised the knife and brought it down on the victim's unprotected back at least twice. The victim received puncture wounds to the shoulder, lower torso near the spine, and to the head.
Whilst the victim was on the ground, the respondent stood over him and proceeded to kick and stomp the victim's unprotected head multiple times causing abrasions and a blunt injury to the right side. When other residents and a security guard attempted to stop the respondent, the respondent returned and, on each occasion, again stomped on the victim's head. This conduct was the subject of a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm.
As a result of the offences, the victim sustained a spinal fracture, a spinal epidural haematoma and a torn cervical spine ligament.
The respondent explained that the victim had been mocking him prior to the offence.

Other criminal history

The index offence is the only serious offence, as that term is defined in the Act, of which the respondent has been convicted. However, the respondent has an extensive criminal history in Western Australia and in the Northern Territory which includes numerous convictions for:
(a)assault related offences;
(b)burglary;
(c)gaining a benefit by fraud, stealing and attempted stealing;
(d)criminal damage;
(e)breaches of various court orders including bail, suspended imprisonment orders, community-based orders, family violence restraining orders; and
(f)traffic offences.
The State has provided a summary of the convictions of the respondent for violence, and weapons offences.
As an adult, the respondent was convicted of the 2005 assault of his de facto partner by knocking her to the ground, striking her in the face, and putting his hands around her neck. Less than a year later, when he was arguing with his girlfriend about their child, and he started assaulting her. When his mother intervened, he assaulted his mother by hitting her in the head, pulling her hair and kneeing her in the back.
In November 2006, he argued with the same partner about a previous partner of hers and then punched her in the right arm continually. Later that day, he again became angry at his partner. He grabbed her hair and yanked it, punching her in the face and arm while yelling abuse at her. The next morning, the respondent and his partner continued arguing, and the respondent punched the victim. She turned away to avoid the blows, and the respondent bit her arm, leaving deep bite marks. Later, at a train station, he punched the victim to the nose and head. He told her to meet him later, threatening that if she did not, he would stab her.
The respondent was convicted in 2007 of assaulting the same woman, from whom he had recently separated, by throwing a house brick at her. He then followed her, grabbed her in a head lock, and bit her ear, completely severing a part of it, measuring 3 x 1 cm.
In 2010, the respondent was convicted of assaulting the same partner, with whom he now had two children. They were in a shopping centre, and he grabbed and punched her in the face two or three times, before grabbing her around the throat with both hands and applying pressure, impeding her breathing. Two months later, the respondent assaulted her again, by punching her in the face and pushing her head into a wall about four times.
One of the respondent's convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm in 2012 arose from his assault upon his 11-week pregnant partner, whom he accused of cheating. He punched her in the back of the head about five times and tried to prevent her calling out by covering her mouth. She ran for help and he hit her in the head with a large stick, and then, when she fell to the ground, he hit her around the back and torso area about four times with the stick.
Also in 2012, the respondent was also convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm for being one of a group of men who attacked two men in Albany, with theft the apparent motive.
In 2015, the respondent was drinking at the victim's house. When his behaviour prompted the victim to ask him to leave, he head butted her, punched her twice and threatened to have her raped.
The respondent has also been convicted of carrying a number of items, either as offensive instruments or weapons, such as a hammer, scissors, a box cutter, and a 30 cm knife.

Conduct in custody

The respondent was also found to have committed a prison offence on 17 February 2020, by punching another prisoner.
The respondent has not tested positive for any illicit substance use during his present custodial term except on 24 November 2020, for buprenorphine.

Personal circumstances and background

The respondent was born in Papua New Guinea and has lived in Australia since he was seven years old. He is the eldest of two children to his parents' union, which ended when he was six years old due to his father's violence and alcohol dependence. The respondent has not had any contact with his father for more than 10 years.[5]
[5] Affidavit of Fleur Marie Allen affirmed 23 April 2024, Annexure AM [2] (Allen affidavit).
The respondent reported witnessing domestic violence from his father towards his mother during his early years and said he would try to step in to protect his mother.[6]
[6] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [2].
Once in Australia, the respondent's mother was in a relationship for 20 years, resulting in three half siblings to the respondent.[7] The respondent had a conflicted relationship with his stepfather, who utilised physical punishment and tried to set limits on the respondent's behaviour which he resented.[8]
[7] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [2].
[8] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [3].
The respondent described his primary schooling as being positive. He was socially engaged with peers and his behaviour was unproblematic. He was of average academic capability.[9]
[9] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [4].
However, between the ages of 14 and 16 years of age, the respondent became increasingly engaged with negative peers and substance use, absconded from home and slept on the streets, and became involved in the justice system.[10] He truanted and was involved in numerous physical altercations. He was expelled from school in year 10 due to behavioural and attendance issues.[11] Notwithstanding this, his literacy and numeracy skills appear to be competent.
[10] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [3], Annexure AQ, 149.
[11] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [4].
At 23 years old, the respondent gained employment for the first time as a car detailer and worked intermittently in this role until 28 years of age. When not in custody, he tends to derive income from Centrelink.[12]
[12] Allen affidavit, Annexure AN, 132.
The respondent has been in three significant relationships. The first, at 20 years old, which lasted a decade, resulted in two daughters who live with their mother and the respondent's mother. That relationship was marred by domestic violence, as is evident from the respondent's criminal history. At the ages of 30 and 34, the respondent became involved in further relationships, the former resulting in a daughter. Both ended as a result of the respondent returning to custody.[13]
[13] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [6].
The respondent acknowledged in 2021 that most of his friends are engaged in substance use and offending, although did assert that he had some prosocial friends.[14]
[14] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [6].
The respondent has a long history of substance abuse, beginning with the use of cannabis and binge drinking at age 12, drugs such as MDMA, LSD and mushrooms from the age of 13, and daily methylamphetamine use starting at age 15. He claims to have rarely used cannabis since his late 20's, when he became increasingly paranoid. He continued to use methylamphetamines and alcohol but used other substances intermittently.[15] He has not tested positive for any substances since 2020 while in custody.

Reports

[15] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [8], [10].

Psychologist Jane Sampson prepared a report dated 7 June 2021. While testing results required caution in analysis because of the respondent's cultural background, he had extremely high scores on more than 80% of the scales of the Basic Personality Inventory and also scores on the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale which suggested extremely severe symptoms of anxiety, severe symptoms of depression and moderate symptoms of stress.[16] There was the possibility that he had overemphasised his symptoms.
[16] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [10].
To the psychologist, the respondent claimed that the index offending was committed in defence against an initial threat by the victim.[17]
[17] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [11].
Ms Sampson considered that aggressive behaviour was normalised for the respondent through his childhood. He appears to be paranoid and threat sensitive. His coping skills are very poor, and his relapse into substance use was a negative coping strategy on his release from custody.[18]
[18] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [12].
The HCR-20v3 was applied in the respondent's case and Ms Sampson assessed that there is a high likelihood of the respondent offending in the future in a similar way, unless he addresses his substance use and establishes greater stability and purpose in his life.[19]
[19] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [13] - [14].
Ms Sampson considered that the respondent would be best assisted with substance abuse intervention, and aggression management intervention.[20]
[20] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [16].
Whilst the respondent expressed regret for his offending, Ms Sampson opined this was in respect of the consequences to himself and suggested that the respondent apportioned blame to his victims by stating he acted in self-defence after being threatened.[21]
[21] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [11].
According to the report in relation to the Violence Prevention Program (VPP), which the respondent completed in July 2023, prior to the index offending, the respondent had been released from prison with minimal plans of employment and an intention to recommence the sale and supply of substances to fund his lifestyle. He made minimal efforts to build a prosocial support network and was released into accommodation where he was residing with criminal peers also engaging in this conduct.[22] While he had been drinking the night before the index offence, he did not believe he was impaired by substances.[23]
[22] Allen affidavit, Annexure AP, 137.
[23] Allen affidavit, Annexure AP, 138.
The respondent reported that he had had periods of transiency throughout his life in which offending would escalate and included the habitual possession of weapons due to feelings of paranoia which he described was exacerbated by methylamphetamine use.[24] On the occasion of the index offence, he was armed with a knife.
[24] Allen affidavit, Annexure AP, 137.
The authors of the VPP consider that the respondent is likely to return to his previous lifestyle unless he addresses his criminal attitudes pertaining to offending as a suitable source of income. Further, his entrenched beliefs as to the normalisation of violence and offending will likely maintain his risk of reoffending in the future. Further, if his distortions as to perception of threat and necessity in engaging in violence for protection are not challenged, the likelihood is that his habitual possession of weapons will continue and thus increase his risk of engaging in violence.[25]
[25] Allen affidavit, Annexure AP, 143.
The respondent is regarded as having minimal protective factors. He may not maintain motivation to address his offending behaviour in the community, and, while he has family supports, their supportive capacity may be limited, given that he has had them in the past as well.[26]
[26] Allen affidavit, Annexure AP, 138.
The authors assessed the respondent's risk factors as being 'violent lifestyle, violence cycle, insight into violence, weapon use, release to high-risk situation, substance use, criminal peers, criminal attitudes, cognitive distortions, work ethic, emotional control, impulsivity, mental health, interpersonal aggression, stability of relationships, violence in incarceration, compliance with supervision and community support.'[27]
[27] Allen affidavit, Annexure AP, 145.
While the respondent made gains during the VPP, in most cases he remained in the contemplative stage of addressing his risk factors. He was able to compile a detailed, well-considered self-management plan to address his risk of reoffending in the future. As part of that, he identified relevant risks of reoffending for himself and appropriate management strategies to attempt to mitigate reoffending. However, the authors of the report noted that the capacity of those strategies to successfully mitigate risk will be dependent on his maintained intrinsic motivation, emotional management strategies, impulse management and continued engagement with supports.
The respondent also took part in a Pathways program between August 2023 and January 2024. Again, he was assessed as making some gains, particularly in relation to his insight as to risk factors. However, his risk management plan was regarded as simplistic; in some respects lacking in detail, and containing limited evidence of alternative internal coping strategies to manage his risk of resorting to substance use.[28] Again, much was assessed as being dependent on him being able to maintain his motivation for change.
[28] Allen affidavit, Annexure AQ, 155.
The respondent was denied parole on 13 June 2022 on the basis of his criminal history, poor historical response to supervision, unmet treatment needs and inadequate release plan.[29] The report from Midland Community Corrections dated 27 May 2022 regarding parole indicates that electronic monitoring and curfew were not then considered necessary risk management strategies.[30]
[29] Allen affidavit, Annexure E, 37.
[30] Parole assessment of Leanne Hegney, dated 27 May 2022, 3.
Parole was denied again on 22 November 2023, apparently at the respondent's request.[31]
[31] Allen affidavit, Annexure E, 37.

Submissions

The applicant submitted that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the test required of a preliminary hearing, namely whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find that Mr Walker is a high risk serious offender. The respondent conceded that to be the case.

Disposition

In considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find the respondent to be a high risk serious offender, I have considered the factors set out in s 7(3) of the Act.
The respondent has committed only one offence classified as a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act, that being the index offence. Even though his criminal record is replete with offences of violence, it is difficult to say that the respondent could be found to have a propensity to commit serious offences within the meaning of the Act.
On occasion, the respondent has bitten his victim, and he has been known to opportunistically use items as weapons, such as a rock or a brick. Concerningly, he has also twice put his hands around his partner's throat and squeezed.
The respondent has apparently only used a weapon he was carrying to physically harm another once, that being in the index offence. However, his propensity to carry weapons with him, his impulsivity, and his maladaptive coping strategies mean that when he is confronted with, or perceives himself to be confronted with, a threat or conflict, he is more likely to commit a serious offence than if he did not have those traits. It also appears that he is more often carrying weapons, and the index offence has showed an increased willingness to use them.
The respondent's history does demonstrate that the respondent has a pattern of using violence as a coping strategy when conflict arises, whether that conflict involves an intimate partner or any other person.
The respondent has participated in various rehabilitation programs and most recently, in two intensive programs. While he has made gains in each, and he is to be encouraged for having participated in those programs, he still has numerous outstanding treatment needs and he lacks genuine insight into his risk factors. In particular, he lacks the skills and strategies necessary to reduce his risk. He will also require continuous and robust support to remain substance free.
The respondent's risk of committing a serious offence has not been formally assessed, and certainly not since he underwent the VPP and Pathways programs. The most recent assessment was for the purposes of the psychological assessment in 2021, at which point, having applied the HCR-20v3, Ms Sampson assessed that there was a high likelihood of the respondent 'offending in the future in a similar way'.[32] It is to be inferred Ms Sampson was speaking of a similar way to the index offence.
[32] Allen affidavit, Annexure AM [14].
There is a clear need to protect the community from the risk of further offences of the kind committed in this case.

Conclusion

On this basis, while the case is not, in my view, a strong one, I considered that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender.

PSSO or Interim Detention Order/Interim Supervision Order

The State's application for restriction included an application for an order that the respondent be detained in custody or, alternatively, be released subject to an interim supervision order. Ultimately, at the preliminary hearing, the State did not seek an order that the respondent be detained in custody, but maintained the application that an interim supervision order be made.
I adjourned the State's application in this regard, because the respondent was to be considered for a PSSO by the Prisoners Review Board on 14 June 2024, and the outcome of that consideration is relevant to the determination of whether the respondent should be placed on an interim supervision order.
On 14 June 2024, the Prisoners Review Board made a PSSO in respect of the respondent. The conditions of that order are, that as of 18 July 2024 (being the respondent's release date) and for a period of 18 months, the respondent is to be subject to conditions that he:
1.report to [town B] Adult Community Corrections within 72 hours of being released or as otherwise directed by a Community Corrections Officer (CCO);
2.notify a CCO of any change of address or place of employment within two clear working days after the change; and
3. comply with Section 76 of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA).
Additional requirements are as follows:
1.to have no direct or indirect contact with the victim;
2.not use or be in possession of any illicit drug including cannabis;
3. not to consume alcohol;
4.attend random urinalysis for all illicit substances as directed by the CCO and provide a valid sample;
5.submit to random breath testing as required by Police;
6.attend programmes and counselling as required; and
7.not to enter licenced 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.
It is apparent that the Prisoners Review Board did not consider that GPS monitoring was necessary in relation to the respondent for the purposes of the PSSO. I note what the Prisoners Review Board says in that regard about its effectiveness in reducing the risk to victims in this case.
If I were to impose an interim supervision order, the PSSO would be cancelled, pursuant to s 74(2) of the Sentence Administration Act.
Pursuant to s 58(2)(c) of the Act, an interim supervision order is only to be made if the court is satisfied that, to ensure adequate protection of the community, it is desirable to make one. If the court is satisfied that the community is adequately protected by some other order to which the respondent is subject, an interim supervision order should not be made.
The respondent submitted that the PSSO was sufficient to adequately protect the community in this case and that an interim supervision order is not necessary.

Plan if released

If released, the respondent proposes to reside with his mother in a regional area of Western Australia. His mother has previously been a victim of the respondent's offending, in particular in 2005 when he physically assaulted her. However, he has also breached violence restraining orders made to protect her, on numerous occasions in 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2014.
On 6 May 2024, the respondent's mother indicated a willingness to allow the respondent to live with her at her home (where the respondent's sister also resides). The respondent's mother was strongly supportive of the respondent accessing support services in the community and indicated a willingness to assist him.
However, on 20 May 2024, the respondent's mother raised some concerns relating to the respondent's sister also residing at the address. The respondent has had no relationship with his sister for 15 years, and she may relocate if the respondent is released to that address.
At the preliminary hearing in this matter, I expressed concerns about the ability of Community Corrections to monitor the respondent given that he proposed to reside in [town A]. I also expressed concerns about the fact that the respondent proposed to reside with his mother, which also involved him residing with his sister, who is a domestic violence survivor.
I have now received an updated report and I am satisfied that the respondent's mother is willing to have him at her address. She has zero tolerance for antisocial behaviour and a willingness to report any concerns. I also note that if the respondent's sister does move out of the premises, she has a suitable place to go.
The respondent proposes to reside in [town A, which is approximately 45 minutes by car from town B].
Neither the respondent nor his mother have a car or a driver's licence. Further, there is no public transport between [town A and town B], and there is no public transport of any kind within [town A].
Staff from [town B] Community Corrections travel through [town A] during monthly case management outreach and conduct in‑person supervision and other case management tasks on these visits. Additional in-person supervision is available, provided the person is able to travel to [town B]. Otherwise, supervision is by telephone.
Community Corrections advise that frequency of attendance to [town A] can be increased and would remain flexible to ensure a suitable level of supervision of the respondent. However, it is plain that COMU would seek to rely very heavily on electronic monitoring of the respondent.
Further, intervention from the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) is not available at all within the [town B] region, there being no available service provider. While the Connect and Respect Program is available, it is only available in [town B], following assessment for suitability. Other programs are also based in [town B].
Substance misuse counselling is available through Hope Community Services, whose staff travel to [town A] once a fortnight to facilitate individual counselling. Subject to referral numbers, that could be increased or decreased. Further, other family violence courses can be facilitated in [town A], but that is dependent on counsellor availability.
As for urinalysis, that can only be done at the hospital 45 minutes away. There is no collection service in [town A]. It is unclear how the Department intends to require the respondent to undergo urinalysis if he cannot attend [town B] to provide a sample.
While police are permanently stationed in [town A], that is only on weekdays between 8am and 4pm. Officers remain on call outside of standard business hours, but those jobs are initially managed by [town B] Police, who make inquiries as to whether [town A] Police are in a position to respond. If necessary, [town B] Police must attend.
[Town A] Police can conduct random breath testing, home visits and mandatory police reporting obligations.
GPS equipment can function in [town A]. A curfew requirement would be managed via electronic monitoring. However, there is no after‑hours response available to address alerts generated out of business hours.
The respondent can be referred to the Community Mental Health service which will attend [town A] as required if the respondent is an active referral.
The applicant acknowledges the principles which guide the court in determining what order to make were set out in by Blaxell J in Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Allen[33] at [62] - [64].
[33] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Allen [2006] WASC 160.
In my view, those principles apply, with appropriate modification, to the determination of whether an interim supervision order should be imposed instead of a PSSO, in the sense that the fundamental principle is that the least restrictive option which adequately protects the community should be imposed pending the outcome of an application for a restriction order.
I do not consider the applicant's case for a restriction order is strong. However, as I say, I have accepted that at this stage there are reasonable grounds for believing that a court might make the order. No doubt the matter will be reviewed upon receipt of the appropriate reports.
I am also very conscious that, if an interim supervision order is made now, and a restriction order is ultimately not made, any opportunity to order further supervision will be lost.
Given the reports connect the respondent's risk of committing future offending, in part, to substance use, and recommend that any release address this substance use, it is greatly concerning that, even on an interim supervision order, there will be no effective means of randomly testing the respondent for the use of illicit substances.
Further, the inability to enforce electronic monitoring outside of business hours is problematic.
Ultimately, however, I am satisfied that, in light of the fact that the respondent intends to live in [town A], in circumstances in which he has no transport, no driver's licence, and no means of travelling to a larger regional centre, it is necessary to provide a greater means of supervision and detection than might otherwise be the case.
It is to be expected that the State will ensure that directions provided to the respondent take full account of the fact that it is a failure on the part of the State to provide necessary public transport and regional services which prevent him from having appropriate access to the suite of services which will assist with his reduction of risk, and do not impose requirements which are unreasonable or not able to be sensibly complied with.
Accordingly, and not without hesitation, I order that the respondent be made subject to an interim supervision order.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
SI
Associate to the Honourable Justice Forrester
21 JUNE 2024