The State of Western Australia v Warmdean [No 5]

The State of Western Australia commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against Warmdean, an offender subject to a supervision order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), to determine whether a detention order should be made pending the outcome of contravention proceedings. The State sought the order on the basis that the respondent was contravening or was likely to contravene a condition of his supervision order, and that the contravention or potential contravention constituted a risk to the community. The respondent, Warmdean, opposed the application and argued that he should be released on bail. The case was heard by the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether to grant the State's application for a detention order.

In determining the application, the Supreme Court considered the evidence presented by the State and the respondent. The court was required to assess whether the respondent was contravening or was likely to contravene a condition of his supervision order, and whether such contravention or potential contravention posed a risk to the community. The court also had to consider whether the respondent should be released on bail, taking into account the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. The Supreme Court found that the respondent was contravening or was likely to contravene a condition of his supervision order and that such contravention or potential contravention constituted a risk to the community. The court was satisfied that the onus of proof was on the respondent to demonstrate that his release was justified by exceptional circumstances and that he would substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order. The Supreme Court found that the respondent had not discharged this onus.

The Supreme Court granted the State's application for a detention order, and ordered that the respondent be detained in custody pending the determination of the contravention proceedings. The court held that the paramount consideration in making its decision was the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. The Supreme Court found that the respondent's detention was necessary to protect the community from the risk posed by the contravention or potential contravention of the supervision order.

The Supreme Court ordered that the respondent be detained in custody pending the determination of the contravention proceedings. The court may, before the pending proceedings are determined, make an interim order amending the supervision order to include any requirements the court considers appropriate to ensure adequate protection of the community. The court may also order the respondent to reappear before the court at any adjourned hearing of the pending proceedings. If it is alleged that the respondent has further breached the supervision order or breached an order made under the court's authority, the court may issue a warrant to have the respondent arrested and brought before the court.