The State of Western Australia v Woodward [No 3]

The State of Western Australia applied for a periodic review of the detention of John Arthur Woodward under a continuing detention order (CDO) made in respect of him in December 2021. The State applied for the CDO to be reviewed as soon as practicable after 10 December 2022. The CDO was made pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act) in relation to the respondent who had been found to be a high risk serious offender. The hearing of the application took place before Derrick J on 17 February 2023 and 20 March 2023. Derrick J decided that the continuing detention order should be rescinded and a supervision order made in respect of the respondent. The State of Western Australia appealed against the decision. The appeal was dismissed. The principal issue for determination was whether the continuing detention order should be affirmed or rescinded and a supervision order made. In deciding whether the continuing detention order should be rescinded and a supervision order made Derrick J had to decide whether the respondent remained a high risk serious offender. If the court found that the respondent remained a high risk serious offender it had to decide whether to rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order. The paramount consideration was to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. In deciding whether to rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order, Derrick J had to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. The court decided that the respondent remained a high risk serious offender. Derrick J was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that if the respondent was released on a supervision order containing most of the conditions proposed by Ms Gabriela Serrano, a Senior Community Corrections Officer, he would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order specified in s 30(2) of the Act. Derrick J was satisfied that the need to ensure adequate protection of the community could be met by releasing the respondent on a supervision order containing most of the conditions proposed by Ms Serrano. Derrick J decided to rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order in respect of the respondent containing most of the conditions proposed by Ms Serrano. The appeal was dismissed.