The State of Western Australia (WA) v Ugle [No 8] - [2023] WASC 281

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (WA) -v- UGLE [No 8] [2023] WASC 281
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   18 JULY 2023
DELIVERED          :   28 JULY 2023
FILE NO/S:   SO 2 of 2014
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (WA)
Applicant
AND
WARREN JOHN UGLE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Review hearing - Whether the respondent remains a high risk serious offender - Whether continuing detention order should be affirmed or rescinded - Whether community would be adequately protected if the respondent released on a supervision order

Legislation:

Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed)

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Supervision order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	D McDonnell
Respondent	:	T Hager

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office (WA)
Respondent	:	T Hager

Cases referred to in decision:

Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 2] [2014] WASC 369
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 3] [2015] WASC 452
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 4] [2016] WASC 259
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 5] [2017] WASC 280
Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4
The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212
The State of Western Australia v ACW [No 3] [2022] WASC 41
The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115
The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 3] [2022] WASC 371
The State of Western Australia v Ugle [2016] WASC 252
The State of Western Australia v Ugle [2017] WASC 111
The State of Western Australia v Ugle [No 6] [2020] WASC 215
The State of Western Australia v Ugle [No 7] [2021] WASC 213

FORRESTER J:

Introduction

This is the third review hearing in relation to the respondent, who is presently subject to a continuing detention order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), imposed by Fiannaca J on 4 October 2017.[1]
[1] Affirmed at the first review before Fiannaca J on 10 May 2019, and at the second review by Corboy J on 1 July 2021.

Background

The respondent has an extensive and serious criminal history, commencing at a very young age. He has a long record of anti-social and traffic offences, and numerous burglaries.[2]
[2] Book of Materials for Review Hearing on 18 July 2023 filed 10 May 2023, 2 - 25 (Book of Materials Vol 1).
In February 1992, aged 17 years, he committed his first offence of sexual penetration without consent, upon a 17 year old woman in the course of a burglary. He committed a further, similar offence in February 1993. In March 1993, he broke into a house and placed a pillow over the head of an adult woman who was in the house and forced her to hand over her purse. In April 1993, the respondent digitally penetrated an 11 year old girl in the course of an aggravated burglary. In October 2007, he broke into a house and twice sexually penetrated an adult woman sleeping in her bed.
The respondent's serious offending was outlined in more detail by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 3].[3]
[3] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 3] [2015] WASC 452 [19] - [30].

History of these proceedings

First continuing detention order

On 6 October 2014, Simmonds J declared the respondent to be a dangerous sexual offender within the meaning of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed) (DSO Act).[4] The respondent was detained in custody on a continuing detention order (CDO) for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.[5]
[4] Pursuant to s 125 of the HRSO Act, any order made under the DSO Act continues in effect and is taken to have been made under the HRSO Act.
[5] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 2] [2014] WASC 369.
The first annual review of the CDO took place before Fiannaca J in November 2015.[6] While his Honour was satisfied that the respondent remained a high risk serious offender, Fiannaca J found that the respondent had made gains in a number of areas, such that adequate protection of the community could be achieved by a supervision order. Accordingly, the continuing detention order was rescinded, and the respondent was released on a supervision order for a period of 10 years (SO).[7]

First supervision order and contravention proceedings

[6] Ugle [No 3].

[7] Ugle [No 3].

Between 3 December 2015 and 22 January 2016, the respondent was alleged to have contravened conditions of the SO a number of times, each relating to a urinalysis result, namely:
(1)the respondent tested positive for cannabis in a sample provided on 1 December 2015;
(2)on 8, 10 and 14 December 2015, the respondent returned samples for urinalysis with a result for creatinine that was below the Australian Standard (said by the respondent to be a result of the above charged cannabis use and attempts to conceal it);
(3)the respondent tested positive to cannabis in a sample provided on 22 December 2015;
(4)on 22 January 2016, the respondent again returned samples for urinalysis with a result for creatinine that was below the Australian Standard.
Contravention proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court, which were heard by Fiannaca J. Before determining those proceedings, Fiannaca J was required to conduct a trial by judge alone in relation to the offences of breaching the SO. His Honour acquitted the respondent of the alleged contravention relating to the 1 December 2015 urinalysis result,[8] but convicted the respondent of the charge that he breached the SO by returning a positive urinalysis test for cannabis on 22 December 2015.
[8] In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 4] [2016] WASC 259, Fiannaca J gave preliminary findings of fact for the benefit of the psychiatrist asked to examine the respondent and provide a report for the contravention proceedings. His Honour concluded he was left with a reasonable doubt in the criminal proceedings as to whether the positive result for 1 December 2015 was due to a residual amount of cannabis in the accused's body from his last use in prison, but for the purposes of the contravention proceedings his Honour was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was not, that this was not a plausible explanation.
The respondent was released on bail pending the sentencing hearing, a condition of which required that he continue to comply with his SO.[9]
[9] The State of Western Australia v Ugle [2016] WASC 252.
However, on 16 November 2016, the respondent was charged with a further contravention of the SO, namely that on an unknown date between 7 and 11 November 2016, he consumed or used methamphetamine. His bail was revoked and he thereafter remained in custody.
On 13 April 2017, the respondent was found guilty by Corboy J of contravening the SO by consuming methylamphetamine.[10] On 22 March 2018, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 8 months' imprisonment.[11]
[10] The State of Western Australia v Ugle [2017] WASC 111.
[11] Book of Materials Vol 1, 2.
In the interim, on 4 October 2017, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 6 months' imprisonment for the offence of which he had been convicted by Fiannaca J.[12] In the concurrent contravention proceedings which also resumed on that date, Fiannaca J rescinded the SO and made a CDO in relation to the respondent.[13]
[12] Book of Materials Vol 1, 2.
[13] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Ugle [No 5] [2017] WASC 280.
In his reasons, Fiannaca J identified a number of goals that may influence any future decision to release the respondent, namely to:
(1)remain abstinent from, and demonstrate a commitment to remaining abstinent from, illicit substance;
(2)gain greater self-awareness, through counselling, especially in relation to stress and demonstrate he is prepared to talk about such matters;
(3)shed the self-confidence in his ability to deal with any problems that may confront him in the community, be open to assistance and not see it as a weakness;
(4)accept the need for a more effective relapse-prevention plan beyond simply saying 'no' and walking away and work with his psychologist to develop such a plan;
(5)be honest with his psychologist;
(6)address the deficiencies in his insight into the causes of his offending.

Second continuing detention order

At the first review hearing, Fiannaca J affirmed the CDO. His Honour was not satisfied that a SO would provide adequate protection of the community and was not satisfied that the respondent's attitude had matured sufficiently for the court to find, on the balance of probabilities, that he would comply with the standard conditions of a SO, nor did he have confidence that the respondent would comply with the additional conditions of such an order, including abstinence from drug use.[14]
[14] The State of Western Australia v Ugle [No 6] [2020] WASC 215.
At the second review hearing, Corboy J affirmed the CDO. His Honour found that the respondent had not made progress in achieving the goals identified by Fiannaca J, except that he had been abstinent from illicit substance use since the 2019 review. The respondent had not meaningfully engaged in treatment or development of a management plan, lacked insight into the causes of his offending, had an inability to disassociate himself from others who were likely to use prohibited drugs, and had a misplaced confidence in his ability to abstain from illicit substance use. Corboy J also doubted the reliability of the respondent's self-reporting.[15] Further, the respondent did not have any stable and supervised accommodation, which his Honour regarded as an important protective factor.[16] In the circumstances, his Honour was satisfied that the respondent remained a high risk serious offender.[17]
[15] The State of Western Australia v Ugle [No 7] [2021] WASC 213.
[16] Ugle [No 7] [55].
[17] Ugle [No 7] [53].

Evidence adduced by the State

At the hearing of this review, the State tendered without objection a Book of Materials made up of two volumes of documents regarding the antecedents of the respondent, various reports prepared for sentencing proceedings and previous hearing under the DSO Act and HRSO Act. In particular, the State relied upon the following reports obtained pursuant to s 67 of the HRSO Act for the purposes of the review:
(1)report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 15 June 2023; and
(2)report of Dr Sarah Barbas, Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, dated 15 June 2023.
Pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act, in this hearing the court may receive into evidence:
(a)any document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the offender; or
(b) anything relevant contained in the official transcript of any relevant proceeding against the offender; or
(c)any relevant material that was tendered to the court, or that informed the court, in a relevant proceeding against the offender; or
(d)any relevant material of the kind mentioned in section 7(3) relating to the offender.
The State called Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Barbas on the application, who gave evidence consistent with their reports.
Since I heard submissions from the parties, I have also been provided with a victim submission, pursuant to s 60 of the HRSO Act.

Legal principles and statutory framework

The object of the review process was articulated by Hall J in The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5]:
The clear intention of the review process is to allow for the possibility of a change of circumstances. Detention under the DSO Act is not a punishment for a past offending: it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent the risk of future serious sexual offending from being realised. If circumstances change such that the risk of reoffending reduces or can be adequately managed in the community, then the continuing need for detention must be considered…It does not follow from this that a court conducting an annual review is bound by the factual findings made at previous hearings. In practice, however, there is usually little prospect that expert evidence on a review will call into question the previous finding that the respondent was a serious danger to the community...
It is a significant thing to deprive a person of his liberty, not for something he has done but for something that he might do in the future. In order to justify detention on these grounds the evidence must be acceptable and cogent and establish the existence of a serious danger to the community to a high degree of probability: s 7(2) DSO Act. Such a finding requires satisfaction that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious sexual offence if not placed under a supervision order or detained.
The risk of reoffending may change over time. It may be affected by age, health, or the successful completion of treatment. The availability of new technology or resources in the community may also affect whether the risk of reoffending can be managed by a supervision order. There is also the possibility that the risk may increase because of a failure of treatment or a relapse into deviant thinking.
The justification for making a continuing detention order is the existence of an unacceptable risk of serious sexual offending that cannot be adequately controlled by conditional release. However, detention also serves the purpose of allowing treatment and care in a secure environment: s 17 DSO Act. This confirms an obligation on the part of prison authorities to facilitate change by offering programmes and access to counselling.
If the risk changes or resources improve to enable more efficacious conditions then the need for detention may dissipate. In these circumstances, continuing detention may be unjust.
The review process is intended to ensure that detention only continues where necessary. It mitigates the otherwise draconian effect of imprisoning people for crimes that they have not committed. Reviews are not, therefore, a mere welfare check: they are an exercise of judicial power to affirm, vary or rescind a detention order. Continuing detention should not be ordered unless that course is justified by the circumstances existing at the time of the review. The court should choose the order that is least invasive of the person's right to be at liberty, whilst ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community...[18]
[18] The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115 [8] - [13] (citations omitted).
On review the court must determine whether an offender remains a high risk serious offender; that is, whether it 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 offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.[19] The State has the onus of satisfying the court that an offender remains a high risk serious offender.[20]
[19] HRSO Act s 68, s 7(1).
[20] HRSO Act s 7(2).
If the court does not find that the person remains a high risk serious offender, the continuing detention order must be rescinded. If the court determines that the offender remains a high risk serious offender, it must either affirm the continuing detention order, or, subject to s 29, rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order.[21]
[21] HRSO Act s 68.
It is a matter for the court conducting the review to independently decide whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, and whether the continuing detention order should be affirmed, although the court conducting the review is entitled to have regard to, and give weight to, views expressed in earlier reviews and the original application.[22]
[22] The State of Western Australia v ACW [No 3] [2022] WASC 41 [27]; The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 3] [2022] WASC 371 [27].
In deciding whether to affirm the continuing detention order or make a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[23]
[23] HRSO Act s 68(2).
The HRSO Act does not require that there be no risk of reoffending. The question is whether the risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level that ensures adequate protection of the community.[24]
[24] The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [33].
The court cannot make a supervision order in relation to an offender unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.[25]
[25] HRSO Act s 29.
The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.[26]
[26] HRSO Act s 30(2)(f).
In determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order', I respectfully adopt, without repeating here, the approach set out by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart[27] at [39] to [52].
[27] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4.

Matters to be considered pursuant to s 7(3) HRSO Act

The offender's antecedents and criminal record (s 7(3)(g) HRSO Act)

The respondent's family background and upbringing were summarised by Simmonds J in The State of Western Australia v Ugle.[28] As indicated above, the respondent's relevant criminal history was outlined in detail by Fiannaca J in The State of Western Australia v Ugle [No 3].[29]

Any report prepared under s 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section - s 7(3)(a) HRSO Act

Evidence of Dr Peter Wynn Owen (Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist)

[28] Ugle [No 2] [36] - [45].

[29] Ugle [No 3] [19] - [30].

Dr Wynn Owen is a qualified expert within the meaning of the HRSO Act.[30] He has previously prepared reports for the respondent's contravention proceedings in 2016 to 2017 and for the second annual review.
[30] HRSO Act s 3; Book of Materials for the Review Hearing on 18 July 2023 filed 10 July 2023, 300 [1] (Book of Materials Vol 2).
Dr Wynn Owen compiled a report dated 15 June 2023. In preparation for that report, he interviewed the respondent and had access to Volume 1 of the Book of Materials prepared by the State for this hearing. Further, Dr Wynn Owen corresponded with the respondent's Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO), Ms Dabala.
Dr Wynn Owen observed that the respondent was polite and seemed co-operative at interview and presented as relaxed and familiar with the situation. The respondent did express some frustration with still being in prison and was clear that he hoped to be released.[31]
[31] Book of Materials Vol 2, 303 [32].
Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent took responsibility for the 1992 sexual offending, while attributing aspects of his behaviour to intoxication. However, he continued to categorically deny the sexual offending against the child in April 1993 (he acknowledged breaking into the property with others). He also maintained a stance of denial in relation to his other sexual offences. He claimed the index offending was fabricated by police and that the February 1993 offending was consensual (although he said he is now aware the victim may have been affected by medication).[32]
[32] Book of Materials Vol 2, 303 [34] - [38].
In relation to the contravention charges, the respondent claimed that he tested positive to cannabis because of heavy use in prison prior to release but said he had no idea how he could have tested positive for methamphetamine as he had definitely not used it since 2007.[33]
[33] Book of Materials Vol 2, 303 [40] - [41].

The respondent has not participated in any further treatment since the last review. He expressed a wish to re-engage in treatment, but was unable to articulate any motivation or targets other than to facilitate release.[34]
[34] Book of Materials Vol 2, 303 [43].
The respondent's comments regarding treatment suggested that he continues to view intoxication as being the cause of his past offending and that, if he avoided substance use, he would not re-offend. Dr Wynn Owen observed that this fixed view, and the respondent's unwillingness or inability to consider other factors in his offending has thwarted therapeutic intervention in the past.[35]
[35] Book of Materials Vol 2, 304 [44].
The respondent asserted there is 'absolutely no risk of future serious or sexual offending' as any future offending would arise as a result of a return to substance use, of which he believed he was at no risk of as he was 'over it'. He told Dr Wynn Owen that if he was around others using drugs he would leave. He claimed this would not be hard and that he had achieved abstinence when previously released to the SO despite (he reported) very frequently being offered drugs.[36]
[36] Book of Materials Vol 2, 304 [45], [49].
The respondent also did not see stress as an issue, claiming, 'it's all manageable, I always have a positive note' and saying he would 'relax, talk to people, go fishing, play pool'.[37] He did acknowledge, unprompted, that a lack of structure in his life had previously contributed to substance use and offending behaviour.[38]
[37] Book of Materials Vol 2, 304 [50].
[38] Book of Materials Vol 2, 304 [51].
When speaking about his plan for release, the respondent said he had been meeting with Uniting WA and it had been proposed that he assist as a mentor to others. He reported he was still in a long term relationship with his partner and has maintained regular telephone contact with her.[39]
[39] Book of Materials Vol 2, 304 [53] - [55].
In undertaking his risk assessment, Dr Wynn Owen took a Structured Professional Judgment approach, taking into account static, historical and dynamic risk factors using a combination of actuarial tools, structured assessment guides and clinical assessment. Tools used were the Static-99R and Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP). Dr Wynn Owen acknowledged the need to consider results from these tools critically, in the absence of specific validation for use with Indigenous Australian offenders.[40]

Static 99-R

[40] Book of Materials Vol 2, 305 [61] - [62].

The Static-99R is an actuarial tool that is intended to position offenders in terms of their relative degree for risk for sexual recidivism based on commonly available demographic and criminal history information that has been found to correlate with sexual recidivism in adult male sex offenders. The respondent's score placed him in the 'Well Above Average Risk' group for likelihood of committing a future serious offence. Offenders with the same score in the high risk/high needs cohort had an approximately 26% likelihood of sexual reoffending within 5 years on release from custody and an approximately 37% likelihood of sexual reoffending within 10 years.[41]

Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP)

[41] Book of Materials Vol 2, 306 [65].

Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent's historical risk factors, namely chronicity and diversity of sexual violence and physical coercion remain present. As to dynamic factors, the respondent continues to present with problems with extreme minimisation and denial of sexual violence, problems with self-awareness, stress and coping, problems resulting from child abuse, problems with substance abuse and non-sexual criminality, and problems with planning, treatment and supervision, all of which are risk factors for sexual violence.[42]
[42] Book of Materials Vol 2, 306 - 307 [66] - [83].
Dr Wynn Owen continued to be of the view[43] that the respondent's diagnoses are antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder (in remission).[44] He concluded:
It is my opinion, based on historical offending behaviour over time, presence of Antisocial Personality Disorder, the Static 99-R score, and a range of dynamic risk factors identified in the RSVP, in particular problems with self-awareness, problems with stress and coping and problems with substance abuse, that [the respondent] presents a high risk of future serious offending if not subject to a HRSOA Restriction Order.[45]
[43] As expressed in previous reports: see Book of Materials Vol 1, 232, 278.
[44] Book of Materials Vol 2, 305 [59].
[45] Book of Materials Vol 2, 307 [85].
Dr Wynn Owen regarded the respondent's intention to remain abstinent from alcohol and drugs as positive although acknowledges his strategies are limited to avoidance through refusal and removal. He also noted that despite the respondent's understanding of the link between his substance use and his offending behaviour, the respondent has, in the past, returned to substance abuse on release.[46] Still, his most recent period in custody is the first time that the respondent appears to have wholly refrained from using illicit substances, which is, for him, a lengthy period of abstinence. This increases the prospect of him being able to abstain in the community.
[46] Book of Materials Vol 2, 307 - 308 [88] - [89].
In oral evidence, Dr Wynn Owen expressed the view that the frequency of urinalysis would, in effect, provide an early warning sign of increased risk on the part of the respondent. Having regard to his lengthy period of abstinence to date, Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the respondent's risk of serious offending is not likely to be imminent on the first occasion he relapses into drug use (if there is one), but will escalate over a period of time thereafter as drug use increases. However, as the respondent is well aware, even one positive urinalysis or void result is likely to result in his immediate return to custody.[47]
[47] ts 975 - 976.
The respondent's increased realisation of the fact that he is unlikely to be able to deceive the authorities in relation to any drug use and his greater awareness, through past experience, of the realistic outcome of him using drugs or providing a void sample, is also a circumstance which has changed since the last review.
While he acknowledged that the respondent was capable of knowing and saying what needs to be said to gain release, Dr Wynn Owen formed the view on this occasion that the respondent's desire to re-engage in treatment was expressed in a less glib manner, and his clinical impression was that there was a greater degree of sincerity on the part of the respondent. He considered this to be a change in the respondent's presentation since the last review.[48]
[48] ts 969.
Even if the respondent does not engage more fully, Dr Wynn Owen considered that further treatment would present an opportunity to reinforce existing learning and understanding and potentially develop a better understanding of re-offending risk and assist future self-management.[49]
[49] Book of Materials Vol 2, 303 - 304 [43] - [44], 308 [92].
Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that stable accommodation and reintegration support, as well as psychological support are essential to the respondent's release. In this regard, the respondent is likely in the near future to have stable accommodation available. He has also connected with a mentor through Uniting WA, which Dr Wynn Owen regards as a positive development.[50]
[50] ts 973.
Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the respondent could be properly managed on a supervision order, provided appropriate accommodation could be found. He recommended a supervision order of 5 years' duration be imposed, such period being substantially longer than the respondent has been free in the community as an adult. He considered that if the respondent were to remain offence free for such a period, that would demonstrate a significant behavioural change. In addition, any longer term is likely to engender resentment and increase the risk of supervision and management problems.[51]

Evidence of Dr Sarah Barbas (Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist)

[51] Book of Materials Vol 2, 308 [93] - [94].

Dr Barbas prepared a report dated 15 June 2023. In preparation for that report, she interviewed the respondent on two separate occasions and had access to Volume 1 of the Book of Materials prepared by the State for this hearing. Dr Barbas also spoke with the respondent's SCCO.[52]
[52] Book of Materials Vol 2, 293.
Dr Barbas reported that at the first interview, the respondent appeared suspicious and guarded taking time to adjust to the assessment, offering one-word, evasive answers, and demonstrating discomfort in discussing relevant information.[53] Dr Barbas ultimately described the respondent as compliant and demonstrating sustained attention through the assessment.[54]
[53] Demonstrated by his tendency to dominate the direction of the interview, speak over the interviewer and refuse to respond to some questions.
[54] Book of Materials Vol 2, 295 [15].
Dr Barbas formed the view that the respondent was adept at articulating relevant factors associated with his offending behaviour, but had notable difficulty providing meaningful conceptualisations reflective of increased insight.[55] When challenged on inconsistencies in his dialogue, the respondent was reportedly hostile, particularly in the context of his history of offending.[56]
[55] Book of Materials Vol 2, 295 [15]. This is consistent with an observation by Dr Galloghly in 2015 that the respondent 'has a quality of verbal intelligence that allows him to say the right things when needed. The challenge for him is to match his proclaimed insight and self-confidence with his behaviour.' Book of Materials Vol 1, 186 [29].
[56] Book of Materials Vol 2, 295 [16].
At the second session, the respondent brought with him documents intended to prove his innocence with respect to the contravention of the SO. Further, the respondent brought various newspaper clippings detailing political arguments regarding prison conditions and others who had been released to the community under the HRSO Act and used these to make an argument he was being detained unfairly.[57]
[57] Book of Materials Vol 2, 295 - 296 [16] - [17].
The respondent told Dr Barbas that he reached a 'stalemate' in previous psychological treatment because he was not guilty of particular prior offences. He reported he felt intervention was an opportunity for him to 'vent', allowing him to reduce his stress, although acknowledged he felt he had gained a 'better picture of the world' from it.[58]
[58] Book of Materials Vol 2, 296 [18].
The respondent reported he was aware that his lack of treatment progress was hindering future progression and stated he would comply with any future requirement to engage in intervention. At the same time, he indicated a lack of motivation to work on changing. He accepted he was 'pig-headed' and 'stuck in his ways'.[59]
[59] Book of Materials Vol 2, 296 [18].
He identified external factors as contributing to his offending, and asserted that future offending could therefore be avoided by self-management and never putting himself in a similar situation.[60]
[60] Book of Materials Vol 2, 296 [19].
The respondent maintained his stance of denial in relation to his adult sexual offences.[61] When asked about the contravention of the SO, the respondent denied responsibility and focused on describing his ongoing compliance with the conditions expressing that he felt he was doing well in the community.[62]
[61] Book of Materials Vol 2, 296 [20].
[62] Book of Materials Vol 2, 296 [21].
The respondent reported having a sexual interest in women of a similar age to himself. He added that some women are 'mad' and some are 'good' and that some women want to be 'bashed'. He clarified that he grew up around violence and that violence featured in some of his previous relationships. Dr Barbas reported that the respondent also alluded to a history of promiscuity and infidelity.[63]
[63] Book of Materials Vol 2, 296 - 297 [22].
The respondent reported that he maintains intermittent contact with his partner through friends and family, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to maintain a relationship with her because she is 'difficult to control'. He said that initially after release, he would have other priorities than resuming their relationship.[64]
[64] Book of Materials Vol 2, 297 [23].
The respondent cited his sister as his main pro-social support. He also identified as a support an ex-prisoner peer in the community. He acknowledged that the majority of his supports in the community are engaged in the criminal justice system or use substances. He described a lack of control over this and indicated plans to maintain these relationships, without seeking them out. He explained that he would attempt to learn from prior mistakes where he acknowledged he was 'hanging around the wrong crew'.[65]
[65] Book of Materials Vol 2, 297 [24] - [25].
The respondent told Dr Barbas he feels confident in his ability to refuse substances if offered, stating he is 'over' drug use. He explained his awareness of the 'vicious cycle' of substance use including cravings, having no money to purchase substances, stealing to fund substance use and this cycle resulting in 'bad things happening'.[66]
[66] Book of Materials Vol 2, 297 [24] - [25].
The respondent indicated to Dr Barbas that, if released, he would likely be too busy initially to obtain employment. However, an Aboriginal support group has requested he work with them as a mentor/support worker.
The respondent asserted that he would have no trouble finding work and would be happy to work anywhere. He further expressed the view that external controls in the community, such as reporting conditions, curfew, substance use testing and exclusions zones (with which he was willing to comply) would keep him offence free.[67]
[67] Book of Materials Vol 2, 297 - 298 [26].
The respondent indicated that he intends to reconnect with friends and family, after he has established secure accommodation. He expressed a desire to be a 'pillar of the society' and a role model for his nieces and nephews.[68]
[68] Book of Materials Vol 2, 297 [25].
Dr Barbas observed that there has been minimal change in the respondent's circumstances since the last review given that:
(1)he continues to deny responsibility for all but one of his sexual offences and for his contravention of the SO;
(2)he continues to lack insight into the violent nature of his previous sexual offending;
(3)he has misplaced over-confidence in his ability to self-manage stressors in the community; and
(4)he continues to demonstrate ongoing reluctance to dissociate from others who use substances.[69]
[69] Book of Materials Vol 2, 298 [27].
In Dr Barbas' view, while he is open to engaging in the recommended intervention, the respondent continues to be only externally motivated to do so, rather than in response to an intrinsic awareness of outstanding treatment needs associated with his history of offending and a desire to develop skills and strategies to assist in positive transition to the community.[70]
[70] Book of Materials Vol 2, 298 [28].
Dr Barbs said:
Mr Ugle's presentation during interview and prison behaviour reflects belligerent, manipulative, non-compliant and disruptive attitudes that will require significant external controls should he be progressed to a less restrictive environment in the future. Similarly, Mr Ugle has demonstrated hostile attitudes towards woman and sexual self-regulation problems that will require further oversight and close monitoring during any future period of supervision in the community. These attitudes appear pervasive and unlikely to change in the context of entrenched psychopathic and antisocial personality traits.[71]
[71] Book of Materials Vol 2, 298 [30].
Regardless of the outcome of the review proceedings, Dr Barbas did not recommend further psychological intervention until the respondent demonstrated increased motivation to engage meaningfully in such intervention.[72]
[72] Book of Materials Vol 2, 299 [31].
In the event the CDO was affirmed, Dr Barbas noted the respondent would be able to self-refer to psychological services. She recommended that the respondent's relationship with Uniting WA continue, that he should be encouraged to explore vocational and educational opportunities, and consideration should be given to transferring him to a medium/minimum security prison in preparation for any future transition to the community.[73]
[73] Book of Materials Vol 2, 299 [32].
Dr Barbas was of the view that, in the event that the respondent was released to a supervision order, he would likely require strict external controls to assist him to successfully reintegrate into the community including:
(1)collaboration with all relevant agencies including the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU), Uniting WA, the Sex Offender Management Squad (SOMS) and any other support services;
(2)involvement with a culturally safe support service including a mentor who could assist with practical support, substance use counselling and provide him a sense of connectedness to country, culture and community;
(3)any future contact with any partner or interpersonal relationship should be monitored;
(4)the respondent should be encouraged to develop culturally appropriate prosocial relationships;
(5)the respondent should be supported to obtain employment, either paid or voluntary, to assist development of a sense of purpose and reduce idle time in the community; and
(6)the respondent should be subject to frequent urinalysis.[74]

Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the offender (s 7(3)(b) HRSO Act)

[74] Book of Materials Vol 2, 299 [33].

I have reviewed the previous psychiatric and psychological reports prepared for and since the 2015 annual review. They are consistent with the reports of Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Barbas. They reveal early treatment gains since the respondent was first declared to be a dangerous sexual offender, in the areas of self-awareness, planning and supervision. However, since then his progress has been consistently hindered by his simplistic attitude towards abstinence from illicit substances, his denial or minimisation of his offending, and his difficulty in accepting the need to address the underlying factors involved in that offending. His primary motivation for complying with his SO was remaining in the community, and he had no apparent motivation to address any perceived criminogenic needs, rendering psychological intervention of limited value.

Community Supervision Assessment dated 7 July 2023

Ms Dabala, a SCCO, confirmed that the respondent has not engaged in any treatment programs since the last review, including any voluntary programs or groups. The respondent did say that he would be willing to participate in substance use counselling should he be released into the community.[75]
[75] Book of Materials Vol 2, 312.
Since the last review, the respondent has been described by prison staff to be quiet and not come to the attention of staff, to socialise well with others, and be polite, respectful and compliant.[76] However, the respondent is also reported to occasionally ignore staff instructions,[77] and has accrued a number of negative notes against him for behaviour such as being belligerent and argumentative towards staff, unauthorised possession of a television and other items, disruptive behaviour, smoking in the day room; ignoring staff instructions, and standing over other prisoners in his role of peer support prisoner.[78]
[76] Book of Materials Vol 1, 131.
[77] Book of Materials Vol 1, 139.
[78] Book of Materials Vol 2, 312.

Since February 2020, the respondent has been employed as a peer support worker.[79] However, in light of the negative notes, that employment was revoked.[80]
[79] Book of Materials Vol 1, 131, 135.
[80] Book of Materials Vol 2, 313.
The respondent returned a negative result on all five urinalysis tests and two breathalyser tests completed since August 2021.[81]
[81] Book of Materials Vol l, 178; Vol 2, 313.
Ms Dabala confirmed that the respondent has engaged with an Indigenous mentor facilitated by Uniting WA, which is able to continue if the respondent its released into the community.[82]
[82] Book of Materials Vol 2, 314.
More generally, the respondent continues to be supported by Uniting WA, which, at the time of the hearing, had sourced a private rental for the respondent.
The respondent has been on the waitlist with Department of Communities (DoC) housing since 2010. Ms Dabala reported that the respondent has not yet reached but is nearing 'turn reached' status to receive housing from the DoC. The Department is unable to provide an estimate of when the respondent will become 'turn reached'.[83] However, if the respondent is not able to take up accommodation within six months of being offered it, he will be taken off the list. Clearly, given the primacy Dr Wynn Owen has placed on stable accommodation as a factor relevant to risk, this would be a most undesirable outcome.

Information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future (s 7(3)(c) HRSO Act)

Whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender (s 7(3)(d) HRSO Act)

[83] Book of Materials Vol 2, 313 - 314.

In my view, the respondent has a propensity to commit serious sexual offences in the future, particularly if intoxicated. The respondent's past behaviour has all followed a relatively clear pattern involving opportunistic sexual violence upon a vulnerable female, committed within her own residence during the course of the commission of another offence and subsequent to substance use. There is no evidence that the respondent has addressed any of the underlying factors contributing to this behaviour, and accordingly there is no reason to have any confidence that he no longer has this propensity.

Any efforts by the offender to address the cause, or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme (s 7(3)(e) HRSO Act); and

Whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender (s 7(3)(f) HRSO Act)

In 1998 the respondent commenced, and then in early 1999 withdrew from, the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program. The respondent refused an offer to participate in this program later in 1999 and again 2012.[84] In 2010, he was offered a place in the Sex Offenders Deniers Program but declined to participate. In 2010, the respondent completed the Pathways Program with limited treatment gains observed.[85]
[84] Book of Materials Vol 2, 293 [7]; Ugle [No 2] [65] - [72].
[85] Book of Materials Vol 2, 293 [7].
The respondent completed 83 psychological treatment sessions with the Forensic Psychological Service (FPS) between October 2014 and May 2017 in both community and detention settings. He reportedly made gains associated with insight into his offence cycle, impact of his personality features on his rehabilitation, and development of his relapse prevention plans.
However, limited progress was observed in his understanding of the consequences of his substance use, motivation to abstain from substance use, and in respect to his sexual offending where resistance, dismissal and ongoing minimisation was noted. While the respondent was noted to have become more open and gained insight into his substance use, his engagement was superficial and limited due to ongoing denial and failure to disclose pertinent issues.[86]
[86] Book of Materials Vol 2, 294 [8].
In August 2017, the respondent's intervention was transferred to a new FPS psychologist and he engaged in 11 sessions between August 2017 and April 2019.
The respondent was able to offer a basic understanding of his offence cycle, stress management strategies and relapse plan. However, he was described as being dismissive and externally motivated throughout his intervention. The respondent was unable to identify factors associated with his sexual offending, did not demonstrate motivation to address his criminogenic needs, was unable to develop treatment goals and saw intervention as an opportunity to 'vent' and 'tick a box'. Ultimately, intervention ceased due to his ongoing stance of denial, limited treatment gains, exaggerated self-confidence about his ability to self-manage and limited probability he would engage meaningfully in further intervention.[87]
[87] Book of Materials Vol 2, 294 [9].
At the respondent's request treatment recommenced in October 2020, but it was ultimately agreed by the respondent and the psychologist that further sessions were not suitable in the context of his stated intention at that time to appeal his convictions.[88]
[88] Book of Materials Vol 2, 294 [9].
The respondent has not engaged in treatment since his last review. Dr Barbas indicated in her report that no recommendation was made in this regard as it was considered that there would be little to be gained from further intervention.[89] However, given Dr Wynn Owen's recommendation that the respondent engage with a psychologist to target specific issues,[90] and the fact that the respondent was willing to engage in counselling, he has been re-referred to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team.[91]
[89] Book of Materials Vol 2, 293 [14].
[90] Book of Materials Vol 2, 308 [94(i)].
[91] Book of Materials Vol 2, 316.
It remains a significant barrier to the reduction of risk on the part of the respondent that such efforts as he makes to engage in psychological intervention are externally motivated, and that he lacks the will or ability to address the underlying causes of his substance use and offending behaviour. The experts consider that, even if he maintains his denials of the offending, there are opportunities for him to engage in psychological intervention in a meaningful way. However, his fixed view that he is capable of abstaining from substances of his own will, and hence is no danger of re-offending, without the need for any further intervention prevents further gains.

The risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence (s 7(3)(h) HRSO Act)

As outlined above, Dr Wynn Owen is of the opinion that, in the absence of restriction, the respondent is a high risk of committing a serious offence. In my view, that opinion is based on cogent and acceptable evidence, and I accept it.

The need to protect members of the community from that risk (s 7(3)(i) HRSO Act)

The particular risk posed by the respondent is significant. His disregard for the sanctity of the homes of others, and his willingness to commit very serious sexual offences upon female occupants of those homes, is a dangerous combination, capable of doing severe harm to his victims. There is an undoubted need to protect the community from that risk.

Any other relevant matter (s 7(3)(j) HRSO Act)

Victim Submission

I have been provided with a victim submission, made pursuant to s 60 of the HRSO Act. The victim has consented to the submission being made available.
The submission, made by the victim of the index offence, whom I will call Ms A, compellingly details the long-lasting and extremely severe impact the respondent's offending had upon her. She notes that the respondent has exhibited no regret for his conduct and expresses her fear that any future offending on his part will be even more serious, and potentially fatal to a future victim.
Ms A understandably feels that she would be most protected by an order detaining the respondent. However, if the decision is made to release him, she says she would only feel adequately protected in the event of a supervision order being made.
In her submission, Ms A details certain conditions which she considers would ensure her adequate protection. All but one of those conditions will be expressly stated in the order. The remaining condition, regarding the respondent's movements within the State, will be able to be monitored as part of the electronic monitoring of the respondent.

Accommodation

Evidence has been adduced in this matter that suitable accommodation is available for the respondent, if he were to be released, under the Supported Accommodation Program contracted to Uniting WA. It is appropriate for the respondent's needs, and is situated in such a manner as to enable the respondent to attend supervision as required.
WA Police have carried out a Desktop Spatial Analysis in relation to the property. They have expressed some concerns regarding the property's proximity to other apartments and unit complexes and the ability to accurately monitor the respondent's location in the complex, although have indicated a preliminary view that it can be managed.
The unfortunate reality is that any affordable residential property within a reasonable distance of the locations which the respondent will be required to regularly attend as part of a supervision order is likely to involve similar issues. Further, ongoing monitoring is required to determine whether any issues will actually arise.
An opinion was sought from Dr Wynn Owen who expressed the view that the proposed accommodation is suitable, that the respondent will be able to be appropriately monitored, and that the proposed conditions of the supervision order will detect changed circumstances such that they can be acted upon promptly to prevent any increased risk.

Is the respondent a high risk serious offender?

While ultimately a matter for me to determine, it was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the evidence established him to be a high risk serious offender.
Based on the evidence adduced in the course of this review, which I consider to be cogent and acceptable, I am satisfied that the respondent remains a high risk of committing a serious offence, and, in particular, a serious offence of a sexual nature, in the absence of restriction.
It is most likely that any offence would occur when the respondent is intoxicated, and would occur in opportunistic circumstances.
The risk is enhanced by the continuing but misplaced confidence on the part of the respondent that he can continue to associate with friends and family who engage in substance abuse and merely refrain from engaging himself.
The severity of the likely harm which would result from such offending is significant.
Accordingly, in my view, the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence if not under restriction is unacceptable.
Having made those findings, I am satisfied, to a high degree of probability, that the respondent is a high risk serious offender.

Is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence?

There is no doubt that a restriction order is necessary to adequately protect the community. The issue is what kind of restriction is adequate to do so.

Continuing detention order or supervision order?

On the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is my view that a supervision order, with appropriate conditions, would provide adequate protection of the community.
I have formed this view having regard to the fact that, since the last review, the following factors have resulted in a change in the prospects of the respondent complying with such an order:
(1)the respondent's relationship with a mentor;
(2)the fact that the respondent has not been detected to have used any illicit substances since 2016;
(3)the respondent's increased awareness of the requirements of a supervision order and the consequences of non-compliance;
(4)the availability of stable accommodation.
Appropriate conditions include a curfew, electronic monitoring, regular (and random) urinalysis and conditions regarding the reporting of relationships and daily movements. The respondent will also have his electronic devices subject to scrutiny. He will be obliged to engage in regular reporting and psychological intervention. He will be supported in his accommodation and reintegration by Uniting WA and his mentor. In combination, the controls to which the respondent will be subject, and the supports which will be provided to him will give structure to the respondent, and enable early detection of any increased risk.
I must be satisfied that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of such an order, the onus of proving which lies on the respondent.
The respondent elected not to give evidence as to his intentions in relation to the order, preferring to rely upon the evidence adduced by the State.
That evidence is to the effect that, on his release to the previous SO, the principal concern was the respondent's relapse into drug use. His attitude towards his standard conditions and supervision was initially oppositional, but after a time he did adjust and became more compliant, although 'at times in a less than optimal manner.'[92]
[92] Ugle [No 5] [65] - [77].
The respondent has, on a number of occasions, described being declared subject to the DSO regime (and now the HRSO regime) as a 'blessing in disguise', noting the strict supervision and structure as being protective factors for him. He has also on occasion claimed that he did not have difficulties complying with the previous SO, but in 2018 told Dr Bannister that, 'I've never been as stressed out in all my life than when on this order.'
According to Dr Wynn Owen, the respondent appeared more genuine and 'authentic' when discussing his intention to comply with all conditions of any supervision order imposed on him. While the respondent is primarily externally motivated to comply with the conditions, in the sense that he desires above all to be released from custody, that in itself may be sufficiently powerful motivation for the respondent to remain offence free.
The previous contraventions on the part of the respondent resulted in his SO being rescinded after less than a year. He has been in custody for almost seven years since. He now appears to have a greater appreciation of the consequences that breaching a supervision order will have.
The respondent also has an opportunity to take up stable and enduring accommodation for the first time in a long time, if ever. He is aware that, if he breaches conditions of a supervision order, he is unlikely to have such an opportunity again for a very long time, if ever.
In all of those circumstances, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. In my view, the appropriate term of the order is five years, and he will be released on the conditions set out in the Schedule to these reasons.
At the specific request of the State, the respondent will be released on 16 August 2023. While that is earlier than the 21 days ordinarily required by s 27 of the HRSO Act, I am satisfied that it is practically feasible for the supervision order to be implemented by that date.

SCHEDULE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SO 2 of 2014

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant

-and-

WARREN JOHN UGLE Respondent

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER
ON 28 JULY 2023

_________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to section 68(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Act, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 5 years from 16 August 2023, on the following conditions:

You, WARREN JOHN UGLE, must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT

Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street East Perth on the day of release to this Order and advise the officer of your current name and address;

Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by that CCO;

Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens;

Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);
Not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO;
Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order;

Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31;

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Residence

Take up residence at [address redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

Not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO;

Attendance at programs or treatment

Consult, engage, attend appointments and receive visits from any psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, medical practitioner, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO;

Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO;

Reporting to WA Police

Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Management Squad at Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth Western Australia 6000, or other police station within 48 hours of your release from custody, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in Charge of the Serious Offender Management Squad or his/her delegate;

If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle, and/or search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this Order and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the Order;

When requested, advise Police of the names of all of your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services used by you and all internet user names or identities used by you;

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information;

Restrictions on contact with Victims

Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice;

Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture, and must avert your gaze from such victim at all times;

Criminal conduct

Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;

Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider;

Curfew

Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the Act, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time;

When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or front yard of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew;

When subject to a curfew under this order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew;

Medications/Mental Health

Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice;

Prevention of high-risk situations

Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO;

Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place;

Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 25;

Not remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by alcohol, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO;

Not remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by prohibited drug, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO;

Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place, or exit the person/s consuming substances;

Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations if and as directed by the CCO and present this diary to the CCO and Police Officer upon request;

Provide a verbal or written account of your projected daily movements to your CCO and obtain prior approval of your projected movements, as and when directed by your CCO; with the exception of the following circumstances;

(a)    To obtain urgent medical or dental treatment for yourself;
(b)    For the purpose of averting or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
(c)    To obey an order issued under a written law (such as a summons) requiring your presence elsewhere; or
(d)    At the direction of a CCO or Police Officer;

Report at your next contact with your CCO, the formation of any friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person;

As directed by your CCO, make full or part disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence a friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer;

Advise a CCO of every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or information, possessed or used by you, whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device;

Upon request, permit 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; and

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.

_______________________________
THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER

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
28 JULY 2023