1 JENKINS J: The respondent, Mark Robert Unwin, is the subject of a continuing detention order (CDO) made by Blaxell J on 13 January 2011 pursuant to the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (the Act) s 17: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Unwin

3 On 5 August 2016 and 2 September 2016 I heard the fifth annual review of the CDO (the 2016 review). At the conclusion of the hearing, I ordered that I expressly declined to revoke the CDO. These are my reasons for making that order. These reasons should be read together with all earlier reasons for the decisions made under the Act which relate to Mr Unwin.

4 The evidence at the 2016 review included Mr Unwin's Department of Corrective Services (DCS) records created since 5 August 2015. These records evidence that Mr Unwin was transferred to the Karnet Prison Farm (Karnet) in October 2015. On 29 January 2016 he was transferred to Casuarina Prison (Casuarina) where he has remained to date. He is currently residing in unit 6. He was transferred back to Casuarina because of inappropriate behaviour, as specified later in these reasons. I will discuss other relevant events since the 2015 review when summarising the reports prepared for the 2016 review.

5 Dr Peter Wynn Owen, consultant forensic psychiatrist, was appointed by the court to prepare a psychiatric report about Mr Unwin for the 2016 review. He also gave evidence at the 2016 review. In July and on 1 August 2016 Dr Wynn Owen conducted clinical interviews with Mr Unwin. Dr Wynn Owen also reviewed the relevant written material about Mr Unwin.

6 One of the documents reviewed by Dr Wynn Owen is a report of Dr Elizabeth Vuletich, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 22 November 2015. Dr Vuletich attempted to complete a neuropsychological assessment of Mr Unwin. Dr Vuletich reported that there were features in Mr Unwin's presentation and also his test results which raised concerns about Mr Unwin's level of application to the assessment. Consequently, Dr Vuletich terminated the assessment prematurely.

7 Dr Vuletich reported that Mr Unwin was somewhat antagonistic towards the assessment process and his level of application appeared reduced during formal testings. His performance on a formal measure of effort indicated that he may have been exaggerating his memory impairment. Coupled with the inconsistencies in his selfreport she had doubt about the validity of his assessment results.

8 Dr Vuletich said that Mr Unwin appeared to be attempting to portray himself as more cognitively impaired than would be expected. She concluded that whilst the documented history would suggest longstanding cognitive limitations and possible language difficulties, given the questionable validity of the current assessment, it was not possible for her to comment on the extent or specific nature of any current cognitive difficulty. Therefore she was unable to comment on whether Mr Unwin met the criteria of the Disability Services Commission (DSC) for cognitive disability.

9 Dr Vuletich said that Mr Unwin presented as a challenging man to assess. Nevertheless, if there were genuine underlying cognitive impairments, as she expects, it would be beneficial to advocate for Mr Unwin's involvement in the People with Exceptionally Complex Needs (PECN) programme.

10 Dr Vuletich concluded that it was conceivable that Mr Unwin may engage in a formal cognitive assessment with his treating psychologist, Ms Williams, using a much more gradual approach. She said that while she would normally advocate for an independent examiner, in Mr Unwin's case Ms Williams may be the preferred assessor.

11 Dr Wynn Owen reported that Mr Unwin is not currently taking any medication and prison records indicate that he has not been taking antipsychotic medication for over a year. Mr Unwin told Dr Wynn Owen that he had faked symptoms in the past in order to obtain antipsychotic medication. Mr Unwin has not experienced psychotic symptoms over the last year. Neither did he report any symptoms of anxiety, or depression to Dr Wynn Owen. He reported that his mood was stable currently. Dr Wynn Owen's examination of Mr Unwin confirmed this position.

12 Dr Wynn Owen conducted a risk assessment using the Static99 and Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol. Dr Wynn Owen concluded that Mr Unwin does not have a major mental illness. His assessment is consistent with the opinions of other psychiatrists who have completed previous reports for Mr Unwin's proceedings under the Act. Mr Unwin has an antisocial personality disorder and cognitive impairment. The latter condition is primarily the consequence of developmental problems which occurred prior to Mr Unwin's birth but it may also have been exacerbated by his solvent abuse. He does not fulfil the criteria for psychopathy.

13 Dr Wynn Owen said that over the last year Mr Unwin had attended counselling sessions from which he appeared to have gained little, until quite recently, in the way of understanding of risk scenarios or risk avoidance. Dr Wynn Owen said that Mr Unwin blamed his offending behaviour entirely on solvent intoxication.

14 Although Mr Unwin had previously insisted that he was exclusively homosexual, he had very recently disclosed to Ms Williams a lifelong sexual interest in women. Dr Wynn Owen said that this revelation required further exploration and a review of his past offending. Dr Wynn Owen is of the opinion that it is a positive disclosure as it reflects the benefit of the therapeutic relationship with Ms Williams and, potentially, means that Mr Unwin is becoming more aware of, or more willing to admit to, the motivations of his offending, at least to Ms Williams.

15 An alternative way of looking at it is that if the disclosure shows that Mr Unwin is becoming less conflicted or in denial about his sexual interests, it may indicate that Mr Unwin has taken a small step towards reducing his risks of serious sexual offending. There is also the possibility that the admission is another attempt to manipulate those involved in his care and management.

16 Dr Wynn Owen said that Mr Unwin did not evidence any substantial release planning. He appeared to be completely reliant on other people to support him in the community, in order to minimise his risk of reoffending.

17 Dr Wynn Owen reported that Mr Unwin's risk of future serious sexual offending remained high. He noted that the Static99 estimation of likelihood of reoffending is reinforced by the presence of antisocial personality disorder and cognitive impairment which have resulted in limiting Mr Unwin's ability to learn from past behaviours, difficulties with problem solving, impulsivity and poor planning and limited selfawareness and selfcontrol. Dr Wynn Owen also noted that this risk would be further escalated if Mr Unwin was intoxicated.

(1) Mr Unwin continue to have one to one counselling with a particular focus on sexual arousal content and patterns, in addition to a general exploration of risk scenarios, risks avoidance and selfawareness/selfmanagement;

(2) those managing Mr Unwin continue to try and develop his understanding and awareness of the risks associated with drug use and to develop substance use avoidance strategies;

(3) Mr Unwin have a gradual cognitive assessment as recommended by Dr Vuletich to clarify his IQ and identify general and/or specific areas of impairment to enable appropriate tailoring of therapeutic and management interventions;

(4) those managing Mr Unwin encourage engagement in prosocial group activities to assist his reentry into the community.

19 Dr Wynn Owen saw Mr Unwin on 1 August 2016 in order to follow up the information he had received about Mr Unwin's disclosure of a sexual interest in women. This information included the Forensic Psychology Dangerous Sex Offender Treatment Progress Report of Mr David Summerton dated 4 July 2016 and the Adult Community Corrections Community Supervision Assessment completed by Ms Jane Henshall dated 25 July 2016.

20 Dr Wynn Owen noted that Mr Summerton reported that Mr Unwin had revealed that he had a long standing sexual interest in women and that 'he described his enduring heightened sexual focus as being driven by a focus on females, this supposedly being the context of his fantasy even at times when he was involved in sexual interaction with men'. Mr Summerton also reported that Mr Unwin had told Ms Williams that he had not previously disclosed the extent or content of his fantasy and sexual arousal before because it would 'look bad for him in court'.

21 Dr Wynn Owen discussed these matters with Mr Unwin but Mr Unwin vehemently denied any sexual interest in women. Mr Unwin told Dr Wynn Owen that he had been significantly misinterpreted and he confirmed his exclusive homosexuality.

22 Contrary to what was repeated in Mr Summerton's report, Mr Unwin stated to Dr Wynn Owen that he had a low libido with very little sexual preoccupation. He also reported that he did not have sexual thoughts when masturbating. Dr Wynn Owen noted that this selfreport was not borne out by his observed behaviour and a previous comment to the doctor that he had to get out of jail as he 'can't go 5 years without sex'.

23 Dr Wynn Owen also discussed the use of synthetic cannabinoids in prison with Mr Unwin. Whilst Mr Unwin had disclosed to Ms Williams cannabinoid use on a number of occasions during the last year, Mr Unwin told Dr Wynn Owen that he had used Kronic (a form of synthetic cannabis) only on one occasion while at Karnet Prison and that his adverse experience had completely deterred him from future use. Again, Mr Unwin indicated that his comments to Ms Williams had been misunderstood and misinterpreted, possibly wilfully.

24 Dr Wynn Owen canvassed the possibility of hormonal antilibidinal therapy with Mr Unwin. He was aware of the treatment and also able to identify some of the more significant side effects such as osteoporosis, liver changes and risk of heart problems. Notwithstanding these, Mr Unwin stated that he would be willing to take a hormonal antilibidinal agent if it would get him out of prison.

25 Dr Wynn Owen believes that with appropriate information, Mr Unwin is capable of consenting to antilibidinal therapy.

26 Dr Wynn Owen said that Mr Unwin's recent disclosures to Ms Williams represented an opportunity for therapeutic intervention which potentially enabled development of strategies to reduce his risk of reoffending. He also said that such disclosure suggested the development of a trusting relationship with Ms Williams. However, Dr Wynn Owen noted that it is likely to be times of distress and emotional volatility which will increase the likelihood of Mr Unwin using pathological coping mechanisms and reoffending. In evidence Dr Wynn Owen said that it would be safest if the recent disclosure was explored with Mr Unwin when he was in custody.

27 In light of the second consultation with Mr Unwin, Dr Wynn Owen recommended consideration of an assessment for hormonal antilibidinal treatment. He said that such treatment may reduce Mr Unwin's libido and assist therapeutic intervention and lower the risk of reoffending.

28 In evidence, Dr Wynn Owen also said that, given the disclosure, antilibidinal or an alternative trial of an SSRI medication should also be investigated. Another proposal made during the hearing, is for the prison services to keep a record of Mr Unwin's daily behaviour over a block of time. Dr Wynn Owen says this would assist to understand the causes of his behaviour. Dr Wynn Owen acknowledged that this was not essential but he said it would be very valuable.

29 Mr David Summerton, counselling psychologist, completed a Forensic Psychology Service Dangerous Sex Offender Treatment Progress Report dated 4 July 2016. In addition to relevant written material, Mr Summerton interviewed Mr Unwin on 9 June 2016 and had ongoing consultations with Ms Williams. Mr Summerton also gave evidence at the 2016 annual review.

30 Since the 2015 annual review Mr Unwin has attended 32 counselling sessions with Ms Williams. A number of significant events have occurred in the same period. About two weeks after Mr Unwin's transfer to Karnet he became aware that a man who had subjected him to serious sexual abuse during his early adolescence was also a prisoner at Karnet. Ms Williams reported that Mr Unwin had been significantly unsettled by this fact. In evidence, Dr Wynn Owen said that he may well have been retraumatised by knowing that the perpetrator was in the same prison. While Mr Unwin was relieved when the perpetrator was transferred to another prison, he questioned how the DCS had allowed them to be located in the same prison. He reportedly made references to being retraumatised and to the possibility of being compensated.

31 Mr Summerton said that another attempt should be made to transfer Mr Unwin to a minimum security prison to test his ability to live in a less secure environment. This would also facilitate an independent living assessment.

32 A number of other concerns about Mr Unwin's behaviour and functioning arose until he was transferred back to Casuarina in January 2016. The concerns identified by prison management included reported predatory behaviour towards female staff members; accrual of gambling debts leading Mr Unwin requesting his mother to put money into his prison account and persistent calls to helplines seeking out female operators. There was a concern that this latter behaviour was sexually motivated.

33 The predatory behaviour was an apprehension that Mr Unwin was seeking to isolate female prison officers. He also offered to provide information in exchange for an opportunity to look at a female prison officer's breasts.

34 Following Mr Unwin's return to Casuarina, he refused contact with Ms Williams for his first three scheduled appointments. He apparently felt a sense of failure in his return to Casuarina. After counselling was resumed, Ms Williams reported that there was a sustained qualitative shift in Mr Unwin's approach to counselling. She noted that within his limitations he was making a more concerted attempt to reflect on his functioning and analyse his history.

35 Mr Unwin disclosed to Ms Williams that he regularly used synthetic cannabis during his placement at Karnet. Whilst he may have used synthetic cannabis as a coping response to his initial emotional upheaval of seeing the perpetrator of abuse, the synthetic cannabis was also likely to have further undermined his ability to cope.

36 Mr Unwin explained his compulsive use of telephone helplines as being a way of selfsoothing. Ms Williams reported to Mr Summerton that Mr Unwin had denied any sexual arousal or intent in making the calls. Mr Unwin said he had proposed the opportunity to look at a female officer's breasts as a form of bargaining for information about drugs in the prison. Ms Williams reported that Mr Unwin also disclosed the presence of 'evil thoughts' directed at women in response to emotional disturbance.

37 On the positive side, Mr Unwin appears to have moved beyond seeing Ms Williams as an object of sexual focus. Over time and despite him testing her, his orientation is gradually shifting towards using her to assist him to understand the appropriateness of certain behaviours and the impact of his behaviour on victims. Ms Williams described that Mr Unwin is increasingly prepared to volunteer material for discussion during counselling. His increased participation in counselling sessions has been accompanied by a significant body of written work completed in his own time. Ms Williams cautioned that Mr Unwin's increased motivation did not necessarily translate into increased insight. However, it is a positive sign.

38 Ms Williams indicated that the reliability of information provided by Mr Unwin remains an issue. For example, Mr Unwin had admitted to Ms Williams that he had repeatedly used synthetic cannabis but he had informed her that he would only acknowledge one instance of use to Mr Summerton, even though he accepted that Ms Williams would relay to Mr Summerton an accurate account of his admissions to her.

39 Ms Williams reported that Mr Unwin's understanding of his offending and the link between boredom, solvent use and his fascination and urges with respect to female breasts remained fairly basic.

40 Consistent with previous assessments, Ms Williams reiterated that structured living and supported arrangements were central to Mr Unwin maintaining stability in the community. As to the conditions of his possible release, Ms Williams said that Mr Unwin was an inherently social individual and he would find time spent alone, for example under curfew, to be challenging.

41 In June 2016, approximately two weeks after Mr Summerton's initial interview with Mr Unwin, a female prison officer reported seeing Mr Unwin masturbating openly during two cell checks over the course of one evening. The officer in question reported that on each occasion Mr Unwin made no attempt to hide his behaviour and he was staring at the window hatch. She formed the view that Mr Unwin timed the occurrences so that night staff were able to see his behaviour.

42 Ms Williams spoke to Mr Unwin about this behaviour. He denied specifically targeting the female prison officer. He described having an extremely high sex drive for as long as he could remember. He said that his rate of masturbation had increased dramatically recently to several times per day. He reportedly attributed this increase to the transfer of his regular sex partners to Acacia Prison and the confiscation of prisoners' Xbox gaming consoles. He linked his high level of sexual activity to boredom and sexual arousal.

43 Ms Williams said that Mr Unwin then described his enduring heightened sexual interest as being driven by a focus on females. Ms Williams questioned Mr Unwin as to why he had not previously disclosed the extent of his sexual arousal with respect to women. He responded that he had feared that it would 'look bad for him in court'. On the basis of his disclosure, Ms Williams had raised the possibility of assessment for antilibidinal medication and she said that Mr Unwin appeared amenable to such a proposal.

44 The significance of Mr Unwin's disclosure to Ms Williams has to be measured in light of the general unreliability of Mr Unwin's selfreporting. It also has to be analysed in light of his denial of any sexual interest in women, when he was questioned about the issue by Dr Wynn Owen.

45 Mr Summerton spoke to Mr Unwin about any progress he felt he had made during therapy with Ms Williams. He was unable or unwilling to elaborate on his experience of counselling other than saying it was 'good'. His answers were also sparse to questions about the content of his counselling.

46 Mr Summerton noted that Mr Unwin became more conciliatory when he discussed a piece of his written work which contained a list of issues that had been addressed in counselling. His discussion of those items remained minimal until his longstanding interest in female breasts was discussed. In respect of that issue he made the claim that he was beginning to overcome his longstanding interest. He said that he knows that he can now overcome his desire to touch women's breasts. He attributed his allegedly newfound capacity for control to Ms Williams and to the length of time he has spent in prison. He reported that he had a good therapeutic relationship with Ms Williams. He complained that the length and frequency of his sessions with her was not sufficient.

47 Mr Unwin spoke of a number of risk factors which he considered relevant to his future selfmanagement. He maintained that substance use, primarily solvents, was the most significant risk factor. He said his fixation on breasts was currently less of an issue for him. He said that should his interest resurface he could either use the services of a prostitute or pornography to satisfy it. If the fixation became intrusive and/or disturbing he said he would talk to his support workers. However, he emphasised that prostitutes would be available at all times. He also reported that he would think about the impact of his offending on his victims.

48 Mr Unwin reported that he currently has no friends in the community. He said that this was of little of concern to him. He said that he would seek only occasional contact with his mother and brother. He was able to identify activities which he would occupy his time with if released such as playing his Xbox.

49 Mr Unwin reported no psychotic symptoms but stated that he sometimes experienced 'evil thoughts' which he claimed tended to subside of their own accord. He was reticent to elaborate on such thoughts, but inferred that they were related to significant sexual abuse that he had suffered as an adolescent.

50 In respect of changes from the position at the 2015 review, Mr Summerton noted:

(1) although it is not clear whether Mr Unwin would have engaged in inappropriate behaviour at Karnet if he had not met the perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse again, that behaviour and the use of synthetic cannabis brought into question Mr Unwin's capacity for appropriate selfmanagement in a community setting;

(2) there has been a positive qualitative shift in Mr Unwin's level of therapeutic engagement such that Mr Summerton is now of the opinion that he may be able to reduce his risk of serious sexual offending whilst in custody;

(3) he has recently disclosed an enduring sexual interest in women, however the precise nature of his sexual interest, including the degree to which deviance is a factor, remains unclear and needs to be pursued in therapy and in custody in order to protect the community;

(4) assessment for antilibidinal medication appears to be appropriate action given Mr Unwin's recent admissions;

(5) despite a current intention to refrain from all drug use, monitoring signs of substance abuse will be an ongoing component of Mr Unwin's management should he be released;

(6) it is notable that Mr Unwin did not resort to requesting antipsychotic medication after his transfer to Karnet and despite extended emotional disturbance over the year;

(7) contrary to Mr Summerton's previous position regarding the unlikelihood of progress in a custodial setting, Mr Unwin had engaged in the counselling process in a more positive way since the last annual review; and

(8) structured living arrangements and support will be fundamental to continuing stability in the community if Mr Unwin is released.

51 Ms Jane Henshall, senior community corrections officer, completed an Adult Community Corrections Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 25 July 2016. At my direction an updated Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 31 August 2016 was completed by Ms Henshall, regarding the outcome of a referral for Mr Unwin to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and the scope of potential services available to Mr Unwin under the NDIS if Mr Unwin was in the community on a supervision order. I will not repeat the material contained in those reports if I have already referred to it.

52 In October 2015, the day before Mr Unwin was transferred to Karnet, he reported to a nurse that he had homicidal thoughts associated with killing brothel workers and clients. This was said when he was attempting to obtain psychotic medications and prior to him reporting being aware that the perpetrator of abuse against Mr Unwin was incarcerated at Karnet.

53 Ms Henshall provided more detail to the allegedly predatory behaviour that Mr Unwin engaged in when he was at Karnet. His actions included constantly attending the unit control window to make conversation with a female officer, whilst making no attempt to talk to any other officers. He also asked to speak to the officer in private. On other occasions he visited the office of the female visiting senior community corrections officer (SCCO) whilst she was attending Karnet. Although the officer made it clear on each occasion that Mr Unwin was not to engage with her but with his supervising senior community corrections officer, he continued to walk in without invitation and sit down. On another occasion he inappropriately touched a female staff member on the shoulder and requested to see the breasts of another in return for providing information on criminal activity within the prison.

54 Since the 2015 annual review, liaison with RUAH community services (RUAH) has continued. On 9 May 2016, RUAH advised that Mr Unwin meets the requirements under the Personal Helpers and Mentors (PHaMs) programme. However, through this programme he would only receive between 3 5 hours of mentoring support per week for up to two years and he must reside in the RUAH Armadale catchment. It was suggested that a referral to the Western Australian NDIS be explored.

55 Although a referral to the NDIS was accepted, the coordinator of the scheme has advised that Mr Unwin would not be found eligible for assistance based on the current information initially provided. The coordinator requested that the psychiatric reports previously submitted to the court be provided to the assessors to further assist in determining Mr Unwin's suitability. Whilst the permission to release the reports has been granted by the consultant psychiatrists, Mr Unwin's status with the NDIS remains undetermined.

56 In August 2016 report, Ms Henshall advised that Mr Unwin's eligibility was still being reviewed by WA NDIS management, including the specialist eligibility team. Due to the complexity of Mr Unwin's case the determination of his eligibility may take longer than previously anticipated and it was not possible to provide a date when a decision may be expected. Mr Gilbert, the WA NDIS coordinator had informed Ms Henshall that should Mr Unwin be accepted, he will need to voluntarily engage with it. He advised WA NDIS does not have the power to compel, direct or control a client's behaviour.

57 As of November 2015, the Public Trustee agreed to release funds to Mr Unwin for private accommodation but only on certain conditions. The agreement is for 12 months only, although the agreement can be revisited. Another condition is that a private rental property solely in Mr Unwin's mother's name would not be supported by the Public Trustee.

58 In any event, attempts to obtain private accommodation for Mr Unwin have been unsuccessful. The attempts have been mainly made by his mother and she has found that it is extremely difficult to obtain private accommodation for Mr Unwin given his custody status and given the uncertainty of a release date.

59 Ms Henshall concluded that there is currently no accommodation for Mr Unwin in the community.

60 Recent information has been received that RUAH is undergoing a restructure and assistance from RUAH will only be available if Mr Unwin is accepted by the NDIS.

61 Regarding another assessment of Mr Unwin's cognitive abilities, the identification of a person to undertake that assessment and a timeframe for such an assessment, Ms Henshall advised that a further neuropsychological assessment of Mr Unwin will address the same issue as that detailed at the beginning of the neuropsychological report completed by Dr Vuletich dated 22 November 2015. The assessment will be conducted by Dr Vuletich. It has been agreed that Ms Williams will be present during the assessment interviews to assist in making him feel more settled in the process.

62 Dr Vuletich informed Ms Williams, that upon Mr Unwin engaging appropriately in a number of interviews, she would require approximately four weeks to compile the assessment. Upon receipt of a formal referral, Dr Vuletich will liaise with Ms Williams to organise the interviews with Mr Unwin.

63 Mr Unwin has been informed of, and initially responded in a positive manner to the above plan. However, on 26 August 2016 he telephoned Ms Williams and told her he no longer wished for her to be present during the neuropsychological assessment. He assured her that he would present in a manner to secure NDIS funding. Mr Unwin also advised he wanted to be transferred out of Casuarina and would not engage with Ms Williams, or any other DCS staff member involved in his DSO matters, until he was transferred. Further, he informed her that he was planning to speak to his lawyer, Ms Barone, and inform her that he did not want to proceed with this annual review and that he was prepared to stay in custody for another year. This did not occur.

64 Ms Williams made further contact with Mr Unwin on 29 August 2016. When questioned about their previous conversation, Mr Unwin indicated he was stressed about his court matter and was concerned he would be required to remain in Casuarina over the following months to participate in any assessment. He informed her that his stress was increased due to the possibility he would not be successful in obtaining release at the conclusion of the 2016 review.

65 Ms Henshall reported that this attitude is characteristic of Mr Unwin's engagement with individuals involved in his DSO matter. She referred to Dr Wynn Owen's comment that Mr Unwin has difficulties with impulsivity as demonstrated by his reaction to his ongoing court matter. Further of concern is Mr Unwin's use of manipulative behaviours to have his needs met. She identified his declaration that he would cease contact with Ms Williams and all others involved in his case management until he was transferred to another prison as an example of his impulsive and manipulative behaviour.

66 Regarding whether an independent living assessment for Mr Unwin can occur at Casuarina, the scope of such an assessment, who would conduct the assessment and the timeframe for the completion of the assessment, Ms Henshall reported that it was determined that an Occupational Therapist would be most suited for the assessment. However, the capability of such an assessment being conducted in Casuarina is yet to be determined. Dr Cherelle Fitzclarence, Deputy Director of Health Services DCS who is currently in discussions with the Manager of Planning Programs and Policy DCS as to if and how an assessment may be facilitated in Casuarina.

67 Dr Wynn Owen is of the opinion that an independent living assessment to determine if Mr Unwin is capable of caring for himself, arranging transport, budgeting, etc is highly desirable prior to Mr Unwin's release. Otherwise, Mr Unwin could be released into a situation in which he was bound to fail and the community was put at risk.

68 I am grateful to Ms Henshall and the other people who were involved in following up these issues at my request.

69 The Act s 33 requires a judge to rescind a CDO if the judge does not find that the relevant dangerous sexual offender remains a serious danger to the community. If a judge finds that the dangerous sexual offender remains a serious danger to the community, the judge may either expressly decline to rescind the CDO, or rescind the CDO and make a supervision order.

70 In deciding whether to decline to rescind the CDO or make a supervision order, the judge is required to adopt the least restrictive alternative which is compatible with the protection of the community: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297. The Act s 33(3) says that the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.

Does Mr Unwin remain a serious danger to the community?

71 Mr Unwin's counsel did not dispute that Mr Unwin remains a serious danger to the community.

72 I was and remain satisfied on the basis of Dr Wynn Owen's expert testimony and all of the evidence that Mr Unwin is a serious danger to the community. There have been no significant changes in the last year to reduce Mr Unwin's risk of serious sexual offending. The causes of his serious sexual offending are not understood, either by the experts or by Mr Unwin. Neither are the means by which his risk can be reduced, other than by restraint, understood.

Whether to expressly decline to rescind the CDO or rescind the CDO and make a supervision order?

73 As I stated in my reasons for declining to rescind the CDO at the conclusion of the 2015 review [106], Mr Unwin's risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released into the community can only be managed in a highly supported environment. This would require him to be placed in private accommodation with daily mentoring services for a period of time as well as other support.

74 Such accommodation and related support and mentoring was not available at the time of the 2015 review. Neither was it available at the time of the 2016 review. Mr Unwin's counsel conceded that the mentoring services were not currently available or likely to be available in the short term. Therefore, it was not appropriate for me to rescind Mr Unwin's CDO and make a supervision order.

75 In coming to this decision, I also took into account the events over the last 12 months. Mr Unwin's inappropriate and sexualised behaviour at various points over the last 12 months indicates to me that the community could not be adequately protected at this point if Mr Unwin was released into the community. It remains the case that Mr Unwin's behaviour becomes unpredictable and inappropriate when he is under stress. Until he becomes more resilient to stressors, the community will not be able to be protected by a supervision order. The least restrictive alternative which was compatible with the protection of the community required me to expressly decline to rescind the CDO.

76 Each of the matters referred to by Dr Wynn Owen should be pursued over the next 12 months including considerations of a trial of antilibidinal medication or an SSRI. Counselling should preferably continue with Ms Williams, whilst that remains a positive relationship. Dr Wynn Owen's suggestion that a daily record be kept of Mr Unwin's daily behaviour over a block of time ought to be investigated, after discussion with Ms Williams. If this was done for a set period of time, an assessment could be made by those managing Mr Unwin to determine whether the process was worthwhile.

77 It is also important that options for the supported accommodation of Mr Unwin in the community be pursued. At this point, it seems unlikely that Mr Unwin will be ready for release at the conclusion of the 2017 review. Nevertheless, unless supported accommodation and highly structured support in the community is available to him, his chances of release will be further diminished. Similarly, an independent living assessment is going to be required prior to his release, for use in the application to NDIS and to determine whether he has the capacity to live independently and it has not that capacity to determine what if anything can be done to improve his capacity.

78 Further attempts should be made to ensure that if Mr Unwin needs to see a psychiatrist, he see the same person. Given Mr Unwin's cognitive problems genuine engagement and understanding is only likely to occur in a stable doctor/patient relationship.

79 It should also be ascertained whether Mr Unwin is ready for transfer back to a minimum security prison to test his capacity to live in an environment where he has more freedom. This should probably not be a transfer to Karnet, given the negative experience Mr Unwin had at Karnet at the end of 2015.

80 The processes involved in seeking support from NDIS should continue and be pursued. This is so because it would be beneficial if a mentor could be provided to Mr Unwin who could commence working with him whilst he was in custody.

81 It is important that Mr Unwin's management should be progressed over the whole 12 month period; rather than in a month leading up to the next annual review.