1 This is an annual review under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA). The respondent's offending history is set out in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Dinah

3 The treatment progress since the last review has been outlined by Dr Wojnarowska in exhibit 10, page 50, and in detail by Ms Rankin, exhibit 11, between pages 66 and 68, and each of them expanded on their reports and their views in the course of evidence today.

4 Ms Rankin's opinions at exhibit 11, page 70, paragraphs 24 and 25, are striking in that they suggest that insufficient has changed from Jenkins J's conclusions to justify release on supervision. Dr Wojnarowska largely confirms this both in exhibit 10, at page 62, and her evidence. She does, however, note that:

Further detention could lead to institutionalisation and the loss of the small gains that the respondent has achieved (page 63).

5 This is a very real consideration as it is in everybody's interest that the respondent progresses eventually to the making of a supervision order. However, that has to be tempered by the paramount consideration, which is the adequate protection of the community.

6 Despite the gains which have been made, some of which remain untested, I consider that the risk to indigenous women in particular who come into contact with the respondent is so great that without further insights on his behalf and further positive improvement, I would decline to rescind the detention order at this time.

7 Whether this causes the respondent to regress is a matter in the end for him. He may continue to engage with counselling and develop realistic strategies to reduce his risk if his personality traits allow that. If not, he may have to face the prospect of being confined forever, although that is not my decision today.

8 But even if I was minded to make a supervision order otherwise, I could not do so at present. The respondent has no satisfactory accommodation. The fact that he has not progressed to the enhanced wing or Self Care Unit within Acacia Prison is significant, depending as it does in part on his formal application and his willingness to change. I would have expected him to have made advances in that area if he appreciated properly the stresses and decisions that will have to be made by him in the event that a supervision order was made releasing him into the community. So the fact that he has not done so is significant.

9 He has been in custody, except for a short period on supervision, for more than a decade and will undoubtedly need assistance to adjust. The process of adjustment will be stressful and I am not persuaded that the respondent at present has sufficient tools or protective behaviours to manage that stress in a way that will not increase his risk of reoffending. He has no confirmed employment, though he believes he can support himself through his art and says he could be employed by a Tshirt manufacturer.

10 The proposed accommodation with his sister comes after various options were sought and rejected. But that accommodation is quite unrealistic on the facts and for the reasons expressed by Ms Dabala at exhibit 12 and in her evidence this morning and afternoon.

11 Ms Dabala also outlined the difficulties in obtaining other housing.

12 The respondent is way down on the Department of Housing list and private accommodation is difficult for the reasons that she gave, including, of course, the fact that the respondent would be approaching a prospective landlord with a criminal history of sexual offending and has no income, although he does have some capital which could be put towards accommodation.

13 There are two major concerns outlined by Dr Wojnarowska: substance abuse and intimate relationships. These risks will not be reduced by the proposed accommodation with his sister. The risk of substance abuse is likely to be exacerbated having regard to the environment in which he would be living. As to intimate relationships, the respondent has not sexually offended against a partner in an intimate relationship. He has violently offended, but detention for that risk is not the purpose of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act.

14 However, and this is illustrated when the respondent was released on supervision, the instability of an intimate relationship itself will be likely to cause significant stress to the respondent, who has not developed adequate protective behaviours and lacks the insight to fully appreciate those potential stresses on his risk of sexual behaviour. I consider that much of these concerns, as outlined by Ms Dabala, would remain open even if the respondent finds accommodation by himself.

15 Mr McKenzie makes the good point that the respondent would be exposed to cannabis and alcohol, in any event, wherever he is and I accept that point. If that were the only objection to the proposed accommodation, it might be overcome, but there are other objections to it, as I have said, and moreover I doubt that anyone could guarantee that there would not be access to the premises by indigenous women at a time when the respondent was present.

16 In short, I have little confidence that the respondent has developed behaviours that will reduce the risk of his becoming intoxicated or being put in a position close to what he accepts as a risk: drunken women.

17 I am conscious that the respondent has made some gains. These are outlined by Dr Wojnarowska, and from the material supplied by the psychologist who has been working closely over the last year with the respondent, Ms Place. Moreover, the extent of his improvement cannot be adequately tested while he remains in custody as some of the stressors to be faced in the community are only necessarily theoretical when discussed in counselling within a safe prison environment.

18 I can understand the respondent's frustration from his point of view. As Dr Wojnarowska says:

The respondent has done all that has been asked of him in order to achieve a degree of liberation.

19 If there was suitable accommodation and the principal purpose of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act, was rehabilitation or therapeutic benefit, I would be inclined to make a supervision order. However, that is not the paramount purpose. The paramount consideration is the adequate protection of the community. I am completely unpersuaded that the high risk of sexual offending that the respondent poses can be adequately managed for the protection of the community. He has made insufficient gains in his behavioural changes and insight to justify the step of supervision at this time and I decline to rescind the continuing detention order.

20 That being the case, I have been concerned for some time that reviews which should be, under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act, as soon as practicable after one year, for various reasons are becoming delayed. So I propose to set the date of 11 November 2015 as the date of the next review. That is one day after the year that will expire on 10 November 2015. The DPP must file an application and it is better to set the date now so that everybody knows well in advance and can work towards it.

(1) I decline to rescind the continuing detention order.

(2) I set the next date of review as 11 November 2015.