ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SSA by his guardian ad litem THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE [2026] WASC 123 (13 April 2026)

1. On 21 May 2023 the respondent was indicted for the offence of armed robbery contrary to s 392(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) which was alleged to have occurred on 31 January 2022 (IND 386 of 2023).[8] The respondent was remanded in custody at Hakea Prison.
2. The respondent was found unfit to plead and stand trial in relation to the charge. The indictment was quashed, and a custody order was made pursuant to s 19 of the now repealed Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA).[9]
3. In February 2024 the Mental Impairment Accused Review Board considered the respondent's case and pursuant to s 25 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act ordered that the respondent be detained in custody at the Frankland Centre until such a time as determined otherwise by the Board or until released by order of the Governor.[10]
4. From 1 September 2024 the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act was repealed and replaced by the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act.
5. Section 254 of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act allows a custody order which was in place under the repealed Act immediately before the commencement of the new Act to have effect as if it were a custody order made under pt 5 of the new Act. Therefore, the custody order made with respect to the respondent was taken to be a custody order made under s 46(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act.
6. On 19 September 2024 the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal made a leave of absence order with respect to the respondent pursuant to s 73(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act.[11] Among other things, that order permitted an escorted leave of absence by the respondent to access the grounds of Graylands Hospital for up to two hours per day, subject to the approval of the treating psychiatrist.[12]
7. In November 2024 a limiting term order was made by a judge of the District Court on the respondent's previously indefinite custody order.[13] A limiting term of three years and six months was fixed, taken to have commenced on 31 January 2022, as before the custody order was made the respondent had spent two years and 22 days in custody in relation to the offending.[14]
8. On 4 April 2025 the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal pursuant to s 64(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act determined to change its determination as to the place where the respondent was to be detained from the Frankland Centre to a prison.[15] The reasons for the determination are reproduced at sch A to these reasons.
9. The Tribunal also determined pursuant to s 73(1)(d)(ii) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act, to vary the conditions of the respondent's leave of absence order dated 19 September 2024.[16] Among other things, the condition which permitted escorted leave of absence to access the grounds of Graylands Hospital was removed. The respondent was moved to Hakea Prison.
10. The limiting term was due to expire on 31 July 2025. The effect of a limiting term is that, once the term expires, the custody order ceases to have effect and the person in custody is entitled to be released unless this Court grants an extension by way of an extended custody order.[17] On 29 May 2025 the applicant applied for an interim custody order pursuant to s 107(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act. Having determined that s 107(2) was satisfied, on 24 June 2025 Whitby J ordered that the respondent would be subject to an interim custody order pending the final determination of this application.[18]
11. On 31 July 2025 the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal made a leave of absence order which included the following conditions (and which as at the hearing of the application remained in place):[19]

(a) Escorted leave of absence for the purpose of receiving emergency, medical, dental or other such treatment which is not available at the place of custody.

(b) To comply with all instructions from the treating psychiatrist and/or medical practitioner and/or mental health team, including taking appropriate medications as directed.

(c) To comply with the lawful directions of the Supervising Officer.

(d) Escorted leave of absence on compassionate, cultural and/or religious grounds, including funerals, subject to the approval of the superintendent or their delegate, as per Corrective Services policy.

1. The application is brought pursuant to pt 7 of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act, which part concerns extended custody and community supervision orders.
2. In Attorney General v PHB by his guardian ad litem the Public Trustee [2025] WASC 312 at [33] to [62], Lundberg J comprehensively described the legislative framework in which the application concerning the respondent was made. In the determination of this application, I adopted his Honour's description as if reproduced here in full and applied the same.

1. At the hearing of this application on 20 February 2026 a book of materials in three volumes was received into evidence without objection.[20] The first volume was dated 10 September 2025,[21] the second volume was dated 2 December 2025,[22] and the third volume was dated 11 February 2026.[23]
2. The first volume contained a copy of the respondent's Western Australian criminal record; a chronology of offending prepared by the State Solicitor's Office dated 14 March 2025; a copy of the indictment and statement of material facts for IND 386 of 2023; the transcript from the District Court custody order hearing; the psychiatric report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 22 July 2023; the custody order made by the learned District Court judge in February 2024; the place of custody order; the addendum to the statement of material facts for the limiting term hearing; the transcript from the District Court limiting term hearing; the limiting term order made by a judge of the District Court in November 2024; various materials relating to offending by the respondent since 31 October 2008, including prosecution notices, statements of material facts, transcripts and sentencing remarks; various materials provided by the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal (with date ranges from November 2019 to April 2025), including Tribunal reports and orders, psychiatric and medical reports, and breach advice; the respondent's placement history for the period between 1 February 2022 and 28 May 2025 provided by the Department of Justice; the State Administrative Tribunal guardianship and administration orders dated 23 July 2020 and 17 May 2025; and the respondent's National Disability Insurance Agency plan approval letter dated 12 December 2024.
3. The second volume contained a copy of a letter from the State Forensic Mental Health Service to Adult Community Corrections, Department of Justice dated 8 October 2025; various medical records received from the State Forensic Mental Health Service, including the psychiatric report of Dr Rachel Kovac dated 27 June 2024 provided to the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board, case conference notes of Dr Tobias Richards dated 19 March 2025, and the psychiatric report of Dr Devendra Makesar dated 25 March 2025 provided to the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board; various medical records and related documents, including progress reports, pathology results, Yes Ability Behaviour Support documents, a psychological formulation and treatment plan of Dr Robert Bonett dated 29 November 2024, various State Forensic Mental Health Service Psychiatric Services On Line Information System documents, and correspondence to the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board; hospital discharge summaries (from date range October 2012 to April 2025); and progress notes (from date range 1 February 2022 to 28 June 2025).
4. The third volume contained various reports provided by the Department of Justice, namely the psychological report of Wendy Wager dated 25 April 2013, the psychological pre‑sentence report of Tanina Oliveri dated 21 August 2016, and the psychiatric report of Dr Dhanjinder Rooprai dated 29 September 2025.
5. The reports prepared for the purposes of this application were also reproduced in the third volume. They were the psychiatric report of Dr Peter Andrew Wynn Owen dated 12 January 2026, and the Adult Community Corrections extended order assessment report of Nicola Lloyd dated 23 January 2026.
6. At the hearing of the application on 20 February 2026 the applicant called two witnesses who with leave gave evidence beyond their reports.[24] They were:

(a) Dr Wynn Owen, a forensic psychiatrist and author of the psychiatric report dated 12 January 2026; and

(b) Ms Lloyd, senior community corrections officer and author of the Adult Community Corrections extended order assessment report dated 23 January 2026.

1. During the course of the hearing, the respondent did not give evidence and no documentary evidence was tendered on his behalf. The respondent attended the hearing via video link and upon his request was given leave to not attend for its duration.[25] The findings, therefore, were grounded upon the documentary evidence including the reports received, the evidence of the two witnesses called on behalf of the applicant, and the cross‑examination of the applicant's witnesses.
2. The Court also had the benefit of an outline of submissions filed on behalf of the applicant on 18 February 2026. Submissions were also made on behalf of the parties by their respective counsel at the hearing of the application.

1. Section 123(4) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act identifies the material that the Court may receive in evidence for the purposes of determining an application under pt 7 (which includes an application made under s 110(1)). Consistent with the approach adopted by Lundberg J in Attorney General v PHB by his guardian ad litem the Public Trustee at [58], I proceeded on the basis that the matters referenced in s 123(4) provide a useful framework through which to consider the two stage assessment required by s 110(3), and had regard to the following.

The respondent's personal circumstances and criminal record

1. The respondent was a 34 year old man (at the date of the hearing). He has an established diagnosis of chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia with persistent paranoid psychosis combined with antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder (as is discussed further below).
2. He has been held at the Frankland Centre and at Hakea Prison since being found unfit to stand trial. Since 4 April 2025 he has been held at Hakea Prison as his behaviour was deemed unmanageable in the Frankland Centre.[26] Since his return to Hakea Prison in April 2025 he has had no family or social visits.[27] Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent has no support from family and no social network.[28]

1. The respondent is the youngest of two children, having an older brother. It was recorded in earlier reports that his upbringing was 'terrible', involving a disabled mother, an abusive father, and episodes of neglect.[29] Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent had impaired attachment with his mother due to her excessive alcohol consumption and him having chronic pain as an infant due to an undiagnosed infected abscess. He was reported to have evidenced behavioural disturbance at home and at school. At primary school the respondent was disruptive and regularly reprimanded for aggressive behaviour and fighting. He was expelled from high school in year 10 having continued the pattern of early behaviour.[30]
2. The respondent's mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 10 or 11 years old, which led to parental separation. His father was later diagnosed with cancer.

1. When the respondent left school, he commenced an apprenticeship in carpentry which he did not complete. He then moved through several short‑term unskilled jobs. He had been unemployed since his early 20's.[31]

1. The respondent has a significant history of substance use. He first used inhalants (petrol sniffing) at the age of eight. He was recorded as using alcohol and cannabis at the age of 10, and by age 12 had started to smoke amphetamines.
2. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent continued to use alcohol and a range of illicit substances when he was able to access them, and has a history of misusing prescribed psychotropic medications and of doctor shopping for benzodiazepines.[32] He opined that the respondent's presentation met the criteria for a substance use disorder, particularly in relation to methamphetamine and cannabis.[33]

1. The respondent has established diagnoses of chronic treatment resistant schizophrenia with persistent paranoid psychosis, combined with antisocial personality disorder, and substance use disorder/polysubstance misuse disorder.[34]
2. The respondent first engaged with mental health services in October 2012 when he was 21 years old, when he was admitted to hospital insistent on having a microchip removed from his head. He reported a three month history of auditory hallucinations (derogatory voices) and paranoid delusional beliefs. Dr Wynn Owen suggested that the onset of the respondent's schizophrenia would have been 18 months to three years prior to this first presentation.[35]
3. Over the years the respondent has been subject to numerous admissions to psychiatric facilities with diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, drug induced psychosis, polysubstance abuse, and antisocial personality disorder. His schizophrenia is treatment‑resistant, having undergone trials of multiple antipsychotics, including depot medications and a short term trial of clozapine.[36]
4. During the course of his evidence, Dr Wynn Owen explained that particularly during the later admissions, while the respondent's admission diagnosis was often schizophrenia, his discharge diagnosis was often, to some extent, recast to prioritise the personality symptoms, and his behaviours were deemed, often, unmanageable by the services trying to treat him.[37] Dr Wynn Owen further explained that these personality traits along with his substance use disorder likely arose as a consequence of his schizophrenia, and in the context of the respondent taking substances as a method of treating his symptoms.[38]

1. For the purpose of this application the applicant provided a copy of the respondent's Western Australian criminal record and prepared a chronology of relevant offending dated 14 March 2025. The chronology outlined the date and nature of the offence; a high level summary of the material facts for the offence; the date of outcome; and the sentence imposed.
2. The respondent has been charged with three offences which are classified as 'serious offences' under the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act. The most recent of these being the offence for which he was declared unfit to stand trial and made subject to a custody order. This is described as the 'index offence' by the applicant.
3. As to the serious offences, first, while a juvenile, the respondent was charged with one count of aggravated robbery contrary to s 392(d) of the Criminal Code. On 31 October 2008 the respondent and two co‑offenders robbed a man in a park stealing his personal property.[39]
4. Secondly, in 2016 the respondent was charged (among other things) with one count of criminal damage by fire contrary to s 444(a) of the Criminal Code.[40]
5. The details of the offending as summarised by the State Solicitor's Office were as follows:[41]

At 8:30am on 7 May 2016, the Respondent was at his mother's home. He had received a telephone call advising him that a caravan that was stored at the property by [the victim] was about to be removed from the rear garden. The Respondent understood that [the victim] had entered an agreement to store his caravan there in return for paying rent to the Respondent's mother. A dispute had arisen as to whether all the payments were up to date. The Respondent attended to prevent [the victim] from removing the caravan. A verbal altercation commenced between the Respondent and [the victim] and during the altercation the Respondent produced a large knife with a 15cm blade and held it in a threatening manner causing [the victim] to fear for his safety. He left without the caravan.

After [the victim] left, the Respondent located a jerry can with a small amount of fuel in the rear garden. [T]he Respondent approached the caravan threw the fuel inside the caravan and used a lighter to ignite the fuel that immediately started a fire. The caravan and its contents were completely destroyed before Department Fire and Emergency Services officers extinguished the fire.

1. He was also charged with one count of being armed so as to cause fear contrary to s 68(1) of the Criminal Code.
2. Thirdly, the respondent was charged with the index offence, being one count of armed robbery contrary to s 392(c) of the Criminal Code.[42] The respondent was then 30 years of age. The details of the offending as summarised by the State Solicitor's Office were as follows:[43]

On 31 January 2022 at about 2:00pm, the Respondent was at his home address in Morley with his carer. [T]he Respondent told his carer, 'I'm going to rob the BP' and walked away from his home.

At about 2:05pm, the Respondent walked into BP Embleton and approached the counter, asking for cigarettes. The staff member told him he would have to pay for them.

While holding a knife in his hand, the Respondent said, 'I'm going to jump this counter and stab you. Just give me a pack of cigarettes.' The staff member and the manager hid in the storeroom and locked the door.

The Respondent climbed over the counter, took four packets of Simpson cigarettes from the cabinet, climbed back over the counter with the cigarettes and left the store.

The Respondent then walked back to his home address with the packets of cigarettes in his right hand and a knife in his left hand. At the house, the Respondent told his carer, 'I robbed the BP.'

A short time later, police arrived at the address in Morley and arrested the Respondent. The premises were searched, and the police located three unopened packets of Simpsons cigarettes, one opened packet of cigarettes and a small, blackhandled knife. When he was arrested, the Respondent was wearing the same clothes he wore at BP Embleton.

1. The State Solicitor's Office outlined in the chronology various other offences which the applicant submitted were 'relevant offences' for the purposes of the application. The respondent has a criminal history dating back to 2008 with convictions for armed robbery, being armed in a way that may cause fear, obstructing public officers, common assault, trespassing, stealing, possessing a controlled weapon, breach of a conditional suspended imprisonment order, and aggravated robbery.
2. On behalf of the applicant, certain offending by the respondent was emphasised, including the offending which occurred on 21 May 2021, for which the respondent was convicted of trespass (contrary to s 70A(2) of the Criminal Code), common assault (contrary to s 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Code), obstructing public officers (contrary to s 172(1) of the Criminal Code) and being armed in a way that may cause fear (contrary to s 68(1) of the Criminal Code). As summarised on behalf of the applicant, the circumstances of the offending were as follows. The respondent entered a hostel by letting himself into the building using a passcode he knew from previously staying there. He had previously been told to leave due to antisocial behaviour. He went up to the victim in the hostel holding a large 30 cm two‑pronged carving fork in his hands and without warning punched the victim on the left ear. When police attended, the respondent stood up aggressively, holding the fork, stepping forwards and telling the police to 'fuck off'. The police told the respondent to drop the weapon several times before he did. The respondent then continually walked towards one of the officers in an aggressive manner and was told to get on the ground five times before he was tasered. The respondent broke the line off the taser and ran off. The police pursued him and arrested him.[44]
3. The applicant also noted that the respondent has two convictions for assaulting a public officer; and a number of stealing/robbery offences.[45]
4. In his psychiatric report dated 26 September 2025 for the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal, Dr Rooprai observed that the respondent's offending was often intertwined with his psychosis, impulsivity and substance misuse; and managing the respondent safely had been challenging, with repeated transitions between hospital and prison driven by behavioural instability, threats, and violence towards staff.[46]
5. A psychiatric report dated 22 July 2023 was prepared by Professor Natalie Pyszora for the purposes of the respondent's hearing concerning his fitness to stand trial.[47] Professor Pyszora's conclusions as recorded in her report were as follows:[48]

From contemporaneous records, [the respondent] was psychotic at the time he allegedly committed the offence. On arrest he talked on being tortured by the Government, the Justice department and other State agencies having a contract over his human rights, and being microchipped with a mind control device. At the time he stated that he did not need to follow legislation, based on his delusional beliefs.

In my opinion [the respondent] does meet the criteria for a defence of Insanity as he was in such a state of mental impairment as to deprive him of capacity to control his actions, and the capacity to know that he ought not do the act.

1. As is outlined above, the respondent was found unfit to stand trial in relation to the charge of armed robbery contrary to s 392(c) of the Criminal Code (WA), alleged to have occurred on 31 January 2022 (IND 386 of 2023).[49]

1. 'Pattern', as it pertains to behaviour, is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary Online as a recurrent way of acting by an individual or group towards a given object or in a given situation.
2. As to propensity, I proceeded on the basis that the word 'propensity' in s 123(4)(f) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act is taken to have its ordinary meaning in the context of the criminal law, that is, to have an inclination or tendency to do something. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 at [178], in the context of an application made under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), Murray AJA stated that:

[Propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder.

1. On behalf of the applicant it was submitted, and I accepted, that the respondent has a prior criminal history which demonstrates an established pattern of offending which demonstrates a propensity to engage in a serious offence of a similar nature in the future. As was noted on behalf of the applicant, that pattern of offending involves violence or threats of violence, at times involving weapons, while being mentally unwell and/or under the influence of illicit substances; and the respondent's violence was precipitated by delusional beliefs or used as a means to meet his own perceived needs.[50]

1. On the application of the State Forensic Health Service, the State Administrative Tribunal on 23 July 2020 appointed the Public Trustee the plenary administrator of the respondent's estate. The Public Advocate was also appointed the respondent's limited guardian. These orders were to be reviewed by 22 July 2025.[51]
2. The State Administrative Tribunal reviewed the orders on 17 July 2025 and made declarations and various orders with respect to the respondent.[52]
3. First, the Tribunal declared that the respondent is:

(a) unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate;

(b) in need of an administrator of his estate;

(c) incapable of looking after his own health and safety;

(d) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;

(e) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others; and

(f) in need of a guardian.

1. Secondly, the administration order made on 23 July 2020 was confirmed.
2. Thirdly, the guardianship order made on 23 July 2020 was revoked and substituted with the following order:

The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:

(a) to decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;

(b) to decide with whom the represented person is to live;

(c) to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA);

(d) to determine the services to which the represented person should have access;

(e) as the guardian ad litem of the represented person, to defend or settle any legal proceedings taken against the represented person, except proceedings relating to the estate of the represented person;

(f) to seek legal advice and representation on behalf of the represented person, and to advocate in relation to any police investigation, criminal charges or related proceedings; and

(g) to decide whether to give or withhold consent to the use of any restrictive practices proposed in any behaviour support plan developed from time to time for the represented person in compliance with the requirements of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Restrictive Practices and Behaviour Support) Rules 2018.

1. It was also ordered that the administration and guardianship orders are to be reviewed before 17 July 2030.

1. The respondent has a 12 month National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) plan, which commenced on 22 October 2025. The funded supports include behaviour support, improved daily living skills and support coordination, and psychosocial recovery coaches.[53]
2. The funding is relatively limited. The respondent's current NDIS plan does not include funding for access to supported independent living accommodation. Should the respondent no longer be subject to a custody order, he has no proposed accommodation.[54]

Reports prepared for the purposes of this application

1. Section 106(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act provides that if an application is made for an extended order in respect of a supervised person, the Court must order that the person be examined by a psychiatrist, psychologist or other appropriate expert and that a report be prepared and submitted to the Court. Any report provided in relation to an application for an extended custody order must set out the expert's assessment of the likelihood that the supervised person will commit a serious offence if not subject to an extended custody order; the expert's assessment of the supervised person's rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements; and the reasons for the expert's assessment.[55]
2. On 24 June 2025 the Court made a number of programming orders by consent, which included an order that the respondent undergo examination by a qualified expert, namely Dr Wynn Owen, for the purpose of preparing a report to be used at the hearing of the State's application; and a further order that Adult Community Corrections, Corrective Services, Department of Justice, produce a 'Case Manager's Report' including any 'proposed management plan'.[56]
3. Reports were prepared by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Lloyd. Their reports and evidence at the hearing of the application are outlined below.

1. In determining the application before me, I had regard to the report and evidence of Dr Wynn Owen, which are summarised below. The following is not intended to be a complete recitation of the contents of his report nor Dr Wynn Owen's evidence.
2. I carefully considered the report and evidence of Dr Wynn Owen. He was qualified to give the opinions expressed in his report and in the course of his evidence. The report and evidence of Dr Wynn Owen were cogent and compelling, and the opinions expressed were appropriately qualified.

1. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that in the preparation of his report he had interviewed the respondent at Hakea Prison on 12 December 2025; had regard to volumes 1 and 2 of the books of materials; had corresponded with Ms Lloyd; and had regard to the psychological report for court of Ms Wager dated 23 April 2013, the psychological pre‑sentence report of Ms Oliveri dated 21 August 2016, and the psychiatric report of Dr Rooprai dated 26 September 2025.[57]
2. During the course of his evidence, Dr Wynn Owen confirmed that, among other roles, he was the Medical Co‑Director of the State Forensic Health Service. He confirmed that in that role he was responsible for oversight and governance, particularly clinical governance of all services delivered by the State Forensic Mental Health Service, which includes inpatient facilities (including the Frankland Centre), community services, court liaison services, and child and adolescent services.[58]
3. In the first part of his report Dr Wynn Owen provided a brief background to the application and his assessment of the respondent. It is not necessary to reproduce this information as it is outlined above.

1. As to the respondent's psychiatric history, Dr Wynn Owen outlined the respondent's various inpatient psychiatric admissions which commenced in 2012 when the respondent was aged 21.
2. After the index offending occurred on 31 January 2022, the respondent was admitted to the Frankland Centre on several occasions. At paragraphs 31 to 33 of his report, as to the admissions, Dr Wynn Owen recorded as follows:[59]

The Frankland Centre, 08/02 - 03/03/2022

Admitted from Hakea Prison. Presented a guarded, rambling and incoherent, with the same persistent paranoid delusional beliefs and making threats to kill if not given 'answers'. Frankland staff were involved in the conspiracy against him. He was insightless. Clozapine treatment was recommenced and improvements in affect were made although his fixed delusional beliefs remained. [The respondent's] return to prison was due to staffing issues at the Frankland Centre rather than mental state having significantly improved.

Discharge diagnoses:

The Frankland Centre, 28/03 - 11/05/2023

Admitted from Hakea Prison on form 1A MHAct further to deteriorating mental state. [The respondent] presented as "rambling", 'delusional', agitated and insightless. Making threats to kill people saying he knows where they live. Assaulted nursing staff during the admission process. During the admission behaved in an intimidating and aggressive manner towards staff. On discharge his fixed delusional beliefs about a government conspiracy against his and having had a microchip implanted remained. The discharge summary states that '[The respondent] also felt to be portraying his symptoms in a particularly bizarre and exaggerated manner with the hope it could minimise his legal liability'.

Discharge diagnoses

• Paranoid Schizophrenia
• Polysubstance dependence

The Frankland Centre, 28/05/2024 - 04/04/2025

Referred subject to a CL(MIA) Custody Order having been found unfit to stand trial [the respondent] had been non-compliant with medications in prison. He initially presented as elevated, thought disordered, with an intermittent stutter, grandiose and paranoid/persecutory delusional beliefs. He was noted to consistently seek additional medications during the admission. After a number of assaults on nursing staff the treating team developed the opinion that [the respondent's] presentation and behaviour were not manageable in the Frankland Centre and requested that the Mental Impaired Review Board change his place of custody to prison.

Discharge diagnoses:

• Schizophrenia, treatment resistant
• Antisocial Personality Disorder

1. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that following the respondent's return to prison, the respondent has received depot antipsychotic medications. He has been managed in a single cell segregation unit with minimal time out of his cell, which was reported by mental health staff to be having a negative impact on his mental state. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that in addition to persistent paranoid delusional beliefs, the respondent had expressed grandiose delusions and had ongoing ideas about hurting staff.

1. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent's psychotropic medication regime as at the date of his report was:[60]
   • Zuclopenthixol 600mg IMI fortnightly
   • Paliperidone 150mg IMI every 4 weeks (second depot medication added in October 2025).
2. It was recorded by Dr Wynn Owen that until mid‑December 2025 the respondent was also prescribed an oral antipsychotic medication (quetiapine), however this was ceased as the respondent was believed to be trading this medication.

The respondent's history, presentation and interview

1. In his report Dr Wynn Owen described in brief terms the respondent's forensic, medical and personal history, and his alcohol and substance use history.
2. As to how the respondent presented at interview, Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent presented as guarded and appeared suspicious; and engaged briefly in a superficial manner, answering some general questions about his current wellbeing. He further recorded that when his assaults on nurses at the Frankland Centre was discussed, the respondent became overtly threatening and intimidating, and the interview was terminated.

1. Among other things, Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent did not appear fully alert initially but was definitely alert when aroused; the respondent's responses to initial questions suggested relatively intact concentration and attention, however cognition was only cursorily assessed prior to termination of the interview; and the respondent did not demonstrate insight into having a mental illness that was responsible for his expressed beliefs.

1. As to the respondent's psychiatric diagnoses, Dr Wynn Owen recorded as follows:[61]

Psychiatric diagnosis (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, DSM-V, 2013)

Schizophrenia, paranoid type, chronic course, treatment resistant with ongoing positive and negative features.

Probable onset in late teens.

Antisocial personality disorder

A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others as indicated by:

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours
• Impulsivity and failure to plan ahead
• Irritability and aggressiveness
• Lack of remorse
• Meets criteria for Conduct Disorder as a child/early adolescent

1. In the course of his evidence Dr Wynn Owen also accepted that the respondent's presentation met the criteria for a substance use disorder, particularly in relation to methamphetamine and cannabis, in enforced remission (as the respondent was being held in a segregated unit within Hakea Prison).[62]

1. Dr Wynn Owen was asked to indicate his assessment of the likelihood that the supervised person will commit a serious offence if not subject to an extended custody order; and to provide an assessment of the supervised person's rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements. His evidence in this regard was appropriately qualified,[63] and he explained the approach he adopted in undertaking the assessment as follows:[64]

Structured Professional Judgement (SPJ) approach to risk assessment, which has been demonstrated to be the most informative method of consideration of risk, takes into account static and dynamic risk factors using a combination of actuarial tools, structured assessment guides and a clinical psychiatric assessment. SPJ provides an empirically based framework to help support and organise information and inform risk assessment including identifying opportunities for intervention and for managing risk. The SPJ approach is focussed on prevention and management of future risk rather than generation of an exact probability of future offending.

1. In undertaking the risk assessment, Dr Wynn Owen reported that he used three tools as part of his assessment of the respondent, described below.

1. Dr Wynn Owen reported that he used the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, Second Edition, 2003 (PCL‑R), a standardised rating scale that facilitates the reliable identification of psychopathy, noting that psychopathy is reliably associated with general, violent and sexually violent recidivism. Dr Wynn Owen also noted that psychopathy is strongly associated with the nature and severity of violent behaviour.
2. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent's PCL‑R score indicated a moderate degree of psychopathy.

1. Secondly, Dr Wynn Owen used the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Revised, 2013 (VRAG‑R), an actuarial risk tool designed to assess the likelihood of violent or sexual reoffending among male offenders. He noted that the VRAG‑R is a 12‑item instrument and the scores on these items form part of the data set. The 12 items represent seven domains: living situation, school performance, substance use, marital status, criminal history, index offence, and personality. Dr Wynn Owen further noted that the likelihood scores produced relate to any new violent offence, not just those listed in sch 1 to the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act.
2. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent's score was in the highest risk category, which indicated a 58% likelihood of a future violent offence within five years and a 76% likelihood of a new violent offence within 12 years. He recorded that the respondent's score was associated with a risk approximately three times greater than the average violent offender.

1. Thirdly, Dr Wynn Owen used the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, Version 3, 2013 (HCR‑20), a structured professional judgment tool used to assess the risk of violence, which has been demonstrated to be the most informative method of consideration of risk, which takes into account static and dynamic risk factors using a combination of actuarial tools, structured assessment guides and a clinical psychiatric assessment. However, Dr Wynn Owen also recorded that structured professional judgments are focussed on the prevention and management of future risk rather than the generation of an exact probability of future offending.
2. Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the HCR‑20 serves as an assessment, monitoring and management tool, and considers the presence of a range of historical/static and dynamic risk factors for future violence. It has been used extensively in Australia and internationally in release decision making from correctional and clinical settings, in the monitoring of risk, and in the development of risk management strategies during institutionalisation/incarceration and during community supervision by correctional, forensic and psychiatric authorities.
3. As to historical risk factors, Dr Wynn Owen considered the following to be present and opined as follows:

(a) History of problems with previous violence - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen recorded that the respondent's history of violence commenced in childhood and continued into adulthood, and had been frequent and persistent; had been both planned/instrumental and impulsive/reactive; had involved threats of violence and actual violence; had involved family members, known individuals and strangers; had at times been associated with the use of weapons; had continued in spite of legal sanctions including imprisonment; and had occurred in a range of settings including home, community, hospital and prison. He opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(b) History of problems with other antisocial behaviour - this was a risk factor identified as being present, and Dr Wynn Owen opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(c) History of problems with relationships - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of moderate relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(d) History of problems with employment - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of low relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(e) History of problems with substance use - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;[65]

(f) History of problems with major mental disorder - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that the respondent's illness (paranoid schizophrenia) had substantially impacted the respondent's ability to function in the community, practically and interpersonally. The illness also was associated with irritability, hostility, violence and aggression. Dr Wynn Owen opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(g) History of problems with personality disorder - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(h) History of problems with serious traumatic experiences - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of low to moderate relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(i) History of problems with violent attitudes - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence; and

(j) History of problems with treatment or supervision response - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present. He noted that in addition to issues related to mental illness, the respondent has a history of corrections failure and non-compliance, and he opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence.

1. In the course of his evidence, as to the respondent's history of corrections failure and non-compliance, Dr Wynn Owen explained as follows:[66]

when [the respondent] has been managed by corrections, both in the community and in the prison setting, he has not complied with a variety of their requirements, whether it had been around reporting and so on, whether it's been attending court, whether it's actually complying with prison routines and regulations. Prior to him being in long-term segregation, there have been a number of behaviours, evidence of aggression, violence and - and problem behaviours even within the prison setting. What that suggests is, in that highly structured environment, he's still not able to control his behaviour. ... that's what I meant by supervision failure. ... it's also apparent, clearly, in health settings as well, in that a number of staff have been assaulted in health settings. But predominantly, in my opinion, and reading the materials, those violent acts in the health settings have been driven by his underlying delusional beliefs, and his paranoia, and his belief that those people involved in his healthcare are actually trying to harm him, rather than a specific malicious intent to hurt somebody.

1. As to clinical risk factors, Dr Wynn Owen considered the following recent issues to be risk factors identified as being present (that is, current or having occurred or identified within the last six months), and opined as follows:

(a) Recent problems with insight - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent continued to lack insight into significant aspects of his mental illness; and that core delusional beliefs remained and frequently guided his decisions and behaviours. His understanding of past offending and current violent attitudes was minimal. Further, his understanding of past offending and current violence risk had never been explored due to barriers presented by treatment resistant mental illness and unmanageable interpersonal behaviours. Dr Wynn Owen opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future offence risk;

(b) Recent problems with violent ideation or intent - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(c) Recent problems with symptoms of major mental disorder - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence;

(d) Recent problems with instability - Dr Wynn Owen noted this was a risk factor identified as being present and recorded that the respondent had shown affective (mood) and behavioural instability which appeared to relate to worsening mental illness, and that affective symptoms (elevation, grandiosity) had been a significant apparently new development over the previous six months. He opined that the respondent's deterioration in mental state was likely to be related to the environment (segregation/isolation in a counter therapeutic environment) and poor compliance with oral medications (the respondent has been thought to be trading oral psychotropic medications, probably for cigarettes but could also be for illicit drugs, there being a greater illicit drug availability in prison than in the Frankland Centre). He opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's risk of violence; and

(e) Recent problems with treatment or supervision response - Dr Wynn Owen recorded that notwithstanding the respondent's compliance with his prescribed depot medication, he had been poorly compliant with oral antipsychotic medications. Furthermore, notwithstanding the respondent's compliance with his prescribed depot medication, his mental state had continued to deteriorate and he remained acutely unwell with florid paranoid psychosis. Dr Wynn Owen opined that this risk was of high relevance to the respondent's risk of future violence.

1. As to risk management factors, Dr Wynn Owen considered the following to be present and opined as follows:

(a) Future problems with professional services and plans - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted that due to his ongoing acute illness/partially treated presentation, the respondent had never engaged in any programs to address his criminogenic needs relating to his violent offending and substance use. He opined that unstructured or medication non‑compliant release, having not addressed outstanding mental health or criminogenic needs, would result in a high likelihood of future violence;

(b) Future problems with living situation - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted that there was no accommodation plan in place. He opined that this risk factor was of relevance to future violence risk if the respondent was placed in the community or in civil/non-forensic mental health care;

(c) Future problems with treatment or supervision response - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent has no insight into having a mental illness that requires treatment, how that illness adversely affects his decision making, nor insight into his antisocial personality traits and behaviours. He opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to future violence risk;

(d) Future problems with personal support - Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent has no support from family and no social network. He opined that this risk factor was of moderate relevance to future violence risk; and

(e) Future problems with stress or coping - among other things, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent has a history of low frustration tolerance and reacting to needs not being immediately met. He opined that in the context of dysregulation (resulting from mental illness or antisocial responses) the respondent's risk is elevated, particularly with concomitant stimulant use. He further opined that this risk factor is of relevance to both his emotional dysregulation and risk of substance abuse, and as such relates to a high risk of future violence.

1. Dr Wynn Owen briefly summarised the formulation of the respondent's violence risk as follows:[67]

[The respondent's] violence risk stems from both (i) persistent antisocial attitudes, viewing violence as a means to an end without remorse or empathy for victims, violence being instrumental to achieve a specific outcome and (ii) a persecutory delusional belief system secondary to schizophrenia that has been consistently present since his late teens that causes paranoid interpretation of the actions of others associated with threats to his life, at times associated with command auditory hallucinations (perceptual disturbance) and beliefs of being controlled and unable to resist (passivity phenomena) that control notwithstanding that it may result in harm to others.

The underlying antisocial attitudes contribute to [an] increased likelihood that [the respondent] will act violently to address beliefs arising from mental illness as well as acting out of antisociality per se.

His likelihood of violence, antisocially motivated or secondary to psychosis, will be further increased in the presence of intoxication with alcohol or stimulants with an increase in emotional reactivity, impulsivity, further impaired consequential thinking, and in this circumstance the likely severity of violence will be increased.

Treatment intervention to address risk will rely on improved management of schizophrenia. Until this is achieved, with resolution/partial resolution of the associated delusional belief system such that it no longer presents an insurmountable barrier to [the respondent's] understanding of his violence risk and capacity to self‑manage risk, other interventions to address substance misuse and antisocial personality features contributing to risk are unlikely to have any material effect.

1. Dr Wynn Owen also recorded his opinion as to the respondent's likely risk scenarios, nothing that they will vary depending on where the respondent is placed.
2. He opined that in prison the respondent may exhibit violence towards a prison health worker or prison officer he believes delusionally to be part of a government conspiracy against him, breaching his human rights; or towards another prisoner either incorporated into his delusional belief system or is not assisting when he seeks to get his needs met. (Indeed, it was Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that if the respondent remained untreated in a prison setting his risk of violence would increase).[68]
3. He opined that in a psychiatric hospital the respondent may assault a member of his treating clinical team, particularly if he is in involuntary care and does not agree to receive medication, on the basis of lack of insight and incorporating staff into his persecutory delusional system. He further opined that it is likely that the respondent may respond violently to not having his immediate needs met.
4. He opined that in the community anyone the respondent deems to be part of the conspiracy against him may be assaulted, particularly individuals in government employ (public mental health service clinicians, community corrections staff, and general health workers). At the same time the respondent may be seeking to have needs met and feel thwarted leading to frustration and a violent response unrelated to his mental illness, meaning any member of the community may be at risk. This risk will be increased if he is using alcohol and/or stimulants at the time. (Again, it was Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that in the community the respondent would have access to illicit substances which would make his delusional belief system worse, and would increase his impulsivity, and immediately increase his risk of violence towards others).[69]

1. As to severity, Dr Wynn Owen opined that any physical assault would be likely to result in immediate injury to the victim, with a greater degree of injury if there is no immediate intervention. He opined that psychological consequences for the victim may be lifelong.

1. As to imminence, Dr Wynn Owen opined that while the respondent was suffering from psychotic symptoms, the combination of partially treated psychosis and antisocial personality traits indicated that violence was very imminent.

1. As to likelihood, Dr Wynn Owen considered there to be a high likelihood of ongoing violent behaviours if the respondent was not in secure care and on treatment.

1. Dr Wynn Owen summarised the respondent's risk formulation, which included the following:[70]

[The respondent] has never fully responded to treatment with antipsychotic medications, his core delusional belief system has persisted and for much of the time he has also experienced other positive symptoms of psychosis, including during periods of enforced abstinence from illicit drug use (eg when long term in the Frankland Centre). Because his mental illness has never fully resolved [he] has not participated in any interventions to address other factors associated with violent offending behaviours. The combination of antisocial personality disorder with propensity [for] violence and treatment resistant paranoid psychosis results in an ongoing high risk of future violence and a significant barrier to effective treatment.

1. Dr Wynn Owen recorded in his report his assessment of the likelihood that the respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to an extended custody order in the following terms:[71]

It is my opinion, based on review of materials provided, interviewing [the respondent] and consideration of the results and applied risk assessment tools, that [the respondent] presents a high risk of a future serious offence (per [Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act] schedule 1*) if not subject to an extended custody order. There is a very high likelihood of violence not listed in schedule 1. This risk relates to a combination of untreated/treatment resistant schizophrenia with persistent paranoid psychosis and the presence of antisocial personality traits and substance use disorder.

...

* Type of schedule 1 offence that is likely: robbery; assault with intent to rob; grievous bodily harm; criminal damage by fire; act intended to cause grievous bodily harm or prevent arrest

1. In his report and in the course of his evidence, Dr Wynn Owen outlined his assessment of the respondent's rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements.[72]
2. Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent's psychiatric care since 2012 had lacked consistency and continuity for a variety of reasons, which coupled with long periods of incarceration with minimal mental health input in an aversive environment, often in isolation, had contributed to an ongoing worsening of symptoms.
3. As to treatment, he recorded as follows:[73]

He has never had definitive trial of the antipsychotic medication clozapine, the gold standard in treatment resistant schizophrenia, it can take up to 2 years to achieve best potential treatment response. As [the respondent] has been trialled on all other medications, singly and in combination, in both oral and depot formulations, it is my opinion that there should be a trial of clozapine. I note also that electroconvulsive therapy has proved effective in some individuals with treatment resistant schizophrenia, this treatment modality should be given consideration.

1. As to where the respondent should be housed, Dr Wynn Owen recorded the following in his report:[74]

There is likely to be a long pathway to recovery however it is my opinion that if [the respondent] remains in prison his violence risk will continue to escalate, his illness will continue with further development of deficit symptoms and probable cognitive impairment, additionally his treatment resistance will be consolidated.

I am of the opinion that effective treatment for his mental illness cannot be delivered in a community setting, in the community he will have ongoing access to illicit substances and has given no indication, verbal or behavioural, that he will be able to abstain. Also in my opinion, treatment in a civil mental health unit is likely to be unsuccessful, [the respondent] has been repeatedly excluded from services further to his behaviours being deemed unacceptable (substance use, violence/threats of violence) resulting in a recasting of his diagnosis to emphasise personality disorder over schizophrenia. This is highly likely to recur.

1. In the course of his evidence, Dr Wynn Owen emphasised that the respondent's detention in prison was detrimental to the respondent's mental health, and the Frankland Centre is the most appropriate place to hold the respondent. He described the multi‑purpose prison unit where the respondent was being housed as 'very inappropriate' as it was not suitable to monitor the respondent's compliance with his medication; and it likely exacerbates his current delusional system.[75]
2. Dr Wynn Owen explained that the Frankland Centre is the only appropriate location for the respondent, particularly because of the management of access to substances, and because of their clear understanding of risk and their awareness of violence risk.[76] However, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the centre has a waitlist of 25 to 30 people which means that it could take up to six months before the respondent could be transferred to there.[77]
3. It was Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that the respondent had not to date been in a position to engage in any form of rehabilitation because he had never gotten past his acute illness.[78] As to retraining and resocialisation, Dr Wynn Owen made the following observations in his report:[79]

As [the respondent] is currently acutely unwell retraining and resocialisation needs cannot be usefully addressed however it is clear that his functional capacity is significantly impaired. This should be reassessed (functional and cognitive assessment) once a treatment response has been achieved and/or it is decided that he cannot improve further. There is no doubt that interventions to address substance use, emotional self-management and interpersonal function are also required however he is not currently in a position to benefit from such interventions.

1. As to the appropriate duration of an extended custody order (and the appropriateness of a community supervision order), Dr Wynn Owen recorded as follows:[80]

When determining the duration of an Extended Custody Order, if made, consideration should be given to the need for a trial of clozapine for up to 2 years in an environment free from illicit substance after which interventions to address other outstanding criminogenic needs can be considered (and may possibly be commenced in parallel with the medication trial if insight improves). Once base line mental state and function has been established [the respondent] should be considered for mental health extended care or NDIS funded Supported Independent Living, the relevant referrals and assessments can take up to 12 months. It is my opinion that a CLMI Community Supervision Order is unlikely to mitigate violence risk or facilitate treatment of schizophrenia.

1. In the course of his evidence, Dr Wynn Owen accepted that three and a half years would be an appropriate period of time.[81]

1. Ms Lloyd is a senior community corrections officer employed by the Department of Justice within CLMI Services of Adult Community Corrections, and one of the three signatories to the extended order assessment report dated 23 January 2026. She has been the respondent's supervising officer since his transfer from the Frankland Centre to prison on 4 April 2025.[82]
2. In undertaking the assessment, Ms Lloyd recorded her sources of information as volumes one and two of the book of materials; the Total Offender Management System (TOMS); the respondent's Western Australian court history; the eCourts Portal of Western Australia; Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 January 2026; a telephone discussion with Dr Wynn Owen on 14 January 2026; and a case conference group meeting with key stakeholders on 15 January 2026.
3. In the first part of her report, Ms Lloyd described the background to this application. As there was significant repetition in the materials before the Court, I do not repeat here Ms Lloyd's overview.

Compliance with current order and capacity to respond to order requirements

1. In her report Ms Lloyd described the respondent's compliance by describing his conduct while admitted to the Frankland Centre and then while at Hakea Prison.
2. Initial reports recorded that the respondent had settled into the ward environment easily, and on 6 August 2024 he was moved to a reduced security ward. During this time, he was granted periods of escorted grounds access, however he did not follow instructions, pushed boundaries and attempted to intimidate staff. To provide long-term mental health stability, a change in medication was attempted, however the cessation of his regular zuclopenthixol depot precipitated a sudden and severe instability in his mental health. Due to an increase in aggression, the respondent was returned to the higher security ward on 31 August 2024.
3. Ms Lloyd recorded that a psychiatric report authored by Dr Anabelle Jones on 22 November 2024 reported that the respondent had assaulted a member of staff after being declined his demand for stimulant medications. Dr Jones' report recorded that the State Forensic Mental Health Service was of the opinion the respondent's behaviours were driven by his personality structure, antisocial behaviours and pro‑violence attitudes, with no evidence to suggest his escalations in aggression were due to his schizophrenia. He was considered to pose a significant risk to staff and patients through his explicit threats of violence and enacted physical violence; and the respondent did not effectively engage with the treating team or allied health and displayed sabotaging behaviours. Due to behaviour problems and to manage risk, it was requested that he be transferred to a prison setting.
4. Ms Lloyd recorded that on 4 April 2025 the respondent was transferred to Hakea Prison. She recorded that prison records reported that the respondent displayed challenging behaviour. He was initially placed in protective custody, following which he was transferred to the Multi‑Purpose‑Unit on 6 April 2025 due to two incidents of threatening behaviour and one incident of standover behaviour. The respondent was placed on a three-man unlock after he disclosed an intent to harm staff by stabbing them with a pencil on 3 August 2025.
5. On 11 September 2025 the prion reported that due to the respondent's threats towards hurting prisoners and staff he recreates alone for 45 minutes to an hour, with access to the shower, telephone, wing and dayroom. On 20 November 2025 the prison advised that the respondent had returned to recreate with the wing group twice per day with no current concerns.
6. Ms Lloyd recorded that while in Hakea Prison, the respondent had no family or social visits, and had made 11 phone calls, including to his mother (lasting 17 to 30 seconds), Crimestoppers and the Ombudsman.

1. Ms Lloyd noted that the respondent has contact with her as his supervising officer (via video link).[83] However, should the respondent leave a prison setting, Ms Lloyd would cease to be his supervising officer. If he was moved to the Frankland Centre or the community he would be supervised by another officer.[84]
2. In her report Ms Lloyd described the community support available to the respondent. She provided an outline of the respondent's NDIS plan and some of the supports made available to him (which she confirmed did not extend to accommodation).[85]
3. She also recorded that guardianship orders had been made (as is outlined at [56] to [61] above).

Behaviours to be managed and strategies to manage offending behaviours

1. In her report Ms Lloyd summarised parts of Dr Wynn Owen's report, including his opinions as to the respondent's risk of violence and his recommendations with respect to the management of the respondent's offending behaviours. (I do not repeat Ms Lloyd's summary here.)
2. As to strategies to manage the respondent's offending behaviours, Ms Lloyd also recorded that the respondent was (as at the date of her report) being managed by prison mental health staff, with regular reviews by both the 'Mental Health and Other Drugs' nurse and psychiatrist.
3. She recorded that while in prison, the respondent's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder was being treated with two prescribed antipsychotic injections, zuclopenthixol (600 mg dose administered fortnightly) and paliperidone (150 mg administered monthly), and a prescribed antipsychotic oral medication quetiapine (400 mg twice a day). Ms Lloyd recorded that the respondent was reported as being medication compliant.[86]
4. As to supervision, Ms Lloyd recorded that if the respondent was made subject to an extended order, he would be required to continue supervision with CLMI Adult Community Corrections. Such supervision would continue to be facilitated via Microsoft Teams monthly while in a prison setting. However, if he was transferred to the Frankland Centre, supervision would be arranged directly with the Centre and would focus on order conditions, his understanding of conditions, and the encouragement of pro‑social behaviours.
5. As to alcohol and illicit substance misuse, Ms Lloyd recorded that abstinence would be paramount in managing the respondent's behaviour. Further, she noted that the respondent's ability to access these would be mitigated while in a custodial setting or a forensic mental health ward.
6. Ms Lloyd also described in her report the interagency collaboration with respect to the respondent. She recorded that case conference group meetings were held every four weeks, chaired by Adult Community Corrections, with stakeholders from the Office of the Public Advocate, the Mental Health Advocacy Service, Hakea Prison and Mental Health Nursing, and which were also attended by a Positive Behaviour Practitioner and the Specialist Support Coordinator.
7. Ms Lloyd also noted that should the respondent be transferred to the Frankland Centre, the State Forensic Mental Health Service would become the lead agency and chair the case conference group meetings.
8. As to electronic monitoring and curfew, Ms Lloyd recorded that neither of these were recommended, as it was not considered that either would reduce the respondent's risk of reoffending. In the event electronic monitoring was required, Ms Lloyd noted that there was concern as to the respondent's ability to understand the process; that it may exacerbate his paranoid thinking; and that the respondent would likely breach monitoring conditions due to the operational requirements of the equipment.[87]

1. Ms Lloyd reiterated those conclusions reached by Dr Wynn Owen, and further recorded that should the respondent be considered suitable for an extended custody order, the current conditions remained suitable to monitor and mitigate his ongoing risk factors; and that his placement would be determined by the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal.
2. In her report, Ms Lloyd recorded the statutory conditions required by the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 54 should the respondent be made subject to a community supervision order. A number of additional conditions were also recommended to strengthen and add to the standard conditions for the more effective management of the respondent in the community, which included reporting obligations and conditions intended to prevent high risk situations.

The resources available to the respondent in the community

1. As to the resources and support available to the respondent in the community, upon release he would remain subject to both administration and guardianship orders, with the Public Advocate appointed as his limited guardian. The orders are due for review on 17 July 2030.
2. The respondent would also have access to the supports funded by the NDIS for the period of 12 months expiring on 21 October 2026. As is recorded above, the funding components include behaviour support, improved daily living skills, support coordination and psychosocial recovery coaches.
3. However, of particular concern was that, at the hearing of the application, no accommodation was available to the respondent.[88] Nor did the respondent have family support. Save for the NDIS services available to the respondent, if not made subject to a further order, he would largely be isolated.

1. As was recorded by Lundberg J in Attorney General v PHB by his guardian ad litem the Public Trustee at [56], the following approach to the application is to be adopted:
   1. An evaluation is first required as to whether there is an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence in the future, in the absence of any measures that would provide adequate protection of the community against that risk.
   2. Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the court's judgment as to the nature and extent of the possible harm. An 'unacceptable risk' is a risk that is not trivial or transient.
   3. The assessment of the nature and extent of the possible harm directs attention to the possible serious offences that might be committed and the harm they may cause. It also directs attention to the likelihood that the offender might commit such offences (that is, the likelihood the risk might eventuate). The extent to which deterrent factors have operated to reduce risk in the past is relevant to the assessment of current and future risk, as is the offender's historical and current response to rehabilitation. These are all factors that inform the assessment of whether the risk is 'unacceptable', but they are not exhaustive.
   4. If the risk is found to be 'unacceptable', the nature and extent of that unacceptable risk then informs the evaluation or assessment as to whether an extended custody order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. This assessment, that is whether the order is necessary, requires recognition that an offender's entitlement to be at liberty is not lightly to be denied, and the various objects and principles described in s 7(1) and s 7(2) of the CLMI Act.
   5. The 'high degree of probability' standard is a higher standard than the balance of probabilities but is a lesser standard than the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, and is otherwise a standard that is incapable of further definition.
   6. The Court does not have to be satisfied that there is a high degree of probability that the offender will commit a serious offence. Rather, it is the necessity to make, in the case of the CLMI Act, a custody order in relation to the offender to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that offender will commit a serious offence that must be proved to the requisite standard.
   7. An evaluation of the level of risk according to the objects of the CLMI Act is required, informed by the need to ensure adequate protection of the community as the paramount consideration. (footnotes omitted)

1. In light of all of the evidence, I turned to consider whether an extended custody order should be made pursuant to s 110(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act, which required an analysis of the whole of the evidence to assess whether the statutory criteria in s 110(3) had been satisfied. The applicant bore the onus of satisfying the Court in that regard.

1. In considering whether the respondent posed a risk that was 'unacceptable', I first considered the risk posed to the community by the respondent given the gravity and nature of the serious offence the respondent was likely to commit.
2. As to the nature of the serious offence the respondent was likely to commit, it was the applicant's position that regard ought be had to the features of the respondent's conduct to date while unwell, namely, his use of weapons and violence to address delusional beliefs arising from mental illness, as well as antisocial behaviour, which is increased in the presence of intoxication with alcohol or illicit substances.[89]
3. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that accordingly, in relation to the respondent's use of weapons and history of violent behaviour when unwell (even in highly secure environments like Frankland Centre and prison), the possible 'serious offences' that might be committed by the respondent include at least the offence of manslaughter contrary to s 280 of the Criminal Code and grievous bodily harm contrary to s 297 of the Criminal Code. Further, it was submitted that knives, in particular, are inherently dangerous and their use, particularly against an unsuspecting person who is not in a position to avoid contact, carries a real risk of life threatening or fatal harm to that person.[90]
4. When regard was had to all of the evidence, including the respondent's offending history and his psychiatric history (particularly, his delusional belief system),[91] I accepted the applicant's characterisation of the nature of the serious offence the respondent was likely to commit. I also considered the respondent to pose a risk of committing the serious offence of robbery to meet his perceived needs.
5. The nature of the risk posed by the respondent is that of violence. He has been violent in a range of settings including in the community, hospital and prison. As there is the potential for use of a weapon such as a knife, the respondent has the potential to cause significant physical injury to a victim. In this regard, I noted the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen as to severity. As is noted above, Dr Wynn Owen opined that any physical assault would be likely to result in immediate injury to the victim, with a greater degree of injury if there is no immediate intervention. He opined that psychological consequences for the victim may be lifelong.[92]
6. That said, I was also cognisant of Dr Wynn Owen's opinion that the likely violence scenario will depend on where the respondent is placed. As is recorded at [95] to [98] above, the risk scenario will depend on whether the respondent is in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or in the community.
7. I considered the most appropriate characterisation of the gravity of the risk posed to the community by the respondent was that the risk was serious, given the potential for serious physical injury, and consequential trauma.

1. Given the restrictions and controls in place, I considered the respondent's risk of committing a serious violent offence in a controlled prison or hospital setting to be low. However, if the respondent was not subject to any order, I considered the likelihood of him committing a serious violent offence to be high. In so concluding I weighed in the balance the following.
2. First, the respondent's psychiatric diagnoses remain untreated and he has no insight into his illness.[93] Furthermore, as was emphasised on behalf of the applicant, to date the respondent has never fully responded to treatment and his core delusional belief system has persisted, exhibiting symptoms of psychosis even during periods of enforced abstinence from illicit drug use.[94]
3. I accepted the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen that the respondent's illness (paranoid schizophrenia) had substantially impacted the respondent's ability to function in the community, practically and interpersonally. The illness also was associated with irritability, hostility, violence and aggression. Dr Wynn Owen opined that this risk factor was of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence.
4. Further, I accepted Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that while the respondent was suffering from psychotic symptoms, the combination of partially treated psychosis and antisocial personality traits indicated that violence was very imminent.[95]
5. While not determinative, I gave considerable weight to the opinion of Dr Wynn Owen that there was a high likelihood of ongoing violent behaviours if the respondent was not in secure care and on treatment.[96]
6. Secondly, while in prison, the respondent's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder was being treated (albeit not effectively) with medication. If not subject to an order, it is unlikely that he will continue to take medication voluntarily and there is a real risk that he will be lost to care.
7. Thirdly, the respondent has used alcohol and illicit substances when he has been able to access them. If not subject to an order the respondent will more readily access the same. As was observed by Dr Wynn Owen, use of alcohol and illicit substances is of high relevance to the respondent's future risk of violence.[97] The respondent's likelihood of violence will be further increased if intoxicated with alcohol or stimulants, and in this circumstance the likely severity of violence will be increased.[98]
8. Fourthly, the respondent has continued to offend despite prior sanctions including imprisonment. The consequences of offending have to date not been a deterrent. Further, as was observed by Dr Wynn Owen, even when in a secure setting such as a prison or forensic psychiatric facility, the respondent's violent behaviours have continued.
9. Fifthly, the respondent has a prior criminal history which demonstrates an established pattern of offending which demonstrates a propensity to engage in a serious offence of a violent nature in the future.
10. Finally, I was of the view that the respondent's high likelihood of offending if not subject to any order would not be checked by the presence of NDIS support workers.

1. Given the nature of the risk posed and the likelihood of the respondent offending, I turned to consider whether there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence in the future, in the absence of any measures that would provide adequate protection of the community against that risk.
2. The respondent's current state of reduced risk was maintained only by the external controls of his custody order. Going forward, the supports available to him through the NDIS would not meaningfully ameliorate his risk of violent offending.

Whether an extended custody order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community?

1. As was observed by Dr Wynn Owen, the respondent's mental state had continued to deteriorate and he remained acutely unwell with florid paranoid psychosis, which was a matter of high relevance to the respondent's risk of future violence. Further, I noted the opinion of Dr Wynn Owen that a community supervision order was unlikely to mitigate violence risk or facilitate treatment of schizophrenia.
2. To date, the respondent has been unable to function in the community and would likely need significant support to successfully remain in the community. In this regard, I noted that the respondent has no accommodation available to him in the community, some NDIS funded supports but no family or other prosocial supports, would be at risk of accessing alcohol and illicit substances, would be at risk of ceasing medication, and otherwise at significant risk of being lost to care (given that he does not accept that he has an illness). Further, I considered it highly unlikely that the respondent would be able to comply with the conditions of a community supervision order.[99]
3. Consistent with findings made previously with respect to the respondent, simply releasing the respondent was not an option because he could not be safely managed in the community until he receives long term treatment in hospital to improve his mental health.[100] Indeed, his mental health had deteriorated since he was transferred to Hakea Prison in 2025. Dr Wynn Owen opined that the respondent's deterioration in mental state was likely to be related to the environment (segregation/isolation in a counter therapeutic environment) and poor compliance with oral medications.[101]
4. In all of the circumstances, I was satisfied to a high degree of probability, that, to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the supervised person would commit a serious offence, it was necessary to make an extended custody order in respect of the respondent.

1. As was observed on behalf of the respondent, a limiting term should not be longer than is necessary for the adequate protection of the community and in keeping with the least restriction necessary.[102]
2. I was cognisant of Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that:

(a) there might be delay of up to six months in securing the respondent entry into the Frankland Centre;[103]

(b) if made subject to an extended custody order, a trial of the antipsychotic medication clozapine, described by Dr Wynn Owen as the gold standard in treatment resistant schizophrenia, can take up to two years to achieve best potential treatment response after which interventions to address other outstanding criminogenic needs can be considered (and may possibly be commenced in parallel with the medication trial if insight improves);[104] and

(c) once base line mental state and function has been established the respondent should be considered for mental health extended care or NDIS funded supported independent living. However, the relevant referrals and assessments can take up to 12 months.

1. There was cogent evidence that the respondent requires long term treatment in hospital to improve his mental health, reduce his level of associated distress, manage his risks to himself and others, and improve his psychosocial functioning before he can be safely managed in the community.[105]
2. After weighing the evidence adduced and the submissions of counsel, I was satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that, to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence, it was necessary to make an extended custody order in respect of the respondent and to fix a limiting term of three years and six months.

1. For these reasons, pursuant to s 110(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act, the Court, being satisfied of the requirements in s 110(3) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act, made an extended custody order in relation to the respondent for a term of three years and six months commencing 20 February 2026.
2. The interim custody order ceased upon the making of the extended custody order. The respondent's leave of absence order will continue to operate pursuant to s 111(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act according to its terms, to the extent not inconsistent with the extended order.
3. In the past, the respondent had behaved in a threatening, aggressive and violent manner towards Frankland Centre staff. While acknowledging the significant difficulties presented by the respondent's conduct, and the need to ensure the protection of the community (which includes those tasked with accommodating and treating the respondent), I also note the opinion expressed by Dr Wynn Owen that if the respondent remains in prison his violence risk will continue to escalate, his illness will continue with further development of deficit symptoms and probably cognitive impairment, and his treatment resistance will be consolidated.[106] Going forward, it is therefore imperative that the respondent receive treatment in a hospital setting. It was Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that the Frankland Centre was supportive of the same, and that there was no other appropriate placement for him.[107]
4. Given that the respondent's psychotic illness has never been fully treated by other antipsychotic medications,[108] it is also important that he remain in a hospital setting for sufficient time to be treated by clozapine. In this regard, I note Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that there is very good research evidence that a trial of less than two years does not give the medication the full opportunity to have an effect.[109]
5. Ideally, the respondent will be transferred promptly to the Frankland Centre, and commence and have the benefit of continuity of treatment and care.

Sch A - Mental Impairment Review Tribunal reasons of 4 April 2025

This reproduction of the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal's reasons have been redacted to anonymise the respondent's name.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] Order 1 of the orders made by Whitby J on 24 June 2025; Amended application filed on 9 July 2025.

[2] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 49 and s 109.

[3] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 110(4).

[4] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 52 and s 113.

[8] Exhibit 1, pages 15 - 17 (Indictment and amended statement of material facts).

[9] Exhibit 1, pages 18 - 41 (Transcript of District Court custody order hearing).

[10] Exhibit 1, page 61 (Mental Impairment Accused Review Board place of custody order dated 27 February 2024).

[11] Exhibit 1, pages 228 - 230 (Mental Impairment Review Tribunal record of outcome dated 19 September 2024); page 231 (Mental Impairment Review Tribunal leave of absence order dated 19 September 2024).

[12] Exhibit 1, page 231 (Mental Impairment Review Tribunal leave of absence order dated 19 September 2024).

[13] Exhibit 1, pages 63 - 83 (Transcript of District Court limiting term hearing).

[14] Exhibit 1, page 82 (Transcript of District Court limiting term hearing).

[15] Exhibit 1, pages 250 - 252 (Mental Impairment Review Tribunal record of outcome dated 4 April 2025); page 256 (Mental Impairment Review Tribunal place of custody determination dated 4 April 2025).

[16] Exhibit 1, pages 253 - 255 (Mental Impairment Review Tribunal order varying leave of absence order conditions dated 4 April 2025).

[17] See Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 51, s 110, s 114.

[18] Order 2 of the orders made by Whitby J on 24 June 2025.

[19] Exhibit 3, page 871 (Ms Lloyd's extended order assessment report dated 23 January 2026).

[20] As to the respondent's position see ts 11 (20 February 2026).

[26] See the reasons for determination reproduced at sch A to these reasons.

[27] Exhibit 3, page 871 (Ms Lloyd's extended order assessment report dated 23 January 2026).

[28] Exhibit 3, page 863 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 95).

[29] Exhibit 3, page 834 (Dr Rooprai's psychiatric report dated 26 September 2025 par 20).

[30] Exhibit 3, page 857 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 pars 45 - 46); page 841 (Dr Rooprai's psychiatric report dated 26 September 2025 par 56).

[31] Exhibit 3, page 857 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 47); page 834 (Dr Rooprai's psychiatric report dated 26 September 2025 par 22).

[32] Exhibit 3, page 858 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 48).

[34] Exhibit 3, page 841 (Dr Rooprai's psychiatric report dated 26 September 2025 par 55).

[35] Exhibit 3, page 861 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 68).

[36] Exhibit 3, pages 850 - 856, 861 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 pars 5 - 33, 35, 68); page 834 (Dr Rooprai's psychiatric report dated 26 September 2025 par 23); ts 14 (20 February 2026).

[39] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act sch 1, div 1, sub-div 3, item 34.

[40] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act sch 1, div 2, sub-div 1, item 1.

[41] Exhibit 1, page 12 (Chronology of offending prepared by the State Solicitor's office dated 14 March 2025).

[42] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act sch 1, div 1, sub-div 3, item 34.

[43] Exhibit 1, page 6 (Chronology of offending prepared by the State Solicitor's office dated 14 March 2025).

[44] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 94(b); Exhibit 1, pages 6 - 8 (Chronology of offending prepared by the State Solicitor's office dated 14 March 2025); pages 199 - 221 (Prosecution notices and statement of material facts for PE 21877 - 21880/2021 and PE 48002/2021); pages 222 - 227 (Sentencing transcript from Magistrates Court on 23 February 2024).

[45] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 pars 95, 96; Exhibit 1, pages 8, 10 - 14 (Chronology of offending prepared by the State Solicitor's office dated 14 March 2025).

[46] Exhibit 3, page 841 (Dr Rooprai's psychiatric report dated 26 September 2025 par 57).

[47] Exhibit 1, pages 42 - 59 (Professor Pyszora's psychiatric report dated 22 July 2023).

[48] Exhibit 1, page 57 (Professor Pyszora's psychiatric report dated 22 July 2023 pars 74 - 75).

[49] Exhibit 1, pages 15 - 17 (Indictment and amended statement of material facts).

[50] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 93. See also evidence of Dr Wynn Owen at ts 13 (20 February 2026).

[51] Exhibit 1, pages 297 - 298 (State Administrative Tribunal guardianship and administration order dated 23 July 2020).

[52] Exhibit 1, pages 299 - 300 (State Administrative Tribunal guardianship and administration order dated 17 July 2025).

[53] Exhibit 3, page 872 (Ms Lloyd's extended order assessment report dated 23 January 2026).

[54] Exhibit 3, page 873 (Ms Lloyd's extended order assessment report dated 23 January 2026).

[55] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 106(3).

[56] Orders 4 and 7 of the orders made by Whitby J on 24 June 2025.

[57] The reports of Ms Wager, Ms Oliveri and Dr Rooprai were reproduced in exhibit 3, pages 814 - 847.

[59] Exhibit 3, pages 855 - 856 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 pars 31 - 33).

[60] Exhibit 3, page 856 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 35).

[61] Exhibit 3, pages 858 - 859 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 50).

[63] Exhibit 3, page 859 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 51).

[64] Exhibit 3, page 859 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 52).

[65] Exhibit 3, page 860 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 66); correction at ts 12 (20 February 2026).

[67] Exhibit 3, page 864 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 pars 99 - 102).

[70] Exhibit 3, page 866 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 113).

[71] Exhibit 3, pages 866, 867 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114 and endnote to report); ts 18 (20 February 2026).

[72] Exhibit 3, pages 866 - 867 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114).

[73] Exhibit 3, page 866 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114). See also ts 14, 15 (20 February 2026).

[74] Exhibit 3, page 866 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114). See also ts 17 (20 February 2026).

[79] Exhibit 3, pages 866 - 867 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114).

[80] Exhibit 3, page 867 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114).

[83] Exhibit 3, page 871 (Ms Lloyd's extended order assessment report dated 23 January 2026); ts 35 (20 February 2026).

[86] See also ts 36 (20 February 2026).

[87] See also Ms Lloyd's evidence: ts 36 - 37 (20 February 2026).

[88] As confirmed by Ms Lloyd in the course of her evidence: ts 36 (20 February 2026).

[89] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 98.

[90] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 99.

[92] Exhibit 3, page 865 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 107). See also [99] above.

[94] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 79. See exhibit 3, page 866 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 113).

[95] Exhibit 3, page 865 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 108). See also [100] above.

[96] Exhibit 3, page 865 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 109). See also [101] above.

[97] Exhibit 3, page 860 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 66); correction at ts 12 (20 February 2026).

[98] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 73(b); Exhibit 3, page 864 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 101).

[99] See the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen: ts 18 (20 February 2026).

[100] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 61(b); Exhibit 1, page 38 (Transcript of District Court custody order hearing).

[101] As recorded at [92(d)] of these reasons; Exhibit 3, page 862 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 84).

[102] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 47, citing Attorney General v WAW [2025] WASC 324 [74].

[104] Exhibit 3, page 867 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114); ts 14 (20 February 2026).

[105] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 18 February 2026 par 60(c); Exhibit 1, page 58 (Professor Pyszora's psychiatric report dated 22 July 2023 par 80).

[106] Exhibit 3, pages 866 (Dr Wynn Owen's psychiatric report dated 12 February 2026 par 114). See also ts 17 (20 February 2026).