ATTORNEY GENERAL -v- LCB [2026] WASC 103 (31 March 2026)

1. On 1 September 2016 the respondent was charged with seven counts of sexual penetration without consent contrary to s 325 of the Criminal Code (WA).
2. From about June 2016 to September 2016 the respondent was an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) at the Joondalup Health Campus in a locked ward and was later transferred to the Frankland Centre pursuant to a hospital order. On 15 January 2017 the respondent was granted bail on the pending charges.
3. On 29 January 2018, while released on bail, the respondent failed to appear at his trial hearing. He was then remanded in custody.
4. The respondent was subsequently found unfit to stand trial in relation to the seven charges. In summary, the learned District Court Judge was satisfied that the respondent was unable to properly defend himself because he did not have the capacity to be able to decide what defence he would rely upon. Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that the respondent fulfilled the s 9(g) of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act criteria and found him to be not mentally fit to stand trial. Further, his Honour was satisfied that the respondent would not become mentally fit to stand trial within six months of that date. The indictment was quashed.
5. On the same day a custody order under s 19(4) of the now repealed Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) was imposed. The circumstances in which the custody order was made were summarised in the reasons for decision. Among other things, it was recorded that the respondent had demonstrated that in custody or in the community he would not take his medication, and untreated he remained at high risk of sexually reoffending. Having considered the competing factors individually and cumulatively, the Court was satisfied that a custody order was appropriate.
6. From 1 September 2024 the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act was repealed and replaced by the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act.
7. Section 254 of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act allows a custody order which was in place under the repealed Act immediately before the commencement of the new Act to have effect as if it were a custody order made under pt 5 of the new Act.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 on 15 August 2019 is taken to be a custody order made under s 46(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act.
8. On 28 November 2024 a limiting term order was made by Gething J on the respondent's previously indefinite custody order.[4] A limiting term of eight years was set (taken to commence on 19 August 2017). This limiting term expired on 19 August 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.[5]
9. On 17 June 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 be subject to an interim custody order pending the final determination of this application.[6]

Legislative framework and applicable principles

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 has been made. In the determination of this application, I adopted his Honour's description as if reproduced here in full.

1. The application was heard over three sitting days (3 and 18 December 2025 and 16 March 2026).
2. A book of materials in two volumes was received into evidence without objection. The first volume was dated 20 October 2025,[7] and the second volume was dated 13 November 2025.[8]
3. The first volume contained a copy of the respondent's criminal record; a chronology of the respondent's offending prepared on behalf of the applicant dated 14 April 2025; a copy of indictment IND 653 of 2017 and an amended statement of material facts dated 24 September 2024; two psychiatric reports prepared by Dr Peter A Wynn Owen for the first fitness hearing dated 20 June 2018 and 29 August 2018, respectively; the transcript of proceedings before the District Court in 2019; a copy of the custody order; the reasons for decision of the learned District Court Judge delivered in 2019; the limiting term order made by Gething J on 28 November 2024; various records of outcomes and orders of the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal (with date ranges from August 2019 to September 2025); various community corrections officer reports and a placement history report (with date ranges from December 2024 to February 2025); and various documents provided by the Department of Justice (with preparation dates ranging from September 2023 to June 2025), which included a copy of a guardianship order made on 7 September 2023 with respect to the respondent by a Member of the State Administrative Tribunal.
4. The first volume also contained copies of nine psychiatric reports. They were prepared by Dr Leon Turnbull dated 2 November 2018; Dr Wynn Owen dated 29 January 2019 and 30 August 2019; Dr Madeline McCreanor dated 27 August 2021; Dr Rachael Griffiths and Dr Drew McCarthy dated 31 August 2023; Dr Steve Patchett and Dr Colin O Murehu dated 28 March 2024; Dr Rachel Kovac and Dr Patchett dated 5 December 2024 and 15 January 2025; and Dr Charlotte Humphries and Dr Patchett dated 10 February 2025.
5. The second volume contained a copy of various medical documents received from the State Forensic Mental Health Service (with preparation dates ranging from October 2022 to October 2025); various hospital discharge summaries (with date ranges from July 2015 to April 2019); another copy of the guardianship order made with respect to the respondent by a Member of the State Administrative Tribunal; a copy of an order made by a Senior Seasonal Member of the State Administrative Tribunal on 26 March 2024 confirming the administration order made on 28 March 2023 with respect to the respondent; an occupational therapy assessment dated 2 February 2024; a document titled 'CLMI Case Conference Group Risk Assessment Management Plan' dated 12 December 2024; and a notification of release of information to legal guardian.
6. Various further psychiatric and psychological reports were also contained in the second volume. They were the psychiatric report prepared by Dr Donal Hanratty and Dr Andres Martinez Gonzalez dated 24 August 2022; the psychiatric report prepared by Dr Hanratty and Dr Shaminga Weerakkody dated 3 March 2023; the psychiatric report prepared by Dr Elizabeth Tate dated 13 July 2023; the psychiatric report prepared by Dr Tobias Richards and Dr Patchett dated 28 August 2025; the psychological assessment report prepared by Dr Robert Bonett dated 4 December 2024; the sexual violence risk assessment report prepared by Dr Bonett dated 10 February 2025; the psychological treatment summary report prepared by Dr Bonett dated 19 August 2025; and the violence risk assessment report prepared by Dr Richards and Dr Patchett dated 11 August 2025.
7. Reports prepared for the purposes of this application were also reproduced in the second volume. They were the psychiatric report of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 16 October 2025 and the adult community corrections extended order assessment report dated 29 October 2025 endorsed by Senior Community Corrections Officer Bethany Fildes, and by Team Leader Jaclyn Davie and State Manager Nathalie Heenan, within CLMI Services, Adult Community Corrections.
8. To the extent that the second volume of documents contained duplicate copies of documents contained in the first volume, they were accepted with that notation.[9]
9. On behalf of the applicant, the following documents were also tendered without objection:

(a) the transcript of hearing on 24 June 2025 before Whitby J;[10]

(b) a letter from the National Disability Insurance Agency dated 17 June 2025;[11]

(c) a Review Comprehensive Positive Behaviour Support Plan for the respondent dated 1 September 2025 prepared by Melior Positive Behaviour Support;[12]

(d) the transcript of hearing on 28 November 2024 before Gething J;[13]

(e) the extended order assessment report dated 17 December 2025 prepared by Ms Fildes;[14]

(f) the extended order assessment report dated 3 March 2026 prepared by Ms Fildes;[15]

(g) the psychiatric report prepared by Dr Elizabeth Tate, forensic psychiatrist and Medical Head of Department State Forensic Mental Health Service Admitted Services dated 10 March 2026.[16]

1. On 3 December 2025 the applicant called two witnesses who gave evidence. They were:

(a) Bethany Fildes, Senior Community Corrections Officer and signatory of the adult community corrections extended order assessment reports dated 29 October 2025, 17 December 2025 and 3 March 2026;[17] and

(b) Dr Wojnarowska, a forensic psychiatrist and author of the psychiatric report dated 16 October 2025.[18]

1. During the course of the hearing, the respondent did not give evidence and no documentary evidence was tendered on his behalf. 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 outlines of submissions filed on behalf of the applicant on 1 December 2025 and 13 March 2026, and on behalf of the respondent on 28 November 2025 and 13 March 2026.

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 is a 45 year old man.
2. He is the middle child in a family of three children.[19] He has an established diagnosis of schizophrenia, generalised anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorder. He has resided at the Frankland Centre since 26 August 2019 after being found unfit to stand trial.[20]

1. There was no indication that the respondent had conduct issues in childhood or early adolescence.[21] The respondent attended school until year 11, after which he completed a plumbing apprenticeship. He commenced a business studies Technical and Further Education (TAFE) course in 2021 but found the computer requirements challenging and elected to withdraw after two months.[22]

1. In his early adulthood the respondent displayed problems with sustaining employment and financial stability. He declared bankruptcy in his early 20's and throughout his adulthood was homeless over several periods. The respondent described this as 'becoming homeless to avoid problems'. He had inpatient admissions in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia.[23]
2. The respondent advised that he qualified as a plumber in 2001. He would be required to complete a seven-week refresher course at TAFE before he could resume work in this profession. At a care planning meeting on 18 August 2025, the treating team advised they were of the opinion that the respondent was not physically fit to undertake plumbing work due to the physical nature of the trade and given that he often struggles to complete daily tasks.[24]

1. The respondent is an inpatient at the Frankland Centre. He continues to have contact with his parents who reside in Kalgoorlie.
2. In the report of Dr Wojnarowska prepared for the purposes of this application the respondent reported that he had had a few brief flings as a teenager. He also reported (which was confirmed) that he had one serious relationship with a primary school teacher around the time that he was completing his plumbing apprenticeship. This relationship was said to have broken down due to the respondent's mental health, aggression and erratic behaviour.[25]
3. It was reported that the respondent's only relationships of significance were with his immediate family, mainly his parents, who remain supportive; and he does not appear to have formed any close, meaningful relationships with other patients. He is however generally polite and pleasant in interacting with them.[26]
4. Dr Wojnarowska recorded in her report that the respondent's family 'express concern about his aggressive behaviour towards them and believe he still has no insight into his illness'.[27]
5. Dr Wojnarowska recorded that the respondent had no friends and was vulnerable to peer influence.[28]

1. The respondent has long standing substance use problems. He reportedly began using cannabis heavily in year 11, and began heavily using alcohol and methamphetamine in early adulthood.[29]
2. The respondent is tested at least once a week for illicit substances at Graylands Hospital. All of his results have been negative or consistent with his prescribed medication except for a test in August 2023 which was positive for methamphetamine.[30]
3. The psychological assessment report by Dr Bonett dated 4 December 2024 recorded that when interviewed, the respondent 'maintained that cannabis and methamphetamine were probably good medications for schizophrenia'.[31] When later interviewed by Dr Wojnarowska on 16 October 2025, the respondent reported that in the past he had used cannabis and ice. As to this, the respondent said cannabis 'helped me to feel relaxed' and 'ice gave me a buzz, it was never bad'. Although, it was recorded in her report that the respondent had denied any intention to use substances in the future, the denial was characterised by Dr Wojnarowska as impression managing.[32]

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 April 2025.
2. The respondent has a criminal history dating back to 2005 with convictions for obstructing a public officer, threats to injure, endanger or harm any person, failure to comply with request to give personal details, possession of smoking utensil for prohibited drug, possession of cannabis, breach of bail, gaining benefit by fraud and driver related offences. He did not receive terms of imprisonment for these offences.
3. The chronology recorded the seven charges of sexual penetration without consent contrary to s 325 of the Criminal Code. The chronology outlined the date and nature of each offence; a high level summary of the material facts for each; the date of outcome; and the sentence imposed.
4. The chronology recorded that on 20 March 2016 the respondent committed seven counts of sexual penetration without consent contrary to s 325 of the Criminal Code, and the circumstances of the offending were as follows.
5. The victim was at the time of the offending a 27 year old woman with spastic diplegia, a type of cerebral palsy. She relied on a wheelchair for mobility and required assistance to stand unassisted for longer periods of time.
6. On 20 March 2016 the victim was a voluntary patient in the psychiatric ward at Royal Perth Hospital. At about 10.30 am the victim and another patient went to visit the respondent. The victim had not previously met the respondent. At some point the other patient left to buy food indicating that she would return in 15 minutes. As to each count, the applicant recorded as follows in the chronology offending prepared for the purposes of this application:[33]

Count 1

[The respondent] stood up and pulled his pants down, exposing his penis. Whilst the victim was still seated in her wheelchair, [the respondent] pulled her head down and placed his penis into her mouth. [The respondent's] hand remained on the back of the victim's head. She was unable to move back due to her physical condition. [The respondent] told the victim to 'suck' his penis, which she did, against her will. [The respondent] forcefully pushed his penis down her throat, without consent, causing the victim to cough and gasp for air.

Count 2

[The respondent] wheeled the victim into his bedroom. She told him to let her go. He ignored her. [The respondent] lifted the victim from her chair and placed her on his bed. She was lying on the bed, out of reach of her wheelchair. [The respondent] removed his clothing. Over her express objections, he undressed the victim, who was physically unable to resist him. [The respondent] crouched over the victim on the bed with his penis near her face. He again placed his penis into the victim's mouth, without her consent.

Count 3

[The respondent] tried to kiss the victim. He sucked on her breasts. [The respondent] then moved his hand down the victim's body and penetrated her anus with his finger, without her consent.

Count 4

[The respondent] penetrated the victim's vagina with his finger, without her consent.

Count 5

[The respondent] manoeuvred himself over the victim so that his face was in front of her genitals and his buttocks were in front of her face. He asked her to lick his anus. She refused to do so. [The respondent] performed cunnilingus on the victim, without her consent.

Count 6

[The respondent] spat saliva between the victim's legs and penetrated her anus with his penis, causing the victim pain. She told him to stop, but he continued thrusting his penis in and out of her anus, without her consent.

Count 7

[The respondent] removed his penis from the victim's anus, lifted her legs up so that they were over his shoulders and penetrated her vagina with his penis, without her consent. The victim asked [the respondent] if he liked raping women. He replied, 'I am not raping you, it is nice.' The victim told [the respondent] to stop several times, but he continued.

[The respondent] eventually got off the victim. [The respondent] asked if she was happy. She answered no and asked him to let her go. [The respondent] handed the victim her clothing. He helped her back in the wheelchair and out of the unit. The victim came across [the other patient] in the lift. Immediately the victim said that she had been raped.

The victim made her way back to the hospital on her own, where she told nursing staff that she had been raped. The victim was highly distressed at the time. The matter was reported to the police. They went to the hospital and commenced an investigation.

Later that day, [the respondent] was arrested and participated in an electronic record of interview. He admitted that he had sex with the victim, but stated that it was consensual.

1. The evidence of Dr Wynn Owen was considered when in 2019 the learned District Court Judge considered the respondent's fitness to stand trial with respect to these counts. Dr Wynn Owen's evidence was recorded as follows:[34]

Dr Wynn Owen's evidence was that [the respondent] was, at the time of the alleged offences, almost certainly of unsound mind. His judgment was impaired by his mental illness and he held delusional beliefs about being sexually deprived, his sexual entitlements and sexual rights and had a sexual preoccupation that was not in contact with the real world.

Dr Wynn Owen said these delusions appeared to be a constant theme over time. His evidence was that these delusions are highly likely to have been present since the onset of the illness.

Dr Wynn Owen said [the respondent] was presently, and at the time of the alleged offending, acutely unwell and could significantly misinterpret verbal and non-verbal interactions with others. Dr Wynn Owen said [the respondent's] acute illness was a significant contributor to the offences and he may not have offended if not unwell at the time.

1. Dr Wojnarowska explained her view as follows:[35]

[The respondent] did not suffer from delusions or hallucinations that would be directly responsible for the offence he committed. However, in my view, there is a casual association or a nexus between the offending and his mental state, because he has got an enduring mental illness and associated impairments in terms of social functioning, etcetera, and he does tend to misinterpret his environment and social cues - clues. So there is definitely an indirect association between his illness and the offending.

1. As is outlined at [11] above, the respondent was found unfit to stand trial in relation to the seven charges.
2. Later in 2016, the respondent was alleged to have indecently assaulted another patient on the same psychiatric ward as himself but was not formally charged for this.[36]

1. The index offences are the only instance of serious sexual offending in the respondent's criminal history. Overall, the respondent's antecedents did not disclose a pattern of offending (that is, as it pertains to behaviour, a recurrent way of acting by an individual or group towards a given object or in a given situation).[37]
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. As was observed on behalf of the applicant, although the index offences remained the only offences of that nature alleged to have been committed by the respondent, the consistent presentation of the respondent in his assessment by the experts was that his judgment was impaired by his mental illness and that he lacked insight into his mental illness or the need for treatment.[38]
2. The respondent is prone to sexual preoccupation when his schizophrenia is untreated. I would characterise his preoccupation as a propensity on the part of the respondent, when his schizophrenia is untreated, to engage in conduct that could constitute a serious sexual offence in the future.

1. The respondent has an established diagnosis of schizophrenia, generalised anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorder. The respondent's schizophrenia relapses quickly in the event of non-compliance with medication and/or substance use.[39]
2. The respondent has been known to mental health services since 2004 when he was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 23. That same year was the first of many hospital admissions, all of which were involuntary. The respondent has also been the subject of many community treatment orders and has been treated with depot injections in the past.[40]
3. Since residing at the Frankland Centre, it was noted that from 2020 the respondent had been treated with a wide variety of psychotropic medication, including risperidone, paliperidone, zuclopenthixol acetate and decanoate, lurasidone, olanzapine and clozapine.[41] Psychological testing had indicated the presence of long term untreated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), for which the respondent commenced lis dexamphetamine in December 2024. This was ceased and replaced by atomoxetine (non stimulant).[42]
4. With regard to the treatment of his mental illness, Dr Wojnarowska recorded that the respondent had 'remained difficult to engage in services and has been lost to care on a number of occasions due to his lack of insight into his mental illness'.[43] Upon analysing the respondent's psychiatric history Dr Wojnarowska recorded the following:[44]

[The respondent's] psychiatric history confirms; poor response to treatment with antipsychotic medications, and treatment with Clozapine only achieving a partial remission. It also details history of non- compliance when not supervised resulting in emergence of bizarre sexual delusions. In addition, at his best, his mental state is characterized by lack of insight, with strong possibility of non compliance if treatment not supervised and mandated.

1. Dr Tate, who assumed responsibility for the respondent's care on 2 February 2026, recorded that the respondent's mental illness was never fully controlled on any medication other than clozapine, which is only available as an oral medication.[45]

1. On 7 September 2023 the State Administrative Tribunal determined an application to appoint a guardian and/or administrator pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). The Tribunal declared that the respondent was:

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

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

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

(d) in need of a guardian.[46]

1. A guardianship order was made in the following terms:

1. 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; and
>
> (e) 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.

2. It was further ordered that the guardianship order was to be reviewed on 7 September 2028.

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.[47]
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 Wojnarowska, 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'.
3. Reports were prepared by Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Fildes.

1. In determining the application, I had regard to the report prepared by Dr Wojnarowska for the purposes of this application,[48] and her oral evidence, which are summarised below. The following is not intended to be a complete recitation of the same.
2. I carefully considered the evidence of Dr Wojnarowska. She was qualified to give the opinions expressed in her report and in the course of her evidence. The report and evidence of Dr Wojnarowska were cogent and compelling, and the opinions expressed were appropriately qualified.

1. At page 2 of her report Dr Wojnarowska recorded that in its preparation she had interviewed the respondent at the Forensic Mental Health Services Dryandra Ward at Graylands Hospital on 20 September 2025. Further, she listed the documents that she had reviewed at paragraph 7.
2. There was no suggestion in Dr Wojnarowska's report that the respondent had failed to co-operate with the examination. Indeed, Dr Wojnarowska recorded that the respondent was friendly and engaged well with the interview process, although he became uncomfortable when questioned regarding his sexual functioning.

1. In the first part of her report Dr Wojnarowska recorded what she described as 'background information', which included the respondent's age, his established diagnoses and NDIS supports.
2. As to those diagnoses, Dr Wojnarowska recorded them as being schizophrenia, generalised anxiety disorder, ADHD, and substance use disorder.
3. Dr Wojnarowska further recorded that the respondent had a NDIS plan that commenced in April 2025, which plan included the provision of core support funding for assisted daily living; assistance with social and community participation and consumables; capacity building supports that included behaviour support; support for improved daily living skills and support coordination; and psychological recovery coaches. She further recorded that the respondent has supported/escorted community access for six hours per day with support workers taking him out two days per week for leisure activities.

1. Dr Wojnarowska recorded that as at 20 September 2025 (the date she interviewed the respondent) the respondent's medications then were clozapine 450 mg (an antipsychotic medication), sertraline 50 mg (an antidepressant), and atomoxetine 75 mg (an ADHD medication).[49] They are taken orally and daily.[50] None are available as depot medication, and there is no equivalent (in effectiveness) to clozapine that is available as a depot medication.[51] It was Dr Wojnarowska's evidence that clozapine is the best antipsychotic medication available.[52]
2. Dr Wojnarowska also recorded later in her report that the respondent had on 30 December 2024 commenced taking lis dexamphetamine following communication with the stimulant registration board (given his schizophrenia diagnosis and substance abuse history). This medication was ceased shortly thereafter and replaced by atomoxetine (non‑stimulant) due to re-emergence of psychotic symptoms.[53]
3. In the course of her evidence, Dr Wojnarowska opined that clozapine (the antipsychotic) was the most important of the mediations for the respondent, and that sertraline (the antidepressant) was less important but useful in maintaining the respondent's mood as stable. As to ADHD medication, Dr Wojnarowska was not able to express a view as to the extent to which taking it was important in terms of the respondent's ongoing compliance.[54]

1. Dr Wojnarowska summarised the respondent's history of offending in her report at pages 3 to 5.
2. With regard to the respondent's later offending in 2016 where he was alleged to have indecently assaulted another patient on the same psychiatric ward as himself but was not formally charged (referred to at [54] above), Dr Wojnarowska recorded that the following had been documented:[55]

[The respondent] entered the room of a female patient while she was asleep, pulled back the sheets and touched her on the behind. The female patient awoke and immediately alerted staff. During this episode, he was sexually preoccupied, sexually disinhibited, and experiencing sexual delusions, as indicated by indiscreetly masturbating, approaching staff for sex, and expressing delusions that nurses were having sex with all the other patients and thereby depriving him of sex. His delusional beliefs appeared to have increased his emotional arousal and frustration, thereby elevating a subjective sense of pressure and urgency around the need for sexual gratification. Consequently, he attempted to achieve sexual gratification with a co-patient, who was likely just a convenient sexual object.

1. Dr Wojnarowska outlined in her report the respondent's psychiatric history, beginning with his hospitalisation in 2004 and concluding with his progress in the Frankland Centre in 2020.[56]
2. Dr Wojnarowska recorded that following the respondent's first hospital admission in 2004 when he was 23 years of age, he went on to have many admissions with relapses of paranoid psychosis due to medication non-compliance. She also recorded that he had had many community treatment orders and had been treated by depot medication in the past, but despite this, the respondent had remained difficult to engage in services and had been lost to care on a number of occasions due to his lack of insight into his mental illness.
3. Among other things, she also recorded that the respondent had diagnoses of treatment resistant schizophrenia, panic disorder and generalised anxiety disorder; had multiple hospital admissions from 2004 when he was 23 years old; had a history of delusions about being tortured by family or the police and being deprived of sex; and had a history of very poor compliance and being itinerant.

1. Dr Wojnarowska recorded that on 18 March 2022, the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board imposed new leave of absence conditions on the respondent's order.
2. She further recorded that on 1 August 2023 the respondent had a planned stay at Romily House which was marred by non-compliance. The incident had been reported in a Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board case manager's report dated 28 March 2024 in the following terms:[57]

[The respondent] failed to adhere to curfew, missed medication, and was unreachable during an unapproved absence, returning only the next morning. Discovery of a syringe and saline in his possession raised concerns, although [the respondent] denied illicit drug use, attributing the items to preexisting conditions. Consequently, his discharge to Romily House was halted, and his access was restricted to escorted grounds only. [The respondent's] treating team mandated his participation in drug and alcohol counselling as a crucial component of his recovery journey. They emphasized that refusal to engage in this counselling would impede his chances of gaining unescorted community access. Despite previous reluctance, [the respondent] expressed willingness to comply with this requirement moving forward and attended as required.

1. Dr Wojnarowska recorded in her report that (as at the date of her report) the respondent continued to utilise his unescorted leave of absence for the purpose of participation in local community activities, rehabilitation programs and leisure activities.[58] In this regard, Dr Wojnarowska also recorded that the respondent had engaged with support workers for community access via Inclusion WA; had been assisted by a positive behaviour support practitioner from Melior Positive Behaviour Support; had engaged with an occupational therapist from Integrated WA; and had a specialised support coordinator from Ark Support Coordination.[59]
2. She further reported that during an interagency meeting on 6 January 2025, it was confirmed that the respondent had had no overnight leave of absence since 2023 (after the incident at Romily House).[60]

1. Dr Wojnarowska recorded at paragraphs 54 to 64 of her report information provided to her by the respondent at the interview conducted on 20 September 2025.
2. Among other things, the respondent reported to Dr Wojnarowska that he would like freedom, explaining that he would cease taking clozapine when not subject to an order as he did not believe he had a mental illness. The respondent said that in the past he had a 'condition' called schizophrenia but believed that it was 'under wraps' and he did not need to be medicated. Later in the interview it was reported that the respondent had expressed the belief that he was started on clozapine to treat his involuntary movements.
3. He further reported that he had experienced 'some paranoia' in the past, believing that he had been raped; and denied ever being unwell, saying 'maybe a little at that time, just unstable'.[61] He also reported that he had not experienced any difficulties in the community and believed that he had always functioned well.[62]
4. The respondent reported that he would like to have an intimate relationship and that he believed he would have no difficulty finding the right woman. Further, he denied that he had committed any offences in the past (that is, he denied that there was not consent),[63] but stated that he would like to protect himself from being accused of offending in the future, and added that he would be more cautious in the future to 'make sure that she consents'.

1. As to the presentation of the respondent, particularly his mental state, Dr Wojnarowska reported that the respondent presented as an unkept and obese man. She recorded that his affect was fatuous and unconcerned; no formal thought disorder was evident; there was poverty of thought; the respondent's speech was limited to short answers relevant to the answers; and that thought content did not reveal delusions but there were obvious cognitive deficits.[64]
2. Dr Wojnarowska also recorded that the respondent had very limited insight into his legal situation and psychiatric condition; and that his judgement was impaired.[65]

1. As to her own diagnostic opinion, Dr Wojnarowska recorded in her report as follows:[66]
   1. [The respondent's] current presentation is a mixture of negative psychotic symptoms of Schizophrenia and associated cognitive deficits. His psychiatric history and current presentation confirm: poor response to treatment with antipsychotic medications, including treatment with Clozapine achieving only a partial remission. It also details history of non-compliance when not supervised resulting in emergence of bizarre sexual delusions. In addition, at his best, his mental state is characterized by lack of insight, with strong possibility of non compliance if treatment is not supervised and mandated.
   2. It appears that some of [the respondent's] behaviours are causally related to his psychotic symptoms. For example, behaviours related to acting in an oversexualised manner can be attributed to his delusional beliefs that 'others' have more and better access to sex that he has ever had which makes him feel resentful for being treated 'unjustly'. This may explain his propensity for physical aggression.

1. Dr Wojnarowska was required by operation of s 106(1) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act to set out her assessment of the likelihood that the respondent would commit a serious offence if not subject to an extended custody order; her assessment of the respondent's rehabilitation, retraining or resocialisation requirements; and the reasons for her assessment.[67]
2. In assessing the respondent's risk, Dr Wojnarowska recorded that there are two main categories of tools used to assess risk: actuarial instruments and structural clinical guides.
3. In undertaking the risk assessment, Dr Wojnarowska reported that she employed two tools as part of her assessment of the respondent, described below. The results obtained were also interpreted by Dr Wojnarowska, and I draw the following from Dr Wojnarowska's report.

1. Dr Wojnarowska used the Static-99R which I understood to be an actuarial instrument intended to position offenders in terms of their relative degree of risk for sexual recidivism based on commonly available demographic and criminal history information that has been found to correlate with sexual recidivism in adult male sex offenders.
2. As to actuarial instruments generally, Dr Wojnarowska explained that actuarial instruments use mainly static risk factors, meaning factors that are unchangeable; a core aspect is that scores obtained on individuals can be related to statistical reference data; they involve consideration of a limited number of factors that are combined according to a fixed and explicit algorithm; and a statistical profile of the person is created that may be compared to known groups of recidivists and non-recidivistic offenders.
3. Static-99R consists of 10 items and produces estimates of future risk based upon the number of risk factors present in any one individual. The offender's risk may be higher or lower than the probabilities estimated in the Static-99R depending on other risk factors not measured by this instrument. Dr Wojnarowska further explained in her report that Static-99R has moderate accuracy in ranking offenders according to their relative risk for sexual recidivism and is widely accepted by the scientific community.
4. As to the respondent's results, Dr Wojnarowska recorded the respondents Static-99R score was 1, which placed him in the 'average risk' range for being charged or convicted of another sexual offence.

1. Secondly, Dr Wojnarowska used the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP). She described RSVP as a tool to identify risk factors for future sexual offending in clinical and forensic settings, intended for use with men and women aged eighteen and older who have a known or suspected history of sexual violence.
2. It requires consideration of static risk factors such as prior offending history. However, it is noted that while static risk factors are generally used for evaluating long term risk, historical variables cannot be used to assess changes in risk over time. It also requires consideration of dynamic variables which are the characteristics of sex offenders that are capable of change and are divided into stable and acute; and stable dynamic risk factors which have endured for long periods of time but have the potential to change through treatment, such as deviant preferences.
3. As to the RSVP, Dr Wojnarowska detailed her findings under headings which included:[68]

(a) 'Sexual Violence (Chronicity, Diversity, Escalation)' - as to sexual violence Dr Wojnarowska considered the respondent's history of offending, noting that the respondent's charges which resulted in a custody order were all reported to have occurred over the course of one day in March 2016, against the same victim. She also noted that in 2016 the respondent was alleged to have indecently assaulted another patient at the same psychiatric ward where he was admitted, he was not formally charged for the incident. She also noted that while an inpatient at Joondalup Hospital and the Frankland Centre, the respondent believed that hospital staff were frequently going into other patients' rooms during the night and having sex. The respondent's beliefs as voiced to Dr Wojnarowska were that he was a victim of sexual deprivation;

(b) 'Coercion' - as to the index offences, the respondent had used the physical disadvantage of the victim to offend against her. The victim told the respondent no and repeatedly asked him to stop. He did not use additional violence or make threats in anyway. The victim of his later alleged indecent assault was reportedly asleep until woken by the assault;

(c) 'Extreme Minimisation/Denial of Sex Offence' - the respondent has continued to deny his sex offences and minimise all risk concerns. Dr Wojnarowska reported that this had hampered efforts to engage him in psychological treatment or relapse prevention and as such his current state of reduced risk was maintained only by the external controls of his custody order;[69]

(d) 'Attitudes that Support or Condone Sexual Violence' - the respondent had reported a number of themes relevant to this heading, some delusions and others which Dr Wojnarowska opined could be core belief systems. She recorded that at times he had described himself as being 'sexually deprived', believing that he had been unfairly denied sexual intercourse. When suffering from psychosis, he had become convinced that hospital staff were going into other patients' rooms to have sex with them, but with assertive treatment these beliefs had ameliorated to some degree with the respondent no longer expressing them spontaneously;

(e) 'Problems with Self Awareness' - the respondent does not accept that he requires treatment for schizophrenia or any other mental disorder aside from ADHD, and he denies having committed any offences or there being any need to change his behaviour. Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent's problematic personality traits (for example, extreme self-centredness, disregard for others, impulsivity, irresponsibility), and his implicit attitudes about sex and women has meant that he 'is a chronic risk of engaging in non-consensual sexual acts, if he senses that an opportunity for sex has presented itself';

(f) 'Problems with Stress and Coping' - the respondent has low levels of frustration tolerance. When not treated with antipsychotics, this has at times led to threats and violence against hospital staff insisting on treatment. When treated with clozapine his symptoms tend to ameliorate, however he is still liable to become anxious or agitated, using projection and denial as a defence mechanism;

(g) 'Problems Resulting from Child Abuse' - the respondent has no known history of childhood trauma or abuse;

(h) 'Sexual Deviance' - sexual deviance was not present, although it was noted that there was some level of sexual preoccupation;

(i) 'Major Mental disorder' - the respondent has had a significant psychiatric history with an excess of ten admissions to psychiatric hospitals in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales, before his admission to the Frankland Centre in 2016. The ten admissions were involuntary. His diagnoses have historically included harmful substance abuse, harmful use of stimulants, cannabis and alcohol, non-organic psychosis, anxiety, and schizophrenia. He was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2009. He has been subject to many community treatment orders and had been treated with depot medications in the past, but despite this the respondent had remained difficult to engage in services resulting in him being lost to care on a number of occasions;

(j) 'Substance Use Problem' - this has been a longstanding problem. The respondent reportedly began using cannabis heavily in year 11. His parents reported he would frequently come home intoxicated. He began heavy use of alcohol and methamphetamine in early adulthood. In 2023, he used methamphetamine while on overnight leave from the Frankland Centre;

(k) 'Problems with Relationships' - the respondent continues to have contact with his parents who reside in Kalgoorlie, limited serious relationships (as recorded at [38] to [39] above), and no friends. He is vulnerable to peer influence as evidenced by his use of methamphetamine while on leave of absence;

(l) 'Problems with Education and Employment' - among other things, after the onset of his illness, the respondent became unable to work and was homeless for multiple years. Further, he has displayed problems with sustaining employment and financial stability;

(m) 'Problems with Planning' - the respondent has demonstrated an inability to maintain housing. He previously did not meet his mortgage payments and declared bankruptcy. He reported multiple incidents of defaulting on loans and rental agreements. Despite the respondent having the financial means to purchase his own accommodation outright, the guardian advised this option would not be supported until he has demonstrated stability within the community for a minimum period of approximately 12 months;

(n) 'Problems with Treatment' - the respondent previously self-ceased his medication in the custodial environment and exchanged it with other prisoners, resulting in another prisoner having a seizure. There are concerns regarding the respondent's capacity to comply with taking medication daily once he transitions to the community. His treating psychologist advised that he lacks motivation to engage with mental health services and continues to lack insight into his need for ongoing management of his mental health; and

(o) 'Problems with Supervision' - the respondent does not accept that there is any valid reason for supervision, and would be unlikely to cooperate outside of a secure environment without a substantial improvement in his mental state.

1. In her report, Dr Wojnarowska recorded her opinion as to risk in the following terms.[70]

The likelihood of sexual violence in the future is moderate. His mental illness and substance use problems have been remediated by detention in a forensic hospital and the imminence of sexual violence is low in his current setting. However, when discharge to the community on no orders, this risk would increase to high as he is likely to cease his treatment shortly after. He is also likely to use illicit substances and access vulnerable victims. The severity of sexual violence risk is moderate, regarding psychological harms. The risk of physical violence during sexual activity is unlikely. He does not indicate violent sexual fantasies.

His risk of sexual violence would substantially increase with the recurrence of critical factors such as substance or psychosis related disinhibition, increased sexual drive, sexual preoccupation and frustration, and sexually themed delusions. Potential victims would most likely be adult women who he had opportunity to access in secluded spaces. Victims would most likely be vulnerable in some way due to mental illness, intellectual disability or physical disability. Adolescent females may also be at risk due to their young age and psychological vulnerability.

In summary, [the respondent] is a 44 year old man who has a history of offending including generalist and sexual offending. He scored in average range on Static 99-R, and his risk of reoffending in a sexual manner is moderate, due to numerous predictive factors outlined in RSVP. His risk has been well managed in the hospital setting due to supports that he has been provided through a multidisciplinary team. His risk is also mitigated by the conditions that he is subject to through the order. Without them, [the respondent] would likely reengage in drugs and alcohol and cease medication which in turn increases his disorganization and disinhibition, possible homelessness and association with antisocial peers. In my opinion, [the respondent's] risk to the community could not be negated by the sole presence of his support workers, OT and other therapeutic supports.

1. In her report, under the heading 'Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 - Response to Questions', Dr Wojnarowska recorded the following:[71]

[The respondent] continues to be manageable in the Graylands Hospital setting. The team has ongoing significant concerns about [the respondent's] risk if he was to be released from the custody order prematurely without order conditions. His main protective factors are the structured environment, trained staff and being subject to custody order conditions that give staff and police the power to restrict his freedom should he cease medication or relapse into substances.

Should he be released from the custody order without having the opportunity for an extended period of gradual exposure to living in the community and not subject to his legal order, he would be free to leave his accommodation at any time.

The proposed time frame of transferring him into the community should be extended to a period of no shorter than 6-12 months, during which time he would be tried on overnight leave, with staggered progression depending on his response and ability to adapt to the new environment. Furthermore, all agencies involved in [the respondent's] care should continue to liaise closely and collaboratively to ensure the best outcome for successful progression.

1. In the course of her evidence, Dr Wojnarowska again expressed the opinion that with only the supports made available through the NDIS plan, the respondent's risk would not be managed in the community.[72]
2. While Dr Wojnarowska accepted that in the long term, the respondent could be managed on a community supervision order,[73] her concern was the immediate treatment and transition of the respondent.[74] That is, while Dr Wojnarowska accepted that the respondent would remain subject to conditions if he were made subject to a community supervision order, she did not agree that the respondent's risk could immediately be managed in the community while subject to such an order. In her view, the important difference as between the orders was gradual exposure to the community.[75] Further, while she accepted that the respondent was engaging in unescorted leave, so that he was being exposed to the community, Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent's exposure to the community was not regular, not extended and did not include overnight stays.[76]
3. As to why Dr Wojnarowska had opined that a period of no shorter than six to 12 months was appropriate, she noted that the respondent had not lived in the community for many years, and so was highly institutionalised. Further, while at the time she prepared her report the respondent's mental state was stable, Dr Wojnarowska noted that he had no insight into his illness, the need for treatment, nor the consequences should he cease treatment. In that context, she noted:[77]

So, in my view, that period of time when he's adjusting to less restrictive environment is crucial to provide people who look after him with assurance that he's compliant and that he can adjust to living in the community.

1. The 'sufficient' period of time would depend on the respondent's mental state. She also accepted that it was possible that a shorter period might be appropriate, but that would depend on how the respondent adjusted to living in the community.[78]
2. If the respondent was transitioned back into the community too quickly, Dr Wojnarowska opined that it could appear to be too stressful for him and that there was always a potential for relapse to drug use, which could potentially lead to him ceasing treatment and reoffending. In this regard, Dr Wojnarowska recorded that she was very concerned about methamphetamine use, as it would be likely to induce a psychotic state very quickly.[79]
3. Dr Wojnarowska elaborated that given his schizophrenia diagnosis, she would expect that positive symptoms could re-emerge. In addition, she noted that methamphetamine is known to increase aggression, or to lead to aggressive behaviour.[80]
4. In the course of her evidence, Dr Wojnarowska also accepted that the respondent's risk would decrease if he were stable on his medication and his mental illness was stable.[81]

1. Dr Wojnarowska's evidence included various recommendations as to the management of risk.
2. As to his introduction to overnight leave, Dr Wojnarowska suggested that it occur gradually before the respondent was to reach the maximum number of days permitted.[82] I understood Dr Wojnarowska to be concerned that if not on an extended custody order, the respondent would not be transitioned into the community gradually.[83] Furthermore, Dr Wojnarowska doubted whether the respondent would continue treatment if he was allowed to cease it.[84]
3. As to any shared accommodation, it was Dr Wojnarowska's opinion that the other resident ought be a male (as any female resident of such shared accommodation would presumably be vulnerable). Given the respondent's offending history, Dr Wojnarowska would be concerned if there was any vulnerable female in his proximity.[85]

1. Ms Fildes produced pursuant to s 106(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act a 'Case Manager's Report' and a number of supplementary reports. The following is not intended to be a complete recitation of Ms Fildes' reports.

1. Ms Fildes is a senior community corrections officer within the group known as CLMI Services - Adult Community Corrections. Ms Fildes was one of three signatories to the community supervision assessment report dated 29 October 2025.[86]
2. Ms Fildes recorded in her report her sources of information, which included her interview with the respondent on 26 September 2025; various Department of Justice records; the respondent's National Disability Insurance Agency Plan dated 17 June 2025; and information gained from having liaised with State Forensic Mental Health Services, Ark Support Coordination, the public trustee from the State Administrative Tribunal, the guardian from the Office of the Public Advocate, and Inclusion WA.[87]
3. In the first part of her report, Ms Fildes described the background to the application. In this regard, there was significant repetition in the materials before the Court, and I do not repeat here Ms Fildes' summary.

1. Ms Fildes recorded that the respondent reports for supervision once a month at East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre where the extended custody application process had been discussed and was reportedly understood by him.[88]
2. Ms Fildes recorded that the respondent's attitude to his mental health treatment was discussed, and when asked whether he would continue to comply should he not be mandated by order conditions, Ms Fildes recorded that he said:[89]

'he does not feel he needs to take mental health medication and "definitely" will not take it if given a choice'.

1. She also recorded that the respondent confirmed that he would comply with any order conditions made in relation to his psychiatric treatment should an extended custody order or a community supervision order be imposed.[90]

Compliance for current order and capacity to respond to order requirements

1. As to the respondent's compliance to date and capacity to respond to order requirements, Ms Fildes addressed the following matters.

1. Ms Fildes outlined that the respondent had been transferred between prison and the Frankland Centre (as an involuntary patient) multiple times due to his refusal to take medications for his mental health. Since 2018 the respondent had spent 566 days in prison. During this time, he had not presented as a behaviour management issue and had only one recorded incident involving him refusing to move cell when requested.[91]

1. Ms Fildes addressed the respondent's compliance under his leave of absence order made on 19 September 2024. After outlining the conditions of this order, she recorded that the respondent had been generally compliant.[92]
2. Later in her report, Ms Fildes further recorded that the respondent had on multiple occasions come back from leave late resulting in missed appointments, and he had attempted to bring prohibited items (cigarettes and lighter) onto the ward.
3. Although the leave of absence order allowed escorted overnight leave of absence (up to six days per week), Ms Fildes recorded that overnight leave had not occurred due to an absence of suitable accommodation.[93]

1. Ms Fildes recorded that the respondent attended monthly meetings with his supervising officer (supported by a support worker from Inclusions WA, providing him transport). He was able to attend appointments on time, maintain contact with his supervising officer and engage appropriately, but also consistently presented as unmotivated in relation to his progress with reintegration and transition to the community.
2. Although the respondent spoke about future goals such as moving out of Graylands and completing TAFE, it was noted that he had not undertaken the steps required to achieve this. It was confirmed by the treating team that this lack of motivation was a symptom consistent with his diagnosis of schizophrenia.[94]

1. As to the respondent's substance use, he had been tested weekly and all but one test for alcohol and illicit substances had been negative or had been consistent with prescribed medications. In August 2023 the respondent tested positive for methamphetamine as detailed in these reasons at [43] and [86].

1. In her report Ms Fildes then went on to detail the respondent's mental and physical health, which included observations consistent with the overview at [59] to [63] of these reasons.
2. Ms Fildes recorded that she had liaised with the State Forensic Mental Health Services and was informed that there had been a decline in the respondent's appearance and personal hygiene over his time at Graylands Hospital; that he had gained 30 kilograms since his admission (he was prescribed semaglutide to manage this); and that he has sleep apnoea.[95]

1. The respondent's accommodation history was outlined, which included his short stay at Romily House in August 2023.
2. As to accommodation options, Ms Fildes recorded that a case conference group meeting took place on 9 October 2025 to discuss accommodation options for the respondent. Attendees included the supervising officer, the respondent's guardian, a solicitor, the specialist support coordinator, staff from State Forensic Mental Health Services, a senior occupational therapist, a social worker, a psychologist and a clinical nurse specialist. It was concluded that there was then no available accommodation options that the treating team were comfortable with.
3. Ms Fildes also recorded in her report that on 20 October 2025 she had been advised that Dane Care had confirmed willingness to accommodate the respondent on his current NDIS funding, but as at the date of her report the accommodation option had not been approved by the respondent's treating team and Ms Fildes was awaiting their response.[96]
4. In the course of her evidence on 3 December 2025, Ms Fildes gave evidence to the effect that a potential property had been identified which presently housed one other resident. However, more information was required as to the potential co-tenant. Once that information was obtained, she noted that the respondent's guardian would have to approve that arrangement, then his treating team, and then the proposed address would need to be assessed by Adult Community Corrections.[97]

1. As to the respondent's engagement with psychological treatment, Ms Fildes had liaised with State Forensic Mental Health Services and it was reported that the respondent 'had difficulty engaging/holding ideas relating to the index offence, and nature/sexual offending', and noted he was not willing to engage with further psychological work.
2. Attempts had been made to identify whether the respondent had engaged in substance abuse counselling, but this could not be confirmed.[98]
3. Ms Fildes also recorded that the respondent's lack of willingness to engage in intervention to address offence specific needs was discussed with him. She further recorded that the respondent continued to state that his contact with the victim of his index offending was consensual and that he did not believe he did anything wrong, which impacted the respondent's ability to engage in intervention. He was reported as stating that he will be a lot more careful to ensure consent going forward.[99]

1. Ms Fildes also provided an overview of the respondent's employment and education history and prospects, and family supports, in similar terms as is recorded earlier in these reasons.

1. Ms Fildes recorded that the respondent remained subject to administration and guardianship orders imposed by the State Administrative Tribunal on 7 September 2023, due for review by 7 September 2028.
2. She further recorded that the respondent receives the disability support pension, with $180 per week allocated to Graylands Hospital, and has available moneys in a Public Trustee Investment Fund.
3. As to the respondent's NDIS plan, Ms Fildes confirmed that funding is available to be used for behaviour supports; improved daily living skills or therapy; support coordination and psychosocial recovery coaches; and core supports (that is, assistance with daily life).[100]
4. It was recorded that the respondent engages well with workers and there have been no concerns about his interactions. Among other things, it was recorded that the respondent is not always motivated to do community-based activities and needs encouragement.[101]

1. Ms Fildes recorded that the victim engagement unit has no update on the victim of the respondent's index offending despite historical attempts to establish contact. The current recommendation for the respondent is to have no direct or indirect contact with the victim.[102]

1. Ms Fildes summarised a number of Dr Wojnarowska's findings, which are recorded above.

1. In light of the multiple risk factors identified by Dr Wojnarowksa, Ms Fildes in her report outlined the strategies proposed to support and manage the respondent's behaviours, in conjunction with the strategies already employed. In summary, they were as follows:[103]

(a) supervision and urinalysis - if made subject to an extended order, the respondent would be required to continue to attend Adult Community Corrections for supervision as directed. The frequency of supervision can be adjusted in response to the perceived risk of the respondent. Supervision will facilitate ongoing discussions in relation to the respondent's circumstances, goal setting, the encouragement of community engagement and involvement in pro-social activities, and the utilisation of brief intervention and motivational interviewing skills to encourage abstinence from illicit substances and alcohol. The frequency of substance use testing will be reviewed and adjusted as required. He will also be directed to attend substance use counselling if made subject to an extended order;

(b) electronic monitoring and/or curfew - neither were recommended;

(c) victim - on 21 October 2025 the victim engagement unit confirmed the current condition 'To have no direct or indirect contact with the victim' remained relevant;

(d) accommodation - as at the date of Ms Fildes' report the respondent did not have confirmed accommodation outside of Graylands Hospital; and

(e) interagency and risk management - if made subject to a continuing order, the respondent would continue to be closely monitored by the members of the case conference group, which includes the supervising officer, the guardian, a specialist support coordinator, a positive behaviour support practitioner and State Forensic Mental Health Services. Risk management would include home visits, liaison with community agencies and other stakeholders in the community, as well as regular review of the respondent's risk factors at case conference group meetings. Should any risk management issues be identified, or any further risk mitigation strategies be required, the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal would be informed with potential recommendations made for an amendment to any order conditions.

1. In the course of her evidence Ms Fildes also noted her belief that NDIS accommodation providers would give regular feedback as to how a resident was going in their accommodation and communicate any issues observed, and updates would be provided upon request.[104] Also, future co-tenants would be vetted before living with an existing tenant to ensure it would be a suitable match.[105]
2. She also explained that if subject to a community supervision order, the respondent would no longer be an inpatient at Graylands Hospital. He would be subject to oversight by community forensic mental health. While there would continue to be input from treating psychiatrists and social workers, that input would be less. There would be no discretion by a treating psychiatrist to restrict leave. The respondent would be in the community all of the time.[106]
3. She further confirmed in the course of her evidence that a staged and gradual transition into the community as approved by a treating psychiatrist would not occur if a custody order came to an end suddenly.[107]

1. Ms Fildes recorded in her report the statutory conditions required by the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 54 should the respondent be made subject to a community supervision order. She also recorded that if a person on a custody order was on a leave of absence order, the leave of absence order would continue with the same conditions. However, the leave of absence may be cancelled or conditions varied.
2. As to additional conditions, Ms Fildes recorded as follows:[108]

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

The report by Dr Wojnarowska does not suggest the imposition of conditions not currently contained in the LOA Order and this is supported by ACC CLMI Services.

It is reiterated in the event concerns are raised or should [the respondent's] compliance deteriorate in the future, his matter could be returned to the Tribunal for consideration to review these conditions.

1. On 3 December 2025 the Court ordered that pursuant to s 106(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act, Adult Community Corrections, Corrective Services, Department of Justice, produce an 'Accommodation Report' which was to be provided to the applicant as soon as practicable.[109] The application for an extended custody order was adjourned part heard to Thursday, 18 December 2025.[110]
2. Ms Fildes was the author and one of three signatories to a report dated 17 December 2025.[111] In determining the application, I had regard to the further report prepared by Ms Fildes. Again, the following is not intended to be a complete recitation of the same.
3. As to the potential property that had been identified which also housed one other resident (discussed at [138] above), Ms Fildes recorded in her report that the resident at the property was a male in their late 20's with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, and without positive behaviour support or occupational therapy funding included in his NDIS plan. She further recorded[112] follows:112

The resident is reported to spend majority of their time playing computer games and keeping to themselves. Of note, [it was advised that] the resident has a prescription for medicinal cannabis. Further clarification was requested, including the manner in which the prescription is consumed and the safe keeping of medicines on the premises; however, this was not received prior to completion of this report.

Liaison with [the respondent's] Office of the Public Advocate appointed Guardian stated they would not consider signing a Service Agreement for the property until [the respondent's] NDIS funded Positive Behaviour Support Practitioner (PBSP) has assessed the accommodation. The expected completion date is yet to be confirmed.

Prior to Adult Community Corrections facilitating an accommodation assessment, the Guardian needs to consent to the accommodation and the PBSP is required to complete their assessment and consider the accommodation suitability in relation to [the respondent's] mental impairment and associated needs.

1. Under the heading 'conclusion', Ms Fildes recorded as follows:[113]

As per the Extended Order Assessment authored by Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 17.10.2025, she opined the proposed timeframe for [the respondent] reintegrating into the community should be of a period no shorter than six to 12 months. This would allow for a staggered progression, dependent on his response and ability to adapt to the new environment.

Furthermore, it was identified [the respondent's] risk factors are currently mitigated by the current Leave of Absence Order, his ongoing compliance with anti-psychotic medication, and the supported and supervised accommodation environment.

Adult Community Corrections consider [the respondent's] current leave conditions, allowing six nights of overnight leave at an approved address, remain suitable for a staged reintegration.

1. At the hearing on 18 December 2025, among other things, pursuant to s 106(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act, Adult Community Corrections, Corrective Services, Department of Justice, was ordered to produce a supplementary accommodation report to be provided to the applicant as soon as practicable.[114] The application for an extended custody order was again adjourned part heard to 16 March 2026.[115] The reports filed pursuant to that order were not read.[116]
2. Ms Fildes was again one of three signatories to a report dated 3 March 2026.[117] By the consent of the parties, on 9 March 2026 the applicant was granted leave to file Ms Fildes' report of 3 March 2026.[118] In addition to accommodation, Ms Fildes also addressed in the report the status of the respondent's mental health; supervision; and compliance with his leave of absence conditions. In determining the application, I had regard to the further report prepared by Ms Fildes.

1. Ms Fildes recorded that on 2 February 2026 the respondent was assigned a new treating psychiatrist, Dr Tate.
2. Upon being assigned, Dr Tate was informed that the respondent was slowly being weaned off the oral medication clozapine and had commenced taking a depot anti-psychotic medication. Ms Fildes further recorded that Dr Tate believed that the change was initiated by the respondent's previous psychiatrist due to concerns that he may become non-compliant with oral medication in the future.
3. Among other things it was recorded that Dr Tate had advised that the four to six weeks after the respondent ceased clozapine was a high risk period for potential relapse; and that the respondent ought not spend more than two nights per week on overnight leave nor be discharged from the custody order in the next eight weeks.[119]
4. As to the respondent's response to being weaned off clozapine, Ms Fildes' report contained the following update:[120]

On 26.02.2026, the Supervising Officer was advised of a multidisciplinary team meeting which occurred at Graylands Hospital earlier that day and was informed that [the respondent] has been wanting to refuse some of his medication based on beliefs they are interfering with his vitamin uptake. State Forensic Mental Health Service (SFMHS) advised there are concerns that [the respondent's] mental health is showing early signs of deterioration as he has been using more Pro Re Nata (PRN) medication, has been observed smiling to himself, appearing preoccupied and is expressing overvalued ideas. It was acknowledged clozapine is currently being decreased but may need to be increased due to insomnia and the emergence of early psychotic symptoms and consideration was being given to changing [the respondent's] depot medication. SFMHS stated no overnight leave will occur at this stage given [the respondent's] mental health deterioration and a psychiatric review will occur the following week.

1. As to supervision, Ms Fildes recorded that as the respondent continued to reside at Graylands Hospital full time, he reported monthly for supervision at East Perth Adult Community Corrections. However, upon commencing overnight leave in the community, supervision would increase to fortnightly.
2. Ms Fildes also recorded that over recent months, the respondent had appeared more motivated to engage in activities related to his transition to the community and seemed more proactive and future focused. Further, that he appeared excited about moving into his own accommodation and had spoken about wanting to purchase a car; that he had advised that he would like to renew his plumbing registration as he wants to resume working in this area and on 3 February 2026, he had completed the theory component of a gas safety course which expands the range of plumbing work he is able to undertake. The respondent also acknowledged that he has been more motivated and attributed this to a reduction in clozapine.[121]

1. Ms Fildes recorded that the potential property which had been identified and which presently housed one other resident (discussed at [138] and [157] above), had been damaged by that resident and was no longer available. However, it was recorded that another property had been identified which was held by the same NDIS provider.
2. Ms Fildes further recorded that on 22 January 2026, the respondent's guardian had advised that the respondent residing at the alternative property was approved given that there were no other residents living at the address, although it was noted one may move in in the future if they were considered a suitable match for the respondent.[122]
3. On 22 January 2026 an accommodation assessment was undertaken by the respondent's supervising officer following a site visit and the property was found to be suitable.[123]
4. The respondent visited the property and expressed that he was content with the property on 11 February 2026.
5. On 18 February 2026 a meeting was attended by the supervising officer, the operations manager of the NDIS provider, a senior coordinator from Inclusion WA, the respondent's guardian, the specialist support coordinator, a representative of the State Forensic Mental Health Service, a social worker, a welfare officer, the respondent's treating psychiatrist and the psychiatry registrar. Ms Fildes recorded that the following was discussed:[124]

(a) [The respondent] currently receives approximately three hours of support from NDIS workers from Inclusion WA on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. This will continue once [he] moves into the new address and there is sufficient funding in [his] NDIS plan to fund Danecare to provide a five-hour morning shift, six-hour afternoon shift and an inactive overnight shift at the address.

(b) The address is approximately [REDACTED] minutes from Graylands Hospital and falls outside the catchment area for many of the support workers from Inclusion WA who currently support [the respondent] in the community. Therefore, there will likely be changes with new workers coming on board who live closer to [ADDRESS REDACTED].

(c) [The respondent] will pay rent of $350 a week and will need to pay a variable food allowance on top, averaging $150 a week.

(d) [The respondent] will initially spend time at the new address during the day when on community access and will do this for a few weeks before commencing overnight stays of initially no more than two nights per week. The Social Worker at [the State Forensic Mental Health Service] will create a schedule outlining a transition plan to be shared with all agencies.

1. Ms Fildes also recorded that the respondent's leave of absence order required that he be escorted during overnight leave. This condition was added to the respondent's order by the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal on 13 February 2025 after the treating psychiatrist and supervising officer at the time requested he be granted overnight leave.
2. As to the support available to the respondent, Ms Fildes recorded that on 18 February 2026, the respondent's specialist support coordinator advised that there was then sufficient funds to ensure that he was escorted during overnight leave. However, as the respondent is not funded by the NDIS for supported independent living, he does not have funding for 24/7 support, and it will eventually run out. The respondent's specialist support coordinator further advised that prior to the current NDIS plan ending on 16 June 2026, if there was sufficient evidence demonstrating overnight supports are required, a request could be made for an increase in funding. However, if additional funding is not approved or if it was felt that the respondent did not need support overnight, the leave of absence order would need to be amended to allow him to spend periods in the house alone.

1. As to the respondent's compliance with his current leave of absence conditions, Ms Fildes reported there to be no ongoing concerns.
2. It was recorded that on 3 February 2026 there was one instance of non-compliance whereby the respondent returned from leave two hours and 40 minutes late. The respondent provided the explanation that he had struggled to complete his gas safety course assessment at TAFE on time which was later verified as true. The supervising officer had recommended no action be taken in relation to the breach. Ms Fildes also recorded that upon his return, the respondent was apologetic for being late and a drug test was undertaken which provided a negative result.[125]

1. Under the heading 'conclusion', Ms Fildes recorded as follows:[126]

As suitable accommodation has now been secured, [the respondent] is able to commence a gradual transition into the community once his treating psychiatrist Dr Tate determines it is appropriate to do so. [The respondent's] current Leave of Absence Order allows him six nights of escorted overnight leave per week at an approved address.

Dr Tate initially recommended [the respondent] spend no more than two nights per week away from Graylands Hospital on overnight leave during the next six weeks. However, a recent deterioration in [the respondent's] mental health which included the emergence of early psychotic symptoms means no overnight leave will be considered at this time.

In her Extended Order Assessment dated 17.10.2025, Dr Gosia Wojnarowska recommended the timeframe for [the respondent] reintegrating into the community should be a period no shorter than six to 12 months to allow for a staggered progression, dependent on his response and ability to adapt to the new environment. Given this, and the recent change in [the respondent's] medication and decline in his mental health, a gradual transition into NDIS-supported accommodation over an extended period will provide [the respondent] the best opportunity to successfully adjust to leaving hospital and living in the community.

1. The respondent was due to be reviewed by the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal on 27 March 2026, and Dr Tate prepared a report dated 10 March 2026 for the purposes of the respondent's Mental Impairment Review Tribunal hearing.[127] In determining the application, I had regard to the report prepared by Dr Tate. Again, the following is not intended to be a complete recitation of the same.
2. As was recorded in the report, Dr Tate had assumed responsibility for the respondent's care on 2 February 2026; and the respondent was due to commence transition to independent living with a NDIS package of support.
3. Dr Tate in the first part of her report recited features of the respondent's background, his psychiatric history, his forensic history, the conditions which apply to his leave of absence order, the appointment of a guardian, and victim status.
4. As to his psychiatric history, Dr Tate noted that the respondent had been treated with various psychotropic medications in his treatment history, but his mental illness was never fully controlled on any medication other than clozapine. However, the respondent had become non-compliant with all medications (including depot medications while in prison) when discharged from the Frankland Centre.[128]
5. Among other things, Dr Tate recorded that:[129]

[the respondent's] relapse signature was well known and documented. He would typically take a few weeks to exhibit overt psychotic symptoms. In the initial stages he could present as bright and even energised and motivated. Over time however his sleep and self-care would deteriorate, and he would appear vague and perplexed. [The respondent] would eventually progress to expressing overt paranoid and persecutory delusions and appear to be responding to hallucinated voices. He would become irritable, argumentative and ultimately hostile and threatening.

1. Dr Tate's report included a medical update with respect to the respondent.
2. She recorded that the respondent was working towards transition to supported independent living at an identified property through NDIS, at which the respondent has begun day leave visits with support workers to familiarise himself with the property, the staff and local area before commencing overnight leave.
3. Under his previous psychiatrist the respondent had commenced a withdrawal from clozapine in December 2025 in anticipation of his transition into the community and concern that he would cease taking his mediation. Although initially the respondent presented well, when subtle signs of relapse were observed the planned cessation of clozapine was paused.
4. By 3 March 2026 the respondent was demonstrating overt signs of relapse into schizophrenia attributed to the withdrawal of clozapine. The substitute depot was deemed insufficient to control his symptoms. At the time of Dr Tate's report the respondent's clozapine dosage had been increased to 250 mg.[130]

1. Dr Tate recorded in her report that the respondent had been assessed on a number of occasions by different clinicians using the RSVP structured professional judgment tool for the assessment of sexual violence. She described the assessment results made by Dr Bonett in 2025, which among other things, included an assessment that the respondent presented '...a moderate risk of further sexual offending. The severity of further sexual offending was considered likely to be moderate (e.g., sexual assault causing psychological but not serious physical harm)'.[131]
2. As to violence, Dr Tate noted that the respondent did not have a significant history of convictions for violence, although he had been violent in the past in the context of psychosis. She noted that the respondent's prior convictions were recorded to be mostly for driving, drugs and antisocial behaviour.
3. She further recorded that the respondent's risk of violence was again reviewed in March 2026 using the HCR-20 v3 tool. The results of this assessment were outlined in Dr Tate's report. Overall, she recorded that the respondent's scores indicate 'a moderate to high level of risk in the medium term with low to moderate immediate risk of violence'. Further the respondent was 'unlikely to be interpersonally violent without warning and early warning signs were readily identifiable'. In this regard she noted that the respondent had experienced a relapse recently in the context of clozapine withdrawal, which was identified early and did not lead to an increase in risk.[132]
4. Dr Tate opined that the respondent will require experienced support workers and professionals who understand the respondent's risks and early warning signs well. Further, she noted that the respondent requires support to remain adherent to treatment and supervision requirements due to his cognitive deficits.
5. Further assessment results, referred to as 'Dundrum ratings' by Dr Tate were outlined in her report. Dr Tate recorded that the respondent's HCR-20 v3 and Dundrum scores were consistent with a need for continued moderate to high levels of support and monitoring.
6. Dr Tate concluded that:[133]

A Supported Independent Living placement with support workers and assertive input from mental health service, supported with a legal framework and financial and Guardianship orders may be sufficient to manage his risks in the community. Given the risks however, a slow transition was recommended with clear contingency plans for early intervention in the event of relapse.

1. As to the respondent's diagnoses, Dr Tate was satisfied of the following:[134]

[The respondent's] primary diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia. His illness was considered to be treatment resistant in that he did not show adequate response to at least two antipsychotics and was therefore commenced on clozapine, medication reserved for severe and resistant forms of schizophrenia. On clozapine he improved considerably and was able to transition through the forensic service. However, a previous attempt at community transition was unsuccessful due to a relapse into substance use. [The respondent] continues to experience symptoms of his condition even when stabilised, including cognitive deficits and executive dysfunction. He has minimal insight into his illness and remains at risk of noncompliance with medication and disengagement from mental health services.

[The respondent] had a significant history of harmful substance use meeting the criteria for substance use disorder. He had used multiple substances including methamphetamine, cannabis and alcohol. His condition had been in remission due to environmental containment.

[The respondent] had a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated executive deficits including planning, organising, task initiation and consequential thinking.

[The respondent] was diagnosed with personality disorder with prominent narcissistic and antisocial traits.

1. Dr Tate made the following observations and recommendations as to the orders available to be made by the Court:[135]

[The respondent] has met his limiting term for the index offence and an Extended Order hearing is scheduled for March 2026. ... Should [the respondent] receive an Extended Custody Order we would expect him to continue the current planned community transition with a gradual increase in overnight leave and assertive monitoring and supervision throughout this process.

Should [the respondent] receive a Community Supervision Order, the treating team would not be supportive of him moving into the community straight away. He has only recently visited and not yet undertaken any overnight leave to the SIL property. The property is a considerable distance from the hospital which may make transition more challenging. The Community Forensic Mental Health Team are not yet involved and changing to a new mental health team without a period of handover would be unsafe. [The respondent] would therefore have to remain in Dryandra ward and would most likely require treatment under the Mental Health Act to support compliance.

Should [the respondent] be released from his CLMI orders altogether, he would be referred immediately to a civil psychiatric service as he would no longer meet the criteria for forensic care. He would be expected to be transferred to an inpatient civil psychiatric service in the first instance who would thereafter manage his transition to the community. We would expect this transition to occur much more rapidly and without the specific risk focus provided by the forensic service. [The respondent] may be discharged on a Community Treatment Order, but this would be dependent on his team. A CTO framework is not as robust as a CLMI order and [the respondent] is likely to become non-compliant if he is subject to a CTO.

...

[The respondent] has recently experienced a relapse of schizophrenia in the context of planned medication changes including withdrawal of clozapine commenced under his previous psychiatrist. It is expected that [the respondent] may take some weeks to achieve stabilisation and further medication changes may be necessary. At this stage we would not be supportive of overnight leave commencing for at least 4-6 weeks, and then only providing his mental state has fully stabilised.

...

[The respondent] does not have restrictive practices in place. It should therefore be understood that while they can offer support and guidance his support workers and other service providers have limited ability to influence his lifestyle choices. [The respondent] continues to experience difficulty consistently using his CPAP machine, with implications for his driving fitness and physical and mental health. Cigarette smoking has the potential to increase once he is out of a hospital setting with implications for his clozapine levels and mental health stability.

The resources available to the respondent in the community

1. On the evidence presently before the Court, it is envisaged that the respondent will receive significant assistance by way of treatment, care and support in the community.
2. According to the CLMI team, the respondent will have access to a range of supports funded by the NDIS to assist him with his disabilities. The respondent has been provided significant funding for the period of 12 months ending 16 June 2026. The supports available through the NDIS plan are summarised at [76] and [145] of these reasons.
3. The respondent will also remain subject to his guardianship orders, described at [64] and [66] of these reasons. This is due for review on 7 September 2028.
4. Much of the information regarding the resources available for care and support of the respondent can be found in the extended order assessment reports of Ms Fildes, endorsed by members of the Department of Justice's CLMI Services team, as summarised above at [119] to [176]. The NDIS funded supports were also summarised by Dr Wojnarowska (see [87] of these reasons).
5. It was noted at the hearing on 3 December 2025 that despite having significant funds in a Public Trustee Investment Fund the respondent would not be able to use this to purchase a home or make rental payments until he had demonstrated stability within the community for a minimum period of 12 months. Since then, accommodation for the respondent was approved by his treating team and secured, and there would be sufficient funding to allow for the respondent to be accompanied overnight at that accommodation until his current NDIS plan ends on 16 June 2026.

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)
2. As to the application of the legislative framework to the circumstances of this case, it is also convenient to reproduce here the overview provided on behalf of the respondent in the outline of submissions filed on 13 March 2026:[136]

If a community supervision order is made, conditions can be included to assist in monitoring the Respondent's mental health and his ability to live in the community.

If a community supervision order is made, the court must set a limiting term with a maximum length of 5 years. The community supervision order would be subject to regular review by the Mental Impairment Review Tribunal.

The court is required to set a limiting term for an extended custody order, with no maximum limit.

Once made, any extended custody order would replace the interim custody order made on 24 June 2025. The leave of absence order made 13 February 2025 would remain in place.

The extended custody order would be subject to regular review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal can amend any leave of absence order as required.

The Tribunal must consider whether to recommend an extension of the order halfway through the term, or at least 6 months before the expiration of the order, depending on its length.

The Minister must make an application for a review in the Supreme Court, as soon as practicable, after 12 months from making an extended order.

Given those review time frames, an extended custody order, in practice, would need to be for a length of not less than 9 months. However, it should not be longer than is necessary for the adequate protection of the community and in keeping with the least restriction necessary.

At a review hearing the Supreme Court can either cancel or confirm the extended custody order, or make a community supervision order. [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) has 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 was noted on behalf of the applicant, the respondent has undergone numerous psychiatric assessments which uniformly confirmed a presentation consistent with schizophrenia, which relapses quickly in the event of a change or failure to take medication (particularly clozapine) and substance use (particularly methamphetamines), as it would be likely to induce a psychotic state very quickly.[137] The respondent is prone to sexual preoccupation when his schizophrenia is untreated.
3. I was satisfied that there was a risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence (within the meaning of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act), namely a serious sexual offence on a vulnerable female victim.
4. Consistent with the opinion expressed by Dr Wojnarowska, I considered potential victims would most likely be adult women who he had opportunity to access in secluded spaces. Victims would most likely be vulnerable in some way due to mental illness, intellectual disability or physical disability. Adolescent females may also be at risk due to their young age and psychological vulnerability.
5. The risk posed by the respondent has the potential to cause significant psychological injury, fear and trauma to a vulnerable victim. As to physical violence, that appeared to be less likely.
6. I considered the most appropriate characterisation of the gravity of the risk posed to the community (particularly vulnerable women) by the respondent was that the risk was serious, given the potential for serious psychological injury, fear and trauma.

1. I considered the respondent's risk of committing a serious sexual offence in a controlled hospital setting to be low. However, if the respondent was not subject to any order, I considered the likelihood of him committing a serious sexual offence on a vulnerable female victim to be moderate to high. In so concluding I weighed in the balance the following.
2. The likelihood of offending would increase because the respondent has a lack of insight and would likely cease taking medication to address his schizophrenia. The respondent is prone to sexual preoccupation when his schizophrenia is untreated.
3. As was observed by Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent does not accept that he requires treatment for schizophrenia or any other mental disorder aside from ADHD, and he denies having committed any offences or there being any need to change his behaviour (that is, that the victim of his index offending had not given her consent). Further, Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent's problematic personality traits (for example, extreme self-centredness, disregard for others, impulsivity, and irresponsibility), and his implicit attitudes about sex and women has meant that he 'is a chronic risk of engaging in non-consensual sexual acts, if he senses that an opportunity for sex has presented itself'.[138]
4. I also note the finding made above as to the respondent's propensity to engage in conduct that would constitute a serious offence in the future.[139]
5. As is recorded above, the respondent also has a significant history of harmful substance use meeting the criteria for substance use disorder. He had used multiple substances including methamphetamine, cannabis and alcohol, and his condition has been in remission due to the operation of the order. I accepted that the respondent's likelihood of offending would increase if he were to access drugs (particularly methamphetamines), as it would likely induce a psychotic state quickly.[140]
6. As Dr Wojnarowska noted, that risk (or likelihood of offending) would substantially increase with the recurrence of critical factors such as substance or psychosis related disinhibition, increased sexual drive, sexual preoccupation and frustration, and sexually themed delusions.
7. Further, I accepted that the respondent's high likelihood of offending if not subject to any order would unlikely be checked by the presence of his support workers alone.

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 as continued denial of his offending had hampered efforts to engage him in psychological treatment or relapse prevention.[141] Going forward, the supports available to him through the NDIS would unlikely be checked by the presence of his support workers alone.
3. As is recorded above, in the course of her evidence Ms Fildes confirmed that a staged and gradual transition into the community as approved by a treating psychiatrist would not occur if a custody order came to an end suddenly.[142]
4. In her report, Dr Tate observed that should the respondent be released from orders under the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act altogether, he would be referred immediately to a civil psychiatric service as he would no longer meet the criteria for forensic care. He would be expected to be transferred to an inpatient civil psychiatric service in the first instance who would thereafter manage his transition to the community. Dr Tate recorded in her report that such transition would be expected to occur much more rapidly and without the specific risk focus provided by the forensic service. She opined that the respondent may be discharged on a community treatment order, but this would be dependent on his team, and such framework is not as robust as an order made under the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act. She further opined that the respondent was likely to become non-compliant if he is subject to a community treatment order.
5. Given the nature of the risk posed and the likelihood of the respondent offending if not the subject of an order, I found the risk to be unacceptable.

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

1. 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.
2. The necessity did not come about by reason of a lack of suitable accommodation. Suitable accommodation is now available and on 16 March 2026 the Court was informed that he had been accessing the property during daytime hours under his leave of absence order, and rent was being paid for the property.[143]
3. Nor did the necessity come about by reason of a lack of funding for supports when the respondent is in the community. They are presently available through the moneys that remain available under the respondent's current NDIS plan. Once the respondent's mental health has stabilised, there will be sufficient funds available until mid‑June 2026 to facilitate him being accompanied while staying in the property overnight.[144]
4. However, there remained significant concerns regarding the respondent's willingness to take his medication daily when in the community. In this regard, I was cognisant of Dr Wojnarowska's evidence. The respondent's main protective factors are the structured environment, trained staff and being subject to custody order conditions that give staff and police the power to restrict his freedom should he cease medication or relapse into substances.[145]
5. I accepted that Dr Wojnarowska did not go as far as to say that the respondent's risk will never be able to be managed in the community, but recommended 'an extended period of gradual exposure to living in the community and not subject to his legal order' before being released from any custody order. Dr Wojnarowska further stated that the proposed timeframe of transferring the respondent to the community should be no shorter than six to 12 months, including trials of overnight leave and staggered progression depending on the respondent's response and ability to adapt to the new environment.[146]
6. Although the respondent has been generally compliant with the conditions attached to his leave of absence order, he had recently experienced a relapse of schizophrenia in the context of planned medication changes including withdrawal of clozapine commenced under his previous psychiatrist. As was recorded by Dr Tate, it was expected that the respondent may take some weeks to achieve stabilisation and further medication changes may be necessary, and at this stage, she would not be supportive of overnight leave commencing for at least four to six weeks, and then only providing his mental state had fully stabilised.
7. It is clear that so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the respondent should remain under supervision. On balance, it is necessary to make an extended custody order in respect of the respondent, not a community supervision order.
8. As was noted on behalf of the respondent, irrespective of any orders made by this Court, the respondent was unlikely to be released from hospital immediately and would be transitioned gradually by a mental health service. The orders do however affect which hospital or part of a hospital he would be held in, the service that oversees his transition and how this is implemented legislatively and in practice.
9. In making the assessment as to whether the order was necessary, I was cognisant that the respondent's entitlement to be at liberty was not lightly to be denied. However, the paramount consideration is the protection of the community.
10. Having given careful consideration to all of the circumstances, I found it to be necessary to make an extended custody order as it would allow for the respondent to remain an inpatient of Graylands Hospital with continuity of care, and to continue the current planned community transition with a gradual increase in overnight leave, with assertive monitoring and supervision throughout the process. I considered it imperative that the respondent remain in the care of his treating psychiatrist who might if appropriate restrict the respondent's leave.

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.[147]
2. As is recorded above, on 26 February 2026 the respondent was no longer considered appropriate for overnight leave given his mental health deterioration, which included the possible emergence of early psychotic symptoms. As at 10 March 2026 (the date of Dr Tate's report) Dr Tate observed that:[148]

It is expected that [the respondent] may take some weeks to achieve stabilisation and further medication changes may be necessary. At this stage we would not be supportive of overnight leave commencing for at least 4-6 weeks, and then only providing his mental state has fully stabilised.

1. Therefore, at the hearing on 16 March 2026 there was some uncertainty as to when the respondent would be in a position to commence transfer into the community.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that given the uncertainty about when the respondent would be able to commence any transition into the community at the secured accommodation, an extended custody order should be imposed which takes this uncertainty into account, and also noting Dr Wojnarowska's opinion that the respondent should remain subject to an order for six to 12 months once he has started his transfer into the community. In the circumstances, the applicant submitted that it would be appropriate for the Court to impose an extended custody order of 12 to 24 months' duration.[149]
3. When considering the appropriate limiting term, I was cognisant that there were a number of unknown variables, including the respondent's mental state (which had recently deteriorated) and the time that may be required for him to stabilise; the extent of funding that might be available after the conclusion of the respondent's current NDIS plan, and whether accompanied overnight support would be funded; and the respondent's response and ability to adapt to a new environment in respect of any transition into the community (in respect of the no less than six to 12 month estimate given by Dr Wojnarowksa). I was also cognisant that the respondent had not lived in the community for many years and in Dr Wojnarowksa's opinion, he was heavily institutionalised.[150]
4. 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 18 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 18 months commencing 31 March 2026.
2. The interim custody order will cease 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.

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

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

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

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

[4] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act s 261, s 264. Exhibit A, book of materials vol 1, page 93 (Limiting term order made on 28 November 2024); Exhibit F (Transcript of hearing on 24 June 2025).

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

[6] ts 3 - 5 (24 June 2025); order 1 of the orders made on 24 June 2025.

[10] Exhibit C; ts 10 (3 December 2025).

[11] Exhibit D; ts 10 (3 December 2025).

[12] Exhibit E; ts 12 (3 December 2025).

[13] Exhibit F; ts 45 (3 December 2025).

[14] Exhibit G; ts 74 (18 December 2025); order 1 of the orders made on 18 December 2025.

[15] Exhibit H; ts 80 (16 March 2026); order 1 of the orders made on 9 March 2026.

[16] Exhibit I; ts 80 - 81 (16 March 2026); order 2 of the orders made on 9 March 2026.

[19] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 492 (Psychological assessment report of Dr Bonett, 4 December 2024).

[20] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 546 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[21] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 560 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[22] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 570 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[23] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 492 (Psychological assessment report of Dr Bonett, 4 December 2024).

[24] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 570 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[25] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 560 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[26] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 570 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[27] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 549 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[28] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 560 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[29] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 560 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[30] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 567 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[31] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 567 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[32] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 555 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[33] Exhibit A, book of materials vol 1, pages 6 - 8 (Chronology of offending dated 17 April 2025).

[34] Exhibit A, book of materials vol 1, page 158 (Psychiatric and fitness to plead report of Dr Wynn Owen, 29 January 2019).

[36] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 548 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[38] Applicant's outline of submissions filed on 1 December 2025 par 88.

[39] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 553 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[40] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 549 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[41] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 549 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[42] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 549, 553 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[43] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 549 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025). See also Exhibit H par 12.

[44] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 553 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[45] Exhibit H, par 14 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[46] Exhibit A, book of materials vol 1, pages 242 - 243 (State Administrative Tribunal orders dated 7 September 2023).

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

[48] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, pages 545 - 563 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[49] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 547 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025); ts 38, 40 (3 December 2025).

[53] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 553 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[55] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 548 - 549 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[56] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, pages 549 - 553 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[57] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 553 - 554 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[58] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 554 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[59] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 549 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[60] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 554, see also page 549 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[61] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 554 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[62] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 554 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[64] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 555 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[65] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 556 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[66] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 556 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

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

[68] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 558 - 561 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[69] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, pages 558 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[70] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 561 - 562 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025). See also ts 38 (3 December 2025).

[71] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 562 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025). See also ts 38 (3 December 2025).

[86] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 564 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[87] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 564 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[88] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 565 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[89] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 565 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[90] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 565 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[91] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 565 - 566 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[92] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 566 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[93] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 568 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[94] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 566 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[95] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 568 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[96] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 570 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[99] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 570 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[100] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 571 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[101] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 572 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[102] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 572 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[103] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, pages 573 - 575 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[108] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 576 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 29 October 2025).

[109] Order 5 of the orders made on 3 December 2025.

[110] Order 1 of the orders made on 3 December 2025.

[111] Exhibit G (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 17 December 2025).

[112] Exhibit G, pages 1 - 2 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 17 December 2025).

[113] Exhibit G, page 2 (Extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 17 December 2025).

[114] Order 2 of the orders made on 18 December 2025.

[115] Order 5 of the orders made on 18 December 2025.

[117] Exhibit H (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[118] Order 1 of the orders made on 9 March 2026.

[119] Exhibit H, page 2 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[120] Exhibit H, page 2 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[121] Exhibit H, page 2 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[122] Exhibit H, pages 2 - 3 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[123] Exhibit H, page 3 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[124] Exhibit H, page 3 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[125] Exhibit H, page 4 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[126] Exhibit H, pages 4 - 5 (Updated extended order assessment of Ms Fildes, 3 March 2026).

[127] Exhibit I (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[128] Exhibit I, pages 3 - 4 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[129] Exhibit I, par 15 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[130] Exhibit I, pages 6 - 7 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[131] Exhibit I, par 45 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[132] Exhibit I, par 51 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[133] Exhibit I, par 54 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[134] Exhibit I, pars 55 - 58 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[135] Exhibit I, pars 61 - 63 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[136] Respondent's outline of submissions filed on 13 March 2026 pars 23 - 31.

[137] Applicant's outline of submissions filed on 1 December 2025 par 4(b); ts 36 (3 December 2025).

[138] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 559 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[139] See [56] to [58] of these reasons.

[141] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 558 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[145] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 562 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[146] Exhibit B, book of materials vol 2, page 562 pars 107 - 108 (Psychiatric report of Dr Wojnarowska, 16 October 2025).

[147] Respondent's supplementary outline of submissions dated 13 March 2026 par 30.

[148] Exhibit I, par 64 (Psychiatric report of Dr Tate, 10 March 2026).

[149] Applicant's supplementary outline of submissions dated 13 March 2026 pars 16 - 21.