DPP v WILLIAMS [2026] TASSC 9

Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021

Applicant: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2026] TASSC 9

1. The respondent is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by Porter AJ on 28 July 2022 for the offences of attempted aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary and aggravated armed robbery. The respondent's earliest release date is 17 March 2026.
2. On 3 December 2025, the applicant applied for a high risk offender (HRO) order in relation to the respondent. Pursuant to s 33(1) of the Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021 (the Act), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) may apply to this Court for a HRO order in relation to a person who is a relevant offender at the time when the application is made. The meaning of "relevant offender" for the purposes of this application means an offender who has been convicted of a serious offence, who has obtained the age of 18 years and who is serving a custodial sentence for a serious offence: see s 24 of the Act.
3. The applicant is now 47 years old. He has a conviction for a "serious offence", namely aggravated armed robbery: s 3 and Sch 1 of the Act. His current custodial sentence relates to that same serious offence. The respondent is, therefore, a relevant offender, and was a relevant offender at the time the application was made. The application was made not more than nine months before the sentence of imprisonment which the respondent is currently serving for a serious offence is due to expire: s 33(2)(b). I am satisfied that the application was accompanied by the documents specified in s 33(3) of the Act and that they have been served on the respondent in accordance with s 33(5) of the Act.
4. Both parties have filed written submissions. The respondent does not oppose the making of a HRO order. This matter is not one that may be resolved on a consent basis. I may only make an HRO order in relation to the respondent if I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that he poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence unless an HRO order is made: s 35(2) of the Act.
5. Section 36 of the Act provides as follows:

"36 Matters to be considered in determining whether to make HRO order

(1) The safety of the community must be the paramount consideration of the Supreme Court in determining whether or not to make an HRO order in relation to an offender.

(2) In determining whether or not to make an HRO order in relation to an offender, the Supreme Court must have regard to the following matters:

(a) the reports, if any, provided to the Court in accordance with an order under section 34(2);

(b) the report, provided to the Court, of any other assessment prepared by a psychiatrist, psychologist or medical practitioner as to -

(i) the likelihood of the offender committing a further serious offence; and

(ii) the willingness of the offender to participate in any such assessment; and

(iii) the level of the offender's participation in the assessment;

(c) any report, provided to the Court, that is prepared by DCS as to the extent to which the offender can reasonably and practicably be managed in the community;

(d) any treatment or rehabilitation programs in which the offender has had an opportunity to participate, the willingness of the offender to participate in any such programs and the level of the offender's participation in any such programs;

(e) if the offender is a dangerous criminal, the options, if any, that are available and that might reduce the likelihood of the offender re-offending, if the offender is not kept in custody;

(f) the likelihood that the offender will comply with the terms and conditions of an HRO order;

(g) the level of the offender's compliance with any obligations or conditions to which the offender is, or has been, subject while on release on parole, while subject to an HRO order, or under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005;

(h) the offender's criminal history, including prior convictions and findings of guilt in respect of offences committed in the State or elsewhere, and any pattern in the committing of offences indicated by that history;

(i) the comments made by the sentencing court in passing any sentence imposed on the offender in relation to a serious offence;

(j) any evidence that is adduced under section 34(6) or that is presented at a hearing under section 34 in relation to the application;

(k) any other information that is available to the Supreme Court as to the likelihood that the offender will commit a further serious offence.

(3) In determining whether or not to make an HRO order in relation to an offender, the Supreme Court may also take into consideration any other matter it considers relevant."

6 The following documents have been tendered by the applicant:

• High Risk Offender Assessment Committee Behaviour and Management Report for the respondent, dated 16 September 2025;
• Forensic Psychological Assessment of Risk Report, authored by Dr Jennifer Wright, dated 2 October 2025;
• Forensic Psychological Assessment of Risk Report Addendum, authored by Dr Jennifer Wright, dated 3 December 2025;
• Opiate Replacement Therapy Report, authored by Dr Samuel Maloney, Senior Medical Officer at Correctional Primary Health Service, dated 23 December 2025;
• Case Management Summary, dated 20 January 2026, authored by Holly Jones, Alcohol and Other Drugs Counsellor at the Tasmanian Prison Service;
• High Risk Offender Order report, authored by Community Corrections, dated 29 January 2026;
• High Risk Offender Report Addendum, dated 23 February 2026;
• Comments on Passing Sentence, dated 28 July 2022 of Porter AJ;
• The respondent's record of prior convictions;
• Comments on Passing Sentence related to sentences imposed in this Court on the respondent dated 26 March 2015, 27 June 2011, 20 June 2001 and 6 February 2001; and
• Parole Board decision, dated [2024] TASPB 49.

7 The respondent tendered two further documents: a Performance Report, authored by his supervisor in the Prison woodwork department, and a letter authored by Brendan Sullivan, the Operations Manager of Building Pathways, a programme offered to prisoners preparing for release back into the community.

The respondent's background and criminal history

1. Having considered the material, I am satisfied the respondent's personal circumstances and background are as follows:
   • He is 47 years old and single. He has two daughters, now aged 18 and 20, from a former relationship.
   • The respondent was raised in a supportive family and is the youngest of eight children. He completed his education to Year 10. Behavioural problems emerged while he was still at school. He required support to manage his behaviour, although he has never been diagnosed with a condition such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. He reports being bullied at school and that his performance was impacted by his efforts to fit in. After high school, he commenced, but did not complete, a Certificate IV in Horticulture. He has had limited employment since leaving school.
   • The respondent has significant substance abuse issues. He commenced drinking alcohol at age 12. He started using cannabis and pills, such as acid, from around the age of 13. He commenced using amphetamines at around the age of 17. His use of amphetamines became more regular in adulthood and he experienced a drug-induced psychotic episode when was 18 years old, resulting in hospitalisation. He has pursued treatment for drug addiction in the past, including residential rehabilitation. Multiple reports have noted that his use of alcohol, cannabis and amphetamines have been problematic for him at various times and substance use (and relapse to substance use) is connected to his offending behaviour, problems with employment, and in his relationships.
   • The respondent was first sentenced to a term of imprisonment in 2001 on a charge of armed robbery. He was then aged 22. He has spent 15 of the last 25 years in custody, predominantly serving sentences imposed in this Court for offences of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery and aggravated armed robbery. The sentences imposed on those occasions have ranged from 18 months to six years.
   • He has also served periods of imprisonment for alcohol related driving offences, drive whilst disqualified, motor vehicle stealing, dishonest offending, firearms offences, evading police, failing to submit to a blood test, common assault and destroy property.
   • The respondent has been granted parole on four occasions. In August 2003, he was paroled and successfully completed that order which expired in August 2005. Subsequent parole orders made in August 2013, May 2014 and July 2024, were revoked.
   • After his release on parole in 2003, the respondent achieved some stability. He was in a relationship, working, purchased a house and had two children with his partner. However, he relapsed into using amphetamines and accrued some further driving offences under the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, which ultimately resulted in him returning to prison for a short period of time. He related his stability in the period between 2003 and 2008 to his "positive mindset", to the fact he was in a stable relationship, in employment, and not connected with anti-social associates during that time. His return to prison saw him reconnect with anti-social associates, relapse into drug use, and engage in further serious offending.
2. The respondent has been sentenced in this Court on four occasions, excluding the index offence, as follows:
   • On 6 February 2001, he was sentenced by Evans J on a charge of armed robbery of a service station. On that occasion, the respondent threatened the attendant with an uncapped, blood-filled syringe before removing cash from the till. He was drug affected at the time. He received a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, 12 months of which was suspended. A probation order was also made with conditions directed at addressing his drug abuse issues. This was his first sentence of imprisonment.
   • On 20 June 2001, he was sentenced by Cox CJ on charges of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, together with summary offences of motor vehicle stealing, drive whilst disqualified, exceeding .05, drug matters and stealing. These offences were committed ten days after the respondent's release from prison on completing the unsuspended part of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by Evans J. The respondent used a truck he happened upon without the consent of the owner and drove it from Hobart to Launceston. The attempted armed robbery and armed robbery were committed at two service stations. On the second occasion, the respondent again used a blood-filled syringe to threaten the attendant and obtained cash. He received a sentence of three years' imprisonment on the armed robbery, attempted armed robbery and stealing charges. He received an additional four month period of imprisonment on the summary offences. He was noted to have relapsed to drug and alcohol abuse on his release from prison.
   • The respondent's record of prior convictions reflects that the suspended portion of the sentence imposed by Evans J in February 2001 was activated by this Court on 18 September 2002.
   • On 27 June 2011, the respondent was sentenced by Evans J on a charge of armed robbery. On this occasion, the respondent held up a bank in New Norfolk while armed with a tomahawk and toy pistol. He was wearing a stocking or similar over his head and otherwise endeavoured to disguise his appearance. He stole $2,400 in cash, together with some cheques. The respondent was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment, with a two and a half year non-parole period. Another person, who drove the respondent to the scene of the robbery and arranged for him to be picked up after committing the crime, was also found guilty of armed robbery as an aider. The respondent was noted to be affected by dexamphetamine and alcohol at the time of this offence.
   • On 26 March 2015, the respondent was sentenced by Porter J on a charge of attempted armed robbery, committed at a bakery. On that occasion, he disguised his appearance, entered the store with a hammer in his hand, threatened the staff, one of whom he had taken hold of, and demanded money. During the course of committing that crime, the staff managed to disarm and get hold of him. He started punching at the employees before running off. This offence was committed while the respondent was on parole for the previous offence of armed robbery. He was sentenced to four years and three months' imprisonment on that occasion, with a non-parole period of three years. The respondent had taken amphetamine shortly before committing this offence. He was released from prison on 9 July 2019.

Comments on passing sentence imposed upon the respondent in relation to a serious offence

1. On 28 July 2022, the respondent was sentenced by Porter AJ on charges of attempted aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary and aggravated armed robbery. These offences were committed in January 2020, approximately six months after his release from prison, with two co-offenders. This was a bad case of aggravated armed robbery. The respondent and one of his co-offenders broke into a residential unit of a hotel where the manager resided. The respondent was armed with a sawn-off shotgun which he acquired for the purposes of committing the robbery. Both were wearing face coverings. They forced the manager to let them into the hotel and directed him to unlock the cash cabinets. Cash in excess of $87,000 was obtained together with keys, room swipe cards and a substantial quantity of cigarettes. The respondent tied the manager's hands behind his back with a power cord, and he was left on the floor of the office. The respondent and his co-offender ran from the scene and were driven away by the third offender. The manager was eventually able to leave the premises and raise the alarm. The respondent was found the same day on Seven Mile Beach in a very drug affected state, and with the firearm partially buried in the sand next to him. The charge of attempted aggravated burglary related to the respondent and his co-offenders' unsuccessful attempt to enter the manager's unit the previous evening.
2. Porter AJ noted it was a serious example of the crime as it involved significant pre-planning and the threatened use of a sawn-off shotgun. In addition to general deterrence and denunciation, specific deterrence and public protection were also relevant sentencing considerations. It was noted the respondent and his co-offenders were motivated to get money to fund their addictions, in particular, to methylamphetamine. Deterrent sentences had been imposed on the respondent in the past, to no avail. The respondent was sentenced to six years' imprisonment with a four year non-parole period. In setting the non-parole period, his Honour observed that he could not say that the respondent was "completely incorrigible with no prospects of reform or rehabilitation".

The respondent's response to supervision in the community

1. The respondent's level of compliance with any obligations or conditions to which he was subject while released on parole is a matter to which I must have regard: s 36(2)(g). Due to the age of the first of the parole orders, there are minimal records. In respect of the three subsequent parole orders, I am satisfied of the following:
   • The respondent initially engaged well with Community Corrections and other community-based services when paroled in August 2013. Issues arose shortly after his release relating to his poor mental health, accommodation, relationship problems with his partner and children, and alcohol use. He did not engage with alcohol and drug supports, despite being referred to them at that time. He engaged in further offending after consuming alcohol, destroying his neighbour's door and assaulting him whilst breaching his curfew. His accommodation was no longer deemed suitable, and a parole warrant was issued. Parole was revoked on 13 September 2013. The respondent blamed Community Corrections for the revocation of his parole order, stating they did not provide him with enough support.
   • He again commenced his period on parole granted in May 2014 with positive engagement. Community Corrections began receiving reports about the respondent's compliance, including involvement with substances and access to a firearm. A parole board warrant was issued to discuss the reports, but the respondent was unable to be contacted for a fortnight. Prior to the warrant being executed, the respondent was arrested and charged with robbing a service station and evading police (see sentence imposed on 26 March 2015). The order was revoked in September 2014.
   • The respondent was released onto parole on the index offences in July 2025. He admitted using methylamphetamine less than a month after his release. He again admitted to using methylamphetamine a week later when he failed to attend a urinary drug screening. He was issued with a notice to attend the Parole Board and was noted to have breached his curfew condition by seven minutes on an occasion prior to the meeting. His parole order was suspended. The Parole Board subsequently received reports that the respondent had reduced engagement with his alcohol and drug counsellor prior to the suspension and admitted ongoing illicit drug use. His choice of negative associates, his lack of insight into the risks this contact posed, and his unwillingness to cease contact with them were noted as concerns. While plans were being explored for him to enter a residential rehabilitation program, his accommodation in the community fell through. His parole order was revoked.
2. Against this background, Community Corrections have raised concerns regarding the respondent's suitability for orders with their service due to his ongoing substance abuse and mental health concerns. Community Corrections describe the respondent as being polite and respectful during his interactions with them. He quickly engages in open conversations regarding his risks while in the community, and did take part in safety planning surrounding those issues. Community Corrections, however, note that the respondent tended to become combative when his compliance waned and his problematic behaviour was highlighted to him. At such times, he typically responded by blaming others and claiming inadequate support was provided.

The respondent's engagement with treatment and rehabilitation programs

1. While in prison, the respondent has engaged in a number of programs. He satisfactorily completed the Apsley Drug Treatment Program in October 2015 and the Pathways Drug and Alcohol Program in December 2015. He completed those programs to a high standard and displayed a sound level of respect and collaboration with other participants and staff facilitating the program. There are records that he participated in the Getting Smart Program while housed in the Apsley Drug and Alcohol unit in 2015, but it is unclear from available records whether he completed it. He has previously been offered participation in the EQUIPS Aggression program, but declined the offer as the program would not be completed prior to his parole eligibility date. During his current custodial episode, he has engaged with the Building Pathways Program which provides coaching, mentoring, education and advocacy to assist prisoners to rehabilitate and rebuild their lives by enhancing communication skills and fostering greater resilience for community reintegration. He will continue to receive support from that program once released. He has not engaged in any offence specific programs while serving his current sentence.
2. The respondent was connected with supports in the community during his three most recent parole orders. The interventions included housing support, alcohol and drug services and psychology. Community Corrections advise the respondent struggled to maintain engagement with these supports or was only in the community for a short period. As a consequence, the supports did not prove to be protective factors in deterring his offending.
3. The respondent has maintained employment for the majority of his current custodial episode. He has most recently been employed as a cleaner in the woodwork department, with good reports. His supervisor says he is the best cleaner they have ever had. He has a positive attitude and is also described as reliable and versatile, making him an invaluable member of the team. He quickly advanced to a senior hand position due to his exceptional work ethic and willingness to take on any task. He has previously held positions in the laundry and the vegetable processing shed. He lost his position in the vegetable processing shed after an argument with a fellow prisoner led to an assault.

The respondent's risk of committing a further serious offence

1. Community Corrections has undertaken risk assessments of the respondent on a number of occasions, most recently in December 2023. He has been consistently assessed as having high risks and needs. His most recent Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) assessment reflected him being a very high risk for criminal history and high risk for alcohol and drug problems and companions.
2. The forensic psychological risk assessment authored by Dr Jennifer Wright addresses the likelihood of the respondent committing a further serious offence: s 36(2)(b)(i). It is apparent from the report and the addendum that the respondent was cooperative with the assessment and became more open in his responses as it progressed: s 36(2)(b)(ii) and (iii). Dr Wright notes that the respondent's repeated use of violence as evidenced by his criminal history and the index offence demonstrates he has lacked the ability to inhibit his actions when under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and that he possibly views violence as a means to solve a problem when in that state of mind. She undertook a Historical Clinical Risk-20 (HCR-20) assessment of the respondent and concluded that he presented with a number of relevant risk factors.
3. According to Dr Wright, the amount of time the respondent has spent in custody means he is institutionalised and this has limited his opportunity to develop pro-social support networks in the community beyond his family. Drugs and alcohol are key factors in his offending. During his current custodial episode, he has commenced opiate replacement therapy (ORT), which is not evidence-based treatment for his primary drug of choice, namely methylamphetamine. Dr Wright, however, considers that this treatment is likely to assist him to abstain from relapse into substance abuse once in the community. This is the view shared by Dr Samuel Maloney from the Correctional Primary Health Service, who notes the use of ORT is likely to have the indirect benefit of stabilising the respondent's lifestyle, reducing chaotic drug seeking behaviours and would also facilitate his engagement with psychosocial interventions for stimulant use.
4. Dr Wright assessed the respondent as having obsessive compulsive disorder and substance use disorders. In light of his historical risk of serious violence offending, managing his future risk of violence requires a high case prioritisation, in that a high degree of resources and planning is needed to support him to maintain his current clinical stability and ensure his future risk management items do not worsen when in the community. Dr Wright considered that if the respondent were to re-offend, he would be most likely to engage in a further armed robbery, but lower level violent or general offending may also occur. She considered it unlikely he would commit another aggravated armed robbery.
5. While Dr Wright initially expressed the view that the respondent did not require an HRO order, and that the high degree of supervision and support he required to manage his future risks could be provided with a further parole order, she revised that opinion in light of the respondent not achieving parole. As of 3 December 2025, it was her view that the respondent does require a HRO order, and would benefit from an order across the shorter term, that is for one to two years, to support his reintegration into the community. She supported the usual mandatory conditions be imposed, together with additional conditions relating to the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs, and testing for the presence of those.

1. In light of information before me, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence in the future. The respondent has committed an alarming number of indictable offences since 2000. Those offences have escalated in seriousness over that time and resulted in the imposition of significant periods of imprisonment. His conduct has put the community at risk and caused serious psychological harm to a number of his victims. Since late December 2000, he has spent approximately 15 years in prison as a consequence of his offending conduct. His offending is related to his substance abuse issues. He has struggled to achieve or maintain abstinence in the community. The management strategies he now has in place or proposes to access, namely ORT and other therapeutic interventions, are yet to be tested in the community.
2. Since 2008, the respondent has demonstrated difficulty adapting to life in the community once released from prison. It is apparent he requires significant support to help him address his future risk. Dr Wright considered the respondent would be most likely to commit further armed robbery offences in the context of relapse to drug and alcohol abuse, disengagement from or loss of personal and professional supports, lack of constructive use of his time, problems with his finances, poor mental health, escalating levels of stress and loss of motivation to remain in the community. Given the difficulties he has had maintaining engagement with Community Corrections and other supports while on parole, it seems highly unlikely the respondent would be sufficiently motivated to access and engage with services absent the accountability that is required while on a HRO order. While armed robbery is not a serious offence within the meaning of the Act, aggravated armed robbery is. The difference between the two offences is the aggravated element which arises when such an offence is committed in company or where bodily harm is caused immediately before, at, or immediately after the time of committing the robbery: see s 240(2) and (4) of the Criminal Code Act 1924. In light of the respondent's history of committing an armed robbery in company (the index offence), being assisted by others (the bank robbery in 2010) and being prepared to resort to physical violence when confronted (the bakery attempted robbery), the risk of him committing a serious offence in the future if he was to be released without any orders to manage his risk factors, is readily apparent. In my view, an HRO order would help ease the respondent's re-integration into the community, would provide a means of monitoring his substance use and facilitate the delivery of supports to address any issues should they be required.
3. I have determined that the order should be in place for two years. In my view, an order in excess of 12 months is required, predominantly because of the respondent's accommodation and substance abuse issues. He has secured suitable accommodation through the Beyond the Wire program. That tenancy will remain in place for approximately 12 months. In my view, it is necessary for supports to remain in place beyond that period as the respondent transitions into the private rental market or government housing. It is clear from his prior history that instability in accommodation is one of his risk factors, and can result in him making poor choices in order to secure a place to live, particularly as to his associates. I also recognise that recovery from substance abuse is rarely linear. A degree of stability is more likely to be achieved in a two year timeframe.

1. The order will be subject to the mandatory conditions set out at s 38(1) of the Act. In addition, I impose the following additional conditions pursuant to s 38(2) of the Act:

(i) The offender must not, during the operational period of the order -

(c) possess, use or administer, including self-administer, a substance included in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, or in a manner that would be unlawful under the Poisons Act 1971;

(ii) The offender must, during the operational period of the order, when directed to do so by a police officer, probation officer, or prescribed officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, oral fluid test or other test, and provide a valid sample for the presence of alcohol, an illicit drug or medication;

(iii) The offender must, during the operational period of the order, engage in any psychiatric, psychological, therapeutic or counselling interventions as reasonably directed by a probation officer;

(iv) The offender must, between the hours of 12am and 5am daily, be at premises approved by a probation officer and present himself to police if required to do so, except if the offender is not, for a relevant reason, at the premises or has the prior approval from a probation officer to be absent;

(v) The offender must, during the operational period of the order, submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device, unless approved otherwise by a probation officer;

(vi) The offender must not remove, tamper with, damage or disable any device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;

(vii) The offender must not let anyone other than a probation officer, police officer, or prescribed officer remove, tamper with, damage or disable any device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring; and

(viii) The offender must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to the offender in relation to the electronic monitoring.