STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- S [No 3] [2026] WASC 76 (16 March 2026)

1. On 7 May 2020, Smith J declared the respondent to be a serious danger to the community, and made an order pursuant to s 17(1)(a) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act) that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.
2. Pursuant to s 64 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), when an offender is subject to a CDO, the State must apply for the offender's detention under the order to be reviewed so as to ensure that reviews are carried out at the times specified in s 64(2).
3. On 14 June 2021, the first review hearing of the respondent's CDO was held before Smith J. At the hearing, it was conceded on behalf of the respondent that, on the evidence before the court, the respondent remained a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, which had by then superseded the DSO Act.
4. At the conclusion of the first review hearing, Smith J found that the respondent remained a high risk serious offender and affirmed the CDO made on 7 May 2020. Her Honour considered there were then three obstacles to the respondent being released on a supervision order:

(1) the respondent requires supported accommodation;

(2) without significant daily support in supported accommodation in the first six months of release, and ongoing support beyond that time, which could only be funded through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent could not cope with the pressures of living in the community, would become non-compliant with his medication, may resort to substance use, and be at a high risk of committing a serious sexual offence; and

(3) the respondent requires ongoing treatment for his delusional disorder.[3]

1. Her Honour was also not satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.[4]
2. This is the second review of the respondent's CDO.
3. The application was filed on 9 December 2022 and the hearing was originally to take place in June 2023. However, a number of adjournments were required in order for all of the necessary reports and information to be prepared to enable the hearing to proceed. While unavoidable, the considerable delay of the review proceedings is regrettable.

1. The State produced a Book of Materials comprised of 4 volumes, containing the criminal history of the respondent and detailed evidence relating to it, including statements of material facts and transcripts, the respondent's custodial history, program completion reports relating to the various programs undertaken by the respondent while in custody, parole and other assessment reports, and reports prepared for this hearing, namely:

(1) Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 6 June 2023;

(2) Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 19 April 2024;

(3) Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 21 February 2026;

(4) Psychological Report of Dr Sarah Barbas dated 17 May 2023;

(5) Occupational Therapy Report of Jack Beer dated 26 June 2023;

(6) Neuropsychological Report of Dr Elizabeth Vuletich dated 2 September 2023;

(7) Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 12 June 2023;

(8) Neurology Report of Professor Peter Panegyres dated 22 February 2024; and

(9) Updated Community Supervision Assessment Reports of Chloe Jones dated 29 October 2025, 27 January 2026 and 18 February 2026.

1. The State called Dr Peter Wynn Owen and Ms Chloe Jones at the hearing of the application, and they were cross-examined by the respondent's counsel.

1. The object of the review process was articulated by Hall J in The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] in the following terms:

The clear intention of the review process is to allow for the possibility of a change of circumstances. Detention under the DSO Act is not a punishment for a past offending: it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent the risk of future serious sexual offending from being realised. If circumstances change such that the risk of reoffending reduces or can be adequately managed in the community, then the continuing need for detention must be considered...It does not follow from this that a court conducting an annual review is bound by the factual findings made at previous hearings. In practice, however, there is usually little prospect that expert evidence on a review will call into question the previous finding that the respondent was a serious danger to the community...

It is a significant thing to deprive a person of his liberty, not for something he has done but for something that he might do in the future. In order to justify detention on these grounds the evidence must be acceptable and cogent and establish the existence of a serious danger to the community to a high degree of probability: s 7(2) DSO Act. Such a finding requires satisfaction that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious sexual offence if not placed under a supervision order or detained.

The risk of reoffending may change over time. It may be affected by age, health, or the successful completion of treatment. The availability of new technology or resources in the community may also affect whether the risk of reoffending can be managed by a supervision order. There is also the possibility that the risk may increase because of a failure of treatment or a relapse into deviant thinking.

The justification for making a continuing detention order is the existence of an unacceptable risk of serious sexual offending that cannot be adequately controlled by conditional release. However, detention also serves the purpose of allowing treatment and care in a secure environment: s 17 DSO Act. This confirms an obligation on the part of prison authorities to facilitate change by offering programmes and access to counselling.

If the risk changes or resources improve to enable more efficacious conditions then the need for detention may dissipate. In these circumstances, continuing detention may be unjust.

The review process is intended to ensure that detention only continues where necessary. It mitigates the otherwise draconian effect of imprisoning people for crimes that they have not committed. Reviews are not, therefore, a mere welfare check: they are an exercise of judicial power to affirm, vary or rescind a detention order. Continuing detention should not be ordered unless that course is justified by the circumstances existing at the time of the review. The court should choose the order that is least invasive of the person's right to be at liberty, whilst ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community...[5]

1. While Hall J was then referring to the DSO Act, his Honour's observations are equally applicable to review proceedings under the HRSO Act.
2. On review the court must determine whether an offender remains a high risk serious offender; that is, whether it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.[6]
3. In determining whether it is so satisfied, the court must have regard to the matters listed in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act.
4. The State has the onus of satisfying the court that an offender remains a high risk serious offender.[7]
5. If the court does not find that the person remains a high risk serious offender, the CDO must be rescinded. If the court determines that the offender remains a high risk serious offender, it must either affirm the CDO, or, subject to s 29, rescind the CDO and make a supervision order.[8]
6. It is a matter for the court conducting the review to independently decide whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, and whether the CDO should be affirmed, although the court conducting the review is entitled to have regard to, and give weight to, views expressed in earlier reviews and the original application.[9]
7. In deciding whether to affirm the CDO or make a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[10]
8. The HRSO Act does not require that there be no risk of reoffending. The question is whether the risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level that ensures adequate protection of the community.[11]
9. The court cannot make a supervision order in relation to an offender unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.[12]
10. The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.[13]
11. In determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order', I respectfully adopt, without repeating here, the approach set out by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart[14] at [39] to [52].

Matters to be considered pursuant to s 7(3) HRSO Act Antecedents and criminal history

1. It is unnecessary for me to repeat the respondent's personal history or his criminal history, which have been extensively set out in the previous judgments relating to him.

1. I have read the previous reports of Dr Vuletich, Professor Wynn Owen, Dr Bannister and Dr Poli. I am satisfied that the extensive summaries of those reports contained in the previous judgments of Smith J are such that it is unnecessary that I again summarise them here.

Reports prepared under s 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section

1. Dr Wynn Owen is a qualified expert within the meaning of the HRSO Act.[15] He prepared a psychiatric report dated 6 June 2023 for the purposes of the respondent's second review hearing initially listed for 21 September 2023.
2. In preparation for that report, Dr Wynn Owen interviewed the respondent. Dr Wynn Owen had access to the Book of Materials dated 26 April 2023 and both of the respondent's discharge summaries for a hospital attendance in 2020. He also spoke to the respondent's visiting psychiatrist and his Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO).[16]
3. The respondent was reported to be polite and cooperative at interview. His mood was stable and his affect superficial and relatively restricted. He exhibited no formal thought disorder, and denied any perceptual disturbance. He did not report delusional beliefs, such as he had in the past.[17]
4. The respondent's concentration and attention appeared impaired, requiring repeat of questions. Dr Wynn Owen observed that the respondent rarely answered a question directly, often providing either a tangential or unrelated response and required prompting to be kept on track frequently.[18]
5. The respondent acknowledged he had memory issues, particularly remembering the names of people and prisoners in his unit. He did not know what medical conditions he suffered from and was unable to name any medications he was prescribed.[19]
6. The respondent seemed to be unaware of any pending HRSO review hearing and did not appear to understand the reason for another court proceeding, stated he had 'done my time'. He was unaware that a Public Guardian had been appointed to support/assist his decision making and when told he did have a guardian he did not see any need for assistance with decision making in any aspect of his life.[20]
7. The respondent did not take responsibility for his offending, alleging that he had been mistakenly convicted and possibly set up.[21]
8. He indicated he wanted to go home and 'stay out of trouble', reporting that he had a HomesWest property available to him in Broome. He was not confident about his ability to cope if released in Perth. While he said he would comply with any conditions, he did not seem to understand what they would be and expressed a dislike for a GPS condition. He was ambivalent about abstinence from alcohol, but said he would 'lay off it' if he had to.[22]

1. The respondent's Static 99-R score was 8, placing him in the Level IVb or 'Well Above Average Risk' range. Sexual offenders in the Static‑99R High Risk High Needs cohort released with the same score as the respondent have a five-year sexual recidivism likelihood of 36.3% and a 10 year likelihood of 48.5%.
2. This means that of 100 sexual offenders released from prison with the same score as the respondent, it is estimated that 36 would commit a new sexual offence within five years (and 64 would not).
3. Dr Wynn Owen noted that the Static-99R tool has not been specifically normed for accuracy in Australian Indigenous populations, however has been demonstrated in small studies to have similar validity.[23]

1. There were no changes to the historical risk factors previously identified. The risk factors of denial and minimisation, lack of self-awareness and problems with stress and coping continue to be present. The respondent's psychotic illness is in remission, but present. His neurological findings indicated mild to moderate intellectual impairment. His risk problems with substance abuse, social adjustment, intimate and non-intimate relationships, problems with employment, non-sexual criminality, and planning treatment and supervision remain.[24]
2. Dr Wynn Owen considered that, on assessment, the respondent's cognitive state appeared to have deteriorated, in that his ability to register and retain new information seemed to be more impaired, he was not fully oriented and appeared to demonstrate some emotional lability, suggesting he may be experiencing cognitive decline.[25]
3. As to potential risk scenarios, they also remain largely unchanged. The likely scenario is that, in the context of intoxication as a result of alcohol use to manage stress, the respondent, as a result of poor decision making, poor impulse control, failure of consequential thinking and impaired executive function, opportunistically requests sexual contact with a woman and then seriously sexually assaults her using physical coercion. The scenario may involve serious physical harm, made more likely if he uses a weapon. In the event of alcohol and/or cannabis use, such offending could occur at any time.[26]

1. Dr Wynn Owen considered that the respondent's offending has occurred in the context of antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse. While it may not have contributed to his past offending, his mental illness has been a significant factor reinforcing denial and contributing to treatment failure. His more recently identified intellectual impairment has also contributed to problems of coping and self-awareness through limited capacity for new skills development and restricted capacity to benefit from treatment. He noted the respondent's ability to benefit from treatment is likely to be further reduced if he is experiencing cognitive decline.[27]
2. In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, the respondent continues to present a high risk of future serious offending in the absence of restriction. However, he observed that the respondent is unlikely to gain from a further term of detention, which will only consolidate his institutionalisation. Further, it is unlikely that any criminogenic intervention will significantly improve his ability to self-manage his risk.[28]

1. Dr Wynn Owen recommended the respondent receive supported accommodation, that he should be encouraged to trial further treatment with anti-psychotics, and that the respondent be subject to an updated neurological assessment.[29]

Addendum Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 19 April 2024

1. Dr Wynn Owen prepared an addendum report dated 19 April 2024. For this report, he interviewed the respondent on 12 April 2024, and had access to the Book of Materials for the Review Hearing on 19 June 2023 Volume 1, dated 26 April 2023. Dr Wynn Owen spoke to Acacia Prison's visiting psychiatrist, the respondent's Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO) and Community Offender Monitoring Unit Team Leader. Dr Wynn Owen also had access to the Occupational Therapy Report of Mr Beer dated 26 June 2023, Dr Vuletich's report dated 2 September 2023 (see below) and the Neurology Report of Professor Panegyres dated 22 February 2024 (see below).[30]
2. The respondent engaged well in the assessment process, presenting as polite, calm and relaxed. Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent's mood was contented and stable and his affect restricted; a little elevated but unchanging, and incongruous with his situation and surroundings. He was not oriented to time.[31]
3. The respondent demonstrated no insight into his current prison term to date. He was adamant that his current prison term to date had been no more than three years and his answers to Dr Wynn Owen's questions about the recent and distant past resulted in answers that were 'obviously untrue/at odds with his personal and social history and history of incarceration for the majority of his adult life'. He demonstrated no insight as to this.[32]
4. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he was in prison because he had had an argument with a prison officer in Broome three years ago and is awaiting transfer to Broome Prison to be released on parole. The respondent denied any other offending, particularly sexual offending, and told Dr Wynn Owen that he had never been accused of any sexual offences. Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent appeared to have no understanding of the legislation under which he is currently detained.[33]
5. Dr Wynn Owen observed that the respondent's neuropsychological assessment indicated a decline in cognitive function since the respondent was assessed in 2023, which aligned with a potential diagnosis of dementia. He concurred with a suggestion by Dr Vuletich that the confabulation exhibited by the respondent might in fact be a result of dementia, rather than delusion.[34]
6. In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, the respondent would not currently be fit to stand trial. He recommended that a further assessment of the respondent's hyponatraemia was required, as this could be contributing to his cognitive impairment.[35] He also recommended a further neurologist opinion be sought, at which the respondent should not be shackled (as he was when Professor Panegyres saw him).[36]
7. Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the respondent continued to require full time support to live and function in the community, and that, if a supervision order were to be made, it should be of five years' duration.[37]

Addendum Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 21 February 2026

1. For his further addendum report dated 21 February 2026, Dr Wynn Owen had a further conversation with the respondent's treating psychiatrist and his SCCO, and had access to the respondent's NDIS Home and Living Support Plan dated 13 May 2025, NDIS Budget Breakdown dated 30 June 2025 and My Aged Care Support Plan dated 28 October 2025. He had also been provided with the medical report of Dr Roger Clarnette dated 30 August 2025.[38]
2. Dr Wynn Owen expressed the view that the respondent's NDIS plan appropriately recognised the degree of his cognitive impairment, as well as his institutionalisation and the need to provide significant reintegration supports and skills to achieving independence.[39]
3. Dr Wynn Owen remained of the view that the respondent continues to be a high risk of committing a serious offence if not subject to restriction under the HRSO Act and that such an offence is likely to be a serious sexual offence.[40]
4. In evidence, Dr Wynn Owen confirmed that the respondent's risk factors remain unchanged from earlier assessments. Those are his antisocial personality traits, such as having little regard for the property or person of others, his long history of alcohol abuse despite criminal sanctions for his offending, his history of offending, his return to alcohol use and offending within a short period of release, as well as his significant and global cognitive impairments, preventing therapeutic intervention to address his outstanding treatment needs.[41]
5. In Dr Wynn Owen's view, it was not possible to come to any conclusion other than that the respondent remains a high risk of reoffending.[42]
6. However, with the respondent's present NDIS package, Dr Wynn Own considered that this risk can be adequately managed in the community on a supervision order, because any events which increase the respondent's risk will be detected quickly and reported.[43] However, he acknowledged that there would be challenges with the respondent understanding the nature of the order and its conditions, requiring repetition and reinforcement,[44] and simple language.
7. Dr Wynn Owen indicated that, given the respondent's present circumstances, a relatively short supervision order would be appropriate, enabling review of the respondent's circumstances and risk earlier than he had previously recommended. Accordingly, he was of the view that a supervision order, if imposed, should be of three years' duration.[45]
8. Dr Wynn Owen was pressed in cross-examination as to his view of the respondent's unchanged risk assessment, which he maintained despite the passage of 15 years since the respondent's previous offending. Dr Wynn Owen had reconsidered the risk assessments using the STATIC-99 and RSVP risk assessment tools, and noted that the most significant change was due to the respondent's apparent cognitive decline.[46]
9. Dr Wynn Owen also observed that long term imprisonment is usually associated with either a stable risk or increased risk, due to institutionalisation, loss of skills, and the resultant stress and response.[47] Accordingly, despite the fact that the respondent's behaviour in prison has improved since he was first imprisoned, his risk was not reduced by that factor.[48]
10. In cross-examination, Dr Wynn Owen said that the nature of alcohol dependence syndrome is that there is often a very rapid return to the same level of drinking, notwithstanding the duration of abstinence.[49] As a result, the fact that the respondent has not drunk alcohol for the term of his imprisonment is not a good indicator of the likelihood of him drinking on release. This is particularly so given his cognitive impairment and lack of memory, which mean that he is at times not able to put protective measures in place or to understand why he should not drink.[50] That too, is something which can be assessed after observing the respondent's performance on a supervision order.[51]

1. Dr Wynn Owen recommended that should the respondent be released on a supervision order, it should include conditions to address high risk situations for the respondent, in particular substance use (drugs and alcohol) and unsupervised contact with females.[52]
2. He further recommended that the respondent's reintegration into the community be supported through measures such as NDIS support workers, structured routines, curfews, and stable accommodation, noting that in his view the respondent requires ongoing supported independent living and a high level of assistance with daily activities.[53]

Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the offender

1. Dr Sarah Barbas is a Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. Dr Barbas interviewed the respondent for approximately 2.5 hours and spoke with his treating psychiatrist, Dr Bilyk.
2. Dr Barbas noted that the respondent was receiving a quarterly depot injection of an anti-psychotic medication for about a year in 2021, but he began refusing treatment in January 2022 and does not appear to have received any depot injections since. His presentation has generally remained stable.[54]
3. Dr Bilyk informed Dr Barbas that, prior to his ceasing the depots, the respondent had reduced persecutory and grandiose delusions. Afterwards, she observed the respondent to present as mildly dysphoric with anxious affect and defensive. However, there was no indication that his delusions had intensified.[55]
4. According to Dr Barbas, the respondent has formed the belief that his mental health status has prevented his transfer to Broome Prison, so he has been reluctant to attend mental health reviews for some time. He appeared to have difficulty containing his frustrating at his continuing incarceration.[56]
5. Dr Bilyk told Dr Barbas that the respondent had 'benefitted immensely' from psychosocial support offered by his peer support cellmate, and he had also reported increased motivation to engage in treatment, externally motivated by the possibility of release.[57]
6. The respondent reported to Dr Barbas that he missed his family and lifestyle on Country (north of Broome) and he expressed an anxiety to commence programmatic treatment so he could return home. He appears to still believe he had been 'set up' by others in relation to his offending, and to demonstrate a lack of insight into his current legal situation.[58]
7. Dr Barbas targeted questions towards exploring the respondent's historical grandiose delusions, and found the respondent to demonstrate more tangential thinking, including speaking of bizarre topics and reporting bizarre beliefs.[59]
8. The respondent told Dr Barbas he would not consent to receiving antipsychotic medication but would do whatever program or course was required of him. He reluctantly accepted that he may be more suited to individual intervention.[60]
9. The respondent acknowledged the violent aspects of his past offending, but denied the sexual component of that offending. Dr Barbas suggested that this denial might reflect a difficulty on the part of the respondent in comprehending that a sexual offence might not necessarily involve completed sexual penetration, and what conduct was 'sexual'.
10. The respondent demonstrated difficulty in accepting responsibility for his offending, and continued to display negative attitudes towards women.[61] However, he indicated a willingness to participate in a sex offender treatment program or related intervention, including discussing uncomfortable topics such as relationships, consent, sexual health and sexual functioning.[62]
11. The respondent indicated that he wanted to return to the Broome region where he could be with his family and live a 'bush life'. He expressed the view that he would not be able to cope if released to a supervision order in a metropolitan area.[63]
12. In Dr Barbas' opinion, the respondent has significant outstanding treatment needs across the domains of sexual offending, violent offending and substance use which relate to factors associated with an antisocial personality structure, poor behavioural controls, low frustration tolerance, proneness to explosive anger, misogynistic attitudes, sexual entitlement, high sex drive, lack of community support or feasible plans, lack of feasible substance use relapse prevention plans, emotion regulation, self-management, impulsivity, interpersonal skills and an untreated delusional disorder.[64]
13. Dr Barbas was of the view that treatment gains in these areas through the provision of individual intervention remain unlikely, having regard to the respondent's intellectual disability, his mental health diagnosis, executive functioning deficits and associated functional capacity difficulties. She noted his limited insight into his mental health, current legal status and his sexual offending history, and questioned his ability to comply with the conditions of any future supervision order, particularly having regard to his concerns about being released to a metropolitan area.[65]
14. If the respondent were to be released on a supervision order, Dr Barbas considered that he would require a multidisciplinary care team with involvement from culturally safe support services, including a mentor and substance use counselling. He should participate in supportive interventions, and treatment should focus on monitoring his coping, medication compliance, problem solving and emotion regulation with a particular focus on anger management and sexuality.[66]

Occupational Therapy Report of Mr Jack Beer dated 26 June 2023

1. Mr Jack Beer, Senior Occupational Therapist, completed an occupational therapy report in relation to the respondent on 26 June 2023.
2. The respondent behaved normally during the assessment, but spoke in a slurred manner on occasion. He also presented with disorganised thought form and regularly went off topic. He had limited perception of his current function. He claimed to have no difficulty with his long-term memory or his attention, but reported some issues with his short-term memory, and showed difficulties with orientation and history.[67]
3. The respondent reported being physically able to complete most daily personal tasks, but did report difficulties with receptive communication and social communication, which have led to disputes and him being the subject of racism while in custody.[68]
4. In Mr Beer's assessment, the respondent would require consistent assistance to develop safe and independent routines around meal preparation, shopping and financial management tasks, medical, health and justice related appointments, transport, domestic cleaning and laundry. He would require significant support with home management, community involvement and medication management.[69]
5. The respondent scored a 4 on the Care and Needs Scale. Such a score suggests a person can be left alone for part of the day and overnight, but would need support of up to 11 hours a day for assistance, supervision direction and/or cueing for occupational activities, interpersonal relationships and/or living skills. However, in Mr Beer's view, this underestimated the likely support required by the respondent.[70]
6. Similarly, the respondent's overall score on the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule indicated a minimal presence of disability that affects the respondent's ability to complete activities of daily living. However, Mr Beer did not consider this to accurately represent the respondent's current level of functioning.[71]
7. Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment screening tool, the respondent achieved a score indicating the possible presence of a moderate to severe cognitive impairment. While this was not the most appropriate tool for the respondent, it was said to be the best available in the circumstances. The respondent was assessed as potentially having the ability to develop daily routines, but he would need significant occupational therapy and support worker assistance to build his capacity and independence given his long period of institutionalisation and his cognitive functioning.[72]
8. Mr Beer recommended that the respondent receive structured 24/7 support to improve his level of engagement and independence within the community, failing which he would be at significant risk of reincarceration.[73]
9. Mr Beer also considered that the respondent would benefit from Positive Behaviour Support, Speech Pathology, Psychology and Occupational Therapy input, together with intensive Specialist Support Coordination.[74]

Report of Dr Elizabeth Vuletich dated 2 September 2023

1. Dr Vuletich, a neuropsychologist, carried out an updated assessment upon the respondent pursuant to s 75 of the HRSO Act. The order was made having regard to the assessment made by Dr Wynn Owen in his report dated 6 June 2023 that the respondent appeared to have suffered cognitive decline, an observation shared by his treating psychiatrist, Dr Bilyk.[75]
2. Dr Vuletich noted that, as the testing progressed, the respondent experienced some difficulties, which caused him agitation and frustration, following which he eventually walked out of the assessment. Dr Vuletich accepted that the process was likely to have been culturally and linguistically unfamiliar to him, but considered the testing appropriate. The premature termination of the assessment left open the possibility that it did not capture the respondent's optimal functioning. However, while interpreting the results with caution, Dr Vuletich considered there was sufficient data to provide information as to the respondent's cognitive capacity.[76]
3. When interviewed by Dr Vuletich, the respondent professed not to know what his court proceedings were for, even though Dr Vuletich had explained the purpose of her assessment only minutes beforehand. He also claimed, 'I never been to prison', which was self-evidently incorrect, but seemed to recognise his imprisonment at other parts of the interview.[77]
4. On testing, the respondent scored in the range of intellectual impairment, as he had in 2019. However, on this occasion, several of his scores were significantly lower than in his 2019 testing, with reductions in his overall Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning Index and Processing Speed Index scores.[78]
5. Despite the abridged assessment on this occasion compared with the 2019 assessment, Dr Vuletich was of the opinion that the respondent had widespread cognitive deficits, with important additional findings of statistically weaker scores across several tasks and domains, with no significantly stronger scores (which can sometimes occur in the context of test-retest effects).[79]
6. Dr Vuletich hypothesised that, having regard to the respondent's psychiatric stability notwithstanding his cessation of medication, what had previously been characterised as 'delusions' on the part of the respondent might in fact be unintended confabulations due to his memory failure.[80]
7. In Dr Vuletich's opinion, the respondent impressed as a man of likely limited cognitive reserve, whose cognitive capacities have been further compromised by multiple factors, including a number of health issues and personality characteristics. She agreed with Dr Wynn Owen that there are multiple risk factors for dementia, and that, on the surface, the core clinical criteria for dementia appeared to have been met.[81]

Neurology Report of Professor Peter Panegyres dated 22 February 2024

1. The respondent was referred to Professor Peter Panegyres, who provided a report dated 22 February 2024.
2. Professor Panegyres reported that the respondent was not cooperative with his examination and assessment, and denied having any significant medical problems. While this may have constituted evidence of an emerging neurocognitive disorder, there were no strong features of such a disorder on examination and testing. The respondent refused to cooperate with a cognitive assessment. An EEG showed an increase in slow wave activity 'compatible with a generalised decline in cerebral function'.[82]
3. Professor Panegyres suggested that it was possible that the respondent's cognitive difficulties are the consequence of considerable alcohol consumption over many years, head injuries, drug exposure and diabetes, but could not exclude an emerging neurodegenerative disorder.[83]
4. However, the most urgent priority following the respondent's assessment was his bradycardia, for which he required an urgent EKG and potentially cardiological assessment.[84]

Report of Dr Catherine Gunson dated 7 November 2024

1. Dr Catherine Gunson, the Deputy Director Medical Services, Corrective Services, prepared a report dated 7 November 2024 in relation to the respondent's hyponatraemia, in which she concluded that there was no obvious cause for that condition. While ongoing monitoring was appropriate, the respondent's levels were not an immediate cause of concern.[85]

Home and Living Assessment Report by Mr Samuel Head dated 2 December 2024

1. In the Home and Living Assessment Report by Mr Samuel Head, Senior Occupational Therapist, dated 2 December 2024, Mr Head observed that the respondent's then approved NDIS plan did not provide the 24-hour support that was considered necessary for the respondent's residence in the community.[86]
2. Mr Head assessed the respondent as requiring moderate assistance for many daily tasks, and noted that he lacked or was deficient in a number of basic independent living skills, for which he would require the maximum level of assistance if living in the community.[87] It was recommended he obtain housing via a supported independent living provider.[88]
3. In the absence of such recommended support, the respondent was regarded as being at 'catastrophic' risk of self-neglect, medication non-adherence, escalation of behaviours of concern, harm to others and exploitation and/or increased vulnerability.[89]

Report of Dr Roger Clarnette dated 30 August 2025

1. Dr Roger Clarnette, a Consultant Geriatrician, was asked to review the respondent to report on any cognitive decline and whether or not the respondent suffered from dementia and a description of his disabilities. He reported on 30 August 2025.
2. Dr Clarnette had access to Dr Vuletich's report dated 2 September 2023, Dr Wynn Owen's report dated 19 April 2024, and Dr Gunson's report dated 7 November 2024.[90]
3. Dr Clarnette reported that the respondent was cooperative and passive during the consultation, but was either reluctant or unable to provide a thorough history or his current health status. The respondent was, unfortunately, shackled during the examination, making a full physical or neurological examination impossible.[91]
4. In Dr Clarnette's opinion, the respondent's chronic hyponatraemia was only a marginal contributor to the respondent's current physical and mental circumstances.[92]
5. While Dr Clarnette was unable to diagnose the respondent with dementia in the traditional sense, having not been able to establish an actual decline in the respondent's functioning, he was willing to consider that such a designation is a 'reasonable loose description of his cognitive state'.[93] More specifically, he considered that the respondent has metabolic brain disease.[94]
6. It was 'obvious' to Dr Clarnette that the respondent would not be able to function independently in the community, and there was no evidence that pharmacological interventions would ameliorate his brain disease.[95]

1. The respondent was referred for a community Aged Care Assessment. It was recommended he have residential care.[96]

Adult Community Corrections Community Supervision Assessments

1. Adult Community Corrections provided many updates during the progression of this matter, highlighting the difficulties with the respondent's NDIS application, obtaining medical appointments to determine the appropriate diagnoses for the respondent, and attempts to find appropriate accommodation for him.
2. Regrettably, the reports also highlight that there has been, at times, a lack of engagement with the respondent by the various services, due to apparent complications arising from the respondent's incarceration, an uncertain release date, interactions between agencies and determining which might be responsible for the respondent's care, and sometimes a lack of proper coordination. This has meant that opportunities for rapport building have not been well taken up and, at times, completely missed.
3. In the most recent assessment, authored by Ms Chloe Jones and dated 18 February 2026, Ms Jones noted that the respondent's NDIS plan is expected to revert to reduced hours in June 2026. However, further evidence can be submitted to the NDIA if required.[97]
4. In the interim, a comprehensive transition plan has been developed in respect of the respondent. The respondent has a Supported Independent Living provider, and he will be supported 24 hours a day.[98] He will have a Positive Behaviour Support provider, and an Occupational Therapist during this time.[99]
5. An address has been identified for the respondent's accommodation. Unfortunately, the WA Police Force had been unable to conduct and report on a desktop spatial analysis in relation to the property, notwithstanding at least three weeks' notice of the address. This has caused a further delay in the outcome of this matter. In my view, the relatively scant analysis subsequently provided did not justify such a delay.
6. In cross-examination, Ms Jones was asked whether leave could be given to the respondent to travel to Broome in appropriate circumstances, even while subject to an order. Ms Jones allowed for that possibility, while noting that the respondent was apparently not welcome in his local community. Ms Jones also accepted the need to maintain simplicity of conditions and lawful written instructions, if issued.[100]

1. The reports indicated that the respondent has been generally polite and respectful towards prison staff, and fairly self-sufficient.

1. The respondent was notified that his application to the NDIS was successful on 29 April 2024. His plan was approved on 5 July 2024 and included funding for improved daily living skills, behaviour support, support coordination and psychosocial recovery coaches, and increased social and community participation. There was no funding for total core supports.[101]
2. An interim support behaviour plan was developed for the respondent in January 2025.[102] On 10 May 2025, his NDIS plan was reviewed, and he was given a budget for activities of daily living with a step down after three months.[103] Then, on 30 June 2025, his NDIS plan for the year 2025 - 2026 was approved, which provided a budget for core supports as well as previously funded components.[104]

Propensity to commit serious offences in the future and whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour

1. I am satisfied that, on the basis of the nature and extent of the respondent's past offending, his substance abuse issues, particularly relating to alcohol, and, historically, his relatively rapid return to drinking and offending after release, the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future. I accept that that propensity is significantly more acute when the respondent is intoxicated.
2. I am also satisfied that the respondent's past behaviour involves a pattern of approaching women and making sexual advances to them while intoxicated and, if they refuse his advances, acting in a physically coercive manner with a sexual motive. That pattern of behaviour has involved escalating violence over time.

Any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of the offending behaviour, including whether the respondent has participated in any rehabilitation program, and whether the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the offender

1. The respondent has not meaningfully addressed his outstanding treatment needs. In particular, he has not addressed his substance abuse issues, nor the underlying causes. The reasons for his not having addressed those issues are complex, and include his denial of offending, which may be related to his cognitive impairment. They also include the fact that ordinary programmatic intervention has not been suitable for the respondent, even in the past. Given his cognitive impairment and apparent cognitive decline, including his memory issues, neither group programmatic intervention or individual tailored intervention are seen as likely to have any effect on the respondent or his risk of reoffending in the future.

The risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence and the need to protect members of the community from that risk

1. Having regard to the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen, and the reports of the many other experts who have examined the respondent during the course of these proceedings, I find that if the respondent is not made subject to a restriction order, he is a high risk of committing a serious offence within the meaning of the HRSO Act. That serious offence is most likely to be sexual in nature. I find that it is extremely likely that the respondent would, almost immediately on release, consume alcohol and in those circumstances, he is very likely to opportunistically sexually offend against a woman, whether stranger or acquaintance. Such offending is likely to involve significant physical violence to compel acquiescence.

Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? Is there an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence?

1. The risk I have outlined is, in my view, unacceptable. It is likely to be imminent, random and would likely cause significant physical and psychological harm to any victim.

Is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence?

1. On the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing, which I accept to be acceptable and cogent, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent, in order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. I am satisfied that, if the respondent is not supervised, particularly in relation to his alcohol use and contact with women, he is a high risk of offending in a serious sexual manner against a woman.

Continuing detention order or supervision order?

1. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2], Beech J (as he then was) observed:

In choosing between an indefinite detention order or a supervision order, the fact that the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community does not exclude other considerations. The use of the word 'adequate' indicates that a qualitative assessment is required. In considering whether a supervision order would adequately protect the community, account must be taken of conditions which can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the respondent and his care and treatment. The Act does not require that there be no risk of reoffending. Such a requirement could never be met and would mean no person to whom the Act applies would ever be released. The question is whether the risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level that ensures adequate protection of the community. That requires a weighing of the nature and degree of risk in the context of methods for the management and reduction of that risk. If, after considering all the evidence, the court is left in doubt as to whether the conditions of a supervision order would adequately protect the community, because the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the court must expressly decline to rescind the continuing detention order.[105]

1. On the basis of the evidence presently available, the respondent is not amenable to treatment. His risk can only be managed externally. However, he has shown himself to be a compliant prisoner for many years now, capable of responding properly to routine and coaching as to performing the daily tasks of living. His NDIS package recognises that he is unable to live independently, and accommodates constant care and supervision, as well as assistance to develop life skills. In the absence of alcohol use, I am satisfied that his risk of reoffending is limited and manageable in the community.
2. On that basis, I do not consider that a continuing detention order is necessary to adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. I am satisfied that a supervision order will adequately protect the community against that risk.

Has the respondent satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions?

1. The respondent has indicated that he does not wish to return to custody, and that he is motivated to return to country and live his life. I am satisfied that, as long as he remains abstinent from alcohol, he will substantially comply with the standard conditions, provided they are properly explained to him and reinforced.
2. I do consider that there may be occasions on which the respondent does not comply with his conditions. However, his cognitive impairments, including his memory issues, will make it difficult for him to understand all of his conditions and remember to comply with them. I am, however, satisfied that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions.

1. After extensive discussion between the parties and, having regard to the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Jones, the conditions of the order will be as set out in Annexure A to this judgment.
2. The order will be for a duration of three years.

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

_________________________________________________________________________

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER

Pursuant to section 68(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Act, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of three years from 7 April 2026, not being a date earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions:

1. Report to Community Corrections at the prison at the time of your release.

1. Report to and receive visits from a CCO as directed by the court.

1. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of home address, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens.

1. Be under the supervision of a CCO and comply with any reasonable direction of the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32).

1. Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO.

1. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order.

1. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.

1. Live at [redacted] and spend each night there You can only stay at a different address if a CCO tells you that you can beforehand.

1. Go to the offices of, or receive visits from, any medical practitioner, psychologist, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, if your CCO tells you to.

1. Report to the Officer-in-Charge at the Ellenbrook Police Station, 2 Civic Terrace, Ellenbrook WA 6069 within 48 hours of this order starting, and report to and receive visits from Police if the Officer-in-Charge or their delegate tell you to.

1. Let the CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with and, where appropriate, to tell them information about you, including your offending history.

1. Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, have no contact with the victims of your serious offending. You cannot speak to the victim in person or by phone, write to the victim, make any gestures towards the victim, message the victim using electronic devices, or ask someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim.

1. Unless you are allowed to have contact with victims, if you see any of the victims you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them, and must look away from them.

1. Not commit any criminal offence which can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.

1. If a CCO tells you to, comply with a curfew, under section 32 of the Act, requiring you to stay at and not leave your approved address between stated times.

1. When subject to a curfew under this Order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence:

a) you need to go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you;
>
> b) you need to speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, if they call to check you are at home.

1. Go to any medical practitioner, psychologist, or counsellor as told to by the supervising CCO.

1. Let any medical practitioner, psychologist or counsellor tell a CCO immediately if they know, or suspect, you.

a) have stopped, or intend to stop undergoing treatment against the advice of the medical practitioner; or

b) have stopped consulting with that medical practitioner about such treatment.

1. Cooperate with the agencies and workers under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, as directed by a CCO, and do what the agencies and workers under the National Disability Insurance Scheme tell you to, with regards to service provision.

1. Submit to random breath testing if a CCO or Police Officer tell you to;

1. Go to, and cooperate with, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as told to by the CCO or by a Police Officer, including going with them to an appropriate location for such testing to take place;

1. Not go to any licensed premises, other than cafes, restaurants and sporting clubs, except for the following reasons:

a) to avoid a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
>
> b) for any reason and duration approved beforehand by a CCO;
>
> c) if a CCO or Police Officer tells you to do so.

1. Not be with anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by alcohol, unless a CCO gives you permission beforehand.

1. Not be with anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by a prohibited drug, unless a CCO gives you permission beforehand.
2. Not stay at a place where prohibited drugs are being used or, if the drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of your home, or ask the people using the drugs to leave.

1. Report any new social associations (someone you have contact with more than twice) friendship, or domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship to your CCO when you next report to your CCO.

1. Allow a CCO to tell any person you have a social association or relationship with (someone you have contact with more than twice) about your past offending and the current order.

_______________________________

I have received a copy of this Order. I have had it explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it.

Signed by the Respondent _________________________________

In the presence of: _________________________________

Name and address: _________________________________

_________________________________

Date: _________________________________

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

[1] State of Western Australia v S [2020] WASC 148 [23] - [31].

[2] State of Western Australia v S [32] - [40].

[3] The State of Western Australia v S [No 2] [2021] WASC 204 (S [No 2]) [87] - [89].

[5] The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115 [8] - [13] (citations omitted).

[9] The State of Western Australia v ACW [No 3] [2022] WASC 41 [27]; The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 3] [2022] WASC 371 [27].

[11] The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [33].

[14] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4.

[16] Book of Materials (BOM) Vol 2, 259 [6] - [12].

[18] BOM Vol 2, 261 [37], 263 [63].

[22] BOM Vol 2, 261 - 262 [46] - 54].

[26] BOM Vol 2, 264 - 265 [78] - [85].

[28] BOM Vol 2, 265 - 266 [93] - [96].

[30] First Supplementary Book of Materials (BOM Vol 3), 40.

[31] BOM Vol 3, 42 - 43 [24], [26].

[34] BOM Vol 3, 43 - 44 [29] - [30].

[38] Second Supplementary Book of Materials (BOM Vol 4), 167 - 168 [1].

[90] BOM Vol 4, 120 (although he refers to Dr Gunson as 'Dr Dunson' and her report as being dated 27 November 2024).

[105] The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [33] (citations omitted).