(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the transcript.)
[2]
The respondent, Milton William Anderson, is currently serving a sentence of 8 years and 4 months imprisonment for the offence of unlawfully doing an act likely to endanger the life, health or safety of another person with intent. That offence, which was committed on 27 May 2017, involved a brutal and unpitying attack by Mr Anderson on his then domestic partner, in which Mr Anderson punched, kicked and stabbed the victim. That offence was a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act).
Mr Anderson's term of imprisonment ends on 1 November 2025.
The State of Western Australia now applies for a restriction order in respect of Mr Anderson under the Act. The preliminary hearing of the application came before me today. The State relied upon an affidavit of Fleur Marie Allen, affirmed on 18 August 2025. That affidavit contains Mr Anderson's criminal history, as well as a number of reports and assessments in relation to him. The State also relied upon an affidavit in relation to potential accommodation options for Mr Anderson were he to be released from prison. I also received in evidence a post-sentence supervision report dated 17 September 2025.
The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is for me to decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Court might find that Mr Anderson is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the Act. The law in relation to that issue is well settled.
The respondent's counsel conceded that the threshold requirement for a preliminary hearing was met. I accept that concession and am satisfied that the Court might find that the respondent is a 'high risk serious offender' within the meaning of the Act.
I am also satisfied that it is necessary and desirable for the protection of the community that an interim detention order be imposed, pending the determination of the restriction order application.
My reasons for those conclusions are as follows.
Mr Anderson is a 54-year-old Wongi man, who has spent most of his life in Wiluna. The offence for which he is currently serving a term of imprisonment is the latest in a long line of violent offending committed by Mr Anderson against his domestic partners. While not all of those offences were 'serious offences' within the meaning of the Act, they nevertheless reveal a pattern of offending in which Mr Anderson has committed acts of extreme violence against multiple victims.
The offence for which Mr Anderson is currently sentenced, for example, was a sustained attack in which he punched and kicked his then partner's head and body, knocked her over with a car and then stabbed her repeatedly with a knife. The victim suffered a punctured lung, nerve damage to her left arm and hand, and subcutaneous emphysema. The victim also appears to have been pregnant at the time of the assault and subsequently lost the baby.
That offence was one of a number committed by Mr Anderson over the years against that same victim. Earlier in 2017, he was convicted of hitting her on the head with a walking stick and stripping her naked. In 2012, Mr Anderson was convicted of two further offences against the same victim, committed on separate occasions. On one of those occasions, Mr Anderson hit the victim on the head with a concrete block multiple times, causing injuries requiring 18 external and 4 internal stitches.
In 2004 and 2005 Mr Anderson was convicted of multiple offences against another partner, including offences of assault occasioning bodily harm, and unlawful wounding. Those offences included Mr Anderson striking the victim on the head and back with a crowbar, causing open wounds to her head, and on another occasion, striking her on the head with a crescent.
A third victim was Mr Anderson's partner from 1999 to 2001. Mr Anderson committed offences of unlawful wounding and grievous bodily harm in relation to that victim. The latter offence, which was a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act, involved Mr Anderson repeatedly striking the victim to the head and body with a bin liner, causing lacerations to her arms and body, a 10 cm laceration to the left side of her head, a 10 cm gash above her left eye and a fractured eye socket. The victim was left with permanent damage to her peripheral vision.
From 1992 to 1994, Mr Anderson was convicted of multiple offences against yet another partner, including offences of assault occasioning bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. The latter offence involved Mr Anderson striking the victim to the head, multiple times, with both a cast iron frying pan and a brick.
While Mr Anderson has a number of other convictions, including for further violent offences against domestic partners, the above summary is more than enough to demonstrate a significant pattern of family violence. That offending, including the offence for which Mr Anderson is currently in prison, was often associated with significant alcohol abuse.
Despite Mr Anderson's extensive criminal record of family violence, there is very little evidence in the material before me of interventions directed toward addressing his risk of reoffending. There is some meagre evidence of him participating in a substance use program approximately 20 years ago. Since that time the only program report in the material is a program completion report for the Not Our Way program. Mr Anderson completed that program in 2020, over five years ago.
The program completion report describes Mr Anderson as having made 'minimal gains during his participation in the program'. The authors said that while Mr Anderson 'demonstrated greater awareness of the connection between thoughts, feelings and actions, he continued to externalise responsibility'.
A parole assessment report dated 19 September 2023, prepared by a senior Community Corrections Officer who interviewed Mr Anderson, provides some useful insight into Mr Anderson's potential risk of reoffending. The author of that report stated:
[3]
Notwithstanding Mr Anderson's participation in the [Not Our Way] program, he presents with outstanding needs related to family violence and substance use. Comments made during interview reflect ongoing attitudes minimising the seriousness of family violence behaviours and apportioning blame to the victim. He also presented as supportive of continued alcohol consumption [stating] 'it's alright drinking as long as [with a] good mob'.
[4]
Mr Anderson presented with limited insight into his offending behaviour and minimised his responsibility by apportioning blame to the victim and noting his alcohol intoxication. Mr Anderson's proposed release plan presents as insufficient to manage his risk of further offending upon release, with limited intervention options available, lack of pro social supports and activities, and exposure to alcohol use. While Mr Anderson verbalised his intention to comply with potential parole requirements, his motivation presented as highly questionable, with inconsistencies in his release plan and intended transience.
[5]
On the basis of the seriousness of Mr Anderson's offending history, his ongoing problem with alcohol, and his apparent lack of insight into his offending, I am comfortably satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Court might find that he is a real risk of committing further violent offences if he is released, and, in particular, if he is released unsupervised.
I will therefore make orders for the hearing of the restriction order application on 19 February 2026, and for the preparation of reports for that hearing.
Pending the conclusion of the hearing of restriction order application, the State submits that I should make an interim detention order pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the Act.
I am positively satisfied that such an interim detention order is necessary for the protection of the community.
The evidence before me demonstrates that Mr Anderson has a history of alcohol abuse that culminates in violent offending against his intimate partners. If this is not carefully managed and treated in the community, and Mr Anderson is not provided with adequate supervision and oversight, then there is a very real possibility that Mr Anderson will reoffend.
If Mr Anderson is to be safely managed in the community, it is essential that he have suitable and stable accommodation. As Hall J observed in The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5][1]:
[6]
Accommodation for a person on a supervision order is not simply a place to live. The location and type of accommodation are factors that are integral to any proper assessment of the risk of reoffending.
[7]
Should he be released, Mr Anderson proposed to live with his mother at a house in Wiluna. That house is not available until at least November or December of this year. In any event, that accommodation was previously assessed as unsuitable, and monitoring of Mr Anderson at that location would be difficult, due to GPS and communication issues. The proposed address is approximately 720km away from the nearest Adult Community Corrections Centre, making scrutiny and support of Mr Anderson there a near-impossibility.
This remoteness is a particular concern, given that Mr Anderson has indicated that he is presently in a relationship with a new partner. Given Mr Anderson's history of domestic violence, a new relationship in an unsupervised environment is a matter of significant concern in relation to the protection of the community. The absence of viable supervision in remote areas also highlights the disproportionate impact of current supervision arrangements on remote and regional West Australians.
Mr Anderson's mother's interim address, in the town of Wiluna, has also previously been deemed unsuitable due to concerns around substance abuse and antisocial behaviour at the address, and Mr Anderson's mother has been unable to be contacted to confirm her willingness to offer accommodation or to enable GPS testing to be arranged.
For this reason, I am not presently satisfied that Mr Anderson could be safely managed in the community pending the hearing of the State's application. It is, therefore, necessary for Mr Anderson to be detained on an interim order until the conclusion of the restriction order application.
I will therefore make orders for the restriction order application, including that the respondent be detained in custody the final determination of the application pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) of the Act, or until further order.
[8]
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
[9]
[1] The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115 [80] (Hall J).