THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- ANDERSON [No 2] [2026] WASC 58 (9 March 2026)

1. For the reasons below, I am satisfied that the respondent is a high risk serious offender, and that it is necessary that a restriction order should be made to ensure adequate protection of the community. I have determined that the appropriate order is a community supervision order, for a duration of five years.

1. When the application was made on 18 August 2025, the respondent was serving a term of 8 years 4 months' imprisonment for the offence of doing an act with intent to harm, as a result of which the life, health or safety of another was likely to be endangered, contrary to s 304(2) of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) (Criminal Code). That sentence was imposed by O'Neal DCJ on 2 August 2018.[4]
2. The respondent was eligible for parole, but parole was refused.[5] His sentence expired on 1 November 2025.
3. An offence contrary to s 304(2) of the Criminal Code is a serious offence, within the meaning of the HRSO Act.[6] Accordingly, the respondent was, at the time the application was made, 'a serious offender under custodial sentence'[7] who was not a 'serious offender under restriction' within the meaning of s 35 of the HRSO Act.[8]
4. A Post Sentence Supervision Order (PSSO) was made in respect of the respondent prior to his final release date. It is due to expire on 31 October 2027.[9] While the respondent is subject to an interim detention order, that PSSO continues in force.

1. The State produced a Book of Materials comprised of three 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 medical records. I also received a desktop spatial analysis in relation to the respondent's proposed accommodation, and a report in relation to a program recently completed by him.
2. There are approximately 380 pages of the respondent's custodial medical records.[10] I have accepted them as part of the Book of Materials on the basis that the experts may need to rely upon some of the records for their own reporting. However, unless they do so, in the absence of any explanation of the records, I do not intend to rely upon or refer to them for the purposes of my decision.
3. Reports were prepared for this hearing pursuant to s 74 of the HRSO Act, namely:

(1) Psychiatric report of Professor Natalia Pyszora dated 4 January 2026; and

(2) Psychological report of Dr Tara Yewers dated 18 December 2025.

1. The State called Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers at the hearing of the application, and they were cross-examined by the respondent's counsel.

1. The respondent and his partner, NJ, had been in an intermittent relationship since about 2010. On 27 May 2017, the respondent was at home in Wiluna with his son and NJ. In the afternoon, the respondent and NJ went to a local hotel and, after consuming alcohol, had an argument. The respondent got into a car and drove it around the street, doing a burn‑out. He then drove the vehicle towards NJ, who was walking towards the police station. He nudged her with the car, causing her to hit the bonnet and fall to the ground. He then got out of the car and went towards NJ, punching her in the head a number of times. He then produced a knife, and stabbed NJ, four times in the upper left arm and shoulder, twice in the back, twice in her lower back near her buttocks and once to her buttocks. One of the stab wounds penetrated the left side of NJ's neck, just above her collar bone, and went into her trachea near her lung. The respondent then ran away. NJ required urgent medical attention and transport to Perth for treatment. She had a punctured trachea, a bilateral pneumothorax, and nerve damage to her left arm and hand.[11]

(a) to provide for the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and

(b) to provide for continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.[12]

1. If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that an offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must make a continuing detention order or, except as provided in s 29, a supervision order in relation to the offender. In deciding whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[13]
2. The term 'high risk serious offender' is defined in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act as follows:

An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that 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.

1. A 'restriction order' means a continuing detention order or a supervision order.[14] A continuing detention order is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.[15] A supervision order is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers to be appropriate in accordance with s 30 of the HRSO Act.[16]
2. Relevantly, an offence is a 'serious offence' if it is an offence listed in sch 1 div 1 of the HRSO Act.[17]
3. The State has the onus of satisfying the court in accordance with s 7(1).[18]
4. When considering whether it is satisfied that a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the factors set out in s 7(3) of the Act.
5. The jurisprudence established in respect of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) is relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act, with necessary adaptation.[19]
6. The powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on the offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.[20]
7. The words 'high degree of probability' import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt, but are otherwise not capable of further definition.[21] The court is required to identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, thereafter considering whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard by acceptable and cogent evidence.[22]
8. In Garlett v The State of Western Australia,[23] the court said:

Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the court's judgment as to the nature and extent of the harm said to be in prospect. Further, whether a restriction order is 'necessary' to protect against that risk requires recognition of what would otherwise be the offender's entitlement to be at liberty, an entitlement not lightly to be denied.

1. The meaning of 'unacceptable risk' was considered by Wheeler JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams[24] in the following terms:

In my view, an 'unacceptable risk' in the context of s 7(1) is a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations which may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of sexual offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted) and the consequences of making a finding that an unacceptable risk exists. That is, the judge is required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of the person offending and the offence likely to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding that the person has already been punished for whatever offence they may have actually committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that the person is subject to further control or detention.

1. In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,[25] Corboy J considered that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act (in conjunction with s 48) requires the court to assess two separate matters. The first is whether a risk that an offender will commit a serious offence is unacceptable. The second is, if the risk is found to be unacceptable, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against a risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. His Honour stated:

[T]he court should choose, as between a continuing detention order and a supervision order, the order that is 'least invasive or destructive' of a person's right to be at liberty while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community. That constraint also applies in determining the non-standard conditions (if any) of a supervision order. Moreover, as Hall J pointed out in Director of Public Prosecutions v Decke,[26] '[i]t cannot simply be assumed that the most assured preventative is detention and therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order'.[27]

1. 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.[28]
2. 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.[29]
3. In determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order':

[t]he court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious ... offence.[30]

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

1. The respondent was born in Meekatharra on 20 July 1970, and is thus 55 years old. He is the third of four children, having two older sisters and one younger sister. He had four older half‑brothers from his father's relationships prior to partnering with the respondent's mother, but three are now deceased.[31]
2. The respondent described a happy and secure childhood, in which he got on well with his sisters. There was some physical discipline, but it does not appear to have been unusual in nature for the time.[32] He denies being exposed to family violence during this time. The family regularly attended church, and the respondent has said that religion remains important to him.[33] His parents drank alcohol, as did others at the sheep station where the family resided. However, after his father had a heart attack when the respondent was approximately 10‑12, his father stopped drinking.[34]
3. His father died in 1986. Departmental files suggest that, after that time, his mother began drinking heavily and had a number of relationships, and the respondent's behaviour deteriorated.[35] When speaking to Professor Pyszora, the respondent said his mother drank more after his father's death, but not daily, and he said he still felt cared for by her. However, he started 'sticking with the wrong mob' and drinking, and then became involved in their offending.[36]
4. The respondent did not disclose any exposure to family and domestic violence as a child, but he did report extensive exposure to significant drug and alcohol use within his family and community.[37]
5. The respondent maintains contact with his mother and sisters and other family. Neither his mother nor her current partner now drink alcohol.[38]
6. The respondent's first intimate partner relationship was with TS, when he was a teenager. This lasted about three to four months. He then had a relationship with JR, which appears to have lasted for approximately two years. His relationship with his next partner, JB, lasted about 15 years, ending when he was imprisoned for seriously assaulting her.[39]
7. From the relationship with JB, the respondent has a now 33‑year‑old son who is employed, has seven children, and lives in Wiluna.[40] The respondent told Dr Yewers that his contact with his son is generally indirect and occurs primarily through his mother.[41] He further noted that, due to his period of incarceration, he has not met several of his grandchildren since their births, but expressed a strong desire to become a positive influence in their lives.[42]
8. After that relationship, the respondent was in relationships with MG, WBH, and NJ. It appears that he resumed a relationship with TS for six to eight months in around 2016‑2017. TS reported that there was no violence during this phase of their relationship.[43]
9. In 2023, the respondent confirmed he and NJ were no longer in a relationship, although he was reported to have attempted to telephone her on a regular basis between May and September 2023.[44] The respondent reported to Professor Pyszora that he had had a new partner, AL, since about May 2023, but Professor Pyszora was not able to contact her. TS has also indicated to Professor Pyszora that she and the respondent have discussed resuming their relationship,[45] and phone records indicate that the respondent makes near daily calls to her.[46]
10. To Dr Yewers, the respondent claimed that he did not want to be in a relationship with AL, and he had ended their relationship. While he expressed ambivalence about being in a relationship in the future, he also suggested he may be interested in being in a relationship with another woman, DJ.[47]

1. The respondent attended school in Wiluna, leaving high school at the age of 16. He reported being bullied, but minimised it as 'kids' stuff.' He occasionally truanted, but reported that he loved school. The respondent has some ability to read and write.[48]
2. He has been employed at various times as either a cleaner, general hand or gardener since leaving school. At other times, he has been on Centrelink.[49] In his present custodial setting, until recently he has been working at Warburton Work Camp collecting firewood and doing mechanical repairs.[50]

1. The respondent has informed report authors that he started drinking alcohol at the age of 15 years, with negative peers. He told Professor Pyszora that his life 'went' after he started drinking. His pattern of use was to binge drink. He has been able to resist encouragement from peers and family to drink in some circumstances. He acknowledged its use has been problematic for him, and that it is a trigger for his offending. He denies having used illicit drugs apart from trying cannabis once.[51]

1. The respondent takes medication for type‑2 diabetes and a heart condition. He manages his diabetes with varying levels of success. He had a triple coronary artery bypass graft in October 2013 and a balloon angioplasty and stenting in 2021. He has received treatment for hearing loss and surgery on his eye in 2022.
2. While at various times the respondent has reported feeling stressed and sad due to various events, there is no record of the respondent having any mental health conditions.[52]

1. The respondent has a lengthy criminal history, commencing when he was 15 years old. In 1988, he was dealt with in the District Court for the offences of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding. As an adult, he has been convicted of a significant number of violent offences, including three offences of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. He has also regularly appeared before the court for offences including driving offences, damage, breach of bail, public order offences, and stealing motor vehicles.[53]

Unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm - IND G19 of 1988

1. On 19 March 1988, at the age of 17 years, the respondent committed the offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm against his then partner, TS.
2. The facts as found by the sentencing judge were that on that date, he and TS were drinking and they had an argument. The respondent took a knife from under the bed and stabbed TS about 12 times, including at least one time in the chest. This caused a partial collapse of her lung. The respondent was driving to hospital with TS when he was stopped by police. On 10 May 1988, in the District Court at Geraldton, he was committed to the care of the Department for Community Services for a period of two years.[54]

Unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm - IND C8 of 1994

1. On 3 November 1993, the respondent again committed the offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The offence was against his then partner, JR.
2. The facts were that the respondent had an argument with JR about her speaking to and associating with other men, and he struck her over the head twice with a cast iron frying pan. This caused an injury to her ear.
3. On 8 March 1994, the respondent was sentenced in the District Court at Carnarvon to 18 months' imprisonment with eligibility for parole.[55]

Unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm - IND 01 KAL 73

1. On 17 April 2000, the respondent committed the offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The victim was his then partner, WMH. The respondent was drinking with a group outside a hostel in Kalgoorlie when he got into an argument with WMH. He went to assault WMH with a metal bin insert, but was intercepted by a man, RF. After assaulting RF with the bin insert, the respondent turned back to WMH, and repeatedly hit her in the head with the bin insert, with such ferocity as to break it. WMH suffered deep lacerations to her arms, and two 10 centimetre lacerations to her head. Her left eye socket was fractured and she suffered permanent peripheral vision loss.[56]
2. On 14 August 2001, the respondent was sentenced in the District Court at Kalgoorlie to a term of 4 years' imprisonment, as part of a 6 year head sentence.[57]

1. On 25 November 1987, the respondent was convicted of the offence of common assault, apparently committed upon TS on 21 November 1987. He was fined $30.[58]

1. On 12 February 1988, the respondent committed the offence of unlawful wounding, against TS. The facts as found by the sentencing judge were that late that night, he and TS had been drinking at the Wiluna Hotel. When they left, they walked to a vacant block, where an argument developed, during which the respondent kicked and punched TS, hit her with a brick, and slashed her throat with a broken bottle. TS had to be flown to Perth for treatment.
2. On 10 May 1988, in the District Court at Geraldton, the respondent was committed to the care of the Department for Community Services for a period of two years.[59]

1. On 15 March 1990, the respondent committed the offence of unlawful wounding. The facts as found by the sentencing judge were that on that date, the respondent, who had been drinking, and a group of others attacked the male victim as a result of an incident earlier that day. The respondent was armed with a knife, and the victim sustained a stab wound to the leg from the respondent, and a stab wound to the other leg at the hands of another. The victim later required a blood transfusion in hospital.
2. On 18 July 1990, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 18 months' probation in the District Court at Geraldton.[60]

1. On 15 November 1990, the respondent was convicted of common assault, apparently committed against TS on 27 September 1990. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 month.[61]

Assault occasioning bodily harm - Wiluna charge 113/92

1. On 12 March 1992, the respondent committed the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm against JR. On 17 March 1992, the offender was sentenced to a fine of $500.[62]

Assault occasioning bodily harm - Wiluna charge 156/92

1. On 26 March 1992,[63] the respondent committed the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm against a male. On 26 March 1992, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 3 months' imprisonment.[64]

Assault occasioning bodily harm - Wiluna charge 252/92

1. On 18 June 1992, the respondent committed the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm against JR. On 24 June 1992, the respondent was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.[65]

1. On 2 August 1993, the respondent was convicted of common assault, committed against a police officer on 31 July 1993. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 month.[66]

Assault occasioning bodily harm, common assault (x 2) and disorderly fighting

1. On 4 November 1993, the respondent was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm, two charges of common assault, and disorderly fighting. He was sentenced to 1 month imprisonment, 14 days' imprisonment, 14 days' imprisonment, and 7 days' imprisonment, all cumulative on each other.[67]

1. On 18 March 1997, the respondent was convicted of the offence of common assault, and was fined the sum of $120.[68] It appears this related to an assault against JB in January 1997.[69]

1. On 20 May 1997, the respondent was convicted of two charges of assault occasioning bodily harm and was sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment on one charge and 3 months' imprisonment on the other, to be served cumulatively on each other and on other sentences of imprisonment imposed on that day.[70] It appears these offences were committed against JB on 14 March 1997.[71]

1. On 10 July 1999, the respondent committed the offence of unlawful wounding against his then partner, MG. On 3 September 1999, he was sentenced to a term of 10 months' imprisonment.[72]

1. On 17 April 2000, the respondent committed the offence of unlawful wounding, against RF. The respondent had been drinking in Kalgoorlie with a group of people. The respondent became involved in an argument with his partner, during which he went to assault her with part of a bin. RF tried to intervene, and the respondent struck RF with the bin section, causing a deep laceration over his right eye, as well as other more minor injuries.[73]
2. On 14 August 2001, in the District Court at Kalgoorlie, the respondent was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, as part of a 6 year head sentence.[74]

1. On 11 January 2001, the respondent committed the offence of unlawful wounding, against WMH. He and WMH had an argument when she refused to get off a bus. The respondent was intoxicated and became enraged. He punched WMH and pulled at her clothing to try to get her off the bus. When his attempt to drag her from the bus failed, he took a small knife and slashed her right cheek and shoulder, causing her to bleed profusely. The facial injury required five sutures, and the shoulder injury required one suture.[75]
2. On 14 August 2001, in the District Court at Kalgoorlie, the respondent was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, as part of a 6 year head sentence.[76]

1. On 13 January 2004, the respondent committed the offence of unlawful wounding against his then partner, JB.
2. On 12 February 2004, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 6 months' imprisonment.[77]

Assault occasioning bodily harm (x 3), common assault, wilful damage, unlawful damage - WU 210-215/2005, reckless driving - WU 205/2005

1. On 17 July 2005, the respondent committed the offence of reckless driving, and then attacked his then de facto partner, JB, and others. In the course of that incident, JB and another woman sustained bodily harm, a third woman was assaulted, and the respondent damaged two cars.
2. On 17 October 2005, the respondent was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.[78]

1. On 29 July 2012, the respondent assaulted NJ, with whom he was then in a domestic relationship. On 28 August 2012, the respondent was sentenced to an $800 fine.[79]

1. On or about 3 November 2012, the respondent unlawfully wounded NJ, with whom he was then in a domestic relationship.
2. On 17 December 2012, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 15 months' imprisonment.[80]

Breach of violence restraining order - GER 1226/2015

1. On 16 March 2015, the respondent was convicted of breaching a violence restraining order and a fine of $50 was imposed.[81] The protected person appears to have been NJ.[82]

1. On 4 March 2017, the respondent committed the offence of aggravated common assault against NJ, with whom he was then in a domestic relationship. He was also convicted of breaching a protective bail condition.
2. The facts were that the respondent and the victim were at the local recreation centre for a concert. They had both been consuming alcohol. The respondent asked the victim to come outside and, when she did, he hit the victim's leg a couple of times with a wooden walking stick. He stripped the victim of her clothes and left her naked. The respondent's contact with the victim was in breach of a protective bail condition.
3. On 18 April 2017, the respondent was sentenced to an 8‑month community based order (CBO).[83]

1. During his most recent sentence, the respondent was involved in a small number of incidents. In August 2018, he threatened to kill himself and he was transferred to Albany Prison.[84] In January 2022, he was twice dealt with for breaching rules relating to use of the phone.[85] In May 2022, he was warned for lending personal items, namely an Xbox and a stereo to another prisoner.[86] There is a record which suggested he had two negative notes in later 2022 for being out of bounds and being rude to staff.[87]
2. The respondent has been subjected to drug and alcohol testing on numerous occasions, routinely posting negative results.[88]

1. The respondent was recorded as having completed the CBO imposed upon him on 18 April 2017, but he committed the index offending less than two months after the CBO was imposed.
2. The respondent's response to parole orders in the past has been mixed: parole orders on which he was released in 2003 and 2004 were cancelled, but he completed parole orders in 1995 and 1999. The probation order imposed on him in 1990 was cancelled.[89]
3. The respondent's parole was denied in October 2023 due to his entrenched substance abuse issues and violence and domestic violence issues, his unmet treatment needs, and his criminal history, including his poor response to prior supervision. While it was acknowledged that he had completed the Not Our Way (NOW) Program, he was assessed as having made minimal gains. Further, his release plan did not provide sufficient protective strategies to reduce the risk to the community by addressing his unmet treatment needs.[90]

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

Psychiatric report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 4 January 2026

1. Professor Pyszora is a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist who has worked in forensic mental health settings for 28 years, both in the United Kingdom and Western Australia.[91]
2. In her report dated 4 January 2026, prepared for the purposes of these proceedings, Professor Pyszora spoke with the respondent on two occasions for a total period of five hours and 15 minutes. She also spoke with the respondent's ex‑partner, TS, and with Nicola Shaw, a Senior Community Corrections Officer, as well as reviewing the other materials produced by the State in support of its application.
3. Professor Pyszora observed the respondent to engage in the interviews to the best of his ability, although he had lost his hearing aids, which made communication difficult. She reported him to be polite and respectful throughout the interviews, noting that he appeared slightly tense when his offending was discussed.[92]
4. The respondent gave varying accounts of his offending and his reasons for engaging in the conduct he did. He reported that for some of his offences, he felt that he had been 'set up' by the presence of the knife, explaining that this was a cultural belief held by Indigenous people that touching a knife affects your mind.[93]
5. Regarding the index offending committed on 27 May 2017, he stated that he was set up in relation to the knife, and this was somehow connected to a woman who his nephews saw before the incident, who no one else could see. The respondent said it was 'like an evil thing'. He commented to Professor Pyszora that prior to his offending, his mind 'went blank', and he could not remember the offending.[94]
6. The respondent also claimed that he could not remember aspects of his offending, including his motivations, triggers and emotions experienced before and after his violent offending.[95]
7. When questioned by Professor Pyszora about physical assaults against partners while sober, the respondent stated that he would act if jealous or if his partner did not listen to him.[96] His accounts of relationship fidelity were observed by Professor Pyszora to be contradictory, and she noted that he demonstrated limited emotional attachment to his partners, reporting no distress when relationships ended. He told Professor Pyszora that he would simply let partners go if they caused problems. [97]
8. The respondent acknowledged verbally abusing his partners, minimising this behaviour as typical drinking conduct and stating that 'we all make mistakes'. He denied making any threats, using coercive control, engaging in coercive sexual activity, or using asphyxiation against partners.[98]
9. Despite evidence that some of his offending appeared to be triggered by his partners refusing his demands, the respondent denied seeking power or control over them. He framed his views on gender roles through his Aboriginal identity, asserting the need to 'be strong and to take care of the culture' while claiming to respect the distinct roles held by men and women.[99]
10. Professor Pyszora observed the respondent to engage in minimisation and victim‑blaming. When asked who was to blame for his intimate partner violence, he told her that it could be both parties and made generalised statements about women, claiming they were the cause of his behaviour and that all his girlfriends cheated on him. He claimed he always felt sorry after his assaults when his victims required hospital treatment and he knew that he had done the wrong thing. However, she observed him to display very limited victim empathy.[100]
11. When questioned about the degree of violence used against his partners, the respondent stated that he did not know how he could change until completing courses during his incarceration. When asked to explain further, he simply repeated that he wanted to change.[101] He reported not knowing if he had wanted to change his behaviours prior to his last sentence, but stated he now wants to. He told Professor Pyszora that it is not okay to use violence against women, but could not explain why, and also stated that women put pressure on men and that men have to learn to walk away.[102]
12. The respondent denied engaging in intimate partner violence when he was at home with his partners, occupied with tasks and without money to purchase alcohol. When Professor Pyszora asked why he had no intimate partner violence offences between 2008 and 2012, he stated he could not remember if he was in a relationship but believed he was living alone.[103]
13. The respondent explained that his driving offences involved stealing cars and getting into stolen cars impulsively, and was unable to give an explanation for why he stole them.[104] When asked why he engaged in fighting, he told Professor Pyszora that mobs from different communities would fight each other and he stated that he never carried a knife when in the community.[105]
14. The respondent informed Professor Pyszora that upon receiving a prison sentence, he knew he would be reunited with his friends who were already incarcerated, which made him happy. He also stated that he had never been subject to tribal punishment for his offences, explaining that he would only be punished if someone died. He indicated that his immediate family did not condone intimate partner violence and were distressed by his offending. However, he expressed uncertainty about whether such violence occurred within his extended family.[106]
15. The respondent told Professor Pyszora he was willing to accept support to change his behaviour.[107] He said that he wanted to change his behaviour for the sake of his family, and was concerned about how many of his family members are physically ill or passed away during his time in custody. He reported that most of his current worries centre around his family's poor health, although it was not part of his culture to talk about his problems.[108]
16. The respondent acknowledged that drinking is harmful and got him into trouble, and believed it would kill him due to his poor health. He informed Professor Pyszora that, if not placed under restriction, he planned to return to Wiluna and avoid alcohol by trusting himself, claiming this would be 'easy'. He said he could refuse drinking with peers socially, noting most of his friends are sick or deceased. He admitted his family still drinks but believes they would tell him not to.[109]
17. The respondent reported that, on his release, he planned to continue a relationship with his most recent partner, who lives in Kalgoorlie, and that they have been making future plans together. He reports that she is aware of his history of intimate partner violence.[110]
18. The respondent said he understood he would be prohibited from returning to Wiluna under a Supervision Order and would be required to live in Kalgoorlie. Despite this restriction, the respondent expressed appreciation for the assistance he was receiving throughout the HRSO process, including the independent expert assessments. He acknowledged needing support with program participation and employment and said he was keen to work.[111]
19. Professor Pyszora indicated that the respondent's early propensity for using such serious violence, invariably involving weapons, against an intimate partner is difficult to explain, given his background, even when jealousy and alcohol are taken into account. She noted some inconsistency in the respondent's claimed memory loss in respect of many of his offences, and the fact that he has generally blamed alcohol for his offending without acknowledging other contributing factors beyond jealousy. However, Professor Pyszora also acknowledged there may be other explanations for the respondent's memory loss, and the fact that other psychological factors such as shame may be involved.[112]
20. In Professor Pyszora's opinion, the respondent has Alcohol Use Disorder and has significant outstanding treatment needs for alcohol use and intimate partner violence.[113]

1. Professor Pyszora carried out a risk assessment using various tools, but acknowledged the need to use them with caution in relation to Aboriginal people, as the tools have generally been developed with mainly Caucasian populations, and the predictive accuracy is weaker.

Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, second edition, 2003

1. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, second edition (PCL‑R) is a scale for the assessment of psychopathy. The respondent's score was in the high end of the moderate range, with his scores across both factor items indicating a moderate degree of psychopathy.[114]

Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, Version 3, 2013

1. The Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, Version 3, 2013 (HCR‑20 V3) is a Structured Professional Judgement (SPJ) risk assessment tool which is widely used to assess risk of violence and serves as an assessment, monitoring and management tool, having regard to a range of historical and dynamic risk factors. It is the most commonly used and valued set of clinical guidelines for violence risk assessment and management in the world.[115]
2. As to the historical risk factors, the respondent has a history of problems with previous violence, other antisocial behaviour, relationships, substance use, personality, traumatic experiences, violent attitudes, and treatment or supervision response.[116] Problems with employment is a partly present risk factor, although he has been employed for some periods and has a good employment history within prison.[117]
3. In assessing clinical risk factors, the respondent presented as having recent problems with insight. While he acknowledges alcohol use as a risk factor for reoffending, he lacks realistic relapse prevention strategies. His understanding of offending factors is limited to alcohol use and jealousy, without recognising other contributing elements. He minimises his culpability through victim blaming, downplays the impact of his offending on victims, and struggles to identify the emotions present during his offences. However, Professor Pyszora noted that he does appear to recognise his need for support and intervention to prevent future reoffending.[118]
4. The risk management factors for the respondent were identified as future problems with professional services and plans, stress and coping, and possibly his living situation, personal support, and treatment or supervision response. The latter is dependent on the outcome of his HRSO proceedings.[119]

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide - Version 3

1. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide - Version 3 (SARA) is also a SPJ risk assessment tool and includes guidance for risk formulation, risk scenario planning and risk management planning, as well as factors to aid in victim safety planning. The previous version has been shown to have moderate to good predictive validity and can be used in any culture.[120]
2. The SARA is comprised of three domains, including risk factors relating to the nature of intimate partner violence, perpetrator risk factors and victim vulnerability factors.[121]
3. In the nature domain, the following factors were present: intimidation, threats, physical harm, sexual harm (as per the SARA manual), severe intimate partner violence, chronic intimate partner violence, and intimate partner violence supervision violations. Weapon use escalated both the severity of assaults and resulting injuries, with incidents frequently occurring in the context of sexual jealousy and alcohol intoxication. There have also been secondary victims of the respondent's offending.[122]
4. As to the perpetrator risk factors, there is overlap with the HCR‑20 V3, with present factors including problems with intimate relationships, non‑intimate relationships and employment, a history of trauma, general antisocial conduct, antisocial personality traits with a moderate degree of psychopathy, alcohol use disorder, and distorted thinking about intimate partner violence, including minimisation and victim blaming.[123]
5. Victim vulnerability factors describe the vulnerabilities which can interfere with a victim's ability, opportunity or motivation to engage in self-protective behaviour.[124] In the case of the respondent, his previous victims have had various vulnerabilities, including alcohol misuse issues and geographical isolation. Professor Pyszora notes that the respondent's first victim is now in contact with him and believes they will resume an intimate relationship, despite her having no safety plan in place and minimising the risk the respondent poses to her. Additionally, Professor Pyszora notes that the respondent intends to pursue another, separate, intimate relationship should he be released.[125]

1. Professor Pyszora is of the opinion that, if the respondent were not subject to a restriction order, he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence of intimate partner violence or serious violence towards a known or unknown male. In her view, he has an established pattern of violent offending behaviour and serious offending, as that term is defined in the HRSO Act.[126]

1. Two main scenarios for future violence by the respondent were identified by Professor Pyszora. First, the respondent is most likely to engage in serious violence in the context of intimate partner violence while intoxicated and enraged by real or perceived infidelity or non‑compliance with his demands. He is likely to be armed with an easily accessible weapon and would inflict serious physical harm that could result in permanent injury or death.[127]
2. Professor Pyszora is of the opinion that he has a clear propensity to commit intimate partner violence offences if his risk factors are not managed. While he may avoid further serious violence if he remains abstinent from alcohol, a relapse would highly likely result in serious intimate partner violence. His risk increases if his partner uses alcohol or if others encourage his drinking, as he currently lacks the peer refusal skills necessary to maintain abstinence.[128]
3. The frequency and duration of future intimate partner violence offending will depend on the respondent's risk management, response to supervision and treatment, and environmental factors exposing him to alcohol and vulnerable females.[129] Warning signs of potential risk would be jealousy or other signs of conflict within the intimate relationship, but alcohol use could make the risk of assault imminent.[130]
4. The second likely scenario is that the respondent may engage in serious violence towards male associates or family members, either when they intervene in his assault of an intimate partner or in the context of interpersonal or inter-community conflict. Such an event is likely to involve a weapon and therefore could result in serious harm.[131]

1. The respondent's risk of serious offending was considered by Professor Pyszora to be manageable if adequate risk management strategies, including suitable and stable accommodation, were available in the community.[132]
2. Professor Pyszora recommended the following risk management strategies be implemented: suitable accommodation, regular review by his Community Corrections Officer, home visits by Community Corrections and WA Police, random and targeted alcohol testing, mandatory disclosure of new intimate relationships, Community Corrections contact with key family members and partners for collateral information, electronic device monitoring for interactions with intimate partners and contact attempts with Ms Jones, and an initial curfew to provide daily structure.[133]
3. As to treatment, Professor Pyszora recommended family violence intervention with culturally specific aspects, support and supervision for reintegration, including employment and prosocial engagement, with significant external supervision until the respondent develops internal control over alcohol use and offending.
4. She also recommended contact restrictions with Ms Jones, vulnerability assessments and safety plans for new intimate partners, and appropriate disclosures regarding his history of intimate partner violence.[134]

Psychological report of Dr Tara Yewers dated 18 December 2025

1. Dr Yewers is a Clinical and Counselling Psychologist with over 22 years' experience as a psychologist in various forensic and clinical roles within the correctional setting.[135] Preparation of her report, dated 18 December 2025, involved more than three hours interviewing the respondent, speaking to his assigned Senior Community Corrections Officer and the High Risk Serious Offender Planning Manager and reviewing the majority of the Books of Materials.[136]
2. Dr Yewers described the respondent's presentation as polite, calm, engaged, and cooperative. He was able to maintain focus throughout the assessment process. He was perceived as having limited insight into his internal experiences and emotional functioning, experienced difficulty describing the perspectives and experiences of others, and his affect appeared restricted when discussing topics that would typically evoke an emotional response.[137]
3. The respondent described to Dr Yewers having a relatively harmonious, stable and secure family life until his father died when he was approximately 15 years old. He reported that following his father's death, he began associating with negative peers, committing crimes such as stealing, breaking into houses, participating in fights and drinking alcohol. Dr Yewers noted that a previous report identified his excessive alcohol consumption was a means to self‑soothe.[138]
4. When discussing his relationship history, the respondent told Dr Yewers that he made efforts to care for his partners, but that his relationships were negatively affected by his partners' infidelities and inappropriate behaviour when intoxicated. He indicated that their behaviour would make him angry and that he would sometimes 'go too far'.[139]
5. The respondent explained that he now regards TS as a positive support,[140] and that he and JB, despite having ended their relationship, maintain an amicable relationship because they both care deeply about their grandchildren.[141] The respondent also noted his longstanding friendship with DJ, who is currently in a relationship with another person.[142]
6. The respondent's only other friends are fellow prisoners. He told Dr Yewers that, if released, he did not intend to engage in social relationships with anyone other than DJ and TS, noting that even in an employment setting, he would limit social interaction with colleagues to during work hours due to their alcohol use outside of the workplace.[143] The respondent claimed that his son, sisters, and mother would be positive sources of support upon his release, and that his sisters actively encourage him to maintain abstinence from alcohol.[144]
7. A longstanding cyclical pattern emerged from the respondent's account to Dr Yewers, in which he would receive payment from employment or social security benefits, purchase alcohol, drink either with family and friends or alone, cease drinking once his funds were depleted, clean his house, and then remain idle until he returned to work.[145]
8. The respondent reported concerns about the potential negative impacts of this behaviour on his health. According to the respondent, this, combined with his desire to be a positive influence on his grandchildren and the encouragement of his sisters, has motivated him to 'break the cycle' and stop drinking.[146]
9. The respondent told Dr Yewers that he would be willing to comply with a supervision order should one be imposed, but that he considered its effectiveness in managing his risk would be greater if it were a shorter order.[147] He accepted he cannot return to live in Wiluna if released on a supervision order. He considered that residing with his stepfather's sister in Kalgoorlie would be his most suitable alternative, noting that she leads a stable lifestyle, spends much of her time at home, and does not engage in problematic alcohol use.[148]
10. The respondent claimed that he wishes to change his life by spending time on country and with his family, expressing a desire to care for his grandchildren, mother, and three sisters. He indicated uncertainty about his ability to undertake employment if subjected to electronic monitoring. He anticipated spending time at home with a television and Xbox. He also expressed an intention to avoid situations and locations where others are drinking in order to maintain his abstinence from alcohol.[149] His strategy for avoiding violence was to 'be strong and walk away' if he felt angry.[150]

1. Psychopathy is a significant risk factor for offending, recidivism and violence. The respondent's PCL-R score was 25, which falls in the 'medium' range for psychopathy, with higher elevations on lifestyle and antisocial traits than on interpersonal or affective features.[151] However, Dr Yewers noted that the respondent does not possess the archetypal features seen in those with high overall scores.[152]

1. Dr Yewers assessed the respondent's risk of violence recidivism using the Violence Risk Scale - 2nd edition (VRS). The VRS is used to evaluate future risk of violence, identify targets for treatment, and to assess change in risk following treatment and/or over time.[153] The VRS defines violence in a broader manner than the HRSO Act, encompassing violence which would not constitute a 'serious offence'.[154]
2. The respondent's ratings for violent lifestyle, criminal attitudes, criminal peers, emotional control, weapon use, insight into violence, substance abuse, stability of relationships with significant others, community support, released back to high‑risk situations, violence cycles, cognitive distortions and compliance with community supervision were considered significant risk factors for the respondent, attracting the highest scores. Other risk factors which were less substantially present included criminal personality, impulsivity, and security level of anticipated release institution. Other factors attracting a lower score were work ethic and interpersonal aggression.[155]
3. The respondent's VRS score was 59, placing him in the above average risk category for any violent recidivism (not necessarily a 'serious offence'). His score was higher than 81.3% of violent offenders in the normative group. Offenders with this score have a three-year rate of violent recidivism of 32.3% with a 95% confidence interval of 26.9% to 38.2%. This means that out of 100 people in a group with the same risk score, between 27 and 38 would be charged with or convicted of a violent offence after three years in the community (and between 73 and 62 would not). The estimated five-year recidivism rate is 49.3% with a 95% confidence interval of 43.3% to 55.4%.[156]

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide - Version 3 (SARA-V3)

1. Using the SARA, Dr Yewers identified nature risk factors of multiple victims, severity of injury, persistence, the severe historical pattern and the particular nature of the index offence. She highlighted perpetrator risk factors of dysfunction and conflict within intimate relationships, associations with peers and family members who exert a negative influence, entrenched antisocial attitudes, an extensive criminal history and antisocial personality features. The respondent has also experienced significant difficulties arising from longstanding alcohol misuse, cognitive distortions regarding his violent behaviour, low levels of insight and difficulty sustaining employment.[157]
2. In Dr Yewers' opinion, the respondent's risk of intimate partner violence is viewed as being high, requiring close monitoring of intimate relationships, particularly if in the isolated regional locations with which the respondent has strong ties.[158]

1. Dr Yewers acknowledged the need to be cognisant of the issues with applying the normative data of the VRS and SARA to Indigenous Australians.[159]
2. In Dr Yewers' view, the respondent's most likely scenario for future violent offending is reactive, hostile violence within an intimate relationship, with a backdrop of relationship instability and dysfunction which he lacks the skills to manage or disengage from. His limited behavioural controls, difficulty de‑escalating when emotionally dysregulated, and violence-supportive beliefs substantially increase the risk of a violent incident in the event of interpersonal conflict or grievance.[160]
3. Such offending has the potential for him to inflict severe or life-threatening harm, with the risk heightened by being in the presence of a vulnerable victim, use of a weapon, or intoxication. While bystanders are unlikely to be the respondent's primary target, they may be collaterally affected.[161]
4. A secondary risk scenario is that the respondent may perpetrate reactive violence towards non‑intimate individuals who provoke or upset him, particularly when he is intoxicated. Again, the potential for serious harm is significant, and the presence of a weapon would further increase the severity of any injuries.[162]
5. In Dr Yewers' opinion, the respondent's risk is lower while he remains abstinent from alcohol and is not in an intimate relationship. However, she observed that he has not acquired the skills to regulate his emotional responses or manage interpersonal conflict, and he continues to justify violence, lacks insight and self‑reflection, and does not yet have the skills or strategies needed to recognise or manage emerging risks.[163]

1. Dr Yewers noted that although the respondent has completed several group programs, he has made little meaningful progress and continues to show a significant lack of insight, with only rudimentary plans for change. She considered that his tendency to attribute his offending primarily to alcohol reflects an ongoing externalisation of responsibility for his actions.[164]
2. According to Dr Yewers, the respondent has limited insight into his risk for future violence and relapse, with significant unmet treatment needs and an overreliance on willpower rather than effective risk‑management strategies. His violence‑supportive attitudes, poor relationship skills, lack of stabilising supports, and absence of practical strategies to manage anger or alcohol use substantially undermine his capacity to implement and sustain meaningful change.[165]
3. Dr Yewers recommended that any court‑imposed conditions include psychological treatment targeting intimate partner violence and alcohol misuse, with adaptations for the respondent's literacy, hearing, and cultural needs. She advised close external supervision, particularly around alcohol use and intimate relationships, along with structured support to build a prosocial lifestyle, regular alcohol monitoring, and oversight of any future relationships. If a detention order were to be made, she would recommend that the respondent undertake intervention addressing intimate partner violence and alcohol use while maintaining good conduct and abstinence.[166]
4. Ultimately, it is Dr Yewers' opinion that the respondent is at a high risk of committing a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order. Should the respondent be made subject to a supervision order, it is Dr Yewers' view that it should be in force for a period of five years.[167]

Presentence Report of Ms Fuller - Undated (approximately 2001)

1. Ms Fuller prepared a report for the purposes of the respondent's sentencing on 31 July 2001. Ms Fuller noted that the respondent minimised the injury caused to his partner, had been drinking at the time and justified his actions on the basis that his partner had not done what he wanted.[168]
2. Ms Fuller observed the respondent to be reluctant to talk about his previous assault offences and indicated that he felt extreme pressure to join drinking sessions with his friends.[169]

Presentence Report of Ms McCorry dated 10 August 2012

1. The respondent also told Ms McCorry that he was aware that alcohol was the trigger of the majority of his offending and that he had been consuming it only moderately since his release from custody in 2007, having reduced his intake significantly.[170]
2. Despite this, Ms McCorry reported that the respondent indicated insight into his offending behaviour and a desire for change.[171] He told her that he was 'stupid' and disappointed in himself as he had been trying hard to 'keep out of trouble'.[172]
3. Ms McCorry considered the respondent a marginally suitable candidate for further community‑based disposition.[173]

Pre-Sentence Report of Ms Hamlett-Waller dated 23 November 2012

1. The respondent acknowledged that alcohol had been a catalyst for his violent offending and stated that, since his release from custody in 2008, he had reduced his alcohol consumption. He further explained that while in Leonora, where the current offence occurred, he was exposed to significant alcohol misuse and environmental pressures that contributed to his own alcohol use.[174]
2. The respondent was assessed as requiring intensive intervention and was found to have several outstanding criminogenic needs, including alcohol misuse, family violence, a history of violent offending, previous non‑compliance with supervised release orders, limited protective factors, and an elevated risk of future violent reoffending.[175]

Victim-Offender Mediation Unit Report dated 25 September 2023

1. The respondent was interviewed by telephone on 11 September 2023 for the purposes of consideration of his release on a supervision order. In relation to his serious offending, the respondent noted that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time and that he had done the wrong thing but now he had served his punishment.[176]
2. The respondent remains in contact with the victim, Ms Jones, and asserts that he wishes to distance himself from her, although the report's authors note that this claim is inconsistent with Departmental records. He also stated that he is now in a new relationship with another woman who has significant health issues.[177]

Parole Assessment of Ms Casserly dated 19 September 2023

1. Throughout the interview, the respondent appeared to minimise his responsibility by shifting blame onto the victim and attributing his violent behaviour to alcohol consumption. He demonstrated limited insight into his offending and repeatedly portrayed the victim as the instigator of conflict, stating, 'getting in trouble, all from her.'[178] He also expressed support for continued alcohol use, remarking, 'it's alright drinking, as long as [with a] good mob'.[179]

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

Presentence report (undated) relating to sentencing on IND 01 KAL 73

1. A presentence report was prepared for the respondent's sentencing on two charges of unlawful wounding and one charge of grievous bodily harm in 2001.
2. The respondent minimised his behaviour in slashing WMH's face, saying she 'only had a small scratch on her face'. In relation to his assault on her involving the bin insert, he claimed he needed to stop WMH from 'smart chatting' him. He demonstrated some remorse for hurting the male victim, but no empathy for WMH.[180]
3. The authors of the report observe that during his periods of parole in 1994‑1995 and 1999, the respondent benefited from a lack of access to alcohol, and was able to resolve conflict with his de facto without resorting to violence.[181]

1. In the presentence report dated 10 August 2012, prepared for the respondent's sentencing on 28 August 2012 for an aggravated common assault committed against NJ, it is recorded that he told the author that he was angry that NJ had nearly rolled a car and he hit her with a piece of wood because of that.[182]
2. The author of the presentence report noted that the respondent had not been convicted for a violent offence since 2005, and that he said he had only been consuming alcohol moderately since his release from prison in 2007.[183]
3. The respondent's risk factors were identified in 2012 as being substance abuse, domestic violence, poor decision making, peer refusal skills and consistent employment.[184]

1. In a presentence report dated 23 November 2012, prepared for the purposes of the respondent's sentencing for aggravated unlawful wounding on 17 December 2012, the respondent claimed to have a limited memory of the offending due to his intoxication. The respondent was unable to demonstrate any insight into the reasons for his offending, other than its link to alcohol misuse.[185]
2. The respondent was assessed as requiring intensive programmatic intervention of significant duration, although his motivation to voluntarily participate was unclear.[186] He was not considered to be a suitable candidate for a community‑based disposition, and his suitability for parole was questioned.[187]

1. The Individual Management Plans (IMPs) in relation to the respondent for his most recent term of imprisonment show that the respondent has been regarded as respectful to officers and compliant with regulations. He was considered to have a good work ethic and to perform his duties well.
2. It was recorded that the victim of the index offence continued to visit him in custody in Casuarina. Later, he was transferred to Greenough Regional Prison and then, at his request, Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison. He maintained telephone contact with his partner, his mother and friends.
3. The respondent was assessed and recommended for the NOW violent offending program, which he completed in June 2020.
4. In February 2024, it was recommended that the respondent complete the Pathways Addictions Offending Program, a program which was originally said not to be required for him in 2019.[188] Unfortunately, that program was then unavailable for him at a suitable location prior to his release date.[189]

Parole Assessment Report dated 19 September 2023

1. In the Adult Community Corrections Parole Assessment Report dated 19 September 2023, it was reported that the respondent was avoidant of discussion regarding the index offending. He presented with limited insight, appeared to minimise his responsibility for the offending, and apportioned blame to the victim and his level of alcohol consumption.[190] He presented as supportive of continued alcohol consumption, saying 'it's all right drinking, as long as [with a] good mob'. There were some barriers to programmatic intervention for the respondent, particularly in Wiluna.[191]
2. The likelihood of the respondent complying with a parole order was assessed as being low, given his previously poor compliance with supervision and court orders, his criminal history and offending undeterred by imprisonment, his unmet treatment needs and questionable motivation. Accordingly, he was not considered suitable for release on parole.[192]

Post Sentence Supervision Order Report dated 17 September 2025

1. The Post Sentence Supervision Order Report dated 17 September 2025, recommended a PSSO be imposed on the respondent. The respondent proposed living at Bondini Reserve (10 km from Wiluna) with his mother. Wiluna was noted to be a 'dry town' with the nearest town with access to alcohol being 183 km away, in Meekatharra. However, Wiluna also has very limited support services with the only access to a social emotional wellbeing counsellor being at the local Aboriginal Health Service.
2. The PSSO Report indicated that the respondent intended to engage in employment opportunities with the support of the local Native Title group or on his family's homeland at Mungilli Outstation.
3. Electronic monitoring was unlikely to be reliable given the respondent's intended accommodation and location, and Adult Community Corrections were unable to service the area.[193]

Proposed High Risk Serious Offender Treatment Options Report dated 19 January 2026

1. The Treatment Options Report dated 19 January 2026 was prepared by Ms Emma Cashmore, HRSO Planning Manager.
2. The respondent has been referred to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) and has been placed on the FPIT waitlist. Unfortunately, no face‑to‑face service is available in Kalgoorlie or at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison. The respondent has been waitlisted for intervention via telehealth, but no anticipated time frame is available. Ms Cashmore observed that, if the respondent is released into the community, his position on the waitlist will be advanced.[194]
3. Ms Cashmore indicated that, if the respondent is eligible for the NOW and Pathways programs, these will likely take precedence over individual intervention. Those programs are theoretically available in the respondent's present prison setting, but actual availability is dependent on a number of factors.[195]
4. If the respondent is released to the community, he can be referred to the Connect and Respect program which is presently offered in Kalgoorlie.[196]

Community Supervision Assessment of Ms Nicola Shaw dated 29 January 2026

1. I have been provided with the Community Supervision Assessment of Ms Nicola Shaw dated 29 January 2026.
2. Ms Shaw reports that that the respondent initially proposed to reside at Bondini Reserve with his mother but, having regard to the limited support services in Wiluna, this would not be a viable address.
3. The respondent has since proposed to reside with his aunt in Kalgoorlie. Ms Shaw conducted an in‑person assessment of this accommodation and confirmed that the aunt understands the respondent's offending history and the seriousness of a supervision order. The aunt informed Ms Shaw that she would not tolerate unwanted female visitors, alcohol consumption, or problematic behaviour on her property. She has previously hosted another nephew on home detention bail. Additionally, her address is subject to an Alcohol Restriction application. Under this restriction, if anyone attends the address while under the influence of alcohol or causes problems, police have the power to seize and dispose of any alcohol and impose a fine of up to $2,000.[197] A desktop spatial analysis does not highlight any particular concerns.[198]
4. Centrecare has accepted a referral of the respondent for 12 months' general reintegration support. This will include exploration for Rangers training, volunteering and skills development support.[199] Ms Shaw states that further referrals will also be completed to Hope Community Services, Life without Barriers and Department of Housing and Works.[200]
5. Hope Community Services will be able to assist the respondent with individual alcohol counselling, and also runs monthly Men's Bush Trips, which would be valuable prosocial activity for the respondent. Likewise, there are other supports in the Kalgoorlie area who can assist the respondent.[201]
6. The respondent does not presently have any plans for employment.
7. The respondent's family predominantly reside in Wiluna, which is approximately 534 km from Kalgoorlie. However, his aunt informed Ms Shaw that his mother, son and siblings do travel to Kalgoorlie.[202]
8. Ms Shaw's report indicates that she spoke to the respondent's current partner (AL) who seemed to have a limited understanding of the respondent's offending. AL said she will be in Perth for medical reasons and afterwards will have no stable accommodation. Other attempts by Ms Shaw to contact the respondent's former partners proved unsuccessful or revealed that they did not have safety plans in place.[203]
9. According to Ms Shaw, a clinical intervention referral was initiated in December 2025 for the respondent to complete the 13‑week Departmental Cognitive Behaviour Change program, which includes a number of individual counselling sessions, aimed at addressing family violence, exploring masculinity, relationships, thoughts and emotions, communication skills and parenting and child emotion coaching. The respondent's eligibility will be reviewed if he is released.[204]
10. Ms Shaw referred to the treatment recommendations of Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers and noted that Kalgoorlie‑Boulder is subject to the banned drinking register and that photo identification is required to purchase any alcohol.[205]

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

1. Based on the respondent's criminal history, the information in the reports which have been prepared for his sentencing proceedings in the past, the risk assessments and treatment assessment reports prepared during his incarceration, and the reports of Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers, I am satisfied that the respondent has a propensity to commit violent physical assaults, using a weapon, on women with whom he is in an intimate partner relationship.
2. In three cases, the respondent has done grievous bodily harm to his victim. In many others, he has been dealt with on the basis that his assault has caused bodily harm, or for common assault.
3. While the respondent's pattern of behaviour does not always result in him committing a serious offence within the meaning of the HRSO Act, that is not by his design. His assaults have often been targeted at the head of his victims. They involve multiple blows, as I say, with a weapon. It is mostly good fortune that has seen his victims escape with less permanent or serious injuries on a number of occasions.
4. On this basis, I find that the respondent does have a propensity to commit serious offences in the future.

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. In 1994, the respondent completed the ten-session Skills Training Programme for Aggression Control at Greenough Regional Prison. The programme included sessions on recognising and managing anger, positive thinking, coping with provocation using self‑talk, enhancing communication, managing anger in close relationships, problem solving in relationships and relapse prevention.[206]
2. The respondent completed the same programme again at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison in August 1997.[207]

Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Use Program 2002

1. On 6 December 2002, the respondent completed the ten‑day Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Use Program at Greenough Regional Prison. The feedback in the report, dated 12 December 2002, was that the respondent identified alcohol as his main triggers to offending, and that the respondent was a very quiet participant 'but you could notice that he was listening to the sessions'.[208]

Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Use Program 2006

1. The respondent again completed the Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Use Program at Greenough Regional Prison in December 2006. On this occasion, the program was 50 hours in duration. The report author considered the respondent to be confident in expressing his views on the course topics. Again, he identified alcohol and the associates who encouraged him to drink as problematic for him. The respondent expressed a desire to change his lifestyle and was considered to demonstrate positive learning experiences during the program.[209]

1. The respondent was assessed in January 2019 using risk of reoffending tools which resulted in him being assessed as a high risk of violent reoffending, and as being in 'both the contemplative and pre‑contemplative stages of change', meaning that, while he recognised the pattern of violence in his life and his need to address his use of aggression, he failed to recognise the link between his poor emotion management and use of violence, as well as his issues with impulse control. He was recommended for the NOW Program.[210]

1. The respondent participated in the NOW program at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison, completing it on 27 March 2020. The NOW program was a 75‑hour program which aimed at behavioural change for domestic violence offenders. The respondent attended 28 out of 30 group sessions and all five individual sessions, only missing two sessions due to work and illness.[211]
2. The respondent initially presented as reserved and appeared reluctant to participate in written activities, reporting concerns with literacy. However, further into the program, he became more active, engaged and confident in speaking.[212]
3. The respondent was observed to take minimal responsibility for his behaviour during his offending; he attributed blame to his partner for yelling at him and triggering his violence. However, he did identify his own abusive behaviours as: emotional abuse, using isolation, intimidation, physical abuse, financial abuse, using children, threats and male entitlement.[213]
4. While the respondent was reported to have made some gains regarding his understanding of the connection between thoughts, feelings and actions, he did not demonstrate an increased understanding of the impact of his abuse on his partner, and did not move from the position that his offending was a consequence of alcohol use. The respondent did explore his alcohol use and reported that it was motivated by him experiencing comfortable feelings and stress relief when drinking. He also identified that the outcomes of alcohol use were often adverse, resulting in harm to others and himself. However, he appeared to experience some difficulties in describing his emotions.[214]
5. The respondent attempted to create a risk management plan outlining goals and strategies to help him remain free from violence, avoid alcohol misuse, and prevent further offending. His plan included reconnecting with his religious faith and church community, maintaining sobriety, and increasing his involvement with family and community supports.
6. The respondent also intended to apply the skills learned in the NOW program, such as thought‑stopping and thought‑shifting techniques, positive thinking, recognising and avoiding high‑risk situations, setting realistic goals, practising mindfulness, identifying thinking errors, and using support networks and refusal skills to manage urges and cravings for alcohol. In addition, he identified further strategies including undertaking upskilling opportunities while in custody, engaging in prison employment, participating actively in his church community, and surrounding himself with positive supports such as his partner and mother.[215]
7. Barriers to the respondent implementing his plan were assessed as being:

(1) engaging with antisocial peers in the community;

(2) poor coping skills such as problem solving, communication and social skills;

(3) reliance on alcohol;

(4) not addressing his alcohol abuse when he is back in the community;

(5) holding on to resentment on what he missed out on while in prison; and

(6) the respondent's partner, who has a criminal record and substance abuse issues.

1. Overall, the respondent was described as having made 'minimal gains'. It was recommended that he receive ongoing support, such as community family violence programs, analysis for alcohol use, and individual alcohol counselling.[216]

Cross Borders Programs Participation Report dated 11 February 2026

1. Between 19 January 2026 and 5 February 2026, the respondent self‑referred to the Cross Borders Indigenous Family Violence program as a voluntary participant. This is a culturally informed program which aims to address indigenous family violence. It involves 16 sessions over 15 days, and about 45 hours of group intervention and individual sessions. It explores a number of areas relating to understanding, change, and treatment of family violence behaviours.[217]
2. The respondent's participation was made more difficult by his hearing impairment, but the facilitator accommodated this, and the respondent was able to understand the visual program content, if not to fully respond appropriately to it.
3. According to the facilitator, the respondent accepted responsibility for his violence, but had difficulty understanding the power imbalances involved. He acknowledged the damage that can be inflicted on others, including children. The facilitators reported that the respondent blamed only himself and the effects of alcohol for his offending.[218]
4. The respondent is said to want to be out of prison, find work, do something good for the community and take care of the children. He claimed that he had identified and learned strategies during the program to assist him to control his behaviour. However, he had a limited strategy to manage his jealousy other than to stop drinking and think before acting. Further, he has a limited plan to cease drinking other than to avoid it.[219]

1. The respondent was unable to report to Professor Pyszora anything that he had learnt from the NOW program beyond some recognition of naming emotions and discussion of the need to change. However, he assured Professor Pyszora that he was willing to do any programs which are recommended to him, as he wants to change and needs help.[220]
2. The respondent was also unable to verbalise or respond appropriately to the facilitators of the Cross Borders Program in interview about certain program concepts. Whether this was related to his hearing impairment is difficult to know. However, the respondent did develop a plan to support him in living a non‑violent life, and he was able to identify good supports and pro-social activities, as well as positive aims for his future.[221]

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. On the basis of the risk assessments conducted by Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers, and having regard to their expert opinions, which I accept, I find that the risk of the respondent committing a serious offence if he is not subject to restriction is high.
2. The risk is particularly acute in the context of relationship conflict and where the parties are in a remote regional community, but remains high in any circumstance in which the respondent is using alcohol. Given that he has an untreated and entrenched alcohol abuse disorder, notwithstanding his many years of enforced abstinence, I am satisfied that there is a very significant risk that the respondent will quickly return to alcohol use if he is released unsupervised into the community.
3. I am satisfied that there is a section of the community, namely vulnerable women with whom the respondent forms an intimate relationship, as well as those who seek to protect them, who are at risk from the respondent, and they are entitled to, and require, protection from the respondent.

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

1. I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. I have made this finding on the basis that the experts are of the opinion, which I accept, that there is a high risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence, and that the harm which is likely to be sustained by a victim of such offending is severe, including potentially fatal. That risk is clearly unacceptable.

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 which I have found to be acceptable and cogent, and which I have summarised above, I am satisfied, to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.
2. Only by placing the respondent under restriction can there be monitoring and control of the respondent's alcohol use, and his formation of at‑risk relationships, in such a manner as to adequately protect the community while he is provided intervention and treatment.

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.[222]

1. I am satisfied that the community can be adequately protected by the imposition of a community supervision order and that a continuing detention order is not appropriate or necessary in the respondent's case.
2. The respondent has been able to abstain from alcohol while in custody. The real challenge lies in his abstaining from alcohol in the community. In my view, the community is best protected in the medium to long term by providing the respondent support while in the community to manage his relationships and re‑engagement with his family and country while preventing him returning to alcohol use.

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

1. The respondent has expressed a willingness to comply with the conditions of a community supervision order. He has expressed a desire to have counselling, and a willingness to abstain from alcohol use. He appears to underestimate the time which will be required to adequately support his reintegration into the community and for him to develop a life which is consistently alcohol free and to manage conflict in his relationships without violence.
2. I do not expect that the respondent's release into the community will be incident free. That is unsurprising given his issues and the length of time he has been in custody. However, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a community supervision order.

1. I have determined the appropriate conditions to be imposed having regard to the expert opinions of Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers. They are contained in Annexure A to this judgment.
2. In my view, the appropriate length of the community supervision order is five years.

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

_________________________________________________________________________

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER

_________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the 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 five years from 30 March 2026, not being a date earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions:

1. Within 48 hours of this order starting, report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the Adult Community Corrections Centre you are told to attend before your release from prison, and tell the officer your current name and address.

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

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

1. Be under the supervision of a CCO, including complying with any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including 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. Reside (live) at [redacted] and spend each night there (for a period defined by a CCO). You can only stay at a different address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you.

1. On the day of your release, report to a CCO at the prison, or at a place directed by a CCO, and allow for fitting of electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake.

1. Attend and engage in all appointments as directed and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO.

1. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO.

1. Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the High Risk Serious Offender team at the Kalgoorlie Police Station, Lot 4491 Brookman - Hay Street, KALGOORLIE WA 6430, or their delegate at a nominated Police station within 48 hours of this Order starting and report to and receive visits from Police as directed by the OIC of the High Risk Serious Offender team or their delegate.

1. If asked to, let Police Officers enter and search your residence and/or vehicle, and/or search you so that they can check your compliance with this Order and allow Police Officers to seize (take) any they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order.

1. Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under condition 13.

1. Let any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and their opinions about your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment.

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

1. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your offending, unless you have the prior approval of the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice and approved in advance by a CCO.

1. Unless contact with victims is allowed under condition 18, if you see any victim, you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them, and you must look away from the victim at all times.

1. Report any contact with the victims of your offending to the CCO and WA Police on the next day you report to them.

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

1. Not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, which includes cannabis. This does not apply to a drug that a doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you follow their instructions for using the drug.

1. Comply with a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, requiring you to remain at and not leave your approved address, as directed by a CCO.

1. When subject to a curfew under this order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence;
   1. go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you; and
   2. 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. When subject to a curfew under this Order, tell all adults at your home who may answer the telephone or door that you are on a curfew and ask them to tell you about attempts by police or a CCO to contact you.

1. Not enter any home where a female lives, or is known to live, who you are currently in a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship with, or have previously been in such a relationship with, unless approved in advance by a CCO.

1. Not let any female enter your home, who you are currently in a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship with, or have previously been in such a relationship with, unless the identity of that person has been approved in advance by a CCO.

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

1. If directed by your CCO, tell any female that you are in, or have previously been in, a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship with, about your past offending and this current order, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer.

1. Not possess, purchase, consume or use any alcohol.

1. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the Supervising Officer or by a Police Officer, including going with them to an appropriate place for such testing to take place.

1. Provide a valid sample under condition 30 (above).

1. Not go to any licensed premises, except for the following reasons:
   1. Avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; or
   2. For a reason and duration approved in advance by a CCO;
   3. If a CCO or Police Officer tells you to do so; or
   4. With the permission of a CCO given in advance.

1. Not to be with anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by alcohol or a prohibited drug, unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by a CCO.

1. Not remain anywhere that 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. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device that you possess or use that can store digital data or information, whether or not it can connect to the internet (device), including each device's location.

1. Have a password on all electronic devices referred to in condition 35 and do not tell anyone your passwords, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer.

1. If asked to do so by a CCO or a WA Police Officer, let them use any electronic device in your possession or control that is capable of storing data so that they can check your device-related activities, and tell them any passwords needed to access the device. If any other entity needs to access your devices, the CCO must give prior approval.

1. Not delete or otherwise remove, disguise or cause or allow to be removed, disguised or deleted, any data on your devices, including calls, text messages, search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that device, whether or not the device can connect to the internet, without the prior approval of a CCO or WA Police.

1. Not possess, hold a licence to possess, or apply for a licence to possess any firearm, ammunition or offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article.

1. Not to enter the Perth Metropolitan area without prior approval of a CCO.

1. Not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a staff member of the Department of Justice or other persons working on behalf, or with, the Department to provide services.

_________________________________

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.

I authorise Police Officers from the Western Australian Police Force (WA Police Force) to access any cloud-based platforms or services associated with the devices I use and examine the internet accounts at any time for the purposes of monitoring my online behaviour (absent any investigation for any offence) I understand and acknowledge WA Police Force will use passwords or tokens located within my devices to access any cloud­ based platforms and services and that a password may not be required. By authorising this I understand and acknowledge a Police Officer from the WA Police Force may change the password(s) to these accounts so I will no longer have access for the period they determine or in entirety.

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] Book of Materials, Volume 1 filed 1 December 2025 (BOM Vol 1), 566.

[8] See definition of 'serious offender under restriction' in HRSO Act s 3.

[11] Book of Materials, Volume 2 filed 1 December 2025 (BOM Vol 2), 619 - 620, 631.

[19] The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [31].

[20] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 (Garlett) [55] ‑ [56].

[21] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 (GTR) [28] ‑ [34].

[24] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 [63].

[25] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387.

[26] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [14].

[27] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [143].

[30] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52].

[31] Book of Materials, Volume 3 (BOM Vol 3), 791, 831.

[63] It appears the date of the offence was incorrectly recorded, as the P18 records the offence occurring some six hours after the respondent was arrested - BOM Vol 2, 649.

[114] BOM Vol 3, 816 [197] - [199].

[115] BOM Vol 3, 817 - 818 [202] - [203].

[116] BOM Vol 3, 818 - 819 [204] - [215].

[122] BOM Vol 3, 822 - 823 [231] - [235].

[126] BOM Vol 3, 824 [245]; HRSO Act s 5.

[134] BOM Vol 3, 825 - 826 [250] - [254].

[138] BOM Vol 3, 832 [14] - [15], 836 [37].

[149] BOM Vol 3, 849 - 850 [116] - [121].

[151] BOM Vol 3, 853 [133] - [135].

[155] BOM Vol 3, 855 - 859 [141] - [160].

[157] BOM Vol 3, 859 - 860 [164] - [166].

[158] BOM Vol 3, 859 [164] - [168].

[164] BOM Vol 3, 851 [125] - [126].

[166] BOM Vol 3, 862 - 863 [179] - [180].

[188] See also Clinical Reassessment Report dated 19 February 2024, BOM Vol 3, 774 - 775.

[189] BOM Vol 1, 487 - 565, BOM Vol 3, 777 - 778.

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