THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HANSEN [No 2] [2025] WASC 4 (7 January 2025)

Mr Hansen has a long history of offending. His offending has included drug related offences, stealing, and offences involving violence. He has convictions for common assault, assault in circumstances of aggravation, assault occasioning bodily harm, unlawful wounding, breach of violence restraining orders, unlawful damage, deprivation of liberty, aggravated burglary, being armed in a way that causes fear, threats to injure and threats to kill.

Mr Hansen's criminal history includes convictions for five serious offences within the meaning of the [HRSO Act], in 2005, 2010 and 2017. Mr Hansen is currently serving a term of five years imprisonment for his recent offending.

...

The circumstances of Mr Hansen's offending on 10 November 2017 had concerning parallels with a violent home invasion committed by him in company with others in 2010.

1. As will emerge later in these reasons, the only significant gaps in the respondent's offending have occurred during his terms of imprisonment.
2. The HRSO Act provides for two forms of restriction order. The first is a continuing detention order (CDO), being an order that the respondent be detained in custody indefinitely for control, care or treatment.[5] The second is a supervision order, being an order that the respondent be subject to conditions when not in custody.[6] The application need not (and does not) specify which form of restriction order is sought,[7] although, in written submissions and at the hearing, the State submitted that the court should make a supervision order.
3. Before the court can make a restriction order, it must be satisfied that the respondent is a high risk serious offender.[8] This requires the court to be satisfied on acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence, as defined in the HRSO Act.[9]
4. The preliminary hearing of the application was heard on 18 November 2022 by Quinlan CJ, in accordance with s 43 and s 46 of the HRSO Act. His Honour was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender.[10] Accordingly, his Honour made orders under s 46(2), including orders that the respondent undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a qualified psychologist for the purpose of preparing reports in accordance with s 74 of the HRSO Act to be used on the hearing of the restriction order application.
5. In its application, the State had sought an interim restriction order pending the determination of the restriction order application. At the preliminary hearing, the State specified that the order it sought was an interim supervision order (ISO) under s 58 of the HRSO Act. Quinlan CJ was satisfied it was desirable to make such an order, for the following reasons:[11]

As I have said, there are a number of encouraging indicators in the Prisoner Performance Feedback and Pathways Program Completion Report, and Mr Hansen has the support of his immediate family and community. His family is aware of and accept his need for strict conditions.

While Mr Hansen would be subject to a post-sentence supervision order in any event upon his release, in all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the conditions of the post-sentence supervision order would adequately meet the requirements of community protection in the interim or indeed, Mr Hansen's own supervision needs immediately upon his release.

I am particularly influenced by two matters.

The first is that the post-sentence supervision order does not enable the use of a curfew. Whether a curfew is ultimately necessary would be a matter for the community corrections officer, but Mr Hansen's recent offences did occur night and it is important, in my view, that community corrections officers at least have the discretion to impose a curfew in relation to him, in order to ensure that they have as much scope as possible for the monitoring of his behaviour and performance while on supervision.

I should stress that a curfew should not be simply regarded as the default position. It should be used by community corrections officers if and when the circumstances suggest that it is appropriate. In particular, it would not be in Mr Hansen's interests, or in the interests of the protection of the community, were the use of a curfew to in any way impede meaningful employment or meaningful activities within the community. Those are matters which should be specifically taken into account in the management of the conditions.

As I have said, the imposition of a condition to be subject to a curfew does not require it be in place. It is, however, an appropriate precaution.

The second matter that persuades me to order the imposition of an interim supervision order rather than a post-sentence supervision order is that Mr Hansen's proposed residence will be some distance from the nearest community corrections office. It is appropriate in my view to include the capacity for reporting to and receiving visits from police in the locality, who would be able to more closely monitor Mr Hansen than community corrections officers. For those reasons, it is appropriate that an interim supervision order be imposed to enable that to occur.

Therefore, in all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is in Mr Hansen's interests and the interests of the protection of the community that the supervision to which he is subject include the potential for these additional measures.

I will nevertheless make the conditions of the interim supervision order as simple as circumstances will allow to ensure there is a focus on treatment of his underlying conditions and practical monitoring and encouragement of his prosocial behaviour in the community.

1. The application was heard by me on 30 May 2023. The application was supported by a book of materials in three volumes (BOM) tendered by the State,[12] which I will describe in more detail below. The respondent did not object to the contents of the BOM being received into evidence. For present purposes it is sufficient to note that it included the reports of the psychiatrist and qualified psychologist prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act. The application was also supported by the oral evidence of four witnesses given at the hearing, including the psychiatrist and the qualified psychologist.
2. At the hearing on 30 May 2023, the respondent, through his counsel, did not dispute that the evidence supported the conclusion that he was a high risk serious offender at that time. The issue was which restriction order should be made, particularly having regard to the paramount consideration of needing to ensure adequate protection of the community. The respondent submitted that the evidence supported the conclusion that a supervision order was appropriate, and that I could be satisfied that the accommodation that had been proposed by the respondent as his place of residence, if released subject to such order, would be suitable. As I noted above, the State's position at the hearing was that it would be appropriate to make a supervision order in respect of the respondent. It did not dispute that the accommodation proposed by the respondent was suitable.
3. At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision. The respondent continued to be subject to the ISO made by Quinlan CJ on 18 November 2022. I note at this stage that the evidence at the hearing of 30 May 2023 was that the respondent had been compliant with the conditions of the ISO and had taken positive steps towards his rehabilitation.
4. Regrettably, although I had come to the conclusion on the evidence presented on 30 May 2023 that the respondent is a high risk serious offender and that the appropriate order would be a supervision order, I was not able to give my decision within the reasonable timeframe expected.[13] Having regard to the time that had elapsed, I had come to the view, which I maintain below, that the duration of any supervision order made in determining the application would be reduced by the time the respondent had been on an ISO since it was made by Quinlan CJ.
5. The matter was eventually listed for my decision to be delivered on 18 October 2024. However, on 9 October 2024, counsel for the respondent forwarded to my associate an email letter from the respondent's mother, setting out a number of matters concerning the respondent's conduct and change of outlook since the hearing, suggesting he had rehabilitated in a significant way, and asking that I take the changed circumstances into account in making my decision. I will refer to the details later in these reasons. Upon receiving the email, I had my associate enquire with the parties:

(1) Whether the respondent was seeking leave to reopen the respondent's case to adduce the email letter as evidence;

(2) Whether the State had any objection to the court receiving the letter; and

(3) If the letter was received without objection, whether the respondent wished to make any further submission on the question of whether the court should find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender, or whether the information was sought to be adduced on the basis that it may be relevant to the question of the duration of any supervision order made by the court.

1. After taking instructions and conferring with the State, counsel for the respondent, Ms Fedele, informed the court that the respondent did seek to reopen his case to adduce the email letter, and that the respondent wished to make further submissions in respect of both whether the respondent should be found to be a high risk serious offender, and the duration of any supervision order the court may make if the court finds he is a high risk serious offender. Ms Fedele subsequently filed a minute of proposed orders that included orders that: (a) the decision date be vacated; (b) the case be re-opened and re-listed for hearing on a date to be fixed; (c) the respondent have leave to tender the email letter; (d) the respondent be re-examined by the psychiatrist and qualified psychologist who had previously examined the respondent and prepared reports, for the purpose of preparing updated reports in respect of the respondent; (e) an updated Community Supervision Assessment Report be prepared in respect of the respondent by the Department of Justice; and (f) an updated Treatment Options Report be prepared in respect of the respondent by the Department of Justice. It is sufficient to note that the State subsequently indicated it did not oppose the tender of the email letter. Further, while the State was not in a position to consent to the orders sought, counsel for the State, Ms Holloway, informed the court in writing that the State did not oppose the orders sought, having regard to the exceptional nature of the circumstances, being the delay between the hearing and delivery of the judgment, and the respondent's performance on the ISO. That position aptly reflected the State's role as a model litigant. However, the question of what further assessments should be required was a matter to be determined by me, having regard to the evidence given at the hearing on 30 May 2023 and the relevance of the respondent's rehabilitation since that time to the issue of risk of committing a serious offence.
2. In the circumstances, the matter was listed for a directions hearing on 18 October 2024. After hearing submissions from counsel, I was of the view that there was insufficient utility in having the respondent reviewed by the court‑appointed experts for the purpose of further reports. My reasons are set out below, but it is apt to note at this stage that the opinions expressed by those experts at the hearing of 30 May 2023 had taken into account the respondent's good compliance with the ISO and the positive steps he had taken in his rehabilitation up to that point in time. However, I was of the view that an updated Community Supervision Assessment Report should be obtained to provide the court with information about the respondent's performance on the ISO since the 30 May 2023 hearing, as that would be relevant to whether the supervision order conditions proposed at that hearing were still apt and the extent to which the duration of any supervision order imposed by me should be reduced from the periods recommended by the experts at the hearing. I made orders accordingly, and the matter was listed for further hearing on 9 December 2024.
3. At the hearing of 9 December 2024, I received the updated reports into evidence and heard further submissions from the parties.
4. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of acceptable and cogent evidence presented in the application, that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. I am also satisfied that the appropriate restriction order is a supervision order in the terms of the annexure to these reasons.

1. The application is to be dealt with under s 48 of the HRSO Act, which reads:

(1) If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that the offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must -

(a) make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or

(b) except as provided in section 29, make a supervision order in relation to the offender.

(2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1)(a) or (b), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.

(1) 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.

(2) The State has the onus of satisfying the court as required by subsection (1).

1. 'Serious offence' is defined in s 5 of the HRSO Act. Relevantly, for present purposes, by s 5(1), an offence is a 'serious offence' if it is specified in sch 1 div 1 of the HRSO Act. It is sufficient to note that the respondent has previously been convicted of the following offences, all of which are specified in sch 1 div 1 of the HRSO Act: aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault with intent to rob (Criminal Code, s 393(d)) and deprivation of liberty (Criminal Code, s 333).
2. In The State of Western Australia v ZSJ,[14] I concluded, having regard to the relationship the provisions of the HRSO Act bear to the provisions of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed) (DSO Act), which the HRSO Act replaced, that the concepts and criteria with which the court is concerned in determining an application under the HRSO Act are substantially the same as they were under the DSO Act. I was of the view, therefore, that the jurisprudence established in respect of the DSO Act remains relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act, with appropriate adaptation in cases involving non‑sexual offences.[15]
3. The DSO Act was concerned with serious sexual offending (as defined in the DSO Act), and provided for the making of a continuing detention order or a supervision order in respect of a person if they were found to be a 'serious danger to the community', which, by s 7 of the DSO Act, required the court to be satisfied that there was 'an unacceptable risk that, if the person were not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the person would commit a serious sexual offence'.
4. The general approach, applying the jurisprudence developed in respect of the DSO Act to the interpretation of the HRSO Act, has been adopted in subsequent cases. However, in The State of Western Australia v Garlett,[16] Corboy J identified an arguable difference in the way the criteria in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act are to be applied, when compared with the criteria for finding a person to be a serious danger to the community under s 7 of the DSO Act. The difference turns on whether the element of necessity for a restriction order in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act is additional to the element of unacceptable risk.
5. It is arguable that the meaning given to the concept of 'unacceptable risk' under the DSO Act, elucidated by Wheeler JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams,[17] included the element of necessity for the making of a restriction order:[18]

[T]he 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. (emphasis added)

1. However, the arguable interpretation identified by Corboy J in The State of Western Australia v Garlett should be accepted as correct, as it has been adopted in this court since then[19] and, in my opinion, it may be taken to have been endorsed by the reasons of the plurality and Edelman J in Garlett v Western Australia.[20] On that interpretation, the test in s 7 in effect involves two evaluative steps: (1) an evaluation of whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence; and (2) if so, an evaluation of whether it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community against that unacceptable risk.[21]
2. In Garlett v Western Australia, Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ (who were in the majority in the outcome) recognised the two distinct evaluative steps in the following passage:[22]

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. The Court must consider whether a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community.

1. In the same case, Edelman J noted that the criterion of 'unacceptable' is closely associated with notions of the 'adequate' protection of the community and the 'necessity' of the restriction order,[23] but went on to describe the evaluative process in a manner consistent with the two‑step approach as follows:[24]

The requirements that the risk be 'unacceptable' and that the restriction order be 'necessary' to ensure 'adequate' protection of the community direct attention to whether the identified risk to the community can be tolerated. That assessment must be made in light of the whole of the burden which would be placed upon the liberty of the offender by the making of a restriction order, including any standard supervision order conditions.

Section 7 thus requires balancing, on the one hand, the level of the risk identified at the second stage (that is, the probability of the commission of the specified serious offence) together with the magnitude of the harm associated with that risk with, on the other hand, the burden that would be placed upon the liberty of the offender by a restriction order for an offence that they have not committed ...

Even if the balancing process favoured the making of a restriction order, it might still be unnecessary to make such an order if, for example, the Court were able to make orders under other legislation, such as post-sentence supervision orders under the Sentence Administration Act. Such orders might reduce an unacceptable risk to an acceptable one.

1. As to the last paragraph of the above passage, in D'Rozario [No 3], Quinlan CJ had noted that it was possible to envisage circumstances in which the court might find that it was not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community, notwithstanding that it has found that the risk of future offending was unacceptable.[25] His Honour noted that, while such a situation would be rare, an example might be where the court was of the view that, in the particular circumstances, a post‑sentence supervision order made by the Prisoners Review Board under s 74D of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) or some other external constraint may provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence (such that a restriction order is not 'necessary').[26]
2. Having regard to the principles referred to above, the first evaluative step under s 7 of the HRSO Act requires the court to determine whether, in the absence of any measures that would provide protection of the community against the risk that a respondent would commit a serious offence in the future, that risk is unacceptable. That evaluation requires the balancing of various considerations, which I will discuss below. The second evaluative step requires the court to determine whether a restriction order is necessary to provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that has been found to exist. That requires consideration of whether there are measures, other than a restriction order, that would provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk. If there are, the risk could no longer sensibly be regarded as 'unacceptable'.
3. The court must be satisfied by acceptable and cogent evidence to a high degree of probability before it can make the findings that there is an unacceptable risk and that it is necessary to make a restriction order.
4. The State bears the onus of satisfying the court that it is necessary to make a restriction order.[27]
5. More generally, I remain of the view that the concepts and criteria with which the court is concerned in determining an application under s 48 of the HRSO Act are substantially the same as under s 17 of the DSO Act, and, therefore, the jurisprudence established in respect of the DSO Act remains relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act. I note that nothing in Garlett v Western Australia, which considered the constitutional validity of aspects of the HRSO Act, is inconsistent with that approach when construing and applying the HRSO Act. In fact, it is implicit from the plurality judgment that such jurisprudence remains relevant.[28]
6. The need for the court to be satisfied 'to a high degree of probability' is a standard that is greater than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt; it is otherwise incapable of further definition.[29] The test does not mean necessarily that the risk or the necessity for making a restriction order must be at some high percentage of probability. As was previously noted in respect of 'unacceptable risk' under the DSO Act, a risk may be less than 50%, yet still be unacceptable. However, the court must identify what it is that is alleged to constitute the risk and makes it unacceptable, and then consider whether or not those matters have been proved to a high degree of probability by acceptable and cogent evidence.[30] The same approach must be taken in respect of the necessity for making a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community.
7. In GTR, Steytler P and Buss JA explained that the word 'unacceptable' connotes a balancing exercise that will take into account the nature of the risk (the commission of a serious sexual offence, with serious consequences for the victim), the likelihood of the risk being realised, and the serious consequences for an offender if an order is made (either detention, without having committed an unpunished offence, or being required to undergo what might be an onerous supervision order).[31]
8. In considering whether it is satisfied that the offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to each of the matters specified in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. Those matters are:

(a) any report prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the respondent cooperated in the examination required by that section;

(b) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the respondent;

(c) information to indicate whether or not the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;

(d) whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the respondent;

(e) any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including whether he had participated in any rehabilitation programme;

(f) whether or not the respondent's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on him;

(g) the respondent's antecedents and criminal record;

(h) the risk that, if he were not subject to a restriction order, the respondent would commit a serious offence;

(i) the need to protect members of the community from that risk; and

(j) any other relevant matter.

1. There is overlap between some of the matters specified and the evidence relating to the various matters, which I will discuss below.
2. Where, as in the respondent's case, the offender has committed offences other than serious offences, those other offences may be relevant as part of the offender's antecedents and criminal record, as well as shedding light on the offender's risk of committing a serious offence, because the other offences may be connected to behaviour which has the real potential to lead to serious offending.[32]
3. The court must disregard the possibility that the offender may be temporarily prevented from committing a serious offence by various specified measures affecting his liberty, including imprisonment.[33]
4. If the court finds that the respondent is a high risk serious offender, it must make a restriction order. The issue then is whether a supervision order or a CDO is the appropriate outcome. In deciding between those two options, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.[34]
5. The court should make the order that is least invasive of the respondent's right to liberty, while at the same time ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community, having regard to the paramount consideration stipulated in s 48(2).[35] As was decided in respect of s 17(2) of the DSO Act, that requirement does not exclude other considerations. Further, the use of the word 'adequate' indicates that a qualitative assessment is required. It cannot simply be assumed that the most assured preventative measure is detention and, therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order.[36]
6. However, the proviso in s 48(1)(b), referring to s 29, means that the court cannot make a supervision order, and therefore must make a CDO, unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.[37] The respondent has the onus of proving that he will substantially comply.[38]
7. The standard conditions referred to in s 29 are those specified in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act, which in the DSO Act were specified in relevantly identical terms in s 18(1).[39] A supervision order must contain conditions that the person who is subject to the order will:

(a) report to a community corrections officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the offender's current name and address; and

(b) report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court; and

(c) notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least two days before the change happens; and

(d) be under the supervision of a community corrections officer and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of s 31 or s 32 [of the HRSO Act]);[40] and

(e) not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer; and

(f) not commit a serious offence during the period of the order;[41] and

(g) be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31 [of the HRSO Act].

1. Therefore, the effect of s 29(1) and (2) of the HRSO Act (as was the case with s 17(3) and (4) of the DSO Act) is that the respondent must satisfy the court that he will substantially comply with those standard conditions before the court can make a supervision order.
2. The words 'will substantially comply with' in s 29(2) are identical to those that appeared in provisions of the DSO Act and bear the same meaning. In effect, that phrase means that the 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 objects of a supervision order and of the legislation,[42] the primary object being to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.[43]
3. Obviously, substantial compliance with the condition that the respondent will not commit a serious offence during the period of the order should be sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the community. However, the probability that a respondent will substantially comply with that condition will almost invariably depend on the likelihood of the respondent complying with other conditions of a supervision order, additional to the standard conditions. Section 30(5) of the HRSO Act provides that a supervision order may include such other conditions as the court considers appropriate to ensure adequate protection of the community, for rehabilitation, care or treatment of the offender and to ensure the adequate protection of victims.
4. Factors that are relevant to the assessment of whether the respondent will comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order include the respondent's history of compliance and non‑compliance with a community-based order, including an ISO (as in this case), his attitude to the conditions of the supervision order, his willingness and capacity to comply with the conditions, what measures are in place to ensure he substantially complies, and the relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order.[44] Further relevant factors include: the offender's motivation to remain offence free and in the community; his willingness to participate in any relevant treatment program; abstinence from drugs, where that is a relevant risk factor; and demonstrated gains in treatment, self‑management and life skills.[45] The measures that are relevant to ensure he substantially complies include external constraints and monitoring, such as GPS monitoring, urinalysis testing (where that is relevant) and a curfew, and treatment, such as psychological counselling.
5. Ultimately, even apart from the respondent's onus of satisfying the court that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, if the court is not satisfied (which includes if it is left in doubt) that conditional release of the respondent under a supervision order will ensure an adequate degree of protection of the community, it must make a CDO.[46]
6. Proceedings under the HRSO Act are taken to be criminal proceedings for all purposes. This does not require that anything be proved to a higher standard than is required by s 7(1) of the HRSO Act.[47]

1. Having regard to the analysis of the statutory framework and legal principles above, the first issue to be determined in these proceedings is whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, in other words:

(1) Is there an unacceptable risk that he would commit a serious offence in the future, in the absence of any measures that would provide protection of the community against that risk?

(2) Is a restriction order necessary to provide adequate protection of the community against that unacceptable risk?

1. If both of those questions are answered in the affirmative, the next issue is whether the appropriate order to ensure adequate protection of the community is a CDO or release into the community on a supervision order.

1. In an application for a restriction order, the court must hear any admissible evidence called by the State and, if he elects to give or call evidence, any admissible evidence given by or on behalf of the respondent.[48] The rules of evidence apply but are modified to permit the court to receive in evidence any one or more of the following:[49]

(a) any document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the offender;

(b) anything relevant contained in the official transcript of any relevant proceedings against the offender;

(c) any relevant material that was tendered to the court or that informed the court in relevant proceedings against the offender; and

(d) any relevant material of the kind mentioned in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act relating to the offender.

1. As noted above, the evidence adduced by the applicant in these proceedings consisted of the BOM[50] and oral evidence given by:

(1) Dr Peter Wynn Owen, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, who was one of the experts who prepared a report, dated 16 May 2023, in respect of the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence;

(2) Ms Julie Hasson, a forensic psychologist, who was the other expert who prepared a report in respect of that that risk, being a report dated 28April 2023;

(3) Ms Valerie Thatcher, a high risk serious offender Planning Manager within the Department of Justice, who prepared a proposed High Risk Serious Offender Treatment Options Report, dated 25 May 2023, in respect of the respondent;

(4) Ms Phillipa Casserly, a Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO) with the Department of Justice, who prepared a Community Supervision Assessment report, dated 10 May 2023, in respect of the respondent.

1. Volume 1 of the BOM contained materials provided by the Department of Justice, including a copy of the respondent's criminal record, a chronology of the respondent's offending prepared by the applicant, prison records, substance use test results, medical records and medical reports. It also contained transcript and other materials from the proceedings in respect of the respondent's previous convictions for serious offences.
2. Volume 2 of the BOM contained transcript and other materials from the proceedings in respect of the respondent's previous convictions for relevant offences not defined as 'serious offences' under the Act.
3. Volume 3 of the BOM contained the reports of the witnesses who gave oral evidence.
4. In addition to the BOM, the applicant tendered an amended chronology of serious and other relevant offences,[51] email correspondence from the State Solicitor's Office to the court in respect of the desktop spatial analysis of the accommodation proposed for the respondent if he were to be released subject to a supervision order,[52] and email correspondence from the State Solicitor's Office to the court outlining responses to queries in respect of the desktop spatial analysis.[53]
5. The respondent did not give or adduce evidence at the hearing.

Consideration of the matters under 7(3) of the HRSO Act

1. As I noted earlier, the matters listed in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act, to which the court must have regard, overlap. The matters in paragraphs (h) and (i), concerning the respondent's risk and the need to protect the community, involve conclusions that directly inform the question of whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender. Those matters are informed by the information and findings in respect of all the other matters listed in s 7(3). Consideration of the questions concerning propensity and any pattern of offending behaviour (paragraphs (c) and (d)) will be informed by the respondent's antecedents and criminal record (paragraph (g)) and the findings in the reports and assessments referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). Those findings will also inform the matters in paragraphs (e) and (f) concerning the respondent's efforts at rehabilitation and the effect of his participation in rehabilitation programmes.
2. It is convenient to start with the respondent's antecedents, including his criminal history, in particular the offending that is most relevant to the assessment of his risk of serious reoffending.

1. The following summary of the respondent's antecedents and history is collated from various materials in the BOM, including pre‑sentence, psychological and psychiatric reports prepared for proceedings in respect of the respondent's previous serious offences, reports from programmes in which the respondent has engaged, and the reports prepared for these proceedings.

1. At the time of the restriction order hearing, the respondent was 37 years old.
2. The respondent was born in Kalgoorlie and was one of six children. He had two older brothers and three younger sisters. He told Dr Wynn Owen that he was 'born drunk', explaining that his mother had told him that she was drinking during her pregnancy.[54] However, he was not aware of any early developmental problems.
3. The respondent's account of his early life is one of dysfunction, exposure to alcohol abuse and violence, trauma from family tragedy and a lack of adequate emotional nurturing.
4. The respondent recalls seeing his parents fighting, and seeing his father hit his mother 'a lot' from when he was a very young age. He told Dr Wynn Owen that he would try to hide.[55] He also said that his parents beat him when they were drunk.[56]
5. The respondent's two oldest brothers cared for the younger children. Tragically, both were killed in a fire in their home when the respondent was 9 years old.[57] The loss of his siblings had a significant impact on his parents and on him.[58] Both of his parents consumed large quantities of alcohol, and there was significant violence within the home.[59] Despite this, the respondent has said that his mother 'tried her best and always ensured the children were well fed'.
6. The respondent's parents separated when he was 11 years old, at which time he went to live with an aunt and uncle.[60] His father moved away, found another partner and fathered more children.[61] The respondent has said he enjoyed a good relationship with his two stepbrothers and three half siblings from his father's relationship with the respondent's stepmother.[62] However, he told Dr Wynn Owen that this was a confusing time in his life, and that he saw his mother 'every now and then'.[63]
7. His mother also had other partners at different times. The respondent said they were all violent men who also abused alcohol and other substances. He recalls that he and his younger siblings were often afraid, and worried about their mother.[64]
8. The respondent told Ms Hasson that he frequently ran away from home from the age of 11 and lived an itinerant lifestyle, getting involved with older antisocial peers, using alcohol and drugs and often being hungry.[65]
9. Despite, the difficulties referred to above, the respondent recalled good times during his childhood, telling Dr Wynn Owen that he enjoyed hunting, prospecting and camping with an uncle.[66] When he was 13 years old, he returned to Kalgoorlie to live with his mother.[67] Unfortunately, the cycle of violence and substance abuse continued.[68] He told Ms Hasson that he felt 'helpless' witnessing his mother being abused, and was distressed at some of the injuries she sustained. The respondent was also a victim of such abuse, and he would attend school with injuries.[69]
10. While the respondent was able to find some positives in his childhood, I accept the assessments made by both Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson that the respondent had a traumatic upbringing in which he was both a witness to, and the victim of, violence, and in which violence and substance abuse were normalised due to his home environment and the behaviour of adults around him.

1. The respondent enjoyed primary school, as he had many of his cousins at school with him. He said that he was 'in trouble sometimes' for being loud in class. He was able to read and write but did not find schoolwork interesting.[70]
2. He went to high school in Laverton and Kalgoorlie.[71] He said that he was bullied by older boys, but he also bullied others as he believed that 'you have to prove yourself'.[72] He told Dr Wynn Owen that he did not enjoy, or see the point in, school, and he would truant to smoke marijuana with other kids.[73] He also described a history of truanting and aggression at school to Ms Hasson, saying he was suspended and expelled for fighting.[74]
3. The respondent left school during or after Year 9 and returned to Mount Margaret.[75]
4. After leaving school, the respondent worked for a very short period with the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP). Since then, and prior to his imprisonment for the 2017 offences, he had not engaged in paid employment. He had received social welfare payments and had supported his lifestyle through selling prohibited drugs.[76]

1. The respondent's first significant relationship was with a young woman named Shannon, who he has said was three years younger than him. He told Dr Wynn Owen that their relationship started when he was about 15 or 16 years old. He had three children with Shannon, the first being born when he was 18.[77]
2. Both the respondent and Shannon used prohibited drugs. He told Dr Wynn Owen that a source of stress in their relationship was Shannon's mother 'trying to get the kid's off [them]', due to their drug use.[78]
3. The respondent was violent towards Shannon. He told Dr Wynn Owen he became angry with her, thinking she was being unfaithful. He said she would deny the accusation when he confronted her. He described his acts of violence towards her as stemming from the fact that he was 'young and silly' and did not listen to her.[79] He was charged for the first time for assaulting his partner when he was 20 years old. At the time of the assault, he had separated from Shannon and a violence restraining order was in place.[80]
4. The respondent had another significant relationship in 2009 or 2010 with a woman named Sarah. He described her as a non‑smoker who did not use drugs, and who was critical of his drug and alcohol use. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that there was no violence in that relationship.[81]
5. Sarah has a son from another partner, and she and the respondent now have a son. This relationship ended when the respondent was in prison serving a long sentence. The respondent said that Sarah told him he was 'absent too often and for too long', so she was returning to New South Wales to live.[82]
6. When the respondent was released from prison in December 2014, after a four‑year sentence, he had planned to reunite with Sarah, however rekindled his relationship with Shannon.[83] This relationship recommenced in 2015.[84] During the short time they were then together, they had their third child. The relationship ended when the respondent returned to prison on charges that were subsequently dismissed.[85]
7. After being released from prison in 2017, the respondent reunited with Sarah. He was still in a relationship with her when he was arrested for the index offence.[86] The respondent has maintained contact with Sarah and their son, and has said that they have a positive relationship.[87]
8. During his interview with Ms Hasson, the respondent acknowledged the volatile nature of his past intimate relationships, including difficulties with anger management, substance abuse, jealousy and trust issues, mental health issues, including paranoia, and poor or absent communication skills and conflict resolution skills. He said that until his most recent prison sentence he had not appreciated the seriousness of his behaviour. He said that when he began to get well in prison and took his medicine regularly, he began to realise that his lifestyle of violence, substance use, and untreated mental health issues had 'cost him everything', including his relationship and a chance to spend time with his children. He said he knew he needed to change.[88]
9. The respondent did not indicate any immediate plans to form a new intimate relationship, stating that he would like to have some time in his own space. However, he said that he needed to learn to communicate better and was prepared to do further courses to assist him for when he is ready to meet a new partner. He indicated that his relationship with his two former partners was amicable.[89]
10. The respondent said that, from a young age, he had mostly associated with negative peers and antisocial family members. He recognised that, in the past, he had not engaged in any prosocial hobbies, leisure pursuits or interests. Instead, he was focused on funding his drug habit, which could only be achieved through criminal means in the absence of paid employment or other legitimate sources of income.[90]

1. The respondent has described using alcohol and prohibited drugs from the age of 13 years. He told Dr Wynn Owen that he used alcohol regularly from the age of 13 until his late twenties, when prohibited drugs became his primary means of intoxication.[91] He claimed that his use of alcohol had 'never been a problem' for him, saying that, while he experienced alcohol blackouts, he had not had signs or symptoms of physical dependency.[92]
2. At the age of 13, the respondent smoked marijuana with peers while truanting from school, which eventually led to daily use. He acknowledged that marijuana had been a regular drug of abuse for him while he was in the community previously. He said that prior to his arrest for the index offence, he was smoking up to two 'bags' a day.[93]
3. The respondent also began to use amphetamines when he was about 13. From the age of 14, he was injecting amphetamines almost daily. When in the community as an adult, there had only been short periods when he had abstained from amphetamine use. He told Dr Wynn Owen that, prior to his arrest for the index offence, he was using $3,000 worth of methamphetamine per day.[94]
4. The respondent told Ms Hasson that he had sold drugs to support his own drug use. In addition to the substances already mentioned, the respondent said he had also used heroin, hallucinogens and MDMA occasionally. He denied any use of volatile substances such as paint, petrol or glue.[95]
5. The respondent acknowledged that substance abuse has been a significant problem for him and that his use has contributed to mental health problems, relationship difficulties and violent behaviour. Ms Hasson noted that this was a big shift in the respondent's insight, because, for a long time, he had used cannabis in particular to manage his mental health difficulties.[96]
6. The respondent told Ms Hasson that using drugs and alcohol daily felt normal for him, as he had used such substances from a very young age with his peers, various family members and other members of his local community. He acknowledged that people in his immediate environment have always been tolerant of alcohol and substance abuse, violence and other antisocial behaviours.[97]
7. The respondent said that, during his last prison term, he made a conscious decision to cease using drugs. He has abstained from drug use for several years. He had also quit smoking some 18 months prior to being examined by the experts. He told Ms Hasson that being abstinent from substance use has had a significant positive impact on his physical and mental health.[98]

1. The respondent has had a number of long‑term health issues, including a history of morbid obesity, asthma, diabetes type‑2, high cholesterol, kidney disease, sleep apnoea, a history of chronic pain and limited sight in his right eye, the lens having been removed surgically in 2017 as a result of an injury. When interviewed by Ms Hasson, he was awaiting corrective surgery. He also said that asthma was no longer an issue for him. He is prescribed various medications to manage his other health concerns.[99]

1. The respondent has a long history of mental health problems commencing in his late teens. There is also a family history of Bipolar Affective Disorder.[100]
2. The respondent harmed himself while in custody at the age of 18, as he was not coping well with incarceration. During subsequent periods of imprisonment, he was admitted to the Frankland Centre, the secure psychiatric facility at Graylands Hospital, on two occasions, in 2010 and 2011, both times being referred from prison pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), due to low mood, suicidal ideation, auditory hallucinations and referential delusions.[101] Upon discharge from the Frankland Centre, the respondent was diagnosed with depression with psychotic features. When he was admitted in 2011, his depression was worsening, and his other symptoms included social withdrawal, psychotic symptoms and suicidal ideation. When he was discharged after that admission, the diagnosis remained one of depression with psychotic features, but there was a differential diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.[102]
3. The respondent has received mental health treatment in both the prison system and community mental health clinics for the better part of two decades. Ms Hasson noted that his mental health has improved when he has adhered to prescribed medication (a combination of antidepressant and antipsychotic medication), and has abstained from substance abuse, which has resulted in remission and almost a complete resolution of psychotic symptoms.[103]
4. The respondent has shown an awareness of the need to take medication to manage his mental health. During his interview with Ms Hasson, he spoke of a history of paranoia, believing people were out to get him, and that he was being watched and followed. He also reported hearing voices telling him that his partner was cheating on him, and that he experienced hallucinatory signs from the television that his partners were cheating. He indicated that the voices never told him directly to harm anyone, but he had believed that if he did not 'get people, they would get [him]'.[104]
5. When interviewed by Ms Hasson, the respondent said that all of his previously reported psychotic symptoms had resolved, saying he had 'never felt better'.[105] At the time, the respondent was receiving depot medication monthly (Paliperidone) and was attending a community mental health service in Esperance weekly, seeing a mental health worker with whom he had developed a good rapport. He was also seeing a psychiatrist monthly.[106]
6. In 2011, Dr Adam Brett, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, completed an assessment for court in respect of the respondent for the purposes of his sentencing in the Supreme Court in December 2011 (see below for the relevant offending). He diagnosed the respondent with antisocial personality disorder, drug abuse, and schizoaffective disorder. In 2017, the respondent was assessed by another psychiatrist, Dr Smith, who disputed the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, giving the opinion that the respondent's symptoms were more consistent with a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder. In 2019, in a report prepared to assist the court for the purposes of sentencing the respondent in May 2019, the respondent was assessed by another psychiatrist, Dr Siva Bala, who diagnosed him with substance use disorder (amphetamines and cannabis) in remission in a controlled environment, antisocial personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder. Dr Bala noted that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder could also be considered, but he preferred a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder due to the respondent's reports of ongoing psychotic symptoms, such as auditory hallucinations, in the absence of depression or mania.[107] In a bipolar affective disorder, psychotic symptoms occur only in the context of depressive or manic episodes which characterise the disorder.[108] However, Dr Bala considered the distinction to be academic (forensically), and to make no difference in terms of the respondent's offending history or treatment needs.[109]
7. In relation to whether there has been any causal connection between the respondent's mental illness and his offending, Dr Brett noted in 2011 that:[110]

It may have been difficult to differentiate intoxicated states with an emerging mental disorder. The impact of his mental disorder on his offending behaviour appears to be secondary to his drug use and personality structure.

1. In 2019, Dr Bala noted that the respondent's offending behaviour was related to his 'longstanding tendency towards antisocial activities and severe substance use'.[111] He was of the view that, although it was possible that the respondent may have been psychotic at the time of his offending, his psychosis did not have a direct bearing on the offending.[112] Dr Bala said:[113]

Although he could have made other choices, there is a longstanding pattern of making poor choices driven by voluntary substance abuse and this relates to his need for instant gratification, lack of empathy for others, lack of structure in life and negative peer associates.

1. The respondent's previous offending was described as follows by Jenkins J when she sentenced him in 2019:[114]

You have a lengthy prior criminal record for serious offences which commences when you were 17 years of age. For example, you have at least 10 convictions for serious assaults.

In December 2011, you were convicted in this court of a series of offences related to a violent home invasion of an occupied home which was committed in company for the purpose of stealing property and drugs. Thus, there are similarities between that offending and this offending.

You were sentenced to 2 years and 2 months' imprisonment which was cumulative on another sentence of 2 years' imprisonment you were then serving for violent offences. The sentence of 2 years and 2 months was less than you would have otherwise received because of matters which are not relevant to sentencing you today.

You must have been released from those sentences in late 2014. It seems that you stayed out of trouble for about a year, but in August 2015 you committed a large number of threat to injure offences for which you received another 10 months' imprisonment.

You would have been released from prison from those sentences in mid‑2017. Given what you told the report writers, it seems that you almost immediately recommenced using drugs and committed these offences about five months later.

1. The facts of the respondent's relevant offending prior to the index offence are referred to in materials in the BOM and were summarised by the applicant in the 'Chronology of serious and other relevant offences'.[115] It is necessary to outline the prior offending to provide context for findings later in these reasons. The circumstances were as follows.

Assault occasioning bodily harm - February 2004

1. On 10 February 2004, when the respondent was 18 years old, he became involved in an argument with a 15‑year‑old male in the carpark of a takeaway food outlet. He punched the victim in the eye, causing him to fall to the ground. The victim suffered considerable swelling and broken skin to his right eyebrow. The respondent was sentenced in the Court of Petty Sessions to an intensive supervision order for 8 months.

Assault occasioning bodily harm x 2 - June 2005

1. These offences, for which the respondent was sentenced in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court in March 2006 were committed against two victims. On 25 June 2005, when the respondent had just turned 20 years of age, he went to a house with others, intending to confront the occupier about a recent offence. Having entered the house, he found one of the victims and punched him. He then grabbed the second victim by the throat and punched him in the face. At the same time, a co‑offender was hitting the second victim's lower limbs with a steel pole. The second victim managed to escape. The respondent then found the first victim in the roadway and punched and kneed him to the head and body. Both victims suffered injuries that bled, as well as bruising and swelling.
2. The respondent was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day.

Aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and Deprivation of liberty - December 2005

1. On 18 December 2005, when the respondent was 20 years of age, he assaulted his then de facto partner, who was 17 years of age, in a serious manner. His partner had taken out a violence restraining order, which prevented the respondent from approaching within 50 metres of her or threatening, harassing, abusing, intimidating or assaulting her. At the time of the offending, the respondent was intoxicated by alcohol and amphetamines. Upon seeing his partner, the respondent chased her up a street and threatened to damage her car if she did not drive him to his father's house. He ordered her into the back seat of the car, sat next to her, and punched her to the face. The victim then drove him to his father's home. The respondent continued to strike the victim during the drive. When they arrived, he pulled her out of the car and forced her to walk with him towards his aunt's house. The victim managed to escape. The respondent caught up with her and threatened to kill her. He made the threat in front of people outside the house. He was sentenced for the offences of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and deprivation of liberty in the District Court at Kalgoorlie on 27 March 2006. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. Around the same time, he was sentenced for other offences of violence and the contravention of the violence restraining order.
2. The offence of deprivation of liberty is a serious offence for the purposes of the HRSO Act.

1. On 18 May 2007, the respondent was involved in a fight at a party. Without warning, he punched the victim in the mouth, his right eye and right ear. The respondent claimed to have done so to prevent the victim from hitting someone else. He was sentenced in the District Court in Kalgoorlie on 11 December 2008 to a term of imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day, conditionally suspended for 18 months.

1. This offence was committed by the respondent against his 23‑year‑old aunty when he was also 23 years of age. On 19 December 2008, they were drinking together. The victim woke the respondent and asked him to take her home. He became angry and pushed her to the ground, where he punched her more than once. He was fined for this offence.

1. On 31 July 2009, the respondent went to the victim's home. There, they became involved in an argument, during which the respondent punched the victim, causing him to fall to the ground. The respondent then got on top of the victim and repeatedly punched him in the face and head. He dragged the victim outside along the ground. He then picked up a garden ornament and dropped it several times on the victim's body, including on his head. He then left. He was sentenced in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court on 14 February 2011 to 18 months' imprisonment cumulative.

Aggravated assault with intent to rob and Aggravated burglary - August 2010

1. These were offences arising from the incident that Jenkins J described as having similarities to the offences for which she sentenced the respondent in 2019. As her Honour said, the offending involved a violent home invasion of an occupied home which was committed in company for the purpose of stealing property and drugs.
2. On 3 August 2010, the respondent and three other people went to an associate's home and announced their arrival. The respondent entered the home when the door was opened. Inside the home, he picked up a pair of scissors and threatened to rob the occupants. This was the offence of aggravated assault with intent to rob, which is a serious offence for the purposes of the HRSO Act.
3. The co-offenders entered and searched the house for property to steal. They left, having stolen property worth approximately $1,000, along with some cannabis.
4. The respondent was sentenced in the Supreme Court on 1 December 2011 to a total term of imprisonment of 2 years and 2 months.

Threats to unlawfully kill x 3; Threats to injure x 3 - August 2015

1. On several days in August 2015, the respondent made threats to kill or injure his then de facto partner. From the history outlined above, it will be apparent this was Shannon. She was pregnant with their third child at the time of the offences. The respondent was in prison. On a number of occasions he called his partner, abused her and threatened her. He also called his mother from prison and instructed her to post threats to his partner from his Facebook account to her Facebook profile.
2. On 12 August 2015, the respondent threatened to kill the victim and her dog. On 16 August 2015, he instructed his mother to post something on Facebook threatening to burn the victim's bus with petrol. Also on 16 August 2015, the respondent directly threatened to burn the victim's bus with her in it. On 18 August 2015, he threatened to harm her and her dog, threatening to jump all over her head. On 19 August 2015, he threatened to kill her by jumping on her head and burning her. On 24 August 2015, he instructed his mother to post to the victim's Facebook account a threat from him to kill her.
3. The respondent was sentenced on 30 May 2017 in the District Court at Perth to a total sentence of 10 months' imprisonment, consisting of the same sentence for each of the offences, to be served concurrently.

Aggravated robbery (index offence) and Aggravated burglary - November 2017

1. In sentencing the respondent in 2019 for the index offence and the aggravated burglary offence, Jenkins J stated the facts of the offending, as found by her, at [10] - [29]. Those facts may be summarised as follows:

(1) In the early hours of Friday, 10 November 2017, the male adult complainant was in bed at his home in Boulder. He was alone in the house. The house had a two metre high fence around it. One of the front panels of the fence was a vehicle gate. Within that gate was a smaller gate through which visitors could enter into his yard. The property also had a CCTV camera located on the edge of the roof of the house at the front of the property. The camera filmed the front yard. The complainant had screens in his house which displayed the footage from that camera and other security cameras around the house.

(2) Prior to going to bed, the complainant locked the gates in the fence, although it was not clear how the gates were secured.

(3) At about 1.30 am, the complainant awoke and heard a noise coming from his front gate. When checked the security camera screen, he could not see any footage from the camera. Photographs taken by the police subsequently showed that a cloth had been placed in front of the camera. Jenkins J was satisfied that, before the complainant awoke, either the respondent or his juvenile co‑offender placed the cloth in front of the camera. Her Honour thought it likely that the juvenile co‑offender had done it, as he was the younger, slimmer and fitter of the two of them.

(4) The complainant then heard a voice calling his name. He opened the front door of the house and saw the juvenile co‑offender and the respondent standing in the front yard of the house, inside the security gate. While it was not clear how they got inside the yard, her Honour considered it logical that one of them, logically the juvenile offender, had climbed over the fence and opened the visitor gate to allow the other person inside.

(5) The complainant knew both the respondent and the juvenile offender, but he was suspicious about them being inside his yard. Nevertheless, he opened the security screen of his front door to speak to them, and they both barged into the house. The respondent and his co-offender asked for water and told the complainant that they were on the run from the police.

(6) A short time later, the complainant heard the doorbell ring. He went to the front door and thought he heard someone call out 'Steven', which prompted him to tell the respondent that there was somebody asking for him. The respondent approached the door and said that they were calling instead for the complainant.

(7) The complainant then saw three men inside the yard walking towards his house. While he had testified at the trial that the three men were wearing bandanas over their faces, her Honour did not consider it necessary to make a finding as to whether they were wearing bandanas or not.

(8) A third co-offender, who also came to be sentenced by her Honour, was one of the three men. The complainant did not know him. The three men entered the house.

(9) The complainant went back towards the kitchen area. The respondent stood near him and told him that he was being robbed. The juvenile offender was close by. The respondent then told the complainant to lay face down on the ground. The complainant complied. At the respondent's direction, two of the offenders then tied the complainant's hands and feet with cable ties and an electrical cord. The respondent then directed them to drag the complainant down the hallway while he was tied up. The co-offenders dragged the complainant down the hallway and left him near his bedroom.

(10) All of the offenders then searched the house looking for property to steal. The respondent was in charge of the offenders and directed the search, which continued for some time. Various items of property were stolen, including jewellery, clothing and electronic equipment. The respondent asked the complainant if there was a safe in the house, indicating that he was intent on stealing as much property as he could. A crate containing a coin collection was also stolen.

(11) The offenders took the stolen items outside to two cars, which were owned by the complainant and his partner, who was not present at that time. They also took the keys to both vehicles.

(12) Her Honour noted that the photos taken of the house afterwards showed that it had been ransacked.

(13) At some point during the search, the respondent threatened to take the complainant out bush and to 'split' him. The respondent also kicked the complainant in the face when he was on the ground, which resulted in bruising and swelling to the complainant's cheek. The other offenders also inflicted blows to the complainant, but they did not result in any significant injuries.

(14) Whilst the offenders were outside at the vehicle, the complainant managed to break free from his restraints. He ran out the back of the house. Some of the offenders chased him, but he managed to escape. He knocked on doors seeking help, eventually waking a resident who lived nearby. The police were then called.

(15) The five offenders drove from the property in the stolen vehicles, which were not recovered.

(16) The whole incident lasted a number of hours.

Being armed or pretending to be armed in a manner that may cause fear - November 2017

1. Finally, there is a further offence of which the respondent was sentenced in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court on 30 May 2019 to imprisonment for 6 months and 1 day. The offence was of a different nature to the other offending but is still indicative of a propensity to resort to violence, albeit in the context of an episode of drug‑related mental illness. It is also relevant because it was proximate in time to the index offence and is related to the respondent's drug use.
2. The victim and other witnesses attended the address where the respondent was located after receiving information that he was suffering from drug‑related mental health issues. The respondent pulled out a starter pistol and walked towards the victim. There was an altercation between them, during which the respondent fell. As he did so, the starter pistol discharged.
3. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he believed the starter pistol was a real gun, which renders his conduct more reckless and concerning.

1. It is convenient at this point to outline the respondent's broad account of his offending as related to Ms Hasson.
2. The respondent told Ms Hasson that most of his offences were committed while he was under the influence of alcohol and illicit substances, and many occurred while he was suffering psychotic symptoms, although he acknowledged he never experienced voices telling him to offend.[116] The respondent did not attempt to excuse his actions or attribute blame externally, and he acknowledged that his mental health deteriorated because he was not compliant with his medication.[117] The respondent gave explanations for some of the violent offences, but, given that he said he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs on most occasions, it is difficult to know what weight can be attributed to his explanations, although he gave similar explanations to Dr Wynn Owen. In any event, the respondent's explanations tend to confirm a preparedness to use violence to resolve conflict. Ms Hasson noted that he accepted 'that violence was a habit or normal way for him to resolve issues', and that he often did not think, but just acted.[118]
3. With respect to his offending in June 2005, the respondent explained the assault on the two victims on the basis that he and his co‑offenders believed they had sexually assaulted his female cousin. He said he was motivated by revenge. Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent expressed remorse and victim empathy for these offences. He told Dr Wynn Owen that the victims were subsequently charged and convicted of the assault on his cousin.[119]
4. With respect to his offending in December 2008, the respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he had been 'coming down' after using methylamphetamine and that he was sleeping when 'something hit him'.[120] He said that he did not see who was there, so he 'just started swinging'. Again, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent expressed victim empathy and remorse with respect to this offence.[121]
5. With respect to his offending in August 2010, the respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he had been drinking alcohol and using amphetamines. He went to the victim's house with three co‑offenders to 'score gear' but was told that none was available.[122] However, when another person came into the house with drugs, he became angry, so he confronted the victim. Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent did not express remorse or victim empathy when recalling this offence.[123]
6. With respect to his offending in August 2015, the respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he was in custody on charges that were subsequently dismissed. He said that he was using amphetamines prior to being remanded in custody, and continued to do so whilst in custody, albeit at a lower frequency. He said that the television was telling him that his partner, who was pregnant with their third child, was being unfaithful. He said that he threatened 'her with the worst things [he] could think of; things that would scare her, make her stop'.[124] Again, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent expressed remorse and victim empathy for this offence.[125]
7. With respect to his index offending in November 2017, the respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that the victim, whom he knew, had run up a drug debt with the respondent and refused to pay. He said that he was at another person's house 'having a shot', when the victim texted him.[126] He said he decided to 'get what [he] was owed', but it 'escalated' when he and his co‑offenders arrived at the victim's house.[127] He said he was angry and 'high off drugs' and that he felt 'fearless' when he was taking methylamphetamine.[128] He essentially admitted the facts as outlined earlier.[129] He told Dr Wynn Owen that he should have handled the situation differently and that he could have tried to 'talk it out'.[130] He suggested that the outcome probably would have been different if he had not been under the influence of amphetamines. Again, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent expressed remorse for the offences, and empathy for the victim, whom he acknowledged would have been very fearful.[131]
8. With respect to his offending on 14 November 2017, the respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that 'there was an argument between a couple of fellas at another dealer's house, everyone going off at once'. He said that he had the starting pistol, which he thought was a real gun. He said he became involved in an argument with the victim, they fought and fell, and the gun went off.[132] I note that the respondent's recollection indicates a lack of awareness of the drug‑related mental health issues he was experiencing, and that it was his conduct as a result of those issues that brought other persons to the house where the offence occurred. The materials indicate that those were the facts on which he was sentenced. As I indicated above, while the offence is of a different kind to the other violent offending, it is of particular concern because, in a drug‑affected state, he was prepared to brandish what he believed (incorrectly) to be a real firearm in a circumstance of conflict.
9. In respect of his violent offending generally, the respondent told Ms Hasson that he had a lack of awareness as to the severity of his behaviour until his most recent prison sentence, during which he realised that his offending behaviour and the lengthy time he had spent in prison 'had cost him everything'.[133] He realised in that moment that he had to change. As will appear below, while the respondent's realisation of that need appears to have been a catalyst for real change, as has been evident during the time he has been in the community subject to the ISO, it is difficult to understand why the realisation did not occur on previous occasions when he was imprisoned, especially as he took part in a number of rehabilitative programmes.
10. The respondent told Ms Hasson he did not want to be a violent person, and he expressed regret about his offending behaviour. He recognised that jealousy, trust issues and negative feelings were significant risk factors for him, in the context of violence in intimate relationships, which he acknowledged is unacceptable.[134]

1. The respondent's prison history, including his behaviour in custody, was helpfully summarised by Dr Wynn Owen in his report. He noted that, as an adult, the respondent has been imprisoned on 17 occasions for a total of more than 14.5 years between July 2003 and December 2022.[135]
2. The incident history from Corrective Services for the respondent's most recent period of imprisonment shows that he accrued five prison charges in 2018, but four were withdrawn.[136] There were no charges of violent behaviour, although he was said to have been observed on camera to be a party to enabling an assault on another prisoner.[137] On the other hand, in December 2017, he was commended for intervening to assist officers manage a prisoner who was threatening to use violence.[138]
3. As Dr Wynn Owen noted, consecutive Individual Management Plans from the prison had described the respondent as polite and respectful and a good to above average worker.[139] He was consistently employed, and from late 2019 was a Peer Support Worker, which is a privileged position within the prison.[140]
4. During his most recent term of imprisonment, the respondent received regular visits from his partner, Sarah and their two children, until they relocated to another state in 2020.[141]

Previous psychiatric assessment of the respondent's risk

1. As I noted earlier, for the purposes of the respondent's sentencing in May 2019, a report, dated 23 April 2019, was prepared by Dr Bala, a consultant psychiatrist. Dr Bala's findings in respect of the respondent's risk of reoffending were referred to by Quinlan CJ in Hansen,[142] but it is appropriate to set them out as part of the context for my findings below concerning the respondent's propensity and pattern of offending. Dr Bala expressed the following opinions:[143]

Mr Hansen has recurrent problems with significant violence in the context of substance use. Violence is used to exert dominance over others such as his intimate partners or those who owe money for drugs. He has been able to sustain intimate relationships, but there are periods of separation due to conflict. He has been unemployed for many years, has problems with substance use in the community and this is a known risk factor for violence behaviour through disinhibition and exacerbation of personality features related to violence. He has a major mental illness which is at times unstable in the community due to his poor adherence with mediation. He also has a personality marked by antisocial traits with impulsivity and aggression as a means of exerting dominance and control of the situation. He has a history of unresolved trauma in childhood and attachment difficulties. Historically, he has not engaged well with treatment or supervision at times when he is using illicit substances.

...

Mr Hansen is at high risk of future offending given the long history of offending, unstable interpersonal relationships, antisocial personality disorder, substance use, major mental illness and poor adherence with treatment in the community. My opinion is similar to Dr Brett's 2011 report and given the recurrent history of significant offending since then, I am not optimistic that any changes will occur in the community in the near future.

1. It is sufficient to note that Dr Brett had identified a number of historical and clinical risk factors, together with some risk management factors, that increased the respondent's risk of violent reoffending.[144] He was of the opinion that the combination of the respondent's 'dissocial personality structure', his substance abuse, psychotic disorder and previous history of violent offending was 'worrying', and that the respondent had a 'poor prognosis'.[145]

1. The assessment of whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence requires consideration of whether or not the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences and whether or not there is a pattern of offending behaviour by the respondent.[146] They are not the only considerations, and, as will appear below, when dealing with the expert evidence, a risk of serious offending may be identified even where the evidence does not point to a particular propensity or pattern of offending. Nevertheless, there is an obvious connection between a propensity to commit serious offences and the assessment of risk.
2. In GTR, in the context of the DSO Act, which was concerned with serious sexual offences, Murray AJA identified the relationship between a pattern of offending and a propensity to commit serious sexual offences, and the meaning to be attributed to the word 'propensity' in that context, in terms that, in my view, remain applicable to the HRSO Act in relation to serious offences more broadly. His Honour said:[147]

As to the question of a demonstrated propensity to commit serious sexual offences in the future, I think it is clear that if there is some discernible pattern in the offending behaviour, the relevance will be that it may tend to support the conclusion that the offender is a serious danger to the community, because he has a propensity to commit serious sexual offences which has not been negated by treatment and so may continue to affect the offender's behaviour in the future. In my view 'propensity' in this context means what it ordinarily means in the context of the criminal law. It means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder.

1. Even before one considers the expert evidence in respect of the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence, the respondent's history supports the conclusion that he has a propensity to commit serious violent offences.
2. Over a lengthy period of his life, from a young age, the respondent has demonstrated an inclination or tendency to resort to violence to resolve conflict or when he is angry with other persons. As I noted earlier, the respondent acknowledged to Ms Hasson that violence was a habit or normal way for him to resolve issues. The tendency appears to stem from his personality, which no doubt was shaped, at least in part, by his upbringing, which included normalisation of violence. The tendency to resort to violence appears also to have been associated with his drug use and his mental health issues. He has exhibited the propensity in a variety of circumstances. However, there have been some patterns to his offending. Particularly troubling has been his tendency to commit violence on victims or threaten them with violence in their homes, having gone there for that purpose or in the course of a home invasion to steal property. On three occasions he has committed the offences in company with other offenders. On two of those occasions, co‑offenders have joined in the violence. The respondent has also shown a propensity to be brutal and persistent in his assaults, which appears to have been affected by the level of his anger. At times his offending has shown a tendency for the respondent to be quick to anger.
3. While the offending has not always involved the commission of a serious offence, as defined in the HRSO Act, that is because the injuries caused did not amount to more than bodily harm, which would appear to be fortuitous, given the degree of violence used by the respondent on occasions. For instance, the incident in which he repeatedly dropped a garden ornament on the head and other parts of the body of the victim, could well have resulted in more serious injury. It is sufficient to note that the respondent's violence has had the potential for greater physical harm for his victims, as well as causing them psychological trauma.
4. In relation to his violence and threats of violence towards his partner, the respondent's conduct has shown a tendency to want to control his partner, even in the face of, and in breach of, a court order prohibiting contact with her. That was obvious in the offences of December 2005. However, it may also be inferred in respect of the threats to kill and injure made in August 2015. While the motive is not clear from the facts of the latter offending, the respondent's account to Ms Hasson about his hallucinatory beliefs about his partners suggests his mental health issues had a role to play in his conduct towards his partners.
5. Consistent with Murray AJA's analysis in GTR, there remains the question whether the respondent's propensity to commit serious violent offences may continue to affect his behaviour in the future, because it has not been negated by treatment or by some other development in his makeup. That question is informed by the evidence of efforts made by the respondent to address the causes of his offending behaviour, including any rehabilitation programmes he has undertaken, and the assessments of his risk made by the expert witnesses.

Rehabilitation programmes and efforts to address causes of offending

1. The respondent has engaged in rehabilitative programmes on numerous occasions during periods of imprisonment. It is self‑evident that any benefits gained from earlier programmes were not enduring, given the respondent went on to commit the index offence on 10 November 2017, having been released from prison on 6 June 2017.[148] However, as appears from the reports and oral evidence of Ms Thatcher, Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, the respondent has made efforts since then to address the causes of his offending, including in relation to his illicit substance use by engaging in a relevant rehabilitative programme during his most recent period of imprisonment.

1. The respondent completed eight sessions of the Think First Cognitive Skills programme, commencing 15 March 2012. In broad terms the programme addresses, and seeks to develop in the participant, problem solving skills, self‑management skills, social interaction skills and positive changes in their values, beliefs and attitude to change. The respondent was described to be a keen participant, who 'genuinely appeared to want to achieve some positive ideas and utilise these to improve his life for the benefit of [himself] and his family'.[149] The respondent decided to withdraw from the programme due to the death of his grandfather. He was transferred temporarily to another facility to attend the funeral. Prior to his departure from the programme, the respondent asked if he would be allowed to repeat the programme and hoped he could be included in the next available course.[150] He subsequently participated in the programme again, and completed it, in September to November 2012, as desc rived below.

1. The respondent participated in the Pathways Program from 23 May 2012 to 9 August 2012. The programme is conducted over 50 group sessions, totalling 100 hours. It is an 'intensive group [programme] based on cognitive behavioural theory', designed to help offenders who have substance abuse problems to avoid future offending.[151] The respondent attended 46 of the sessions. He was described as a quiet participator, but was considered to have made significant gains in relation to effective and consequential thinking. It was reported that the respondent required considerable ongoing support to address his addiction issues and associated criminal behaviour. The respondent's application, attendance and response to feedback and constructive criticism was described as commendable.[152] It was reported that he 'put a great deal of effort into making the [programme] work for him'.[153]
2. The facilitators of the programme identified, as a significant risk factor for the respondent, his association with peers and extended family members, many of whom had been incarcerated previously. They recommended that the respondent be encouraged to continue his cognitive therapy, and that he be given every assistance to help him secure his goal of living in a dry community. The respondent identified Mount Margaret as a community where he has positive elders to support him.[154]
3. Regrettably, as indicated above, the respondent's demonstrated commitment to change did not last, as he went on to commit the index offence in 2017 at a time when, according to him, he was again involved in drug dealing and was affected by drugs.

Think First Cognitive Skills - September 2012 to November 2012

1. The respondent again took part in the Think First Cognitive Skills programme from September to November 2012. On that occasion he attended all 30 sessions. His participation in the programme was considered to be good, completing all tasks and showing a good level of understanding of programme information. He was considered to have made gains in the four areas addressed by the programme, referred to above. The respondent stated that he gained particular benefit from the consequential thinking session, acknowledging that he had not considered the consequences of his actions in the past.[155]
2. However, as I have said in respect of the Pathways Programme, it would appear that the gains were not sufficiently assimilated or maintained, as the respondent returned to drug use in the community and went on to commit the index offence in 2017, as well as the threat offences against his partner in 2015.

Intensive Violent Offending Program - May 2013 to October 2013

1. The respondent completed the Intensive Violent Offending Program from 7 May 2013 to 17 October 2013. He was described as being motivated to complete the programme and acquire relevant skills and knowledge to better himself and his kids and family.[156] He showed competency in problem solving skills, due to his participation in prior programmes, and was described as having gained the capacity for consequential thinking to overcome impulsive tendencies. Over the course of his participation in the programme, he came to recognise how his behaviour had affected his victims, and he was able to articulate the possible cognitive and emotional effects they may have experienced.[157]
2. The respondent acknowledged to group facilitators that his association with negative peers, and his antisocial attitude when in their company, influenced his offending behaviour and was a significant risk for him when released from prison. He was able to recognise that he self‑medicated with substances to deal with painful emotions. Throughout the programme, he developed and practised more appropriate methods of self‑regulation.[158]
3. During this period of incarceration, the respondent was diagnosed and treated for mental illness after experiencing debilitating symptoms. The respondent said that he understood the importance of maintaining good mental health, and had taken responsibility for ensuring services would be available to him upon release from prison.[159]
4. The respondent was able to identify high risk situations linked to his substance misuse, including negative peer association, and developed strategies he believed would counter such situations to reduce future risk. He formulated realistic plans for a more balanced lifestyle in the future, which included maintaining employment, maintaining stable mental health, living in a drug free environment, and spending more time with his children.[160]
5. As with the progress the respondent had made in previous programmes, the positive outcomes from this programme were not effective to prevent him from returning to drug use and committing subsequent serious offences.

1. The respondent took part in a Brief Intervention Cognitive Skills programme in June 2016, at a time when it appears he was in custody on remand for charges that were subsequently discontinued. He was described as an active participant in the programme. He acknowledged that emotional immaturity and alcohol use often had a role in his lack of self‑control and contributed to his impulsive behaviours. He was also able to demonstrate alternative strategies for solving problems and set achievable goals for his future.[161] He was able to recognise the feelings of others, and he completed a relapse prevention plan with a focus on addressing his emotional issues.[162]

1. The respondent again participated in the Pathways Program during his most recent term of imprisonment (for the index offence and the aggravated burglary offence) at the Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison, from 20 November 2019 to 12 March 2020. The respondent acknowledged that, when he completed the programme in 2012, he had not been ready to make changes at that time. He said that he was now ready to implement what he learned from the programme.[163] I note that the weight that can be given to such a professed change of attitude must be gauged against the background that he had given a similar indication in 2012. His acknowledgement that he was not ready for change at that time is likely a reflection with the benefit of hindsight, but it suggests a lack of self‑awareness in 2012, and a degree of over‑confidence in his ability to put into effect the gains he had made at that time.
2. During the programme, the respondent was assessed to have a high risk of general offending and violent offending. He was assessed to have skills deficits and treatment needs in the areas of cognitive distortions, emotional management, prosocial relationships and substance abuse.
3. The facilitators reported that the respondent was motivated to make gains from the programme and was responsive to feedback. He recognised that he used substances to 'deal with emotional distress', and he was able to identify some 'high risk emotions', largely related to low self‑esteem.[164] By the end of the programme, he was reported to have gained understanding of the negative influence of antisocial peers, including close family members, on his choices and behaviours.[165] He was said to have recognised that he is better able to support his family if he does not use drugs.
4. In summary, the programme facilitators were of the view that the respondent displayed an increased awareness of both personal circumstances and interpersonal processes (thoughts, emotions, beliefs and attitudes) that had led to his past substance abuse and offending behaviours, including the substance abuse and behaviours relevant to his current situation (as at the time of the programme).[166] However, while they considered the respondent had made some treatment gains, they noted that such gains had yet to be tested in relevant high‑risk settings, or in the community.[167]

Waiver of participation in Intensive Violent Offending Program - April 2020

1. It was noted at the end of the Program Completion Report that the respondent was booked to do the Intensive Violent Offending Program at Acacia Prison (which is in the Perth metropolitan area) in the second quarter of 2020.[168] The respondent's further participation in that programme had been recommended in the Treatment Assessment Report prepared in July 2019,[169] after the respondent commenced the sentence imposed by Jenkins J on 17 May 2019.
2. The respondent signed a Treatment Program Participation Waiver on 19 October 2020, declining to participate in the programme, explaining that he would only participate in the programme if it was conducted at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison (where he was located), because of the risks involved in transferring between prisons.[170] At the hearing, Ms Thatcher explained that that there were 'risk alerts against [the respondent] and towards other prisoners in terms of having to locate to another facility', and she acknowledged that those circumstances 'could have ... quite likely complicated his ability to be enrolled in [programmes] at other facilities'.[171] In summary, the respondent's concerns about his welfare were considered to be genuine, and the Department also held similar concerns about him transferring to another prison.
3. I accept, as was noted by Dr Wynn Owen in his evidence, that the respondent's waiver of participation in the Intensive Violent Offending Program for a second time was not due to an unwillingness to engage in the programme. The course was not subsequently offered at the Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison prior to the respondent's release from custody.[172]
4. Nevertheless, the recommendation in the 2019 Treatment Assessment Report that the respondent participate again in that programme was understandable, given the fact that the respondent's offending in 2015 and 2017 was evidence that he had not sustained in a meaningful way the gains he appeared to have made from his previous participation in the programme. There was a sound foundation for the assessment that the respondent had outstanding treatment needs in relation to his violent disposition. At the time the respondent was released on the ISO in 2022, those treatment needs were still outstanding. The gains he was considered to have made in the second Pathways Program would be expected to go some way to mitigating the respondent's risk of future violent offending, but they had yet to be tested in the community in high‑risk situations. In any event, those gains did not necessarily address some of the factors, related to the respondent's personality and deficits in his ability to deal with conflict, that put him at risk of serious violent offending.

1. On 16 November 2022, the Prisoners Review Board made a post‑sentence supervision order in respect of the respondent, which was to commence on 4 December 2022, when the respondent was due to complete his sentence. For reasons set out at [9] above, at the preliminary hearing of this application, Quinlan CJ concluded that the post‑sentence supervision order would not adequately meet the requirements of community protection pending the final determination of the application. Once his Honour made the ISO on 18 November 2022, to come into effect on 4 December 2022, the post‑sentence supervision order was cancelled in accordance with the Sentence Administration Act and the HRSO Act.

The respondent's performance in the community while subject to the ISO

1. Prior to the hearing of this application on 30 May 2023, the respondent had been in the community, subject to the ISO, for over six months. His compliance with the ISO and his general performance in the community during that period was taken into account by the expert witnesses in their assessments of the respondent's risk. It is appropriate, therefore, to examine the evidence in that regard before turning to the expert evidence.
2. The following outline is drawn from the Community Assessment Report dated 10 May 2023, by Ms Phillipa Casserly, the Senior CCO responsible for supervising the respondent.[173]
3. As at the time of the hearing, the respondent had been managed in the community by the Kalgoorlie Adult Community Corrections Centre (ACC) since his release from custody on 4 December 2022, and he was supervised by Ms Casserly from 20 February 2023. The respondent was released to an address in Esperance, which is approximately 390 km from Kalgoorlie, where the Kalgoorlie ACC is located, requiring travel by vehicle of more than four hours, depending on road conditions. Staff from Kalgoorlie ACC travel to Esperance once per month, which meant that supervision of the respondent alternated between in‑person contact in Esperance and telephone contact, enabling a routine of weekly contact to be established and maintained. Minimal changes had occurred to that routine, but the Kalgoorlie ACC had been flexible when it was necessary.
4. In relation to telephone supervision, the respondent had initiated the contact in a timely manner. There had been five in‑person supervision sessions, one each month from December 2022 to 19 April 2023, and the respondent was due for his next session on 17 May 2023. Ms Casserly reported that the respondent had maintained suitable engagement, remained respectful and had been forthcoming with information during discussions.
5. The respondent had travelled to Kalgoorlie on two occasions since his release. Initially upon his release from custody, an exclusion zone was imposed restricting the respondent's ability to enter Kalgoorlie, primarily because Kalgoorlie was the last known location of the victim of his index offence. A request by the respondent to travel to Kalgoorlie in February 2023, following a family bereavement, was initially declined because the time frame for making appropriate plans to enable the respondent to enter the exclusion zone was too short, but discussion was commenced to enable him to attend the funeral. When informed of the initial decision, the respondent expressed frustration and presented as upset, but he appeared to maintain suitable control. In relation to a subsequent bereavement later in February 2023, the respondent was granted permission to enter the exclusion zone in Kalgoorlie, as he had provided a detailed travel plan.. The funeral was postponed, so that trip did not occur, but the respondent was given permission to attend in March 2023.
6. Having regard to the need for further travel by the respondent, and after consultation with the Victim‑Offender Mediation Unit, the exclusion zone around Kalgoorlie was removed.
7. Ms Casserly noted that there had been concerns in relation to the reliability of the signal from the respondent's GPS equipment during travel between Esperance and Kalgoorlie, but no issues arose.
8. On 21 April 2023, the respondent made a request to travel the same day to Kalgoorlie to support his daughter and newborn granddaughter following their transfer to Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital. He was granted permission, and he returned to Esperance on 25 April 2023.
9. Ms Casserly reported that, during each period of travel to Kalgoorlie, the respondent complied with the proposed travel plan, his curfew requirement and other directions issued by Kalgoorlie ACC regarding his need to attend for urinalysis testing or supervision in person at Kalgoorlie ACC.
10. As for addressing the respondent's treatment needs in respect of his violent offending and substance use, the respondent was referred to the Department's Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) on 23 January 2023. The referral was subsequently declined by FPIT on 13 March 2023, as there was no service provider in the Esperance or Kalgoorlie region who could provide the respondent treatment in person. Consultation by means of Telehealth was not recommended, because it was considered that the respondent's diagnosis of a dissocial personality disorder could create difficulties for engagement in counselling by that means.[174] I will return to the viability of Telehealth as a means of delivering counselling to the respondent when I deal with the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen, Ms Hasson and Ms Thatcher. It is sufficient to note at this stage that the issues referred to by Ms Thatcher in respect of counselling by that means were not really concerned with problems that may arise due to the respondent's personality; rather, they were to do with external factors and concerns about privacy.
11. In any event, on 15 February 2023, the respondent was referred to Hope Community Services in Esperance for substance misuse counselling. The respondent attended appointments for screening and initial assessment in April and May 2023, and, at the time of Ms Casserly's report, he was booked to attend another appointment on 18 May 2023 and had a plan for regular fortnightly appointments. That appointment was cancelled by the service provider, who informed Ms Casserly, noting that the respondent had requested they do so. Subsequently, the respondent attended the rescheduled first counselling session on 29 May 2023, the day before the hearing.[175]
12. In relation to drug use, the evidence indicated the respondent had remained abstinent while in the community. By the time of Ms Casserly's report of 10 May 2023, the respondent had undergone 20 urinalysis tests in the community, all of which returned valid negative results. By the time of the hearing, there had been a further test on 19 May 2023, which was also negative.[176] Given the time that had elapsed since the respondent's release from custody, and the fact that he had been compliant with the urinalysis testing requirements, the Department had reduced the frequency of urinalysis testing, and it was occurring randomly. There was one instance on which the respondent failed to attend for urinalysis testing, as directed, on 17 March 2023, which he subsequently explained was due to forgetfulness at a time when he had received directions about other commitments. He complied with the next request. It is evident the respondent's explanation was accepted, having regard to his general performance.
13. The respondent had also undergone breath testing for alcohol, also with negative results. Police had indicated an intention to reduce the frequency of breath testing, which would become more random.[177]
14. In respect of mental health treatment, the respondent had been engaged with the Esperance Community Mental Health (CMH) Services since his release from custody. Ms Casserly had maintained ongoing communication with CMH to monitor the respondent's engagement and presentation. The information provided by CMH to Ms Casserly indicated that the respondent had initiated contact with CMH, and, after being triaged on 9 December 2022, was seen by a visiting psychiatrist on 4 January 2023 for his first psychiatric appointment. The psychiatrist determined that the respondent should be reviewed every three to six months, or as needed. The respondent was receiving a monthly injection of antipsychotic medication (Paliperidone) and was taking another antipsychotic medication (Quetiapine) orally twice a day, as well as an antidepressant daily. An additional daily antidepressant (Desvenlafaxine) was prescribed at a further assessment on 15 March 2023.[178]
15. It appears that CMH maintained telephone contact with the respondent, and he attended for a mental health assessment on 24 February 2023. The respondent was allocated a case manager who commenced case management from 8 March 2023, with a plan to maintain fortnightly contact. The case manager told Ms Casserly on 9 March 2023 that the respondent had been 'polite, insightful and motivated to remain out of prison' and said he had 'reflected on the impact of previous drug/alcohol use on his mental health and subsequent behaviour'.[179] In subsequent correspondence on 11 April 2023, the case manager said the respondent's mental health was stable, other than for adjustments following his release from custody.[180] It was considered that there would be a reduced need for case management long term, although, as at 3 May 2023, the timeframe for gradual withdrawal from case management was not yet specified. It would need to allow for adjustment by the respondent within the community.[181] Apart from case management by CMH, the respondent was to have ongoing engagement with the visiting psychiatrist, with his next review scheduled for 14 June 2023.
16. On 3 May 2023, Ms Casserly spoke with the respondent about his engagement with CMH. He acknowledged the support he had received in transitioning into the community from prison, in particular to address any concerns and changes in his needs.[182] The respondent was aware of the likely reduction in his engagement with CMH in the future, if his mental health stability was maintained, and he thought it would further increase his independence, although he understood that CMH would remain available to him for support as needed.[183]
17. As at the time of Ms Casserly's report, the respondent had been subject to a curfew between 9.00 pm and 6.00 am daily since his release from custody. The respondent had been compliant with the curfew and there had been no issues with electronic monitoring.[184] Initially the respondent was subject to curfew checks by the police twice nightly, which also allowed the police to check for the presence of others at the address and to enable them to conduct breath testing of the respondent. After 9 March 2023, the frequency of curfew checks was reduced to once nightly, before a set time, to minimise the impact on the respondent's sleep where possible.[185] Given the respondent's continued compliance, random curfew checks were agreed upon by the respondent's CCO and police from 28 April 2023. Further, after discussion between Ms Casserly and the respondent on 3 May 2023, the start time of the curfew was amended to 10.00 pm.
18. Esperance Police had been actively involved in the respondent's management from the time of his release from prison. Until 28 April 2023, the respondent had been meeting with the detectives assigned to him on a weekly basis so they could review his circumstances and complete required documentation.[186] The frequency of meetings was then reduced to fortnightly, with a view to reducing the frequency further in the near future. Feedback from the police to the Department was that the respondent had engaged suitably and was cooperative. Police also had informal interactions with the respondent in the community, and they had no concerns.
19. Sometime prior to being interviewed by the expert witnesses, the respondent obtained his driver's licence, which was a goal he had set himself to achieve soon after his release from prison.[187]
20. In summary, the respondent had not committed any offences while in the community, and, except for the one missed urinalysis test, he had been fully compliant with the conditions of the ISO, to the point that there had been some relaxation of some of the monitoring and management of his circumstances as outlined above.
21. It is apt to note Dr Wynn Owen's comment in his report in respect of the respondent's compliance:[188]

Mr Hansen has faced a number of issues since release, including the death of a family member, an assault on his then pregnant eldest daughter in Kalgoorlie and the birth of his first grandchild. He has managed these without relapse into substance use or marked deterioration of mental state. His requests to travel, for a funeral and to visit his daughter and grandchild in hospital, have been appropriate and he has handled a request being declined. When travelling, on 2 occasions, to Kalgoorlie Mr Hansen has complied with all CCO requirements and requirements of the ISO.

Psychiatric and psychological evidence in respect of risk

1. In the course of the reasons above, I have referred, in context, to parts of the risk assessment reports and oral evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, in relation to the respondent's accounts of his personal background, his offending, his substance use and his mental health, and in relation to the respondent's prison history and his performance on the ISO. The following outline of the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson will deal with the respondent's presentation at interview, the assessments they undertook of the respondent's risk of future violent offending, their findings and opinions in respect of his risk, and their recommendations for management of that risk.

1. Dr Wynn Owen interviewed the respondent on 17 and 18 April 2023 at the Esperance CMH. He reported that the respondent presented as a 'very overweight casually dressed man who looked much older than his stated 37 years'.[189] The respondent's mood was stable and euthymic, although his emotional expression was somewhat blunted.[190] He was cooperative, open and polite. Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent did not demonstrate any thought disorder, delusion or perceptual disturbance.
2. The respondent spoke of a desire to get his boys (Sarah's children) over from New South Wales for a holiday. He also spoke of plans to get his own home and employment, possibly in cleaning.[191] At the time of the interview, the respondent was in a relationship, but he said he was 'not fussed about it', as he was more focussed on his immediate family and remaining in the community without breaching the ISO.[192]
3. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he recognised that substance abuse is his major risk, but he also acknowledged that his emotional regulation had been poor in the past, and that he needed to recognise negative emotions (referring in particular to anger) and manage them.[193] He said he disliked being in the presence of people who are arguing, and that he should avoid such situations.
4. The respondent said he had had no craving for illicit substances since his return to the community. He said he had told old friends, 'no drugs', and that if they are using drugs, smoking, or drinking, he just removes himself from the situation.[194]
5. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that his risk is greater if he is mentally unwell, and that he should comply with prescribed medications and the advice of his mental health team.[195]
6. The respondent said that he had had enough of being in prison, and he realises that he will lose the opportunity to spend time with his children and family if he were to continue with his past pattern of behaviour. He also said he now realises the negative impact of his offending on his family and 'the pain [he had] caused to victims'.[196]
7. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that he intended to continue to comply with the conditions of a supervision order, if such an order was made, and that he understood why the conditions were in place. He also said he realised that any further violent offence would probably result in him having to serve a significant term of imprisonment 'and possibly the loss of a last chance to reconnect with his children and family'.[197]
8. In summary, the respondent demonstrated good insight into his risk factors and the impact of his offending, and an appreciation of the need for conditions to manage that risk in the community. He also indicated that he had prosocial plans and motivation to remain offence‑free and abstinent from illicit drugs and alcohol.

1. Dr Wynn Owen diagnosed the respondent as having schizoaffective disorder, depressive type.[198] Schizoaffective disorder is different from schizophrenia, although in the long‑term the conditions present similarly.[199] People with schizophrenia have a range of symptoms in which they lose the ability to test reality due to altered perception.[200] People with schizoaffective disorder experience a fluctuation of mood with significant changes, which may be manic or depressive or both (bipolar), together with 'a group of very classic schizophrenic‑type symptoms of auditory hallucinations, delusions, etcetera'.[201] The schizophrenic‑type (i.e. psychotic) symptoms are not necessarily congruent with the mood changes.[202]
2. Dr Wynn Owen noted that it is possible that the respondent's drug use uncovered a latent schizoaffective disorder that might otherwise not have occurred, but it is difficult to distinguish between a drug‑induced psychotic condition and an underlying schizoaffective disorder that has been 'sparked off' by drug use.[203] From a treatment perspective, it makes no difference. The symptoms need to be treated anyway to enable the respondent to maintain stability of mood and to protect him against a loss of touch with reality involving paranoid thinking and perceptual disturbances.[204]
3. The respondent's schizoaffective disorder was in remission when Dr Wynn Owen examined him. In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, the respondent had responded very well to medication.[205] However, it is unlikely that the respondent's disorder will resolve itself. Dr Wynn Owen explained that, unless the respondent receives ongoing treatment, he is likely to continue experiencing mood swings, particularly depressive swings, and psychotic symptoms, intermittently, probably in the context of multiple stressors.[206]
4. Dr Wynn Owen also diagnosed the respondent with substance use disorder, which was also in remission at the time of the examination.[207]
5. In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, the respondent also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder.[208] This is significant in assessing the respondent's risk of reoffending, because 'having a background of antisocial personality disorder usually suggests antisocial cognitions, the willingness to breach laws, [and] the ability to cause pain, harm and suffering to others without significant concern'.[209] Dr Wynn Owen noted that, while the personality disorder '[does not] go away completely', if an individual recognises the existence of the disorder, in terms of recognising relevant aspects of their behaviour and how they are sometimes reinforced, the disorder can be managed and moderated.[210] The respondent showed appropriate awareness in that regard.[211]

1. As Dr Wynn Owen explained in his report, a person's risk of reoffending cannot be predicted accurately, but the most reliable indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour, particularly if there is an established and enduring pattern of a behaviour or behaviours.[212] Dr Wynn Owen further explained that a person's future risk of offending is modified by a range of factors, including life experience, social and interpersonal context, personality, cognitive capacity and mental state, the opportunity given to the person to address risk and the individual's response to such opportunity, and the presence and impact of a range of dynamic variables.[213]
2. Dr Wynn Owen used a 'Structured Professional Judgement' approach to risk assessment, which takes into account static and historical risk factors, using a combination of actuarial tools, structured assessment guides and a clinical psychiatric assessment. This approach has been demonstrated to be significantly more accurate than clinical review alone or utilising a single risk assessment tool or modality.[214]
3. The tools used by Dr Wynn Owen were: (a) the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Revised, 2013 (VRAG‑R); (b) the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, Second edition, 2003 (PCL‑R); and (c) the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20 Version 3 (HCR‑20 V3).[215] He noted that the tools were not developed specifically for use with Indigenous Australian offenders, and, with limited or absent validation research within that population, the results should be considered critically.[216] That said, the core factors of offending history, antisocial behaviours and personality disorder, presence or absence of mental illness and substance abuse have been consistently shown to have high relevance for risk across all cultures.[217] However, Dr Wynn Owen further noted that Indigenous Australian offenders tend to attract consistently higher scores on risk assessment tools than non‑indigenous offenders, and the contribution of inter‑generational trauma, social disadvantage and systemic racism should be taken into consideration when assessing scores and findings from the risk assessment tools.[218]
4. I have taken those matters into account in considering Dr Wynn Owen's findings (and, later, Ms Hasson's findings) set out below.

1. The VRAG‑R is an actuarial risk tool designed to assess the likelihood of violent or sexual reoffending among male offenders by the use of scores in respect of twelve items within seven 'domains' relating to the person's living situation, school performance, substance use, marital status, criminal history, index offence, and personality.[219]
2. Dr Wynn Owen explained that the VRAG‑R is based on established historical facts, and looks at individual risks which have been shown to elevate the likelihood of future offending, and 'the links between those risks and how a certain group of risks can be brought together to demonstrate [there is] a distinct, increased likelihood [of future offending].[220] He said that the VRAG‑R looks at a number of factors historically, in terms of victim selection, frequency of offending, other generalist offending, substance use and other matters.[221] The tool then brings the information together into a score which estimates, at a group level, 'the chance of somebody committing an offence based on reviewing past offenders being released with the same score'.[222]
3. Dr Wynn Owen explained that the statistical estimate for reoffending for offenders with a particular score under the VRAG‑R was in respect of all offenders released with the same score, both those subject to supervision and those who were not subject to any supervision upon release. Where the instrument estimates a recidivism rate, it is not possible to know how many of those in the data set who have reoffended in the past were subject to supervision, and how many were not.[223] Dr Wynn Owen said there is a paucity of data on the impact of specific types of supervision.[224] The data has come predominantly from North America and a number of European studies.[225]
4. While Dr Wynn Owen maintained there was a need for caution in applying the instrument to Indigenous Australian offenders, he said that the 'core bases in terms of past offending' have been shown to be 'almost equally predictive across all Indigenous and non‑Indigenous groups that have been considered', having been 'replicated now across a range of Indigenous groupings across the world, including Australian Indigenous people'.[226] One reason to maintain caution is that it appears particularly within western societies that 'Indigenous groups are more likely to be charged, per se, and the charge that they receive for a particular set of behaviours is more likely to be slightly more severe'.[227] However, Dr Wynn Owen noted that, when the person is assessed to be at the highest risk level (will appear below in respect of the respondent), while the bias referred to by Dr Wynn Owen may have been a factor, one is still looking at an offender who is 'at the extremes' of that group.[228]
5. Apart from the need for caution in the application of a risk assessment tool to Indigenous Australian offenders, an obvious limitation of the VRAG‑R is that it provides only a group estimate of the risk of future offending and is not specific to the respondent. Dr Wynn Owen explained that the VRAG‑R does not provide information to understand the context of the respondent's past behaviours (whether social, emotional or developmental). Nor does it address factors personal to the respondent that can change. So, while it tells an 'important story which is that past behaviour is probably the most significant predictor of future behaviour', it does not provide enough information about the individual to be certain that the score is accurate.[229] That requires an appraisal of dynamic risks, and consideration of protective factors specific to the respondent, to come to a conclusion about his overall risk of future offending.[230] In summary, the score on the VRAG‑R is one factor to be considered with other factors in the assessment of risk.
6. The respondent's score on the VRAG‑R was in the highest risk category. Offenders with the same score, on release, had a 76% likelihood of committing a new violent offence within 5 years of release, and an 87% likelihood of committing a new violent offence within 12 years of release.[231] In other words, of 100 prisoners (who are violent offenders) with the same score as the respondent upon release from custody, at least 76 would be convicted of a new violent offence within 5 years, and at least 87 would be convicted of such an offence within 12 years of release.[232] Dr Wynn Owen noted that the score on the VRAG‑R relates to the likelihood of committing any new violent offence, not only violent offences defined as serious offences under the HRSO Act.[233] However, the frequency of a person's past violent offending would increase the likelihood of the person committing a serious violent offence more imminently.[234] Dr Wynn Owen explained in cross‑examination:[235]

I'm saying that the ... likelihood of that serious offence will be in the context of a degree of the frequency and looking at his past behaviour. So, there's a certain set of serious offences that have occurred over long duration, and within that there have also been a number of other violent offences. And so ... there is ... a pattern in the past that shows us that within the context of a number of violent offences, one of them will be serious on a regular basis. So that's the frequency I'm using.

1. The PCL-R scores a number of factors relevant to determining whether a person meets the 'construct' for psychopathy.[236] The construct has not been validated in Indigenous Australian offenders, particularly those from regional and remote Australia who have a traditional cultural background.[237] As I understood Dr Wynn Owen's evidence, while this may affect the reliance one could place on a score that met the construct in the case of an Indigenous Australian offender, it does not render irrelevant the scores on individual items, subject to one qualification referred to below.
2. The respondent's score was in the low twenties, meaning that he did not fit the construct for psychopathy.[238]
3. Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent's profile indicated high levels of social deviance, antisocial lifestyle, and antisocial and criminal behaviours,[239] although the score in respect of antisocial lifestyle may be artificially escalated by 'endemic police and criminal justice system attitudes toward Indigenous Australians'.[240]

1. The HCR‑20 V3 is a structured professional guideline. It serves as an assessment, monitoring and management tool, which considers the presence of a range of historical/static risk factors and dynamic risk factors for future interpersonal violence.[241] As Dr Wynn Owen explained in oral evidence, the instrument 'looks at history, but then asks the ... assessor to consider how the person is presenting currently, and with any information one has about current and recent presentations and behaviours ... on the basis of both of those [i.e. including the person's history], to consider factors in the future that might be useful in treating any of the criminogenic needs that ... have been identified in relation to risk, and specific high‑risk situations which should be addressed in any sort of supervision or monitoring'.[242]
2. Dr Wynn Owen explained in his report that the instrument has been used extensively in Australia and internationally in decision‑making about whether a person should be released from 'correctional and clinical settings', in the monitoring of risk and the development of risk management strategies during periods when a person is held in an institution or is incarcerated, and during community supervision by correctional, forensic and psychiatric authorities.[243]
3. Dr Wynn Owen found that all of the HCR‑20 V3 historical risk factors are present in the respondent's case.[244]
4. In respect of the risk factor of history of problems with violence, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent has demonstrated a propensity for violence that has persisted from adolescence into adulthood, and which has been both reactive and planned. Victims of the respondent's offending have suffered potentially significant physical injuries. Dr Wynn Owen noted that, of particular significance to future high risk situations, is the respondent's history of violence towards intimate partners.[245]
5. In respect of the risk factor of history of problems with other antisocial behaviour, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent has a history of antisocial behaviours commencing in adolescence, including persistent substance abuse from an early age and individual and group criminal activity, including illegal activity for the purpose of personal financial gain. He said that antisocial behaviour across developmental stages, such as the respondent's persistent antisocial behaviour from adolescence to adulthood, is indicative of a pervasive pattern of such behaviour.[246] Elsewhere in his report, Dr Wynn Owen referred to the fact that, when he was 17 years old, the respondent was charged with murder and unlawful wounding, and was remanded in custody, but he was found not guilty of those charges.[247] Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the respondent's experience of being charged with murder as a juvenile, the charges then being dismissed, is likely to have reduced his trust in authorities and reinforced antiauthoritarian beliefs.[248]
6. In respect of the risk factor of history of problems with relationships, Dr Wynn Owen referred to the respondent's history of offending, arising from associating with antisocial peers and family members, and his history of violence towards intimate partners.[249] The respondent's family relationships and friendships have been associated, at times, with conflict, antisocial influence, criminal behaviour and violence.[250] This risk factor is associated with an elevated risk of future violent offending, as problems with relationships can result in a lack of positive social and emotional support, with associated isolation and negative affect.[251]
7. In respect of the risk factor of history of problems with employment, the respondent had not had paid employment since the age of 16. Although the respondent indicated to Dr Wynn Owen a willingness to find employment if he were to be subject to a supervision order,[252] Dr Wynn Owen still considered this risk factor to be present, as problems with employment are linked with financial stress, and are associated with an increased likelihood of a range of criminal behaviours.[253]
8. In respect of the risk factor of history of problems with substance use, which is obvious from the history outlined above, Dr Wynn Owen noted that, in the past, the respondent has relapsed into a pattern of substance use once he has returned to the community after a period of incarceration, and that pattern remained unchanged after completing treatment programmes in 2012 and 2013. This risk factor is associated with an increased likelihood of future violent offending, particularly when the respondent is intoxicated.[254]
9. The risk factor of history of problems with major mental disorder is also present, as appears from the history outlined above. Dr Wynn Owen noted that psychotic symptoms experienced by the respondent while in an intimate relationship appear to have at times been directly associated with his violent offending.[255]
10. In respect of the risk factor of history of problems with personality disorder, Dr Wynn Owen noted that it reflects 'serious problems resulting from fixed and maladaptive personality traits related to interpersonal style, behavioural controls, emotionality, cognitive style and sense of self'.[256] Dr Wynn Owen also noted that an antisocial personality, with which he diagnosed the respondent, is strongly associated with future risk of violent offending.[257]
11. In respect of the risk factor of history of problems with traumatic experiences, Dr Wynn Owen referred to the respondent's exposure to violence and substance use, the tragic loss of two of his brothers, and the 'emotional and actual absence of parents and of positive parental role models'.[258] He explained that traumatic experiences are likely to adversely affect normal development, the ability to form attachments, prosocial learning, and problem solving. Further, the early exposure to, and normalisation of, violence and neglect are experiences found more frequently in individuals who themselves engage in general criminality and violence.[259]
12. The risk factor of history of problems with violent attitudes, which reflects a history of entrenched violent attitudes, beliefs, values or thoughts, in particular the belief that use of violence is a viable option to resolve conflict or to achieve goals, was identified by Dr Wynn Owen as apparent from the respondent's past pattern of violent behaviour. Individuals with pro‑violence attitudes are at increased risk of future violent behaviour.[260]
13. The risk factor of history of problems with treatment or supervision response was identified by Dr Wynn Owen as being present in the respondent's case, due to his history of offending while subject to post‑release conditions, and the fact that he continued to commit violent offences in the context of ongoing substance use, despite participating in treatment programmes to address his offending, substance abuse and violence in 2012 to 2013. Problems with supervision are associated with an increased future risk of general criminality and violent offending, as supervision conditions designed to mitigate risk are not adhered to by the offender.[261]
14. Dr Wynn Owen assessed that none of the current clinical risk factors identified in the HCR‑20 V3 were present. Those factors are recent problems with insight; recent problems with violent ideation or intent; recent problems with symptoms of major mental disorder; recent problems with instability; and recent problems with treatment or supervision response.
15. In summary, the respondent demonstrated insight into his risk factors, in particular his substance abuse and mental illness, and the fact that substance abuse would put him at significant risk of relapse into mental illness. He showed awareness of the need to remain abstinent from any alcohol or drug use, and was able to explain that intoxication affects his impulse control, his capacity to think about the consequences of his actions, and his ability to recognise and manage his emotional state. The respondent had demonstrated his commitment to remaining abstinent, taking medication for his mental illness and engagement with his mental health team to maintain his mental stability, by his behaviour since his release in December 2022.[262] Further, the respondent's mental state at interview was stable and he reported that he had not had any recent signs or symptoms of schizoaffective disorder.[263]
16. In relation to violent ideation or intent, the respondent denied any recent violent thoughts in relation to interpersonal or other stressful situations, and was able to cite a recent incident in which he would previously have had such thoughts. This was the incident in which his daughter had contacted him for support after she had been assaulted while pregnant. The respondent told Dr Wynn Owen that, rather than take matters into his own hands and seek revenge, as he acknowledged he would have done in the past, he attempted to provide comfort to his daughter and recommended that she contact the police to address the issue with the offender.[264]
17. In relation to stability, Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent had maintained emotional and behavioural stability since his release from prison, during a period (the first six months after release) that is often the most stressful for an individual reintegrating into the community, with stresses related to social relationships, accommodation, finance and mobility.[265] The respondent had also maintained that stability in the context of having to adapt to the conditions of the ISO, which included reporting on multiple occasions, and 'very frequent and intrusive policing of conditions to address the risk of substance use'.[266] Moreover, in respect of treatment and supervision, the respondent had been compliant with the conditions of the ISO, with requests made by the supervising authorities and his mental health team, and with his medication.[267]
18. In relation to risk factors concerned with future problems, Dr Wynn Owen found that the risk factors of future problems with living situation and future problems with personal support were not present. The respondent was in stable accommodation with his mother (who was the primary tenant of the premises), her partner, and his sister.[268] He had support from his mother and sister, and maintained positive contact with his ex‑partner, Sarah. Apart from assisting the respondent to maintain emotional stability, his support network was conducive to positive reinforcement of prosocial behaviours, notwithstanding that the respondent's mother and some other family members had engaged in criminal behaviour in the past.[269] The prosocial influence of the respondent's family had been corroborated by Ms Casserly when Dr Wynn Owen discussed the matter with her.[270]
19. Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the risk factor of future problems with professional services and plans was partly present. This risk relates to the development of plans for the future, pre‑release and post‑release, that incorporate appropriate utilisation of professional services and supports, including programmes and supervision, to avoid future violent behaviour.[271] Since his release from prison, the respondent had followed through with plans to access professional services, including recent engagement with a private substance abuse counselling provider, but, since the programmes in 2012 and 2013, he had not completed a group-based violent offender treatment programme or engaged in specific individual counselling to address his violent offending. Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent had not been offered such counselling by Corrective Services.[272]
20. Dr Wynn Owen also considered that the risk factor of future problems with treatment or supervision response is possibly present. Although the respondent had demonstrated ongoing compliance with the conditions of the ISO and with mental health treatment for a period of six months, stress related deterioration in his mental state could occur at a later time and be associated with reduced compliance with his medication, leading to an elevation of his risk.[273] Loss of insight and recurrence of mental illness could also be associated with a return to substance abuse.[274] However, Dr Wynn Owen noted that it was important to recognise that the respondent had managed well on the ISO up to that time, and had shown no evidence of relapse.[275] He also noted again that the respondent had not been offered therapeutic intervention to address his criminogenic factors since he was unable to participate in the Violent Offender Intensive Program in 2020. He said that a review of gains made by the respondent in the last Pathways Program he completed, in respect of understanding and managing substance abuse and the rehearsal of scenarios, as well as specific therapy to address past violent cognitions and beliefs, would be of significant benefit in consolidating and improving the respondent's capacity to self‑manage his future risk of serious offending.[276] Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the substance use counselling the respondent had recently commenced would assist him in maintaining abstinence.[277]
21. Dr Wynn Owen considered that the risk factor of future problems with stress or coping is possibly present. Dr Wynn Owen acknowledged that the respondent had managed well to date during a stressful period of community reintegration, and he was able to cite a number of instances where he had responded differently from the way he would have responded in the past, avoiding becoming angry, resentful or violent. However, notwithstanding that success, 'the respondent has a long history of poor coping and stress management, such that future problems cannot be excluded, particularly in the face of multiple layers of stress, of a combined chronic and acute nature'.[278] In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, this could be particularly relevant if the respondent's current family supports were to be absent or unavailable.
22. When asked for his overall view of the respondent's risk after administering the HCR‑20 V3, Dr Wynn Owen said:[279]

The overall view was that ... he has ... a very high weighting of past behaviour in the context of somebody with an ... antisocial personality who has basically supported their lifestyle through ... drug dealing and ... crime. He has struggled with relationships, whether they have been with his peers or in intimate relationships. He has had ongoing reinforcement of behaviours through antisocial relationships. He has been unable to gain from previous treatment input in relation to substance use and violent attitudes.

So there's a long history also of attempted inputs that have ... been unsuccessful, so the past is still an important consideration in looking at his current risk, but what the HCR-20 also demonstrated was that, within the constraints of the ISO, he has been able to manage those aspects that he needed to manage of himself, so he has demonstrated a change in his coping, he has demonstrated a change in his ability to engage with supervision positively and ... to report on ... a regular basis. He has also demonstrated a change in his willingness to engage in mental health services consistently in ... a self-motivated way, because a number of times he has been released after that sort of diagnosis in 2011 and still didn't engage well with mental health services or abused substances while taking those medications.

So those changes have been apparent and have been sustained for the duration of the order to date. And I also mention that there are a couple of protective factors. So having a family, notwithstanding that ... his mother and other family members may have had some criminal behaviours themselves in the past, they appear to have been very prosocial, in terms of their attempts to support [the respondent]. And that was corroborated by my discussions with Ms Casserly, his CCO, who has had contact with the family. So, on balance, it looked to me as if the interim supervision order was at present effective in helping [the respondent] to sustain change to this point.

1. In cross-examination, Dr Wynn Owen agreed that the HCR‑20 V3 assessment showed there were no immediate risks in respect of the respondent.[280]

1. Dr Wynn Owen considered the respondent's most likely risk scenario to be as follows:[281]

A combination of intoxication of some form, probably amphetamine, and some conflict or negative interaction with either a peer or ... with an intimate partner, and there becoming a disproportionality violent response within that context. It could be something that happens within a very short time, if he were intoxicated. It could be complicated by his mental illness, in that if he's also at the same time experiencing some paranoid beliefs, that would perhaps reinforce suspicions about a partner, and jealously has been an issue, concerns about infidelity is an issue. But I think that combination of intoxication and poor management of the ... negative effect and emotionality of a conflict will be the ... scenario.

1. In terms of the severity of his likely behaviour based on his risk scenario, Dr Wynn Owen considered that the likely impact on victims would be 'long‑term psychological trauma that results from the sort of [violent] offending that he has committed, and the risk of life‑threatening injury'.[282]
2. Dr Wynn Owen noted that the imminence of the respondent's reoffending would be associated with illicit substance use. If the respondent were to return to such use, which Dr Wynn Owen noted could be in the context of other underlying issues such as poor management and poor coping, it would be 'much more difficult for him to manage any form of conflicts' or negative emotions.[283] It would then be 'much more likely' that the respondent would be impulsive, and his response would be disproportionate, leading to him returning to his 'fairly established thinking' that a violent response is one of his options to resolve conflict.[284]

1. Dr Wynn Owen noted that the fact the respondent had not engaged in a further violent offender treatment programme was not due to unwillingness on his part.[285] Dr Wynn Owen emphasised the need for treatment to be made available to the respondent. He considered that it is necessary for the respondent to be provided with psychological counselling that addresses the respondent's violent offending from a forensic and criminogenic base, provided by a psychologist who has an understanding of working with violent offenders and will assist him to specifically identify issues that are outstanding for him and goals he should work towards.[286]
2. Dr Wynn Owen said he did not understand the difficulties that had been identified by the Department in respect of provision of counselling by Telehealth. He was confident there were psychologists who would be prepared to provide counselling by video-conference services in Perth. He said, pointedly, but appropriately:[287]

I think Mr Hansen should be given the opportunity for that sort of service. If we're going to go through all of this effort to attempt to protect the community and protect him, and ... these processes and proceedings that we're in, for example, then, I think ... he cannot be expected to do it all on his ... own. And I think that this is a critical component of his ongoing move towards full self-management to this risk, rather than being assisted by a supervision order.

1. With the help of his CCO, the respondent has accessed some support with respect to substance use, which, as I noted in the context of dealing with the HCR‑20 V3 assessment, Dr Wynn Owen thought would assist the respondent to remain abstinent.[288] However, it was clear from Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that he considers that substance use also needs to be dealt with in the context of counselling that addresses criminogenic factors, allowing gains made by the respondent in the last Pathways Program, including strategies for avoiding relapse, to be rehearsed in manner specific to his violent offending.[289]

1. On the basis of his clinical assessment and the application of the risk‑assessment tools, Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the respondent 'still presents a high risk of serious offending', that is, of committing a serious violent offence if not subject to a restriction order.[290] In his report he explained:[291]

This opinion is based on (i) static factors being his extensive history of violent offending the presence of Antisocial Personality Disorder (with associated impulsivity, aggressiveness and lack of regard for the law and for other people) and (ii) dynamic risks resulting from mental illness and substance use disorder, violence supportive beliefs and antisocial attitudes.

1. In oral evidence he further explained:[292]

[The respondent's] antisocial personality, it is associated with a certain disregard for the law and for the rights of others, for their property and for their person. He has a ... certain aggressiveness and irritability as well in ... certain situations. He then has a number of dynamic risks, and then particularly substance abuse and if his mental illness is out of control. He has previously demonstrated that ... he is happy to pursue in the long term ... quite an antisocial lifestyle. So those attitudes are prevalent, and he is somebody who has used violence instrumentally ... and believes that violence is one of the appropriate ways ... of dealing with problems that he's presented with.

1. As noted earlier, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent has managed well with a number of stressful events, Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the risk factor of future problems with stress or coping is possibly present. He noted that the ISO is a 'very serious sort of external constraint as well as monitoring', and, in assessing the respondent's level of risk, he considered what the respondent's risk may be if he were not supervised.[293]
2. It is apparent from the whole of Dr Wynn Owen's evidence, that, notwithstanding the respondent's compliance with the conditions of the ISO and demonstrated changes in his attitudes and behaviours, the historical factors, the respondent's personality, the entrenched nature of his illicit substance use, and the fact that the stability of his mental illness is dependent on ongoing treatment, must be given greater weight in the assessment of his risk of committing a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order. In respect of the respondent's mental health, Dr Wynn Owen said in cross‑examination that the stability of the respondent's mental health is very important in reducing his risk of reoffending.[294]
3. Moreover, it was clear from Dr Wynn Owen's evidence that the respondent's positive changes must be considered in the context that he has been subject to an ISO, which has been effective in assisting him to sustain change. Further, notwithstanding those positive changes, the respondent still has outstanding treatment needs relating to his violent offending, including the relationship of his traumatic past to his offending.
4. The matters set out in the preceding paragraph were relevant considerations in determining, at the further hearing in December 2024, whether the respondent's continued compliance with the conditions of the ISO since the hearing, including his abstinence from drug use and compliance with treatment, required reconsideration of the experts' opinions at the hearing in respect of his risk.

1. Dr Wynn Owen was of the opinion that the respondent's risk, as assessed by him, could be adequately managed in the community if he were subject to a supervision order. He said:[295]

Mr Hansen's risk has been adequately managed for six months. Yes, it's a slightly different situation in that he has been awaiting the ... HRSO proceedings. But I believe that that shows that his risk can be adequately managed, because the six months does compare very favourably with some of the periods of time he has been out of prison previously and committed new offences within much, much shorter periods of time. So, I believe his risk can be managed on a supervision order.

1. Earlier, Dr Wynn Owen had said that it was 'very, very positive that [the respondent's] sustained change seems different', and that the respondent was 'absolutely going in the right direction'.[296]
2. In terms of the conditions of a supervision order that would be necessary to adequately manage the respondent's risk, Dr Wynn Owen agreed that he supported most of the conditions that had been proposed in the Community Supervision Assessment Report prepared by Ms Casserly.[297] Those conditions included a curfew and conditions that allowed for monitoring by the police and the respondent's CCO of his electronic devices and computers. At that point in time, Dr Wynn Owen considered the latter to be a 'very useful and important part of the risk management strategy', explaining:

Mr Hansen is somebody who has committed serious offences in the context of an intimate relationship and who has committed serious offences with others and in the context of antisocial peer associations. If things start to go wrong, he may well not be forthcoming about the people that he's in touch with. I believe it is an appropriate risk management strategy to at least have the capacity to check his devices and so on, and to ensure that he doesn't delete things from them, ... to ensure that he isn't developing those relationships and friendships, isn't meeting people ... on social platforms, etcetera. Not that he's doing that, but I think it's an entirely appropriate component of a risk management strategy. It doesn't need to be something that is done ... every time that he meets with his CCO. But this is a man who has the potentially disruptive problem of having a major mental illness. If he becomes unwell, that could put his capacity to manage his stress and problem solving and so on under considerable duress. That could result in either reverting to a past very, very consistent pattern of behaviour or - and including substance use, in which case this would become more important. But if it's not there, it can't be done.

1. As will appear later, other conditions that had been proposed, in addition to the conditions of the ISO, included a prohibition on going to licensed premises, a requirement to disclose any new relationships or associations, and obligations in respect of receiving medical and mental health treatment. While Dr Wynn Owen was not asked specifically about any of those, it is plain from his evidence that he considered them appropriate as part of the risk management strategy.

1. As to the duration of a supervision order, Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that it should be at least 3 years and no longer than 5 years. He thought 3 years would be necessary to enable the respondent to engage in counselling for a sufficient period of time, noting that it can take up to six months for a counsellor to get to know the individual.[298] Three years would be a significant period of time compared to his previous periods in the community after being released from custody, but would also be the minimum period of time for the respondent to demonstrate a significant sustained change, such that he could be considered to be able to self‑manage his risk.[299] Dr Wynn Owen thought that anything over 5 years would be quite onerous and could lead to a degree of resentment by the respondent.[300]

1. Dr Wynn Owen's recommendations were in relation to treatment, conditions of any supervision order and the duration of such an order, as discussed above. As to the conditions, he considered that they needed to address high risk situations specific to the respondent's history of serious offending, being 'substance use, unstable mental illness, negative/antisocial peer associations, and entering a new intimate relationship'.[301]

1. Ms Hasson interviewed the respondent in Esperance on 3 April 2023 over two sessions totalling nearly four hours.[302]
2. Ms Hasson reported that the respondent, who presented as neat and tidy and well groomed, was polite and cooperative throughout the interview process. Although he was initially anxious, he settled well into the interview and Ms Hasson was of the view that a reasonable level of rapport was established. He answered questions in a thoughtful and considered manner and provided additional spontaneous information as the interview progressed. Ms Hasson noted that the respondent did not appear to be engaging in impression management. She considered that he was a reasonable historian, and the information he disclosed was generally consistent with documentation contained in the book of materials.[303]
3. The respondent's mood was observed to be within the normal range, and, although his affect was somewhat restricted, he was reactive. He expressed positive thoughts and was future focused. He denied the presence of psychotic phenomena, indicating that he had been compliant with his medications over a long period of time and, as a result, he was the 'best' he had ever been. He said he felt much relieved by the fact that his previous psychotic symptoms had resolved.[304]
4. Much of what the respondent said to Ms Hasson about his functioning and aspirations was similar to what he said subsequently to Dr Wynn Owen.
5. The respondent told Ms Hasson that, notwithstanding any barriers to employment associated with his court history, he thought it was possible for him to obtain employment as a cleaner in the near future, as various family members were employed in that capacity at the time, and he had done relevant job training in prison.[305] He said he wished to move into a property of his own, where he could have his own space, be able to establish his own routines and have some control over his life. He was confident that he could maintain independent living and self‑care.[306] At the time of the interview, he was receiving Centrelink payments.
6. The respondent told Ms Hasson that he was becoming a 'little stressed' by the obligations of his order and the reporting requirements, and he had anticipated that he may become more stressed when interviewed for the risk assessments prior to the hearing date.[307] Ms Hasson noted that the respondent displayed 'some good insights' into his psychological functioning and coping limits, and that he appeared to have taken appropriate steps to self-manage. She considered this to be 'encouraging'.[308]
7. Similarly to what he said to Dr Wynn Owen, the respondent told Ms Hasson that he would like to increase his contact with his children. He had had some contact in person with his daughter, and he had recently become a grandfather. He also hoped to spend some time with his father and brother on the family block in a small town north‑east of Kalgoorlie.[309]
8. At the time of interview, the respondent was hoping to sit for his driver's licence.
9. The respondent told Ms Hasson that he spent much of his day in unstructured activity, listening to music and going for drives.[310] He said he used to enjoy painting, but as at the time of the interview, he did not have the motivation to engage in that activity, as he had recently experienced several deaths in the family and the associated grief and loss were having an impact on him. He said he had a couple of mates whom he was supporting. He recognised that they had some 'issues', but he believed that his previous experience as a peer support worker in prison would enable him to help others around him.[311]
10. The respondent said he intended to remain compliant with his medication and mental health regime, as he could see the benefit. He also intended to remain abstinent from alcohol and illicit drug use, 'as he does not want to become mentally unwell, engage in violence and return to prison'.[312]

1. Ms Hasson used three risk assessment tools: the PCL‑R, the HCR‑20 V3, and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment guide (SARA).

1. Ms Hasson explained that the PCL-R is a 20‑item scale that uses both historical and dynamic data for the assessment of psychopathy in research, clinical and forensic settings. It is not a risk assessment instrument to assess sexual or violent recidivism; rather, it provides information relevant to risk, risk management, and treatment responsivity.[313] It is specifically relevant in the context of violent offending because there is a qualitative difference between the violence of psychopaths and non-psychopaths.[314] It is scored across one's entire lifespan, not on the basis of present state or relatively recent behavioural change.[315]
2. The respondent's score was 20, so he did not fit the criteria for psychopathy, the cut off score for which is 30. However, Ms Hasson noted that the respondent's score was loaded heavily with historical factors which related to items such as his antisocial and socially deviant lifestyle, which had been impulsive and irresponsible, as well as his limited remorse and empathy, poor behavioural controls, and lack of realistic long term goals. Ms Hasson was of the view that the respondent does not present with the more prototypical interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy.[316]

1. Ms Hasson's findings on the HCR‑20 V3 accorded largely with findings made subsequently by Dr Wynn Owen, as described above.
2. In her report, Ms Hasson clarified in respect of the HCR‑20 V3 that the guidelines are used to assess risk of violence, which is defined as 'actual, attempted or threatened infliction of bodily harm [to] another person'.[317] The behaviours considered when using this instrument include 'those that cause or have the potential to cause physical or serious psychological harm', which includes 'fear of physical injury as well as other emotional, mental or cognitive consequences that substantially interfere with health and well‑being'.[318] It can be seen, therefore, that the risk of violence assessed by the application of the HCR‑20 V3 is in respect of much broader behaviour than is encompassed by serious violent offences under the HRSO Act.
3. Like Dr Wynn Owen, Ms Hasson found that all of the historical factors were present in the respondent's case and were relevant to future risk and management. Ms Hasson gave detailed explanations for her findings, which were largely to the same effect as Dr Wynn Owen's explanations outlined above. It is sufficient to note the following particular comments in Ms Hasson's report.
4. In relation to the risk factor of problems with personality disorder, Ms Hasson confirmed that the respondent meets the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, based on behaviours since late adolescence. However, she noted that, while the risk factor remains present, there was no overt evidence of aspects of the respondent's antisocial personality during her interview with him, and that it is expected that such personality traits can be moderated with time, age and engagement in programmes and counselling.[319] She also noted the respondent had indicated a strong desire to change.[320]
5. In relation to the risk factor of problems with traumatic experiences, Ms Hasson said in her report:[321]

This risk factor describes a history of experiencing harmful or traumatic events, at any point during the lifespan, which may disrupt normative development, attachment processes or learning of prosocial attitudes and problem-solving skills.

1. Apart from the respondent's exposure to violence and drug use, having been the victim of violence, and his feelings of abandonment, Ms Hasson referred to the respondent's traumatic loss of two brothers in a fire. She also referred to the respondent's experience as a 17‑year‑old of being charged with, and later acquitted of, murder, an experience the respondent described as distressing and having had a significant impact on him.[322] It appears that impact was also due to the fact that the respondent had been present when the victim lost his life.[323] Ms Hasson said:[324]

It will be important for Mr Hansen to process and understand the impact of his experiences on his choices and decisions and consider what if any link may exist with his offending behaviour. For much of his life Mr Hansen has lived in an environment where criminal and antisocial behaviour and drug use was normalised. Over time this environment crowded out engagement in employment and other pro-socially meaningful activities and connections.

1. In relation to clinical factors concerned with recent problems with insight, violent ideation or intent, symptoms of major mental disorder, instability and treatment or supervision response, Ms Hasson was of the same view as Dr Wynn Owen that they were not present, although she considered that they remained relevant for risk management.[325]
2. Ms Hasson explained in evidence:[326]

All of those risk factors under the clinical scale remain relevant for Mr Hansen. When we look at the clinical factors, we're looking - the definition of recent is in the past few weeks or the past few months. So for him, none of these items have been relevant for some time, especially since his release, but they remain relevant risk factors for future and they're dynamic risk factors. So, they're ones that should be monitored and looked at and spoken about with him on a regular basis.

1. Specifically in respect of insight, Ms Hasson made the following comments in her report, which touch on the respondent's treatment needs, to which I will return below:[327]

During the current assessment Mr Hansen displayed insight into his risk of reoffending and appeared to appreciate the seriousness of his offending behaviour and to some extent was able to acknowledge the impact it has on his victims. Mr Hansen acknowledges a significant substance abuse problem and is aware that substance use is linked to his offending. Mr Hansen is also aware and accepting of his diagnosis of mental illness and recognises the need for treatment and ongoing compliance with medication. He is also aware of the nexus between substance abuse, mental illness and offending behaviour. Mr Hansen's insight is continuing to develop and as such he requires further assistance to promote and encourage behaviour change and the adoption of new habits. He would benefit from some additional psychological input to address his substance abuse, offending behaviour and personal issues as well as ongoing mental health treatment, support and monitoring. Engagement in individual counselling may also assist him with the challenges of living in the community and improve his ability to manage stress, adopt new coping strategies, develop/enhance problem solving and emotional regulation skills as well as to assist him with his relationships and connections to others. Mr Hansen stated he was motivated to engage in further counselling.

1. In respect of the risk factors concerned with future problems, Ms Hasson found as follows:

(1) Professional Services and Plans: This was not present at the time of the assessment, but remained a risk factor and was relevant to risk management.

(2) Living Situation and Personal Support: This item may be partially present, because at the time of the assessment, the respondent was seeking to change his living arrangements, with the possibility of living with his daughter and granddaughter. The item remained relevant for future risk management.

(3) Treatment or Supervision Response: This was not present at the time of assessment, as the respondent had been 'very compliant to date', but Ms Hasson said that it remained possible, given the respondent's diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, that 'the emergence or return of anti-authority attitudes associated with criminality may lead the respondent to reject the assistance offered by adult community corrections'.[328] Ms Hasson said:[329]

The most likely future difficulties identified include that Mr Hansen may have problems observing some of the conditions of supervision especially the constraints placed on him through the GPS monitoring component of an order and the requirement to obtain permission to engage in certain activities including funerals and other important family and cultural events. The time it takes to receive permission or for a request to be declined may also be an issue for Mr Hansen at times. The curfew also causes him some angst and is disruptive of his sleep at night. Good quality sleep is important for the management of his mental health

(4) Stress or Coping: This item may be present and is relevant for future risk management.

1. In relation to the risk factor of problems with professional services and plans, Ms Hasson said that, while such problems were not present at that time, they remained relevant for the respondent's risk management. She considered that there were bound to be frustrations with ongoing supervision pursuant to a supervision over a number of years, so 'there will be times during that when he may be less compliant, a bit more irritable', and 'there might be some pushing of boundaries', even though the respondent had not done so during the six months he had been on the ISO.[330] Ms Hasson noted that the risk factor could not be ruled out because '[supervision] orders are quite stringent and the tolerance for behaviours within those orders are fairly low', and, in the past, the respondent had not been able to manage well on community supervision, even though his current attitudes were good and he was not anticipating or expecting any problems.[331]
2. In relation to identifying problems with living situation and personal support as partially present, Ms Hasson's explanation was similar to Dr Wynn Owen's explanation. She said the respondent had 'a number of issues going on at the moment', one of which was that members of his household had been involved in criminal matters, and the respondent was awaiting the outcome of those matters, which could determine whether or not his housing would still be available to him.[332] So, while he had stable accommodation at that point in time, that could change. The respondent had also mentioned that 'he would, perhaps, like his daughter to come ... live with him', and, given she had recently had a baby and had also been involved in a violent relationship, there was the potential for such matters to have an impact on the stability of his accommodation.[333]
3. Otherwise, like Dr Wynn Owen, Ms Hasson did not have any significant concerns with the accommodation, given that the respondent had 'managed very well in that particular house with the individuals [he had been] living with'.[334]
4. In relation to future problems with stress or coping, Ms Hasson noted that, while the respondent had managed well since his release, and had also managed well in prison before that, notwithstanding that he had faced a number of stressors, his skills were still relatively new and somewhat limited, so she hoped that he could engage in counselling that would address both criminogenic and non‑criminogenic needs to assist him to deal with stressors and difficulties that were likely to arise in the future.[335]

1. The likely risk scenarios for future violent offending by the respondent, formulated by Ms Hasson for the purposes of HCR‑20 V3, were based on the respondent's 'past behaviour and some of the reasons why he has offended in a violent manner, not just from a serious offence perspective, but from a generalised violence perspective'.[336] So, they largely reflected his past offending.
2. The first scenario would involve an assault on an individual who might be an acquaintance or family member in course of an argument or as retaliation for a wrongdoing, or for money or possessions. Ms Hasson suggested it was likely that the respondent would be intoxicated under the influence of drugs, having relapsed into substance abuse, which would heighten the level of risk of him engaging in that behaviour.[337] If he were to engage in a violent act, it is possible that he would be in possession of a weapon, 'because he has often had a weapon or used a weapon in the past'.[338]
3. The second scenario would involve an assault on an intimate partner. Ms Hasson again suggested the possibility that the respondent would have relapsed into drug use, but she also thought it likely that there would be a re‑emergence of mental health issues, as had happened in the past, resulting in paranoia, suspiciousness and trust issues, which would contribute quite significantly to offending against a future intimate partner.[339]
4. The third scenario 'looked at [the respondent] entering the home of somebody else with the intention of stealing something or committing a robbery, and, whilst doing that, he would then assault the occupant of the house', much as had happened in the index offence.[340]
5. The likely impact on victims of all the formulated scenarios could be physical injury or psychological/emotional trauma, or both. Ms Hasson noted that many of the respondent's past victims had required treatment for physical injuries, but the psychological and emotional impact could also be significant, even simply as a result of an offender having entered their home and behaved in a very threatening manner, where people have a genuine fear for their safety.[341] Whether the injuries are physical or psychological, they can have both short and long-term effects on people.[342] Ms Hasson considered that the fact the respondent had not caused significant injury in most of his past offending was situation‑specific and perhaps fortuitous at times.[343] This is something I alluded to earlier in these reasons when discussing the respondent's propensity for violence offending and the pattern of his offending.
6. In relation to the imminence of violent offending by the respondent, Ms Hasson said:[344]

I think that, as long as Mr Hansen remains stable from a psychiatric perspective and remains abstinent from substance abuse, then the imminence of him reoffending is less likely. What we would be wanting to manage in that instance then is any of the antisocial aspects of his personality; any of the attitudes and beliefs supportive of violence, so that can be managed. So that decreases the imminence of offending. So, unless there's something that's, sort of, very personal and overwhelming him emotionally, which comes back to that, sort of, stress and coping, if he's not using any drugs or is not disinhibited by alcohol and he's mentally well, then I think the imminence of offending is managed. And I think that he can manage that, unless it's something that is completely overwhelming for him. If he relapses back into substance abuse and mental health issues then that increases the chances, based on what we've seen happen to him in the past when he has used illicit substances, gone off his medication, then we start to see more of a problem and the imminence of offending is more likely.

1. Consistent with her findings clinically and on the application of HCR‑20 V3, Ms Hasson identified illicit substance abuse, mental health problems and the respondent's connections, and relationships with others as significant risk factors. She also identified the 'presence/emergence of antisocial cognitions' as a risk factor.[345] She said that monitoring of the respondent's connections and associations may be useful to manage his risk of reoffending, and that restricting and monitoring his use of drugs and alcohol is essential. Regular urinalysis testing would assist the respondent to remain abstinent.[346] She also considered it important to reframe the respondent's antisocial attitudes and beliefs and to challenge his (previously manifested) cognitive distortions related to pro‑criminal thinking and behaviour. Finally, she also considered it essential to monitor the respondent's compliance with mental health treatment. This would require consultation with those involved in the respondent's treatment.[347]
2. In relation to psychological treatment, Ms Hasson said:[348]

The goal of treatment is to improve deficits in Mr Hansen's psychosocial adjustment and functioning. Ongoing counselling to maintain motivation to change, build emotional regulation, self-management and coping skills, perspective taking ability, problem solving, and consequential thinking skills are key to managing Mr Hansen's risk of reoffending. Maintaining a stable emotional state is important, so too is supporting Mr Hansen during times of stress as this will increase his self-confidence and his ability to manage distress. Increasing his sense of personal agency and control will be an important goal of intervention. Guiding Mr Hansen toward long term abstinence from substance abuse and seeking employment is seen as crucial to manage long term risk.

1. Ms Hasson was of the view that the respondent's risk of reoffending could be managed in the community with appropriate monitoring, treatment and supervision. In relation to supervision, she said:[349]

[I]t is expected there will be certain restrictions on activity, movement, associations and communications including requirements to attend vocational and educational programs, not to use alcohol and drugs and restrictions on movement including exclusion zones and not to socialise with or communicate with specific groups of people who may encourage antisocial acts or with victims of previous violence.

1. In addition to HCR‑20 V3, Ms Hasson used the SARA assessment tool, because the respondent 'has a history of violent offending within intimate relationships that have resulted in criminal convictions and that are also considered as "serious" as defined under [the HRSO Act]'.[350] The SARA was developed to screen for risk factors for spousal or family‑related assault. Ms Hasson noted that the serious physical and psychological damage resulting from violence in intimate relationships is well documented, and that the SARA comprises 20 individual items found to be most predictive of spousal assault, identified by an extensive review of empirical literature. It is a guideline or aide memoire to ensure that pertinent information is considered and weighed by evaluators. For those reasons, Ms Hasson used the SARA to gain an understanding of the respondent's risk factors for intimate partner violence.[351]
2. The respondent's total score of 30 (99th percentile) placed him in the high‑risk category for reoffending against a future intimate partner or family member. Risk items relevant to the respondent include: a history of past physical assault against acquaintances and family members; sexual jealousy; past use of weapons; frequency and severity of assault behaviour; past violation of non-contact orders, conditional release and community supervision; a history of relationship problems; employment problems; substance abuse/dependence; having been a victim of and/or witness to family violence as a child or adolescent; recent psychotic and/or manic symptoms; and the presence of a personality disorder with anger, impulsivity or behavioural instability.[352]
3. Ms Hasson explained that there is a lot of overlap between the SARA and the HCR‑20 V3, but the SARA accounts for some more specific risk factors relevant to intimate partner violence, and some of those were particularly relevant to the respondent, having regard to the respondent's own account of his motivation and thinking when he committed violent offences against his partners.[353] The respondent's score placed him in the highest risk category.[354]

1. Having regard to her findings applying the HCR‑20 V3 and the SARA, Ms Hasson was of the opinion that the respondent presents a high risk for future violent offending if not subject to a restriction order.[355] She said that the respondent's violent history is perhaps the most predictive of that.[356] Ms Hasson went on to explain:[357]

And as you noted, with the HCR-20, we see all of those historical risk factors as being present for him. In the past, when he has not availed himself of supervision options - and they certainly haven't been as supportive or as encompassing as the interim supervision order, and he also wasn't in the same mindset that he is now. And I think that's a really important consideration for managing his risk, is that he has relapsed back into his criminal lifestyle very quickly, and that causes a problem, because then he ... uses substances, he starts dealing substances. That really puts him in the sphere of lots of antisocial peers, lots of antisocial behaviours, lots of criminal behaviours. He's not doing that same thing now, and he is availing himself of all the supports available to him, the mental health and ... Community Corrections as well, and the substance use counselling. So, he has made a lot of changes that he has decided upon himself, and we see evidence of that dating back about three years whilst he was in prison. So that's a significant shift. It's still new, and it does take some time for that to become the norm for him, because he ... has been offending since he was quite young. So, if we sort of round it to, say, 30 years of criminal behaviour, criminal associations. So, these behaviours are all new, and he's very committed to them. But he's going to require some further support and assistance just to make them his new behaviours, to make [them] new habits.

1. It can be seen that Ms Hasson considered the effect of the ISO to have been significant in assisting the respondent to remain abstinent from illicit substance use and compliant with his mental health treatment, and to maintain prosocial attitudes and behaviours. It is also clear that, notwithstanding the respondent's compliance and positive behaviours until the time of the hearing, and his commitment to maintaining those behaviours, Ms Hasson considered that there was an ongoing need for support and assistance for the respondent to be able to consolidate his new behaviours.

1. Ms Hasson reiterated that she was of the view that the respondent's risk could be managed adequately in the community if he were subject to a supervision order.[358]

1. Ms Hasson considered that 3 years would be a suitable period for a supervision order. She explained:[359]

And my rationale for that was taking into account the changes that Mr Hansen started in prison, and that's reflected in his prison history and comments from the prison itself. And also ... he has done well for the six months that he has been in the community. And whilst that's a short period of time, it carries on from what he has already done, and there has been quite a big attitudinal shift. So, he has made a lot of changes himself. He has done that through some participation in programs. And I think a three-year period is a decent amount of time to see some consolidated change.

1. I have referred above to Ms Hasson's recommendations in respect of further treatment and supervision of the respondent in the community. The proposed conditions for a supervision order in the Community Supervision Assessment report prepared by Ms Casserly reflected management strategies that were consistent with both Ms Hasson's and Dr Wynn Owen's recommendations. Ms Hasson's expectations, referred to at [292] above, included restrictions on communications. However, initially she had not supported the proposed conditions relating to monitoring the respondent's electronic devices and computers. When asked about those proposed conditions at the hearing, Ms Ha[360]n said:360

[T]hey're conditions that I had changed opinion on a couple of times. Initially, I had said to [Ms Casserly], no, I wasn't supportive of those. They weren't in the interim supervision order, and I thought that he was being managed quite well. I didn't necessarily see a need for additional conditions to be added. Then, as his Honour drew attention to, I had then looked back at the behaviours in prison and thought, well, okay, yes, he was threatening over the phone. He was getting his mother to go through Facebook. That - thought that that might be quite useful. But I am also aware that he was acutely still quite unwell at that period of time when he was making those threats over the prisoner telephone system. And then I also took on board that he had, when we spoke about those threats when I interviewed him, what appeared to be sort of quite genuine remorse and empathy and an understanding of just how inappropriate and how threatening and how frightening those comments would be. So, essentially, I think with those conditions, I think they could be useful. I don't think they're essential, necessarily, but they could be useful for the reasons that Dr Wynn Owen outlined. But I think that there's enough scrutiny of Mr Hansen, and he has, to date, been very candid, very open, and he has made a lot of changes about the way - that he has maintained over a period of time, so I don't see those conditions as essential in managing his risk.

1. In relation to treatment, Ms Hasson reiterated that it is essential for the respondent to engage in counselling, with the reciprocal obligation on the Department to provide such counselling. She agreed with Dr Wynn Owen that the counselling should be provided by a forensically trained clinician.[361] Ms Hasson was of the view that suitable counselling addressing the respondent's criminogenic factors was 'the one component that has been missing' from the ISO.[362] While the respondent had done good work in the last Pathways Program he completed, the treatment needs that would have been addressed in the Violent Offender Treatment Program remained unaddressed.
2. Ms Hasson said that, while she would sometimes have concerns about using Telehealth or video link for such counselling, she was of the view that the respondent 'does engage quite well', and he 'has great insight', such that he would respond well to counselling.[363] So, while it was preferable to have at least some 'in person' counselling, which generally is 'much better than it is via Telehealth', if a suitable clinician could be found, Telehealth would be fine.[364] Ms Hasson considered that counselling would assist the respondent with adjustment, and would increase his problem-solving and coping skills, as well as addressing the criminogenic factors relevant to his violent offending. Ms Hasson considered that it would be of particular importance if the respondent were to form a new intimate relationship.[365] She said that, if the respondent was not provided with appropriate counselling, she was concerned that the respondent would not be given 'the best chance of making and sustaining the changes that he needs to make'.[366]
3. Ms Hasson was of the view that initially counselling should be on a weekly basis. If he is being seen by Telehealth, 'it would be nice for him to be seen occasionally in person'.[367]
4. In relation to the substance abuse counselling the respondent had commenced, Ms Hasson said:[368]

I would see that substance abuse counselling is great for supporting him with the abstinence from any substance abuse. I think that perhaps one of the issues that, when you're just attending for sort of substance abuse counselling, they're going to find is that because he hasn't been using substances for some time, they might not have necessarily things to work on in the moment. So I'm not sure how long that will go for. And that's going to very much depend on - I don't know who's providing that service, what their background is, whether they're a drug and alcohol counsellor, whether they're a specialist psychologist. So that's going to very much depend on that. But I think that the substance abuse counselling in the absence of anything else is good for him, and it's another avenue of support and to talk through some issues. But it's not going to change the recommendation that he has other treatment needs that stem right from childhood that need to be addressed in a longer‑term counselling scenario.

1. In the Treatment Options Report dated 24 May 2023, Ms Thatcher, the HRSO Planning Manager, said that, should the respondent be subject to a continuing detention order, he could be referred to an intensive violent offending programme, but his eligibility would depend on the location of his prison facility and the Department's programmes calendar.[369]
2. Ms Thatcher said that, in the event that the respondent was placed on a supervision order, his Senior CCO would need to refer him to FPIT for psychological counselling, and he would go onto the existing waiting list. At that stage, the respondent proposed to live in Esperance. Ms Thatcher noted that there was no psychologist operating in that region at that time. Therefore, it was expected that the respondent's counselling would be facilitated by Telehealth.[370] Ms Thatcher reported that Esperance Adult Community Corrections was not equipped with a secure telephone, or video conferencing facilities, to enable Telehealth appointments. The Kalgoorlie/Esperance Team Leader had made enquiries with other local services in Esperance, for the use of their facilities, but Ms Thatcher said that was not a viable option at that time, as there would need to be an established agreement between the service and Adult Community Corrections.[371]
3. Ms Thatcher had consulted with the manager of FPIT, who identified a possibility of sourcing external contractors, or 'fly in, fly out' psychological services, to provide regional psychological counselling. However, as at the date of the report, there had not been any successful recruitment.[372]
4. At the hearing of 30 May 2023, Ms Thatcher was not able to say for how long the respondent might be waitlisted before being allocated a counsellor, saying it was not within the scope of her management.[373] However, she said that, with the HRSO cohort, the list tends to fluctuate, depending on whether someone has remained in the community or is returned to prison.[374]
5. Ms Thatcher said that it was not an insurmountable task to arrange access to psychological counselling for the respondent in Esperance, but there were 'a few technical barriers before we get to that point', as outlined in her report.[375] She confirmed that a 'fly in, fly out' option was being looked into, and that potentially there could be other avenues, having regard to the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson.[376]
6. When questioned about the need for a 'secure telephone' for Telehealth purposes, Ms Thatcher explained that she was referring to 'within the confines of providing a secure space for the offender to participate in that counselling'.[377] She went on:[378]

Having some supervisory capacity with a view ... to monitor ... the security of that space where the offender is engaging in the counselling. My understanding is there is no specific office per se in Esperance and that facilities are collocated with another organisation.

1. Ms Thatcher said there would possibly be a lack of privacy, and, given the nature of the information that would be canvassed in psychological counselling, the Department would want to ensure that it was a 'safe and monitored space'.[379]
2. In answer to questions from me, Ms Thatcher said Telehealth would be delivered over larger computer screens (possibly over two screens and with the use of a headset) at a desk within an office.[380] In relation to whether it could be conducted from the respondent's home, Ms Thatcher surmised that the suitability of that option would have to take into account a variety of risk assessments about the home, who may be there at the time, and the day and time of when the counselling would be delivered.[381] She said she had not heard of counselling being delivered in that way before, but she was not excluding it as a possibility. She said it would be something that Adult Community Corrections would have to determine.[382]
3. As to the need for an agreement with external local service providers to make their facilities available on certain days and times for offenders residing in Esperance, Ms Thatcher explained that it was not impossible, but that the process had not been commenced. She said that, should the respondent be placed on an order whereby Telehealth counselling was recommended, and he were to move up the waitlist while he was having counselling elsewhere for substance abuse, she did not foresee a problem with an agreement being put in place.[383]
4. In cross-examination, Ms Thatcher said she was 'hopefully confident' that the respondent would eventually get counselling, and that the Department would take on board the comments made by the experts at the hearing. She also acknowledged that the Department has an obligation to provide the respondent with the counselling that has been determined to be necessary in the experts' recommendations.[384]

1. It is not necessary to outline the evidence at the first hearing in relation to the suitability of the respondent's accommodation for the purposes of managing his risk pursuant to a supervision order. Much of the cross‑examination of Ms Casserly by the respondent's counsel quite properly addressed issues that had been raised about the property. Ultimately, having regard to the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, and the respondent's compliance and changed attitudes and behaviours, I would have been satisfied the accommodation was suitable.
2. Since the first hearing, the respondent has moved to Kalgoorlie, as will be explained in the next section.

1. The circumstances that led to the matter being relisted for further hearing on 9 December 2024 are set out at [13] to [16] above.

1. At the hearing on 18 October 2024, to determine the further course of the matter, the email letter from the respondent's mother, Ms Georgina Ashwin, sent on 9 October 2024, was received into evidence without the need for Ms Ashwin to be called. Ms Ashwin said that, since the respondent was released from prison on 5 December 2022, she had watched him take control of his life, with his restrictions, and he now stood as the head of the family 'as a son, brother, father and grandfather, etc'. She said that the respondent did not regard the restrictions as barriers. He had complied with all that was required of him. She said that, apart from complying with his reporting and urinalysis testing, the respondent had made sure he attended his mental health appointments and doctors' appointments. Ms Ashwin said that the respondent's immediate family had now seen a significant change in his manner, in particular that he now had a positive outlook in relation to the direction his life should take, and he had 'zero tolerance' for past activities and behaviours. She said the respondent had set goals for himself, primarily to obtain employment and his driver's licence, and no 'hiccup' in his family's life was going to prevent him from achieving his goals.
2. Ms Ashwin also noted that the respondent was anxious to someday be reunited with his two sons who are in New South Wales. She said that the children adore the respondent and were hopeful the respondent would be able to visit them someday.
3. Ms Ashwin summed up by saying the respondent had not faulted once, that his whole demeanour had changed for the better, and that he refuses to become involved in any conflict, whether it be with friends or family.
4. It may be noted that some of the developments referred to by Ms Ashwin were already evident at the time of the hearing of 30 May 2023, demonstrated by the respondent in the six months he had been subject to the ISO at that time.
5. As I noted above, on 18 October 2024, the matter was adjourned for a further hearing on 9 December 2024, for which I ordered an updated Community Supervision Assessment report. I did not consider it necessary or appropriate for the respondent to be re‑examined by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson for the following reasons.
6. Having regard to the evidence I have now set out in detail from both experts, it was evident to me that their opinions concerning the respondent's level of risk if he is not subject to a restriction order were based largely on historical risk factors, which were not going to change. Further, they took into account the respondent's compliance and changed attitudes and behaviours up to the time of the first hearing. It is true that those developments were seen as new, and it was considered necessary for the respondent to receive counselling over an extended period of time for the changes in his attitudes and behaviour to be consolidated. By the time of the hearing on 18 October 2024, the respondent had been in the community for nearly two years, and the indications were that he had remained compliant with the conditions of the ISO and his mental health treatment, and his changed attitudes and behaviours had been maintained. That was the essence of Ms Ashwin's letter.
7. However, it was also clear from the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson at the first hearing that the ISO had been significant in moderating the respondent's behaviour and in assisting him to maintain the changes he had implemented in his life, through supervision and monitoring, and to some extent through treatment. Moreover, the experts' opinions were that the respondent had outstanding treatment needs, and that counselling in respect of criminogenic needs would be necessary to determine whether the changes in the respondent's life would be enduring, and he could self-manage his risk through internal resources, which would include the ability to seek help when necessary.
8. In all those circumstances, I was of the view that the basis for the experts' opinions about the respondent's risk of violent reoffending could not change on account of his continued good performance while subject to the ISO. As the applicant submitted, the respondent's good performance was evidence that the ISO was effective and that the appropriate restriction order would be a supervision order. It did not change the essence of the findings made by the experts as to the respondent's risk of reoffending.

1. At the hearing of 9 December 2024, I received into evidence an Update Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 2 December 2024, prepared by Ms Casserly (exhibit 8), and an Updated Treatment Options Report, also dated 2 December 2024, prepared by Ms Emma Cashmore, HRSO Planning Manager (exhibit 9). The parties agreed that it was not necessary for either of the authors of the reports to give oral evidence.

1. In her report, Ms Casserly incorporated an overview of the course of the respondent's performance on the ISO, the supervision and treatment intervention provided to him, and other developments from the time he was released from prison in December 2022 until the time of the report. It is only necessary for present purposes to refer to developments since May 2023.
2. The respondent had continued to be supervised both in person and by telephone, initially in Esperance and then in Kalgoorlie after he moved there in late September 2023. Weekly supervision had been maintained long term, and the respondent had established a routine to attend his weekly session to ensure he was not late. Ms Casserly reported:[385]

A change to fortnightly supervision reporting has been discussed with Mr Hansen, as a reflection of his overall sustained compliance to date. In light of the established routine and the outcome of his [restriction order] hearing pending, Mr Hansen had initially opted to maintain weekly reporting. Soon after, in consultation with Mr Hansen, and partly due to the change in Case Manager[,] fortnightly supervision commenced from 13/11/2024, as approved by his Risk Management Team. Throughout supervision contacts, Mr H

ssions. Mr Hansen's willingness to adjust his routine in line with Departmental needs, notwithstanding the long term routine, has to date indicated his capacity to be adaptable to change where required.

1. In relation to the provision of counselling, as recommended at the first hearing, Ms Casserly reported:[386]

Due to there being no improvement in the accessibility of an appropriate service provider, further referral was not pursued. Following his Court appearance on 18/10/2024, a new referral to the FPIT was initiated on 04/11/2024, to allow reconsideration of service availability given Mr Hansen's permanent relocation to Kalgoorlie, further exploration of engagement via Telehealth, in particular when reflecting on his long term compliance and participation with supervision, and upon additional review of the specialist recommendations. Assessment of the referral by FPIT occurred on 04/11/2024 and at present, due to significant demand for FPIT service and limited resources, Mr Hansen is waitlisted for assessment of his suitability for intervention, via Telehealth. There is no current face to face service available in Kalgoorlie. Participation in clinical intervention, should such become available, has remained a topic of discussion with Mr Hansen and he has repeatedly confirmed his willingness to engage. Subject to Mr Hansen being assessed as suitable for Telehealth intervention and being allocated a psychologist from FPIT, it is anticipated he will receive this service at Kalgoorlie ACCC via a virtual meeting platform, as per the [terms of reference] 02/12/2024.

1. Since the hearing in May 2023, the respondent had attended a further four counselling sessions with Hope Community Services in Esperance for drug counselling, from June to August 2023. Ms Casserly reported that, as there had been no concerns raised regarding a possible relapse by the respondent to illicit substance use, he was not referred to participate in further substance misuse counselling following his relocation to Kalgoorlie. Ms Casserly had discussed with the respondent the availability of service providers in Kalgoorlie, to ensure he was aware, but, as at the date of the report, the respondent had not initiated engagement with any such service, and Ms Casserly considered there was no identified need for further referral to mandate his attendance at that time.[387]
2. As at the time of the report, the respondent had completed 41 urinalysis tests (this appears to have been from the start of the ISO), the most recent being on 4 November 2024, all of which were valid samples and returned negative results. The frequency of urinalysis testing had reduced, and was occurring randomly. Since the hearing in May 2023, the respondent had missed one test, again explaining he had forgotten because he had been preoccupied with a task. He was issued a warning letter, but it appears the incident was not considered to be significant.
3. In relation to management of the respondent's mental health, Ms Casserly noted that it had been reported for the hearing in May 2023 that CMH intended to withdraw from such management gradually. CMH informed Ms Casserly that finalisation of case management had occurred on 3 October 2023. That essentially coincided with the respondent's relocation to Kalgoorlie. The respondent had not been referred to CMH in Kalgoorlie, as he had continued to self‑manage his oral medication and regular injections via engagement with his local General Practitioner.[388]
4. In respect of the curfew condition, it had been further amended on 17 January 2024 to apply from midnight to 6.00 am daily, which remained current. The respondent had remained compliant with the curfew, and his CCO had maintained flexibility in relation to the curfew location and times to enable him to undertake overnight travel as required.[389] Ms Casserly said that, should the curfew requirement remain ongoing in the event that the respondent were to be subject to a supervision order, the requirement would continue to be reviewed by the Risk Management Team in line with presenting needs and issues in relation to risk, with a view to reducing the curfew requirement subject to ongoing compliance. Since the respondent had been in Kalgoorlie, the curfew was monitored electronically, rather than by police attendance at his premises.
5. Since being in Kalgoorlie, the respondent had continued to engage appropriately with police in meeting his reporting requirements.
6. In relation to the respondent's relocation to Kalgoorlie and his current accommodation, as at 9 December 2024, it is appropriate to set out Ms Casserly's account, as it indicates measures initiated by the respondent to avoid risk situations and maintain stability in his life:[390]

In the lead up to his relocation, Mr Hansen had accompanied his mother and sister to Perth to provide support during the finalisation of their outstanding Court matters. On 29/09/2023, after return to Esperance, Mr Hansen contacted Kalgoorlie ACCC to inform of a change in dynamics within the household and increasing tension, in particular between his mother and sister. A sense of helplessness was relayed by Mr Hansen, due to the restrictions of his residential location associated with this HRSO ISO and the breakdown of a family support. Accordingly planning commenced to explore alternative accommodation options to provide respite to Mr Hansen for an interim period. Arrangements were coordinated or Mr Hansen to enter a local hotel for one night, prior to being supported by family with transport from Esperance to Kalgoorlie on 30/09/2023. Mr Hansen was approved to reside with his daughter in Kalgoorlie, with this arrangement

ernative accommodation options and monitoring of his relationship with his mother and possible return to Esperance. While Mr Hansen's residence with his daughter was supported temporarily, continued attempts were made to source alternative options due to the regularity of visitors and concerns regarding alcohol use at the address, as raised by Mr Hansen. It is noted Mr Hansen remained proactive in managing possible exposure to substance use at the address, through self-isolation when others were present and removal of himself until the commencement of his curfew time if required. He has also continued to liaise proactively with Kalgoorlie ACCC to discuss how he was navigating the presenting life challenges.

On 18/11/2023, Mr Hansen contacted ACCC after hours to inform of conflict at the address and sought permission to relocate to remove himself from possible risk of harm. He was supported to immediately relocate to reside with his father and stepmother in Kalgoorlie. During contact with Mr Hansen on 20/11/2023, he described an escalation in aggressive behaviour towards him by intoxicated persons present at his daughter's address after he had declined to provide transport. Mr Hansen's self-removal from a high­risk situation was acknowledged and temporary residence at his father's address was assessed and approved as required.

Mr Hansen's motivation to obtain independent accommodation was renewed following this incident. On 18/12/2023, Mr Hansen contacted ACCC to inform he had been offered accommodation at [redacted] in Boulder, available immediately. Kalgoorlie ACCC were able to accommodate same day assessment of the address and supported relocation by close of business. He has maintained fortnightly rental of an ensuite room, located within the accommodation complex attached to [redacted]. Access to the accommodation is separate to the licensed premise of the tavern, with no requirement to enter the licensed premise. Parking and laundry facilities are also separate, within the same secure complex. Since Mr Hansen's relocation to this address, there have been no issues regarding his electronic monitoring, curfew compliance, or any reports of anti­social behaviours received.

A Desktop Spatial Analysis was completed for Mr Hansen's current address and returned from Police dated 14/03/2024. Upon review, the primary concern raised related to the address being a licensed premise.

1. I note that the concern raised in the desktop spatial analysis is not a reason why the respondent should be denied such accommodation, if it is the only available safe location for him, given his demonstrated capacity to remain abstinent from alcohol use, and the fact that he remains subject to conditions that enable monitoring of alcohol and drug use.
2. Ms Casserly reported that the respondent had been given permission upon request to engage in regional travel, and he had been compliant with all requirements. The confidence placed in the respondent by his supervisors is reflected in the fact that he has been allowed overnight stays away from Kalgoorlie.
3. Ms Casserly referred to a number of events that had occurred in the respondent's life since the hearing in May 2023, which had created stressors and difficulties for him. She summarised the situation as follows:[391]

Mr Hansen has experienced a number of challenges since his release from custody. Throughout the events arising, Mr Hansen has continued to communicate stressors and concerns during supervision contacts, remained proactive in his management of the situations, and demonstrated insightful reflection post-incident.

1. The events outlined by Ms Casserly included the support the respondent had provided to his mother and sister in relation to court proceedings, various issues concerning his adult children, disappointment when his prior partner who is in New South Wales broke off contact after they had made arrangements for her to travel to Kalgoorlie, with the possibility that she might relocate there, and his son's involvement in an incident of family violence. In respect of the incident concerning his former partner, Ms Casserly said:[392]

Notwithstanding, the frustration relayed by Mr Hansen and a decline in his level of participation in supervision contacts for a three week period following, he continued to comply with directions to report for supervision issued, as well as other requirements of his ISO.

1. That incident tends to show that there remains a degree of fragility to the respondent's capacity to navigate difficult emotional circumstances. It seems to me this is precisely the sort of situation referred to by Ms Hasson, in which the respondent would benefit from having counselling available to him.
2. That said, the respondent has demonstrated a capacity to resort to the assistance available to him to deal with emotional difficulties arising from his relationships. Ms Casserly referred to the following incident:[393]

Most recently, Mr Hansen contacted ACCC on 06/11/2024 to discuss his reaction to inappropriate comments made by his former partner, located in Kalgoorlie, on social media. Mr Hansen described feeling angry immediately and reactiveness in a direct message sent to his former partner, however stated he then took time to consider his actions and determined to block communication instead. Mr Hansen was able to identify the difference in his response to this event, in particular in comparison to actions he would have taken previously, including threats and violence.

1. Ms Casserly reported that the respondent continues to express his intention to comply with the conditions of any supervision order imposed on him.
2. The respondent had applied for public housing prior to the hearing of May 2023. The application, in which he was supported by the Department, was lodged on 19 May 2023. He remains waitlisted within the Esperance area.
3. The respondent has made repeated applications for employment. He engaged in trial employment with a pizza restaurant as a delivery driver, and subsequently was given work for up to five days a week. However, he was stood down when damage was caused to the vehicle he was driving. Another employee had also used that vehicle, and the respondent denied he had caused the damage. However, the employer subsequently informed him that neither he, nor the other employee, would be offered further shifts.
4. Ms Casserly reported that the respondent is currently enrolled in a Certificate III in Civil Construction Plant Operations, facilitated by Australian Business and Vocational Training, and funded by his job search provider in Kalgoorlie.
5. Ms Casserly summarised the respondent's performance as follows:[394]

Mr Hansen has demonstrated compliance with his HRSO ISO conditions since his release on 04/12/2022, aside from two missed urinalysis tests on 17/03/2023 and 27/12/2023. It is noted these two absences were related to forgetfulness and did not raise concern for a lapse to illicit substances, further noting his timely re-engagement. Mr Hansen has also navigated some complex family issues and life stressors since his release, however readily employed prosocial avenues to support resolve of these issues. He has often reflected the avenues taken contrasts with how he would have navigated these challenges historically. He has seen benefit to the techniques employed, which appears reflective of sustained behavioural change. Mr Hansen is understanding of the likely HRSO Declaration and has indicated willingness to continue to comply. The proposed conditions of a HRSO SO, remain mostly unchanged from the previous CSA, given reasons outlined above, however there has been no evidence to suggest the current conditions under the ISO have not adequately managed the risk. In the event Mr Hansen is Declared a HRSO and a SO imposed, subject to collaboration with the Risk Management Team, it is likely the conditions will be managed responsively to Mr Hansen's ongoing reintegration to the community, to prevent further serious offending.

1. In the Updated Treatment Options Report, Ms Cashmore said that the explanation as to why Telehealth counselling was not recommended was not accurately reported in the previous Treatment Options Report or the evidence given at the hearing on 30 May 2023. However, it is still not clear to me from the updated report why Telehealth would not be suitable. In any event, Ms Cashmore reported that, when the initial referral to FPIT had been declined, the experts' reports were not available. Subsequently, it had been determined that psychological intervention was considered appropriate, and a fresh referral was accepted on 12 November 2024. In the absence of face‑to‑face counselling being available in Kalgoorlie, the respondent was waitlisted for assessment of his suitability for intervention by Telehealth. He was still waitlisted at the time of the report.
2. In relation to the possibility of Telehealth counselling occurring with the respondent at home, Ms Cashmore said that the following response had been received from the acting Manager of FPIT:

The environment in which the telehealth (i.e. videoconference) service will be received by the offender is an integral part of evaluating whether telehealth is an appropriate method of intervention delivery for the offender. The offender will need to be in a room in a Departmental office and using Departmental equipment rather than personal devices in their home environment or at any other location. This is in consideration of a range of safety and clinical issues that are specific to the high risk forensic population that we provide intervention to. During intervention it may become apparent there is a risk of harm to the offender and/or to others, and communication and management of this needs to occur swiftly and in conjunction with ACC staff, which cannot occur if the offender is in a home (or other - potentially unknown) location. There are also concerns about breaches of confidentiality should others be present which may not be immediately apparent to the treating psychologist, as well as the need to be in an environment that is free from distractions and interruptions, with access to appropriately secure and reliable technology.

1. While one might query whether any of the concerns raised in that response are applicable to the respondent, given the opinions expressed by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, I accept that, in general terms, the reasons provided appear to be properly based in forensic analysis, having regard to the experience of professional counsellors provided by FPIT.

1. The parties' submissions may be simply stated.
2. The applicant submitted that, having regard to the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, the court can be satisfied to the requisite level that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. Further, in light of all of the evidence, the applicant submitted that the court could be satisfied that a supervision order would provide adequate protection of the community and, therefore, was the appropriate restriction order. Further, having regard to the time that has elapsed, the fact that the respondent has not committed any offences and that he has been compliant with the ISO, and the apparent sustained change in attitudes and behaviour over the last two years while subject to the ISO, since he was released, the applicant conceded that the conditions it had proposed for the supervision order that were additional to conditions of the ISO were no longer necessary. Further, after consultation with the supervising authorities, the applicant was now of the view that the curfew conditions were no longer necessary. Accordingly, the applicant submitted an amended supervision order in the terms of the supervision order annexed to these reasons as the order that would be appropriate. The applicant submitted that the proposed conditions had proven to be effective to mitigate the respondent's risk over an extended period of time.
3. The respondent had originally acknowledged at the hearing on 30 May 2023 that the court could be satisfied on the evidence in the hearing that the respondent was a high risk serious offender. The respondent submitted that the court could be satisfied the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order and that such an order would provide adequate protection of the community. At that stage the matters in issue from the respondent's perspective were the duration of a supervision order and the conditions necessary to manage the respondent's risk. The respondent submitted, appropriately, that the conditions should be no more than are necessary to provide adequate protection of the community. In that context, there was an issue as to whether the conditions concerning monitoring of the respondent's electronic devices were necessary.
4. As I indicated in the introductory section of these reasons, after the email letter was received from the respondent's mother, and counsel were invited to make submissions as to what further steps should be taken, the respondent submitted that the respondent should be reviewed by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, as, given the lapse of time and the respondent's sustained compliance with the ISO and changed circumstances, they might reconsider their opinions about the level of the respondent's risk. However, when the hearing resumed, counsel for the respondent acknowledged that, having reviewed the evidence from the first hearing, it was apparent that the opinions in respect of the respondent's risk were based mainly on historical factors, rather than dynamic factors, and that the experts had come to their views having regard to the respondent's good performance on the ISO and apparent changes in attitudes and behaviours at that stage, and having regard also to what they considered to be outstanding treatment needs. In those circumstances, counsel properly reverted to the respondent's original position, that is, that the court could be satisfied on the evidence that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. The respondent submitted that the conditions of the supervision order could now be reduced to those proposed by the applicant, and that the term of the supervision order should take into account the whole of the time the respondent has been on the ISO.

1. In determining whether the respondent is, at this time, a high risk serious offender, I have relied on all of the evidence to which I have referred above, which I consider to be acceptable and cogent.
2. I have found, earlier in these reasons, that the respondent has a propensity to commit violent offences, including serious violent offences. I referred to the existence of patterns to his offending, the most significant of which has involved a relapse into illicit drug use and, at times a relapse into mental illness due to a failure to obtain proper treatment or because of the effects of drugs. There is no doubt that the respondent's upbringing has contributed to his antisocial and violent behaviours. Ms Hasson explained the phenomenon as follows, particularly in the context of domestic violence:[395]

Often conceptualised as the 'cycle of violence' or 'intergenerational transmission theory' when applied to the family, the theory states that people model behaviour that they have been exposed to as children. Violence is learned through role models provided by the family (parents, siblings, relatives, and boyfriends/girlfriends), either directly or indirectly (i.e., witnessing violence), is reinforced in childhood, and continues in adulthood as a coping response to stress or as a method of conflict resolution. During childhood and adolescence, observations of how parents and significant others behave in intimate relationships provide an initial learning of behavioural alternatives which are 'appropriate' for these relationships. Children infer rules or principles through repeated exposure to a particular style of parenting. If the family of origin handled stresses and frustrations with anger and aggression, the child who has grown up in such an environment is at greater risk for exhibiting those same behaviours, witnessed or experienced, as an adult. The family not only exposes individuals to violence and techniques of violence, but the family also teaches approval for the use of violence. Children learn that violence is acceptable within the home and is an effective method for solving problems or changing the behaviour of others. Transmission of violent behaviour occurs through processes of modelling, failure to learn appropriate ways to manage conflict, and reinforcement for violent behaviour. Normal coping mechanisms may not be learned or may become impaired, leading to violence as the ultimate resource. The environment in which Mr Hansen was raised, especially in adolescence when he was in the early stages of forming his own intimate relationships exposed him to violence and it is likely some of his behaviours are 'learned' and others relate to his personality style.

1. In a real sense, the respondent was moulded by his upbringing. However, he has had many opportunities to rehabilitate and to learn ways to break out of the mould. In the past he has failed. During his most recent term of imprisonment, and while he has been subject to the ISO in the community, he has taken significant steps towards breaking the mould and finding a way to lead a prosocial life. However, he has an antisocial personality disorder, a substance abuse disorder, and an underlying mental illness. The latter two conditions are in remission, but the respondent remains vulnerable to relapsing into antisocial ways, including drug use and violent offending, unless he has sufficient internal resources and vigilance. Of course, the question is not whether he would engage in antisocial behaviour or offending short of serious offending for the purposes of the HRSO Act. However, it has been the lifestyle of antisocial behaviour and drug use, distorted cognitions and attitudes, and deficits in emotional regulation that have led him to the use of violence, and to the commission of serious violent offences.
2. Earlier in these reasons, I referred to the fact that the respondent's apparent gains from treatment in 2012, 2013 and 2016 were not enduring, in that he returned to drug use and violent behaviour and committed serious offences in 2017 of a similar kind to those he had committed in 2010. I also noted that, at the conclusion of the earlier treatment programmes, the respondent appears to have lacked self‑awareness and had been overconfident in his ability to implement changes in his life consistent with what he had learned in the programmes. The question remains whether, the gains he has made in the Pathways Program he completed again during his most recent period of imprisonment will endure. We have the benefit of the lengthy period he has been on the ISO from which to draw conclusions in that regard. The indications from his abstinence from drugs and his conduct overall are that the respondent has been able to implement changes on this occasion. However, he has done so in the context of being subject to the conditions of the ISO, which have imposed constraints on his freedom as well as providing for supervision and monitoring of his behaviours. While the conditions were intended primarily to protect the community against the risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence, it is evident from the evidence at the first hearing in May 2023 and at the second hearing in December 2024 that the conditions have also been of benefit to the respondent by providing him with structure, guidance, and encouragement for a pro-social life. He did not have the same degree of restrictions and assistance when he was released from prison on prior occasions. While it is possible that he would have been better placed to implement the changes in his life on this occasion without the conditions of the ISO, the extent to which his gains from the treatment programmes might have been maintained over the long term in such circumstances may be doubted, having regard to his history of relapse. The apparent maintenance of treatment gains cannot be judged in a vacuum.
3. Nevertheless, the respondent has demonstrated significant insight and initiative in bringing difficult situations to the attention of his CCO when he has perceived that he may be put at risk of relapse, including in terms of potential emotional instability. He has demonstrated a capacity to implement skills and strategies he has acquired to avoid risk situations. This augurs well for progression in the not‑too‑distant future to self‑sufficiency, which includes knowing when and how to seek help.
4. There is still a need for the respondent to engage in further counselling to consolidate the changes he has made. Counselling will also allow for continuing assessment by a psychologist of the extent to which changes have been consolidated. It is incumbent on the Department to make appropriate counselling available to the respondent in a timely way as part of the treatment aspect of a restriction order, a requirement that is mandated by the HRSO Act. The comments made by Dr Wynn Owen in this regard are apt.
5. While the respondent has been a model subject on the ISO, both experts who assessed him considered that he has outstanding treatment needs that need to be addressed in counselling before one could be satisfied that he has sufficiently broken out of the mould as to be capable of managing his risk of violent reoffending without the structures, constraints and monitoring provided by the ISO.
6. In my opinion, the evidence of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, which I accept, compellingly establishes that the respondent presents a high risk of committing a serious violent offence if he is not subject to a restriction order. I have set out their reasons for so concluding in detail. I am satisfied their reasons are sound.
7. I am also satisfied on the basis of their evidence, and on my findings in respect of the respondent's propensity for committing violent offences, that the likely offence scenarios if he were to relapse, would be similar to his past offending, and as described by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson. Such offending has the potential for significant physical harm, even catastrophic harm, to the victim, and enduring significant psychological harm. Serious violent offences can change the lives of victims.
8. The high risk of serious violent offending the respondent poses is, therefore, unacceptable. In my opinion, there are no measures that can be utilised that would sufficiently protect the community other than a restriction order.
9. Therefore, I am satisfied 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. It follows that I find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender.

1. Having regard to the respondent's compliance with the ISO, the fact that he has not committed any further offence, the apparent sustained changes in his attitudes and behaviours, particularly as described by Ms Casserly in the Update Community Supervision Assessment report, and the opinions of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, I am satisfied that the respondent's risk of committing a serious violent offence can be adequately managed in the community. In other words, I am satisfied that a supervision order would provide adequate protection of the community. I am also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions, and indeed all of the conditions of a supervision order. In my view, his exemplary compliance with the conditions of the ISO leads inexorably to that conclusion.
2. The conditions of the supervision order Those conditions were substantially in the terms of Appendix A of these reasons.
3. I bear in mind that I should choose the order that is least invasive or destructive of the respondent's right to liberty, whilst ensuring an adequate degree of protection for the community.
4. Before I can make a supervision order, I must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order and that the totality of the conditions would provide adequate protection of the community against the risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence. The respondent bears the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that he would substantially comply with the standard conditions.
5. The conditions of the supervision order should be no more than is necessary to achieve adequate protection of the community. Had I made the supervision order soon after the hearing in May 2023, I would have been satisfied that all of the conditions that had been proposed by the applicant were appropriate, including the conditions concerning monitoring of the respondent's electronic devices, for the reasons given by Dr Wynn Owen. However, in light of the fact that the conditions of the ISO have been effective in mitigating the respondent's risk of committing a serious violent offence, and would appear to be capable of continuing to be effective in that regard, and having regard to the respondent's exemplary conduct under the ISO, I am now satisfied that the additional conditions are no longer necessary. It is in the interest of the respondent's continued rehabilitation, which will benefit the community by reduction of the respondent's risk, that the conditions imposed be no more onerous than he has endured until now. Further, I am satisfied that it is no longer necessary to have curfew conditions. The respondent's risk management team has properly reduced the curfew over time. Further, he has proven to be trustworthy when allowed to leave Kalgoorlie. I consider that his behaviour on the ISO has demonstrated that the respondent is genuinely committed to leading a prosocial life and is unlikely to engage in antisocial behaviour at night time.
6. Therefore, I am satisfied that the conditions now proposed by the applicant, as contained in the appendix in these reasons are sufficient to provide adequate protection of the community.
7. The applicant has not raised any issue in respect of the respondent's current accommodation, so that will be the accommodation specified in the supervision order as where he is to reside. Of course, that will be subject to change if he is to obtain public housing or other suitable accommodation approved by his risk management team.

1. Determining what period is appropriate for a supervision order is a matter of judgment and may depend on a number of factors relevant to the respondent's risk. In general terms, I consider that the period should be such as to enable the respondent to engage in rehabilitation and progress towards the reduction of his risk of committing a serious offence, to a point where a restriction order is no longer necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community, either because the respondent can be relied upon to manage the risk himself, or the exigency of age or other factors have significantly reduced the likelihood of the respondent reoffending.
2. Had I been making the order soon after the hearing in May 2023, I would have been satisfied that the appropriate duration would have been 4 years, based on a consideration of the opinions of Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson. However, given the time that the respondent has been on the ISO, and accepting that that period has contributed to his rehabilitation and reduction of risk, notwithstanding that he has not been provided the opportunity to engage in suitable counselling, as recommended by Dr Wynn Owen and Ms Hasson, I consider that the term of the order can now be significantly less, consistent with the paramount consideration of ensuring adequate protection of the community.
3. Having given the matter careful consideration, I am satisfied that an appropriate period of time is 2 years. That period should enable the Department to provide the respondent with suitable counselling, and for the respondent to engage adequately to enable an assessment to be made in the second year of the order whether his risk is approaching the point where he can self‑manage, or whether a further supervision order should be sought. Under s 36 of the HRSO Act, the State may apply for a restriction order in relation to an offender who is subject to a supervision order that is to expire within one year. Therefore, the State may apply for a further supervision order if, approaching the end of the supervision order I make, there is evidence that the respondent's risk is still at a level where there is a need for a further period of restriction to ensure adequate protection of the community.
4. However, I would expect that the respondent will continue on his trajectory of rehabilitation to a point where he will no longer require the scaffolding of a supervision order to support him and to provide adequate protection of the community.

1. Section 27(3) of the HRSO Act provides that the date from which a supervision order has effect must not be earlier than 21 days after the date the order is made, unless the court is satisfied that the implementation of the order from an earlier date is practically feasible.
2. However, the measures necessary to prepare for a person's release on a supervision order are largely in place, because the respondent has been, and is, on an ISO. Nevertheless, prior to the handing down of these reasons, the applicant informed the court that the Department has requested that the commencement date of any supervision order be two days hence, being 9 January 2025. Accordingly, that will be the commencement date.

1. For the reasons above, I make a supervision order in respect of the respondent for a period of 2 years commencing on 9 January 2025, on the conditions contained in the appendix to these reasons.
2. The ISO will be rescinded from the commencement of the supervision order.

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 2 years from 9 January 2025, on the following conditions:

1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the location they direct and time they direct on the day of commencement of this order and advise the officer of 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 of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens;

1. Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);

1. Not leave, or stay out of 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. Take up residence at [redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;

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

1. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Kalgoorlie Police Station within 48 hours of commencement of this order, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the High Risk Serious Offender team/Serious Offender Enforcement Squad or his/her delegate;

1. If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle and search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this Order and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officers believe to contravene the conditions of the Order;

1. Remain at your premises and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle under the provisions of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020;

1. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information;

1. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any of your associates, potential associates, partners or potential partners and, where appropriate to disclose to them confidential information including your offence history;

1. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your violent offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice, or in a manner approved of in advance by the CCO;

1. Report to the CCO and WA Police any direct or indirect contact with the victims of your violent offending within 48 hours of such contact occurring;

1. Not purchase, or possess, or consume or use alcohol unless approved in advance by a CCO;

1. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place;

1. Provide a valid sample for the purposes of Condition 18;

1. Not remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by prohibited drugs, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO;

1. Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place;

1. Not to be in possession of any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica weapon or dangerous article.

_______________________________

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

Signed by the Respondent _________________________________

In the presence of: _________________________________

Name and address: _________________________________

_________________________________

Date: _________________________________

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

[2] HRSO Act s 3 (definition of serious offender under restriction).

[3] The State of Western Australia v Hansen [2022] WASC 391 (Hansen) [15] ‑ [21].

[12] Received as exhibits 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

[13] Section 28 of the HRSO Act provides: 'A court making a restriction order must, when making the order, give detailed reasons for the order.' My detailed reasons were not finalised until October 2024.

[14] The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 (ZSJ) [30] - [63].

[16] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [135].

[17] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 (Williams).

[18] Williams [63]. See The State of Western Australia v Sandwell [2022] WASC 206 (Smith J); The State of Western Australia v Lewis [No 3] [2022] WASC 148 (Archer J).

[19] For instance, see The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412 (D'Rozario [No 3]) [21] (Quinlan CJ).

[20] Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 298 A Crim R 510; (2022) 96 ALJR 888; (2022) 404 ALR 182 [73] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ), [220], [225] ‑ [228] (Edelman J).

[21] The State of Western Australia v Garlett [135]; Garlett v Western Australia [73] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ), [220], [225] - [228] (Edelman J); D'Rozario [No 3] [21].

[22] Garlett v Western Australia [73].

[23] Garlett v Western Australia [220].

[24] Garlett v Western Australia [226] - [228].

[28] See for instance Garlett v Western Australia [55] (footnote 68); [103], [104], [106].

[29] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 (GTR) [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA).

[30] GTR [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA).

[31] GTR [27] (Steytler P & Buss JA).

[32] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246 [10].

[35] The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 [49].

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

[39] HRSO Act s 3 (definitions) and s 30(2).

[40] DSO Act s 18(1)(d) referred to 'section 19A or 19B', which correspond to s 31 and s 32 of the HRSO Act.

[41] DSO Act s 18(1)(f) referred to 'a sexual offence as defined in the Evidence Act 1906 section 36A', which included offences that were not within the meaning of 'serious sexual offence' in the DSO Act. Some of the offences referred to in s 36A of the Evidence Act are not included in the definition of 'serious offence' in the HRSO Act.

[42] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 (Hart) [52]; The State of Western Australia v CF [2021] WASC 20 [61] ‑ [62]; The State of Western Australia v PAS [No 3] [2021] WASC 117 [17]; The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 8] [2021] WASC 171 [48].

[45] The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 (Archer J) [52].

[46] Williams [86] (Wheeler JA, Le Miere AJA agreeing).

[50] While the three volumes of the BOM were received as exhibits, it is convenient to refer to them as 'BOM‑1' - 'BOM-3' respectively in the footnotes. The pagination was continuous from BOM-1 through to BOM-3. Contents of the BOM will be referred to by the page number and, where a document has numbered paragraphs, the paragraph number/s.

[107] BOM-2 548 [36(b)]; BOM-3 801 - 802 [24].

[114] The State of Western Australia v Abdullah [2019] WASCSR 55 [56] ‑ [60]. The citation for the sentencing remarks bears only the name of one of the respondent's co-offenders, although the respondent was named in the heading.

[115] BOM-1 11 - 14. The Chronology incorrectly referred to the aggravated burglary offences committed in 2010 and 2017 as serious offences for the purposes of the HRSO Act. The error was identified by counsel for the applicant at an early stage in the hearing (ts 40), and it did not have any bearing on the opinions expressed by the expert witnesses (see ts 45 and ts 77).

[135] BOM-3 783 [155]. The breakdown of the respondent's periods in custody is set out in the 'Placement History' from the Department of Justice, Corrective Services: BOM-1 105 - 107.

[167] BOM-3 769, 783 [152], 811 [58].

[215] Douglas, Hart, Webster, Belfrage 2013.

[262] BOM-3 789 - 790 [233] - [235].

[314] BOM-3 816 [79]. Ms Hasson used the word 'quantitative', but I have proceeded on the basis that this was a typographical error. Although the issue was not explored in evidence, all of the examples of differences between psychopathic and non-psychopathic violence were qualitative.

[325] BOM-3 819 - 820 [94] - [99].