THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HARPER [No 2] [2026] WASC 87 | Case summary

(a) on 3 June 2022, assisting two others to commit an offence (aggravated armed robbery) for which he received a term of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months in the District Court on 23 August 2023; and

(b) on 25 February 2024, committing the offence of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply for which he received a term of imprisonment of 14 months in the District Court on 1 May 2025.

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HARPER [No 2] [2026] WASC 87 | Case summary | Zoe

[15]

Mr Harper is currently 33 years old.
Mr Harper was born and raised in Western Australia. He has six half siblings from his parents' subsequent relationships.
Mr Harper's parents separated when he was two years old, and he had limited contact with his father for much of his childhood and adolescence.
Mr Harper spent most of his time with friends away from family. His mother and stepfather started their own family, and his father resided in Queensland after the separation.
Mr Harper had a close relationship to his stepfather whom his mother married when he was 12 years old.
Mr Harper was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during early childhood for which he took medication until the age of 13. The medication affected Mr Harper's growth and made him a target for bullies at school. He became aggressive at school as a result, and his schooling was disrupted by his behavioural problems, aggression and truancy.
Mr Harper attended two primary schools and three different high schools. He was excluded from school in year five for fighting and being disruptive in the classroom. He was also expelled from his first high school for stabbing a teacher in the hand with a compass after the teacher had 'slammed' Mr Harper's hand on his desk to get his attention. Mr Harper was then sent to boarding school in the country by his mother as a strategy to manage his disruptive behaviour. He spent some time at an agricultural boarding school but was expelled after a few months for disruptive behaviour which included killing animals. He then spent two years at his final boarding school, but he was again expelled for disruptive behaviour.
Mr Harper left school in year 9 and completed a year 10 equivalent at TAFE in 2007. He was first sent to juvenile detention at the age of 15. He has been employed since leaving school, with brief periods of unemployment when he was first released from prison and trying to get a job.
Mr Harper moved to Broome with his mother when he was 18, where he commenced an apprenticeship as a boilermaker. He quit after a few months and obtained a job as a tree lopper. He has mostly been employed in unskilled and semiskilled jobs. He has worked in concreting, pool and spa making, in civil construction as a machine operator, at the 'Spud Shed', on a chicken farm and 'Hungry Jacks'.
When Mr Harper was released on the Interim Supervision Order, he obtained work at a farm in Ravenswood.
Mr Harper started drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis at around 13 or 14 years old. He first used amphetamines at the age of 15 and again at the age of 18. Mr Harper has also used drugs intravenously in prison using shared needles.
Mr Harper had numerous short term relationships and two longer term relationships.
Mr Harper met the mother of his only child, when he was 18. They lived together for most of their 15‑month relationship until that relationship ended. It was during this relationship that Mr Harper assaulted someone who had come to see his then partner in January 2013 (see below). He also assaulted his former partner in February 2013 (also discussed below), for which he was remanded in prison.
Mr Harper's daughter is now 13 years old. He has had an unstable relationship with his daughter due to his periods of incarceration. He initially had contact with her when he was released into the community on the Interim Supervision Order, but she declined to maintain that contact when he returned to prison. Mr Harper has re‑established contact with her recently.
In January 2024, Mr Harper commenced an intimate relationship with another person while in prison, and they remained together until December 2024. That relationship was characterised by significant emotional manipulation and abuse.
Shortly after Mr Harper's release into the community on 2 May 2025, he commenced an intimate relationship with a long‑term friend, who he currently remains in a relationship with.

[16]

Mr Harper has a long criminal record that commenced at the age of 15.
On 7 March 2008, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Children's Court of being armed in a way that may cause fear, common assault and trespass for offences that occurred on 7 February 2008. He was sentenced to a 6 month intensive youth supervision order.
A little over two months later, on 21 May 2008, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Children's Court of one offence of stealing committed on 29 November 2007 and offences of stealing a motor vehicle and reckless driving, driving without a licence, failing to stop and criminal damage committed on 13 April 2008. The latter offences breached the intensive youth supervision order made on 7 March 2008. He was fined and a 4‑month conditional release order was made.
Less than a month later, on 12 June 2008, Mr Harper was again convicted in the Perth Children's Court for receiving stolen or fraudulently obtained property contrary to s 414 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to three months detention. His conviction breached the conditional release order made on 21 May 2008. He was resentenced to 4 months detention.
The following year, on 9 April 2009, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Children's Court of one count of aggravated armed robbery, one count of attempted aggravated armed robbery and one count of being armed in a way that may cause fear committed on 2 November 2008. A 12‑month youth conditional release order was made and he was ordered to perform 50 hours of community work.
These convictions arose out of a mugging that Mr Harper committed while in the company of another. During the incident, Mr Harper hit one of the victims over the head with a glass bottle and threatened the victims with a screwdriver and a brick.
Within six months, on 29 September 2009, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Children's Court of two counts of possessing a smoking utensil committed on 11 August 2009. This breached the youth conditional supervision order made on 9 April 2009. Mr Harper received a further 12 months youth conditional release order and 40 hours of community work.
On 20 January 2010, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Children's Court of damaging property committed on 31 October 2009 and received a 25‑hour youth community based order to be served cumulatively from 20 January 2010.
Later that year, on 8 June 2010, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Children's Court of assault occasioning bodily harm committed on 3 December 2009 and aggravated burglary committed on 6 August 2009. He received a further youth conditional release order commencing on 8 June 2010.
The assault offence involved Mr Harper headbutting and punching someone at a bus stop. The burglary involved him breaking into a house under construction, in the company of others, spitting on the wall and then sleeping in one of the bedrooms.
On 7 January 2011, Mr Harper was convicted in the Mandurah Magistrates Court of damaging property on 17 September 2011. He received a fine.
On 21 February 2011, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Children's Court of seven counts of breaching the conditional release order made on 8 June 2010. He received nine months detention.
On 25 February 2011, Mr Harper was convicted in the Mandurah Magistrates Court of common assault, assaulting a public officer, assault in circumstances of aggravation, escaping lawful custody, and threat to injure and damaging property. He received three months imprisonment and fines. The imprisonment sentence was later corrected to be six months and one day.
The assault and threat to injure charges arose out of an incident during which Mr Harper lost his temper while his girlfriend was arguing with a friend of his mother's. He assaulted the mother's friend's son as well as his own mother (when she tried to intervene). He threatened to stab his mother's friend with a pair of scissors.
The other charges relate to incidents on another day when Mr Harper smashed glass doors at his mother's property when she refused to give him a lift to court, him running away from police when they were called and then assaulting them.
On 31 July 2012, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of disorderly conduct, and not having a valid ticket, and received a fine.
On 6 March 2013, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of assaulting a public officer.
The next month, on 4 April 2013, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of assault occasioning bodily harm, breach of protective bail conditions, common assault in circumstances of aggravation, and damaging property. He received a term of imprisonment with a total effective sentence of 12 months backdated to 13 February 2013 and a fine.
The assault occasioning bodily harm charge arose out of a seemingly unprovoked attack on a man walking down the street. Mr Harper threw a rock into his face, punched him when he tried to get up and stomped on his head. The breach of protective bail conditions charge arose out of a telephone call he made to the victim of his assault threatening him if he did not withdraw the charge. Mr Harper told him that if the charge was not withdrawn, 'guns and bottles' would be involved.
The common assault in circumstances of aggravation and damaging property charges arose out of an assault on Mr Harper's partner when he became enraged after she asked for help with their child. He pulled her over by the hair, put his foot on her face and then on her hand when she tried to use her mobile telephone to call the police. He destroyed her telephone.
On 19 September 2014, Mr Harper was convicted in the Rockingham Magistrates Court of being armed in a way that may cause fear, breaching a violence restraining order and receiving property stolen or fraudulently obtained. He received an 18‑month intensive supervision order from 19 September 2014.
These charges arose from Mr Harper receiving a stolen trailer and two separate incidents in which he threatened people with knives. One of those people was the subject of a violence restraining order.
On 18 February 2015, Mr Harper was convicted in the District Court of an act or omission causing bodily harm committed on 27 January 2013. He was sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment of four years and six months, backdated to 14 August 2014.
This conviction involved Mr Harper assaulting another man who had come to visit Mr Harper's then partner to return her bank card. Mr Harper ambushed the man in the garage, hitting him repeatedly with a hammer.
On 22 May 2015, Mr Harper was convicted in the District Court of an unlawful act with intent to harm committed on 4 October 2014. He was sentenced to a further three year term of imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the term of imprisonment he was serving.
This charge involved Mr Harper stabbing another man with a knife, following a dispute at a nightclub. The victim collapsed, sustained a 3 cm stab wound to his neck and lost 900mls of blood. Mr Harper was on bail at the time for the previous offence for which he was sentenced in the District Court.
On 1 September 2015, Mr Harper was convicted in the Rockingham Magistrates Court of breaching the intensive supervision order imposed on 19 September 2014 and sentenced to serve three months imprisonment concurrently.

[17]

On 23 August 2023, Mr Harper was convicted in the District Court (of an offence committed on 3 June 2022) of assisting another person who has committed an offence. Gillan DCJ, the sentencing judge, sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of one year and six months. This involved Mr Harper assisting others to commit armed robbery, although he was sentenced on the basis that he thought the people he was helping were collecting what they were entitled to.
On 1 May 2025, Mr Harper was convicted in the District Court of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply committed on 25 February 2024. Christian DCJ, the sentencing judge, sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 14 months. These charges related to Mr Harper being found in possession of 12 small clipseal bags of methylamphetamine and admitting to assisting his sister with drug dealing.
On 2 May 2025, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of two counts of possession of amphetamines, one count of unlawful possession of a prescription drug (buprenorphine) and four counts of contravening a supervision order made under the HRSO Act. He received fines and a six month and one day imprisonment order suspended for nine months. The counts of contravening a supervision order related to providing an invalid urinalysis sample and the possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
On 31 July 2025, Mr Harper was again convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of a contravention of a supervision order made under the HRSO Act. He was sentenced to an eight month term of imprisonment backdated to 30 June 2025. Mr Harper's conviction also triggered the six months and one day term of imprisonment that had been suspended on 2 May 2025. He was ordered to serve that term concurrently with his new nine month term of imprisonment. The new conviction related to Mr Harper failing to provide a valid urinalysis sample.
On 21 October 2025, Mr Harper was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of careless driving and received a fine. This related to an outstanding charge that arose out of Mr Harper's conduct on 3 June 2022 (for which he was sentenced in the District Court on 23 August 2023). This charge arose out of Mr Harper's dangerous driving while acting as 'getaway driver'.

[22]

Ms Hasson interviewed Mr Harper on 7 June 2022 for five hours. She also spoke to Mr Harper's Senior Community Corrections Officer and reviewed various materials provided to her which she identified in her report.
Ms Hasson set out Mr Harper's personal history, his relationship history, social supports and peers, his history of substance use and his health and psychological functioning.
Ms Hasson then discussed Mr Harper's history of offending and what she discussed with him about that history when they met.
Ms Hasson reviewed the treatment interventions that Mr Harper had received and his previous response to supervision.
Ms Hasson considered that Mr Harper had an entrenched history of violent offending. She noted that his recent offending involved acts of serious violence against strangers whilst armed with a hammer and a knife, causing significant injuries. She considered that he had a history of similar offending spanning many years and had spent much of his adult life in prison for violent offending.
Ms Hasson assessed Mr Harper using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised: 2nd Edition (PCL-R) a 20-item scale which uses both historical and dynamic data for the assessment of psychopathy in research, clinical, and forensic settings.
She explained that the PCL-R uses a semi-structured interview, file, and collateral information to measure inferred personality traits and behaviours related to a widely understood, traditional conception of psychopathy. She said that the presence of high psychopathy traits is considered to be a robust correlate of future offending.
Ms Hasson considered that Mr Harper's total score on the PCL-R was 29 indicating that while he presents with a significant number of psychopathic traits across all dimensions, he does not fit the construct of psychopathy in Australia. She said that the cut off score was 30.
Ms Hasson also assessed Mr Harper using the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20 version 3 (2013) (HCR-20v3).
She explained that the HCR-20v3 is a set of structured professional judgment guidelines to assess risk of violence. She said that the HCR‑20v3 involves the assessment of ten historical risk factors that reflect past adjustment, five clinical factors that reflect present adjustment and five risk management factors that reflect future adjustment.
Ms Hasson considered that the following historical risk factors were present and relevant:

[32]

Professor Pyszora also assessed Mr Harper using the PCL-R.
Professor Pyszora's assessment was completed based on both of Mr Harper's interviews and the information available to her. She said that his scores fell well below the threshold for psychopathy. She considered that his positive scoring was consistent with his diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.
Professor Pyszora also assessed Mr Harper using the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide- Revised (VRAG-R).
She explained that the VRAG-R is a 12-item actuarial instrument that assesses the risk of violent recidivism among those previously apprehended for criminal violence. She said that it is recognised as the most empirically supported actuarial method for the assessment of violence risk in forensic populations.
Professor Pyszora considered that Mr Harper scored a total of 39 on the VRAG-R which places him at the 98th percentile and in the highest of the 9 categories for re-offending risk. She said that for persons within this risk category 76% of them will commit a further violent offence within five years and 87% will violently reoffend within 12 years.
Professor Pyszora also assessed Mr Harper using the HCR-20v3.
Professor Pyszora explained that the HCR-20v3 provides a structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment. She said that it measures both static and dynamic factors that are associated with violent recidivism.
She explained that the historical scale focuses on historical risk factors that are generally static in nature, the clinical scale focuses on dynamic factors present that relate to mental status and attitudes in the past few weeks to months and the risk management scale focuses on factors that relate to the management of an individual's level of risk.
Professor Pyszora explained that structured professional judgment has become the principal method for carrying out risk assessments. She said that assessors use all available information to assess aggravating and mitigating factors to categorise individuals as low, moderate, or high risk.
Professor Pyszora considered that the following historical risk factors used in the HCR-20v3 were present or partially present in Mr Harper's case:

[38]

Professor Pyszora also discussed the potential for Mr Harper having future problems with treatment or supervision and future problems with the stress of coping, without indicating whether she considered that those risk factors were present or partially present.
Professor Pyszora expressed the opinion that Mr Harper presented a high risk of committing a serious offence of general violence if his risk factors were not managed.
She observed that Mr Harper has an established pattern of offending behaviour, including serious offending within the meaning of s 5 of the HRSO Act. She thought that he had significant outstanding criminogenic treatment needs including antisocial personality disorder, antisocial cognitions, antisocial companions, relationship stressors, substance abuse, and lack of formal education. She considered that in addition, he had problems with mental health, impulsivity, anger control, poor attention and concentration, and poor self-esteem. She thought that all of these factors would need to be addressed through treatment and supervision in order to manage Mr Harper's risk.
Professor Pyszora considered scenarios for Mr Harper's future offending.
She considered that Mr Harper might be likely to use reactive violence in a fight, including situations where he has gone out looking for a confrontation. She thought that he might be likely to use a weapon and be in the company of antisocial peers. She thought that the violence could have serious consequences if a weapon was used and could easily be fatal.
She also noted that Mr Harper has a history of using violence in family and domestic situations.
Professor Pyszora considered that Mr Harper might use pre‑meditated violence to seek revenge where he felt he had been wronged, to protect his family or to meet his needs.
She considered that without treatment and supervision, Mr Harper presented a chronic risk of violence.
Professor Pyszora considered that if Mr Harper was not subject to a restriction order he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence within the meaning of s 5 of the HRSO Act.
Professor Pyszora considered that monitoring strategies needed to be implemented to ensure the early detection of the warning signs of escalating risk.
She considered that treatment was required to address Mr Harper's considerable outstanding criminogenic treatment needs as well as his mental health needs.
Professor Pyszora thought that Mr Harper would require treatment for his mental health issues including ADHD and anxiety, and this would include trials of medication for both conditions. She said that it was impossible to predict how well his symptoms would respond to pharmacological treatment.
She thought that he would also require individual psychological therapy, and the particular psychological approaches should be informed by neuropsychological testing. She considered that therapy would need to address executive dysfunction, emotional dysregulation, social problem-solving, critical and moral reasoning, and comorbid symptoms so that he did not revert to using drugs or violence to regulate his emotional state or to resolve interpersonal conflict. She thought that he will need to build awareness and coping skills for high‑risk situations.

[40]

Ms Hasson also prepared an updated report dated 9 October 2024.
Ms Hasson was scheduled to see Mr Harper on 30 September 2024 but he refused to see her. Her report was therefore prepared through a file review and by liaison with the staff at the Community Offender Monitoring Unit.
Ms Hasson expressed the view that Mr Harper's criminal record reveals entrenched offending behaviour and the presence of antisocial attitudes, values and cognitions such that nothing would act as a deterrent against him committing offences. She considered that his disrespect for authority and defiance of the law is clear and presents with a criminal mind set, tolerant of criminal and violent behaviour. She thought that Mr Harper's capability for violence was concerning from a public risk perspective.
Ms Hasson reviewed the risk assessment that she had previously undertaken.
Her assessment of Mr Harper using the PCL-R remained unchanged.
She also reassessed him using the HCR-20v3. She considered that the present historical items remained unchanged.
Given Ms Hasson was unable to interview Mr Harper, her ability to comment on the clinical risk factors was limited to instability and treatment or supervision response. After considering Mr Harper's more recent record, she considered that both of these factors were relevant.
Ms Hasson considered that the same HCR-20v3 future risk management factors she had identified in the earlier review were present.
Ms Hasson expressed similar views about risk scenarios for future offending.
Ms Hasson remained of the opinion that Mr Harper's risk of reoffending in a violent manner was chronic, the risk increased if he took illicit substances and Mr Harper was a high risk of reoffending.
Ms Hasson observed that Mr Harper's behaviour in breaching orders and engaging in behaviours that contravene order conditions reveals that he has difficulty with emotional and behavioural regulation and control, is unable to cope and manage in the moment and cannot engage in consequential thinking or cease certain behaviours in the short term for the sake of avoiding the longer term consequences of his actions.
Ms Hasson considered that Mr Harper's offending has been maintained by the presence of antisocial personality traits and cognitions and pro-criminal attitudes, values and beliefs, substance misuse, criminal identity, antisocial peer associations, family dysfunction, impaired relationships with others, self-destructive and risk taking behaviours and the ability to suspend empathy and focus only on satisfying his own needs and wants in a callous and hedonistic manner. She thought that amphetamine and alcohol abuse remain salient risk factors.
Ms Hasson considered that Mr Harper still presented a high risk of offending if not made the subject of an order under the HRSO Act.
Ms Hasson remained of the view that Mr Harper's personality structure would make it very difficult for him to break old patterns and engage in prosocial behaviour. Her view was reinforced by Mr Harper's more recent behaviour.
Ms Hasson continued to consider that Mr Harper had outstanding treatment needs.

[44]

Professor Pyszora provided an addendum report on 26 May 2025.
Professor Pyszora reviewed Mr Harper on 12 May 2025 for two hours, spoke to Ms Jones and Mr Harper's mother and reviewed further information identified in her report.
Professor Pyszora's diagnosis of Mr Harper remained the same as that given in her earlier reports.
Professor Pyszora observed that Mr Harper's ADHD symptoms have remained relatively consistent over the past three years. She said that he had not been able to have a trial of pharmacological treatment during his periods of remand due to limited psychiatric resources and his choice not to transfer to a prison in which the visiting psychiatrist was agreeable to facilitating this. She said that his access to treatment in the community would be unlikely to improve due to the lack of available services.
Professor Pyszora expressed the opinion that Mr Harper continued to have the significant outstanding criminogenic treatment needs she had identified in her earlier report. She recorded that Mr Harper continued to decline psychological intervention aimed at addressing his needs.
Professor Pyszora said that Mr Harper has repeatedly sought pharmacological treatment for his drug addiction while on remand, but he has not been provided with this, and he continued to use illicit opiates while in custody. She said that he had recently decided to withdraw from opiates prior to release on bail and manage his risk of relapse without pharmacological or professional counselling/ psychological support.
Professor Pyszora recorded that at that stage, Mr Harper believed that he did not need any treatment for substance misuse. She said that he stated that he had been using drugs on a daily basis up until 10 days before his release and then went 'cold turkey' and suffered withdrawal symptoms, but these had resolved prior to his release.
Professor Pyszora observed that Mr Harper had shown that he had the capacity to comply with an interim supervision order with 35 conditions for a period of time. She noted, however, that both periods from 13 February 2022 to 15 June 2022 and 29 December 2023 to 26 February 2024 resulted in a return to drug use and significant reoffending. She said that on the last occasion, conflictual relationships within the home environment created stressors and he had returned to the same accommodation again.
Professor Pyszora reviewed the risk assessments undertaken in her earlier reports with the result that her assessments remained the same. She also considered that the scenarios for future violence remained the same.
Professor Pyszora continued to be of the opinion that if Mr Harper were not subject to a restriction order he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence, within the meaning of s 5 of the HRSO Act.
Professor Pyszora recommended that if Mr Harper was placed on a continuing detention order that he engage with psychological intervention and/or appropriate group-based programs to address his criminogenic needs. She said that options for a trial of pharmacological treatment for his ADHD could be revisited depending on his prison placement and the availability of a psychiatrist.

[46]

Ms Hasson prepared a further report on 2 June 2025. She interviewed Mr Harper for 30 minutes on 26 May 2025 and spoke to him on the telephone for 90 minutes on 27 May 2025. She also reviewed various materials provided to her.
Ms Hasson considered that Mr Harper displayed some insight into the choices and decisions he made while in the community subject to the Interim Supervision Order. She said that while this would ordinarily bode well for future engagement in counselling and suggests a capacity for self-reflection and potential for emotional and behavioural change, Mr Harper steadfastly refused to engage in counselling. She observed that there was a rigidity in his thinking whereby he recognised that he makes similar/same poor choices and decisions yet still believes he can make the necessary changes without professional input.
Ms Hasson continued to think that Mr Harper has difficulty with emotional and behavioural regulation, and control and consequential thinking. She still thought that his offending behaviour was maintained by antisocial personality traits and cognitions and pro-criminal attitudes, values and beliefs, substance misuse, criminal identity, antisocial peer associations, family dysfunction, impaired relationships with others, self-destructive and risk taking behaviours and the ability to suspend empathy.
She observed, however, that Mr Harper is aware that he lacks empathy and has displayed limited remorse for his actions, indicated he wanted to develop empathy but did not understand that this is unlikely to occur without professional input if at all given his personality.
Ms Hasson noted that Mr Harper continues to express the view that he is capable of change independently and she described his understanding of his challenges as naïve and simplistic. She thought that successful reintegration into the community will require much more than 'mind over matter'. She thought that Mr Harper does not seem to be able to recognise or accept the complexity of his challenges.
Ms Hasson described Mr Harper as being institutionalised by his time in prison. She said that Mr Harper described being overwhelmed by his order conditions and the stresses of everyday life in the community. She described Mr Harper as being insightful enough to acknowledge that his antisocial attitudes and aspects of his personality functioning such as hating having demands put on him, being forced into a situation, and being told what he cannot do contributed significantly to him disregarding some of his order requirements.
Ms Hasson said that Mr Harper's acknowledgement and recognition of hostile and resentful attitudes and beliefs is a significant step toward ownership, accountability and acceptance of personal responsibility. She also described some softening of his attitude toward authority figures, but she thought it would take a long time to see consistent change.
Ms Hasson reiterated that her opinion was that long term psychological intervention and support would be crucial to help Mr Harper successfully transition from prison to the community, although she observed that Mr Harper does not currently agree.
While Ms Hasson thought that Mr Harper would benefit from counselling, she did not recommend it at that stage given the level of his resistance. She thought that he should be given the opportunity to have counselling should he wish, however.
Ms Hasson reviewed Mr Harper's risk assessments. The conclusions were consistent with her earlier assessments.
Ms Hasson identified the same scenarios for future violence on Mr Harper's part, with the addition that there was a possibility that Mr Harper would offend in the company of others. She expressed the view that any of the scenarios would cause significant psychological or physical harm to the victims and there was a risk of serious or life‑threatening violence.
Ms Hasson assessed Mr Harper as a high risk of reoffending. She said that he is yet to make sufficient treatment gains or manage his substance abuse to manage the level of risk. She considered that he needs to develop his interpersonal and emotional regulation skills to reduce his potential to react in an aggressive and intimidatory manner and to limit the likelihood of engaging in reckless and impulsive behaviours that place himself and at others at risk.
Ms Hasson's opinion was that Mr Harper continues to represent a high risk of committing a serious violent offence as that term is defined in the HRSO Act, if he is not made the subject of an order under the Act.
Ms Hasson reiterated her view that Mr Harper's personality structure will make it very difficult for him to break old patterns of behaviour. This view was reinforced by Mr Harper's recent reoffending.

[52]

Ms Jones supervised Mr Harper whilst he was in the community subject to the Interim Supervision Order. She prepared a Community Supervision Assessment report in which she summarised Mr Harper's offending history, his engagement with programmatic intervention, his previous response to supervision, his prison behaviour, the extent of his compliance when subject to the Interim Supervision Order, and the various contravention offences.
In relation to Mr Harper's prison behaviour, Ms Jones reported eight occasions on which Mr Harper engaged in misconduct and adverse behaviour. These involved damaging prison property, acting in a threatening and intimidating manner against prison staff, punching a wall, carrying a syringe that he secreted on his person, and offences relating to the prisoner telephone system. She also referred to three occasions on which he received prison charges following positive urinalysis tests for buprenorphine between 4 August 2022 and 3 May 2023.
Ms Jones reported that Mr Harper was released into the community on the Interim Supervision Order on 13 February 2022. She said he was subject to the Interim Supervision Order for four months prior to being arrested for further reoffending.
Ms Jones reported that Mr Harper fluctuated in his compliance with the Interim Supervision Order. She said that although Mr Harper generally engaged well during supervision sessions, departmental records indicated that he was hostile towards supervision and his senior community corrections officers, and he challenged conditions and questioned decisions made relating to the Interim Supervision Order.
Ms Jones reported that Mr Harper made various attempts to obtain approval to reside with his ex-partner, at her residence. Ms Jones noted that Mr Harper was observed to engage in controlling and psychologically abusive behaviours towards his ex-partner, where he had threatened to self-harm and/or kill himself in arguments.
Ms Jones recorded that Mr Harper was initially residing with his mother and his siblings whilst subject to home detention bail, however, his mother withdrew her support when Mr Harper was engaging in illicit substance use and aggression towards the occupants in the home.
Ms Jones reported that Mr Harper commenced employment with his father upon his release on the Interim Supervision Order in February 2022. She said, however, that due to a relationship breakdown with his father, lived with his mother and was able to obtain further employment with 'SupaFresh' as a vegetable picker/packer.

[53]

Ms Jones produced an updated report summarising Mr Harper's compliance with the Interim Supervision Order and the further charges he accrued while in the community resulting in Mr Harper being returned to custody.
In relation to Mr Harper's prison behaviour, Ms Jones noted that there had been further incidents of concern. She reported that Mr Harper's ex-partner was arrested by Police at Hakea Prison for trafficking illicit substances into the prison, under pressure from Mr Harper who threatened to end their relationship if she did not commit the offence.
Ms Jones reported significant concerns about family and domestic violence behaviour stemming from a review of Mr Harper's telephone calls with his ex‑partner where he spoke to her about making financial gain through suspicious means.
Ms Jones reported that Mr Harper commenced a new intimate relationship after his release on 2 May 2025. She noted that the relationship then appeared to be in its infancy and close monitoring would be required given Mr Harper's history of abusive behaviours.
Ms Jones addressed changes to Mr Harper's accommodation. She noted that shortly before Mr Harper's release on 2 May 2025, Mr Harper's mother withdrew her support for him living with her due to concerns raised by her adult sons who lived with her. She said that Mr Harper needed to be placed in emergency accommodation until the family accepted his return into his mother's home on 5 May 2025.
Ms Jones also addressed Mr Harper's programmatic intervention. She recorded discussions that occurred with herself, Mr Harper and Professor Pyzsora at Hakea prison regarding Mr Harper's transfer to Acacia prison to facilitate his ADHD treatment. She said that Mr Harper maintained his refusal to a transfer to Acacia but indicated that he would take steps to commence treatment with a general practitioner upon his release, however, he did not do so.
Ms Jones also reported that Mr Harper had continuously refused to engage with FPIT. She said that Mr Harper advised that if psychological intervention was required by an intensive supervision order, he would attend but said that he would sit in sessions quietly and not engage and that 'showing up' is all he would be willing to do.

[59]

Professor Pyszora was asked to comment about Ms Jones's most recent report. She was referred to what Ms Jones had recorded about Mr Harper's behaviour in prison, including the incident that occurred on 11 August 2025 when he threatened to harm himself and staff when it was proposed to move him to a different prison. Professor Pyszora thought that this conduct evidenced Mr Harper's continuing willingness to make threats.
Professor Pyszora agreed with Ms Hasson's observation that Mr Harper had been institutionalised by his time in prison.
Professor Pyszora was also asked about Mr Harper's comments about engaging with FPIT. She thought that Mr Harper's comments showed ambivalence about engaging in the need to change his behaviour and perhaps revealed that he was not genuinely motivated at all. She said that it is positive that he had made a shift but his motivation is not particularly strong.
Professor Pyszora was asked about whether the fact that Mr Harper had commenced drug counselling demonstrated positive change. She said that this would depend on Mr Harper's motivation. She said that the degree of positive change might be questioned if his only motivation was the pending court hearing, although she acknowledged that participation could still be beneficial.
Professor Pyszora said that given Mr Harper's poor history of complying with the Interim Supervision Order, she thought that he would have difficulty complying with the standard conditions of a supervision order for any period of time. She thought that he might only be able to manage a few weeks of compliance.
Professor Pyszora was asked about the recommendations that she would make if Mr Harper was placed on a continuing detention order. She thought that he needed treatment for both his criminogenic needs and his substance use. She supported Mr Harper participating in the Pathways Program. She also considered that he required treatment to address his attitudes to violence, and she again suggested that he trial medication for his ADHD. She recommended that if a continuing detention order were made, consideration should be given by authorities to how Mr Harper could receive treatment for his ADHD.
Professor Pyszora thought that Mr Harper should start treatment as soon as possible.

[77]

Mr Harper has had difficulty complying with supervision and restrictive legal orders for much of his life. During his long involvement with the criminal justice system, he has repeatedly breached supervision orders, conditional release orders, and suspended sentences. This pattern began in his youth, when he breached youth supervision orders and conditional release orders made by the Children's Court. It has continued into adulthood when he has been convicted of breaching protective bail conditions, violence restraining orders, and supervision orders (including the Interim Supervision Order).
Although Mr Harper was initially released from custody when he was made the subject of the Interim Supervision Order, he has still spent a large proportion of the time since then in prison. This is due to his repeated reoffending whilst subject to the Interim Supervision Order. He has been convicted of a number of breaches of the terms of the Interim Supervision Order, as well as a number of other summary and indictable offences.
This offending includes relatively recent offending, including his conviction in the District Court for the offence of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply committed on 25 February 2024. While the offence of which he was convicted is not a 'serious offence' as that term is defined in the HRSO Act, the offence committed was still serious in a more general sense, as is evident from the 14 month term of imprisonment imposed.
Mr Harper's conduct in prison suggests that his difficulties with complying with supervision continued during his imprisonment. He has repeatedly come to the attention of custodial staff for misbehaviour. This includes incidents involving drugs. It also includes relatively recent incidents in December 2025 and January 2026, and an incident in August 2025 which involved Mr Harper making threats to others to avoid moving prisons. Professor Pyszora thought Mr Harper's conduct was evidence of his old patterns of behaviour.
Both Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson thought that Mr Harper's difficulty complying with supervision (and his criminal conduct more generally) required treatment. While they recognised that Mr Harper had made some gains from the limited treatment he had received, they both thought that he would require significant further treatment to meaningfully address his needs.
Both Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson thought that Mr Harper was a high risk of future violent offending. Both thought that his propensity to use weapons meant that there was a real risk that any future violent offending could cause serious injury and, perhaps even death.
While the material before me does not suggest that Mr Harper would deliberately flout the conditions of a supervision order, the material does suggest that his previous failure to meaningfully engage with treatment to help him to address the issues that have made him unable to comply with supervision previously (and have resulted in his offending), means that he may be unable to comply with a supervision order.
This appears to have been the opinion of Professor Pyszora, which I accept. Although Ms Hasson did not express a similar opinion, I suspect that was simply because she was not asked. In one of her reports, she did say that Mr Harper's antisocial attitudes and aspects of his personality functioning (such as hating having demands put on him and being told what to do), contributed significantly to him disregarding some of the Intensive Supervision Order requirements.
None of this is to say that Mr Harper should not receive recognition for his willingness to now engage in counselling. This is a positive step for which he deserves credit. Rather, it is to recognise that the treatment he requires will require significant time to have any meaningful effect.
Ultimately, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Harper will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. Given the conclusion that I have reached, I must make a continuing detention order and will do so.

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HARPER [No 2] [2026] WASC 87 (19 March 2026)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (89 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (5)

Cases Cited (1)