THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MAR [No 6] [2025] WASC 526 (11 December 2025)

1. Without objection, the State tendered two volumes of a Book of Material (BOM): these became exhibits 1 - 2.[13] I have read and considered the materials within those exhibits which have been the subject of submissions or oral evidence.
2. In addition, at the hearing before me on 5 December 2025, the State called:
   1. Dr Peter Wynn Owen, a forensic psychiatrist who authored a psychiatric report for the purpose of this review hearing dated 23 November 2025;[14] and
   2. Ms Nicole Bennetts, a senior community corrections officer within the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU), who authored a community assessment report dated 26 November 2025.[15]
3. The State's witnesses were both cross-examined by counsel for the respondent.

1. Sections 64(1) and (2) of the Act effectively mandate that the State must:
   1. seek a review of an offender's detention under a continuing detention order; and
   2. ensure that reviews are carried out as soon as practicable after the end of the first year from when the continuing detention order took effect and, thereafter, after the end of two years from the most recent review.
2. Section 66 of the Act is relevantly addressed to how the Court should deal with an application made under, for example, s 64.
3. Section 68 of the Act provides as follows:
   1. Review of detention under continuing detention order

(1) On a review under section 66 of an offender's detention -

(a) if the court does not find that the offender remains a high risk serious offender it must rescind the continuing detention order; or

(b) if the court finds that the offender remains a high risk serious offender it must -

(i) affirm the continuing detention order; or

(ii) subject to section 29, rescind the continuing detention order and make a supervision order.

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

1. In assessing whether the respondent remains a high risk serious offender I must, by s 7(3) of the Act, have regard to certain mandatory considerations. Section 7 of the Act relevantly provides as follows:
   1. Term used: high risk serious offender

(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).

(3) In considering whether it is satisfied as required by subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following -

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

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

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

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

(e) any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme;

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

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

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

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

(j) any other relevant matter.

1. The respondent's history of committing 'serious offences' was set out by Tottle J in MAR [No 2] at [26]:

Indecently Dealt with a Child under 13 years - between 01/01/2016 and 31/12/2016

The victim was having a sleepover with the respondent's partner's daughter. The victim was asleep on a mattress next to the respondent's partner's daughter. The respondent approached the victim and started to rub her breasts on the outside of her clothing. The respondent left the room when the victim woke up.

The respondent and the victim, the respondent's partner, were both intoxicated. An argument escalated into violence when the victim began to strike the respondent with a metal broomstick. At separate points in time both the respondent and the victim had possession of the broomstick and used it to strike the other. The respondent then gained control of the broomstick and struck the victim forcibly over the head with the metal end. This caused a significant wound to the victim's head and resulted in the victim's skull fracturing. The victim fell to the ground and the respondent struck the victim several more times before leaving.

At the age of 15 the respondent touched his five‑year‑old nephew on the buttocks. The respondent reported that he had become sexually aroused when playing with this nephew and had removed his own trousers and was in the process of removing his nephew's trousers when he was interrupted.

Indecently Dealt with a Child aged over 13 and under 16 years (two counts) - between 30/09/1997 and 29/09/2000

The victim was the respondent's younger half‑sister. The offence involved the respondent entering the victim's house while she slept, waking the victim by rubbing her breast on the outside of her clothes and then rubbing her vagina for approximately 5 minutes.

The respondent unlawfully entered the victim's house and found the victim asleep in bed. The respondent lay down next to the victim and touched her shoulder, upper chests and breasts.

The victim was a 28‑year‑old woman, asleep in a bedroom. The respondent saw that the woman was unconscious as a result of intoxication, he removed her clothing and then penetrated her vagina with his penis.

Attempted Sexual Penetration of Child under 13 years (two counts) and Sexual Penetration of a Child under 13 years (two counts) - between 25/03/2002 and 10/12/2002

The two instances of attempted sexual penetration of a child under 13 years occurred within a short space of time. The respondent entered a room where the victim was lying on a mattress, the respondent tried to penetrate her vagina with his penis but the victim used her hands to prevent him. The respondent ejaculated externally and then tried again to penetrate the victim's vagina with his penis but was again unsuccessful.

The first instance of sexual penetration of a child under 13 years occurred when the respondent invited the victim and her brother to his house to smoke cannabis, the respondent then prevented them from leaving, however the victim's brother managed to get away. The respondent then forced the victim to remove her clothes, lay her on a mattress and penetrated her vagina with his penis.

The second instance of sexual penetration of a child under 13 years occurred when the victim asked the respondent for a cigarette. The respondent invited the victim into his house to get it and then prevented her from leaving. The respondent then forced the victim onto a mattress, removed her clothes and penetrated her vagina with his penis.

The respondent entered the house of the victim, his half‑sister, while she was sleeping. The respondent got into the bed where the victim was sleeping and rubbed his groin against her buttocks.

Deprivation of Liberty (Serious Offence) and Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm (two counts) - 18/03/2000

The respondent punched the victim, a 13‑year‑old girl, in the jaw with a clenched fist, causing the victim to fall to the ground. The respondent maintained the assault occurred in response to statements directed by the victim to the respondent (the victim and the respondent were known to each other). The victim ran to a nearby house to hide. The respondent chased after the victim, grabbing her and pulling her backwards causing her to fall to the ground again. The respondent then punched the victim twice in the stomach. The respondent then took hold of the victim, so as to not let her get away, and forced her towards his house against her will. The victim was freed when a third party intervened. In a subsequent interview the respondent said that he had been in a sexual relationship with the victim.

The respondent has an extensive non‑sexual criminal history, with convictions for burglary, aggravated burglary, stealing, possession of drug paraphernalia, creating a disturbance, common assault, disorderly behaviour, property damage, driving without a licence, failure to comply with reporting obligations, breach of bail, breach of protective bail, breach of suspended sentence and escape lawful custody.

1. Strk J in MAR [No 4] set out the contraventions of the supervision order to which the respondent had pleaded guilty[16] and which she found established.[17] I have not reproduced here the description of the contraventions.
2. A review of the contraventions shows that many of them are not of themselves particularly serious (in the ordinary sense of the word) offending.
3. It may be observed that almost every person who is subject to a supervision order under the Act is damaged emotionally and psychologically in a way which contributes to their serious (in the sense as defined in the Act) offending and, then, the contravening of conditions of a supervision order. Further, many, if not all, have issues with the use and abuse of a substance or substances.
4. Almost by definition, each has spent significant periods of time in prison and almost always has poor life skills and a lack of pro‑social connections in the community. They rarely, if ever, have work to return to or any other meaningful pro‑social activity.
5. That some high risk serious offenders breach conditions of their supervision order is, in truth, a surprise to no one involved in the system and would come as no surprise to any thinking person.
6. For many offenders on a supervision order, it is often the case that the prosecution of each contravention will rapidly lead to a large number of offences being committed and additional penalties being imposed; including short custodial sentences which remove them from the community, contribute to their institutionalisation and remove them from any therapeutic contacts or programs they have in the community.
7. None of this is to say that the monitoring of compliance with the conditions of a supervision order is not important, nor that contraventions should not be regarded as 'red flags' in appropriate cases warning of the commission of a serious offence as defined in the Act. But, it may appropriately give pause for thought as to whether all contraventions should be prosecuted when regard is had to all of the Act's objects.
8. But, the consequence is that as the time moves significantly past the time of their last serious offence under the Act, a person subject to a supervision order may well find themselves less and less likely to be able to discharge their onus under s 29 of the Act and so become liable to be the subject of a gains‑sapping and hope destroying continuing detention order.
9. These appear to be well-known consequences along a well-worn track established under the Act which is meant to give more than merely a nod to the possible rehabilitation of an offender: see s 8(b) of the Act (which I have quoted below).
10. As will be seen, the respondent's contraventions of the supervision order in the community which I consider to be of most significance are the respondent visiting particular pornographic websites where the websites 'parallelled' some of the respondent's previous serious offending.
11. During his current detention period, the respondent has received minor warning for the suspected concealment of medication and being outside his cell during lock up.[18]
12. However, he has not incurred any negative behavioural incident reports and has received a positive commendation for his participation in education.[19]
13. Further, the respondent has been subject to 46 breathalyser tests and two urinalysis substance tests, all of which returned a negative result.[20]

1. The respondent is now 44 years of age.
2. Dr Wynn Owen records that the respondent suffered childhood adversity and loss with his parents dying violently when he was young and being subsequently raised by an aunt.[21] Further, he was exposed to:

[98] ... alcohol fuelled violence and observed sexual contact, including coerced contact and manipulation of vulnerability, while participants were intoxicated and at times involving underage girls, which is likely to have normalised these behaviours. At school [MAR] was bullied and teased, he was also the victim of physical abuse as a child.[22]

1. During his time in the community under the supervision order, the respondent underwent a coronary artery by-pass procedure in April 2023.[23]
2. During the assessment with Ms Verden, the respondent advised that:
   1. his health is currently poor;
   2. he finds it difficult to walk further than a few metres due to pain in his back and leg;
   3. he experiences ongoing chest pain following a broken rib during the surgery referred to above; and
   4. he has ongoing concerns regarding his cardiac health.[24]

Does the respondent remain a HRSO as defined by the Act?

1. With respect, quite properly in my view, counsel for the respondent accepted that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender as per the Act.[25]
2. In light of that concession and the nature of the evidence and the cross-examination thereon, I have not set out individually the factors mandated for my consideration by s 7(3)(a) - (i) of the Act. Rather, I have dealt with those matters in a more summary way.
3. Dr Wynn Owen is a qualified expert within the meaning of the Act.[26]
4. He had previously assessed the respondent on at least three prior occasions for the purposes of the 2021 restriction order application before Tottle J,[27] the 2022 review application before Fiannaca J,[28] and the 2023 contravention application before Strk J.[29]
5. He prepared the 2025 Psychiatric Report pertaining to the respondent for the purpose of this review.[30]
6. Dr Wynn Owen has diagnosed the respondent with:[31]
   1. substance use disorder (alcohol and cannabis); and
   2. antisocial personality disorder.
7. Dr Wynn Owen said that the respondent's offending was often in the context of alcohol and cannabis use and intoxication and was frequently associated with emotional deregulation.[32]
8. For reasons he explained (some of which I have summarised below), Dr Wynn Owen opined that the respondent:

[101] ... presents a high risk of committing a serious offence in the future. A serious sexual offence is more likely than a serious violent offence. [MAR] has a history of violent and sexually violent offending commencing at an early age and persisting into adulthood. Attitudes supporting or condoning sexual offending, substance abuse, problems with stress and coping and lack of self awareness are the most relevant dynamic risks to future offending.[33]

1. Dr Wynn Owen opined that the most likely scenario for future sexual offending is:

[92] ... the opportunistic indecent assault of a female family member or acquaintance in a place to which he has access who is asleep, at a time when [MAR] has been drinking and is either acutely intoxicated or within hours of ceasing alcohol consumption and has an elevated libido. If the victim (who could be a female under 16 or an adult female) wakes and tells him to stop or breaks free the offending is likely to stop.

[93] An escalation of sexual violence could entail attempted or actual vaginal penetration, with a degree of force used to compel compliance.

[94] An escalation and change would possibly be associated with the use of a degree of force resulting in physical injury, a weapon may also be used. It could also change to opportunistic offending against a female Any sexual offence of the type described will result in immediate and long lasting psychological harm to the victim, with the possibility of significant physical harm in an escalation or change scenario.[34]

1. Dr Wynn Owen summarised and opined as to the respondent's risk of serious violent offending:

[95] The most significant risk factors for violent offending are [MAR's] history and pattern of violent and sexually violent offending and general criminality. Violent offending commenced in adolescence and has continued through adulthood, a strong indictor of increased risk of future offending. Antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse are significant contributors to future risk of violence. Problems with stress and coping, problems with relationships and violent attitudes are also contributors to risk.

[96] The most likely scenario for serious violent offending is violence towards a female partner in an intimate relationship. The context may include a return to substance use to manage feelings of jealousy, or to manage fear of rejection and abandonment. Acute intoxication is likely to be a factor as resulting disinhibition can increase the level of violence used through further impairment of self-control and consequential thinking.[35]

1. Dr Wynn Owen considered a number of tools in his assessment of the respondent, but noted that the tools used 'have not been extensively validated for indigenous Australian offenders'.[36]
2. The respondent's score on the STATIC-99 put him in the 'Well Above Average Risk' range[37] and remained unchanged when compared to prior assessments in 2021,[38] 2022,[39] and 2023.[40] Offenders in this category have a 30.7% chance of committing a new sexual offence within five years of release from custody, which raises to 42.8% within 10 years of release.[41]
3. Given the relevant lack of validation of this risk assessment tool, I have placed no great reliance on the percentage figures given. Rather, I have taken it as being an indication of a greater than normal risk.
4. A review of the respondent utilising the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol found a number of risk factors were present.[42]
5. Of concern to Dr Wynn Owen are the respondent's attitudes supporting or condoning sexual offending, substance abuse, problems with stress and coping, and lack of self‑awareness, which he says are the dynamic risk factors most relevant to future offending.[43]
6. Included in these risk factors are the respondent's continual failure to openly disclose his libido or his sexual interests and thinking, ongoing distortions and attitudes supportive of sexual offending, and lack of awareness of high risk situations for sexual offending.[44]
7. Prior to being deemed a HRSO, the respondent completed a Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP), a Cognitive Brief Intervention Program, a Pre-Release SOTP, and a Stopping Family Violence Program.[45]
8. Further, while in custody under the continuing detention order imposed by Tottle J, the respondent completed a Pathways Program and 21 individual intervention sessions with a counselling psychologist from the Forensic Psychology Intervention Team (FPIT).[46]
9. During this review period of detention, the respondent was transferred from Casuarina Prison to Bunbury Regional Prison on 8 October 2024 to facilitate his participation in the ISOTP.[47]
10. The respondent commenced participation in the ISOTP on 4 December 2024 and completed all 110 sessions by 25 September 2025.[48]
11. Soon after commencement, program facilitators reported that the respondent's presentation in the group was concerning and had the potential to undermine his successful completion of the program. Such behaviours included presenting as mildly depressed and frequently experiencing episodes of agitation and verbal combativeness when either he or a peer were therapeutically challenged or appropriately critiqued as part of the treatment process.[49]
12. The respondent's participation overall was described as superficial, and he demonstrated minimal motivation to engage in program activities or to complete assigned homework tasks.[50]
13. Further, during the program, other participants reported that the respondent was repeatedly making sexualised comments about young female staff members who were working in the vicinity of the group. The respondent was resistant to discussions on the inappropriateness of his actions when this behaviour was addressed in group and demonstrated limited awareness of the link to his past sexual offending.[51] At his interview with Dr Wynn Owen, the respondent denied suggestions that he had engaged in inappropriate behaviour or the making of any sexual comments.[52]
14. Following a recommendation made by Dr Wynn Owen at the hearing of the contravention application before Strk J, the respondent commenced treatment with Mr Becker, a forensic psychologist with FPIT, on 29 August 2024.[53]
15. The sessions were held via video conference until the respondent's transfer to Bunbury Regional Prison in early October 2024, when in‑person sessions were then facilitated.[54]
16. Individual intervention focused on addressing responsivity issues identified by facilitators of ISOTP (as set out in paragraphs [59] - [61] above) which were impeding the respondent's participation in the group, including emotional dysregulation, distress tolerance, low mood, and over‑sensitivity to rejection.[55]
17. It was noted by Mr Becker that the respondent engaged well in individual sessions and was open and honest about the impact of past trauma on his over‑sensitivity to rejection and how it has contributed to his offending behaviours.[56]
18. However, following consultation with ISOTP facilitators on 15 May 2025, individual counselling was suspended due to concerns that overservicing was leading to the development of an unhealthy reliance on support from intervention personnel rather than increasing his personal agency and ability to self‑regulate.[57]
19. Mr Becker concluded that there were limited treatment gains from this initial period of individual intervention.[58] However, the respondent's development of rapport and ability to regulate his emotions during individual intervention was seen as a positive.[59]
20. Following completion of the ISOTP, Mr Becker reengaged with the respondent on 16 October 2025.[60]
21. Dr Wynn Owen has assessed, without challenge, the respondent's response to treatment interventions to date as 'minimal' notwithstanding his participation in, and completion of, the various programs set out above.[61]

1. Dr Wynn Owen considers that future treatment through standard group and individual interventions will be of limited effect and value in developing the respondent's insight into his offending and improving his awareness and self-management of risk to facilitate risk reduction.[62]
2. Notwithstanding that, to avoid any loss of the (limited) treatment gains made to date and to maintain and engender his motivation to change, Dr Wynn Owen recommended that:[63]
   1. individual counselling with a departmental psychologist continue to consolidate learning to date and address outstanding treatment needs is essential; and
   2. consideration should be given to his participating in the Mallee Drug and Alcohol Program at Casuarina Prison.
3. Dr Wynn Owen describes that the respondent has a range of outstanding treatment needs, particularly in relation to his risk of sexual offending.[64] These include:
   1. self-regulation, hyper‑sensitivity to rejection, cognitive inflexibility, impulsivity, and recognition of a lack of self‑efficacy and personal agency;[65]
   2. entrenched mistrust of others, intimacy deficits, insecure attachment, communication and conflict management skill deficits, and hostility towards women;[66] and
   3. significantly in areas of sexual deviance, understanding of consent, identification of coping strategies, ongoing cognitive distortions and hostile attitudes towards women.[67]
4. Further, the evidence is that his risk of recidivism is likely to increase if he experiences social isolation, boredom, and/or feelings of rejection.[68]
5. Noting it as a clear pathway to offending for the respondent, Dr Wynn Owen further says that the respondent has significant outstanding treatment needs relating to substance use evidenced by his failure to demonstrate a motivation or ability to change his behaviour when in the community.[69]
6. As I understand it from the other evidence led and the submissions of the State, it is intended that the individual counselling currently being provided through the FPIT team will continue.
7. Mr Becker confirmed that if the respondent is detained on a continuing detention order at Casuarina Prison or released on a supervision order to the Perth metropolitan area, he could continue to receive FPIT intervention sessions via video conference.[70]
8. Reporting that the respondent has a complex psychological profile, Mr Becker advised that future FPIT intervention will require focus on key criminogenic factors in a more targeted manner to address his emotion regulation, impulse control, abnormal sexual cognitions and use of maladaptive mechanisms such as substance use and pornography.[71]

1. To rescind the continuing detention order imposed by Strk J, I would need to be satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order if made: see s 29(1) and s 68(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The paramount consideration I must have regard to is the adequate protection of the community.
2. Against the backdrop of the respondent's serious offending, both the contraventions of the supervision order which involve the visiting of particular pornographic websites, and the continuing use of alcohol and other substances, give cause for concern.
3. The concern which Dr Wynn Owen has identified, and which I find contributes to the continued need for detention, is that the respondent visiting the pornographic websites that he does indicates a continuing interest in too‑young women and forced non‑consensual sex. When coupled with the disinhibiting effect of alcohol and drug misuse, that gives rise to a risk which, in my judgement, currently cannot be managed in the community.
4. While the respondent's behaviour in prison generally has not been questionable, the limited gains he appears to have made from the ISOTP and, indeed, some of his behaviour during that program give rise to real concerns as to whether there could be a safe (for the community) release from detention. To that must be added Dr Wynn Owen's, and Mr Becker's observations as to the limited treatment gains which the respondent has made generally.
5. Further, as the respondent's counsel frankly acknowledged, there is, in any event, no appropriate accommodation available to the respondent which is, in and of itself, 'a roadblock to release'.[72] That concession is entirely correctly made and reflects the authorities.
6. In all of the circumstances, I find that:
   1. the respondent remains a high risk serious offender; and
   2. the adequate protection of the community requires me to affirm the continuing detention order.

1. Having regard to the objects of the Act, I consider it appropriate that I make some further observations and recommendations based on the evidence which has been before the Court and the submissions made on behalf of the respondent. The State supported my making recommendations based on the evidence it had adduced in the Application.
2. Before turning to those, I set out the objects of the Act. The objects of the Act are:
   1. Objects of this Act

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

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

1. As per the evidence in this application, and especially that of Dr Wynn Owen, it appears plain that any prospect of the respondent making treatment gains depends, at the least, on the individual counselling through FPIT continuing.
2. I would recommend strongly that such individual counselling continue.
3. While it may be accepted that the respondent did not make the gains which may have been on offer through the ISOTP, I recommend that he continue to be assessed for any further group programs which may be considered to offer him some treatment gains.
4. Further, there is a persistent issue for many indigenous offenders who are detained in the Perth metropolitan area far away from their country.
5. Dr Wynn Owen very properly considered the respondent's complaints about being away from his country. However, he was unable, at this stage, to opine confidently that the respondent being back on country, albeit in detention, would have a significant positive effect on him making treatment gains.
6. Notwithstanding that careful assessment by Dr Wynn Owen, it appears to me plain that as part of the consideration to be given to future treatment options for the respondent, a relocation to country in the Kimberley, albeit in detention, should be considered. As was made plain in evidence, that will not impact on the continuation, in and of itself, of his individual counselling which can continue remotely by audio visual link.

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

[1] The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 2] [2021] WASC 97 (MAR [No 2]).

[2] Consistently with previous judgments, I have adopted this pseudonym instead of the respondent's name.

[3] The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 3] [2022] WASC 371(MAR [No 3]).

[4] MAR [No 3] [287(2)] and the annexure to the reasons.

[5] The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 4] [2023] WASC 271 (MAR [No 4]).

[6] The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 5] [2023] WASC 434 (MAR [No 5]).

[9] Book of Materials, Volume 1, page 1. I have described references to the Book of Materials by marking the volume in which they can be found, followed by 'BOM' and the page number of the document.

[10] Email from the State received 18 October 2024.

[12] Treatment Progress Report of Joanna Verden dated 12 November 2025 (Treatment Progress Report): 2 BOM pages 431 - 442.

[14] Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 23 November 2025 (2025 Psychiatric Report): 2 BOM pages 443 ‑ 457.

[15] Community Assessment Report of Nicole Bennetts dated 26 November 2025 (Community Assessment Report): 2 BOM pages 458 ‑ 463.

[18] Treatment Progress Report [11]: 2 BOM page 434.

[19] Treatment Progress Report [11]: 2 BOM page 434.

[20] Treatment Progress Report [11]: 2 BOM 434.

[21] 2025 Psychiatric Report [98]: 2 BOM page 455.

[22] 2025 Psychiatric Report [98]: 2 BOM page 455.

[23] Treatment Progress Report [12]: 2 BOM page 434.

[24] Treatment Progress Report [12]: 2 BOM page 434.

[26] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act) s 3.

[27] Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 11 March 2021 (2021 Psychiatric Report): 1 BOM pages 294 ‑ 320.

[28] Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 18 April 2022 (2022 Psychiatric Report): 1 BOM pages 371 ‑ 385.

[29] Psychiatric Report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen dated 31 October 2023 (2023 Psychiatric Report): 1 BOM pages 398 ‑ 413.

[31] 2025 Psychiatric Report [69(i) and (ii)]: 2 BOM page 451.

[32] 2025 Psychiatric Report [99]: 2 BOM page 455.

[33] 2025 Psychiatric Report [101]: 2 BOM page 456.

[34] 2025 Psychiatric Report [92] - [94]: 2 BOM pages 454 - 455.

[35] 2025 Psychiatric Report [95] - [96]: 2 BOM page 455.

[36] 2025 Psychiatric Report [71]: 2 BOM page 452.

[37] 2025 Psychiatric Report [72]: 2 BOM page 452.

[38] 2021 Psychiatric Report [24]: 1 BOM page 313.

[39] 2022 Psychiatric Report [63]: 1 BOM page 377.

[40] 2023 Psychiatric Report [146]: 1 BOM page 410.

[41] 2025 Psychiatric Report [72]: 2 BOM page 452.

[42] 2025 Psychiatric Report [73] - [89]: 2 BOM pages 452 - 454.

[43] 2025 Psychiatric Report [101]: 2 BOM page 456.

[44] 2025 Psychiatric Report [106]: 2 BOM page 456.

[45] Treatment Progress Report [8]: 2 BOM page 433.

[46] Treatment Progress Report [9]: 2 BOM page 433.

[47] Treatment Progress Report [11]: 2 BOM page 434.

[48] Treatment Progress Report [16]: 2 BOM pages 435 - 436; ISOTP Completion Report: 2 BOM page 426; 2025 Psychiatric Report [40]: 2 BOM page 448.

[49] Treatment Progress Report [13]: 2 BOM pages 434 - 435.

[50] Treatment Progress Report [16]: 2 BOM page 435.

[51] Treatment Progress Report [16]: 2 BOM pages 435 - 436.

[52] 2025 Psychiatric Report [51]: 2 BOM page 449.

[53] Treatment Progress Report [13]: 2 BOM page 434.

[54] Treatment Progress Report [13]: 2 BOM page 434.

[55] Treatment Progress Report [13]: 2 BOM page 435.

[56] Treatment Progress Report [13]: 2 BOM page 435.

[57] Treatment Progress Report [14]: 2 BOM page 435.

[58] Treatment Progress Report [15]: 2 BOM page 435.

[59] Treatment Progress Report [15]: 2 BOM page 435.

[60] Treatment Progress Report [15]: 2 BOM page 435.

[61] 2025 Psychiatric Report [107]: 2 BOM page 456.

[62] 2025 Psychiatric Report [107]: 2 BOM page 456.

[63] 2025 Psychiatric Report [107(i) - (ii)]: 2 BOM page 457.

[64] 2025 Psychiatric Report [106]: 2 BOM page 456.

[65] Treatment Progress Report [17]: 2 BOM page 436.

[66] Treatment Progress Report [18]: 2 BOM page 436.

[67] Treatment Progress Report [20]: 2 BOM page 437.

[68] Treatment Progress Report [20]: 2 BOM page 437.

[69] 2025 Psychiatric Report [106]: 2 BOM page 456.

[70] Treatment Progress Report [15]: 2 BOM page 435.

[71] Treatment Progress Report [15]: 2 BOM page 435.