[2020] WASC 404
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of WA
2020-11-13
Derrick J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Recommendations for ongoing treatment and management
ANNEXURE 1 STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT
The following conditions incorporate the above standard conditions and are suggested to strengthen and add to the standard conditions required by the Act for the more effective management of the offender in the community.
('Contact' under this condition and the following two conditions means any form of interaction or communication whether by word, gesture, expression or touch and whether in person, in writing, by telephonic or electronic means, but does not include the bare minimum of interaction or communication necessary between an adult and a child to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication).
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
[1] Act, s 2(1)(a).
[2] The term 'commencement day' is defined for the purposes of the provisions contained in pt 10 of the Act (s 122 ‑ s 125) to mean 'the day on which this section comes into operation'. The 'day on which this section comes into operation' is, by virtue of proclamation, 26 August 2020: Act, s 2(1)(c).
[11] The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 6] [2018] WASC 72.
[12] The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 6] [33] ‑ [36].
[14] Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister are 'qualified experts' as defined in s 3 of the Act. Their reports were prepared and obtained pursuant to s 67(1) of the Act and in accordance with s 74 of the Act.
[17] This section of my reasons reproduces what I wrote in The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 6] [2020] WASC 349 [29] ‑ [52].
[18] The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [30] ‑ [31].
[19] The respondent is an 'offender' for the purposes of the relevant provisions of the Act: Act, definition of 'offender' and 'serious offender under restriction' in s 3.
[20] The relevant date for the purposes of s 64(2)(a) and s 64(3) is 25 October 2020, the continuing detention order having commenced on 25 October 2019 upon the expiration of the sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment imposed for the aggravated indecent assault offence committed by the respondent on 25 June 2016: ts 3.
[22] The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [2019] WASC 427 [21]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [44].
[23] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28]; The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [24]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [47].
[24] The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [24]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [47].
[25] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116 [46]; The State of Western Australia v Newland [2018] WASC 344 [12]; GBT v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 40 [21]; The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [22]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [45].
[26] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [63]; GBT v The State of Western Australia [21]; The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [22]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [45].
[27] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [63] ‑ [64]; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [14]; The State of Western Australia v Newland [21]; The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [26]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [51].
[28] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [33]. Also adopted in The State of Western Australia v Narkle [2019] WASC 404 [13] and The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [26].
[29] The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 [25]; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [15]; The State of Western Australia v Newland [22]; The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [27]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [52].
[30] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]; The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 6] [51]; The State of Western Australia v West [No 6] [29]; The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [56] ‑ [58].
[31] The State of Western Australia v Paul Douglas Allen also known as Paul Alan Francis Deverell [No 5] [2019] WASC 359 [7] ‑ [11].
[32] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [62].
[33] The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 6] [6].
[34] The State of Western Australia v MBW [No 6] [9] ‑ [11].
[112] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [178].
[118] ts 44. In giving her evidence relating to the information held by CPFS, Ms Cashmore, in the absence of objection by the respondent, made reference to the contents of the Cassam email.
[121] I note that it was clear from the respondent's counsel's closing submissions at the review hearing that despite Dr Wojnarowska's evidence to the effect that if the respondent agreed to resume anti‑libidinal treatment her opinion would be that the risk that he presents to the community could be adequately managed by releasing him on a supervision order with appropriate conditions, his position remained that he would not agree to resuming such treatment.
I am satisfied, applying the Briginshaw [(1938) [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336] standard, that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sexual offence if a continuing detention order was not made having regard to all of the evidence presented by the State. In particular, I accept Dr Wojnarowska's opinions that:
(a) the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence in the future is high;
(b) the respondent has derived little benefit from past psychological interventions due to his psychopathic personality traits and associated willingness to engage in deceptive and manipulative strategies in counselling.
I also accept Dr Wojnarowska's opinions on the causes of the respondent's risk of sexual reoffending. Understandably, her opinions reflect the circumstances of the respondent's offending, including the most recent sexual offence, as well as her expertise as a forensic psychiatrist.
Dr Wojnarowska's opinion concerning the failure of past psychological counselling to significantly ameliorate the risk of the respondent sexually reoffending is supported by Ms Hasson's report and opinions. Moreover, the respondent was involved in on-going counselling at the time that he committed the aggravated indecent assault in June 2016. However, neither counselling nor the requirements of the Supervision Order operated as sufficient protective mechanisms to prevent the respondent from committing a serious sexual offence (nor in engaging in risky behaviour in the period immediately prior to the offence).
Dr Wojnarowska's opinions, and the most recent sexual offence committed by the respondent, strongly suggest that the factors contributing his risk of sexual offending are entrenched. They are likely to remain difficult to treat unless he is able to moderate the personality traits that condition his egocentric approach to counselling. However, he has demonstrated some capacity for control and it may be that, in the future, a combination of anti‑libidinal medication, close supervision and intensive counselling could provide sufficient protection for the community. At present, the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence if a continuing detention order was not made is, in my view, unacceptable.
(2008) 38 WAR 307
(2007) 35 WAR 297