THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- NARRIER [No 8] [2025] WASC 528 (12 December 2025)

(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. Section 5 defines the term 'serious offence' that is used in s 8. It does so predominantly by reference to offences specified in sch 1 div 1, and sch 1 div 2 where the offence is committed in the circumstances indicated in div 2.
2. Section 48 sets out the court's power to make a restriction order. It provides:

(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. Pursuant to s 48, if the court finds the offender is a high risk serious offender the court must make a continuing detention order or a supervision order.
2. Section 7(1) defines the phrase 'high risk serious offender' as follows:

An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.

1. The phrase 'high degree of probability' connotes a standard that is more than the civil standard of balance of probabilities but less than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.[7] The State has the onus of satisfying the court to this standard that Mr Narrier is a high risk serious offender.[8]
2. In considering whether I am satisfied that Mr Narrier is a high risk serious offender, I must have regard to the matters that are set out at s 7(3)(a) to (j). Section 7(3)(j) is a catch all provision, which in effect provides that I must have regard to any other relevant matter in addition to those set out at s 7(3)(a) to (i).
3. Section 7(4) sets out what I must disregard in making the relevant assessment. Specifically, I must disregard the possibility that Mr Narrier might temporarily be prevented from committing a serious offence by imprisonment or remand in custody, or the imposition of bail conditions.
4. In The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2],[9] I analysed these provisions, in particular by reference to the joint judgment of Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ and the separate judgment of Edelman J in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.[10] Having regard to that analysis, I am of the view that the appropriate way to proceed is as follows:[11]

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 possible harm. The assessment of the nature and extent of the possible harm directs attention to the possible serious offences that might be committed and the harm they may cause. It also directs attention to the likelihood that the offender might commit such offences (that is, the likelihood the risk might eventuate). The extent to which deterrent factors have operated to reduce risk in the past feeds into the assessment of current and future risk, as does the offender's historical and current response to rehabilitation. These are all factors that inform the assessment of whether the risk is 'unacceptable'. They are by no means exhaustive. I am reluctant to attempt to provide greater definition, bearing in mind the caution expressed by the High Court in M v M against 'striving for a greater degree of definition than the subject is capable of yielding'.

If the risk is found to be 'unacceptable', the nature and extent of that unacceptable risk then informs the assessment of whether a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. And, as Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ explained, the assessment of whether the order is necessary requires recognition that an offender's entitlement to be at liberty is not lightly to be denied.

(footnote omitted)

1. Further, in Garlett, the joint judgment quoted with approval the following observations of Fiannaca J in The State of Western Australia v ACJ:[12]

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). As was decided in respect of s 17(2) of the [Dangerous Sexual Offenders] 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.

(footnotes omitted)

1. The HRSO Act does not require that there be no risk of re‑offending.[13] Similarly, an assessment whether a supervision order provides adequate protection of the community does not require that the supervision order eliminates all risk.

1. Section 27(1) provides that a supervision order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers appropriate.
2. The nature, conditions and period of a supervision order are addressed by s 27 and s 30.
3. Section 27(2) provides that a supervision order has effect from a date, and for a period, stated in the order.
4. Section 30(2) sets out the standard conditions of a supervision order, which the court must impose. As I have said, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of it.[14] Broadly speaking, the conditions in s 30(2)(a) to (e) and (g) impose reporting and notification obligations on the offender and subject the offender to intensive supervision. The standard condition in s 30(2)(f) is that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.
5. Section 30(5) provides that a supervision order may contain any other terms that the court thinks appropriate:

(a) to ensure adequate protection of the community; or

(b) for the rehabilitation, care or treatment of the offender; or

(c) to ensure adequate protection of victims of serious offences committed by the offender.

1. In relation to the question of whether an offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions imposed by s 30, the joint judgment in Garlett quoted with approval the following observations of Fiannaca J in ACJ:[15]

The question of whether the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order requires consideration of all of the circumstances, both personal to him and external, which will affect him. External circumstances include the conditions of the supervision order, the available means to monitor, supervise and treat him, and any pro-social support available to him.

1. Thus, the assessment of whether the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions takes account of the protective and supportive measures provided by the terms of the order.
2. In respect of the additional conditions that a court might impose over and above the standard conditions of a supervision order, Edelman J in Garlett observed:[16]

The requirement of appropriateness [in s 27(1)] imposes a duty on the Court to make only the additional supervision conditions required to ensure 'adequate' protection of the community, while imposing the minimum intrusion on an offender's liberty.

(footnotes omitted)

1. In my view, this observation applies equally to the period of a supervision order. The period should reflect the minimum intrusion necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community.
2. Further, in my view, the type of additional conditions which might be imposed are relevant to assessing the following three matters. First, whether the additional conditions, taken together with the standard conditions, can ensure adequate protection of the community in the relevant circumstances. Second, if that is the case, what additional conditions are required to ensure adequate protection of the community, while imposing the minimum intrusion on an offender's liberty. Third, whether the additional conditions, taken together with the standard conditions and all of the relevant circumstances, satisfy the court that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions.

1. Section 64(2) of the HRSO Act requires the State to make an application for the review of a detention order so as to ensure that reviews are carried out as soon as practicable after the end of the first year from when the detention order took effect, and thereafter, after the end of two years from the most recent review. Section 66 sets out the procedure for the hearing of the application.
2. Section 68 sets out the options available on review:

(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. The terms of s 68(1)(b) and s 68(2) are substantially the same as s 48. The observations I have made earlier in this judgment regarding the application of s 48 apply with equal force to the application of s 68.[17]
2. The regular reviews put in place by s 64 and s 68 implicitly recognise that it is a significant matter to deprive a person of their liberty for something they might do in the future, as opposed to something they have done in the past.
3. Justice Hall (as his Honour then was) observed in the Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Unwin [No 3] in respect of the DSO Act:[18]

The annual review process is intended to ensure that detention only continues where necessary. It mitigates the otherwise potentially draconian effect of imprisoning people for crimes that they have not committed. Annual reviews are not, therefore, merely a welfare check; they are an exercise of judicial power to confirm, vary or rescind a detention order. Continuing detention should not be ordered unless that is justified by the circumstances existing at the time of the review.

1. These observations apply with equal force to reviews conducted under the HRSO Act.
2. The review process is directed to considering what protective measures under the HRSO Act are required having regard to the current circumstances. Those circumstances may be such that a CDO does not remain a necessary protective measure under the HRSO Act. In this respect, it must be remembered that one of the objects of the HRSO Act is to provide for the care or treatment of an offender, the successful implementation of which will likely reduce an offender's risk of committing a serious offence in the community.

1. The State tendered at the hearing three volumes of documents, which respectively became Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
2. The State also called three witnesses, Dr Wojnarowska, Ms Anna James and Ms Nicole Bennetts, who gave evidence at the hearing. Dr Wojnarowska is a forensic consultant psychiatrist, Ms James is a clinical and counselling psychologist, and Ms Bennetts is a Senior Community Corrections Officer.
3. Dr Wojnarowska prepared a report for the hearing.[19] Ms James wrote two letters to the court, providing updated treatment progress reports.[20] Ms Bennetts was an author or endorsee of two community assessment reports, the most recent of which is dated 30 September 2025.[21]
4. Mr Narrier did not give or adduce any evidence.

Recent review by Justice Derrick on 17 October 2022

1. Before turning to address the evidence at the hearing, it is helpful to summarise the key findings that Derrick J made when his Honour recently affirmed the CDO. Those findings, while not binding on me, still helpfully inform the task that is before me.
2. At the hearing held before his Honour, Dr Wojnarowska gave evidence that if Mr Narrier was not subject to a restriction order, he presented with a high risk of committing sexual offences that are serious offences under the HRSO Act.[22] Dr Wojnarowska was also of the opinion that Mr Narrier's risk could be managed in the community under a supervision order containing conditions that had been recommended by an officer of COMU.[23]
3. His Honour accepted Dr Wojnarowska's evidence that Mr Narrier presented with a high risk of committing further serious offences if not subject to a restriction order. His Honour, however, did not accept Dr Wojnarowska's evidence that Mr Narrier's risk could be managed in the community under a supervision order.[24]
4. His Honour found that Mr Narrier remained a high risk serious offender and was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that if Mr Narrier were released on a supervision order, he would substantially comply with the standard conditions for anything other than a brief period.[25]
5. In coming to that view, his Honour took into account the combined effect of the following matters:

(1) Mr Narrier had a significant history of committing multiple serious contraventions of supervision orders within a short time of being placed on them.[26]

(2) Mr Narrier remained at a high risk of committing sexual offences amounting to serious offences under the HRSO Act.[27]

(3) Mr Narrier had not since the first review demonstrated any sustained material improvement in his ability to manage his impulsivity and emotions by mature coping mechanisms.[28]

(4) Mr Narrier had made no, or at best, very little progress in relation to his illicit substance use problem. His Honour considered this was demonstrated by Mr Narrier's use of illicit substances in the structured and controlled prison environment.[29]

(5) Mr Narrier had significant other outstanding treatment needs in addition to his substance use problem.[30]

(6) Dr Wojnarowska was of the opinion that Mr Narrier will struggle to consistently engage with those responsible for his supervision and monitoring and struggle to maintain abstinence from illicit substances.[31]

(7) Dr Wojnarowska was of the opinion that it is unrealistic to expect that Mr Narrier will be able to abstain from alcohol and illicit substances in the community, particularly if he comes into contact with persons using such substances.[32]

(8) Dr Wojnarowska was of the opinion that if Mr Narrier was released on the conditions of the proposed supervision order, he was at a high risk of breaching the conditions of the order including the reporting conditions and conditions prohibiting him from using substances.[33]

(9) The link between Mr Narrier's use of alcohol and illicit substances, especially methylamphetamine, and his commission of serious sexual offences, was direct and significant. Once Mr Narrier starts to use alcohol and substances again, his imminent risk of committing serious sexual offences increases markedly.[34]

(10) Mr Narrier had no realistic plans for employment or any real plans for occupying his time in the community.[35]

1. Mr Narrier is now 53 years old. He has at least one daughter and granddaughter.
2. He had a dysfunctional upbringing and reported that his biological mother arranged for another Aboriginal family to raise him when he was very young. Dr Wojnarowska observed in her 2008 report that earlier reports of Mr Narrier's background indicted that his childhood was marred by neglect, poverty and sexual abuse, however he also reported having a foster mother who was a 'good woman', who cared about him.[36] Mr Narrier reported witnessing a lot of violence throughout his life.[37]
3. He returned to the care of his biological mother when he was eight years old, and the family moved to South Australia.[38]
4. Mr Narrier left school in Year 8,[39] but has completed his education to a Year 11 standard while in prison.[40]
5. Mr Narrier's most recent employment was in an abattoir in Albany during the early period of his first supervision order.[41] He has demonstrated a good work record in prison in the past.[42] Mr Narrier has expressed a willingness to work in the community, but has no specific plans and has not considered what type of work he can realistically apply for.[43]
6. Mr Narrier reports a positive relationship with his two sisters and wishes to re-establish a relationship with his daughter and granddaughter.[44]
7. Since his early teenage years, Mr Narrier has been in a number of relationships. They have been marred by domestic violence.[45]
8. Mr Narrier has a long history of alcohol use and illicit substance use.[46] He acknowledges that his drug use has been a factor in his offending and that he has suffered relapses since he returned to prison.[47]
9. Mr Narrier's medical conditions include hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation, congestive cardiac failure and type 2 diabetes. He is prescribed medication for these conditions. He is also prescribed Citalopram (80 mg daily), partly for the management of his libido.[48]

Criminal history and behaviour while subject to supervision

1. Mr Narrier's criminal history, and his behaviour while subject to supervision, has been summarised in previous decisions of this court under the DSO Act and the HRSO Act.

1. On 24 March 1990 Mr Narrier, aged 17 at the time, knocked on the door of a house. The victim answered, and Mr Narrier asked her for a drink of water. When she returned, Mr Narrier was armed. He grabbed the victim by the throat, forced her into the bedroom and removed her clothing. He then penetrated her anus and vagina with his fingers before attempting to penetrate her anus with his penis. Mr Narrier stole $25 from the victim before he bound her, gagged her and assaulted her whilst demanding more money. Mr Narrier entered pleas of guilty to four counts of aggravated sexual assault (given that he digitally penetrated the victim's anus twice and digitally penetrated the victim's vagina twice), armed robbery and burglary and deprivation of liberty. Mr Narrier was sentenced by the President of the Children's Court on 1 May 1990 to a total of 4 years imprisonment. He was released on 21 January 1993.[49]
2. Tottle J summarised the further history of Mr Narrier's offending as follows:[50]

On 5 February 1993, shortly after his release at the end of the 4‑year sentence, Mr Narrier committed two offences of burglary, one of child stealing and one of assault occasioning bodily harm. The circumstances were that, whilst armed with a knife, Mr Narrier entered a house at 11.30 pm and removed the 12-year-old child/victim by force. He took the victim across the road where he forced her to the ground and removed her nightgown. Mr Narrier punched the victim three times to the face. Mr Narrier attempted to undo his trousers and lay on top of the victim. The victim's screams attracted the attention of neighbours who came to assist. On 17 June 1993 Mr Narrier was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment. Mr Narrier was released on 3 February 1997.

Between 16 and 17 January 1998 Mr Narrier committed offences involving two female victims in their homes on a single night, namely, an aggravated burglary and sexual assault, and a second aggravated burglary with an associated assault occasioning bodily harm. The details are as follows. At about 11.00 pm on 16 January 1998, Mr Narrier grabbed the 30-year-old victim by the throat as she put her dog outside the back of her house. Mr Narrier forced her to the lounge room and pulled down her pants. Mr Narrier threatened to kill her if she did not stay quiet. Mr Narrier then penetrated the victim's vagina with his penis. After withdrawing from the victim, Mr Narrier went to the kitchen and later spoke to and apologised to her before leaving. Later that night, at about 1.15 am on 17 January 1998, Mr Narrier entered a different house through an unlocked door in order to steal money. The victim, who was asleep on the lounge, awoke and was restrained by the neck and head by Mr Narrier. She managed to struggle free. No sexual assault took place. For the offending on that night, Mr Narrier was sentenced on 16 June 1998 to terms of imprisonment structured to arrive at an aggregate term of 12 years imprisonment without parole. A term of indefinite detention was also imposed but later quashed by the Court of Appeal.

On 25 December 1998 Mr Narrier whilst in custody was involved in a riot at Casuarina Prison. He was convicted of nine offences including assault of a public officer, damage, threats to kill, threats to injure and threats to harm. On 28 April 2000 Mr Narrier was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, to be served cumulatively upon the 12-year term already imposed.

The effect was that Mr Narrier was required to serve a term of 15 years imprisonment from 19 January 1998. The end date of the aggregate sentences was 12 July 2008.

1. Mr Narrier's 'serious offences' within the meaning of the HRSO Act are the attempted sexual penetration offence, deprivation of liberty offence, sexual penetration offences and armed robbery offence that were all committed on 24 March 1990, the child stealing offence committed on 5 February 1993 and the sexual penetration offence committed on the night between 16 and 17 January 1998.[51]
2. Mr Narrier's last serious offence of a sexual nature was committed in 1998. However, Mr Narrier committed a burglary offence in April 2011 involving a threat of sexual violence, which Jenkins J found Mr Narrier intended to carry out for a short period of time.[52] This offending is described below at [62].

The respondent's history of supervision under the DSO Act, and of other offending

1. On 11 February 2009, Murray J placed Mr Narrier on a supervision order under the DSO Act for a period of five years (the first supervision order). During the period of February 2010 to April 2011, Mr Narrier contravened the first supervision order on a number of occasions. The contraventions included possessing and using prohibited drugs (cannabis, amphetamine and methylamphetamine), failing to report to his Community Corrections Officer (CCO) because he did not return to Albany from an approved visit to Geraldton, failing to attend for urinalysis testing, failing to attend a supervision session and failing to attend counselling as directed.[53]
2. On 21 April 2011, Mr Narrier again contravened the first supervision order by committing offences of aggravated burglary and stealing a motor vehicle.[54] The facts of this offence were summarised by Derrick J as follows:[55]

[Mr Narrier], in company with a juvenile co-offender, broke into a family home. The male complainant was pushed out of the house and punched by the co-offender. Meanwhile [Mr Narrier] confronted the female complainant and demanded money. [Mr Narrier] grabbed the female complainant by the arm and, in the presence of her children who were crying, threatened to force her to perform a sexual act on him if she did not give him money. No sexual act took place. [Mr Narrier] and the co-offender then left the house by driving away in a motor vehicle that was in the carport.

1. On 24 May 2012 Mr Narrier was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment for the aggravated burglary and steal motor vehicle offences. The sentence was backdated to commence on 6 May 2011.
2. Following these offences, the State commenced contravention proceedings against Mr Narrier and on 11 April 2014, Jenkins J made a CDO.
3. The first review of the CDO was conducted in 2017 by Tottle J. On 24 October 2017, his Honour rescinded the CDO and placed Mr Narrier on a supervision order for a period of seven years (the second supervision order). The second supervision order commenced upon Mr Narrier's release from custody on 22 November 2017. Some minor amendments were made to the second supervision order on 18 April 2018.
4. Between January 2018 and May 2018, Mr Narrier contravened the second supervision order eight times:[56]

Seven of the contraventions were made the subject of charges under s 40A(1) of the DSO Act and were comprised of [Mr Narrier] visiting a house which was used by squatters, providing a urine sample that tested positive for cannabis, permitting his partner to stay overnight at his house, failing to observe his curfew, being at the home of another without the prior approval of his CCO, and using amphetamine, methylamphetamine and cannabis. The eighth contravention which was comprised of [Mr Narrier] removing his electronic personal identification device (transmitter) was made the subject of the charge under s 19C(3) of the DSO Act.

(footnotes omitted)

1. On 19 October 2019, after hearing the second contravention application, Jenkins J rescinded the second supervision order and made a second CDO.

Evidence of Dr Wojnarowska, Ms James and Ms Bennetts

1. Dr Wojnarowska prepared reports for the purposes of Mr Narrier's 2020 and 2022 reviews. She also prepared a report dated 13 December 2024 for the purpose of the review before me.[57]
2. As I will come to explain, Dr Wojnarowska's opinion has changed since that report, predominantly due to progress Mr Narrier has made in counselling with Cyrenian House and also because of Mr Narrier's positive prison behaviour this year.
3. It is still instructive to set out aspects of Dr Wojnarowska's 13 December 2024 report, as they identify her principal areas of concern.
4. Dr Wojnarowska assessed Mr Narrier's risk of re-offending using the 'Static‑99R' and 'Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol' (RSVP) tools. Dr Wojnarowska noted that the Static‑99R is less reliable in estimating the likelihood of sexual offending, in comparison to violent offending, of an Indigenous person.[58] Mr Narrier scored 6 on the Static‑99R assessment which placed him in the 'well above average risk' group for re-offending.[59] However, Dr Wojnarowska also noted the Static‑99R does not measure all the relevant risk factors.[60]
5. In terms of the RSVP assessment, Dr Wojnarowska expressed the opinion that Mr Narrier's psychological functioning was a major concern. She said his impulsivity and deficits in self‑image remain a major vulnerability point and any perceived or real rejection or personal failure or insult could have catastrophic consequences and result in him very quickly resorting to intravenous drug use that then escalates to sexual offending.[61]
6. Dr Wojnarowska was also of the opinion that the relevance of Mr Narrier's substance use problems to his future management cannot be overstated. In expressing this opinion, she took into account in particular, that Mr Narrier had used drugs in prison during the previous year.[62] In this respect, Mr Narrier told Dr Wojnarowska when she interviewed him on 14 October 2024 that he had received a prison charge about three to four months prior to the interview for taking Suboxone tablets.[63]
7. Dr Wojnarowska described Mr Narrier as follows:[64]

Mr Narrier is highly impulsive which is associated with his personality style and could be modulated by psychological counselling only to a certain degree. Mr Narrier's impulsivity increases with stress and when intoxicated.

1. She also considered that Mr Narrier continued to demonstrate a lack of ability to implement mature coping mechanisms and uses illicit substances instead.[65]
2. At the point in time that Dr Wojnarowska interviewed Mr Narrier, he had not participated in any programmatic or individual interventions since his last review in 2022.
3. Dr Wojnarowska concluded by expressing the opinion that Mr Narrier continues to be at high risk of serious sexual offending if not subject to a continuing detention order or supervision order.[66]
4. Dr Wojnarowska also was of the opinion that Mr Narrier's risk of supervision non‑compliance remained high.[67] She expressed the view that he requires long-term psychological treatment and was at the time of the report, was of the view that he 'is unlikely to improve in the next years to come'.[68]
5. Dr Wojnarowska recommended that if a supervision order was imposed, it should be for a duration of ten years.

1. Dr Wojnarowska referred to the Updated Community Supervision Assessment dated 30 September 2025.
2. Her observations from that report were Mr Narrier's behaviour had improved, he had engaged in drug and alcohol counselling, had not tested positive for drugs or alcohol since February 2025 and had had no major incidents in prison. Dr Wojnarowska's evidence was also to the effect that the likelihood Mr Narrier would comply with the conditions of the supervision order relating to abstinence from alcohol and drugs had increased markedly.[69]
3. Dr Wojnarowska was taken to the part of her report where she had expressed the opinion that Mr Narrier's risk of 'supervision non‑compliance remains high'.[70]
4. Dr Wojnarowska considered that, having regard to the changed circumstances since she prepared the report (13 December 2024) and with all supports available to him, Mr Narrier was in the moderate range for not complying with the supervision order by committing a serious offence. She said that in her opinion, the risk is 'manageable' in the community. She supports the conditions of the proposed supervision order and considers that a five‑year duration of the order is more appropriate.[71]
5. In cross-examination, she agreed that the change in Mr Narrier's engagement with support professionals has a significant impact on his risk. Specifically, the greater the engagement, the greater the chance of a positive outcome. She said in the last 12 or 18 months, there had been a significant improvement in Mr Narrier's engagement with support professionals.[72]
6. She agreed that alcohol and illicit drugs had a tendency to affect a person's judgment and ability to control their behaviour. Dr Wojnarowska explained that Mr Narrier can make a link, and understand, that if he uses drugs and alcohol, the risk of him going to prison again increases. She said that Mr Narrier had expressed genuine statements that he does not want to go to prison and he does not want to re‑engage with drugs and alcohol.[73]
7. She said that his long‑term management will be advanced if he can deal with the temptations and everyday stress of being in the community.[74]
8. She regarded the current arrangements on offer for Mr Narrier as 'optimal' for him and said it looks likely he will continue to engage in a positive way.[75] She said that Mr Narrier has developed a more trusting relationship with COMU now and understands they are there to support him, not to work against him.[76]
9. Dr Wojnarowska was taken to the proposed conditions of the supervision order. She said she does not believe that Mr Narrier cannot understand the conditions, and further, he has expressed to her his willingness to comply with the conditions.[77]

Treatment progress report for court, letters from Ms James

1. Ms James provided two letters to the court for the purposes of these proceedings, dated 25 November 2024 and 18 March 2025 respectively.[78]
2. The letters were provided in lieu of a report. The letters provide an update of Mr Narrier's treatment progress, and do not set out an opinion in respect of Mr Narrier.
3. Ms James' letter dated 18 March 2025 is of most relevance. It sets out the following matters.
4. On 20 January 2025, Mr Narrier was accepted for individual intervention with the Forensic Psychological Assessment Team (FPIT). As at the date of the letter, FPIT had not provided any treatment for Mr Narrier.
5. In December 2024, Mr Narrier was referred to the Allied Drug and Alcohol Programs and Treatment (ADAPT). He commenced counselling through ADAPT on 20 February 2025 and I have set out below by reference to Ms Bennetts' evidence the progress he has made since then with ADAPT.
6. Once Mr Narrier has demonstrated a period of positive engagement with ADAPT, positive prison behaviour, and abstinence from illicit substances for six months, he will be allocated to a clinician in accordance with FPIT triaging processes and the availability of staff.[79]

1. Ms James said that Mr Narrier is now considered a priority allocation for individual intervention with FPIT. Further, if Mr Narrier is released on a supervision order, his prioritisation will be heightened, so the allocation will likely occur sooner than if he remained in custody.[80]
2. Ms James also said that it would be beneficial if Mr Narrier continued with substance use counselling alongside FPIT intervention.[81]

Community supervision assessment reports and information regarding illicit drug use in prison

1. There are three community supervision assessment reports. The first report, dated 24 December 2024, is endorsed by Ms Bennetts, Ms Goode, who is a COMU team leader, and Ms Turner as acting director of COMU.[82] The second report, dated 24 March 2025, is endorsed by Ms Goode and Ms Turner.[83] The third report, dated 30 September 2025, is authored by Ms Bennetts and endorsed by Ms Goode and Ms Turner.[84]
2. The third report sets out that Mr Narrier now has supported accommodation available through Uniting WA.[85] This accommodation will remain available until the end of January 2026. Further, if I decide to release Mr Narrier on a supervision order, there will need to be 21 days from that decision to the release date to ensure he can be practically prepared for the release.
3. Earlier this year, Mr Narrier commenced sessions with ADAPT through Cyrenian House. He was allocated an ADAPT counsellor. He has engaged in sessions with that allocated counsellor on a fortnightly basis since 20 February 2025.[86]
4. The third report noted that Mr Narrier continued to acknowledge his susceptibility to peer pressure with respect to drugs and alcohol.[87] Further, Mr Narrier continued to speak positively about the ADAPT sessions and that he claimed that he had gained learnt strategies with regard to boundary setting and learning his temptations to drug use. He also said that he is motivated to continue that engagement in the community, as he acknowledges he will require ongoing support.[88] The third report noted that Mr Narrier remained waitlisted for FPIT individual psychological counselling and said that Mr Narrier had told the author of that report that 'he remains motivated to engage in individual counselling to address his offending behaviour when it is made available to him.'[89]
5. The third report also set out details pertaining to Mr Narrier's prison behaviour since March 2025. Most concerningly, on 13 April 2025, Mr Narrier is said to have become verbally abusive towards prison officers and as they were restraining him, threw his body weight around whilst also being threatening. This occurred in the following context. Another prisoner had thrown a hot cup of liquid onto a window which splashed onto Mr Narrier and led to a physical altercation between them. Later in the day, prison officers prevented Mr Narrier from returning to his Unit, seemingly awaiting the outcome of his medical review following the incident with the other prisoner. [90]
6. Mr Narrier has been subject to urinalysis once since the second report, which was on 5 June 2025. He returned a negative result to all tested illicit substances.[91] The second report said he was tested on 6 March 2025 and returned a negative result to any illicit substances.[92] The second report also set out that Mr Narrier had disclosed illicit substance use to Ms Bennetts during a meeting with her earlier this year. From what I can discern, this occurred at one or more meetings held on 6 January 2025, 17 January 2025 and 7 February 2025. Ms Bennetts disclosed this to prison officers on 18 February 2025. Mr Narrier was initially upset she had done so, but understood it was disclosed for his care and support.[93]
7. Mr Narrier's substance use test results for the period from 17 October 2022 to 18 November 2024 reveal that over that period he was tested for substance use on five separate days and returned negative results for all substances tested for.[94] He tested positive to alcohol on 17 June 2023. Mr Narrier told Dr Wojnarowska when she interviewed him on 14 October 2024 that he had received a prison charge about three to four months prior to the interview for taking Suboxone tablets.[95] Further, Mr Narrier refused to submit to a urinalysis test on 20 November 2024. His explanation was that he had urinated prior to this test and therefore was unable to provide a sample. This is referred to in the first report, and the author observed that Mr Narrier is 'typically open and honest about his substance misuse to the author and previous COMU [Senior Community Corrections Officers] he has seen.[96]
8. In addition to the provision of accommodation, Uniting WA also provide assistance with Mr Narrier's re-integration into the community. Initially, there will be 10 to 20 hours of face-to-face support over the first two weeks, with contact twice weekly for the first three months post Mr Narrier's release into the community. The frequency of the contact will reduce once Mr Narrier establishes stability in the community.[97] The third report records that Mr Narrier said he feels his support from Uniting WA 'will continue to be of benefit to him in the community'.[98]
9. The third report in the conclusion section said that Mr Narrier: [99]

... has engaged positively in ADAPT counselling sessions with his Cyrenian House counsellor and has reportedly gained strategies to assist him with his entrenched drug use, and has demonstrated insight [into] him needing ongoing support with respect to [this] and expressed his willingness to continue intervention in the community. He has continued to engage with Uniting WA positively and is motivated to continue accessing their reintegration services for community support. Mr Narrier remains waitlisted for FPIT intervention and also remains willing to engage in this intervention.

1. In respect of the proposed Uniting WA accommodation, Ms Bennetts explained that the initial assessment done on that property did not indicate there were any victim concerns, that is, there were not any victims of Mr Narrier's offending who lived within the vicinity of that property. Subsequent to her evidence, this has been confirmed by the Desktop Spatial Analysis.
2. I asked Ms Bennetts what type of support Uniting WA would provide to Mr Narrier. She helpfully provided the following information.
3. Uniting WA will provide what is called re-integration support for up to two years of Mr Narrier going back into the community. I have set out above at [104] the nature of the support that is provided over the first three months.
4. Ms Bennetts explained that the support provides Mr Narrier with practical assistance, for example regarding transport and housing. In addition, upon release into the community, Uniting WA provides accommodation for 12 months and re-integration support for 24 months.
5. She said Uniting WA would assist Mr Narrier in developing goals and positive pursuits in the community. Also, there is a six‑month period of engagement between Uniting WA and Mr Narrier prior to his release from prison. That six‑month period has now concluded.
6. Ms Bennetts said the feedback she has received from Mr Narrier's case manager at Cyrenian House is that Mr Narrier has been quite active in engaging and discussing his drug and alcohol use, and a lot of their interactions have been around boundary setting, emotional regulation and relapse prevention strategies.[100]
7. I now turn to the matters to which I must have regard under s 7(3) of the HRSO Act.

1. Section 7(3)(a) requires that I have regard to the reports prepared under s 74 and the extent to which Mr Narrier co-operated in the examinations required for the preparation of those reports. The relevant report is that of Dr Wojnarowska. I have addressed her report and her oral evidence arising from the report at [68] - [88] above. It is not suggested that Mr Narrier did not co-operate in the examination required for the report. I have also addressed the letters and oral evidence of Ms James at [89] - [96] above.

1. Section 7(3)(b) requires that I have regard to any additional assessments. These comprise the Community Supervision Assessments.
2. I have addressed these matters, and the oral evidence of Ms Bennetts, at [97] - [111] above.

1. It is useful to address s 7(3)(c) and 7(3)(d) together. Section 7(3)(c) requires that I have regard to information indicating whether or not Mr Narrier has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future. Section 7(3)(d) requires that I have regard to whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour by Mr Narrier.
2. For present purposes, I am satisfied that the word 'propensity' refers to the person having an inclination or disposition to behave in a particular way.[101]
3. The requisite assessment is directed to whether a person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future. This assessment thus involves, at least, an assessment of whether the person has a current propensity, and then endeavouring to predict the extent to which that propensity may change over time. The propensity assessment is directed to the commission of serious offences, as opposed to offences generally.
4. Mr Narrier's offending behaviour has involved him committing a number of serious sexual offences that involved preplanning and the use of force against victims who were not known to him. The victims have been female and aged from 12 years to adult. In my view, Mr Narrier has demonstrated, and absent significant rehabilitation will continue to demonstrate, a propensity to commit serious sexual offences against both children and adults, with the use of force where necessary to achieve his desired sexual outcome. Mr Narrier's history of offending demonstrates a pattern in the manner that I have just described.

1. It is useful to address s 7(3)(e) and s 7(3)(f) together.
2. Section 7(3)(e) requires that I have regard to any efforts made by Mr Narrier to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including whether he has participated in any rehabilitation program. Section 7(3)(f) requires that I have regard to whether Mr Narrier's participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect.
3. In this case it is useful to look at Mr Narrier's approach to, and gains in, rehabilitation overall.
4. Mr Narrier has now consistently engaged with ADAPT counselling since February 2025 on a fortnightly basis. I do not have a separate report from Cyrenian House where the ADAPT counselling takes place. However, Ms Bennetts said the feedback she has received from Mr Narrier's case manager at Cyrenian House is that Mr Narrier has been quite active in engaging and discussing his drug and alcohol use, and a lot of their interactions have been around boundary setting, emotional regulation and relapse prevention strategies.[102] This feedback, taken together with Mr Narrier's ongoing attendance every fortnight, points to the ADAPT counselling having a positive impact on Mr Narrier. Further, the counselling remains available and Mr Narrier has expressed a desire to continue with it.
5. The evidence overall reflects that Mr Narrier has greater insight into the cause of his offending and the risks that arise from his associating with people who are negative influences.
6. Mr Narrier has also engaged positively with Uniting WA, who not only provide accommodation, but also help prisoners re-integrate into the community. He has expressed a desire to participate in one-on‑one psychological counselling when it becomes available.
7. Taken together, these matters demonstrate a commitment to rehabilitation, not just an aspiration. In this respect, I am satisfied that Mr Narrier has engaged positively with ADAPT and with Uniting WA, and I am satisfied that Mr Narrier has a more positive relationship with COMU. Further, a finding of a demonstrated committed to rehabilitation accords with Dr Wojnarowska's oral evidence that Mr Narrier had expressed genuine statements that he does not want to go to prison and he does not want to re‑engage with drugs and alcohol.[103]
8. However, there are still concerns with his behaviour. In early 2025, Mr Narrier disclosed illicit drug use to Ms Bennetts. Further, in April 2025 he was verbally abusive towards prison staff and as they were restraining him, threw his body weight around whilst also being threatening.
9. In respect of the illicit drug use, Mr Narrier commenced counselling with ADAPT on 20 February 2025, which was after the disclosure to Ms Bennetts. That disclosure reflects his honesty in dealing with COMU. Mr Narrier has not returned a positive test result for illicit drugs since February 2025, returning negative test results in respect of tests conducted on 6 March 2025,[104] and on 5 June 2025.[105] Further, Mr Narrier returned negative test results on five days during the period from 17 October 2022 to 18 November 2024, although he received a prison charge for using Suboxone, apparently in the second half of 2024.
10. His threatening behaviour reflects a willingness to engage aggressively when he perceives he is being treated unfairly.

1. Section 7(3)(g) requires that I have regard to Mr Narrier's antecedents (his personal background) and criminal record.
2. I have addressed these matters at [47] - [67] above.

1. Section 7(3)(h) requires that I have regard to the risk that if Mr Narrier were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence.
2. Having regard to Mr Narrier's criminal history, Dr Wojnarowska's most recent report and her oral evidence, if Mr Narrier were not subject to a restriction order, there is a significant risk that he would commit a serious offence of the type I have described at [119] above. It needs to be kept in mind though that a restriction order is a CDO or a supervision order. Thus, the existence of that risk does not dictate that he remain on a CDO. Rather, it informs the assessment of firstly, whether he remains a high risk serious offender, and if so, whether he should remain on a CDO, or be placed on a supervision order.

1. Section 7(3)(i) requires that I have regard to the need to protect members of the community from the risk that I have identified at [119] and [133] above.
2. The nature and extent of the harm from the violent serious offences that Mr Narrier is at risk of committing are extensive. In that respect, violent sexual offences cause significant physical harm, distress and psychological harm, with a very real prospect that the harm will be enduring. There is an obvious need to protect the community from the risk of him committing further serious sexual offences of such a nature.

1. The availability of accommodation is also an important matter. I do not regard the assessment of accommodation as necessarily being a binary assessment of whether it is suitable or not suitable. Rather, as I said in The State of Western Australia v Paraha:[106]

... accommodation is predominantly relevant to risk assessment. The overall nature of the available accommodation may reduce the risk of reoffending, it may increase the risk of reoffending, or it may be neutral. Accommodation also has features that may not necessarily point in the same direction regarding risk, for example location, type, other occupants, cost and available support services.

The potential impact that the proposed accommodation has on risk is taken into account in the overall assessment of whether a person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7, and if so, the type of restriction order which ought be made.

1. Here, at present, the proposed accommodation is overwhelmingly a positive factor in terms of reducing Mr Narrier's risk of re‑offending. The only potential negative is the possibility that people may come to live at the home who are active drug users, or are likely to bring drug users to the home. However, the accommodation is provided by Uniting WA and as I understand it, the accommodation provider will consult with COMU regarding any issues that arise with Mr Narrier living at the home. COMU considers the accommodation is suitable for Mr Narrier.[107]
2. Subsequent to the hearing, I was provided with what is called a 'desktop spatial analysis'. It sets out matters pertaining to the demographic within 2 km of Mr Narrier's proposed address. Usually, the important matters that arise from such an analysis are whether there are any of Mr Narrier's victims in the immediate vicinity of the property, and whether there are any institutions of potential concern, such as schools, within a close proximity of the property. There are no victims. There are facilities within a 2 km radius at which elderly people live, and young people will attend. However, this would likely be the case with any accommodation in the metropolitan area. Also, as the State points out, COMU can impose exclusion zones, preventing Mr Narrier going within a certain distance of the relevant facilities.[108] Mr Narrier's compliance with these exclusion zones can be monitored electronically pursuant to the conditions of a supervision order. Also, the desktop spatial analysis has not altered COMU's view that the accommodation is suitable for Mr Narrier.
3. Another matter of importance is Mr Narrier's previous breaches of supervision orders. These were not isolated. There were eight breaches which occurred over the period from 12 January 2018 to 10 May 2018.[109] In respect of illicit drug use, the breaches comprised one breach of testing positive to cannabis, one breach of using cannabis and one breach of using amphetamine and methamphetamine. Further, one breach was constituted by removing the transmitter for his electronic monitoring device. Three of the breaches pertained to associating with people contrary to the conditions of the supervision order. And, the final breach was constituted by not complying with his curfew.
4. I infer that a core causative factor of these breaches was that Mr Narrier experienced feelings of hopelessness, isolation, and frustration. It is apparent that at that time, Mr Narrier did not perceive a positive relationship with his treating team. Thus, rather than report his frustration to his treating team, he resorted to illicit drug use. The breaches did not, however, result in Mr Narrier committing any serious or other violent offences.
5. I think there are three important areas of difference now, compared to 2018. First, Mr Narrier has engaged positively with ADAPT for a relatively significant period of time. Second, he has engaged positively with Uniting WA, whose services provide assistance with re-integration into the community. Third, Dr Wojnarowska's evidence, which I accept, is that Mr Narrier has developed a more trusting relationship with COMU and understands they are there to support him, not to work against him.[110] This is also broadly consistent with Ms Bennetts' evidence, which had a general theme that Mr Narrier was co-operating with COMU.

Assessment of whether Mr Narrier is a high risk serious offender

1. I am satisfied that the evidence overall is acceptable and cogent evidence upon which I can make the requisite assessment. The evidence sufficiently and cogently addresses the mandatory topics set out in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act.
2. The starting point in the requisite analysis is to assess the type of serious offences Mr Narrier is at risk of committing. I have identified those offences at [119] above. As I have said, such offences cause significant physical harm, distress and psychological harm, with a very real prospect that the harm will be enduring.
3. Accordingly, the nature and extent of the harm that might eventuate if Mr Narrier offends in the way I have described is significant.
4. The positive factors for Mr Narrier are that he has made gains in rehabilitation, is motivated to continue with his treatment and has suitable accommodation available. Those matters, taken together, do not result in his risk of committing further serious offences being an acceptable risk.
5. Ultimately, the combined effect of the serious offences that Mr Narrier has committed, the significant nature and extent of the harm that might eventuate from the commission of further such offences, and that Mr Narrier needs to make further significant gains in his rehabilitation, is such that I am satisfied there is presently an unacceptable risk that Mr Narrier will commit a serious offence. I am satisfied of this to a high degree of probability.
6. I must now consider whether it remains necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community against that unacceptable risk. The nature of the unacceptable risk informs the assessment of 'necessity'. In making the requisite assessment, I recognise Mr Narrier's entitlement to be at liberty, an entitlement not lightly to be denied.
7. For the same reasons I have given in deciding that Mr Narrier presents with an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community.
8. For these reasons, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Narrier remains a high risk serious offender under the HRSO Act.

1. I now need to decide whether I should affirm the CDO, or rescind it and place Mr Narrier on a supervision order.
2. There is not a presumption in favour of making a continuing detention order. That being said, s 68(2) of the HRSO Act provides that the paramount consideration in the choice of order is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. Consistently with s 48, I am satisfied that the word 'adequate' in s 68(2) refers to the minimum intrusion on an offender's liberty that is necessary to provide the requisite protection to the community.
3. As I have said, a precondition to the making of a supervision order is that I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Narrier will substantially comply with its standard conditions. Mr Narrier bears the onus of proving that he will do so.
4. The standard conditions of any supervision order subject offenders, among other matters, to electronic monitoring and any curfew imposed by a community corrections officer.
5. Broadly speaking, the additional conditions of the proposed supervision order are aimed at preventing Mr Narrier from being in situations that would significantly increase his risk of re-offending. They:

(a) regulate where Mr Narrier will live;

(b) require Mr Narrier to attend appointments in relation to his personal wellbeing;

(c) require Mr Narrier to comply with program requirements, and take medication, where reasonably directed to do so by a community corrections officer;

(d) allow persons providing treatment to Mr Narrier to inform the Department of Justice about that treatment and their opinion relating to the level of his risk of re-offending and his compliance with treatment;

(e) permit police officers to search Mr Narrier, his home and vehicle;

(f) impose a curfew;

(g) preclude him from having contact with the victims of his sexual and violent offending;

(h) preclude him from possessing or consuming any prohibited drugs or alcohol; and

(i) require Mr Narrier to disclose to his community corrections officer any new social association, which is defined to include any person with whom he has contact more than once.

1. The extent to which Mr Narrier has progressed with, and is committed to, his rehabilitation is critical to the disposition of two of the key considerations on this review. First, whether I am satisfied that the community is adequately protected against the risk he will commit a serious offence. Second, whether I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Narrier will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order if released into the community pursuant to it.

Will a supervision order provide adequate protection of the community?

1. As I have explained, I am satisfied Mr Narrier has engaged positively with ADAPT and with Uniting WA, has a positive relationship with COMU in which he feels he is able to be frank with them, and has demonstrated a commitment to his ongoing rehabilitation. He also recognises the link between his alcohol and illicit drug use, and his offending.
2. In addition, he is now a priority for FPIT one-on-one counselling and has suitable accommodation available.
3. The breaches of his most recent supervision order were in 2018. They are of concern. However, my assessment is that Mr Narrier is much more settled, trusting and advanced in his rehabilitative regime now, than he was in 2018. Also, the breaches occurred over a period of approximately four months, and Mr Narrier did not commit any serious offences, or any other violent offences. Thus, his illicit drug use in breach of the supervisions did not result in him committing a serious offence as defined in the HRSO Act.
4. His prison behaviour over the last year has been, broadly speaking, positive. There are two negative incidents of concern over that period.
5. First, he used illicit substances earlier this year, which was before he started the ADAPT counselling. He self-disclosed the use to Mr Bennetts, which confirms the positive relationship he has with COMU. He has otherwise consistently returned negative results for illicit drug tests since October 2022, with there being only one charge of using Suboxone in the second half of 2024. Ms Bennetts has received positive feedback from Mr Narrier's case manager at Cyrenian House regarding his engagement with the ADAPT program. Accordingly, I do not regard the illicit substance use earlier this year to be overly significant, although I still have regard to it.
6. Second, he engaged in threatening behaviour towards prison staff, constituted by verbal abuse and throwing his body weight around and being threatening as he was being physically restrained. It seems that this arose because Mr Narrier felt he was being treated unfairly. It is of concern, because it reflects a lack of control by Mr Narrier when he perceives he is not treated fairly. However, it did not escalate to any physical harm being caused.
7. In summary, I am satisfied that Mr Narrier has made substantive gains in his rehabilitation, and has demonstrated a commitment to it. He also has positive relationships with ADAPT, Uniting WA and COMU, and on my assessment, is more settled, trusting and advanced in his rehabilitation than when he was last released under a supervision order in 2018. Uniting WA will provide him with suitable accommodation, and support re-integrating into the community. I also have regard to the conditions of the supervision order, which I have summarised at [154] above. The totality of these matters satisfies me that the supervision order ensures the adequate protection of the community and does so in a manner that involves the minimum intrusion on Mr Narrier's liberty.
8. I make two observations about the conditions for the parties to consider.
9. It may be preferable for a further condition to be included that permits a COMU officer to search Mr Narrier's electronic devices so they can assess his communications with other people, including whether he may have commenced an intimate relationship. A search capacity also enables COMU to corroborate Mr Narrier's account of his activities in the community.
10. For the purposes of certainty, the condition that permits police officers to search Mr Narrier, his home and/or vehicle, should be amended to specify that the police officers must first tell Mr Narrier that they are exercising the search powers under the supervision order. This is important for several reasons. It ensures that Mr Narrier is told the lawful basis for the search. It makes clear that in the circumstances, the police officers are not exercising search powers under the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA). And, clarity as to the lawful basis for the search should facilitate a prompt and efficient search.
11. I had also considered including a condition that Mr Narrier participates in counselling with ADAPT as recommended by it. This was because the advances he has made with ADAPT, and the continuation of that or similar counselling, are important factors in reducing Mr Narrier's risk to a tolerable level. I raised that condition with the parties prior to delivering these reasons. The State considers my concern is adequately addressed by the condition currently proposed that Mr Narrier comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address his offending, and risk of re-offending, as directed by a community corrections officer. I am satisfied this condition, despite its generality, addresses my concern. It also has the advantage of flexibility, and permits a community corrections officer to refer Mr Narrier to a different program if that becomes preferable.

Substantial compliance with the standard conditions

1. For the same reasons that I have summarised at [162] above, I am also satisfied Mr Narrier will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order. In coming to that view, I have given careful consideration to the breaches of the supervision order in 2018. As I have said, my assessment is that Mr Narrier is much more settled, trusting and advanced in his rehabilitative regime now, than he was in 2018.

1. The period of the supervision order should reflect the minimum intrusion necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community.
2. It may be the case that Mr Narrier will need to be the subject of a supervision order for a considerable period of time. However, that does not mean that the conditions imposed now will always remain apposite.
3. Dr Wojnarowska in her oral evidence was of the view that five years was appropriate.
4. As I explained in Williams, the HRSO Act does not provide for regular reviews of supervision orders and does not provide a mechanism by which the period of a supervision order can be shortened.[111]
5. The only means by which Mr Narrier can seek a 'review' of the conditions of a supervision order is by making an application to amend the conditions under s 49. However, the mechanisms for obtaining reports as provided for by pt 7 of the HRSO Act do not apply to an application to amend. This means that Mr Narrier would not have the benefit of updated expert reports, unless he could organise them. Section 49 also permits the CEO of the department administering the HRSO Act (with the Attorney General's consent) to make an application to amend the conditions, but the CEO is not obliged to do so. Section 49 does not permit the State to make an application to amend. Given these matters, there can be no certainty that an application to amend so as to facilitate a 'review' of the conditions will be brought.[112]
6. On the other hand, the State has the ability under the HRSO Act to apply for a further supervision order to commence at the expiry of the supervision order that I impose. Thus, if the court considers that a further supervision order should be made, there will be no gap between the expiry of the old order and the start of a new one. Further, the State's ability to apply for a new order is not conditional upon Mr Narrier committing any further serious offence.[113]
7. Having regard to these matters, I assess the appropriate period of the supervision order is five years. I will discuss with the parties the appropriate start date.

1. I am satisfied to the requisite standard of the following matters:
   1. Mr Narrier remains a high risk serious offender.
   2. The proposed supervision order provides for the adequate protection of the community in all of the circumstances.
   3. Mr Narrier will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order.
   4. The supervision order should be for a period of five years.
2. I will need to hear from the parties as to whether the conditions should be amended as outlined at [164] and [165] above, and as to the start date of the supervision order. Once the conditions and start date are determined, I will order that the CDO be rescinded with effect from the start date, and impose a supervision order immediately upon that rescission in terms that will be attached to the published version of these reasons.

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

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

[9] The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215.

[10] Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; Williams [22] ‑ [40].

[12] Garlett [106]; The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [32].

[13] See Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393 [107].

[16] Garlett [230]; see HRSO Act, s 30(5), which requires that conditions are 'appropriate'.

[18] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Unwin [No 3] [2013] WASC 178 [19].

[19] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 468 - 482.

[20] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 465 - 467 and vol 3, p 537 - 538

[21] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 483 - 498, and Vol 3, p 544 - 548. There is a further community assessment report dated 24 March 2025 of which Ms Bennetts was not an author, which is at Vol 3, p 539 - p 543.

[22] The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 7] [2022] WASC 342 [231].

[36] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 7 July 2008, Book of Materials Vol 1, p 289.

[37] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 7 July 2008, Book of Materials Vol 1, p 290.

[38] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 7 July 2008, Book of Materials Vol 1, p 290.

[39] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 7 July 2008, Book of Materials Vol 1, p 290.

[42] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 13 December 2024, Book of Materials Vol 2, p 479 par 66.

[43] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 13 December 2024, Book of Materials Vol 2, p 479 par 66.

[44] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 13 December 2024, Book of Materials Vol 2, p 479 par 65.

[47] Report of Dr Wojnarowska dated 13 December 2024, Book of Materials Vol 2, p 478 par 61.

[48] Community Supervision Assessment dated 24 December 2024, Book of Materials Vol 2, p 485.

[49] Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Narrier [No 4] [2017] WASC 306 [5] and Narrier [No 7] [71].

[52] Narrier [No 7] [73], see also The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 3] [2014] WASC 131 [88].

[57] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 468 - 482.

[58] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 477 par 54.

[59] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 478 par 55.

[60] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 478 par 56.

[61] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 478 par 60.

[62] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 478 par 61.

[63] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 469 par 4 (date of interview) and p 474 par 35.

[64] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 480 par 67.

[65] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 478 par 58.

[66] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 481 par 75. In Dr Wojnarowska's oral evidence, she said that the phrase 'sexual re-offending' in [75] was a reference to serious sexual re-offending'.

[67] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 480 par 70.

[68] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 481 par 77.

[70] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 480 par 70.

[78] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 465 - 467 and Vol 3, p 537 - 538.

[82] Book of Materials Vol 2, p 497 - 498.

[83] Book of Materials Vol 3, p 542 - 543.

[98] Updated Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 30 September 2025, Book of Materials Vol 3, p 546.

[101] See, for example, The State of Western Australia v Jackson [2019] WASCA 118 [20].

[106] The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20 [57] - [58].

[107] Book of Materials Vol 3, p 545 and email sent 2 December 2025 from the State Solicitor's Office to my associates.

[108] Email sent 2 December 2025 from the State Solicitor's Office to my associates.