THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- PATRICK [No 6] [2025] WASC 438 (14 October 2025)

1. For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that:

(a) the respondent contravened a condition of the supervision order; and

(b) the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the amended supervision order.

1. Accordingly, I amend the supervision order in the terms reflected in annexure A.

(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.[4]

1. The powers which the HRSO Act confers are to be exercised for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community rather than for the purposes of retribution, deterrence or punishment.[5]
2. If an offender is charged with contravening a supervision order pursuant to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act,[6] the State may apply to the court for an order under s 55.[7]
3. If the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender has contravened a condition of the supervision order, the court must, pursuant to s 55(1), either:

(a) amend, extend, or affirm the supervision order subject to s 29;[8] or

(b) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order.[9]

1. However, the court may not make, amend, or affirm a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.[10]
2. The standard conditions are set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act.
3. Relevantly, the standard conditions include the offender reporting to and receiving visits from a community corrections officer (CCO), notifying the CCO of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least two days before the change happens, and complying with any reasonable direction of the CCO.
4. The standard conditions also include the offender being subject to electronic monitoring, not leaving Western Australia, and not committing a serious offence.

1. The State alleges that the respondent breached his supervision order on two separate occasions, namely 12 June 2023 and 10 November 2023 (contravention offences).

1. The respondent was required to comply with condition 24 of the supervision order which provides that the respondent must not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty includes imprisonment and which involves violence, threats of violence or the possession of weapons.
2. The circumstances of the respondent's offending were as follows.
3. On 12 June 2023, the respondent was inside his home with two disability support workers. The accused began talking about his Wi‑Fi dropping out and his mobile phone being hacked.
4. The respondent then told the victim, who was one of the disability support workers, that 'you boys know what is going to happen to you' and grabbed a large broom which was nearby, raised it and swung it at the victim's head. The victim blocked the blow with his hand and forearm.
5. The impact caused the broom to partially break, and the victim experienced immediate pain to their hand and forearm. The victim and the other support worker exited the house, and the respondent chased them while brandishing the broom. After some time, the respondent eventually stopped and returned to his home.
6. Later, a different support worker arrived at the respondent's home and parked in the driveway. The respondent then exited the home and used a weed trimmer to smash the front windscreen of a car.
7. The support worker exited the vehicle, and ran to the other side of the street. The respondent then chased the support worker while brandishing the weed trimmer.
8. Later, the respondent was arrested at his home address. At this time, he admitted to assaulting and chasing the victim as well as damaging a few cars. The respondent's explanation was that 'they were hacking into [his] phone'.
9. On 12 April 2024, the respondent was convicted on his pleas of guilty to one charge of common assault, two charges of being armed or pretending to be armed in a way that may cause fear, two charges of criminal damage or destruction of property and one charge of contravening a requirement of a supervision order.[11]
10. On 24 March 2025, the respondent was sentenced by Magistrate G Benn in relation to these charges.

1. The respondent was required to comply with condition 6 which provides that he is not to commit a serious offence[12] during the period of the supervision order.
2. The circumstances of the respondent's offending were as follows.
3. On 10 November 2023, the victim was the respondent's full‑time carer, who was inside their bedroom with the door closed. The respondent was in the loungeroom, watching movies and became angry about internet issues.
4. The respondent kicked the victim's bedroom door in, kicked the victim in the legs, attempted to instigate a fight, punched the victim and bit the victim's left thumb drawing blood.
5. When the victim attempted to escape, the respondent pushed the victim over in the kitchen area, and hit the victim with a dining chair in the back of his head.
6. The victim sustained visible injuries such as cuts and grazes, drawing blood to his forearms, hands, legs and feet, and a visible bite mark to his left thumb drawing blood.
7. The respondent was subsequently arrested and provided no explanation of his alleged offending.
8. On 21 February 2025, the respondent was convicted on his pleas of guilty on one charge of criminal damage or destruction of property, one charge of assault occasioning bodily harm, and one charge of contravening a requirement of a supervision order.[13]

Has the respondent contravened the supervision order?

1. In support of its contention that the respondent breached the supervision order, the State relies upon certified prosecution notices recording the respondent's convictions and the penalties imposed, the transcripts of the proceedings before the Magistrate's Court and the statements of material facts.[14]
2. He entered guilty pleas for all the offences relating to the contraventions and has now, at the time of the contravention hearing, served the entirety of the sentences imposed for them.
3. The respondent concedes that he has contravened the supervision order.[15]
4. In the circumstances, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has contravened the supervision order.

1. In support of the contravention application, the State tendered a four‑volume book of materials,[16] amended particulars dated 13 August 2025,[17] a full transcript of proceedings from Midland Magistrates Court on 24 March 2025,[18] a letter from Ms Chantelle Place (Manager of the Forensic Psychological Assessment Team, Department of Justice), dated 18 August 2025,[19] an Update Performance Report of Mr Matthew Wyatt, a Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO), dated 30 September 2025 (Second Wyatt Report)[20] and an email from Ms Aimee Goode (of the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU), Department of Justice) containing an email to her by Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, a consultant psychiatrist, dated 3 October 2025.[21]
2. The books of materials (BOM), among other things, contain:

(a) the respondent's criminal record;

(b) various records prepared by the Department of Justice in relation to the respondent's time in custody, including his charge history, board secretariat decision slips, incident reports, medical letters, and substance use test results;

(c) prosecution notices, statements of material facts relating to the contravention convictions and transcripts of the relevant hearings;

(d) a multi‑disciplinary foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) adult assessment report dated 22 January 2017 authored by a paediatrician and clinical neuropsychologist;

(e) two reports prepared for the purposes of sentencing the respondent in relation to the contravention offences, being:

(i) a psychological report by Ms Tania Oliveri dated 9 June 2024 (Oliveri report);

(ii) a psychiatric report by Dr Nicholas Ho dated 12 August 2024 (Ho report);

(f) three reports prepared by Dr Wojnarowska respectively dated 17 November 2024 (Wojnarowska 2024 report), 29 January 2025 (Wojnarowska January 2025 report) and 31 July 2025 (Wojnarowska July 2025 report);

(g) three letters in lieu of HRSO Treatment Options Reports prepared by Ms Place dated 8 August 2024, 29 January 2025 and 19 May 2025;

(h) three Adult Community Corrections Performance reports prepared by Mr Beau Moulton dated 21 November 2024 (First Moulton report), 6 February 2025 (Second Moulton report) and 20 May 2025 (Third Moulton report), and another Adult Community Corrections Performance report prepared by Mr Wyatt dated 30 July 2025 (Wyatt report);

(i) interagency meeting notes; and

(j) National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding regime plans and approval letters.

1. The State also led oral evidence from three witnesses at the hearing before me; namely Dr Wojnarowska, Mr Wyatt, and Ms Place.
2. There was no objection taken to any of the State's evidence.

Assessment of evidence Evidence before Derrick J

1. In previous decisions of this court, the respondent's family and social history,[22] his criminal history,[23] his medical conditions,[24] his history of substance abuse,[25] and assessments of his intellectual ability[26] have been summarised. I adopt those summaries without repeating them.
2. It is unnecessary in these reasons to re‑examine all the personal antecedents of the respondent, other than to note that he has a long history of violent sexual offending dating back to when he was 12 years old.

1. The Oliveri report dated 9 June 2024, was prepared by Ms Oliveri, a clinical and forensic psychologist, pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) to assist the Magistrates Court in sentencing the respondent for the contravention offences.[27]
2. As is recorded in the Oliveri report, during an interview the respondent:[28]

(a) was angry, aggressive, highly resistant, oppositional, suspicious and paranoid;

(b) refused to answer many questions, asked why questions were being asked, and refused to complete the mental health clinical tool;

(c) became increasingly annoyed and agitated, his voice was often at times loud and aggressive and failed to develop any rapport;

(d) adopted a 'victim stance', and took the view that he was 'repeatedly unfairly treated by others including the Police, judiciary, Community Corrections staff and support workers';

(e) displayed anti-authority attitudes; and

(f) terminated the assessment prematurely.

1. In the Oliveri report, Ms Oliveri notes that the respondent has had enduring problems with his anger, impulse control, consequential thinking, victim empathy, perspective, insight, self‑awareness, emotional regulation, decision‑making, self‑regulation and minimisation of his offending and problems.[29] Ms Oliveri also records that the material considered by her[30] indicates that the respondent's oppositional nature, resistance, paranoia and anti‑authority attitudes had increased over time.
2. Ms Oliveri concludes that the respondent's disabilities have likely led to it being more difficult for him to establish and sustain positive relationships (both intimately and non‑intimately). She goes on to suggest that the respondent's disabilities, coupled with his language problems, hinder his ability to resolve problems and conflicts appropriately and leads him to react impulsively with aggression and violence.[31]
3. The Oliveri report also refers to previous cognitive and clinical diagnostic assessments which the respondent engaged in. These include a neuropsychological assessment in 2014 which could not confidently determine his intellectual functioning, an assessment by PATCHES FASD in 2017 which determined that the respondent met the criteria for both FASD and also an intellectual disability in the severe range,[32] and a psychiatric assessment in 2017, which concluded he met the criteria for Conduct Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Polysubstance Abuse and Alcohol Use Disorder.[33]
4. On the basis of these previous diagnoses, Ms Oliveri concludes that the respondent's intellectual disability and FASD are contributing factors to his poor victim empathy and perspective‑taking skills.[34]
5. Ms Oliveri also opines that:[35]

[t]he current offences appear to have occurred in the context of an Intellectual disability and FASD which have led to problems with learning, insight, memory, abstract reasoning, decision‑making, consequential thinking, impulse control, emotional regulation, coping, perspective-taking, problem-solving, conflict-resolution, communication, planning and organisational skills; language problems adversely impacting his ability to resolve conflict in an appropriate verbal manner; anger, resentment and hostility; anti-authority attitudes; a victim stance; a propensity for aggression/violence; an Antisocial Personality Disorder; and the normalisation of violence and crime.

1. In the Oliveri report, Ms Oliveri employed the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, version 3 (HCR‑20v3) to assess the respondent's risk of future violence. Using this instrument, the respondent was assessed to be at a high risk of further violence.[36]
2. Ms Oliveri considers that the historical factors of concern on that specific subscale include past violence, other antisocial behaviour, relationship problems, employment problems, substance misuse, intellectual disability and FASD, Antisocial Personality Disorder, adverse childhood experiences/trauma, and poor treatment and supervision responsivity.[37] Ms Oliveri also notes the respondent's comments indicated the presence of attitudes that supported, condoned and justified his use of violence.
3. As to clinical risk factors, Ms Oliveri observes there was evidence of the respondent having problems with insight and self‑awareness, emotional and behavioural regulation, coping skills, impulse control, decision‑making, consequential thinking, perspective-taking, and anti‑authority attitudes.

1. Ms Oliveri concludes that the respondent requires treatment relating to his propensity for aggression and violence, emotional regulation and coping skills, impulse control, decision‑making, consequential thinking, perspective-taking, problem‑solving, conflict‑resolution, and his antisocial personality disorder.[38]
2. However, she considers that his intellectual disability, FASD, learning and language problems, in addition to his anti‑authority attitudes, hostility, suspicious nature, paranoia and victim stance, all make him an unsuitable candidate for group‑based treatment programs offered by the department and insight‑oriented and language‑based psychological counselling.[39]
3. Ultimately, Ms Oliveri opines that the respondent's prognosis for change is poor because he lacks the capacity to make substantial attitudinal and behaviour changes required to lead a prosocial lifestyle.[40]
4. Ms Oliveri posits that, if released into the community, the respondent will require substantial support and monitoring from NDIS funded services and the Department of Justice, supported accommodation, encouragement and opportunities to engage in positive and culturally appropriate activities, and access to positive role-models and mentors, particularly Aboriginal support workers.[41]
5. Ms Oliveri also considers that any strategies adopted with respect to the respondent will need to be of a practical, hands‑on, skills‑training and repetitive nature to provide meaningful assistance in light of his disabilities.

1. The Ho report, dated 12 August 2025, was prepared by Dr Ho, a consultant psychiatrist, also to assist the Magistrates Court in sentencing the respondent for the contravention offences pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).
2. The Ho report records diagnoses for the respondent largely consistent with Oliveri report.[42] Dr Ho also considers a tentative differential diagnosis of psychotic disorder, unspecified, is attributable to him.[43]
3. According to Dr Ho, the respondent's affect was of a dull and blunted quality, save for him being highly irate and irritable, and there was no possibility of rationalising with him.[44]
4. Consistent with the Oliveri report, Dr Ho opines that, in consequence of the respondent's FASD and intellectual disability, the respondent has a complete disregard for others and has significant limitations in adaptive behaviours, including interpersonal interactions and relationships and abiding by rules and laws.[45]
5. To assess the respondent's risk of committing similar offences in the further, Dr Ho also employed the HCR‑20v3. Dr Ho observes that the respondent has 10 out of 10 historical factors known to predict future violence. Dr Ho also records that four out of five items relevant clinical factors were present, including significant affective and behavioural instability, poor insight (both into violence and need for treatment) and poor supervision response. Regarding risk management, Dr Ho observes that the respondent has little ability to cope with stress, and requires significant input to maximise compliance and responsiveness to treatment.[46]
6. Overall, and consistent with the findings of Ms Oliveri, Dr Ho concludes that the respondent remains at high risk of violent and non‑violent reoffending.[47]
7. In reaching this conclusion, Dr Ho observes that:

(1) The respondent remains at a high risk of reactive and impulsive aggression, assaults, antisocial behaviours, and offending sexually due to his intellectual disability, high levels of impulsivity and antisocial attitudes.

(2) The respondent uses substances, violence and offending behaviours, taught to him through experiences in his childhood, to problem solve and gain material benefit.[48]

(3) The respondent's paranoid manner of thinking likely results from his FASD.[49]

(4) The respondent's propensity to lose touch with reality would be 'significantly compromised' given his cognitive limitations and psychological vulnerabilities particularly in the context of extensive monitoring and restrictions associated with the HRSO scheme.[50]

(5) The respondent's contravention offences were driven by his violence condoning attitudes, partly due to his cognitive limitations and lack of sustainable coping mechanisms.

(6) The respondent would not consider whether he would breach any court‑imposed order if he was going to react violently towards other persons.[51]

1. According to Dr Ho, the respondent has extensive treatment needs, with his primary required interventions being management of his environment, equipping and training for his support workers, and pharmacological intervention (for both his levels of arousal and persistent paranoid beliefs).[52] Dr Ho also recommends that the respondent remain abstinent from illicit substance use and alcohol to not increase his disinhibition and impulsivity.[53]

1. Dr Wojnarowska is the respondent's allocated expert pursuant to s 74 of the HRSO Act.
2. Dr Wojnarowska observes, in the Wojnarowska 2024 report, that the respondent presented as visibly agitated, angry, and suspicious, with such attitudes increasing when certain topics were canvassed,[54] failed to take responsibility for his circumstances, blamed his victims and authorities, and acknowledged he was violent and angry due to being exposed to violence 'all of his life'.[55]
3. Overall, Dr Wojnarowska considers that the respondent was anxious, irritable and, to a large extent, pessimistic about his future prospects.[56]
4. Dr Wojnarowska also observes that the respondent was unable to express how he changed since his offending, how he was dealing with stressors or how he was dealing with provocations in the community.[57]
5. Similar observations are made in the Wojnarowska July 2025 report.[58]
6. According to Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent has confirmed diagnoses of FASD and an intellectual disability with prominent attention difficulties, as well as Antisocial Personality Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder (currently in remission) as well as having paranoid personality traits.[59] In this connection, Dr Wojnarowska disagrees with Dr Ho's tentative differential diagnosis of a psychotic disorder.[60]

1. Dr Wojnarowska assessed the risk posed by the respondent in sexual recidivism.[61] In undertaking the risk assessment, Dr Wojnarowska used three assessment tools: (1) The Hare Psychopathy Check-list - Revised (PCL-R); (2) Static‑99; and (3) the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP).[62]
2. According to Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent's Static‑99R and PCL‑R were unchanged from a previous assessment which she conducted in 2021, and that:

(a) the respondent had a score of 8 placing him in the 'IVb - Well Above Average Risk', and remains within the high‑risk category of sexual reoffending applying Static‑99;[63] and

(b) the respondent's score was in the 'moderate range' of psychopath (below the threshold usually required to confirm a psychopathy diagnosis), low range on interpersonal and affective domain and moderate score in social deviance from applying the PCL‑R.[64]

1. As part of the application of the clinical judgment framework of the RSVP, Dr Wojnarowska records having observed various risk factors including, among other things: poor communication skills, a strong victim stance, issues with stress and coping, often regressing into paranoid positions, substance use problems, hostile and violent attitudes, distrusting of people, problems with intimate and non‑intimate relationships, impairment in various areas of neurocognitive functioning, and problems with supervision (due to his antiauthoritarian and antisocial attitudes).[65]

1. Dr Wojnarowska posits that the respondent is likely to reoffend against a vulnerable intoxicated female who is known to him, and where there is resistance, he may become violent. She considers that the presence of other people will not deter the respondent from offending.[66]
2. Dr Wojnarowska also considers that the respondent could assault his support workers in the context of his paranoid beliefs.
3. According to Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent's risk factors for reoffending are: loneliness and boredom as a result of lack of structured activity which may lead to him relapsing into substance use, and limited opportunity to engage sexually with consenting, age appropriate females.

1. Having considered the results of the assessment tools applied and her clinical assessment, Dr Wojnarowska opines that the respondent remains a high risk of sexual reoffending if not subject to a continuing detention order or supervision order due to, among other things: his high sexual drive associated with high young age, impulsivity, difficulty inhibiting his behaviours, antisocial personality disorder, substance use and social difficulties.[67]
2. Dr Wojnarowska recommended in the Wojnarowska 2024 report that the respondent commence a trial of mood stabiliser medication, namely Sodium Valproate, to decrease his irritability, paranoid beliefs and impulsivity. She considers that this medication would assist in regulating the respondent's arousal and associated mood fluctuations, and, that it be commenced as soon as possible while he was still in prison and monitored by his general practitioner upon his release into the community.[68]
3. In the Wojnarowska July 2025 report, Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent had, some six months earlier, commenced a Sodium Valproate trial and was to be managed and monitored in prison for three to six months prior to any release.[69] In her most recent report Dr Wojnarowska records that it is her understanding that the respondent was prescribed a 500 mg dose twice a day (once in the morning and once at night).[70]
4. Dr Wojnarowska notes that:[71]
   1. Dr Bilyk [a consultant psychiatrist in Acacia Prison] reviewed [the respondent] in May and then in July 2025 who reported that the medication 'make (him) feel calmer' and 'he is not fighting as much'. However, he admitted that he was taking his medication at nighttime only and 'sometimes' he forgets to take his nighttime dose. Dr Bilyk noted that Mr Patrick tolerated a longer interview than previously. Mental health nurse confirmed noncompliance with morning dose and 50% compliance with the nighttime dose.

1. According to Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent's test results indicate mild elevation in liver enzymes however these remain within the therapeutic range.[72]
2. She posits that the medication compliance was to continue to be monitored by prison services and that any dosage adjustment should be completed prior to any release from prison. Dr Wojnarowska further notes that concerns were raised regarding the respondent's willingness to continue with treatment once released, as well as having demonstrated non‑compliance with the dosage regimen whilst in prison.[73]
3. Dr Wojnarowska considers that if the respondent were to be released into the community, the respondent would benefit from developing a relationship with his NDIS carers prior to his release to attempt to dismantle his suspicious and paranoid views of them.[74]
4. In relation to the respondent's NDIS carers, Dr Wojnarowska, in the Wojnarowska July 2025 report, observes that the respondent expressed some optimism regarding his future accommodation arrangements.[75] She maintains her opinion that the respondent is to have the opportunity to develop a relationship with the carers prior to his release, and opines that, to build the necessary relationship, a three‑month period of regular weekly meetings is required. Dr Wojnarowska also opines that 2:1 supports provided by the NDIS in the community is necessary to assist the respondent in developing pro‑social relationships.[76]
5. Dr Wojnarowska also recommends that any supervision order be imposed for a duration of at least 10 years.[77]
6. The Wojnarowska July 2025 report concludes with a view that the respondent's risk of reoffending and manageability has not changed; he continues to be a high risk of violent and sexual reoffending.[78]
7. However, Dr Wojnarowska considers that the respondent's risk can be appropriately managed by his current supports, by abstaining from alcohol and by his compliance with his medication requirements.[79]

1. The First, Second and Third Moulton reports were prepared by Mr Moulton, a SCCO with the COMU, who was previously the respondent's case manager.
2. Mr Wyatt, another SCCO with the COMU, has since assumed the position of the respondent's case manager and will remain his case manager if released into the community.[80] Mr Wyatt has produced two reports.

Performance whilst subject to supervision order

1. According to the First Moulton report, the respondent consistently complied with his attendance requirements for supervision sessions, though his engagement in such sessions was appropriate but rather limited.[81]
2. Relevantly, Mr Moulton notes that the respondent:

(a) was rarely forthcoming with information in supervision and provided brief answers;[82]

(b) presented with paranoid beliefs, evident as early as 20 December 2022, which appear to have somewhat subsided upon his release on bail on 1 August 2023, although quickly returned and continued largely unabated;[83]

(c) made inappropriate sexual advances towards a female SCCO which led to the supervision session being terminated and the respondent being assigned a new male SCCO;[84]

(d) displayed general hostility towards staff towards the end of his time in the community;[85] and

(e) provided differing responses to questions regarding his sexual thinking and behaviours depending on the SCCO; such variation in responses was acknowledged to be attributable, at least in part, to cultural considerations.

1. According to the First Moulton report, the respondent has little or no family or social supports due to being largely disconnected from his family and the Warmun community, as well as having limited community involvement.[86]

1. In addition to the contravention offences, two further instances of non‑compliance with the supervision order are also recorded in the First Moulton report.
2. First, on 13 May 2022 the respondent failed to comply with conditions 42 and 43 of the supervision order by submitting a urinalysis test returning a void result due to the level of creatinine in the sample being below the acceptable range. Mr Moulton notes however that the respondent was ready to provide another sample.[87]
3. Secondly, on 23 June 2022 the respondent failed to comply with condition 31 of the supervision order by attending a Grill'd restaurant; a licenced venue. However, the report records that this occurred at the suggestion of a support worker who was unaware that the restaurant was a licenced venue. It was also not apparent that the respondent actually consumed any alcohol.[88]

1. As to his performance while in custody, the First Moulton report records two instances of the respondent receiving negative attention by prison staff.
2. The first was on 17 June 2024, when the respondent refused to move to a nearby cell when asked by prison staff even after he was told that he was refusing to obey a lawful order and would be charged. Despite this, prison staff observed that the respondent remained defiant.[89]
3. The second instance was on 20 August 2024. The respondent was observed to have been engaged in a physical confrontation with his cellmate. Both refused to obey a lawful order to stop the altercation. Ultimately, a chemical agent was deployed.[90]
4. The Third Moulton report records several further incidents in custody occurring between February and April. These include a physical altercation with another prisoner, the respondent having been observed with suspicious facial injuries (although the respondent indicated that they were caused by him slipping), verbal abuse towards prison staff, and smoking.[91] However, no incidents have been recorded since March 2025.[92]
5. According to Mr Moulton, the respondent completed 12 urinalysis tests since his reincarceration, four of which were returned as positive.[93] However, since 15 January 2025 all urinalysis tests have returned negative results.[94]
6. The Third Moulton report also records that the respondent had applied to be released on parole. That application was considered and denied on 8 May 2025.[95]
7. Mr Moulton records the respondent consistently presented as combative, agitated and paranoid between the respondents reincarceration in 2023 and January 2025.[96]
8. However, since being transferred to Acacia Prison on 4 March 2025[97] and commencing on Sodium Valproate, Mr Moulton observes that these attitudes have somewhat tempered, at least upon initial contact with the respondent.[98]
9. Mr Wyatt observed that on 9 July 2025 the respondent's demeanour, when visited by one of his proposed core support workers, was 'more positive' than prior interactions and that he was able to maintain a level of positive engagement.[99] Similar observations are made in the Second Wyatt Report.[100]

Should the supervision order be rescinded, affirmed, amended or extended?

1. I may only affirm, amend, or extend the supervision order if I am satisfied, also on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order as made, affirmed or amended. Otherwise, I must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order.[101]
2. While I am required to make an order which is the least invasive, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.[102]

Will the respondent substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order?

1. By its application, the State sought an order under s 55(1)(b) of the HRSO Act re‑releasing the respondent subject to an amended supervision order.
2. However, at the hearing, counsel for the State correctly contended that it is a matter for the court to determine what final order should be made.[103]
3. Nevertheless, I remain cognisant of the fact that the State holds the view that the risks posed by the respondent can be adequately mitigated by the imposition of conditions.
4. Ultimately, the onus is on the respondent to satisfy the court that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions.
5. On the evidence before me, I consider the respondent to have discharged this onus. I am satisfied that the supervision order, with the proposed amendments, will adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence.

Legal principles - substantial compliance, onus of proof

1. In Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart,[104] Fiannaca J made a number of observations in an earlier legislative context which apply equally to the provisions of the HRSO Act,[105] namely:[106]

(1) The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and of the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious [offence].

(2) The question of what will be substantial compliance will be a matter of judgment that will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.

(3) The assessment is to be made in the context that it is one aspect of the broader exercise of determining whether the community can be adequately protected if the respondent is released again subject to a supervision order.

(4) It is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of the section, in context, that the word 'substantially' is used in a relative sense and involves an assessment of the degree of compliance that the respondent is likely to achieve.

(5) While the prospect of trivial or minor contraventions will not (and ordinarily should not) preclude a finding that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the assessment of whether the respondent will substantially comply involves considerations other than simply whether any potential breach will be trivial or minor.

(6) The court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious [offence].[107]

1. In The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2],[108] Archer J referred to several further factors identified by Fiannaca J in Hart as relevant to an assessment of whether an offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions.[109]
2. In the context of this matter those factors are:

(1) The respondent's history of compliance and non‑compliance.

(2) The respondent's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular, whether the respondent is likely to deliberately flout the conditions).

(3) The respondent's capacity to comply with the conditions.

(4) Measures in place to ensure the offender will substantially comply.

(5) The relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order in achieving the objects of the HRSO Act.

(6) The respondent's motivation to remain offence‑free and in the community.

(7) Abstinence from drugs.

(8) The respondent's conduct while in prison.

(9) Demonstrated gains in treatment, self‑management, and life skills.

1. A finding that the respondent has contravened the supervision order will not necessitate the imposition of a continuing detention order.[110] Given the onerous nature of supervision orders, missteps are to be expected.[111] However, the frequency or regularity of contraventions might inform the question of whether the offender will substantially comply.[112]
2. As noted earlier, the court cannot make, amend, or affirm a supervision order unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order (as made, amended or affirmed).
3. It follows that the court must be satisfied that it is more probable,[113] or more likely,[114] than not that the respondent will comply.
4. Noting the inquiry is focused on predicting future behaviour, the exercise necessarily involves a process of inferential reasoning. Drawing an inference involves something more than mere conjecture or surmise.[115] What is required are circumstances raising a more probable inference in favour of what is alleged.[116] The evidence must give 'rise to a reasonable and definite inference not merely to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability'.[117]
5. Further, even if the court is satisfied the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions, it must not release the respondent unless satisfied the supervision order would ensure an adequate degree of protection to the community.[118]
6. I now turn to address each of the factors relevant to an assessment of whether the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.

1. Despite the respondent's lengthy criminal history, he does not have a significant history of non‑compliance with conditions of his previous supervision orders.
2. Having said that I note that, on 28 August 2019, the respondent cut off and removed his GPS tracker leading to a breach of his first supervision order made under the predecessor legislation.
3. Further, since the imposition of his most recent supervision order on 11 April 2022, the respondent's non‑compliance has become particularly more problematic. I say this because the contravention offences concern the use of violence with weapons perpetrated against the respondent's NDIS support workers.
4. These contraventions were undoubtably serious breaches of the supervision order.
5. Despite this, there is no evidence that there was any difficulty with the respondent's supervision in any other respects.[119]

1. Both Mr Moulton and Dr Wojnarowska note the respondent has responded positively when asked about compliance with the proposed supervision order.[120]
2. That said, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Ho also effectively conclude that the respondent has poor emotional management and impulsivity.[121] Dr Ho goes further to suggest that, due to this, if the respondent were to react violently towards another person, he will likely not consider whether he would breach a supervision order before doing so.[122]
3. It also remains relevant that the respondent still fails to take any responsibility for his current offending and still blames his victims and others for his actions.[123]
4. Further, the contravention offences occurred in the context of the respondent being dissatisfied with the monitoring of his phone and internet use (whether such monitoring was real or imagined).[124]
5. I can also not ignore the fact that at the date of the last hearing, the respondent was not fully complying with his Sodium Valproate medication regime,[125] and that concerns had arisen about him continuing this treatment if he was to be released on a supervision order.[126]
6. In saying this, Mr Wyatt has more recently observed that the respondent has since become compliant in taking his afternoon dose of medication and that the respondent has not only verbalised a willingness to remain compliant[127] but also expressed positive views in relation to the medication.[128]
7. This most recent information from Mr Wyatt is, in my view, consistent with an inference that there has been a positive change in the respondent's attitude to compliance generally.

1. The respondent's less than optimal history of compliance with past supervision orders must be viewed in context.
2. The respondent has been diagnosed with an intellectual disability secondary to a diagnosis of FASD, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder.
3. As indicated earlier, as a result of his intellectual disabilities, the respondent:

(1) experiences difficulties in establishing and sustaining positive both intimate and non-intimate relationships;

(2) has difficulty with adaptive behaviours, cognitive functioning, emotional regulation and self-regulation;

(3) often reacts impulsively with aggression or violence;

(4) has difficulties reacting in an appropriate verbal manner; and

(5) displays a paranoid manner of thinking.

1. Indeed, Dr Wojnarowska effectively concludes that the respondent does not deliberately act in an aggressive, defiant or oppositional manner.[129] Rather, she opines that the respondent's behaviour is a result of his vulnerable brain misinterpreting the environment around him.[130]
2. As Dr Wojnarowska notes, not only is the respondent's capacity to comply hindered by his unintentional behaviours, but he is also likely to struggle with understanding the order conditions and duration due to his intellectual disability.[131]
3. I consider the effect of Dr Wojnarowska's evidence to be that while the respondent may have a genuine motivation to comply with the supervision order, he may have difficulties doing so as a result of his disabilities.

1. According to Mr Wyatt, if the court were to release the respondent on a supervision order, he would have 2:1 support for 11 hours per day for the first four months after his release. This will then reduce to 1:1 support for 11 hours per day until his NDIS plan is reassessed in June 2026.[132] The respondent's current NDIS plan also provides for inactive 1:1 support overnight for the entire duration.
2. The rationale for 2:1 support is to mitigate the risks to each support worker should the respondent display paranoid attitudes or fixate on a specific worker.[133]
3. Dr Wojnarowska considers that a 4 month period of 2:1 support is sufficient to ensure the respondent is able to develop a relationship with his carers, for those carers to learn to understand his triggers, and to learn ways to support him.[134] Dr Wojnarowska does not 'have any concerns at this point in time' regarding the respondent returning to 1:1 supports, for 11 hours each day, after 4 months following any release into the community.[135]
4. Despite being without the supervision of support workers for the remaining 13 hours of the day, Dr Wojnarowska opines that the respondent is not at a particular risk of reoffending as he will be subject to other conditions such as GPS monitoring (proposed condition 7) and a curfew (proposed condition 26).[136]
5. According to Mr Wyatt, the respondent has only met with his proposed support workers on three occasions between 19 August 2025 and 8 October 2025 because such meetings are not funded by the respondent's NDIS plan.[137]
6. Despite these limited opportunities for contact, Mr Wyatt reports that the meetings were positive, the respondent engaged 'well' with his 'key' support workers, has built some rapport, has not identified any concerns with the support workers, and was 'fairly excited about talking to them'.[138] It is also noteworthy that, according to Mr Wyatt, the respondent has verbalised that these interactions were positive.[139]
7. Mr Wyatt indicates that, once the respondent's release date is confirmed, these meetings will recommence to ensure that rapport can develop on an ongoing basis.[140] According to Mr Wyatt, it is also intended that other steps can begin from this point such as increasing meetings with between the respondent and his SCCO and organising doctor's appointments.[141]
8. Although the respondent does not presently take the prescribed morning dose of the Sodium Valproate, the Acacia Mental Health Team has, according to Mr Wyatt, indicated there are no concerns with this,[142] and that should issues with the efficacy of the Sodium Valproate arise after any release of respondent, this could be communicated to his treating team in the community.[143]
9. Dr Wojnarowska supports the respondent's release into the community.[144]
10. She considers that the respondent can be adequately managed in the community with his supports, a referral to Debarl Yerrigan,[145] and the inclusion of a condition in any supervision order imposed to the effect of allowing medical practitioners to advise a CCO if they suspect the respondent has ceased taking the Sodium Valproate (or any other medication).[146]
11. Dr Wojnarowska also indicates that she would be supportive of any simplification for the supervision order conditions,[147] I infer to assist the respondent to understanding and remembering those conditions noting his intellectual disability.
12. Most recently, the respondent has received a new occupational therapist under his NDIS plan. According to the Second Wyatt report, this aspect of his plan entitles him to ongoing occupational therapy reviews, including 'highly personalised and focussed' intervention to target his individual needs.[148]

1. In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, if the respondent were to breach the supervision order, he is imminently more likely to commit an offence which is not considered a 'serious offence' under schedule 1 of the HRSO Act,[149] for example another violent assault.
2. In this regard, it is noted that the respondent last committed a 'serious offence' in 2014.[150]

Motivation to remain offence free, abstinence from drugs

1. Ms Oliveri suggests that the respondent's motivation to remain offence free is entirely one of self‑interest, as the only regret he displayed was strictly in relation to the consequences he faced for his offending.[151]
2. In relation to his use of drugs, Dr Wojnarowska notes that the respondent had reported that he would not smoke cannabis or drink alcohol only due to the supervision order conditions.[152] In this connection, Mr Moulton observes that the respondent had previously been found to have used Bupernorphine in custody. However, there have been no instances of Bupernorphine use, or any other substance, reported since January 2025.[153]
3. While the most recent reports say little if anything about the respondent's motivation to remain offence free, Mr Wyatt considers that, based his interactions with the respondent, the respondent appears to be so motivated.[154]

1. The respondent is reported to have been generally hostile and aggressive towards prison staff during his imprisonment.[155] He has also been the protagonist of, or otherwise taken part in, numerous incidents resulting in incident reports as was detailed at [102] - [106] above.
2. Overall, the respondent's conduct while in prison appears to have been demonstrative of his entrenched anti‑authoritarian views and disregard for the law.[156]
3. However, it is encouraging that the respondent has reportedly not engaged in or demonstrated any behaviours resulting in an incident report since March 2025,[157] and has not returned a positive urinalysis result since January 2025. In my view, these matters support an inference that there has been a positive shift in the respondent's attitude.

Demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management, life skills

1. As explained earlier in these reasons,[158] the respondent's intellectual disability and cognitive challenges make him unsuitable for insight-oriented treatment.
2. Cognisant of these limitations, it is recommended that interventions be implemented to manage the respondent's environment as well as pharmacological intervention.
3. As has been explained, the respondent commenced Sodium Valproate, and although not completely compliant with the regime, the shift in his behaviour and demeanour suggests the medication has had a positive effect despite not being at 'optimum levels'.
4. In this connection, Dr Wojnarowska recalls that in her interview with the respondent, he was able to 'last almost 30 minutes', engage in 'polite conversation' before becoming mildly irritable,[159] and was overall less angry, irritable,[160] and anxious.[161] According to Dr Wojnarowska, this is progress as, prior to starting the Sodium Valproate, the respondent would only remain in an interview for 10-15 minutes.[162]
5. Dr Wojnarowska describes this development as a significant improvement in the respondent's ability to self-regulate.[163]
6. To a similar effect, I note that in May 2025, Dr Bilyk also observed a reduction in the respondent's impulsivity.[164]
7. In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, the fact that the respondent remained engaged despite his frustrations is a starting point which might be leveraged for future therapeutic intervention.[165]

1. I am satisfied that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions if released on a supervision order. I hold this view particularly for the following reasons:

(1) the respondent has received an increase in his NDIS funding which now includes 2:1 support for 4 months following his release, and then returning to 1:1 support thereafter;

(2) the respondent has commenced taking Sodium Valproate, which has resulted in positive changes to his behaviour as observed by Mr Wyatt, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bilyk;

(3) the respondent has a new NDIS service provider, [Suppressed], with whom he has reportedly built positive rapport; and

(4) there is now suitable accommodation available to him.

1. I have reached the above conclusion on the understanding, and with the expectation, that the respondent's proposed key support workers in the community will recommence visiting him over the course of the next 16 days with a view to continuing to build rapport and reduce the prospect of the respondent regressing.

1. At the hearing on 8 October 2025, a question was raised about the duration of any supervision order.
2. The respondent's counsel submitted that Dr Wojnarowska had in fact conceded that a five-year supervision order could suffice and therefore, a five‑year supervision order should be imposed.[166]
3. On the other hand, the State initially contended that a 10‑year supervision order should be imposed. However, following further discussions, I understood the State to accept that it would be open to a 5‑year supervision order being imposed noting that the State is able to apply under the HRSO Act to extend any supervision order should the respondent contravene or otherwise display any problematic behaviours.

1. For the above reasons, I amend the supervision order in relation to the respondent made by Derrick J for a period of five (5) years from 30 October 2025, being a date 16 days from the date of this Order and subject to the conditions which I now publish.[167]
2. Regarding the period of 16 days, I note that s 27 of the HRSO Act provides that a supervision order must not take effect earlier than 21 days after the date the order is made unless 'the court is satisfied that the implementation of the order from an earlier date is practically feasible'.
3. However, at the hearing, the State confirmed that it would be 'practically feasible' for the respondent to be released on 30 October 2025 (being 22 days from the date of the final hearing).[168]
4. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is practically feasible to release the respondent earlier than the 21‑day period as contemplated by s 27 of the HRSO Act.

Pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent has contravened a condition of his supervision order within the meaning of section 55(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes an order amending the Supervision Order made by Derrick J on 25 February 2022 so that for a period of five (5) years from 30 October 2025, the Order is amended, on the following conditions:

1. When you are released from prison a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) will tell you when you must report to them at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre at 30 Moore Street East Perth on the day and at the time you have been told and tell them your name and address.
2. You must report to a CCO and receive visits from a CCO as the Court is directing you in this Order.
3. You must tell a CCO every time you change your name or where you live or where you work at least 2 days before the change happens.
4. You must be supervised by a CCO and do what they tell you including a direction about a curfew or electronic monitoring.
5. You must not leave WA, or stay out of WA, without the permission of a CCO.
6. You must not commit a serious offence.
7. You must have electronic monitoring.

1. You must live at [Suppressed] and stay there every night. You cannot stay anywhere else unless you ask a CCO before and they say you can.

1. You must meet with a CCO at their office or anywhere else they tell you. You must let a CCO visit you at your home. You must do what a CCO tells you. You must not do what a CCO tells you not to do.
2. You must not start a paid or unpaid job or education or training or volunteer work unless you ask your CCO before and they say yes.

1. If a CCO tells you to, you must go to a psychiatrist or psychologist or mentor or support service or support person or more than one of these and you must talk to them and do what they ask you to do.
2. If a CCO tells you to, you must go to programs and you must listen and take part in what they ask you to do.

1. You must go to the police at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth, (Serious Offender Enforcement Squad) within 2 days from when you get out of prison.
2. When the police tell you what day and what time and where you have to go to see them you must go. You must let the police visit you at your house.
3. You must do everything you have to and not do things you should not under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.
4. You must let police officers into your home and let them search your home and car. You must let police officers take things you aren't allowed to have under this Order or take things they need to investigate further under this Order.
5. When police officers are searching your home or car you must stay there.
6. If they ask, you must tell the police the names of all your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services you use and all internet user names or identities you use.

1. You must agree people and agencies involved in this Order can talk to each other about you and swap information about you even if it is confidential information.
2. You must agree to let a CCO and the police or other people who a CCO approves talk to any people you know or may get to know and the police or a CCO can tell these people confidential information about you, including your criminal record.

1. You must not contact the victim of your 2014 offence, [Suppressed]. That means no phone calls, texts, messages, Facebook or Instagram posts, letters or notes or asking someone else to pass on messages.
2. If you see your victim by accident you must walk far away from them straight away and not talk to them or signal to them or even look at them.
3. You must not breach any condition of any restraining order and not commit any offences under the Restraining Orders Act 1997.

1. You must not commit any criminal offence where the possible punishment is imprisonment.
2. You cannot have or take any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 says are illegal unless a doctor writes you a prescription. If a doctor writes you a prescription you must take the medication exactly as the doctor tells you.

1. You will be on a curfew. A CCO will tell you what time you must be home each night and what time you can leave the house the next morning. If you have to be out of the house outside of your curfew you must ask a CCO and get their permission first.
2. During curfew hours you must answer the phone if a CCO or police officer rings you. If a CCO or police comes to your house during curfew hours you must go to the front door or verge.
3. You have to make sure everyone in your house knows if they answer the door or phone during your curfew hours they must tell you and help you to take the phone call or go to the front door or verge.

1. You must see any medical practitioner or counsellor your supervising CCO tells you to.
2. If a medical practitioner decides you should have medicine they will tell a CCO and you must take the right amount of medicine at the times the medical practitioner says.
3. You must have blood or urine tests or any other tests to prove you are taking the medicine the medical practitioner says you should.
4. You must let any medical practitioner or counsellor tell a CCO details of their opinion and medical treatment they have prescribed if it affects your risk of re-offending.
5. You must let any medical practitioner or counsellor tell a CCO immediately if they know or think you have stopped or intend to stop taking the amounts of medication at the times you are supposed to, or if you stop going to appointments.
6. You must be involved with the National Disability Insurance Agency as a CCO tells you and follow the instructions of the National Disability Insurance Agency.

1. You cannot enter any house where any female lives unless you have asked a CCO before and the CCO has said yes.
2. You must not let any female enter any house where you live unless you have asked a CCO before and the CCO has said yes.
3. You cannot get into any vehicle with any female or where a female is present even if you are only a passenger unless you have asked a CCO before and the CCO has said yes. You can use public transport even if there are females present.
4. You must not be with any person who you know has committed a sexual offence unless you have asked a CCO before and the CCO has said yes.
5. You cannot buy or have or drink alcohol.
6. You cannot go into any licensed premises unless:

(a) there is a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person and going there will lessen that risk;

(b) a CCO says you can for a particular reason and only for how long the CCO says; or

(c) a CCO or police officer orders you to.

1. When a CCO or police officer tells you to go to urinalysis or any other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs you must go. If a CCO or police officer asks you to go with them to a place for such testing to take place you must go with them.
2. When you do go for tests for alcohol or prohibited drugs you must give a proper sample.
3. Unless you ask a CCO before and they say yes, you cannot be around any female who you know, or should know, is affected by alcohol.
4. Unless you ask a CCO before and they say yes, you cannot be around any person who you know, or should know, is affected by any prohibited drug.
5. You cannot stay anywhere prohibited drugs are being used. If someone is using drugs at your home, you must leave the part of the house where they are using prohibited drugs and go to a different part of the house.
6. You cannot go to any escort agencies or sex workers or use escort agencies or sex workers services unless you ask your CCO first and they say yes.
7. You must have no contact with a female child under the age of 18 years, unless:

(a) a CCO gives you permission and an adult approved by a CCO is present at all times; or

(b) the contact is necessary to do shopping or buy something and limited to the minimum contact needed and another adult is present.

Contact means phone calls, texts, messages, Facebook or Instagram posts, letters or notes or asking someone else to pass on messages.

1. If a female child under 18 comes near you then you must walk away straight away.
2. If you do have contact with any female under 18 then the next time you report to both a CCO and to the police you must give them the details.
3. If you make any new friends or start any new relationships you must tell your CCO the next time you see them. This means any friends and relationships such as a girlfriend, a sex partner, a mate, or a relative.
4. You cannot form any type of friendship or relationship with a person who has a child, or children under the age of 18 years in their full time or part time care, unless you have asked a CCO before you do and they have said yes.
5. You cannot have any contact with, or be a member of, or get involved with any club, association or group where membership is mainly for children, unless you have asked a CCO before you do and they have said yes. If a CCO or police officer tells you to cancel any membership or stop being involved with these places you must do so.
6. If your CCO tells you to you must tell any new girlfriends, sex partners, mates, friends or relatives or anyone new in your life all about your offending, your criminal record and this Order.

_________________________________

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 Patrick [No 2] [2017] WASC 281.

[2] The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [2022] WASC 61.

[3] The terms of the supervision order are reflected in Annexure A of his Honour's decision.

[5] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [55] ‑ [56].

[10] HRSO Act s 29(2) read with s 29(1), s 55.

[14] See Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 80(c) and HRSO Act s 84(2)(c) and s 84(5)(b).

[22] The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [66] ‑ [69]; The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 2] [4], [6] ‑ [7].

[23] The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 2] [12] ‑ [18]; The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [79] ‑ [87]; The State of Western Australia v Patrick [2016] WASC 391 [4] ‑ [5].

[24] The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 2] [5], [9]; The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [75] ‑ [76].

[25] The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [70]; The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 2] [8] ‑ [9].

[26] The State of Western Australia v Patrick [No 5] [71] ‑ [72].

[27] Oliveri report [1] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 359).

[28] Oliveri report [1] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 360).

[29] Oliveri report [8] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 362).

[30] The PATCHES FASD Assessment Report dated 22 January 2017; Psychological Report for Court prepared by Tanina Oliveri (Clinical and Forensic Psychologist) dated 11 February 2012; Brief Summary of Prison Medical Records; Prison Medical Record Progress Notes.

[31] Oliveri report [11] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 362).

[32] Oliveri report [8] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 362).

[33] Oliveri report [10] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 362 ‑ 363).

[34] Oliveri report [14] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 364).

[35] Oliveri report [18] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 365).

[36] Oliveri report [19] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 365).

[37] Oliveri report [19] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 365).

[38] Oliveri report [21] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 365 ‑ 366).

[39] Oliveri report [21] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 365 ‑ 366).

[40] Oliveri report [21] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 365 ‑ 366).

[41] Oliveri report [21] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 365 ‑ 366).

[42] Ho report [1.2] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 367).

[43] Ho report [12.4] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 373).

[44] Ho report [11.2] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 372).

[45] Ho report [12.2] - [12.3] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 373).

[46] Ho report [13.2] - [13.6] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 374).

[47] Ho report [14.6] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375).

[48] Ho report [14.3] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375).

[49] Ho report [14.4] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375).

[50] Ho report [14.4] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375).

[51] Ho report [14.5] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375).

[52] Ho report [15.1] - [15.3] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375).

[53] Ho report [15.7] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 376).

[54] Wojnarowska 2024 report [33] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 391).

[55] Wojnarowska 2024 report [29] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 390 ‑ 391).

[56] Wojnarowska 2024 report [42] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 393).

[57] Wojnarowska 2024 report [32] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 391), [40] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 391).

[58] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [11]-[12] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605 ‑ 606).

[59] Wojnarowska 2024 report [43] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 393).

[60] ts 19 August 2025, 773 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[61] Wojnarowska 2024 report [47] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 394).

[62] Wojnarowska 2024 report [48] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 394 ‑ 395).

[63] Wojnarowska 2024 report [47] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 394).

[64] Wojnarowska 2024 report [48] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 394 ‑ 395).

[65] Wojnarowska 2024 report [56] ‑ [73] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 396 ‑ 399).

[66] Wojnarowska 2024 report [74] ‑ [75] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 399).

[67] Wojnarowska 2024 report [79] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 400).

[68] Wojnarowska 2024 report [80] ‑ [82] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 400).

[69] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [5] (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 605); Wojnarowska January 2025 report [3], [6] (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 425 ‑ 426).

[70] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [5] (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 605).

[71] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [6] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605).

[72] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [7] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605).

[73] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [6], [20] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605, 607).

[74] Wojnarowska 2024 report [83] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 400); Wojnarowska January 2025 report [6] ‑ [8] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605).

[75] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [13] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 606).

[76] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [24] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 606).

[77] Wojnarowska 2024 report [84] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 400).

[78] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [23] ‑ [24] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 606).

[79] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [23] ‑ [24] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 606).

[81] First Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 403).

[82] First Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 403).

[83] First Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 403).

[84] First Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 403).

[85] First Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 403).

[86] First Moulton report, 9 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 409).

[87] First Moulton report, 9 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 409).

[88] First Moulton report, 9 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 409).

[89] First Moulton report, 11 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 411).

[90] First Moulton report, 11 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 411).

[91] Third Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 593).

[92] Wyatt report, 2 (Exhibit 1, BOM 4, 600).

[93] First Moulton report, 11 (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 411); Second Moulton report, 5 (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 431); Third Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 593).

[94] Second Moulton report, 5 (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 431); Third Moulton report, 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 593).

[95] Third Moulton report, 4 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 594).

[96] Second Moulton report, 2 (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 428).

[97] Third Moulton report, 2 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 592).

[98] Third Moulton report, 2 ‑ 3 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 592 ‑ 593).

[99] Wyatt report, 2 (Exhibit 1, BOM 4, 600).

[100] Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt report, 2.

[104] Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [30].

[105] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 [30]. See also The State of Western Australia v Decke [No 6] [2024] WASC 339 [55].

[106] Adapted to the present legislative context.

[107] Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [30].

[108] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2].

[109] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [33] ‑ [34]. See also The State of Western Australia v Decke [No 6] [60].

[110] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [31].

[111] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [31].

[112] The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [31].

[113] Eg. Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, 374.

[114] Eg. Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153 [55].

[115] Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 45 FLR 430; (1978) 22 ALR 128, 132 ‑ 133.

[116] Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1, 5.

[117] Trustees of the Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins [2006] HCA 6; (2006) 227 CLR 278 [34].

[118] The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [38].

[119] ts 8 October 2025, 828 (Mr Wyatt), 837.

[120] Third Moulton Report, 5 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 595); ts 19 August 2025, 776 (Dr Wojnarowska); Wojanrowska July 2025 report [10] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605).

[121] Ho Report [14.5] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375); Wojnarowska 2024 report [64], [72] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 397, 399).

[122] Ho Report [14.5] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 375).

[123] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [10]-[11] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605); Wojnarowska 2024 report [29] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 390); Wojnarowska January 2025 report [3] (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 425).

[124] Exhibit 2; Wojnarowska 2024 report [21] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 389).

[125] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [6] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 605); ts 19 August 2025, 764 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[126] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [20] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 607).

[127] Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt Report, 3.

[129] ts 19 August 2025, 770 - 771 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[130] ts 19 August 2025, 763 (Dr Wojnarowska); Wojnarowska 2024 report [72] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 399).

[131] Wojnarowska 2024 report [57] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 397). See, eg, Wojnarowska 2024 report [36] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 391).

[132] ts 19 August 2025, 791-791 (Mr Wyatt); Wyatt report, 3-4 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 601 - 602).

[133] Wyatt report, 4 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 602).

[134] ts 19 August 2025, 765 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[135] ts 19 August 2025, 765 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[136] ts 19 August 2025, 781 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[137] Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt Report, 2.

[138] ts 8 October 2025, 825 (Mr Wyatt); ts 19 August 2025, 800 (My Wyatt); Exhibit 5,Second Wyatt Report, 2.

[139] Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt Report, 2.

[140] ts 8 October 2025, 823 - 824 (Mr Wyatt); Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt Report, 2.

[141] ts 8 October 2025, 823 - 824 (Mr Wyatt).

[142] ts 8 October 2025, 825 - 826; Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt report, 3.

[143] ts 8 October 2025, 826 Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt report, 3.

[145] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [20]-[21] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 607).

[146] Wojnarowska July 2025 report [20] - [21] (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 607).

[147] ts 19 August 2025, 767 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[148] Exhibit 5, Second Wyatt report, 2.

[149] ts 19 August 2025, 769, 781 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[150] ts 8 October 2025, 838; Criminal History report (Exhibit 1, BOM v1, 2).

[151] Oliveri report [14] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 364).

[152] Wojnarowska 2024 report [34] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 391).

[153] Second Moulton report, 5 (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 594).

[154] ts 8 October 2025, 828 (Mr Wyatt).

[155] See Second Moulton report, 2 (Exhibit 1, BOM v3, 428).

[156] See Ho report [12.2] (Exhibit 1, BOM v2, 373).

[157] Wyatt report, 2 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 599).

[159] ts 19 August 2025, 764 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[160] ts 19 Augsut 2025, 767 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[161] ts 19 August 2025, 774 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[162] ts 19 August 2025, 764 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[163] ts 19 August 2025, 784 (Dr Wojnarowska).

[164] Third Moulton report, 5 (Exhibit 1, BOM v4, 595).

[165] ts 19 August 2025, 783 (Dr Wojnarowska).