On 16 September 2025, the State commenced proceedings alleging that the respondent has contravened a condition of his supervision order contrary to s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).
In support of the application the State has filed an affidavit of Mr Joseph Lloyd, legal practitioner, affirmed 16 September 2025 and the affidavit of Ms Julia Doyle, Community Corrections Officer, affirmed 12 September 2025.
The issue that I must decide is whether the respondent should be detained in custody pending the determination of the new contravention proceedings. Counsel for the respondent submitted that, given the circumstances, the interim detention of the respondent is not opposed. I find the concession of the respondent was properly made and that the respondent must be subject to interim detention pending the determination of the contravention proceedings for the following reasons.
[2]
On 2 March 2021, Hill J heard the preliminary hearing and determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing that a court might find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender pursuant to s 46(1) of the HRSO Act. Her Honour made an interim order pursuant to s 46(2)(c)(i) that the respondent be detained in custody until the final determination of the application.
On 21 July 2021, Smith J heard the substantive hearing of the restriction order application and on 6 August 2021, delivered her decision and determined that the respondent was a high risk serious offender and that he should be released on a supervision order.[2] Therefore, the respondent commenced living in the community subject to the stringent conditions of the supervision order.
In March 2022, the respondent was charged with four criminal offences. Further, the respondent was charged with 10 contravention charges contrary to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act.
On 13 May 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty to all charges, including the charges relating to the contravention of his supervision order. The learned Magistrate imposed a term of immediate imprisonment of 7 months for the charge of assaulting a public officer contrary to s 318(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (WA). The immediate term of imprisonment was backdated to commence on 4 March 2022. Fines were imposed in respect to the charges of contravening s 80(1) of the HRSO Act and the other charges.
On 24 February 2023, the State commenced contravention proceedings in relation to the ongoing supervision order and the respondent was detained on an interim detention order. On 28 April 2023, the contravention proceedings hearing was heard before me. After receiving evidence from witnesses it was agreed that the contravention hearing should be adjourned to permit accommodation and support for the respondent to be arranged. At the time of the hearing, those arrangements had not been finalised by the State. Therefore, the hearing was adjourned part‑heard to a further hearing on 8 August 2023. It was anticipated that arrangements would be made for National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) funding for the respondent and that accommodation would be obtained.
On 19 June 2024, I heard the continuation of the part‑heard contravention application hearing. At that hearing, the State accepted that the respondent could be released into the community on an amended supervision order. By 19 June 2024, the NDIS plan for the respondent had been approved and accommodation with support had been arranged.
On 19 June 2024, having found that the respondent contravened his supervision order, I was satisfied the respondent should be released on an amended supervision order.[3] Accordingly, the respondent returned to the community. The respondent was supported by the NDIS with 24 hours seven days per week of one‑to‑one support, and 77 hours per week of individual support along with inactive overnight supports.
The respondent was charged with a number of offences whilst in the community and is currently incarcerated on remand. The offences form part of the particularisation of the alleged contraventions of the supervision order. In addition, the respondent has been undertaking other concerning behaviour whilst in the community.
[3]
The State has filed a particularisation of the contraventions. To the State document I will insert in respect to each alleged contravention whether the respective charge has been heard in the Magistrates Court and if the respondent has been sentenced. Therefore, the particularisation of the alleged contraventions, with any court outcome stated, is in the following terms:
[4]
Contravention 1 (PE 24085/2025) - breach of condition 26
[5]
Condition 26 of the Supervision Order (SO) provides that the Respondent: 'Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments'.
At about 10.42 pm on 22 April 2025, the Respondent presented at Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) for medical treatment. At a time before 3.50 am on 23 April 2025, the Respondent made inappropriate comments to female staff members of RPH and was refused treatment. At 3.50 am, the Respondent was masturbating approximately two metres from the entry to the emergency department. RPH security guards approached the Respondent and directed him to leave the area. In response, the Respondent threatened to 'punch them in the head' and adopted a fighting stance, swinging his arms towards the security guards. The Respondent threw the contents of a cup he was holding, which was believed to have contained semen, onto one of the security guards. At approximately 4.30 am, police officers attended RPH and arrested the Respondent at scene. The police officers conveyed the Respondent to the Perth Watchhouse.
At a time between 7.07 am and 10.40 am, while lawfully detained at the Perth Watchhouse, the Respondent began masturbating. The Respondent maintained eye contact with lockup officers and nurses while masturbating and refused to cease masturbating after being directed to do so. The Respondent ejaculated and smeared the ejaculate across the lower half of his face.
The Respondent was charged with one count of assault public officer, contrary to s 318(1)(d) Criminal Code (WA), one count of obscene acts in public, contrary to s 202(1)(a) Criminal Code (WA), and one count of obscene acts in a police station, contrary to s 202(1)(b) Criminal Code (WA). All offences carry a maximum penalty which includes imprisonment.
The Respondent is currently remanded in custody and is set to appear in the Perth Magistrates Court in relation to these charges on 14 October 2025.
[6]
Contravention 2 (PE 29050/2025) - breach of condition 27
[7]
Condition 27 of the SO provides that the Respondent 'Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA), and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider'.
Condition 34 of the SO obliges the Respondent to: 'Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by WA Police, including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place'.
On 9 May 2025, the Respondent attended the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre (EPACCC) where he completed a urinalysis test as directed.
On 15 May 2025, the result of the urinalysis test was received and found to be positive to Methamphetamine, with that result recording a concentration of 1929 ug/L (the cut off threshold being 150 ug/L).
On 17 May 2025, the Respondent appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court where he was convicted of charges PE 29050‑29051 of 2025 and sentenced to a $1,000 global fine.
[8]
Contravention 3 (PE 35868/2025) - breach of condition 27
[9]
On 11 June 2025, the Respondent attended the EPACCC where he completed a urinalysis test as directed.
On 16 June 2025, the result of the urinalysis test was received and found to be positive to Methylamphetamine, with that result recording a concentration of 322 ug/L (the cut off threshold being 150 ug/L).
On 17 June 2025, the Respondent appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court where he was convicted of charges PE 35868‑35869 of 2025 and sentenced to a $1,000 global fine.
[10]
Contravention 4 (PE 37784/2025) - breach of condition 27
[11]
On 23 June 2025, the Respondent attended the EPACCC where he completed a urinalysis test as directed.
On 26 June 2025, the result of the urinalysis test was received and found to be positive to Methylamphetamine, with that result recording a concentration of 3316 ug/L (the cut off threshold being 150 ug/L).
On 27 June 2025, the Respondent appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court where he was convicted of charges PE 37784‑37785 of 2025 and sentenced to 6 months and 1 day imprisonment, suspended for 6 months, for charge PE 37784 of 2025, and a fine of $300 for charge PE 37785 of 2025.
[12]
Contravention 5 (PE 44356/2025) - breach of condition 27
[13]
On 28 July 2025, the Respondent was an inpatient at Graylands Hospital and provided a sample of his urine for a drug screen test.
The result of the drug screen test was positive to Amphetamine and Methylamphetamine.
On 30 July 2025, the Respondent appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court for the first mention hearing in relation to this charge and charge PE44357/2025 and is currently remanded in custody, set to appear in the Perth Magistrates Court in relation to these charges on 14 October 2025.
[14]
Contravention 6 (PE 44357/2025) - breach of condition 27
[15]
On 19 July 2025, the Respondent was an inpatient at Graylands Hospital and provided a sample of his urine for a drug screen test.
The result of the drug screen test was positive to Methylamphetamine.
In addition, Ms Doyle deposes that the respondent has undertaken other concerning behaviour whilst in the community. The concerning behaviour has included sexually inappropriate behaviour, such as masturbating in public whilst staring intensely at female staff.
[16]
The State brings the application under s 53 and s 56 of the HRSO Act. Section 53 of the HRSO Act provides:
[17]
State may seek orders
(1) This section applies to -
[18]
(a) an offender who is brought before the Supreme Court under a warrant issued under section 51(3) or 56(7)(d); and
(b) an offender who is charged with an offence under section 80(1).
[19]
(2) In relation to the offender, the State may apply for -
[20]
(a) an order under section 55; and
(b) an order for the offender to be detained in custody while proceedings on the application for an order under section 55 are pending.
[21]
(3) The application must state what order is sought under section 55.
[22]
Section 56 of the HRSO Act, relevantly, provides:
[23]
(1) This section applies if an offender who is subject to a supervision order is before the Supreme Court and proceedings on an application made under section 53 in respect to the offender are pending (the pending proceedings).
(2) The court may at any time in the pending proceedings -
(a) if the offender is detained in custody, order the offender to be released, subject to subsection (3); or
(b) if the offender is not detained in custody, order the offender to be detained in custody.
(3) The court cannot order the offender to be released unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that -
(a) releasing the offender is justified by exceptional circumstances; and
(b) the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order, including any amendments to the standard conditions made under subsection (7)(b).
(4) The onus of proof as to the matter described in subsection (3)(b) is on the offender.
[24]
The term 'exceptional circumstances' used in s 56(3) is not defined in the HRSO Act. The term should therefore be given its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, exceptional circumstances are circumstances that are unusual, out of the ordinary, in some way special, or an exception to the general trend of cases.
As to the phrase 'substantially comply', this was considered by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart,[4] in the context of contravention proceedings. I apply the reasoning of Fiannaca J.
An issue that arises for determination is whether it is necessary for the respondent to establish exceptional circumstances to justify his release or whether the onus is on the State to establish that the respondent be detained pending the contravention proceedings. The respondent was not brought before the Supreme Court under a warrant issued under s 51(3) or s 56(7)(d) of the HRSO Act. Rather, the State specifically relies upon s 53(2)(b) of the HRSO Act.
Quinlan CJ considered the relevance of s 56 of the HRSO Act to an application under s 53 in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] stating: [5]
[25]
The present application also points up another issue, which is the possible application of ss 56(2) and (3) of the Act to this case, and relationship of those provisions to s 53(2)(b).
Sections 56(2) and (3) provide:
(2) The court may at any time in the pending proceedings -
[26]
(a) if the offender is detained in custody, order the offender to be released, subject to subsection (3); or
(b) if the offender is not detained in custody, order the offender to be detained in custody.
[27]
(3) The court cannot order the offender to be released unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that -
[28]
(a) releasing the offender is justified by exceptional circumstances; and
(b) the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order, including any amendments to the standard conditions made under subsection (7)(b).
[29]
An issue which arises in this case is whether the requirement for exceptional circumstances in s 56(3) is engaged in relation to the State's application. That, in turn, depends upon whether s 56(2)(a) is engaged.
In that regard, the first question is whether Mr Slater is 'detained in custody' within the meaning of s 56(2)(a).
Prima facie, in my view, 'detained in custody', within the meaning of s 56, means detained pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Section 56(2)(a) cannot be construed as providing this Court with a general dispensing power to release persons who are otherwise in custody, either as sentenced prisoners or on remand for other offences. In the context of pt 4 div 5 of the Act, in my view, the expression 'detained in custody' would ordinarily apply to a person who is in custody as a consequence of having been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under s 51 of the Act in relation to a suspected or anticipated contravention of a supervision order. An order of the Court would be necessary to 'release' such a person from custody, and so s 56(2)(a) would apply - including the requirements of s 56(3).
Similarly, a person detained pursuant to an order of the Court made under s 53(2)(b) of the Act would be 'detained in custody' within the meaning of s 56(2)(a).
[30]
Accordingly, in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2], Quinlan CJ held that given the respondent was not in custody, for the reason that the respondent was not brought before the court pursuant to a warrant under s 51 of the HRSO Act, then s 56(3) had no application. For that reason, the requirement in s 56(3) that there be exceptional circumstances did not apply.[6] I subsequently applied that reasoning in The State of Western Australia v Rao.[7] The State accepted that the reasoning of the Chief Justice in The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] applies in respect of the present application.
The respondent is not in custody under the HRSO Act. The State did not make an application to a magistrate for a warrant to arrest and to take the respondent into custody to be brought before the court. Rather, the respondent was charged with offences under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act and has yet to be granted bail.
Therefore, the respondent is in custody not subject to any warrant under the HRSO Act, but rather after his arrest for contravention offences. The State's application is that the respondent be detained in custody under s 53(2)(b), while the contravention proceedings under s 55 are pending. Accordingly, s 56(3)(a) has no application in respect of the respondent for the reason that the respondent is not in custody under the Act. Therefore, for that reason, it is not necessary that the release of the respondent be justified by exceptional circumstances. Rather, the State must establish that the protection of the community against the risk of the respondent committing a serious offence under the HRSO Act requires that he be detained.
[31]
I now turn to the assessment of whether the respondent should be detained in custody until the determination of the contravention proceedings.
I am satisfied, on the basis of the alleged contraventions that I have outlined, that the State has established that the protection of the community against the risk of the respondent committing a serious offence under the HRSO Act requires that he be detained.
When the contravention offences are viewed together, and in light of other evidence that the State relies upon, there appears to be good reasons for the authorities to be concerned about their ability to manage the respondent in the community. The alleged contraventions involve very concerning behaviour by the respondent.
There is a real risk that the respondent will continue to offend and thereby, put the community at risk. Dr Wojnarowska, psychiatrist, in her 2023 report stated that the most likely future offending scenario would involve the respondent returning to substance use and engaging in criminal conduct to support this habit. The respondent would then commence watching pornography and fantasising about sex. This would lead to the respondent approaching females and exposing himself. The victims may include both adults and children.
Ms Doyle stated that the authorities have concerns that the respondent may commit a serious sexual offence, particularly given his substance abuse, high libido and sexual preoccupation.
On the basis of the information that I have at the time of hearing this application, I am not satisfied that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions if he were in the community. I am concerned that the respondent may reoffend against members of the community.
[32]
Therefore, the respondent will be detained in custody pending the determination of the contravention proceedings.
[33]
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.