THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SHIELD [No 2] [2025] WASC 468 (7 November 2025)

When restriction orders may be made under the HRSO Act

1. I discussed the restriction orders that may be made under the HRSO Act and when they are made in The State of Western Australia v El Waly [No 2].[3] I do not propose to repeat everything that I said there, but I will mention three matters.
2. First, the legal principles regarding restriction order applications were considered by the High Court in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.[4] I have had regard to those principles in considering the State's application.
3. Secondly, s 7(3) of the HRSO Act requires me to have regard to the matters identified in that section in considering whether Mr Shield is a high risk serious offender. I have had regard to those matters and discuss each of them below.
4. Thirdly, I respectfully agree with and adopt Tottle J's summary of the relevant legal principles in The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2].[5]

An overview of the evidence relied upon by the State

1. The State relied on four books of documents that it filed in support of its application and tendered at the hearing (under s 84(5) of the HRSO Act) without objection.
2. The State also led oral evidence from four witnesses (who have each prepared written reports that are relied upon by the State):

(a) Dr Peter Wynn Owen, a psychiatrist who has reviewed Mr Shield. Dr Wynn Owen has extensive experience preparing reports for the purposes of the HRSO Act;

(b) Dr Ben Bannister, a psychologist who has reviewed Mr Shield. Dr Bannister also has extensive experience preparing reports for the purposes of the HRSO Act;

(c) Mr Luke Carmichael, a HRSO Planning Manager at the Department of Justice who has prepared a HRSO treatment options report in respect of Mr Shield; and

(d) Ms Madi Tait, Mr Shield's Senior Community Corrections Officer who has prepared a community supervision assessment report in respect of Mr Shield.

1. The HRSO Act requires me to have regard to Mr Shield's antecedents and criminal record when considering whether or not he is a high risk serious offender.[6]

1. Mr Shield is 31 years old. He had a deprived childhood.
2. Mr Shield's mother was an alcoholic. She also used and sold drugs. His father died in a motor vehicle accident when he was 2 or 3 years old.[7]
3. Mr Shield was subject to domestic violence during his childhood. He suffered that violence at the hands of both his mother and her partner. He also witnessed his mother being subjected to domestic violence by her partner. His mother's substance abuse resulted in him being neglected.[8]
4. Mr Shield started selling drugs he stole from his mother when he was 10. He ran away from home on a number of occasions.[9]
5. At around the age of 13, Mr Shield stopped living with his mother and started moving between relatives, hostels and juvenile detention. He also experienced homelessness.[10]
6. Mr Shield attended primary school but barely went to school.[11] He was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADHD) in primary school but refused to take the medication he was prescribed.[12]
7. He attended high school but again missed school. He attended an agricultural boarding school for years 7 to 9 but his schooling was interrupted by youth detention and homelessness.[13]
8. Mr Shield has had a variety of jobs including working in supermarkets, as a labourer on mine sites, as a tiler and in shearing sheds.[14]
9. Mr Shield has a partner who he has been living with since he was released from prison in June 2025. They met while he was still in prison.[15]
10. Mr Shield has two children from a previous relationship. That relationship ended after he was imprisoned in 2017.[16]
11. Mr Shield started using alcohol and marijuana at ages 10 or 11 and began taking methamphetamine and heroin when he was around 13.[17]
12. After Mr Shield was released from prison in 2015, he stopped taking methamphetamine but started drinking heavily. Later, he returned to methamphetamine use before returning to prison in 2017.[18]
13. Mr Shield used opiates and methamphetamine in prison but started taking methadone in 2021/2022. He has remained abstinent since then and tapered off methadone when he was released from prison.[19]

1. Mr Shield has an extensive criminal record that began in childhood and continued into adulthood, including while he was in prison. Mr Shield's offending was characterised by a propensity to use violence and a willingness to use weapons. In prison, he participated in riots and was repeatedly involved in assaulting prison guards and starting fires.
2. Mr Shield's criminal record commenced when he was 15 (although he told Dr Wynn Owen that he began offending when he was 10).[20]
3. Mr Shield was first convicted in February 2010 at the age of 15. That conviction was for stealing.
4. Later that year, in September 2010, Mr Shield was convicted of disorderly conduct, failing to provide details to the police, stealing, aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and threats to kill.[21] The aggravated assault and threats to kill involved Mr Shield repeatedly punching his sister (who he was living with at the time) and threatening to kill her.[22]
5. The following year, in June 2011, when Mr Shield was 16, he was convicted of damaging property, breaching bail, two counts of attempted aggravated armed robbery, aggravated assault with intent to rob and three counts of aggravated armed robbery. He was sentenced to terms of detention with a total effective sentence of 15 months backdated to 25 December 2010.[23]
6. The attempted aggravated armed robberies, aggravated armed robberies and the aggravated assault with intent to rob charges involved a series of muggings and attempted muggings that Mr Shield committed in company with others at night. Mr Shield was armed with a knife during the robberies and attempted robberies.[24] The aggravated assault with intent to rob involved Mr Shield punching the victim in the back of the head and then kicking and punching him when he was on the ground and robbing him.[25]
7. At the beginning of the next year, in January 2012, Mr Shield was convicted of wilful damage, burglary, two counts of attempted armed robbery and being armed in a way that may cause fear. He was sentenced to terms of detention with a total effective sentence of 20 months backdated to 16 January 2012.[26]
8. The burglary and attempted armed robbery charges involved an incident in the early morning where Mr Shield broke into a shop in a shopping centre, stole an axe and damaged the shop. He then used the axe to attempt to rob two people. He also approached a driver and showed her the axe, causing her to drive off.[27]
9. On 14 August 2014, Mr Shield was sentenced for the first time as an adult after being convicted on indictment in the District Court of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.[28]
10. This incident involved Mr Shield pushing and then punching a shop assistant repeatedly when he was caught shoplifting, injuring the shop assistant.[29]
11. Between July 2015 and 7 December 2016, Mr Shield was convicted of various offences in the Karratha Magistrates Court for which he received fines. The offences included carrying weapons, assaulting a police officer, damaging property and making threats to injure.[30]
12. In March 2019, Mr Shield was convicted in the Supreme Court of one count of criminal damage by fire contrary to s 444(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. He received a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, concurrent from 13 July 2018.[31]
13. This charge arose out of an incident in February 2018 whilst Mr Shield was a remanded prisoner at Hakea prison when he climbed onto the roof of a prison block with another prisoner. They armed themselves with a broken broom handle and bricks and refused to climb down and made threats to harm others and themselves. They also set fire to an air-conditioning unit on the roof.[32]
14. On 4 June 2019, Mr Shield was convicted in the District Court of one count of grievous bodily harm. He received a term of imprisonment of 14 months, cumulative from 4 June 2019.[33]
15. This charge arose out of an incident that occurred in February 2017 (before the previous charge) when Mr Shield assaulted someone who walked past him on the street in the early morning in Karratha. The assault was unprovoked and Mr Shield appeared to have been drunk at the time.[34]
16. On 5 June 2019, Mr Shield was convicted of aggravated reckless driving, two counts of assaulting a public officer, failing to stop and driving without a driver's licence. He received terms of imprisonment with a total effective sentence of 8 months, concurrent from 5 June 2019.[35]
17. The charges of assaulting a public officer involved Mr Shield head butting one police officer and attempting to punch another.[36]
18. On 16 August 2019, Mr Shield was convicted of a further two counts of assaulting a public officer. He was sentenced to further terms of imprisonment with 7 months to be served concurrently from 16 August 2019 and three months cumulatively from 16 August 2019.[37]
19. These charges arose out of an incident where Mr Shield threw a jug of water at two prison officers who were guarding him at Fiona Stanley Hospital. He threw the jug after he became angry when his bed was bumped. At the time he was a prisoner at Casuarina Prison.[38]
20. At the start of the following year, on 3 February 2020, Mr Shield was convicted of assaulting a public officer and received a further term of imprisonment of four months to be served cumulatively from 3 February 2020.[39]
21. These charges arose out of an incident where Mr Shield became angry when he felt that a prison guard at Casuarina Prison shut a door on him. Mr Shield pushed the guard over and threw a bottle of water at his head.[40]
22. On 12 August 2022, Mr Shield was convicted of a further two counts of assaulting a public officer, two counts of criminal damage by fire, one count of criminal damage and one count of endangering life. He was sentenced to various further terms of imprisonment.[41]
23. These charges arose out of two incidents.
24. The first incident occurred while Mr Shield was a prisoner at Albany Regional Prison in early 2020.
25. One of the counts of criminal damage by fire and the count of endangering life concerned Mr Shield setting alight a pile of mattresses, bedding and clothing in the prison yard.[42]
26. Both of the counts of assaulting a public officer involved assaults on prison guards. One involved throwing urine in the guard's face and the other involved grabbing a guard through a hatch and ripping his jumper.[43]
27. The count of criminal damage related to Mr Shield breaking fixtures and fittings in a shower room.[44]
28. The second incident occurred while Mr Shield was a prisoner at Hakea Prison in mid 2020. The count of criminal damage arising out of this incident involved Mr Shield damaging and breaking out of his cell during a riot. The count of criminal damage by fire involved Mr Shield setting a blanket on fire.[45]

Whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour

1. In considering whether or not Mr Shield is a high risk serious offender, the HRSO Act requires me to have regard to whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender.[46]
2. The pattern that emerges from Mr Shield's offending is one of the regular and persistent use of violence.
3. The circumstances of the offences that were committed by Mr Shield vary. He has committed offences both alone and in the company of others. On some occasions he has used weapons. On others he has not. On some occasions the use of violence seems to have been planned and calculated. On others the violence seems to have been spontaneous and senseless. On some occasions Mr Shield's offending involved the use of substances. On other occasions it did not.[47]
4. A constant in Mr Shield's lengthy criminal history is the repeated use of violence. The picture that emerges is that of an offender who is prone to resort to violence with little or no provocation.

Medical, psychiatric or other assessments relating to Mr Shield

1. The HRSO Act requires me to have regard to any medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to Mr Shield in considering whether or not he is a high risk serious offender.[48]
2. The materials filed by the State contained a number of documents that made assessments of Mr Shield, including for the purposes of his sentencing for the offences he has committed. The State relied on five assessments in particular.

Psychological report of Ms Tanina Oliveri dated 20 July 2022[49]

1. First, the State referred to a psychological report prepared by Ms Tanina Oliveri on 20 July 2022.[50] This report was prepared for Mr Shield's last sentencing on 12 August 2022, when he was convicted of the two counts of assaulting a public officer, two counts of criminal damage by fire, one count of criminal damage and one count of endangering life.
2. Mr Shield told Ms Oliveri that he had begun using methadone about two years prior in prison. He told her that he intended to continue to use methadone after his release before tapering off methadone. He said that he planned to abstain from substances after release.[51]
3. Mr Shield admitted to Ms Oliveri that he had used substances in the past to escape and distract from negative feelings and problems and to self-soothe. He told her that he had not engaged in substance misuse counselling, as he had been resistant to treatment, and he had refused offers to participate in treatment. He added that he had never been offered parole and therefore he saw no benefit in engaging in treatment. He also stated that he had no intention of applying for parole as he wanted to be released with no conditions. She observed that he was resistant to a substance misuse residential rehabilitation program.[52]
4. Ms Oliveri noted evidence of problematic anger, impulsive and aggressive behaviour, a propensity for violence, emotional dysregulation, and poor coping and stress resilience.[53] She noted that in 2019, Mr Shield had been diagnosed with stimulant use disorder and cluster b personality traits (antisocial and borderline personality structure) with evidence of trauma and attachment problems.[54]
5. Ms Oliveri assessed Mr Shield using the Douglas, Hart, Webster and Belfrage 2013 (HCR-20v3) to determine his risk of future violence towards others. The HCR-20v3 is a 20-item checklist developed in Canada. It combines research on violence risk assessment and clinical practice designed to assess the risk of future violent behaviour and develop risk management strategies in criminal and psychiatric populations.[55]
6. The factors of concern on the historical subscale identified by Ms Oliveri included past violence, antisocial behaviour, relationship problems, employment problems, substance misuse, mental health issues, an antisocial personality disorder, childhood trauma and poor treatment responsivity. She also considered that Mr Shield's history of violence reflected attitudes that supported and condoned violent behaviour.[56]
7. Ms Oliveri considered that relevant clinical items included evidence of problems with emotional regulation, coping, impulse control, insight and self-awareness. She noted, however, that some improvements in his attitude and behaviour were reported and he denied recent substance misuse in prison.[57]
8. In relation to risk management, Ms Oliveri observed that Mr Shield intended to reside with his partner, but he had no firm plans for employment and he remained resistant to treatment programs and counselling. She considered that he had limited prosocial support.[58]
9. Ms Oliveri concluded that on the information available to her, Mr Shield was assessed to be a high risk of future violence, but she thought his risk may reduce if he participates in treatment and he is motivated to make positive change.[59]

Pre-sentence report of Ms Stephanie Lovelock dated 22 July 2022[60]

1. Secondly, the State referred to a pre-sentence report prepared by Ms Lovelock dated 22 July 2022.[61] This report was also prepared for Mr Shield's sentencing on 12 August 2022.
2. Ms Lovelock recorded that Mr Shield claimed to have committed the offences for which he was being sentenced because of his mental health issues, frustration, negative peers and long periods of time alone in custody. She considered that he appeared to have little empathy for others and thought that he lacked tolerance and had a propensity to be impulsive and aggressive.[62]
3. Ms Lovelock considered that Mr Shield had numerous issues which would need to be addressed to reduce his risk of re-offending. She noted that he had refused previously to participate in programs to address his offending but was now on methadone, had improved mental health, a future with his current partner and was motivated to address his offending behaviour.[63]

Psychological report of Dr Kathryn Riordan dated 6 January 2025[64]

1. Thirdly, the State referred to a psychological report prepared by Dr Riordan on 6 January 2025.[65] This report was prepared to assist the Prisoner Review Board in reviewing Mr Shield for parole.
2. Dr Riordan interviewed Mr Shield for 2 hours, spoke to his partner, contacted a Senior Adult Community Corrections Officer and reviewed various records identified in her report.[66]
3. Dr Riordan noted that Mr Shield completed the Pathways Program between 22 January 2024 and 28 March 2024. She explained that the Pathways Program is a 50‑session program aimed at assisting participants to understand the stages of change in relation to drug and alcohol use and offending behaviour, acquire skills to desist from drug use and crime, and to develop a relapse and recidivism prevention plan.[67]
4. Dr Riordan noted that Mr Shield was reported to be intermittently engaged in the program, with his motivation and engagement seemingly adversely affected by the titration of his methadone. She said that he was reported to have missed 3 hours and 10 minutes of the program due to a social visit. However, she also noted that positively, when engaged with the program contents, he was described as a highly motivated participant.[68]
5. Dr Riordan noted that identified areas of treatment needs were across risk factors pertaining to his reliance on substance use as a maladaptive form of coping, poor problem solving, association with anti-social peers, emotion management, attitudes that are supportive of drugs and criminal conduct and impulsivity.[69]
6. Dr Riordan said that during the treatment program, Mr Shield was able to develop:

(a) increased insight and awareness that his use of alcohol and other drugs and involvement in criminal behaviour is maintained by his poor coping and emotional regulation skills;

(b) several cognitive and behavioural coping strategies, including the use of cognitive re-framing, developing coping statements and recognising unhelpful thought patterns to increase his coping and problem-solving;

(c) a relapse prevention and risk management plan that centred on both avoidance and approach-based goals;

(d) an understanding of the importance of avoiding previous hangouts, anti-social peers, while he developed goals and spent time with pro-social family; and

(e) an ability to identify high risk emotional states, such as feelings of grief and anger.[70]

1. Dr Riordan said that Mr Shield articulated the importance of engaging with support services and expressed his willingness to access psychological treatment to further develop his capacity for emotional regulation. She said he was assessed as having made some initial treatment gains, with recognition that these gains required consolidation through additional support if he was released into the community.[71]
2. Dr Riordan observed that Mr Shield was unable to complete a violence prevention program he was enrolled in because it was cancelled and he could not attend another course because of his release date. She noted that Mr Shield has previously refused to engage in any programmatic intervention. She said that he has been waitlisted to participate in an alternative violence program and 'Green Lighthouse'.[72]
3. Dr Riordan observed that Mr Shield's completion of the Pathways Program was his first concerted attempt at behavioural change since he entered the criminal justice system as a youth. She said that Mr Shield has been able to sustain motivation to change across several areas, including substance use, self-regulation, insight and managing impulsivity. She said that he had begun practicing the skills he learnt from the Pathways Program.[73]
4. Dr Riordan considered, however, that Mr Shield's treatment gains are newly established and yet to be tested in a community setting. She said that if Mr Shield lived with his partner, he would be presented with several stressors.[74] She considered that it was reassuring that Mr Shield's partner was aware of his history of violence and was willing to support him.[75]
5. Dr Riordan observed that with respect to his use of violence, Mr Shield has increased the extent to which he assumes responsibility not only for his use of violence, but also for his own behaviour change. While she noted that Mr Shield presented with outstanding treatment needs, this is to be expected given his long history of involvement in the drug use and crime subculture.[76]
6. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Shield would benefit from supervised release to consolidate the treatment gains made in a less restrictive environment.[77] She said that Mr Shield was aware that an application for a supervision order would likely be made, and he expressed his willingness to comply and perceived the additional monitoring as helpful to support his community reintegration and behaviour change.[78]
7. Dr Riordan assessed Mr Shield's risk of violent reoffending using the Violence Risk Scale, 2nd edition (VRS-2). She explained that the VRS-2 is a fourth-generation violence risk assessment tool designed to integrate risk, need and treatment change factors relevant to violent offenders. She said that it contains both static and dynamic risk factors and is used to assess and identify treatment targets linked to violence and to evaluate an offenders' readiness to change.[79]
8. Dr Riordan said that when Mr Shield's life experience and offending history is considered against the VRS-2, he is assessed as presenting at 'well above average risk' for future violent offending, using the 5‑level risk classification system. She indicated that within the standardised sample 64.5% of those who scored within the same risk category as Mr Shield were reconvicted for a violent offence within 5 years, and 47.1% were reconvicted within 3 years.[80]
9. Dr Riordan observed that inspection of the items that comprise the VRS reveals that Mr Shield presents with several static (i.e., unchangeable) risk factors. She said that the most prominent static risk was the instability of Mr Shield's childhood, his early and persistent involvement in the youth justice system, and the presence of violence throughout his life.[81]
10. Dr Riordan observed that the current risk assessment identified several prominent dynamic risk factors. She indicated that these included evidence of an anti-social personality structure and the rationalisation of the use of violence. She said that there is evidence that Mr Shield is attempting to change, however.[82]
11. Dr Riordan observed that Mr Shield has used weapons previously and has difficulty with emotional control. She noted that Mr Shield described prior substance use, including as a coping mechanism. She considered that while Mr Shield has been able to abstain from substances in prison, he would need monitoring in the community.[83]
12. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Shield's violent and impulsive behaviour was not limited to when he was using substances. She said that he has a demonstrated willingness to use threats, aggression, and violence and there was evidence of a clear violence cycle. She noted that Mr Shield had a strong predisposition towards using violence while in prison.[84]
13. Dr Riordan considered that it was to Mr Shield's credit that he had made an effort to change this behaviour recently. She observed that he also had a limited but seemingly proactive network of community support.[85]
14. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Shield presented with outstanding treatment needs concerning his violent lifestyle, his criminal personality, attitudes and peers, interpersonal aggression, the stability of his relationships, weapons use, substance use, emotional control, impulsivity, the violence cycle she had identified, managing high risk situations, complying with community supervision, and cognitive distortions.[86]
15. Dr Riordan considered that while Mr Shield's abstinence from alcohol and illicit drug use represented a positive risk mitigation factor, it was yet to be tested outside of the confines of the prison environment. She recommended that urinalysis form part of any parole order granted to Mr Shield.[87]
16. Dr Riordan thought that Mr Shield should be referred to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) for individual counselling to address his outstanding treatment needs and assist with community reintegration.[88]

HRSO treatment options report of Mr Luke Carmichael dated 10 October 2025[89]

1. Fourthly, the State referred to a HRSO treatment options report prepared by Mr Carmichael dated 10 October 2025.[90] This report provides an overview of Mr Shield's intervention history to date.[91]
2. Mr Carmichael noted that Mr Shield had commenced the 'Think First Program' in October 2014 but only completed five out of the 35 sessions following a significant prison incident.[92]
3. Mr Carmichael also noted that Mr Shield completed the Pathways Program on 28 March 2024. He said that while some treatment gains were noted, there were areas that required further support.[93]
4. Mr Carmichael said he had referred Mr Shield to FPIT on 5 June 2024 but Mr Shield was not allocated a clinician prior to his release from custody.[94]

Community supervision assessment of Ms Madi Tait dated 21 October 2025[95]

1. Fifthly, the State referred to a community supervision assessment prepared by Ms Tait dated 21 October 2025.[96]
2. This report summarises her contact with Mr Shield, his offending history, programmatic intervention in custody, prison behaviour, his response to the Interim Supervision Order, accommodation, employment, community supports and strategies to manage his offending behaviours by reference to the expert reports.[97]
3. Ms Tait said that while Mr Shield was in prison between 1 October 2017 and 11 June 2025, he was involved in 57 documented incidents.[98]
4. There was one incident in 2017 during which Mr Shield became argumentative and abusive towards staff.[99]
5. There were 16 incidents in 2018. This included four assaults on other prisoners and seven incidents in which Mr Shield threatened staff.[100]
6. There were seven incidents in 2019. This included an assault on another prisoner in the Disability Services Unit and two incidents of threatening staff.[101]
7. There were twenty incidents in 2020. This involved six occasions on which Mr Shield was abusive or made threats against staff or other prisoners and various occasions on which he damaged his cell.[102]
8. There were five incidents in 2021. Two of these involved making threats to staff.[103]
9. There were two incidents in 2022. This involved an incident in which he threw boiling water in another prisoner's face.[104]
10. There were two incidents in 2023. Both involved aggressive behaviour towards staff.[105]
11. There were four incidents in 2024. None of these involved aggressive behaviour towards staff or assaults. Compared to Mr Shield's previous conduct, they were relatively minor.[106]
12. Ms Tait indicated that she had supervised Mr Shield since he began his intensive supervision order on the 11 June 2025. She said that Mr Shield was initially reluctant to engage but that they had built rapport and he was now open to engage in meaningful discussion.[107]
13. Ms Tait observed that Mr Shield was accepting of his conditions and from the outset approached the order as an opportunity to seek assistance in addressing his criminogenic needs and to keep himself accountable.[108]
14. Ms Tait observed that with her encouragement, Mr Shield had begun exploring opportunities to engage in activities beyond the strict parameters of his Interim Supervision Order. She said this included attending licensed venues with his partner and her family.[109]
15. Ms Tait reported that Mr Shield attends punctually and does not present any management issues and had not had any incidents of non‑compliance during the Interim Supervision Order.[110]
16. Ms Tait said that Mr Shield remained at his approved residence with his partner and her family and that the environment appeared stable, supportive and conducive to Mr Shield's rehabilitation and compliance with the conditions of the order.[111]
17. Ms Tait said that Mr Shield had recently completed a 10‑week Surface Extraction training program.[112]
18. Ms Tait noted that Mr Shield has undergone urinalysis testing on nine separate occasions, with all results returning negative for illicit substances.[113]
19. Ms Tait said that in light of Mr Shield's ongoing compliance with and understanding of the present conditions, she did not recommend simplifying them.[114]

1. In considering whether or not Mr Shield is a high risk serious offender, I am also required to have regard to any report prepared under the HRSO Act.[115]

Dr Wynn Owen's report dated 8 October 2025[116]

1. Dr Wynn Owen interviewed Mr Shield on 24 September 2025. He was also provided with various materials identified in his report.[117]
2. Dr Wynn Owen diagnosed Mr Shield as suffering from an antisocial personality disorder. He noted that Mr Shield's behaviour demonstrated a consistent disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others.[118]
3. Dr Wynn Owen also diagnosed Mr Shield as suffering from a substance use disorder (amphetamine and opiates) that was currently in remission.[119]
4. Dr Wynn Owen assessed Mr Shield using a Structured Professional Judgment approach to risk assessment, which takes account of static and historical risk factors using a combination of actuarial tools, structured assessment guides and a clinical psychiatric assessment.[120]
5. Dr Wynn Owen assessed Mr Shield using the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Revised, 2013 (VRAG-R). This is an actuarial risk tool designed to assess the likelihood of violent or sexual reoffending among male offenders, it is a twelve-item instrument.[121]
6. Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr Shield's score of 30 on the VRAG‑R was in the highest risk category. He said that offenders with the same score as Mr Shield on release had a 58% likelihood of committing a new violent offence within 5 years of release and an 78% likelihood of committing a new violent offence within 12 years.[122]
7. Dr Wynn Owen observed, however, that this estimate was a group estimate, not specific to Mr Shield, and should be considered in association with any dynamic risk and/or protective factors present. He also noted that the statistic refers to the likelihood of committing any new violent offence, not specifically a new serious offence as defined in the HRSO Act.[123]
8. Dr Wynn Owen also assessed Mr Shield using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, second edition, 2003 (PCL-R). Dr Wynn Owen explained that the PCL‑R is a 20-item scale for the assessment of psychopathy that requires a trained clinician and uses a semi-structured interview, file review and other available collateral information to measure inferred personality traits and behaviours.[124]
9. Dr Wynn Owen explained that a score of 30 or more indicates prototypical psychopathy. He defined psychopathy as a personality disorder characterised by affective deficits with callous unemotional traits, and impulsive antisocial behaviours that lead to frequent criminal behaviour. He said that the presence of prototypical psychopathy is associated with a significantly increased risk of future violence in individuals who have previously committed violent acts.[125]
10. Dr Wynn Owen considered that although Mr Shield's PCL-R score did not meet the threshold for psychopathy, it still indicated a high level of psychopathy. Dr Wynn Owen said that Mr Shield's Factor 2 (social deviance) score is very high being more than 1 standard deviation above the mean, however, his score on Factor 1 (affective/interpersonal) is well below the mean for male offenders. Dr Wynn Owen observed that the high social deviance score is consistent with an individual who lives a criminal lifestyle.[126]
11. Dr Wynn Owen also assessed Mr Shield using the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, version 3, Douglas, Hart, Webster, Belfrage 2013 (HCR-20 V3). He explained that the HCR-20 is a tool to assess the risk of violence which considers the presence of a range of historical/static and dynamic risk factors for future violence.[127]
12. Dr Wynn Owen considered that nine historical risk factors were present.
13. First, Dr Wynn Owen considered the risk factor history of serious problems with violence was present. He considered that Mr Shield's history demonstrates a clear pattern of violence that started in childhood, continued through adolescence and into adulthood. He noted that violence had occurred with high frequency in a number of different settings and had involved others and weapons.[128]
14. Dr Wynn Owen expressed the opinion that a pattern of early onset violent behaviour sustained through adolescence into adulthood is strongly associated with an elevated risk of future violence.[129]
15. Secondly, Dr Wynn Owen considered the risk factor history of serious problems with other antisocial behaviour was also present. He observed that Mr Shield has a history of antisocial behaviours including substance abuse and criminal activity. He noted that as with Mr Shield's pattern of violent behaviour, the pattern started in childhood, continued through adolescence and then into adulthood and this is associated with an elevated risk of continued antisocial behaviour and an increased likelihood of future violence.[130]
16. Thirdly, Dr Wynn Owen considered the risk factor history of problems with relationships was present. He observed that Mr Shield has had some problems with intimate relationships in the past. He noted that Mr Shield was presently in a relationship which is usually a protective factor but Dr Wynn Owen thought it was too early in the relationship to comment on whether it would be protective for Mr Shield.[131]
17. Dr Wynn Owen observed that Mr Shield has a history of negative peer associations and drug use and he noted the risk that relationship stress might trigger a return of old behaviours.[132]
18. Fourthly, Dr Wynn Owen considered that the risk factor history of serious problems with employment was present. He observed that Mr Shield's history of paid employment is short and that unemployment is associated with an increased likelihood of a return to criminal behaviour.[133]
19. Fifthly, Dr Wynn Owen considered that the risk factor history of substance use was present. He observed that Mr Shield has used substances to manage negative thoughts and feelings for his entire life and has therefore not developed alternative emotional management and coping strategies. He noted that intoxication has played a role in Mr Shield's prior offending.[134]
20. Sixthly, Dr Wynn Owen considered that the risk factor history of serious problems with personality disorder is present.[135]
21. Seventhly, Dr Wynn Owen considered that the risk factor history of serious problems with traumatic experiences is present. He explained that the early exposure to and normalisation of violence, neglect and traumatic events are experiences found more frequently in individuals who themselves engage in general criminality and violent offending.[136]
22. Eighthly, Dr Wynn Owen considered that the risk factor history of serious problems with violent attitudes was present. He observed that the risk factor reflects a history of firmly held violent attitudes, beliefs, values and thoughts. [137]
23. Ninthly, Dr Wynn Owen considered that the risk factor history of serious problems with treatment or supervision response is present. He noted that Mr Shield had declined to participate in any treatment programs before he participated in the 2024 Pathways Program. He said that some gains were reported to have been made in the Pathways Program however there are a number of outstanding treatment needs. He observed that problems with treatment affect an individual's future risk as treatment needs are unaddressed, perpetuating risk. [138]
24. Dr Wynn Owen then turned to consider whether any clinical risk factors were present. He did not consider that the following clinical risk factors were present:

(a) problems with violent ideation or intent;[139]

(b) problems with professional services and plans (and he noted that Mr Shield had complied with the Interim Supervision Order made).[140]

1. Dr Wynn Owen also considered that three clinical risk factors were possibly present.
2. The first of these was the risk factor future problems with living situation. Dr Wynn Owen observed that Mr Shield is reliant on his partner and her parents for accommodation. He said that Mr Shield's history of adverse family home environments and dysfunctional relationships, means he will need to work to acclimatise. Dr Wynn Owen also noted that the accommodation will only remain viable while the relationship continues.[141]
3. The second of these was the risk factor future problems with living situation. Dr Wynn Owen noted that Mr Shield has support from his partner, her parents and his sister and plans to maintain a very small social network to reduce risk in relation to antisocial peers. Dr Wynn Owen observed that while the rationale for the decision is understandable, this places considerable reliance on a small group of people.[142]
4. The third of these was the risk factor future problems with treatment or supervision response. Dr Wynn Owen considered that although Mr Shield has no prior history of supervised release, his behaviour under prison supervision has been consistently problematic until 2023. Dr Wynn Owen said that at that time Mr Shield reported developing insight and an appreciation that his past behaviours were inappropriate and self-defeating. Dr Wynn Owen said that there had been a sustained change in Mr Shield's behaviour in prison until his supervised release and Mr Shield had complied with supervision and monitoring since.[143]
5. Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr Shield's violence risk is related to an antisocial personality structure with antisocial, anti-authoritarian and violence condoning attitudes in the context of a significant past history of serious violence. He considered that this resulted in a lack of consequential thinking and no consideration or empathy for the effect of his actions on others. He opined that substance use has been a significant, although not essential, contributor through increasing impulsivity and further reducing Mr Shield's limited capacity for emotional regulation.[144]
6. Dr Wynn Owen thought that identifying the most likely risk scenarios was challenging given the broad range of Mr Shield's prior offending but considered that there was a risk that Mr Shield would react violently to sudden stressful situations in the community, particularly if drugs or alcohol were involved.[145]
7. Dr Wynn Owen thought that whether Mr Shield would imminently re‑offend could not be predicted with any accuracy. He noted the efforts that Mr Shield had made to change since March 2023 but also his history of violence and the new stressors he would face in the community.[146]
8. Dr Wynn Owen considered that there is a high likelihood of future violent behaviours. Dr Wynn Owen observed that Mr Shield has a number of static risk factors associated with a high risk of future violence, in particular adverse childhood experiences and early onset of violent behaviour with continuation across developmental stages. He considered that the important dynamic factors are antisocial personality disorder with associated attitudes and behaviours, in particular the use of violence, threatened and actual, to achieve his ends, and substance abuse. He opined that if these dynamic factors are unmodified there is a high risk of future violence.[147]
9. Dr Wynn Owen considered that supervision and monitoring while Mr Shield consolidates current treatment gains and addresses outstanding treatment needs will significantly mitigate risk. In his view, supervision should monitor Mr Shield's ability to manage stressors including relationships stresses and provide support to remain abstinent from substances, through regular random testing.[148]
10. Dr Wynn Owen expressed the opinion that Mr Shield presents a high risk of committing a serious violent offence in the future if not subject to a restriction order. This opinion was based on both his clinical assessment and consideration of the outputs of violence risk assessment tools he used.[149]
11. Dr Wynn Owen explained that his opinion was influenced by Mr Shield's significant history of violent offending across all developmental stages, and his Antisocial Personality Disorder.[150]
12. Dr Wynn Owen observed that Mr Shield has engaged in limited treatment to date having declined to participate in treatment prior to agreeing to the Pathways Program in 2024.[151]
13. Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr Shield has outstanding treatment needs in relation to violent offending including violent attitudes and behaviours, emotional recognition and regulation, impulsivity and problems with consequential thinking, stress management and coping.[152]
14. Dr Wynn Owen recommended that in addition to the requirement for clinical support to consolidate the reported gains made in the 2024 Pathways Program:

(a) Mr Shield should engage with a FPIT psychologist to address these requirements and to assist with ongoing community reintegration and management of supervision and monitoring relationships; and

(b) consideration should be given to facilitating access to clinical intervention to address childhood trauma through a private psychologist in the community.[153]

1. Dr Wynn Owen considered that the terms of any supervision order reflect his high risk situations for future serious offending, in particular alcohol and drug use and association with antisocial and or criminal peers. He considered that any supervision order should be for a duration of 3 - 4 years and that if no risks arise, the levels of supervision and monitoring should be reduced to facilitate Mr Shield taking responsibility for managing risk.[154]

Dr Ben Bannister's report dated 30 September 2025[155]

1. Dr Bannister interviewed Mr Shield on 12 September 2025 for 3 hours, reviewed various materials provided to him and spoke to various individuals involved with Mr Shield.[156]
2. Dr Bannister's conclusion was that Mr Shield currently poses a high risk/above average risk of committing a further serious offence if not subject to either a restriction order for continuing detention or a community supervision order under the HRSO Act.[157]
3. Dr Bannister considered that Mr Shield has experienced a range of challenging and traumatic events from a very young age, and this has likely predisposed him to anti-sociality through a number of pathways including anti-social modelling and reinforcement of behaviours that were contrary to social norms.[158]
4. Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield felt neglected, rejected, abandoned and abused and has harboured anger and resentment from childhood. Dr Bannister thought that Mr Shield had used substances to manage negative emotions and this had inhibited his ability to develop adaptive coping skills.[159]
5. Dr Bannister thought that Mr Shield has externalised his emotional distress through hostility and become desensitised to aggressive interpersonal interactions. He considered that these behaviours were reinforced over time, resulting in an aversion to perceived weakness and selfishness. He noted, however, that Mr Shield has worked hard to counteract this worldview recently.[160]
6. Like Dr Wynn Owen, Dr Bannister assessed Mr Shield for psychopathy using the PCL-R.[161]
7. Dr Bannister said that Mr Shield scored in the low range on the measure. He said that compared to the normative sample, Mr Shield scored higher than 21.2% of North American male offenders on the tool. He said that Mr Shield scored lower on Factor 1 (affective/interpersonal) compared to Factor 2 (social deviance), scoring higher than 16.8% and 43.3% of the normative sample, respectively.[162]
8. Dr Bannister considered that this broadly means that the factors that pertain to Mr Shield's score are related comparatively more to his anti‑social behaviours and lifestyle rather than his inherent personality features.[163]
9. Like Dr Riordan, Dr Bannister also assessed Mr Shield's risk of re‑offending using the VRS-2.[164]
10. Dr Bannister found that Mr Shield's total score for static variables is 13 out of a possible 18.[165]
11. In relation to the static variable 'current age', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield's current age is 31 years old. Dr Bannister observed that age has been shown to be a strong and consistent predictor of violent and general recidivism and most research suggested that younger age is associated with increased risk for future violence.[166]
12. In relation to the static variable 'age at first violent conviction', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield was convicted of one count of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation when he was 16. Dr Bannister observed that offenders who begin their criminal careers at an early age are more likely to re‑offend.[167]
13. In relation to the static variable 'number of convictions pre-adulthood', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield had 20 convictions as a juvenile. He considered that criminal history is one of the strongest predictors of violent recidivism and early behaviour problems are among the strongest predictors of anti-social behaviours later in life.[168]
14. In relation to the static variable 'violence throughout lifespan', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield has demonstrated a pattern of violence beginning in childhood which has continued relatively unabated until recently, and a history of violent behaviour has been demonstrated to be predictive of future violent behaviour.[169]
15. In relation to the static variable 'prior breaches of legally mandated conditions', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield has no prior breaches of legally mandated conditions as an adult.[170]
16. In relation to the static variable 'stability of family upbringing', Dr Bannister observed that there was little apparent stability in Mr Shield's upbringing. He considered that an unstable, chaotic family upbringing has also been linked with future violence.[171]
17. Dr Bannister found that Mr Shield's total score for dynamic variables is 37 out of a possible 60.[172]
18. In relation to the dynamic variable 'violent lifestyle', Dr Bannister observed that until shortly before Mr Shield's release, aggressive behaviours were a way of life for him, including being part of organised crime groups. He noted that Mr Shield appeared to require very little provocation to act violently. Dr Bannister considered that a lifestyle or a consistent pattern of violent behaviour is most likely linked to the increased likelihood, frequency and severity of future violence.[173]
19. In relation to the dynamic variable 'criminal personality', Dr Bannister explained that this item refers primarily to the affective personality traits of psychopathy, including superficiality, glibness, grandiosity, lack of remorse, and shallow affect. He said that Mr Shield's presentation (likely highly defended) showed a degree of shallow affect, demonstrated by his expressions of empathy and remorse being somewhat impassive.[174]
20. In relation to the dynamic variable 'criminal attitudes', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield acknowledged long-standing criminal attitudes, although he now said he eschewed those attitudes. Dr Bannister observed that pro-criminal attitudes and values have also been demonstrated in the research to be predictive of future violent behaviour and general criminality.[175]
21. In relation to the dynamic variable 'work ethic', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield has historically only had short term jobs but said that he wanted to get a job and might be able to obtain a job with his brother-in-law. Dr Bannister said that offenders who do not work or use violence as a means of financially supporting themselves are at an increased risk of future violence.[176]
22. In relation to the dynamic variable 'criminal peers', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield's peer group has consisted predominantly of antisocial peers since a young age. He said that Mr Shield currently has two friends from prison who he continues to have some contact with. Dr Bannister said that criminal peers model violent or criminal behaviour, reinforce such behaviour and facilitate the acquisition of antisocial values and attitudes.[177]
23. In relation to the dynamic variable 'interpersonal aggression', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield has habitually used aggressive behaviours. Dr Bannister said that offenders who are habitually aggressive are more likely to violently reoffend.[178]
24. In relation to the dynamic variable 'emotional control', Dr Bannister considered that there was a strong link between Mr Shield's violent offending and his problems with emotional control. Dr Bannister said that violent offenders have poorer control over their anger and that a mismanagement of negative affect can elevate their violence risk potential. [179]
25. In relation to the dynamic variable 'violence during institutionalisation', Dr Bannister observed that while Mr Shield was imprisoned, he accrued a history of consistent involvement in incidents of non-compliance, threats, intimidation, violence and fire-setting. Dr Bannister said that offenders who display violent institutional behaviour may also be at an increased risk for future violence or criminality after being released from custody.[180]
26. In relation to the dynamic variable 'weapon use', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield has a number of convictions for offenses that include using a weapon or possession of a weapon. Dr Bannister said that the use of weapons to perpetrate physical or psychological injury is associated with an increased risk of future violent activity.[181]
27. In relation to the dynamic variable 'insight into violence', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield was able to articulate the relevant dynamics that contributed to his offending and to recognise that he previously did not take responsibility for his actions. Dr Bannister said that offenders who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, are at an increased risk of future violence.[182]
28. In relation to the dynamic variable 'mental disorder', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield did not appear to have a mental disorder (excluding any anti-social Personality Disorder or Substance Use Disorder, in remission or otherwise) that appears linked to his use of violence. Dr Bannister said that if a relationship exists between and offender's mental disorder and the onset of violent activity (which he explained was a controversial proposition), then the recurrence of mental illness can render the individual a greater risk for violent behaviour.[183]
29. In relation to the dynamic variable 'substance-related problems', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield acknowledged using substances from the age of about 11 or 12, and subsequent polysubstance use and there was a strong link between his drug use and violent offending. Dr Bannister said that the abuse of various psychoactive substances has also been linked to a heightened risk of violent and general recidivism.[184]
30. In relation to the dynamic variable 'substance-related problems', Dr Bannister said Mr Shield has previously struggled to maintain a stable relationship and that his prior significant relationship was unpredictable and ended with him making threats to kill his partner while he was in prison. Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield's current relationship was positive, but it has not yet been tested long-term. He said that a lack of stable relationships has also been associated with an increased risk of future violence and criminality.[185]
31. In relation to the dynamic variable 'community support', Dr Bannister said that positive community support appeared to be in place for Mr Shield. Dr Bannister noted that inadequate community support can undermine an offender's successful re-integration into society and elevate their likelihood of re-offending. [186]
32. In relation to the dynamic variable 'released to high-risk situations', Dr Bannister said that Mr Shield was able to articulate a considered relapse prevention plan, focussed on avoiding anti-social peers, addressing emotion management, taking responsibility for his behaviours, maintaining a positive lifestyle, and keeping meaningfully occupied. Dr Bannister observed that the relapse prevention approach to the management of high-risk behaviours is predicated on the avoidance or appropriate management of high-risk situations.[187]
33. In relation to the dynamic variable 'violence cycle', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield has demonstrated a reliance on instrumental threats, aggression, and violence to have his needs met in interpersonal relationships and interactions with others, with evidence of a clear violence cycle to this end. Dr Bannister said that research shows that a violent history predicts future violence, and that offenders who committed specific acts of violence in the past are more likely to commit similar violent acts in the future.[188]
34. In relation to the dynamic variable 'impulsivity', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield acknowledged that he has often acted impulsively, and this has frequently been reflected in his offending. Dr Bannister said that offenders who tend to engage in impulsive verbal and physical behaviours and fail to consider the long-term consequences of their behaviour present a higher risk for future violence.[189]
35. In relation to the dynamic variable 'cognitive distortion', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield has employed cognitive distortions in order to rationalise or justify his offending and appeared to hold rigid beliefs that support the use of violence or anti-social behaviours and minimised the harm he has cause to others. Dr Bannister said that offenders who demonstrate 'black and white', stereotyping, over‑generalising, and other problematic thinking patterns, also often tend to perceive events inaccurately.[190]
36. In relation to the dynamic variable 'compliance with community supervision', Dr Bannister observed that Mr Shield has kept his appointments, made meaningful contact with his supervising CCO, and has abided by the conditions of the Interim Supervision Order. Dr Bannister said that consistent non-compliance with community supervision, or the offender's refusal to recognise its importance, has been linked to violent and general recidivism.[191]
37. In relation to the dynamic variable 'security level of releasing institution', Dr Bannister noted that Mr Shield is currently in the community. Dr Bannister said that offenders released directly from higher level security institutions into the community likely present a greater risk for repeat violent offending, than offenders who were discharged from lower security facilities.[192]
38. Dr Bannister considered that Mr Shield's pro-rated total combined static and dynamic risk variable score for these variables is currently assessed as 50 out of a possible 78. Dr Bannister explained this places Mr Shield in the 61.4th percentile. He said that this is in the high-risk category of violent reoffending as defined by the VRS-2, and in the Level IV (above average risk level) of the common language risk categories.[193]
39. Dr Bannister said that the VRS-2 normative sample, suggests if Mr Shield is not subject to an Order, he will have a 17.1% to 30.8% chance of violently reoffending within three years and 29.8% to 45.2% chance of violently reoffending within five years.[194]
40. Dr Bannister considered that Mr Shield had treatment needs in areas such as anti-social peers, emotional control, improving insight into his offending cycle, and substance use. He thought that some of Mr Shield's treatment is likely to be in the context of consolidating and building on previously made gains.[195]
41. Dr Bannister thought that Mr Shield was in a 'preparatory stage of change' in that he has recognised his problem areas, has articulated a desire to want to change them, and there is evidence of relevant behavioural change. Dr Bannister said that it is only the relatively recent nature of such changes, and reduced opportunity for being tested under high-risk situations, that prevents Mr Shield from being assessed as being in the Action or Maintenance stages of change. [196]
42. Dr Bannister considered that the most likely risk scenario for Mr Shield is that he relapses into drug use, and/or through acting out aggressively due to poor emotional control in response to a perceived threat or provocation against himself or someone he cares about, such as his partner. He thought that in the most serious risk scenario this could result in serious injury to another person.[197]
43. Dr Bannister explained that it is not possible to predict the likelihood of Mr Shield committing a serious offence, specifically as defined by the HRSO Act, with absolute accuracy for three reasons.[198]
44. The first reason that Dr Bannister gave was that the risk assessment tools used compare an offender's score on the tool to the normative sample used by the developers of that tool in order to validate it. He said that if the normative sample of a tool does not provide information on recidivism for specific offences, such as those outlined as 'serious' by the HRSO Act, then the capacity for that tool to accurately predict risk of specifically committing such crimes accurately is compromised. He express the opinion, however, tools like the VRS‑2 allow for estimates to be given relating to general and violent recidivism, because those outcomes were assessed in the validation of the normative sample.[199]
45. The second reason that Dr Bannister gave is that as the concept of risk of recidivism is dynamic, contextual and individualistic, it can change depending on situational or psychological influences. He explained that this means that the concept of risk prediction using structured professional judgment lends itself more readily to broad appraisals of likelihood, rather than specific determinations of particular actions.[200]
46. The third reason that Dr Bannister gave was that all generally accepted empirically validated structured risk assessment tools have a moderate degree of predicative validity which means that even when they are used as intended by the developers, they are still not able to predict with absolute accuracy. He observed, however, that a moderate degree of predictive validity is statistically robust. His view that the risk scenarios are able to be presented as being accurate enough for legitimate consideration are because they typically rely on the empirically validated concept of past behaviour being a very good predictor of future behaviour.[201]
47. Dr Bannister considered that if a community supervision order was made, it should incorporate at least those conditions currently imposed by the Interim Supervision Order. He said that consideration should also be given to reducing the conditions after Mr Shield has demonstrated consistent self-management.[202]
48. Dr Bannister recommended that Mr Shield be referred for individual psychotherapy with a suitably qualified psychologist to address outstanding treatment needs and consolidate any previously made gains.[203]
49. Dr Bannister considered that any order should last at least three years to provide Mr Shield with an opportunity to consolidate and internalise the skills required to successfully self-manage his risk.[204]

Attempts and effects of any rehabilitation program

(a) any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme;[205] and

(b) whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender.[206]

1. Until relatively recently, Mr Shield has not meaningfully participated in any rehabilitation programs. The material before me records that he has generally refused to participate in such programs while in prison. He was however enrolled in the 'Think First Program' in 2014, although he only completed a small number of sessions. In 2015, he was scheduled to take part in a medium intensity violence program but was unable to participate.
2. Mr Shield completed the Pathways Program in 2024. Although it appears that Mr Shield missed some of the relevant sessions, he positively engaged with the program contents and was described as a highly motivated participant.
3. Dr Riordan observed that the Pathways Program represents Mr Shield's first concerted attempt at behavioural change since he entered the criminal justice system as a youth. [207] While Dr Riordan acknowledged the efforts that Mr Shield had made and his treatment gains, she considered that he continued to have outstanding treatment needs.[208]
4. When Dr Riordan saw Mr Shield in January 2025, he had been waitlisted to participate in an alternative violence program and Green Lighthouse.[209] There was evidence before Lemonis J at the preliminary hearing that Mr Shield has completed the Green Lighthouse program and has engaged in counselling.[210]
5. Both Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister saw Mr Shield in September 2025. They thought that Mr Shield had outstanding treatment needs and should be referred to the psychologist. [211]

1. I am required to consider any other relevant matter. [212]
2. The State referred to the fact that a post sentence supervision order imposed by the Prisoner Review Board on 11 June 2025[213] was cancelled at the time the Interim Supervision Order was imposed by operation of s 74J (3) of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA).[214]

Propensity to commit serious offences in the future, the risk of committing such offences and the need to protect the community

1. In considering whether or not Mr Shield is a high risk serious offender, I am required to have regard to:

(a) whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;[215]

(b) the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence;[216] and

(c) the need to protect members of the community from that risk.[217]

1. Mr Shield has a long history of persistent violent offending, that began in childhood and continued into adulthood, including during his imprisonment. His offending includes 13 serious offences between 2011 and 2022, as well as other violent offending.
2. Each of Dr Riordan, Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister considered that the risk of Mr Shield violently reoffending was significant. Dr Riordan thought that Mr Shield's risk of violent re-offending was 'well above average'.[218] Dr Wynn Owen thought that Mr Shield was a 'high risk' of violent reoffending if not subject to a restriction order.[219] Dr Bannister's conclusion was that Mr Shield currently poses a 'high risk/above average risk' of committing a further serious offence if not subject to a restriction order.[220]
3. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a significant risk that Mr Shield will revert to his pattern of violent offending. As I have explained above, Dr Riordan, Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister have explained the basis of their assessments and I find their evidence to be cogent and compelling.
4. In my view, given Mr Shield's long history of violent offending, including committing serious offences, there is a risk that he will commit a serious offence if he is not subject to a restriction order and there is a need to protect members of the community from that risk.

Whether Mr Shield is a high risk serious offender Is there an unacceptable risk that Mr Shield will commit a serious offence?

1. The concept of 'unacceptable' risk connotes a balancing exercise that requires the court to have regard to, amongst other things, the nature of the risk and extent of the harm, the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition and the serious consequences for the offender if an order is made.[221]
2. With regard to the nature of the risk, as I have said, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a significant risk that Mr Shield will revert to his pattern of violent offending.
3. Mr Shield's historic propensity for violence and willingness to use weapons means that any victim of any future offending could be seriously physically injured. Any victim of any future violent offending might also be likely to be traumatised.
4. In considering the likelihood that Mr Shield will engage in future violent offending it is relevant to recall that while he was in prison his involvement in rehabilitation programs has been limited. Until recently, Mr Shield has not meaningfully participated in any such programs.
5. That is not to detract from the fact that more recently Mr Shield has engaged with such programs and taken steps towards rehabilitation that might reduce the risk of his reoffending. However, as I have already discussed in detail, each of Dr Riordan, Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister thought that Mr Shield continues to have significant outstanding treatment needs. They all considered that the risk of Mr Shield violently reoffending was significant. As I have indicated, I find their evidence to be cogent and compelling.
6. I am satisfied that the material before me establishes to a high degree of probability that if Mr Shield were to be released without any restriction, there would be an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence.

Is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community?

1. I am also satisfied to a high degree of probability that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community.
2. If Mr Shield were simply to be released, the community would be exposed to the unacceptable risk that I have identified.
3. In considering whether it is necessary to make a restriction order, it is necessary to consider whether there are measures, other than a restriction order, that would provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk. If there are, the risk could no longer sensibly be regarded as 'unacceptable'.[222]
4. Counsel for Mr Shield did not submit that there were any other measures that would provide adequate protection for the community. It was not apparent to me that there were any.

1. Given all of these matters, I am satisfied that Mr Shield is a high risk serious offender.

Whether a continuing detention order or supervision order should be made

1. The effect of s 48(1) of the HRSO Act is that upon finding Mr Shield to be a high risk serious offender, I must either make a continuing detention order or a supervision order.
2. The court should choose the order that is least invasive or destructive of Mr Shield's right to be at liberty while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate degree of protection for the community.[223]
3. As I have mentioned, the State's position was that the court might be satisfied that a supervision order in similar terms to the Interim Supervision Order would ensure adequate protection of the community.[224] Mr Shield also submitted that such an order would be appropriate.
4. Section 48(1)(b) of the HRSO Act provides that the power to make a supervision order is subject to the operation of s 29 of the HRSO Act, which provides that a court cannot make 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 as made. The onus of so satisfying the court is on the offender.
5. Mr Shield has also fully complied with the conditions of the Interim Supervision Order. Further, the evidence suggests that he is motivated to use his release on supervision as an opportunity to continue his progress to towards rehabilitation. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Shield will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order as made.
6. I have reviewed the draft conditions proposed by the State and consider that those are appropriate to address the issues raised on the evidence concerning Mr Shield, his risk of offending, his treatment needs and his supervision and monitoring needs.
7. At the hearing before me, Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister were asked to review the terms of the draft supervision order proposed by the State insofar as it related to alcohol. They both considered those terms to be appropriate.[225] Ms Tait gave evidence that the terms of the draft order had been drafted based on the view of the experts.[226]
8. I consider the appropriate length of time for that supervision order is three years. This is the period of time that Dr Bannister considered to be appropriate. Dr Wynn Owen agreed that three to four years was appropriate.
9. For those reasons I make the following orders:
   1. Having found the respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the respondent be the subject of a supervision order for a period of three years commencing on 28 November 2025 on the conditions set out in Annexure A.
   2. Until further order, there is to be a suppression order regarding any publication of the address, including the town, at which the respondent will reside when the subject of the supervision order. This order does not apply to communications by any representative of a party to these proceedings for the purpose of conducting the case or providing advice in respect of the case or by any person who is responsible for supervising the respondent if the communication is necessary for that purpose or to judicial officers or court staff.

IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

_________________________________________________________________________

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PALMER

‑_________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 3 years from 28 November 2025, on the following conditions:

1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street, East Perth within 48 hours of being issued this Order and advise the officer of your current name and address;

1. Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court;

1. Notify a CCO of any change to your name, home, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens;

1. Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);

Not leave, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO;

1. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order;

1. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31;

1. Reside at [REDACTED] and spend each night there (period can be defined by a CCO). You can stay at a different address only if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;

1. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO, such an arrangement having regard to any employment commitments you have;

1. Not start, change or increase any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO;

1. Attend and engage in all appointments as directed. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, support service, mentor and/or support person as directed by a CCO;

1. Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, PERTH WA 6000, or their delegate at a nominated Police station within 48 hours of your Order starting and report to and receive visits from Police when and were directed by the OIC of SOES or their delegate;

1. If asked to, allow Police Officers to enter and search your home and/or vehicle and search you and allow the Police Officers to seize (take) any items they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order. The Police officer is to tell you they are using this power before acting pursuant to it.

1. Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under Condition 14.

1. Agree to the exchange of any information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out the Order, including any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor;

1. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate to disclose to them confidential information including your offending history;

1. Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, you must have no contact with the victims of any of your serious offending, the most recent was when you were sentenced on 12 August 2022 (victims). Contact in this Condition and Conditions

18 and 19 means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim;

1. Unless contact with the victim is permitted by the previous condition (Condition 17), if you see any of the victims, you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them, and you must look away from the victim at all times;

1. Report to the CCO and WA Police any contact with the victims within 48 hours of any contact occurring; Contact in this condition means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim;

1. Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;

1. Not possess any offensive or prohibited weapon, or replica;

1. Not be armed with any kind of weapon that may cause fear in public places without a lawful reason/excuse;

1. Not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, this includes cannabis. This does not apply to a drug that your doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you don't use more than the doctor has told you to use;

1. Comply with a curfew, requiring you to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time;

1. When subject to a curfew under this order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence:
   1. Go to the front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you;
   2. Speak on the telephone to any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, if they call to check you are at home;

1. When subject to a curfew under this order, you must tell all adults at the house who may answer the telephone or door that you are on a curfew and ask them to tell you about attempts by police or a CCO to contact you;

1. Not to possess, use or purchase any alcohol without prior approval of a CCO;

1. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for a sample to be taken;

1. Provide a legitimate sample pursuant to condition 28;

Not to be with anyone who you known or ought to know, to be affected by prohibited drugs, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO;

1. Not to be anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used or, if drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of the house, or ask the persons using prohibited drugs to leave;

1. Not to go into any licensed premises, other than licenced cafes, restaurants and sporting clubs unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
   1. For the purpose of avoiding or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person
   2. For a purpose, and duration approved in advance by a CCO;
   3. On the order of a CCO or Police Officer;

1. Have no contact with any person whom you know to be a nominee, associate or member of any Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, unless approved in advance by your CCO;

1. When reasonably requested by your CCO, give them details of your activities, movements and the people with whom you have contact in the community; and

1. You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a staff member of the Department or other persons working on behalf, or with, the Department to provide services.

______________________________

I have received a copy of this Order. I have had it explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it.

Signed by the Respondent _________________________________

In the presence of: _________________________________

Name and address: _________________________________

_________________________________

Date: _________________________________

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 Shield [2025] WASC 348 (the Preliminary Hearing Reasons).

[2] Applicant's Outline of Submissions for Restriction Order Hearing on 28 October 2025 (State's Submissions), par 3.

[3] The State of Western Australia v El Waly [No 2] [2025] WASC 394 [13] - [23].

[4] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1.

[5] The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 [4].

[8] BoM, Vol 4, 1551 [16]; BoM, Vol 3, 1504 [3].

[11] BoM, Vol 4, 1552 [19]; BoM, Vol 3, 1505 [5].

[13] BoM, Vol 4, 1552 [20]; BoM, Vol 3, 1504 [5].

[18] BoM, Vol 4, 1552 [22], 1553 [32].

[47] Dr Wynn Owen made a similar observation: BoM, Vol 4, 1559 [73].

[50] State's Submissions, pars 106-108.

[61] State's Submissions, pars 102-105.

[65] State's Submissions, pars 99 - 101.

[90] State's Submissions, pars 85 - 89.

[94] BoM, Vol 4, 1545 [6] - [7], 1546 [15].

[96] State's Submissions, pars 90 - 98.

[125] BoM, Vol 4, 1558 [69] - [70].

[129] BoM, Vol 4, 1559 [74] - [75].

[130] BoM, Vol 4, 1559 [77] - [78].

[131] BoM, Vol 4, 1559-1560 [79] - [80].

[134] BoM, Vol 4, 1560 [83] - [84].

[136] BoM, Vol 4, 1560 - 1561 [86] - [87].

[138] BoM, Vol 4, 1561 [91] - [92].

[140] BoM, Vol 4, 1561 [95] - [96].

[153] BoM, Vol 4, 1565 [i] - [ii].

[210] Preliminary Hearing Reasons [48]-[49].

[211] Dr Wynn Owen: BoM, Vol 4, 1565 [i]-[ii]. Dr Bannister: BoM, Vol 4, 1593 [107].

[221] Garlett [73] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ); The State of Western Australia v Hansen [No 2] [2025] WASC 4 [35]; The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 [39] - [40].

[222] Hansen [No 2] at [30] (Fiannaca J). See also comments re post-sentence supervision order under the Sentence Administration Act, as noted by Edelman J in Garlett [226]-[228] and Quinlan CJ in The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412 at [21].

[223] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 [21] (Steytler P and Buss JA).

[225] Dr Wynn Owen: ts 31 - ts 33; Dr Bannister: ts 44 - ts 45.