THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- STARY [2025] WASC 489 (20 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].[2] I do not propose to repeat everything that I said there, but I will repeat the following matters.
2. In preparing these reasons I have had regard to the legal principles discussed by the High Court in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.[3]
3. I have also had regard to each of the matters identified in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. I discuss each of those matters below.
4. 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].[4]

An overview of the evidence relied upon by the State

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

(a) Professor Natalie Pyszora, a psychiatrist who reviewed Mr Stary and prepared a psychiatric report dated 22 September 2025;

(b) Dr Kathryn Riordan, a psychologist who has also reviewed Mr Stary and prepared psychological reports dated 11 September 2023 and 9 October 2025; and

(c) Ms Roxanne Stockton, an employee in the Community Offender Monitoring Unit, who prepared a community supervision assessment dated 29 October 2025.

1. The HRSO Act requires me to have regard to Mr Stary's antecedents and criminal record when considering whether or not he is a high risk serious offender.[5]

1. Mr Stary is 46 years old.
2. He is the youngest of two children. He also has two half-brothers from his father's previous relationship.[6]
3. Mr Stary's mother was injured in a motor vehicle accident when he was young and she was left bedridden with chronic pain.[7]
4. When Mr Stary was about 8 or 9 years old, his parents separated and his mother left to live in England and he lost contact with her for several years. He was then raised by his father.[8]
5. Mr Stary witnessed domestic violence between his parents and his father was also violent towards him after his father started caring for him.[9]
6. Mr Stary's father had difficulty caring for him and his grandmother moved in to assist with caring for him. [10]
7. Mr Stary had a close relationship with his father but he has now passed away from cancer.[11]
8. Mr Stary's mother returned to Australia after 11 years and he has some contact with her. He also has contact with his sister.[12]
9. Mr Stary completed school to year 11 but was bullied as a child.[13]
10. He worked in unskilled positions after he left school but then obtained work installing blinds and worked for various companies doing this. He also worked in the hospitality industry for some time.[14]
11. Mr Stary had a motorcycle accident in 2013 when he shattered a number of bones in his leg. [15]
12. Mr Stary has used both cannabis and methamphetamines.[16]
13. Mr Stary had his first proper relationship between the ages of 15 and 18. That relationship ended when his partner left to work in regional Western Australia. [17]
14. He then had another relationship with a woman six years older than him.[18]
15. He then formed a relationship with an older woman who was a prostitute, which lasted a few months. It was during this relationship that Mr Stary first became the subject of a violence restraining order (see further below). [19]
16. Mr Stary had another dysfunctional relationship which ended after his partner returned to the United Kingdom.[20]
17. Mr Stary's next relationship was with a woman who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis during the relationship. As discussed further below that relationship was marred by domestic violence and stalking.[21]
18. Mr Stary has a daughter who was conceived during a 'one night stand'. He found out about his daughter after her mother was unable to look after her and assumed custody of his daughter. [22]
19. Mr Stary no longer has custody of his daughter who is in the care of his brother. [23]

1. Mr Stary has a lengthy criminal record that began at the age of 18.
2. He was first convicted in September 1997 for failing to give way at a stop sign. He was then convicted of three other offences between November 1997 and February1999. One of the offences involved the possession of a smoking implement.[24]
3. On 22 February 2001, Mr Stary was convicted of unlawfully remaining on premises.[25] This conviction related to an incident during which Mr Stary entered onto the premises of a female complainant and then refused to leave despite being asked to do so.[26]
4. Later that year, on 7 November 2001, Mr Stary was convicted of common assault of another female complainant (who was a different complainant to the previous charge and who was then in a relationship with Mr Stary). He was released on a 12 month conditional release order.[27] This conviction related to an incident where Mr Stary stopped the complainant's car, argued with her, took her keys and slapped her in the face.[28]
5. The next year, in March 2002, Mr Stary was convicted of breaching a violence restraining order obtained by the same complainant who had been slapped in the face.[29] Mr Stary breached the order by communicating or attempting to communicate with the complainant 29 times (although the calls were not violent or threatening).[30]
6. Between May 2003 and October 2005, Mr Stary was convicted of a number of driving offences.[31]
7. On 5 May 2006, Mr Stary was convicted of various offences arising out of a high speed chase on the Mitchell Freeway and his subsequent involvement with the Police. In addition to various driving offences, Mr Stary was convicted of four counts of assaulting a police officer, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of threatening or abusive behaviour. He was fined and disqualified from driving.[32]
8. In July 2007, Mr Stary was convicted of possession of cannabis and a smoking implement.[33]
9. On 15 October 2007, Mr Stary was convicted of common assault.[34] This conviction related to Mr Stary choking and slapping a man who rented a room at his house during an argument.[35]
10. In the following year, in April 2008, Mr Stary was convicted of driving without a licence.[36]
11. In the later part of the next year, in August and then again in September 2009, Mr Stary was twice convicted of breaching a violence restraining order.[37] Both convictions related to a different former partner of Mr Stary with whom he had been in a relationship with for four months and who had obtained a violence restraining order against him. The first conviction related to Mr Stary attending the complainant's work and then arguing with her and also texting her. The second conviction related to Mr Stary texting the complainant.[38]
12. Between June 2011 and February 2014, Mr Stary was convicted of six driving offences including three convictions for driving while under the influence of alcohol and two convictions for unauthorised driving.[39]
13. On 2 February 2016, Mr Stary was convicted of seven counts of using a carriage service to menace and one count of driving while suspended.[40] The convictions for using a carriage service involved Mr Stary making sexually explicit telephone calls to different female victims during the night. Some of the victims had been receiving calls for several years.[41]
14. In April 2016, Mr Stary was again convicted of unauthorised driving.[42]
15. In June 2016, Mr Stary was convicted of five counts of breaching a violence restraining order, five counts of breaching a protective bail condition and one count of aggravated common assault.[43] The aggravated common assault conviction involved Mr Stary kicking his former partner in the leg. The other convictions involved Mr Stary communicating with his former partner in breach of both a violence restraining order and protective bail conditions.[44]
16. In August 2016, Mr Stary was again convicted of two counts of breaching a violence restraining order and an intensive supervision order.[45] The convictions for breaching a violence restraining order again involved Mr Stary communicating with his former partner in breach of a violence restraining order.[46]
17. In December 2016, Mr Stary was convicted of possession of amphetamines.[47]
18. Until this point, all offences for which Mr Stary had been convicted had been dealt with in the Magistrates Court and he had not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
19. In May 2019, Mr Stary was convicted of 17 offences on indictment in the District Court. He was convicted of:

(a) one count of grievous bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 297 of the Criminal Code;

(b) three counts of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm, contrary to s 317(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;

(c) four counts of aggravated burglary and committing an offence in dwelling, contrary to s 401(2)(a) of the Criminal Code;

(d) one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, contrary to s 317(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;

(e) two counts of criminal damage or destruction of property, contrary to s 444(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;

(f) one count of aggravated stalking, contrary to s 338E(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;

(g) one count of deprivation of liberty, contrary to s 333 of the Criminal Code;

(h) one count of unlawful act or omission with intent to harm endangering life, health or safety, contrary to s 304(2)(b) of the Criminal Code;

(i) one count of threat with intent to compel doing of an act, contrary to s 338A(d) of the Criminal Code;

(j) one count of attempting to pervert justice, contrary to s 143 of the Criminal Code; and

(k) one count of stealing, contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code.[48]

1. The victim of these offences was a former partner of Mr Stary's. The offences were committed over a nearly four year period between 9 June 2013 and 6 May 2017. The sentencing judge, Burrows DCJ, described these offences as occurring in the context of an on and off again relationship and that the offending represented a sustained course of volatile, controlling, threatening and violent behaviour.[49]
2. The stalking and attempting to pervert the course of justice convictions related to multiple incidents that occurred over a period of time. The other charges arose out of ten different incidents.
3. The first occurred in June 2013.[50]
4. The victim was visiting Mr Stary at his home when she received a flirtatious text message from a friend with whom she had previously had a casual relationship. Mr Stary saw the text and became enraged.
5. He took her phone and called her a 'whore' and a 'slut'. After an argument, Mr Stary grabbed the victim by the hair, dragged her five to seven meters towards the open front door and threw her through the door. She landed on a bicycle and snapped one of her fingers.
6. After screaming for help, the victim went back inside the house to get her phone. The victim followed Mr Stary into his bedroom and screamed at him about her broken finger. Mr Stary shut the door to the bedroom and would not let her leave. There was a struggle. Mr Stary grabbed the victim and she tried to resist him. The confrontation lasted about five minutes before Mr Stary allowed her to leave the bedroom
7. The victim sustained bruising to her face, legs and elbow.
8. The victim's broken finger was the subject of Mr Stary's conviction for grievous bodily harm. The assault in the bedroom was the subject of one of Mr Stary's convictions for aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm.
9. The second incident occurred on 8 March 2014.[51]
10. The victim was at home by herself. She had been communicating with Mr Stary via text when she decided that she had had enough, and did not wish to see or speak to him again that day, so she stopped responding.
11. The victim knew that Mr Stary would become angry if she failed to respond to his repeated text messages and that he would come to her house. She turned off all of the lights in the house and attempted to be as quiet as possible so that it would look like she was not home.
12. Later that day she heard noises coming from her garage and then her back yard. She then hid in her son's bedroom, on the top bunk of her son's bunk bed hiding under the blankets. She texted her neighbour and asked her to call the police.
13. Mr Stary broke into the victim's house by ripping a hole in a flyscreen. He walked into the room where the victim was hiding and sat on the bottom bunk. He then stood up and put his hand on the blanket covering the victim and told her it was an 'excellent hiding spot'.
14. When the victim told Mr Stary that she had called the police he became angry. He dragged her into the living room by her clothing. He took her mobile phone and when she tried to get it back, Mr Stary struck her to the head.
15. Mr Stary collected his backpack and then struck his partner to the face, causing her to stumble into a cabinet, bruising her leg.
16. This incident resulted in Mr Stary's conviction for one of the counts of aggravated burglary.
17. The next incident that resulted in charges occurred in late September 2014.[52]
18. The victim was at home when Mr Stary kicked in the front door, damaging it and the flyscreen. He started screaming at the victim and demanding that she speak to him.
19. The victim tried to run away and get into her car. Mr Stary caught up to her and slapped her in the face with an open palm. The victim managed to get into the car and started to reverse down the driveway but Mr Stary managed to get into the passenger seat.
20. Mr Stary threatened to 'smash' the victim if she did not drive him to the pub he wanted to go to. As the victim was driving him there, he continued to scream at her. She stopped the car and tried to get out. Mr Stary stopped the victim from getting out of the car by standing in her way, threatening to hit her and grabbing the car keys. This resulted in the deprivation of liberty count.
21. The victim then drove to the pub where Mr Stary continued to yell abuse at his partner and flick cigarette ash on her. She told Mr Stary that she needed to use the bathroom and then hid in a vacant shop near the pub.
22. After about five or 10 minutes, Mr Stary found the victim. He pushed her to the ground, took off her prescription sunglasses and then twisted and jumped on them. He then walked off.
23. When the victim returned to her car, she found that the car and some of its contents had been damaged. The damage that Mr Stary caused to the sunglasses and the car gave rise to the two counts of criminal damage.
24. The victim then went home but later that day Mr Stary returned to her house. He pushed his way into the house which resulted in a conviction for aggravated burglary.
25. Mr Stary cornered the victim in the kitchen and punched her in the head. He put her in a sleeper hold and pulled her by the hair. When she tried to run away, he punched her in the back of the head. This punch was one of the counts of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm.
26. The next incident occurred on 4 January 2015 and resulted in another conviction for aggravated burglary.[53]
27. Mr Stary came to the victim's home but she refused to answer the door. He had been sending her threatening messages throughout December 2014.
28. Mr Stary jumped over the back fence and entered the victim's house. He refused to leave and slapped her in the face with an open palm.
29. The next incident occurred on 8 January 2015 and resulted in Mr Stary's conviction for an act or omission endangering life, health or safety.[54]
30. Mr Stary invited the victim to his house as he said he was leaving Perth and wished to say goodbye.
31. When the victim said she wanted to leave, he grabbed her by the hair and threw her on the couch. When she tried to leave again, he grabbed her around the neck and throttled her, making it difficult to breathe. He only stopped when his dog pulled him off. When the victim finally escaped and drove off, Mr Stary smashed one of the side mirrors of her car.
32. The next incident occurred later that year in early May 2015 and resulted in another count of aggravated burglary.[55]
33. Mr Stary arrived at the victim's house and shouted abuse at her because she had turned her phone off. When she would not let Mr Stary in, he repeatedly kicked the front door. As a result, the security door broke and the front door became warped.
34. Once Mr Stary had gained entry, he pushed his partner out of the house, onto the front of the property. She was only wearing a towel at the time. Mr Stary then went to the kitchen and living area, rummaging through the cupboards and the victim's wallet. He held onto the victim's front door key and her torch/taser device. After a further argument he left.
35. The next incident occurred the next month in June 2015 and resulted in the count of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm.[56]
36. Mr Stary arrived at the victim's house with his daughter. The victim let him in because she thought she would be safe with his daughter there. The daughter went into the living room to watch television. The victim told Mr Stary that he should not be there. He then pushed her over and she suffered significant bruising in the fall.
37. The next incident occurred the following year in May 2016 and resulted in the stealing count.[57]
38. This involved Mr Stary stealing a notebook belonging to the victim. He also took her diary but returned it later, after tearing out pages and writing words like 'slut' in various locations.
39. The next incident occurred in July 2016 and resulted in Mr Stary's conviction for threat with intent to compel doing of an act.[58]
40. This conviction arose out of text messages and voicemails in which Mr Stary threatened to release intimate images of the victim and reveal highly personal and embarrassing information about her, unless she did what he wanted.
41. The next incident occurred in late December 2016 and resulted in another count of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm.[59]
42. Mr Stary grabbed the victim by the back of the head and smashed her head first into a wall. He then put her in a chokehold. Later, he dragged her into his bedroom and punched her in the face numerous times. The same evening, he struck her arm with a small baton and threatened her with a bread knife. The assault left her with two black eyes.
43. The count of aggravated stalking relates to Mr Stary's conduct towards the victim between 25 November 2015 and 6 May 2017.[60]
44. That conduct included sending the victim abusive text and email messages, calling her, leaving letters in her mailbox, showing up uninvited to her house and arranging for others to contact her on his behalf.
45. Mr Stary's conduct included calling the victim excessively over short periods of time. For example, he called the victim's mobile phone 120 times from the 10 May 2016 to the 20 May 2016, and 143 times from 3 June 2016 to the 10 June 2016.
46. The count of attempting to pervert the course of justice relates to numerous attempts made by Mr Stary to influence the victim to withdraw her complaint in relation to the aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm arising from the incident that occurred on 30 December 2016.[61] This included attempting to have others pressure the victim.
47. In June 2019, Mr Stary was convicted in the Magistrates Court, of 26 counts of breaching a restraining order, four counts of aggravated common assault and one count of a threat to injure. These convictions related to offences occurring between March 2014 and August 2017.

Whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour

1. In considering whether or not Mr Stary 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.[62]
2. In my view, one pattern that emerges from Mr Stary's offending is of the use of intimidation and violence towards intimate partners, with the intensity of that intimidation and violence escalating over time.
3. Another pattern that emerges is of an entrenched disregard for road traffic laws, although that pattern is of a lesser relevance in the context of the State's present application.

Medical, psychiatric or other assessments relating to Mr Stary

1. The HRSO Act requires me to have regard to any medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to Mr Stary, in considering whether or not Mr Stary is a high risk serious offender.[63]
2. The materials filed by the State contained a number of documents that made assessments of Mr Stary, including for the purposes of his sentencing for offences he has committed. Although the State's submissions only relied on three of these assessments, some of the other assessments are relevant.

Psychological Report of Tina Marley 12 April 2019[64]

1. Ms Marley is a Clinical Psychologist contracted to the Department of Justice who reviewed Mr Stary to prepare a report for his sentencing in 2019 by Burrows DCJ.[65]
2. Ms Marley interviewed Mr Stary at Hakea Prison for two hours and 30 minutes, communicated with others who knew Mr Stary, reviewed relevant information and administered some relevant tests.[66]
3. Ms Marley said that Mr Stary reported that he attended cognitive, life skills and alcohol and drug education programs during his two years remanded in custody. She noted that he said he had completed a 26 week Relationship Australia program for men who are aggressive and intimidating towards their partners and children in 2014/2015. He told her that he 'loved it' and intended to repeat the program in the future.[67]
4. Ms Marley said that Mr Stary also told her that he had engaged in individual intervention through the then Department of Corrective Services' Offender Services Branch. He said that he had attended six of 12 planned sessions but did not complete all of the sessions as he was returned to custody for further charges.[68]
5. Ms Marley assessed Mr Stary using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-Third Edition (MCMI-III). She explained that this is a psychometric tool that assesses personality traits and clinical psychopathology.[69]
6. Ms Marley said that Mr Stary's personality profile was consistent with people who are somewhat vigilant and on guard interpersonally. She said that they tend to remove themselves from anxious anticipation of life's potentially painful experiences.[70]
7. Ms Marley said that an example of this was separation anxiety that Mr Stary described feeling in a previous relationship when his partner worked 'fly in fly out' (FIFO). She said that this likely originated from perceived abandonment by his mother and abuse by his father, reinforcing a negative self-concept.[71]
8. Ms Marley noted that personality patterns reflected in testing also suggested that Mr Stary's results are similar to people who turn to others to maximise the attention and favours they receive. She said that such people are viewed as confident and self-assured, but this masks a strong need for approval and acceptance.[72]
9. Ms Marley observed that while Mr Stary cited the dysfunction in the relationship to be fundamental to his offending, his history of similar behaviour in two earlier relationships suggests individual characteristics that predispose him to aggressive behaviour and a disregard for non-contact orders.[73]
10. She considered that Mr Stary's developmental history has resulted in notable difficulties within intimate relationships. She thought that he appears to fear abandonment and struggles to reconcile endings or threats to relationships, particularly if those relationships are unstable or unpredictable, which she thought stemmed from his childhood experiences.[74]
11. Ms Marley thought that on the information provided by Mr Stary, his offending was formulated to be related to an anxious attachment style, underpinned by personality features of dependency and emotional dysregulation.[75]
12. Ms Marley employed the Spousal Assault Risk Guide to assess Mr Stary's risk of further re-offending in intimate relationships, which she explained allows an assessor to use structured professional judgment to determine the presence of risk factors.[76]
13. Ms Marley said that for Mr Stary, relevant historical factors include his history of violation of non-contact orders with other women and assaults on police and acquaintances. She said that this suggested some offence paralleling behaviours and the broader use of aggression to resolve interpersonal conflict.[77]
14. She considered it significant that he was reportedly a victim of family violence, which has disrupted personality development and led to vulnerabilities in intimate relationships. She thought he modelled aggressive strategies to resolve conflict and misogynistic attitudes.[78]
15. Ms Marley considered that Mr Stary required treatment to address psychological factors underpinning his offending behaviour in intimate relationships. She thought this should include him participating in a further program designed for men who are violent in relationships. She also recommended that he be referred for psychological intervention as part of any community supervision through the adult community psychological services team. [79]

Psychological Report of Dr Kathryn Riordan 11 September 2023[80]

1. Dr Riordan is a psychologist who first reviewed Mr Stary in 2023 at the request of the Prisoner Review Board.
2. In 2023, Dr Riordan interview Mr Stary for two hours, reviewed material relevant to Mr Stary and contacted various people identified in his report.[81]
3. Dr Riordan referred to Mr Stary's assessment by Ms Marley in April 2019.[82]
4. Dr Riordan observed that Mr Stary had since completed the Stopping Family Violence Program at Casuarina Prison between 19 February 2020 and 29 May 2019. She said that he was described as highly motivated to engage in the program during pre-treatment interviews but the facilitators observed a range of offence paralleling behaviours during his participation in the group that presented as a barrier to engagement in the group process.[83]
5. Dr Riordan observed that although having been described as having adequately engaged overall, Mr Stary was reported to have made very few treatment gains.[84]
6. Dr Riordan noted that Mr Stary completed the Pathways Program in Karnet Prison between 29 April 2021 and 30 July 2021. She said that he attended 49 of the 50 group bases sessions and was described as an engaged group participant who contributed to group discussion without prompting and completed all tasks out of session adequately.[85]
7. Dr Riordan observed that treatment needs were identified in relation to Mr Stary's substance use, poor stress and coping skills, lack of support, mistrust of others and lack of awareness of his problematic alcohol and other drug use. She said that he was said to have made treatment gains across all areas of identified treatment need and was afforded the opportunity to develop a risk management plan.[86]
8. Dr Riordan said that while Mr Stary was observed by program facilitators to have made some treatment gains from participating in the Pathways Program, his involvement in the Stopping Family Violence program was less favourable.[87]
9. Dr Riordan thought that the information contained in the Pathways Program completion report suggested that Mr Stary had significantly understated the duration of his offending. This led her to conclude that the treatment gains that Mr Stary had been reported to have made were unreliable.[88]
10. Dr Riordan noted that Mr Stary asserted that he has matured and was now law abiding. She said that he claimed that his program participation, introspection and efforts to change, had increased his capacity for emotional regulation, coping and self-regulation. She noted that he claimed that these changes were evident from the fact that he had stopped using substances, was committed to work and vocational studies and had behaved well in prison.[89]
11. Dr Riordan acknowledged that his prison records supported his assertions, but she also noted that Mr Stary's criminal record suggests that he is more likely to be violent towards intimate partners, rather than others.[90]
12. Dr Riordan observed that there is evidence of offence paralleling behaviour throughout Mr Stary's time in prison directed towards both his ex-partner and more recently his cousin.[91]
13. Dr Riordan assessed Mr Stary as continuing to have strong cognitive distortions.[92]
14. Overall, Dr Riordan thought that while there was evidence that Mr Stary has developed some skills in self-regulation, coping and emotional management to successfully navigate the demands of the prison system, and desist from substance use in that environment, there was less evidence that such skills have translated to change with respect to his violence risk in intimate relationships. She thought that there was little evidence that Mr Stary had made sufficient gains through treatment to meaningfully moderate the risk that he would be violent towards future intimate partners.[93]
15. Dr Riordan said that while Mr Stary was reported to have made some progress towards addressing his treatment needs, she had difficulty identifying any gains or meaningful behavioural change when she interviewed him. She thought there were outstanding treatment needs.[94]

Treatment Progress Report of Caris Hamlett-Waller dated 10 March 2025[95]

1. Ms Hamlett-Waller is a clinical and counselling psychologist in the Forensic Psychological Team (FPIT).
2. Ms Hamlett-Waller indicated that Mr Stary had been referred to FPIT by the Prisoner Review Board on 19 October 2023 to address his outstanding criminogenic needs.[96] She said that he had attended 33 sessions between 26 February 2024 and 20 February 2025. [97]
3. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that early in Mr Stary's treatment, he seemed concerned with her impression of him but that assurance seeking and impression management behaviours reduced over time. She thought that Mr Stary's presentation appeared to become increasingly authentic.[98]
4. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that Mr Stary disputed Dr Riordan's assessment of his treatment needs but they were still able to agree some treatment goals and topics.[99]
5. Ms Hamlett-Waller thought that Mr Stary had made some treatment gains in relation to his ability to identify and explain his feelings, at least in some contexts.[100] She also thought he had demonstrated an emerging capacity for cognitive empathy.[101]
6. Ms Hamlett-Waller thought, however, that Mr Stary had made more limited gains in other areas. She thought he had only made rudimentary gains in relation to his sensitivity about what others thought and felt.[102] She thought that he needed to further explore issues related to family and domestic violence[103] and how his upbringing may have shaped his world view.[104] She also thought that his minimisation and unwillingness to discuss his offending hampered his exploration of the factors that precipitated his offending.[105]
7. Ms Hamlett-Waller considered that Mr Stary demonstrated a capacity for productive engagement and reflection which could bode well for further treatment. Whilst Mr Stary appeared to have made selected gains with regards to his assessed risk factors, these are yet to be tested in a less restrictive environment, across contexts and for a sustained period without lapses. She recommended further engagement in intervention for Mr Stary.[106]

Treatment Progress Report of Caris Hamlett-Waller dated 13 August 2025[107]

1. Ms Hamlett-Waller prepared an updated treatment progress report dated 13 August 2025 to address Mr Stary's progress since her earlier report on 10 March 2025.[108]
2. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that Mr Stary experienced significant psychological distress during his first two weeks back in the community after his release. She said that he sought help and improved, and that difficulties in adjusting are not uncommon for those re-integrating.[109]
3. Ms Hamlett-Waller said she had explored treatment goals and topics concerning reintegration issues and healthy relationships with Mr Stary.[110]
4. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that Mr Stary appeared open to discussing why he needed to develop internal self-regulation strategies.[111] She thought that Mr Stary appeared to have made rudimentary gains in insight and self-reported adjustments to his need for control.[112]
5. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that Mr Stary was encouraged to reflect on his own internal states, particularly in relation to interpersonal interactions. She said that a rudimentary skill he was able to demonstrate was the ability to recognise when he was in distress and ask for help.[113]
6. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that Mr Stary's ability to accurately consider the mental states of himself and others remains a treatment target. She considered that his perception and interpretation of mental states is entrenched and will take time to shift.[114]
7. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that Mr Stary acknowledged the ongoing goal of reducing his dichotomous style of thinking, and this remained an active treatment target.[115]
8. Ms Hamlett-Waller thought that being in the community has provided Mr Stary with an opportunity to be exposed to a greater range of interpersonal relationships, specifically with women, which facilitated salient gains from treatment due to the opportunity for reenactment of maladaptive patterns.[116]
9. Ms Hamlett-Waller said that at times, Mr Stary acknowledged a sensitivity to criticism and reported a desire to improve his capacity to tolerate such. She said that his insight into this need was a fundamental gain, however Mr Stary is yet to demonstrate substantial changes.[117]
10. Ms Hamlett-Waller considered that despite Mr Stary's initial psychological decompensation upon his release from custody, Mr Stary appeared to have emotionally stabilised and adjusted to his return to the community and the restrictions of the Interim Supervision Order.[118]
11. Ms Hamlett-Waller thought that Mr Stary continued to demonstrate a capacity for engagement and reflection which can bode well for further treatment. However, she acknowledged that making changes to entrenched maladaptive personality traits is not a linear process and requires time and rehearsal across a variety of situations to consolidate. She recommended ongoing intervention for Mr Stary, to support him and to address his criminogenic needs.[119]

Treatment Options Report of Emma Cashmore dated 14 October 2025[120]

1. The State referred to a treatment options report prepared by Ms Cashmore on 14 October 2025.
2. Ms Cashmore is a HRSO planning manager who confirms that Mr Stary will continue to see Ms Hamlett-Waller irrespective of the type of restriction order made (assuming one is made).[121]

CSA Report authored by Roxanne Stockton, Senior Community Corrections Officer dated 29 October 2025[122]

1. The State referred to a community supervision assessment dated 29 October 2025 prepared by Ms Stockton. She is the team leader for the electronic monitoring unit in the community offender monitoring unit. Prior to that she was a team leader with the high risk serious offender unit and before that she was a senior community corrects officer.[123]
2. Ms Stockton addressed Mr Stary's history of complying with the Interim Supervision Order and lawful instructions he has been given. She identified the following instances of non-compliance with the conditions of that order:[124]

(a) on 5 May 2025, Mr Stary entered an exclusion zone while in the company of a rehabilitation provider to attend Centrelink;

(b) on 7 May 2025, he entered into an exclusion zone by travelling into the border of the zone by being at the Elizabeth Quay Bus Station. Mr Stary said he got lost on the bus;

(c) at some time prior on or prior to 7 May 2025, had a friend visit home;

(d) on 8 May 2025, attended an address where a female was living without first obtaining approval;

(e) on 11 May 2025, he had an unapproved visitor at his home;

(f) on 25 May 2025, entered the corner of the exclusion zone near Elizabeth Quay heading north while travelling to visit a friend (the exclusion zone was subsequently amended to remove the bus station);

(g) on 12 June 2025, he attended an address at which a female was living;

(h) on 17 June 2025, he returned home four minutes after curfew;

(i) on 21 June 2025, he entered the exclusion zone on Roe Highway, travelling West into Canning Vale;

(j) on 30 June 2025, he again entered the exclusion zone on Roe Highway, travelling West into Canning Vale. He had been allowed to travel through the zone, but only on the adjacent Thornlie-Cockburn train line;

(k) on 1 July 2025, he entered the exclusion zone on Roe Highway, travelling West into Canning Vale. He said this was due to Google maps;

(l) 10 September 2025, he entered the southern area of his exclusion zone. He had been given permission to enter by one route, but had entered by another; and

(m) on 7 October 2025, he failed to provide a valid urine sample because of insufficient volume. He provided the necessary sample the next day.

1. With regard to the exclusion zone, Ms Stockton observed that it appeared as though Mr Stary developed familiarity with its boundaries by testing them, rather than familiarising himself with the maps provided.[125]
2. On 20 May 2025, Mr Stary returned a urine sample which was positive for benzodiazepines. This was not considered to be a breach of the Interim Supervision Order, as it did not prohibit taking prescription medication.[126]
3. Ms Stockton also noted that on 27 October 2025 Mr Stary was convicted of stealing six cans of spray paint from Bunnings on 8 May 2025 and received a $200 fine.[127]
4. Ms Stockton recorded that Mr Stary has another charge pending in the Armadale Magistrates Court for breaching the Interim Supervision Order by driving through a bottle shop on 10 May 2025.[128]
5. Ms Stockton said that Mr Stary was initially resistant to supervision, and anxious and stressed, but became comfortable with the conditions and exclusion zones and developed a routine and stability.[129]
6. Ms Stockton said that Mr Stary had engaged positively in discussions about contact with peers whom he had not seen since his incarceration. She referred to him seeking advice from Ms Hamlett-Waller and her about difficulties reinstating contact with female contacts from before his imprisonment.[130]
7. Ms Stockton thought that Mr Stary's presentation was inconsistent and that he could sometimes appear agitated and easily frustrated. She said that Mr Stary's presentation and engagement deteriorated after he was reviewed by Dr Riordan and Professor Pyszora.[131]
8. Ms Stockton said that Mr Stary had expressed an interest in working FIFO. She said that she had indicated that there might be difficulties with this proposal.[132]
9. Ms Stockton said that Mr Stary had completed vocational training courses and she had encouraged him to find employment.[133]
10. She set out Mr Stary's accommodation options. She said that Mr Stary had expressed a desire to live with a friend of his who has a young daughter.[134] She said that when she met Mr Stary's friend in May 2025, he presented as combative and uncooperative.[135]
11. Ms Stockton said that in September 2025, she asked the Department of Communities, Child Protection and Family Support (DCPFS) to assess Mr Stary's friend's property to identify any concerns with Mr Stary living there after the restriction order hearing.[136]
12. Ms Stockton reported that the DCPFS had indicated that there was no current concern about the risk to Mr Stary's friend's daughter because Mr Stary was not currently living at the address, and they did not propose to address the matter further unless circumstances changed.[137]

1. In considering whether or not Mr Stary is a high risk serious offender, I am also required to have regard to any report prepared under the HRSO Act.[138]

Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 22 September 2025[139]

1. Professor Pyszora interviewed Mr Stary twice. First on 8 September 2025 for three hours and then again on 15 September 2025 for two hours and 10 minutes. She also reviewed materials provided to her and contacted various people who she identifies in her report.[140]
2. The second interview was cut short because Mr Stary felt he could not continue with the interview.[141]
3. Professor Pyszora considered that Mr Stary met the DSM-5 diagnosis of:

(a) a major depressive episode with anxious distress;[142]

(b) a personality disorder;[143] and

(c) a substance use disorder. [144]

1. Professor Pyszora said that Mr Stary described a difficult childhood where he was exposed to domestic violence perpetrated by his father against his mother, was the victim of physical abuse at the hands of his father, and experienced abuse and ultimately abandonment by his mother after she was injured in a car accident. She said that he reported being exposed to his father's misogyny and objectification of women and was supported in commencing alcohol and cannabis use from his early teens.[145]
2. Professor Pyszora said that Mr Stary's early experiences undoubtedly influenced his personality development, and his personality traits have negatively affected his interpersonal relationships and social functioning throughout his life. She observed that he has a clear pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships with hypersensitivity to indications of rejection and abandonment.[146]
3. Professor Pyszora said that Mr Stary has a history of maladaptive coping strategies for stress and interpersonal conflict. She said these have included distraction, avoidance, violence, sexual behaviours, and substance use.[147]
4. She considered that the use of alcohol or drugs has not been a necessary factor for Mr Stary to engage in intimate partner violence but has been a relevant factor during some of his offending behaviour, and substance use has also led to charges independent of intimate partner violence.[148]
5. Professor Pyszora said that Mr Stary's psychological skills deficits included problem solving skills, social skills, communication skills, and self-regulation skills including cognitive strategies and emotional regulation. She noted that Mr Stary had previously participated in counselling and program intervention but he had made limited progress prior to 2024. She said, however, that he appeared to have engaged better and made some progress in individual psychological intervention with Ms Hamlett-Waller, which she considered was encouraging.[149]
6. Professor Pyszora assessed Mr Stary using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). She explained that this is a standardised rating scale that allows one to reliably identify traits of psychopathy. [150] She said that a score of 30 or above means an individual is high in psychopathy.[151]
7. Professor Pyszora said that Mr Stary scored in the low range for psychopathy.[152]
8. She also assessed Mr Stary using the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20- Version 3 (HCR-20 V3). She explained that this provides a structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment and measures both static and dynamic factors that are associated with violent recidivism.[153]
9. Professor Pyszora considered that nine historical risk factors were present. These were:

(a) problems with previous violence;[154]

(b) problems with other antisocial behaviour;[155]

(c) problems with relationships;[156]

(d) problems with substance use;[157]

(e) problems with major mental disorder;[158]

(f) problems with personality;[159]

(g) problems with traumatic experiences;[160]

(h) problems with violent attitudes;[161] and

(i) problems with treatment or supervision response.[162]

1. Professor Pyszora considered that five clinical risk factors were present. These were:

(a) problems with insight;[163]

(b) problems with violent ideation or intent;[164]

(c) problems with symptoms of major mental disorder;[165]

(d) problems with instability;[166] and

(e) problems with treatment or supervision response.[167]

1. Professor Pyszora considered that five risk management factors were present. These were:

(a) problems with professional services and plans;[168]

(b) problems with living situation;[169]

(c) problems with personal support; [170]

(d) problems with treatment or supervision response;[171] and

(e) problems with stress or coping. [172]

1. Professor Pyszora also assessed Mr Stary using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 (SARA-V3). She explained that this is a structured professional judgment risk assessment tool that reflects advancements in the violence risk assessment process and is comprised of three domains including risk factors as they relate to the nature of intimate partner violence, perpetrator risk factors, and victim vulnerability factors.[173]
2. Professor Pyszora observed that Mr Stary's violence has been triggered by him feeling disrespected, ignored, or rejected by victims, with feelings of righteous anger justifying intrusions into their life, and often verbal or physical violence. She said that Mr Stary's intimate partner violence was chronic.[174]
3. She said that the perpetrator risk factors present in Mr Stary's case included intimate relationship problems, personality disorder, substance use problems, non-intimate relationship problems, general antisocial conduct, mental disorder, and a history of trauma. She observed that he exhibits distorted thinking about intimate partner violence. She also considered that he had significant problems with emotional regulation and coping.[175]
4. With regard to victim vulnerability, Professor Pyszora said that these factors would need to be assessed in the event that Mr Stary formed an intimate relationship.[176]
5. Professor Pyszora also assessed Mr Stary using the Stalking Risk Profile (SRP). She explained that the SRP is a structured professional judgment tool which is used to assess the risk of stalking violence, persistence, and recurrence (with the same or another victim) as well as risk of psychosocial damage to the stalker themselves. She said that the SRP includes a stalking classification system (or typology).[177]
6. Professor Pyszora considered that Mr Stary fits the typology of a rejected stalker. She said that this type of stalking occurs in the context of the breakdown of an intimate relationship and the motivation was both reconciliation and revenge. She explained that the stalking compensates for lost intimacy by creating the semblance of closeness and a relationship.[178]
7. Professor Pyszora assessed Mr Stary's risk of stalking violence. She considered that Mr Stary has a number of risk factors for stalking violence, and he presents a high risk of violence should he enter into another intimate relationship in which he feels rejected.[179]
8. Professor Pyszora considered that there is currently a high risk of Mr Stary resuming stalking behaviours in the context of him being rejected in another intimate relationship if his risk factors are not managed, including the provision of treatment, positive response to treatment, and compliance with other risk management strategies such as abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances.[180]
9. Professor Pyszora considered that there is a high risk of psychosocial damage to Mr Stary if he resumes stalking. She said that if he resumes stalking behaviours he is likely to be re-imprisoned.[181]
10. Professor Pyszora also considered how Mr Stary might reoffend. She thought that future serious offending against an intimate partner would involve physical violence as well as abuse, threats, intimidation and manipulation, and related serious offences of deprivation of liberty and stalking. She considered that it might involve weapons and strangulation or choking, with a risk of serious or fatal outcomes. She also thought there was a risk of serious emotional harm.[182]
11. Professor Pyszora opined that if Mr Stary experiences an intimate relationship breakdown or perceptions of rejection in that relationship (including concerns of physical or emotional infidelity by his partner), he will present a high risk of resuming serious offending behaviours. She thought that any resumed intimate partner violence and/or stalking behaviours would be persistent.[183]
12. Professor Pyszora thought that the risk posed by Mr Stary would not be imminent, even if he entered into a new relationship, provided he was subject to stringent supervision. She considered there was a risk of relapse, however.[184]
13. Professor Pyszora thought that if Mr Stary was not subject to a restriction order he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence (within the meaning of s 5 HRSO Act), namely serious intimate partner violence or stalking. [185]
14. Professor Pyszora advised that monitoring strategies should be implemented to ensure early detection of warning signs of escalating risk. She considered that these strategies should include regular review by the senior community corrections officer, regular and random drug and alcohol testing and review of electronic communications to monitor for presence of any warning signs of risk factors relevant to serious offending. [186]
15. Professor Pyszora considered that treatment was required to address Mr Stary's outstanding treatment needs. She considered that he will require ongoing individual psychological therapy as well as other rehabilitation and risk reduction strategies including employment and support for engagement in prosocial supports.[187]
16. Professor Pyszora advised that supervision strategies should include appropriate restrictions on community freedom. She considered that these should include use of exclusion zones via electronic monitoring to protect victims, and a direction that Mr Stary should not associate with persons using substances to help minimise his risk of relapse.[188]
17. When Professor Pyszora gave evidence, she considered that an order should be made for five years. She explained that this was based on the chronic risk that she considered Mr Stary posed, his treatment requirements and his history of complying with the Intensive Supervision Order.[189]

Psychological Risk Assessment Report of Dr Kathryn Riordan 9 October 2025[190]

1. Dr Riordan interviewed Mr Stary twice in August 2025 for a total of six hours. She also consulted various people involved in Mr Stary's treatment or supervision and reviewed the materials provided to her.[191]
2. Dr Riordan thought that Mr Stary seemed guarded and suspicious and made deliberate unsophisticated attempts at impression management.[192]
3. Dr Riordan said that Mr Stary was asked to complete mental health screening as part of the assessment process and that the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 was used. She said that on this measure, Mr Stary fell within the:

(a) severe range across the scale of depression;

(b) extremely severe range on the scale that measures anxiety; and

(c) mild range on the scale that measures the experience of stress.[193]

1. Dr Riordan said that Mr Stary completed the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory- IV (MCMI-IV), which she explained was a 195 item self-report assessment of personality and psychopathology in adults over the age of 18. She said that Mr Stary's response style on this instrument suggested an inclination towards over-reporting of symptoms, indicating an attempt at impression management.[194]
2. Dr Riordan said that Mr Stary's responses on the MCMI-IV indicated that he meets the criteria for a:

(a) Generalized Anxiety Disorder; and

(b) Substance Use Disorder, currently in remission due to the external constraints of first imprisonment, and then the Interim Supervision Order.[195]

1. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Stary presents with a chronic history of perpetrating violence across relationships, context and situations. She said that his pattern of violence is underpinned by a range of distal static factors related to multiple adverse early childhood experiences that have spanned the full spectrum of harm across all critical periods of development.[196]
2. She said that Mr Stary experienced multiple disrupted attachment relationships with his mother and a complicated insecure attachment relationship with his father. She considered that Mr Stary had experienced rejection and perceived abandonment from his primary care providers.[197]
3. Dr Riordan said that to guard against expected rejection and abandonment, Mr Stary developed a myopic focus on dominating and controlling intimate partners and others who he perceived to represent a threat to his reputation and status.[198]
4. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Stary had strongly held cognitive distortions which rationalised his behaviour as proportionate and necessary across time and relationships.[199]
5. Dr Riordan said it was to Mr Stary's credit that he has completed some prison based treatment programs, continued to see Ms Hamlett‑Waller and complied with the Interim Supervision Order.[200]
6. She thought that Mr Stary has demonstrated some initial positive motivation to change but thought that he found complying with the Interim Supervision Order challenging. She noted that he expressed strong opposition to the HRSO Act process generally and when applied to him specifically.[201]
7. Like Professor Pyszora, Dr Riordan assessed Mr Stary using the PCL‑R.[202]
8. Dr Riordan considered that he met the clinical cut off score for psychopathy, with his overall score falling within the high range on the PCL-R. [203]
9. Dr Riordan also thought Mr Stary could be considered to meet the diagnostic criteria for Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) as defined in the DSM-5, although she expressed some doubt about such a diagnosis. She noted that ASPD and psychopathy share some similar diagnostic features and she concluded that he met the criteria for psychopathy rather than ASPD.[204]
10. Dr Riordan also assessed Mr Stary's risk for violent reoffending using the Violence Risk Scale, 2nd Edition (VRS-2). She explained that this is a fourth-generation actuarial violence risk assessment tool that was specifically designed to assess the risk for violence for forensic clients, particularly those who have been detained and are being considered for release into the community.[205]
11. Dr Riordan said that the VRS 2, is comprised of 6 static (historical) and 17 dynamic (changeable) variables that are combined to provide an assessment of violence risk.[206]
12. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Stary's total score on the static variables was 10 out of a possible 18.[207] The static variables that scored highly were:

(a) violence through the lifespan;[208]

(b) breaches of legally mandated conditions;[209]

(c) stability of family upbringing. [210]

1. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Stary's total score for these dynamic variables is 41 out of a possible score of 60.[211] The static variables that scored highly were:

(a) violent lifestyle;[212]

(b) criminal personality;[213]

(c) criminal attitudes; [214]

(d) criminal peers;[215]

(e) interpersonal aggression;[216]

(f) emotional control;[217]

(g) weapon use;[218]

(h) insight into violence;[219]

(i) substance use;[220]

(j) stability of relationships with significant others;[221]

(k) community support;[222]

(l) release to high-risk situations;[223]

(m) violence cycle;[224]

(n) impulsivity;[225] and

(o) cognitive distortions.[226]

1. Dr Riordan said that Mr Stary's total score, after combining the score from the static and dynamic risk variables scales is 51 out of a possible score of 78. She said that Mr Stary's total score on the VRS places him within Level IV, Above Average Risk.[227]
2. She said that individuals within Level IV require intensive monitoring, intervention and supervision, with effective treatment expected to take several years before sustained risk reduction is achieved.[228]
3. Dr Riordan said that offenders in the normative sample who fell within Level IV category of risk with the same score as Mr Stary had a violent recidivism rate of 20.3% over a 3-year period and 34.3% over a 5‑year predicted period.[229]
4. Dr Riordan considered that the VRS identified several areas of treatment need for Mr Stary pertaining to his violent lifestyle, criminal personality, interpersonal aggression, emotional control, criminal attitudes and peers, weapons use, lack of insight into his use of violence, substance use, instability of relationships, limited community support, the presence of cognitive distortions, being released to high risk situations and the presence of a clear violence cycle.[230]
5. Dr Riordan thought that although Mr Stary continues to engage in targeted criminogenic treatment, the application of the treatment gains he has made in the community setting was in its infancy. She said that the most prominent responsivity factor relating to treatment, pertains to Mr Stary's psychopathic personality structure. [231]
6. Dr Riordan also assessed Mr Stary using the SARA‑V3 which she explained is a set of structured professional judgment guidelines for the assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence. [232]
7. Dr Riordan rated eight 'Nature of IPV' factors and ten 'Perpetrator Risk Factors'. She rated all of the 'Nature of IPV' factors as being present and relevant to risk management but not recently present.[233] She rated most of the 'Perpetrator Risk Factors' as being present and relevant to risk management, with four being identified as recently present.[234]
8. She was unable to consider the six 'Victim Vulnerability' factors used in SARA-V3 as Mr Stary is not presently in a relationship but she recommended that the SARA-V3 be re-scored if he formed a relationship. [235]
9. Like Professor Pyszora, Dr Riordan also assessed Mr Stary using the SRP. She reached the same conclusion that Mr Stary's stalking behaviour was best explained by application of the rejected stalker typology.[236]
10. Dr Riordan assessed Mr Stary as having a moderate risk of stalking the same partner and moderate to high risk of stalking a different partner over the medium to long term.[237]
11. Like Professor Pyszora, Dr Riordan assessed Mr Stary as at a high risk of psychosocial harm because of his stalking behaviour.[238]
12. Dr Riordan also assessed Mr Stary using the STATIC‑99R which she explained is a 10-item tool that draws upon empirically derived static factors in the offender's history that have been found to be related to sexual recidivism in an offender sample.[239]
13. Dr Riordan said that Mr Stary's score placed him in Risk Level IVa (Above Average Risk) category for being charged or convicted of another sexual offence, using the standardised risk level framework.[240]
14. Dr Riordan also assessed Mr Stary using the STABLE‑2007 which she explained was developed using offenders who received community-based orders, and those who had been released from custody on completion of a prison term following conviction for sexual offences.[241]
15. Dr Riordan said that Mr Stary was scored as High on the STABLE‑2007.[242]
16. She considered that the most prominent dynamic risk factors pertaining to Mr Stary's high level were negative emotionality, poor problem-solving skills, a lack of concern for others, a high level of sexual preoccupation/sex drive, his use of sex as a form of coping, difficulties with the quality and tenor of previous intimate relationships, and hostility towards women.[243]
17. She considered the less significant dynamic risk factors identified included a limited network of prosocial influences, a poor level of cooperation with supervision, a level of impulsivity and a history of social rejection.[244]
18. Dr Riordan considered that when combined as a composite score of sexual reoffending potential, Mr Stary's scores on the STATIC‑99R, and STABLE-2007, place him in Level IVb Well Above Average Risk category for supervision and intervention using the standardised risk framework.[245]
19. Dr Riordan said that the relative rate of reoffending for individuals in Level IVb is generally considered to be well above average when compared to the sexual offending rate of male offenders assessed using the same instruments.[246]
20. Dr Riordan considered that risk scenarios for Mr Stary engaging in future violence would include him assaulting an intimate partner, stalking a partner, behaving in a threatening, intimidating and violent manner to a family member who he thought had slighted him, or engaging in acts of sexual harm towards known adult women.[247]
21. Dr Riordan thought that all the scenarios were likely to cause significant psychological, and physical harm to the victims. She said that the presence and use of a weapon and illicit drug intoxication during the commission of an offence would significantly escalate the level of violence used and result in the perpetration of serious and/or life-threatening violence. [248]
22. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Stary presents with a chronic risk of re‑offending of a violent nature, that includes stalking and sexual harm.[249]
23. Dr Riordan observed that given the longevity of Mr Stary's criminal behaviour, supervision, monitoring, regular and random urinalysis, engagement in employment or vocational training, and psychological counselling are necessary components for managing his risk for the foreseeable future.[250]
24. Dr Riordan assessed Mr Stary as being at above average risk for future reoffending of a violent nature, including intimate partner violence, moderate to high risk for recurrent stalking and well above average risk for perpetrating acts of sexual harm.[251]
25. Dr Riordan's overall assessment was that Mr Stary poses an above average risk of violent and generalist reoffending and an above average risk of intimate partner violence and a well above average risk for perpetrating sexual harm if the risk factors identified are not adequately managed.[252]
26. Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that if Mr Stary were not subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act, he would present an above average risk for committing a serious offence as defined under s 5 of the HRSO Act.[253]
27. She also expressed the opinion that Mr Stary presents at above average risk for committing further non-serious offending of a violent, sexual and generalist nature. She considered that the imminence of further offending will depend upon the presence of protective factors that may assist to deter further offending, or the presence of dynamic risk factors that may serve to facilitate further offending.[254]
28. Dr Riordan considered that effective risk management for the prevention of future violent offending by Mr Stary requires a multidisciplinary approach to ensure adequate monitoring, treatment, supervision, and safety planning.[255]
29. Dr Riordan thought that appropriate monitoring strategies in relation to Mr Stary include for him to remain at approved suitable accommodation.[256]
30. She considered that appropriate monitoring strategies included the mandatory supervision requirements set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act.[257]
31. Dr Riordan thought that Mr Stary presents with a high density of outstanding treatment needs and would benefit from ongoing individual intervention through the FPIT, or similar service, with ongoing treatment by Ms Hamlett-Waller being the preferred option.[258] She thought that treatment should target the treatment areas identified in the VRS-2, SARA-V3, and STABLE 2007.[259]
32. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Stary's community reintegration and ability to desist from further offending behaviour would be bolstered by vocational training and stable fulltime employment and community based activities to develop a pro-social network.[260]
33. Dr Riordan said that Mr Stary is likely to require time to establish, consolidate and maintain the skills required to effectively self-manage his risk for future involvement in offending of a violence nature. She considered that a community supervision order of at least 4 years, inclusive of the time he has already spent on the Interim Supervision Order would provide an opportunity for Mr Stary to participate meaningfully in treatment, develop appropriate skills to manage any potential lapse and relapse into the use of alcohol and other drugs, establish and maintain lifestyle changes, and to demonstrate a sustained capacity to self-manage his risk.[261]
34. Dr Riordan recommended a gradual moderation of the order conditions with respect to reporting and monitoring, if Mr Stary engaged well with any restriction order imposed (including meaningful engagement in treatment). She said that such moderations should be aimed at maximising engagement with prosocial associations, activities, employment, and other protective factors that will support ongoing desistance from drug use and crime.[262]

1. I am required to consider any other relevant matter. [263]
2. In relation to other relevant matters, the State referred to difficulties that Mr Stary presently faces with accommodation as he will need to vacate his present accommodation in February 2026.[264]
3. As I have mentioned, Mr Stary has expressed a desire to live with his friend in Mandurah. At the hearing before me, both Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan expressed reservations about Mr Stary living at that property.
4. Professor Pyszora was concerned that as Mr Stary's friend had a teenage daughter, vulnerable young women might be present. She was also concerned about whether Mr Stary's friend would be a positive influence.[265]
5. Dr Riordan was also concerned about the presence of Mr Stary's friend's daughter. She thought that as Mr Stary's friend seemed to be living pro‑socially at the moment, he could be a positive influence. She thought that accommodation other than that at the friend's house might be the preferred option but that the risk factors might be managed at that accommodation if nothing else was available.[266]
6. At the hearing Ms Stockton indicated that if he was to live with his friend, it would be appropriate that DCPFS provide the assessment she had requested.[267]
7. In my view, such a report would be appropriate, particularly given the concerns expressed by Professor Pyszora. During the hearing, I indicated that I would be prepared to defer handing down my decision to until after such a report was obtained. After taking instructions, counsel for Mr Stary indicated that this was not necessary and he wished me to deliver these reasons without such a report being obtained.[268]

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;[269] and

(b) whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender.[270]

1. Mr Stary has participated in rehabilitation programmes. However, as I have explained in detail above, both Dr Riordan and Professor Pyzora thought that he had only made limited treatment gains. Their view, together with that of Ms Hamlett-Waller, was that Mr Stary continued to have significant treatment needs and that he lacked insight.

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 Stary 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;[271]

(b) the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence;[272] and

(c) the need to protect members of the community from that risk.[273]

1. Mr Stary's history of offending reveals a propensity towards using intimidation (including stalking) and violence against intimate partners.
2. Although Mr Stary does not presently have a partner, as he is now again living in the community, there is a possibility that he will form a new relationship. Ms Stockton referred to Mr Stary reinstating contact with female contacts he had held before he was imprisoned.[274]
3. Both Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan thought that there was a significant risk that Mr Stary would commit a future serious offence.
4. Professor Pyszora thought that if Mr Stary was not subject to a restriction order, he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence.[275]
5. She thought that future serious offending against an intimate partner might involve physical violence, intimidation, manipulation, deprivation of liberty, stalking and might involve weapons and strangulation or choking, with the risk of serious or fatal outcomes.[276]
6. Dr Riordan considered that Mr Stary presents with a chronic risk of re‑offending of a violent nature, that includes stalking and sexual harm.[277] She expressed the opinion that if Mr Stary were not subject to a restriction order, he would present an Above Average Risk for committing a serious offence.[278]
7. Dr Riordan thought that all the scenarios concerning Mr Stary's future offending were likely to cause significant psychological, and physical harm to the victims. She said that the presence and use of a weapon or drugs would significantly escalate the level of violence and could result in the perpetration of serious and/or life-threatening violence.[279]
8. In my view, there is a need to protect members of the community, in particular Mr Stary's future partners, from the risks identified by Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan.

Whether Mr Stary is a high risk serious offender Is there an unacceptable risk that Mr Stary 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.[280]
2. I am satisfied that the evidence before me establishes, to a high degree of probability, that there would be an unacceptable risk that Mr Stary will commit a serious offence if he is released without any restriction.
3. As I have explained above, both Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan thought that Mr Stary was at a significant risk of committing a future serious offence. They considered that he had only made limited treatment gains from the programs in which he has participated and continues to have significant outstanding treatment needs that will require a long time to address.
4. Their evidence was not contested. They have given detailed reasons for the conclusions they have reached. I find their evidence to be persuasive and cogent.
5. The consequences of making an order for Mr Stary are serious but this consideration must be balanced against the serious consequences that any future offending may have on a future partner of Mr Stary. Both Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan gave cogent evidence about the serious harm that could be caused by any future offending.

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. The unchallenged cogent evidence of Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan was that a supervision order would assist to manage the risk posed by Mr Stary. Absent an order the risk to the community that I have identified would be unmanaged.

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

Whether a continuing detention order or supervision order be made?

1. The effect of s 48(1) of the HRSO Act is that upon finding Mr Stary 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 Stary's right to be at liberty while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate degree of protection for the community.[281]
3. 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.
4. Mr Stary has a long and persistent history of breaching violence restraining orders and protective bail conditions to offend against his intimate partners.
5. As I have discussed, on several occasions Mr Stary has failed to abide by the terms of the Interim Supervision Order. Although, Professor Pyszora accepted that some issues of non-compliance were not unusual, she thought that there may have been some testing of boundaries.[282]
6. Ultimately, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Stary will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order as made.
7. As I have said, although Mr Stary tested positive for benzodiazepines, this was not a breach of the Interim Supervision Order because he was not prohibited from taking prescription medication. Putting this to one side, Mr Stary's breaches of the orders were relatively minor.
8. Ms Hamlett-Waller observed that difficulties in adjusting are not uncommon for those re-integrating.[283] She considered that Mr Stary appeared to have emotionally stabilised and adjusted to his return to the community and the restrictions of the Interim Supervision Order.[284]
9. Dr Riordan considered that there was no reason why Mr Stary could not comply with the order conditions and he had expressed motivation to do so.[285]
10. 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 Stary, his risk of offending, his treatment needs and his supervision and monitoring needs, including the matters identified by Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan.
11. The Interim Supervision Order included a curfew. The orders that I will make do not. This is because both Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan thought that a curfew was unwarranted. Professor Pyszora said that Mr Stary had been out in the community for six months and she did not consider it necessary.[286] Dr Riordan said that a curfew was not risk relevant.[287] In these circumstances, it does not appear to me that a curfew is necessary. Nor did the State seek a curfew.
12. The orders I will make provide that Mr Stary should reside at his current address but provide for Mr Stary's community corrections officer to approve him staying at another address. At some point alternative accommodation will need to be found for Mr Stary. I do not consider it appropriate for me to express a view about whether he might live with his friend in Mandurah as the assessment of that residence by DCPFS requested by Ms Stockton has not been performed.
13. I consider the appropriate length of time for the supervision order is four years (including the time that Mr Stary has already spent on the Interim Supervision Order). My conclusion in this regard is based on an acceptance of the evidence given by Dr Riordan. Of the two medical practitioners who expressed an opinion about the duration of a supervision order, Dr Riordan has been dealing with Mr Stary the longest, having first reviewed him in 2023. She was also able to complete both her interviews with Mr Stary this year, while Professor Pyszora's second interview was not completed.
14. The State has submitted that as Mr Stary is already subject to the Interim Supervision Order, I can be satisfied that it is practically feasible for any order I make to be implemented from the day I make the order. I accept that submission and the order I will make will commence today.
15. For those reasons I make the following orders:
    1. Having found that 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 from 20 November 2025 to 5 May 2029 (three years, five months and 15 days, being a period of four years from the commencement of the Interim Supervision Order) 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

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

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 from 20 November 2025 to 5 May 2029 (being a period of 3 years, 5 months and 15 days) on the following conditions:

1. Within 48 hours of this order starting, report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the Adult Community Corrections Centre you are told to attend, and tell the officer your current name and address;

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

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

1. Be under the supervision of a CCO, including complying with any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);

1. 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. Take up residence at [REDACTED] and spend each night there. You can only stay at a different address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you;

1. Be under the supervision of a CCO, and comply with all lawful orders and directions given to you by the CCO, including attending appointments as directed and being present for visits and attending services as directed;

1. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO. You can discuss with the CCO to make sure these meetings do not clash with your employment;

1. Not start or change 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, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO;

1. Allow any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and their opinions about your level of risk of re-offending, risk of harm to yourself and your compliance with treatment;

1. Tell a CCO about any change to the dosage or manner of administration of any prescribed medication you are taking before or immediately after the change, except where the change occurs while you are an inpatient in hospital, urgently after hours, or in any other emergency circumstances, in which case you must tell a CCO about the change as soon as you can after the emergency;

1. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO;

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

1. If asked to, let Police Officers enter and search your residence and/or vehicle, and/or search you so that they can check your compliance with this Order and allow Police Officers to seize (take) any they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order.

1. Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under condition 17;

1. Agree to the exchange of information between people and agencies involved in carrying out this order, including confidential information;

1. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with or may spend time with and, where appropriate, to tell them confidential information, including your offending history;

1. Have no contact with the victims of your offending, including Rochelle Boardman, Natalie Cherry and Eliza Lee, unless you have the prior approval of the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice.

Contact in conditions 20 and 21, 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 victims is allowed under condition 21, if you see any victim, 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 any contact with the victims to the CCO and WA Police on the next day you report to them;

1. Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments;

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

1. Not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, which includes cannabis. This does not apply to a drug that a doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you follow their instructions for using the drug;

1. Not breach, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997;

1. Report any new domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship that you start with any person (someone you have contact with more than twice) when you next report to your CCO;

1. Not form a domestic relationship with a person who has a child or cares for a child without the prior approval of a CCO;

1. Not enter any residential address where a female that you have, or have previously had, an intimate, domestic, romantic or sexual relationship, is present or is known to live, without the prior approval of your CCO;

1. Not let any female enter your home that you have, or have previously had, an intimate, domestic, romantic, or sexual relationship, without the prior approval of a CCO;

1. As directed by your CCO, tell anyone that you start an ongoing intimate, domestic, romantic or sexual relationship with, about your past offending and this order, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer;

1. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the Supervising Officer or by a Police Officer, including going with them to an appropriate place for such testing to take place;

1. Not go to any licensed premises, excluding grocery stores, cafes, restaurants, except for the following reasons:

1. Avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; or
2. For a reason and duration approved in advance by a Supervising Officer;
3. If a CCO or Police Officer tells you to do so;

1. Not be in the presence of anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by a prohibited drug, unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by a CCO;

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

1. Advise a CCO of every new device that you possess within 2 days of purchasing or first using the device;

1. If asked to, let a CCO or WA Police access your device at any place that they direct, so that they can check your activities and associations tell them any passwords or other means needed to unlock the device. If any other entity needs to access your device, they must get the prior approval of a CCO;

Not let any person, except a CCO or WA Police, access any device referred to in condition 39, without the prior approval of the CCO;

1. Not delete, or allow to be deleted, any data on your devices, including calls, text messages, search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that device, whether or not the device can connect to the internet, without the prior approval of a CCO; and

1. Not assault, insult or threaten any officer of the Department of Justice or other agencies performing any function under this Order.

I authorise Police Officers from the Western Australian Police Force (WA Police Force) to access any cloud-based platforms or services associated with the devices I use and examine the internet accounts at any time for the purposes of monitoring my online behaviour (absent any investigation for any offence) I understand and acknowledge WA Police Force will use passwords or tokens located within my devices to access any cloud­ based platforms and services and that a password may not be required. By authorising this I understand and acknowledge a Police Officer from the WA Police Force may change the password(s) to these accounts so I will no longer have access for the period they determine or in entirety.

_________________________________

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.

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

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

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

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

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

[32] Exhibit 1, 11 - 12; Exhibit 2, 510 - 555.

[79] Exhibit 2, 806 - 807 [25] - [26].

[101] Exhibit 3, 967 - 968 [19] - [20].

[105] Exhibit 3, 967 [18], 968 [22].

[142] Exhibit 3, 1029 [286] - [288].

[143] Exhibit 3, 1029 - 1030 [289] - [290].

[144] Exhibit 3, 1030 [291] - [293].

[156] Exhibit 3, 1034 [312] - [313].

[162] Exhibit 3, 1035 - 1036 [320] - [323].

[173] Exhibit 3, 1038 [334] - [335].

[174] Exhibit 3, 1038 - 1039 [336] - [342].

[175] Exhibit 3, 1039 [343] - [344].

[176] Exhibit 3, 1039 - 1040 [345] - [346].

[183] Exhibit 3, 1042 - 1043 [360] - [361].

[184] Exhibit 3, 1042 - 1043 [360] - [361].

[210] Exhibit 3, 1093 [202]. Although Dr Riordan's report did not give this variable a score, her comments suggest that it scored highly.

[212] Exhibit 3, 1093 - 1094 [205] - [206].

[214] Exhibit 3, 1094 [208] - [209].

[215] Exhibit 3, 1095 [212] - [213].

[233] Exhibit 3, 1101 - 1103 [239] - [246].

[234] Exhibit 3, 1101 - 1104 [239] - [256].

[235] Exhibit 3, 1104 - 1105 [257] - [258].

[236] Exhibit 3, 1105 - 1106 [259] - [260].

[237] Exhibit 3, 1106 [261] - [262].

[247] Exhibit 3, 1109 - 1110 [274] - [277].

[280] 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].

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