THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- WOODMAN [No 2] [2025] WASC 295 (29 July 2025)

Relevant Statutory framework and legal principles

1. The State applies under s 35 of the HRSO Act for a restriction order in relation to Mr Woodman. A restriction order is a continuing detention order or a supervision order.[2]
2. If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that the offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender or, except as provided in s 29 of the HRSO Act, make a supervision order.[3]
3. Section 7(1) of the HRSO Act provides that a person is a high risk serious offender if:

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

1. The legal principles regarding restriction order applications have been the subject of various decisions of this court and were considered by the High Court in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.[4] In The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2],[5] Tottle J helpfully summarised these relevant principles. It is not necessary to repeat that summary here, but I respectfully agree with, and adopt his Honour's summary. Further, as observed by Fiannaca J in The State of Western Australia v ZSJ,[6] the jurisprudence established in respect of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) is also relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act.
2. The plurality in Garlett v The State of Western Australia observed that when a court is determining whether a risk that an offender will commit a serious offence is unacceptable, it is required to make a judgment about the nature and extent of the prospective harm. It is also required to have regard to the evidence relevant to the nature of the offending and the circumstances of the offender. Importantly, what is required is a 'practical evaluation concerned with the circumstances of the particular offending and the particular offender'. Further, s 7 and s 48 of the HRSO Act 'do not envisage the possibility that a restriction order might be made to prevent the commission of a serious offence, whether of the same kind or of another kind, unless the risk of further offending involves a real threat of harm to the community'.[7] In addition, the plurality observed that the powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on an offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.[8]
3. The court, in considering whether a person is a high risk serious offender for the purpose of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, must have regard to the following matters listed in s 7(3):

(a) any report prepared under section 74 Act for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section;

(b) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender;

(c) information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;

(d) whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender;

(e) 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;

(f) whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender;

(g) the offender's antecedents and criminal record;

(h) the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence;

(i) the need to protect members of the community from that risk; and

(j) any other relevant matter.

1. In considering whether it is satisfied as required by s 7(1), the court must disregard the possibility that the respondent might temporarily be prevented from committing a serious offence by imprisonment, remand in custody, or the imposition of bail conditions.[9]

1. At the hearing of the application, the State tendered a two-volume book of materials.[10]
2. The first volume contained a copy of Mr Woodman's Western Australian criminal record; a chronology of offending prepared by the State Solicitor's Office dated 10 October 2024; various Department of Justice prison records concerning Mr Woodman; various medical records concerning the respondent; Mr Woodman's Individual Management Plan (IMP); relevant materials to Mr Woodman's previous serious offences pursuant to s 5 of the HRSO Act; Not Our Way Program Completion Report dated 20 September 2021; and a Treatment Assessment Report dated 15 April 2024.
3. The second volume contained various Magistrates Court and District Court transcripts and four reports relied upon by the State for the purposes of the restriction order hearing, being:

(1) HRSO Treatment Options report of Luke Carmichael, dated 5 February 2025;

(2) psychiatric report of Professor Natalie Pyszora, dated 5 January 2025;

(3) psychological report of Dr Dylan Galloghly, dated 23 January 2025; and

(4) Community Supervision Assessment of Nicole Bennetts, dated 24 February 2025.

1. I also separately received an Updated Community Supervision Assessment report dated 18 June 2025 and a second Updated Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 17 July 2025.
2. Mr Woodman did not tender any documentary evidence.

1. At the hearing of the application, the State called Prof Pyszora, Dr Galloghly and Ms Bennetts to give oral evidence.
2. Mr Woodman did not give evidence and did not call any other witnesses.

1. I must first consider the threshold issue of whether the State's application meets the following threshold requirements of s 35 of the HRSO Act:

(a) Mr Woodman is a serious offender under a custodial sentence;

(b) Mr Woodman is not a serious offender under restriction; and

(c) if Mr Woodman is in custody, there is a possibility that the offender might be released within one year after the date of the application.

1. If those threshold requirements are satisfied, the issues I must decide on the application are:[11]

(1) is Mr Woodman a high risk serious offender, within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act?; and, if so

(2) should the court make a continuing detention order in relation to Mr Woodman or a supervision order?

1. A continuing detention order is an order that a respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.[12] A supervision order is an order that a respondent be released into the community subject to conditions that the court considers appropriate.[13]

Threshold requirements Mr Woodman is a serious offender under a custodial sentence

1. A person is a serious offender under a custodial sentence if they are a person who is under a custodial sentence for a serious offence.[14]
2. A 'serious offence' is defined by s 5 of the HRSO Act which relevantly for this application provides:

(6) An offence is a serious offence if court sentencing the offender has declared it to be a serious offence under the Sentencing Act 1995 section 97A.

1. On the date the State's application was made (11 October 2024), Mr Woodman was serving a custodial sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed on 27 November 2023 in the Broome Magistrates Court for the following offences:[15]

(a) four counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 317(1) of the Criminal Code (charges BM 1595/22, BM 1597/22, BM 1599/22 and PE 34550/23);

(b) three counts of common assault in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 313(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (charges BM 1601/22, PE 34554/23 and PE 34555/23); and

(c) one count of non-fatal strangulation contrary to s 298(b) of the Criminal Code (charge BM 1596/22),

(d) one count of breaching a police order, contrary to s 61(2a) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (RO Act) (charge BM 1602/22);

(e) two counts of being armed or pretending to be armed in a way that may cause fear, contrary to s 68(1) of the Criminal Code (charge BM 1598/22 and PE 34551/23);

(f) one count of making a threat to unlawfully do an act in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 338B(1)(b)(ii) (charge PE 34552/23); and

(g) one count of criminal damage, contrary to s 444(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (charge PE 34553/23),

1. The Index Offences constitute serious offences for the purposes of the HRSO Act, as the magistrate sentencing Mr Woodman on 27 November 2023 made the following declarations:[16]

(a) a declaration under s 124E of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) (Sentencing Act) that the respondent is a serial family violence offender; and

(b) a declaration under s 97A of the Sentencing Act that the Index Offences were 'serious offences'.

1. Pursuant to s 124E(1) of the Sentencing Act, a court convicting an offender for a 'family violence offence (category B)' may declare the offender to be a serial family violence offender if, relevantly, the offender has, on conviction, been convicted of at least three prescribed offences, with at least three of those prescribed offences having been committed on different days.
2. A 'family violence offence (category B)' means an offence where the offender and victim are in a 'designated family relationship' with each other at the time of the commission of the offence and the offence is an offence against (relevantly for this application) s 61(1) or s 61(1A) of the Restraining Orders Act, or an offence against s 298, s 313 or s 317 of the Criminal Code.[17]
3. A 'designated family relationship' means (relevantly for this application) a relationship between two persons who are, or were, in a de facto relationship with each other, or who have, or had, an intimate personal relationship with each other.[18]
4. A 'prescribed offence' includes a family violence offence.
5. Under s 97A of the Sentencing Act, a court may declare an offence to be a serious offence for the purposes of the HRSO Act and Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA). There are two bases on which such declaration may be made:

(a) first, under s 97A(2) and s 97A(3), when the court is sentencing an offender to a term of imprisonment for an indictable offence and the offence meets the conditions contained in s 97A(2)(b); and

(b) secondly, and relevantly to Mr Woodman, under s 97A(6), which relates to family violence offences committed by serial family violence offenders.

1. Section 97A(6) of the Sentencing Act applies if:

(a) a court is sentencing an offender to imprisonment for an offence; and

(b) the offence is a 'family violence offence'; and

(c) the offender is a serial family violence offender.

1. Each Index Offence committed by Mr Woodman was a 'family violence offence' as defined in s 4 of the Sentencing Act because Mr Woodman and the victim were in a designated family relationship at the time of the commission of the offences and the offences fell within those listed in paragraph (b) of that definition.
2. Section 97A(7) of the Sentencing Act provides that, where s 97A(6) applies, the sentencing court must make a declaration that the offence committed by the offender is a serious offence for the purposes of the HRSO Act and pt 5A of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA).

Mr Woodman is not a serious offender under restriction

1. As at the date of the application, Mr Woodman was not subject to a restriction order or an interim detention order, and therefore was not a serious offender under restriction.[19]

If Mr Woodman is in custody, there is a possibility that the offender might be released within one year after the date of the application

1. If the offender is in custody, the State cannot make a restriction order application unless there is a possibility that the offender might be released within one year after the date of the application.[20]
2. As at the date of the application, Mr Woodman's custodial sentence was due to expire on 31 December 2024, that is within 12 months of the date of the application.

1. The threshold requirements being satisfied, I will now proceed to consider the remaining issues. In order to determine these issues, I will consider the matters specified in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act to which I must have regard.

1. In deciding whether a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the person's antecedents and criminal record. That requires that all prior offences be considered, to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act (whether they be serious offences or not). It also requires consideration of the person's antecedents, including the context in which the past offences were committed.[21]
2. Mr Woodman's criminal record and antecedents are relevant in and of themselves, but are also relevant to whether the person had a propensity to commit serious offences in the future. It is also relevant as to whether there was any pattern of offending behaviour.[22]
3. The mere fact that a person has committed previous offences does not necessarily mean that there is an unacceptable risk that they will commit a serious offence in the future if they are not subject to a continuing detention order or a supervision order. The relevance of a prior criminal record depends on the nature of the offences committed, the number of them and the period of time over which they were committed. Nonetheless, past behaviour is often a good indicator of future conduct.[23]

1. A copy of Mr Woodman's criminal record is contained in Vol 1 of the Book of Materials.
2. Also contained in Vol 1 is a chronology prepared by the State outlining the serious offences committed by Mr Woodman, and other relevant offences. I have attached a copy of that chronology at Attachment 1 to these reasons. This chronology outlines the circumstances of each offence.
3. As revealed by the chronology, Mr Woodman has a long history of family violence against multiple intimate partners.
4. Mr Woodman's criminal record also reveals that he has a history of multiple instances of breaches of family violence restraining orders; protective bail conditions; police orders; conditionally suspended imprisonment orders; and community‑based orders.

1. Mr Woodman was born in Derby and is the eldest of the three male siblings born to his mother, with each sibling having a different father. Mr Woodman's father did not have any contact with him until he was about 13 to 15 years old, but now has a relationship with him.
2. Mr Woodman experienced a difficult and traumatic childhood, characterised by abuse and neglect as well as witnessing violence within the family home and the wider community in the Kimberley region.
3. Three of Mr Woodman's half siblings have committed suicide by hanging in the past six years. In 2018, one of Mr Woodman's half‑brothers hung himself at Mr Woodman's house and Mr Woodman had to cut his brother down. Another of Mr Woodman's brothers in Fitzroy Crossing had been stabbed to death and then the house burnt down by his former partner.
4. Up until 6 years of age, Mr Woodman lived with his mother, grandmother and other extended family members. During this time, Mr Woodman was sexually abused by a teenage boy who was also living there, and this went on for approximately two years. Mr Woodman was scared to tell anyone about the abuse and that he would not be believed. At the age of 11 or 12 years old, Mr Woodman was seriously sexually abused again by older boys. Again, Mr Woodman never reported the abuse.
5. When Mr Woodman was about 6 years old, he moved out of his grandmother's house and moved in with his mother and stepfather. Mr Woodman witnessed significant alcohol associated violence between his mother and stepfather, and Mr Woodman was largely left to look after and protect his younger siblings. Mr Woodman's parents were physically and emotionally abusive to Mr Woodman, but not his siblings. Attempts by Mr Woodman to alert the police and relevant government departments did not result in any action being taken.
6. During his childhood, Mr Woodman also often witnessed his stepfather and uncle fighting. Mr Woodman's uncle was his role model because his uncle would help him with his problems, but unfortunately Mr Woodman's uncle was extremely violent to his partners and to other men.

1. Mr Woodman attended primary school in Fitzroy Crossing. Mr Woodman was the target of bullying at school because his peers would often refer to his sexual abuse victimisation, his appearance and clothing due to neglect.
2. Mr Woodman was happy to go to school but was often in trouble for not listening in class and misbehaving. Mr Woodman enjoyed maths, science and sports and was a gifted runner who won trophies and medals. Despite his interest in school, Mr Woodman would truant to avoid the bullying and would go to the river instead.
3. During high school, Mr Woodman continued to be bullied and get involved in fights and he was involved in a few episodes of stealing. Mr Woodman also spent more time in Halls Creek during this period of time to avoid the domestic violence at home.
4. Mr Woodman left school at the age of 16 and subsequently completed numerous tickets at TAFE.
5. Upon leaving school, Mr Woodman worked in building and gardening jobs. Since then, Mr Woodman has been generally employed in labouring or building work. After having children, Mr Woodman spent significant period on Centrelink with some supplementary work.
6. In his early 20s, Mr Woodman worked in a local aged care home in Fitzroy Crossing for two to three years and as a radio broadcaster for two years.
7. Prior to being remanded in custody, Mr Woodman was employed for a short period as a 'hobbyist' to assist with camps for children for the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre.

1. Mr Woodman has had five intimate relationships since the age of 16.
2. Mr Woodman met his long‑term partner KC through his brother and through his work. Mr Woodman and KC have three children, aged 11, 13 and 16 who are all in the care of the State.
3. Mr Woodman was not able to recall when he started to be physically abusive towards KC. After the couple had their first baby in 2008, Mr Woodman expressed that it was stressful as neither him nor KC had any assistance from their respective families.
4. After the couple had their second child in 2011, the Department of Child Protection and Family Support became involved with the family due to KC's behaviours while she was in drug rehabilitation. During this period, Mr Woodman underwent residential drug rehabilitation and the Breathing Space Program which enabled him to be sober for the next two and a half years. The couple then had their third child in 2014. After the couple split up in 2016, KC obtained a violence restraining order against Mr Woodman.
5. After the split with KC, Mr Woodman had a relationship with LW. Mr Woodman described this relationship as 'toxic' as they jointly led a 'drug life'. In 2019, LW obtained a violence restraining order against Mr Woodman and thereby ending the three‑year relationship. After the split with LW, Mr Woodman went to live with his brother in Karratha.
6. In 2020, Mr Woodman met JC. JC was also using drugs and alcohol. They were together for several months until he went to prison in May 2020.
7. Upon his release in March 2022, Mr Woodman commenced a relationship with his next partner AM and lived with her in a halfway house. Mr Woodman told Prof Pyszora that AM used a large quantities of drugs. Mr Woodman and AM had a child together, being Mr Woodman's fourth son. AM has a lifetime violence restraining order against Mr Woodman which prevents him from seeing or supporting his fourth son.
8. Mr Woodman then commenced a relationship with his last partner, KK. Mr Woodman was shortly imprisoned after his last assault on KK in July 2023. KK had since obtained a violence restraining order against him.
9. Mr Woodman expressed that the longest he had been without a partner is approximately two months.
10. Mr Woodman expressed a wish to have contact with all his children and that they provide a motivation for him to change. Mr Woodman expressed one motivational factor for him to change is that his two younger children could come to live with him.
11. Mr Woodman also has a conviction for aggravated indecent assault on a female when he was 13 years old. Mr Woodman was unable or unwilling to explain this offence to Prof Pyszora beyond saying he was young, and it was really stupid and that he knew it was not right.

1. Mr Woodman started drinking and smoking cigarettes and cannabis at the age of 13. Throughout most of Mr Woodman's life, he would binge drink at weekends with his family and remain sober during the week.
2. Mr Woodman continued to use cannabis on a daily basis even when working while he was in the community and did this so to block things out in his life and to make himself feel good.
3. Mr Woodman reported to Prof Pyszora that he attended a three month residential drug rehabilitation program in Geraldton and then a three month residential Breathing Space program in Perth, following which he was 'clean and sober' for two and a half years whilst living in Fitzroy Crossing. During this period Mr Woodman also regained custody of his children, and he and his long‑term partner KC had their third son.
4. However, in 2016, Mr Woodman relapsed into alcohol and cannabis use which contributed to his and KC's separation. After he split up with KC, Mr Woodman started using methamphetamine.

1. Mr Woodman has a history of admission to mental health facilities for suicidal ideation in June 2012, May 2019, May 2020 and July 2022. After his admission in 2019, Mr Woodman was diagnosed with adjustment disorder and polysubstance misuse.
2. In April 2011, Mr Woodman was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which members of his family died. Mr Woodman suffered various factures as well as an injury to his left forearm which resulted in significant scaring. Mr Woodman also experienced symptoms of PTSD and was diagnosed with PTSD in January 2024.

Reports prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act, and the extent to which Mr Woodman cooperated in the examination required by that section - s 7(3)(a)

1. Prof Pyszora and Dr Dylan Galloghly prepared reports under s 74(2)(a) of the HRSO Act. Each examined Mr Woodman and prepared an independent report as required by s 74(1) of the HRSO Act.

1. Prof Pyszora is a medial practitioner registered with the Medical Board of Western Australia as a medical specialist (psychiatrist). Prof Pyszora is a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP), an accredited member of the RANZCP Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry and a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom.
2. Prof Pyszora is currently a Forensic Psychiatrist and Medial Advisor in the WA Department of Health Countering Violent Extremism, and in the Department of Corrective Services' Specialist Intervention Services in the High‑Risk Rehabilitation and Reintegration Countering Violent Extremism Program. I was satisfied that Prof Pyszora was qualified to make the assessment required of her by s 74(2) of the HRSO Act.
3. Prof Pyszora interviewed Mr Woodman at Acacia prison on two occasions on 30 December 2024 and 2 January 2025. Whilst there were some matters that Mr Woodman was unable to discuss with Prof Pyszora for cultural reasons, Prof Pyszora was satisfied that she had enough information to complete an assessment addressing the relevant issues pursuant to s 74(2) of the HRSO Act.
4. Prof Pyszora's report contains a detailed summary of Mr Woodman's history of offending; his antecedents; his past medical history; previous pre‑sentence and parole reports; previous treatment reports; and his behaviour in prison. It is not necessary to summarise all those matters in these reasons.

Mr Woodman's attitudes towards serious offending

1. Prof Pyszora reported that Mr Woodman claimed to have poor memory for many of his offences as well as for significant events in his life such as the birth of his children. Although he admitted the basic facts of assault on his long‑term partner KC between 2006 and 2019, Mr Woodman was unable or unwilling to discuss those in detail. Mr Woodman expressed that he experienced remorse after each assault.[24]
2. Mr Woodman admitted the assaults on JC and KK in May 2020 and July 2023. Mr Woodman did not express any emotion in relation to the assault on JC and could not explain why he assaulted KK save for that he thought she was 'greedy' by using some of his methamphetamine.[25]
3. Mr Woodman denied most of the aspects of the offences in relation to his other partner AM. The only assault he admitted was the one on 30 August 2022, stating that the assault was provoked by his jealousy because he thought AM was cheating on him.[26]
4. Mr Woodman admitted to using controlling behaviours as a means of control in relationships, and said that he did not really weapons, only to 'scare people off'. Mr Woodman expressed that immediately after an assault, he would feel remorseful and would proceed to care for his partner out of guilt. Mr Woodman accepted that he is impulsive when he is intoxicated.[27]
5. Prof Pyszora reported that Mr Woodman had difficulties with victim empathy and perspective taking.[28]

1. Prof Pyszora concluded that Mr Woodman fulfills the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, having displayed a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others since aged 15 years as evidenced by:[29]

(a) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

(b) impulsivity and failure to plan ahead;

(c) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

(d) reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

(e) consistent irresponsibly;

(f) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, or mistreated another; and

(g) there was evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.

1. Prof Pyszora also concluded that Mr Woodman fulfils the criteria for a substance use disorder in relation to alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamine in that he has exhibited impaired control over his substance use; social impairment as a result of his substance use; and risky use with adverse physical, psychological and criminogenic effects.[30]
2. Finally, Prof Pyszora also concluded that Mr Woodman had previously met the criteria for a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder related to the motor vehicle accident in 2011.[31]

1. Prof Pyszora employed a number of risk assessment instruments in order to assess Mr Woodman's risk of committing a serious offence in the future.
2. Prof Pyszora used three assessment tools: the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL‑R); the Risk Management 20 - Version 3 (HCR‑20); and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA‑V3).

1. Prof Pyszora utilised the PCL‑R, which assesses the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy. Although it is not designed to be a risk assessment instrument, the PCL‑R has been reliably associated with general, violent, and sexual recidivism and is considered to be an important consideration in assessing risk.[32]
2. Prof Pyszora assessed Mr Woodman as having a score of 22, which indicates the low end of the moderate range for psychopathy. Mr Woodman's scoring was predominantly consistent with his diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.[33]

1. The HCR‑20 is a structured professional judgment risk assessment approach to violence risk assessments which takes into account historical and dynamic risk factors for future violence, including the inherently contextual, situational, personal, interpersonal and environmental factors. The historical scale focuses on historical risk factors that are generally static in nature. The clinical scale focuses on dynamic factors present that relate to mental status and attitudes in the past few weeks to months. The risk management scale focuses on factors that relate to the management of an individual's level of risk.[34]
2. Prof Pyszora reported that the following historical risk factors were present in relation to Mr Woodman: history of problems with previous violence; history problems with other antisocial behaviour; history of problems with relationships; history of problems with employment; history of problems with substance use; history of problems with major mental disorders; history of problems with personality; history of problems with traumatic experiences; history of problems with violent attitudes; and the history of problems with treatment or supervision response.[35]
3. Prof Pyszora reported that the following clinical risk factors were present in relation to Mr Woodman: recent problems with insight (partially present); recent problems with violent ideation or intent; recent problems with instability (partially present); and recent problems with treatment or supervision response (partially present).[36]
4. Prof Pyszora reported that the following risk management factors were present in relation to Mr Woodman: future problems with professional services and plans (may be present depending on location); future problems with living situation (may be a difficulty in identifying suitable accommodation); future problems with personal support; future problems with treatment or supervision response (may be present depending on location); and future problems with stress or coping.[37]

1. The SARA-V3 is also a structured professional judgment risk assessment tool. The SARA-V3 is comprised of three domains: being risk factors which relate to the nature of intimate partner violence; perpetrator risk factors and victim vulnerability factors.[38]
2. In terms of the nature of the intimate partner violence, Prof Pyszora records that Mr Woodman has previous convictions for 17 episodes of violence on all five of his previous intimate partners since the age of 17 years and as such he presents a chronic risk of family domestic violence. In the past, his violent outbursts have often been prolonged and involved numerous types of physical attack (eg kicking, punching); the use of weapons (eg fork, cricket bat, scissors, tomahawk, axe, needle, rocks); other forms of intimidation such as smashing doors and windows; and threats to kill his partner and her family members via text and voicemail. Mr Woodman's most recent offending behaviour in 2022 and 2023 included the use of weapons and non‑fatal strangulation, and demonstrated an escalation in the intensity, diversity, and severity of his intimate partner violence.[39]
3. Perpetrator risk factors relate to the perpetrator's problems with social, interpersonal, and psychological adjustment. Prof Pyszora records several perpetrator risk factors being present for Mr Woodman including: intimate relationship problems; non‑intimate (family) relationship problems; employment problems; personality disorder; substance use problems; general antisocial conduct and attitudes; and a history of trauma/victimization. Many of these factors were examined within the HCR‑20 (V3) assessment.[40]
4. Prof Pyszora observes that intoxication with substances has been a consistent feature in Mr Woodman's previous family domestic violence offending, although the underlying cause of the behaviour is related to the need for power and control over his intimate partners and poor emotional regulation in the context of interpersonal conflict with them or as a result of his jealousy. Prof Pyszora observes that Mr Woodman continues to endorse violence as a coping strategy for interpersonal conflict.[41]
5. Mr Woodman also continues to express distorted attitudes about family and domestic violence, and minimises and/or denies many aspects of his offending behaviour including denying the use of weapons in many offences. He minimises (or cannot recognise) the fear that his victims will have experienced as a result of his offending, including his own children.[42]
6. Victim vulnerability factors describe the vulnerabilities that can interfere with a victim's ability, opportunity, or motivation to engage in self‑protective behaviour. They are therefore based on the victim's problems with social, interpersonal, and psychological adjustment.[43]
7. Prof Pyszora records that Mr Woodman's previous victims have all appeared to have been vulnerable through drug and alcohol problems, and/or personal and emotional vulnerabilities which is likely to have impaired their ability to appropriately deal with intimate relationship problems or build protective social networks. Specific victim vulnerability factors will need to be assessed in the event that Mr Woodman engages in a further intimate relationship.[44]

1. On the basis of her clinical assessment of Mr Woodman, and her consideration of the results of the risk assessment tools, Prof Pyszora's opinion was that:[45]

Mr Woodman has an established pattern of serious offending against intimate partners and in 2023 was declared a Serial Family Violence Offender.

In my opinion Mr Woodman would present a high risk of committing a serious offence of intimate partner violence if his risk factors were not managed. Although he also presents a risk of general violence to other males during interpersonal conflict, this is most likely to be involve punches rather than use of weapons and is therefore unlikely to meet the threshold for serious offending within the meaning of s.5 HRSO 2020.

1. In terms of the possible scenarios for future violence, Prof Pyszora's opinion is that:[46]

Mr Woodman is most likely to engage in serious violence in the context of an established intimate relationship rather than a casual partner whom he sees on one or two occasions. The violence is likely to involve punching, kicking, and hair grabbing and is likely to involve use of easily accessible weapons such as cutlery or other household items. Use of strangulation to exert ultimate power and control over a victim's life is possible. Assaults would likely be prolonged and involve multiple types of violence. An assault may not be terminated until another party intervenes. Therefore, victim isolation would be a significant risk factor for serious injuries or fatality.

1. Prof Pyszora considers that should Mr Woodman become involved in a further intimate relationship it is inevitable that he would engage in further family and domestic violence, unless his risk factors are managed. That is, without supervision, support, monitoring, and treatment for substance misuse and other family and domestic violence risk factors it is highly likely that Mr Woodman would rapidly relapse and family and domestic violence behaviours would be a frequent occurrence - being every few days or potentially daily.[47]
2. Whilst Prof Pyszora's opinion is that if Mr Woodman is not subject to a restriction order that he would present a high risk of committing a serious offence intimate partner violence, Prof Pyszora also concluded that if adequate risk management strategies are available to support Mr Woodman in the community, his risk of serious family and domestic violence would be manageable. That is, Prof Pyszora concluded that if Mr Woodman were made subject to a supervision order, with appropriate conditions, then his risk could be managed.[48]
3. Prof Pyszora recommended that Mr Woodman undertake treatment to address his outstanding criminogenic needs including substance misuse and family and domestic violence, recommending:[49]

As an aboriginal man from Fitzroy Crossing who identifies strongly with his culture, it is preferable for FDV intervention to incorporate culturally specific aspects, as provided in the NOW program. Mr Woodman will require other rehabilitation and risk reduction strategies including employment and engagement in prosocial supports. He is currently complying with antidepressant medication which he reports has been helpful in treating his PTSD symptoms. Although his PTSD symptoms are not directly related to his FDV risk factors, he should be encouraged to continue with this for as long as it is medically advised for his general mental wellbeing.

1. Prof Pyszora also reviewed the State's draft list of conditions if a supervision order was imposed, and considered each to be necessary and appropriate to support Mr Woodman and to consist of adequate risk management strategies. Prof Pyszora concluded that if these conditions were imposed, then Mr Woodman would be likely to substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order.[50]
2. Prof Pyszora agreed that if Mr Woodman were to be subject to a supervision order in the community at his nominated address in [Redacted], those treatment options may need to be via telehealth. Prof Pyszora did not consider there to be any difficulty in counselling taking place via telehealth.[51]
3. In terms of the nominated address proposed by Mr Woodman, at the time of Prof Pyszora giving evidence, she had only been provided with the partially completed assessment of that address, which confirmed that electronic monitoring at that address could take place, but the desktop analysis by WA Police had not been finalised. On the basis of the information at that time, Prof Pyszora considered the accommodation to be suitable, as it appeared to be a pro‑social household and Mr Woodman's brother does not drink alcohol or use drugs. Prof Pyszora did not have any concerns about Mr Woodman residing with his brother's children, as the risk of any harm to children from Mr Woodman only arose in the context of intimate partner violence and the violence was directed towards his intimate partner.[52]
4. In Prof Pyszora 's opinion, if a supervision order were to be imposed by the court, she would consider a period of a minimum of three years to be appropriate. This length of time would give enough time for Mr Woodman to receive some treatment and counselling; to get into employment; to get himself into some sort of pro‑social activity; to restabilise himself in the community and (ideally) enter into another intimate relationship whilst on the order so he can be heavily monitored and still receive intervention.[53]

1. Dr Dylan Galloghly is a registered psychologist with the clinical and forensic psychology endorsements through the Psychology Board of Australia. Dr Galloghly holds a Doctorate in Clinical and Forensic Psychology and is a committee member of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. Dr Galloghly has over 18 years of experience as a clinician including over 11 years working for the Department of Justice. Dr Galloghly has provided consultancy, assessment and intervention to high risk and complex offenders subject to life and indeterminate sentences.[54] I was satisfied that Dr Galloghly was qualified to make the assessment required of him by s 74(2) of the HRSO Act.
2. Dr Galloghly interviewed Mr Woodman in person on two occasions, on 24 December 2024 and 2 February 2025, for a total of three and a half hours. Mr Woodman was appropriately engaged and responded to all the questions posed in a logical and clear manner.[55]
3. Dr Galloghly's report contains a detailed summary of Mr Woodman's history of offending; his antecedents; his past medical history; previous pre‑sentence and parole reports; previous treatment reports; and his behaviour in prison. It is not necessary to summarise those here.

1. Mr Woodman acknowledged his long-standing history of intimate partner violence to Dr Galloghly. Mr Woodman recognised that he had an anger issue and identified jealousy and infidelity as triggers for violent behaviour. Mr Woodman conveyed that intimate partner violence was normalised in his relationships, as he and his partners would wake up 'happy' the day after drinking and fighting and then 'get on with life'.[56]
2. Mr Woodman primarily attributed his violence to being under the influence of alcohol and other drugs and the issues of anger, jealousy and infidelity. Mr Woodman confirmed that his primary method of managing risk is to not use substances and also to change his social circle. Mr Woodman said that he is learning to control his rage by not being under the influence and walking away.[57]
3. Mr Woodman expressed that he felt a community order would help him abstain from substance abuse and get his life on track, and that he was confident in complying with any conditions and collaborating with police and community justice staff.[58]

1. Dr Galloghly observes the Mr Woodman's primary diagnosis is that of substance use disorder, given his chronic history of alcohol, methamphetamines and cannabis use. Dr Galloghly concludes that Mr Woodman's substance abuse problems have underpinned his violence, offending and general dysfunction.[59]
2. Dr Galloghly notes that Mr Woodman appears to experience intermittent symptoms of anxiety, PTSD and depression, including a history of suicidal behaviour and that these issues are likely drivers of his substance abuse.[60]
3. Dr Galloghly also concludes that Mr Woodman's personality functioning appears to be primarily characterised by avoidant, paranoid and antisocial traits. He is seemingly defensive and prone to mistrust, suspicion, and ruminating. Mr Woodman has also displayed antisocial personality traits of irresponsibility, hostility and general disregard for the safety of others.[61]
4. Whilst Mr Woodman does not present with personality pathology warranting a diagnosis of personality disorder, in Dr Galloghly's opinion, his personality functioning has a direct association with his violent offending.[62]

1. Dr Galloghly also employed a number of risk assessment instruments in order to assess Mr Woodman's risk of committing a serious offence in the future.
2. Like Prof Pyszora, Dr Galloghly used three assessment tools: the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL‑R); the Risk Management 20 - Version 3 (HCR‑20); and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA‑V3).

1. Dr Galloghly assessed Mr Woodman as having a score of 20 on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, which indicates the low end of the moderate range for psychopathy. In Dr Galloghly's opinion, Mr Woodman's score and presentation indicates the presence of significant antisocial lifestyle and behavioural issues, as opposed to interpersonal psychopathic features.[63]

1. Dr Galloghly reported that the following historical risk factors were present in relation to Mr Woodman: chronic history of violence; history of antisocial behaviour; history of problems with relationships; history of problems with employment; history of problems with substance use; history of personality disorder; history of problems with trauma experiences; history of problems with violent attitudes; and the history of problems with treatment or supervision response.[64]
2. In terms of clinical risk factors, Dr Galloghly reported that Mr Woodman presented with recent problems with treatment or supervision response. Whilst Mr Woodman seemed keen to participate in treatment, there were ongoing concerns about responsivity.[65]
3. Dr Galloghly reported that the following risk management factors were present in relation to Mr Woodman: professional services and plans (Mr Woodman has appropriate plans, but engagement in treatment and support remain crucial to risk management); personal support (limited to a few family members); treatment or supervision response (whilst motivated, Mr Woodman has a poor history); stress or coping (Mr Woodman generally lacks stress or coping skills).[66]
4. Dr Galloghly assessed Mr Woodman's risk of future violence, based on the HCR‑20, as high, given the presence of 14/20 relevant risk factors. Notably, however, Mr Woodman presented with only one clinical risk factor, as he exhibited relative mental stability and insight when assessed by Dr Galloghly.[67]

1. Dr Galloghly identified the following intimate partner violence risk factors for Mr Woodman: intimidation; threats; physical harm; severe intimate partner violence (including the use of weapons and asphyxiation); chronic intimate partner violence (from an early age and with multiple partners); intimate partner violence supervision violations.[68]
2. Dr Galloghly identified the following perpetrator risk factors for Mr Woodman: intimate relationships problems; non‑intimate (peer group) relationship problems; employment and finance problems; history of trauma and victimisation; personality disorder (poor emotional regulation and anger issues); chronic history of substance use problems; distorted thinking about intimate partner violence (although Mr Woodman appears to be developing insight in this domain).[69]
3. Dr Galloghly assessed Mr Woodman's risk of intimate partner violence, based on the SARA‑V3, as being in the high range, given the presence of 13/18 risk factors that could be assessed. In particular, Mr Woodman has a chronic history of intimate partner violence behaviour despite treatment and restrictions. Substance abuse, personality features and problems within intimate relationships are prominent risk factors.[70]

1. On the basis of her clinical assessment of Mr Woodman, and his consideration of the results of the risk assessment tools, Dr Galloghly's opinion was that:[71]

Overall, Mr Woodman's risk of committing a serious offence, as outlined in the HRSO Act (2020), was assessed as being in the High range without restrictions. He has a chronic history of intimate partner violence (IPV) despite treatment and restrictions. Primary risk factors relate to substance abuse, intimate relationship problems and personality-related emotional regulation dysfunction. Mr Woodman will need consistent compliance with risk management principles to mitigate his risk of recidivism.

1. In terms of the possible scenarios for future violence, Dr Galloghly's opinion is that:[72]

An escalation in violence could see Mr Woodman use a weapon and/or commit severe acts of intimate partner violence (IPV), such as strangulation, which may result in serious injury or even death to a victim. Intoxication is likely to intensify the severity of the violence.

1. Dr Galloghly concluded that Mr Woodman's risk of recidivism and treatment needs require significant intervention and management. Mr Woodman's treatment centre on his primary risk factors of substance abuse, intimate relationship problems and emotional regulation issues. However, Mr Woodman also has broader treatment needs relating to avoiding antisocial peers and stabilising his life through employment, having good pro‑social support and engaging appropriately with professional support, treatment and supervision. Lastly, he has generic psychological treatment needs pertaining to anxiety, PTSD and risk of depression.[73]
2. Dr Galloghly considers that given Mr Woodman has already completed two culturally appropriate intimate partner violence offender programmes, with suboptimal participation, there seems to be little benefit in undertaking further like programmes. Rather, Dr Galloghly considers that Mr Woodman should focus substance abuse treatment options.[74]
3. Dr Galloghly considers that Mr Woodman would benefit from individual counselling with a department psychologist from the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team.[75]
4. If Mr Woodman were to be subject to a supervision order in the community at his nominated address in [Redacted], those treatment options may need to be via telehealth, which in Dr Galloghly's experience is standard in regional Western Australia.[76] Dr Galloghly considers that Mr Woodman's rehabilitation is best achieved being on country.[77]
5. Dr Galloghly also considered monitoring of alcohol use and relationships to be crucial for his effective risk management, and that as Mr Woodman is connected to his culture, he would benefit for support in pursing vocational options and goals consistent with his culture.[78]
6. Dr Galloghly also reviewed the draft set of conditions prepared by the State and was of the opinion that Mr Woodman's risk of committing serious intimate partner violence could be managed with these conditions, if Mr Woodman complied with the conditions. Dr Galloghly also considered that would Mr Woodman would try to comply with the standard conditions as he seemed motivated to do so.[79]
7. In terms of the nominated address proposed by Mr Woodman, at the time Dr Galloghly gave his evidence, he had only been provided with the partially completed assessment of that address, which confirmed that electronic monitoring at that address could take place, but the desktop analysis by WA Police had not been finalised. On the basis of the information available at that time, Dr Galloghly considered the accommodation to be an appropriate accommodation option, given the limitations and options available to Mr Woodman. Dr Galloghly did not have any concerns about Mr Woodman residing with his brother's children and considered there was no evidence of Mr Woodman being a risk to children.[80]
8. In Dr Galloghly's opinion, if a supervision order were to be imposed by the court, he would consider a period of three years to be appropriate. This length of time would give enough time for Mr Woodman to adapt to the community; to engage in treatment for around a two‑year period; to hopefully implement vocational change; find pro‑social pursuits and stabilise his lifestyle and maybe reconnect with culture.[81]
9. Dr Galloghly considers that a three year period would give Mr Woodman a time frame to maintain positive gains and give Mr Woodman some sense of a goal to work towards that is tangible which would give him increased motivation. In Dr Galloghly's opinion, a longer period of time, say 10 years, would be too long and would restrict Mr Woodman's motivation to change and would not provide him with hope and a meaningful goal.[82]

Other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the respondent: s 7(3)(b)

HRSO Treatment Options Report of Luke Carmichael, 5 February 2025

1. Mr Carmichael prepared a report providing an overview of Mr Woodman's intervention history and identifying treatment options available through the Department of Justice.
2. In 2021, Mr Woodman completed the Not Our Way programme - which is an indigenous group family violence programme. Mr Woodman's participation and engagement fluctuated throughout the duration of the programme. Mr Woodman was described at times to be disruptive and was seen to try and collude with a male facilitator around Mr Woodman's family and domestic violence supportive attitudes. Whilst he was reported to have made some gains in relation to the theoretical impacts of violence, alcohol and other drug abuse and emotions, Mr Woodman continued to place blame on external factors. Mr Woodman's overall gains were minimal and further intervention was recommended.[83]
3. In 2024, Mr Woodman again completed the Not Our Way programme. Mr Woodman displayed similar disruptive and resistant behaviours and was noted to be disrespectful to programme facilitators and hostile to other participants at times. However, some limited gains were made and several unmet treatment needs were identified, with further intervention recommended.[84]
4. Mr Carmichael explained that once the restriction order application is determined, Mr Woodman would be assessed in relation to his suitability for various treatment options either in the community or detention.[85]

Community Supervision Assessments of Nicole Bennetts, 24 February 2025, 18 June 2025 and 17 July 2025

1. Ms Bennetts is a Senior Community Corrections Officer with the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU), who was assigned to Mr Woodman after he was made subject to an interim detention order.
2. Ms Bennetts has engaged in contact with Mr Woodman via video link since November 2024, and Mr Woodman has engaged positively with Ms Bennetts.
3. Mr Woodman's prison conduct has generally been of an acceptable standard, with some negative incidents. Whilst Mr Woodman has had some urinalyses return positive tests for illicit substances in 2020 and 2021, he more recent tests have been negative for illicit drugs. Mr Woodman has been employed in the canteen area of the West Kimberely Regional Prison since January 2025, and has continued in this role without incident.
4. Mr Woodman has expressed a desire to reside on country if discharged, and has identified a possible address to reside at with his brother who he feels would be a good option for him. Mr Woodman's brother lives a pro‑social lifestyle and attends church, which is what Mr Woodman would like to do. Mr Woodman also identified a possible job opportunity at a local caravan park or labouring work with his uncle. Mr Woodman has also indicated that he has started compiling some safety planning notes and strategies that he will employ if in the community, including removing himself from situations that may be negative, developing pro-social peers and abstaining from alcohol and drugs.[86]
5. Mr Woodman has recently completed an Empowerment, Health and Leadership programme in prison, which is aimed at enhancing the capability and capacity of local indigenous peoples to take charge of their lives and strengthen their communities. Mr Woodman advised Ms Bennetts that he has used information he learned during this programme and his every day activities to assist with his release planning.[87]
6. Ms Bennetts outlined the future planning that had been undertaken in relation to Mr Woodman if he were to be released on a supervision order. This resulted in COMU preparing a draft set of conditions, in consultation with Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly, if this were to occur. Leaving aside the standard conditions, they include conditions relation to monitoring and supervising Mr Woodman including his social relationships; conditions to facilitate the treatment needs identified and conditions prohibiting alcohol and drug use. Ms Bennetts has had several conversations with Mr Woodman about what the conditions may consist of, and has he has presented to her in a manner which suggests he understands the requirements of the conditions, including by being able to paraphrase what he has been told about the conditions.[88]
7. In terms of the proposed accommodation for Mr Woodman if he were to be released on a supervision order, Mr Woodman proposes to reside at an address in [Redacted] with his brother, his brother's wife and their three children. Mr Woodman's brother lives a pro‑social life, is involved with a local church and does drink alcohol or take illicit drugs. The proposed accommodation is suitable for electronic monitoring. At the time of the first hearing on 25 June 2025, the WA Police had not completed their desktop spatial analysis of the proposed accommodation, and the hearing was adjourned to enable that to occur. In the updated report dated 17 July 2025, Ms Bennetts provided the results of that analysis and the response provided by Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly to that analysis.
8. The desktop analysis did not identify any issues with the actual accommodation or the inhabitants, but did note that the immediate area around the accommodation was subject to ongoing reports of family violence, drug use and intoxication, particularly at two properties directly adjacent to the proposed accommodation. The desktop analysis also stated that the nearest Police station was the [Redacted] Police station, which is open 8.00 am ‑ 4.00 pm on weekdays, and is closed over the weekend.
9. After being provided with this information, Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly indicated that the proposed accommodation may raise concerns about possible overcrowding and possible encounters with vulnerable females. However, Prof Pyszora advised Ms Bennetts that concerns about the surrounding area were not concerns about behaviour occurring in the accommodation itself and therefore on balance Prof Pyszora continued to support the proposed accommodation. Dr Galloghly advised Ms Bennetts that he did not have any concerns about Mr Woodman living in [Redacted], although acknowledged that the location would likely be challenging for Mr Woodman.
10. Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly indicated to Ms Bennetts some concern regarding the opening hours of [Redacted] Police station and the need for Mr Woodman to be subject to random testing on weekends, given the availability of alcohol in the locality.
11. In terms of supervision by COMU, Ms Bennetts explained that in the event that Mr Woodman were to be declared a high risk serious offender, and discharged on a supervision order, a senior community corrections officer from the supervision team would take over Ms Bennetts' role. That officer would be located in Perth. Mr Woodman would also be assigned a local senior regional community corrections officer who would work with the senior officer in Perth to co‑manage Mr Woodman. Further, Mr Woodman would be overseen by the risk management team, which consists of representatives from COMU and WA Police.[89]
12. Ms Bennetts' evidence is that the Adult Community Corrections and the Central Monitoring Station of COMU operate 24 hours, 7 days per week. In the event of an incident requiring an immediate response or a risk of concern, there is an after hours manager who can assist with contacting senior officers, including regional officers. In terms of after hours and weekend attendances on Mr Woodman, this would need to be the subject of further discissions with local police and Adult Community Corrections should be Mr Woodman be released on a supervision order and counsel for the State submitted that this planning would occur during the period prior to the commencement of any supervision order.
13. Mr Woodman has been referred to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team in the department for assessment for treatment needs. Mr Woodman is still waiting to be assessed, but a potential psychologist has been identified.
14. Ms Bennetts' research has identified two current local drug and alcohol treatment options in the community that may be an option for Mr Woodman's treatment needs if he is deemed suitable.[90]
15. Ms Bennetts confirmed that if Mr Woodman were to be discharged on a supervision order, then COMU would require the 21 day period to prepare for Mr Woodman's release into the community, especially if he is to be residing regionally.[91]

1. The book of materials contained various additional reports and assessments, which had been prepared for the purpose of other court proceedings. As the contents of those reports have all been summarised in the more recent reports, it is not necessary to further consider those past reports in these reasons.

Propensity to commit serious offences in the future - s 7(3)(c) and whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour - s 7(3)(d)

1. A person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future if they have an inclination, tendency or disposition to commit serious offences generally, or in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim.[92]
2. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR, Murray AJA stated that:[93]

[Propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder.

1. A 'pattern' as it relates to behaviour, is recurrent way of acting by an individual or group towards a given object or in a given situation.[94]
2. Mr Woodman's criminal history and the evidence relating to his offending conduct reveals a pattern of Mr Woodman engaging in family and domestic violence offences. The pattern which emerges is of Mr Woodman engaging in a range of behaviours consisting of the use of physical violence and of intimidation and control towards women with whom he is in a relationship since the age of 17. The criminal history and evidence reveal a pattern that includes the actual or threatened use of weapons.
3. I am satisfied on the basis of Mr Woodman's criminal record, and the evidence regarding his offending conduct, that Mr Woodman has a tendency to commit family violence offences against women with whom he is in an intimate relationship. That violence may include physical violence, the actual or threatened use of weapons and intimidation and control. Mr Woodman's violence has the potential to cause physical harm and psychological trauma to his victims.
4. I am also satisfied that if convicted of any such offences in the future, Mr Woodman is likely (given his history) to be sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment. Further, the court sentencing Mr Woodman is likely (given his history) to make declarations under s 124E of the Sentencing Act and s 97A of the Sentencing Act. Therefore, these offences would be serious offences by virtue of the operation of s 124E and s 97A of the Sentencing Act and s 5(6) of the HRSO Act.

Efforts to address offending behaviour and whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect - s 7(3)(e) and s 7(3)(f)

1. I must also consider whether Mr Woodman has made any efforts to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including by participating in any rehabilitation programs, and whether or not such participation has had a positive effect.
2. Mr Woodman has attended several treatment programmes in the past, including completing the Not Our Way programme on two occasions. However, Mr Woodman made limited gains from these treatment programmes, and both Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly consider that Mr Woodman has a variety of outstanding treatment needs.

The risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order: s 7(3)(h) and the need to protect members of the community from that risk: s 7(3)(i)

1. I have outlined above the evidence given by Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly regarding their opinions, having employed the various diagnostic tools explained above, that Mr Woodman is at a high risk of committing further family and domestic violence offences if not the subject of a restriction order.
2. Having carefully considered that expert evidence, and all the other evidence before the court, I am satisfied that if not subject to a restriction order, there is a high risk that Mr Woodman would commit a further family and domestic violence offence against an intimate partner. That violence may include physical violence, the actual or threatened use of weapons and intimidation and control. Mr Woodman's violence has the potential to cause physical harm and psychological trauma to his victims.
3. In my view, there is an obvious need to protect the community from this risk.
4. For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that this family and domestic violence towards an intimate partner would constitute a serious offence as defined in s 5 of the HRSO Act.

1. Mr Woodman has previously been subject to community based orders and conditional suspended imprisonment orders, imposed between July 2009 and November 2020. Mr Woodman complied with some of those orders, but three were cancelled following reoffending during the term of the orders.[95]
2. On 4 February 2024, the Prisoner's Review Board imposed a two‑year Post Sentence Supervision Order (PSSO) for Mr Woodman pursuant to pt 5A of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), to take effect from the date of Mr Woodman's anticipated release from prison on 31 December 2024.[96] Mr Woodman has not been subject to that order, owing to the intervening imposition of an interim detention order under the HRSO Act on 25 October 2024.
3. The Board was of the opinion that a PSSO was appropriate because Mr Woodman did not have sufficient protective strategies in place to reduce the risk to the safety of the community upon his release, or to support Mr Woodman's rehabilitation; further monitoring and supervision would assist Mr Woodman to successful reintegrate into the community; Mr Woodman had unmet treatment needs; and Mr Woodman's extensive criminal history suggested a high risk of reoffending.[97]
4. The Board imposed conditions on Mr Woodman following his anticipated release, including prohibitions on contacting his victims, entering Fitzroy Crossing, possessing or consuming alcohol and illicit drugs and firearms or prohibited weapons; and requirements to attend for urinalysis and counselling or treatment as directed.[98]
5. Ms Bennetts accepted that the degree of supervision and monitoring undertaken on a person the subject of a PSSO is less than that for a person under the HRSO regime.[99] That is also the case in relation to the conditions proposed under each regime in relation Mr Woodman. Ms Bennetts also confirmed that under the HRSO regime, there are faster response times in relation to any breach or potential breach of conditions, and more options under the HRSO regime if a breach does occur.[100]

Conclusion as to whether Mr Woodman is a high risk serious offender

1. Having considered all of the material before me, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that if Mr Woodman were to be released without any restriction there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. In particular, I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that he will commit a family and domestic violence offence against an intimate partner. That violence may include physical violence, the actual or threatened use of weapons, and as well as intimidation and control. I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that this violence has the potential to cause physical harm and psychological trauma to his victims.
2. For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that this family and domestic violence towards an intimate partner would constitute a serious offence as defined in s 5 of the HRSO Act.
3. Both Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly gave cogent and reliable evidence that supports this finding and the other material before the court is also cogent and reliable. Mr Woodman accepted that he met the criteria for being a high risk serious offender.

Should a continuing detention order or a supervision order be imposed?

1. The effect of s 48(1) of the HRSO Act is that upon finding Mr Woodman to be a high risk serious offender, I must either make a continuing detention order or a supervision order.
2. The State seeks a supervision order, and provided a draft set of conditions for such a supervision order. However, s 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, 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.
3. Having found that Mr Woodman is a high risk serious offender, and bearing in mind as a paramount consideration the need to ensure adequate protection of the community, I am satisfied that I should make a supervision order.
4. Prof Pyszora and Dr Galloghly's evidence is that Mr Woodman's risk of serious offending is able to be managed in the community on a supervision order if he has support and is made subject to the conditions contained in the State's draft proposed list of conditions.[101]
5. I have reviewed the draft proposed conditions, and I consider that each are appropriate to address the various issues raised on the evidence regarding Mr Woodman, his risk of offending, his treatment needs and his supervision and monitoring needs.
6. A key issue in relation to Mr Woodman is the identification of suitable accommodation. Mr Woodman has identified accommodation with his brother in [Redacted]. That proposed accommodation has been the subject of a desktop analysis by WA Police and is addressed in the Updated Community Supervision Assessments dated 18 June 2025 and 17 July 2025. I am satisfied that the proposed accommodation itself is suitable accommodation for Mr Woodman. Mr Woodman would be residing with his brother and his family. Mr Woodman's brother lives a pro‑social lifestyle, does not drink alcohol or take illicit drugs and is involved in a local church. Mr Woodman has indicated he would like to be involved in the local church too.
7. The immediate location of the proposed accommodation does raise challenges and risks for Mr Woodman, as the evidence from the WA Police desktop spatial analysis is that other houses in the immediate area have been the subject of a number of call outs for alcohol, drugs and family violence related issues. However, these are not issues at the proposed accommodation itself. Given the other conditions proposed by the State, I am satisfied that whilst the issues at these other houses are matters Mr Woodman will need to be mindful of, the accommodation itself is appropriate.
8. Whilst the local Police station is not open on weekends, counsel for the State confirmed that Police officers are rostered on call on weekends and so emergency situations are able to be attended. Further, the COMU monitoring services are operated 24 hours, 7 days per week and planning will take place in the period leading up to the commencement date of a supervision order for arrangements for monitoring Mr Woodman on weekends.
9. In all the circumstances, I am therefore satisfied that a supervision order is the appropriate restriction order to make, and also that if released on a supervision order Mr Woodman will substantially comply with the standard orders of that supervision order. I am satisfied that the conditions proposed by the State for the supervision order will provide the support to assist Mr Woodman to reintegrate into the community and comply with the standard conditions.
10. I consider the appropriate length of time for that supervision order is three years. This period of time will provide Mr Woodman with sufficient time to adapt to the community and to engage in treatment. This period will also provide Mr Woodman with an opportunity to obtain stable employment, find pro‑social pursuits and hopefully reconnect with culture. I am of the view that any longer period of time risks being too long to enable Mr Woodman to set and achieve meaningful goals. At the end of that three year period it is open to the State to consider any future action it may wish to take.

1. For those reasons, on 24 July 2025 I made 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 supervision order for a period of three years commencing on 18 August 2025 being a date not earlier than 21 days after the date of this order on the conditions set out in Annexure A.
   2. Until further order, there 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 proceeding 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 Chronology of serious and other relevant offences

1 x Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or Racial Aggravation (s 313(1)(a)

The victim was a 40-year-old female who Mr Woodman met in December 2022 and they officially commenced a relationship in March 2023.

Mr Woodman attended the victim's home. When the victim asked him to turn the lights off, as she was trying to sleep, Mr Woodman threatened to damage her home and assault her. He then punched her to the sternum causing pain. He threatened to stab her with a needle and threw items around the house. He left, but returned to the address with his sister and threatened the victim that his sister was going to assault her.

The victim called Police and while doing so, he damaged a security screen.

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Criminal Damage or Destruction of Property (s 444 Criminal Code)) PE 34553 of 2023

1 x Being Armed or Pretending to be Armed in a way that may Cause Fear (s 68(1) Criminal Code)

1 x Made a Threat to Unlawfully do an Act - Aggravated (s 338B(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Code) PE 34552 of 2023

1 x Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or Racial Aggravation (s 313(1)(a) Criminal Code) PE 34554 of 2023

The victim was a 40-year-old female who Mr Woodman met in December 2022 and they officially commenced a relationship in March 2023.

Mr Woodman was at the victim's home and after becoming angry at another matter, he has punched the victim to the forehead causing pain.

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A

Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Unlawfully Assault and thereby did Bodily Harm with Circumstances of Aggravation (s 317(1) Criminal Code) PE 34550 of 2023

The victim was a 40-year-old female who Mr Woodman met in December 2022. They officially commenced a relationship in March 2023.

Mr Woodman and the victim were at Mr Woodman's family home and Mr Woodman accused the victim of having sex with another person. Mr Woodman went to a bedroom and the victim followed. Mr Woodman punched the victim multiple times to the right side of her ribs causing pain. She later sought medical attention and a medical assessment identified she had a pneumothorax and required a drain to be placed in her lung.

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Unlawfully Assault and thereby did Bodily Harm with Circumstances of Aggravation (s 317(1) Criminal Code)

The victim was a 28-year-old female, who had been in a relationship with Mr Woodman for approximately eight weeks at the time.

The victim was at a house with friends. Mr Woodman was bound by a 72-hour Police Order. He went to the back door of the address where he called to the victim, stating he wanted to talk to her. He then tried to enter the address, but the victim refused him entry.

Mr Woodman entered the premises through another unlocked door. Again, the victim told him to leave. The victim left the room and went to the shower to hide. Mr Woodman followed the victim, grabbed her and carried her outside. They became involved in a struggle where the victim fell to the floor before managing to get back to her feet. Mr Woodman produced a pair of scissors and struck the victim to the shoulder causing puncture wounds and bruising. Mr Woodman then ran from the house.

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A

Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Breach of Police Order (s 61(2a) Restraining Orders Act l997 (WA))

1 x Non-Fatal Strangulation - Impeded another Person's Normal Breathing or Blood Circulation by applying pressure to neck (s 298(b) Criminal Code))

The victim was a 28-year-old female, who had been in a relationship with Mr Woodman for approximately eight weeks at the time.

Mr Woodman pushed the victim against a wall, using a cricket bat, he applied pressure to the neck of the victim which restricted her ability to breathe or yell properly. The victim was able to struggle free.

Mr Woodman then struck the victim to her right shoulder causing her immediate pain and bruising to the area. On the same day, following an argument, Mr Woodman approached the victim from behind with an instrument that looked like an axe.

The victim saw her mother and went up to her asking for a cigarette to get away from Mr Woodman. He continued to follow the victim until he was challenged by a witness to leave her alone.

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Unlawfully Assault and thereby did Bodily Harm with Circumstances of Aggravation (s 317(1) Criminal Code) BM 1597 of 2022

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A

Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Being Armed or Pretending to be Armed in a way that may Cause Fear (s 68(1) Criminal Code)

1 x Unlawfully Assault and thereby did Bodily Harm with Circumstances of Aggravation (s 317(1) Criminal Code)

The victim was a 28-year-old female, who had been in a relationship with Mr Woodman for approximately eight weeks at the time.

Following a physical altercation, the victim attempted to hide in the laundry. Mr Woodman found the victim and dragged her from the laundry. Using a fork, he punctured the victim's left leg once causing immediate pain, discomfort and bruising.

Mr Woodman carried the victim into the guest room where she fell asleep from exhaustion and pain. The victim woke in the morning but was unable to leave due to feeling scared of the consequences if she did and the pain in her leg.

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or Racial Aggravation (s 313(1)(a)

The victim was a 28-year-old female, who had been in a relationship with Mr Woodman for approximately eight weeks at the time.

Mr Woodman attended the victim's backyard armed with a knife and axe. Fearing for her safety, the victim went inside and looked the doors. Mr Woodman forcefully broke into the house and the victim ran out the front. Mr Woodman grabbed hold of her and dragged her back inside and punched her.

Declared Serial FV offender & declared a serious offence under s 97A

Sentencing Act l995 (WA).

1 x Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation (s 313(1)(a))

The victim was an adult female who was in a relationship with Mr Woodman at the time.

Mr Woodman was involved in a family violence incident, and was issued with a 72-hour Police Order.

Later that evening, Mr Woodman and the victim were walking home after drinking alcohol with family members when he ran away from the victim.

When the victim located Mr Woodman, an argument occurred and Mr Woodman proceeded to assault the victim, ceasing only when two bystanders intervened.

1 x Unlawfully Assault and Thereby Did Bodily Harm in Circumstances of Aggravation (s 317(1)B

The victim was an adult female who was previously in a relationship with Mr Woodman (and with whom he has three children).

Mr Woodman located the victim, whilst she was hiding from him in fear, at a house in Fitzroy Crossing and assaulted her. His actions included lifting her by her hair, punching her in the face, and jumping on and punching her to her head and body.

This resulted in the victim losing consciousness momentarily. He then further assaulted the victim with a wooden draw multiple times, causing cuts to her knee and shin, and then dragged her by her hair towards another house in the community.

After Mr Woodman let go of the victim's hair, she sought safety inside a house, locking the door behind her. Mr Woodman gained access to the house, located the victim, and punched and kicked her in the stomach. Mr Woodman's offending ceased when a third party intervened.

1 x Unlawfully Assault and Thereby Did Bodily Harm in Circumstances of Aggravation (s 317(1)B

The victim was an adult female who had been in a relationship with Mr Woodman since 2016.

Mr Woodman was at an address in Broome with the victim when he assaulted her following another incident. His actions included striking her to various parts of her body with a metal handled broom stick.

After he assaulted the victim, Mr Woodman laid down next to her and went to sleep. The victim received injuries to her ankle, knee and palm.

1 x Common Assault (s 313(1)(a)) Criminal Code (WA))

The victim was an adult female who was previously in a relationship with Mr Woodman (and with whom he has three children).

Whilst being subject to a VRO, Mr Woodman punched the victim to the mouth. She sustained a cut to the inside of her upper lip.

1 x Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation (s 313(1)(a)) Criminal Code

The victim was an adult female who was previously in a relationship with Mr Woodman (and with whom he has three children).

Mr Woodman has followed the victim and has thrown a coin towards her.

This coin has struck the victim to the head causing her pain.

1 x Threat to Injure, Endanger or Harm any person (s 338B(b) Criminal Code (WA))

1 x Endanger Life, Health or Safety of a Person (s 304(1)(b) Criminal Code (WA))

The victims were an adult female who was in an intimate relationship with Mr Woodman (the same woman he now has three children with) and an unknown adult male.

Mr Woodman pushed the victim who fell to the ground. Whilst yelling verbal abuse at the victim he was holding a large rock above his head. Witnesses intervened to try and stop him, assuming he would throw the rock at the victim. Mr Woodman then took the victim's handbag and swung it as if he was going to strike her. A witness intervened again telling Mr Woodman to stop, to which Mr Woodman verbally abused him and threatened to assault him. This victim then backed off and Mr Woodman ran off upon Police arrival.

2 x Aggravated Assault occasioning bodily harm (s 317(1)(a) Criminal Code

The victims were an adult female who was in an intimate relationship with Mr Woodman (the woman with whom he now has three children) and one of their children, aged 2 months.

During an argument Mr Woodman has punched a perspex window, causing this to break. He picked up a broom and smashed a second window and one of the fragments from this window struck his mother. Mr Woodman's mother has taken the broom away from him and he has continued arguing with his partner (victim).

He started punching the victim to the side of the head numerous times whilst the victim still had their child to her breast.

The final punch which was aimed at his partner has glanced off her and struck their two-month-old child to the head causing a noticeable depression in the skull. The child started screaming and was placed down on the bed before Mr Woodman's mother has taken the child outside.

Mr Woodman started punching the victim again, striking her three times in the face, and more to the back and arms. An ambulance has been called for the victims; the partner suffered significant swelling and bruising to her face, swelling and severe pain to her right forearm which was potentially fractured, and pain and discomfort to her back and sides.

The child had a depression in his skull, and initial X-rays displayed a depression fracture.

The victim was an adult female who was in an intimate relationship with Mr Woodman (the woman with whom he now has three children).

The victim heard noises outside her mother's residence and has gone to check the yard. Mr Woodman jumped the fence and approached her shouting abuse before punching the victim in the chest.

The victim has turned to walk away from him where he has then punched her to the arm, the victim has pushed him telling him to go and stop hitting her. He again punched the victim in

The victim was a 17-year-old female who was in an intimate relationship with Mr Woodman (the same woman with whom he now has three children).

Mr Woodman dragged the victim off a bed where they were lying and began to kick her numerous times to the torso whilst she was lying on the ground.

The victim attempted to cover up and protect herself, but Mr Woodman began to punch her to the head several times. The assault was witnessed by three young children who heard loud screaming and called Police. The victim was required to attend hospital for medical treatment, and sustained bruising to her legs, knees, torso and behind her ear.

Juvenile Good Behaviour Bond for 6 months; $500 undertaking.

The victim was a 17-year-old female who was in an intimate relationship with Mr Woodman (the woman with whom he now has three children).

Mr Woodman began to throw rocks at the victim but missed her. He then punched her on the cheek and kicked her in the torso. The impact made her fall from her bike and onto the ground.

A member of the victim's family intervention to stop the assault. The victim sustained bruising to her cheek and rib cage.

Juvenile Good Behaviour Bond for 6 months; $750 undertaking.

The victim was a 19-year-old female. Mr Woodman (13 years old) together with two other accused (aged 13 and 12) approached the victim while she was using a public telephone at the Tarunda Shopping Centre at 9:30pm on 14 November 2001.

The three accused attempted to engage the victim in conversation. The victim began to walk home and was followed by the three accused.

Mr Woodman asked if she wanted to have sex with him. He put his arms around the victim's shoulders and tried to kiss her face. As the victim pushed Mr Woodman away, another accused reached out and grabbed her left breast. She knocked his hand away and Mr Woodman grabbed hold of her face and kissed her cheek.

Mr Woodman and another accused surrounded her and grabbed her buttocks, breasts, upper thighs and crotch. One of the accused reached between the victim's legs from behind and pushed his fingers against her shorts. She felt the material of her underwear and shorts pushing up and slightly into the lips of her vagina.

When the victim walked into a brightly lit area, the accused stopped their assault but resumed when she was again in a dimly lit area. All three accused surrounded the victim and grabbed her buttocks. One accused grabbed her from behind in a bear hug and rubbed his ground against her buttocks. She broke free and walked home.

ANNEXURE A SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SEAWARD ON 24 JULY 2025

Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), 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 18 August 2025, on the following conditions:

1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the place and within the time stated in the order and advise the officer of your name and address;
2. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at the places and times directed to you by that CCO;
3. Notify a CCO of any change to your name, where you live, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens;
4. Be under the supervision of a CCO, and follow any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32);
5. Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO;
6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order; and
7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.

1. Reside at [redacted] and spend each night there; you can stay at a different address only if that address is approved in advance by a CCO;
2. Not to leave your approved address while subject to this Order without prior permission of the CCO;

1. On the day of release, report to a CCO at the prison and allow for filing of the electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake;
2. Be under the supervision of a CCO, including receiving visits, being home for them, meeting at agreed locations and times, and complying with the lawful directions of a CCO;
3. Not start, change or increase any paid or unpaid employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of the CCO;

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

1. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad or their delegate within the WA Police Force, at a police station at their direction, within 48 hours of your release from custody, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police Officers at times and at locations as directed by the Officer‑in‑Charge of the High Risk Serious Offender team or his/her delegate;
2. If asked to, allow Police Officers to enter and search your home and/or vehicle, and search you for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this Order and allow Police Officers to seize (take) any items they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order;
3. Remain at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your home and/or vehicle under the provisions of the HRSO Act;

1. Agree to the exchange of any information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out this Order, including any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor;
2. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with or may spend time with (including partners or potential partners) and, where appropriate, to tell them information about you, including your offence history; and, if directed by your CCO, you must tell them about your past offending and the current order, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer;

1. Have no contact with the victims of your violent offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice. 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;
2. Unless contact with victims is permitted by the previous condition, if you see any of the victims of your offending, 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.
3. Report to the CCO and WA Police any contact with the victims of your offending 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 includes imprisonment;
2. 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 your doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you don't use more than the doctor has told you to use;
3. Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997;

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;
2. When subject to a curfew under this order, during the time when you must be at your approved address;
   1. go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you; and
   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;
3. When subject to a curfew under this Order, tell anyone 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. Report any new friendship or relationship (someone you have contact with more than once) by you with a female to your CCO when you next report to them;
2. 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 another place for a sample to be taken;
3. Provide a legitimate sample pursuant to condition 30;
4. Not purchase, possess, or consume or use alcohol;
5. Not go into any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:

a) for the purpose of avoiding or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person;
>
> b) for a purpose, and duration approved in advance by a CCO or Police Officer; or
>
> c) on the order of a CCO or Police Officer;

6. Not remain in the presence of any person who is affected by alcohol or prohibited substances, or whom you ought to know are affected by alcohol or prohibited substances, unless the identity of such persons is approved in advance by the CCO;
7. Not remain in any place where 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;
8. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or information, possessed or used by you, whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device;
9. Not allow any person other than a CCO or WA Police access to any computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device referred to in condition 36, without prior approval;
10. Enable device locking or password access of your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic devices, and not provide or disclose such passwords or other means used to access any computer, telecommunications and/or electronic device referred to in condition 36, or any online accounts, to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer;
11. Upon request, permit a CCO or WA Police at any location nominated by them, to access any computer, telecommunication and/or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device related activities, and to provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords or any other means used to unlock or access the Device; this includes providing all screen name(s), user name(s), and email addresses;
12. Gain approval in advance if any entity, apart from a CCO or WA Police, is required to access a device for instances such as technical advice;
13. Not delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, any data including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS), search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device, whether or not the device is capable of connecting to the internet, without prior approval of a CCO or WA Police;
14. Not to be in possession of any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article and not to apply for, acquire or hold a licence to possess any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article;
15. Not to enter the Town of Broome WA or Fitzroy Crossing WA without prior approval of a CCO; and
16. Not assault, insult or threaten in any manner any officer of the Department of Justice or agencies performing any function under this Order.

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

[1] The State of Western Australia v Woodman [2024] WASC 439.

[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].

[6] The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [31].

[7] Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [73] and [84].

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

[10] The various documents contained in the book being admissible pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act.

[15] Book of Materials, Vol 1, pages 498 ‑ 504.

[16] Book of Materials, Vol 2, page 700; Book of Materials, Vol 1, page 499.

[17] Sentencing Act, s 4.

[18] Sentencing Act, s 4.

[21] The State of Western Australia v Nelson [2021] WASC 460 [33].

[22] The State of Western Australia v Nelson [2021] WASC 460 [34].

[23] The State of Western Australia v Hill [No 2] [2024] WASC 70 [30].

[35] Exhibit 2, 791 - 792 [212] - [221].

[36] Exhibit 2, 793 - 794 [227] - [231].

[37] Exhibit 2, 794 - 796 [232] - [242].

[45] Exhibit 2, 798 [258] - [259]; and ts 13.

[47] Exhibit 2, 799 [262] - [263]; and ts 14.

[48] Exhibit 2, 799 [265] - [267]; and ts 14, 20.

[92] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178].

[93] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178].

[94] The State of Western Australia v Roffey [No 2] [2024] WASC 220 [80].