THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MEEHAN [2026] WASC 279

[2026] WASC 279 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MEEHAN [No 4] [2026] WASC 279 CORAM : LUNDBERG J HEARD : 26 MAY 2026 & 30 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 8 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 18 of 2022 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND ALBERT JOHN MEEHAN Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Contravention proceedings under s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - The respondent was prosecuted in respect of, and pleaded guilty to, 30 contraventions of the court's supervision order - Application by the State for a continuing detention order to now be made - Whether respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order - Whether necessary to make a detention order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Continuing detention order made - Turns on own facts Legislation: Criminal Code (WA), s 304 -- 1 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 Page 2 High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 29, s 30, s 53, s 55, s 56, s 80 Result: Supervision order rescinded. Continuing detention order made. Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : B E F Tooker Respondent : C N Fruhwirth Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office (WA) Respondent : Legal Aid - Perth - Criminal Law Division Case(s) referred to in decision(s): DPP (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 DPP (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 State of Western Australia v Meehan [2023] WASC 6 State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 2] [2023] WASC 196 State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 3] [2025] WASC 490 The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [2023] WASC 144 The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 5] [2023] WASC 434 -- 2 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 Page 3 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 The Application .......................................................................................................................... 5 Legislative framework and relevant principles .......................................................................... 7 The materials and evidence adduced at the hearings .................................................................. 9 The material adduced by the State .......................................................................................... 9 The respondent did not adduce any materials ...................................................................... 10 Findings for the purposes of this Application .......................................................................... 10 The respondent's personal background ................................................................................. 11 The respondent's antecedents ............................................................................................... 11 Orders made under the HRSO Act ....................................................................................... 13 The nature of the contraventions of the supervision order ................................................... 14 July and August 2023 ....................................................................................................... 14 August to October 2024 .................................................................................................... 15 June to September 2025 .................................................................................................... 16 Summary of the contraventions ........................................................................................ 17 The psychiatric report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen ................................................................... 20 The evidence of Dr Bannister ............................................................................................... 21 The evidence of Dr Barbas ................................................................................................... 30 The evidence of Ms Secker and Ms Connelly ...................................................................... 31 Disposition ................................................................................................................................ 35 Conclusion and orders .............................................................................................................. 39 ATTACHMENT A Contraventions of the Supervision Order ................................................. 40 -- 3 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 4 LUNDBERG J: Introduction 1 The present reasons are concerned with the application filed by the State of Western Australia alleging numerous contraventions by the respondent of a supervision order made by this court under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).1 2 The Application was brought pursuant to s 53(2) of the HRSO Act, seeking orders under s 55(1) or s 55(2) of the legislation. 3 Some three years ago, this court declared the respondent, who is a 40 year old Indigenous man without any diagnosed mental illness or cognitive deficits, to be a high risk serious offender under the HRSO Act.2 The respondent has been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder. At that time, in June 2023, the respondent was released from custody, into the community, under a supervision order with extensive conditions. On the evidence presented at that time, the court declined to impose a continuing detention order. 4 In the time which has passed since then, the respondent has engaged in numerous unlawful acts. This has meant he has spent much of the past three years in custody, serving sentences of imprisonment for various offences. Indeed, at the hearing of this Application (on both 26 May 2026 and 30 June 2026), the respondent was a sentenced prisoner, detained at the Roebourne Regional prison serving a 12 month sentence which had been imposed on 24 November 2025. 5 At the conclusion of the resumed hearing on 30 June 2026, the court accepted the submissions advanced by the State and granted the primary relief sought by it, namely to rescind the supervision order and to make a continuing detention order in relation to the respondent. In making that order, two important features of this Application should be noted. 6 First, not surprisingly given the pleas of guilty previously entered by the respondent in respect of each contravention offence, the respondent admitted the numerous contraventions of the supervision order for the purposes of this Application. 1 Application dated 30 October 2025 (the Application). 2 State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 2] [2023] WASC 196. -- 4 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 5 7 Second, given the weight of the evidence and the unmet treatment needs of the respondent, the respondent conceded that it was appropriate for the court to make a continuing detention order in all the circumstances.3 That concession was appropriate, in my view. Of course, the respondent's concession did not obviate the need for the court to form its own view as to the appropriate order to be made on the application. 8 The following reasons explain why the court made the orders set out above. The Application 9 The Application asserts the respondent contravened the supervision order on numerous occasions and notes that the respondent had been charged with offences pursuant to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. 10 By s 80(1), it is an offence for an offender who is subject to a supervision order to contravene a requirement of the order, without reasonable excuse. Section 80 relevantly provides: 80. Offence of contravening supervision order (1) An offender subject to a supervision order must not, without reasonable excuse, contravene a requirement of the order. Penalty for this subsection: imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of $36 000. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), if an offender is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) for an act or omission that is also a contravention of section 33(3) then, despite any other written law, the court sentencing the offender — (a) must sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months; and (b) must not suspend the term of imprisonment. (3) If a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months would be clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person, the court may decide — (a) to sentence the person to a term of imprisonment of less than 12 months; or 3 ts 159 (30 June 2026). -- 5 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 6 (b) not to sentence the person to a term of imprisonment. 11 The State filed detailed particulars of the contraventions which it alleged, identifying 30 separate contraventions over the period from 19 July 2023 to 5 September 2025.4 The contraventions are admitted. In any event, each of the contraventions has been established by the State by reason that each such contravention has been the subject of proceedings in the Magistrates Court in respect of which the respondent had pleaded guilty.5 The contraventions are detailed in Attachment A to these reasons and further explained below in these reasons. 12 In these circumstances, the respondent is a person to whom s 53 of the HRSO Act applies, which thus permitted the State to apply for an order under s 55 of the legislation. Within the Application, the following orders were sought by the State: (1) Upon the Court being satisfied that the Respondent has contravened a condition of the supervision order made on 7 June 2023, an order that the supervision order be rescinded, and a continuing detention order be made in relation to the Respondent; (2) In the alternative to (1), upon the Court being satisfied that the Respondent is likely to contravene a condition of the supervision order made on 7 June 2023, an order that the supervision order be rescinded, and a continuing detention order be made in relation to the Respondent; (3) In the alternative to (1) and (2), upon the Court being satisfied that the respondent has contravened a condition of the supervision order made on 7 June 2023, an order that the supervision order be amended in such terms as the Court thinks fit; (4) In the alternative to (1), (2) and (3), upon the Court being satisfied that the respondent is likely to contravene a condition of the supervision order made on 7 June 2023, an order that the supervision order be amended in such terms as the Court thinks fit (5) An order that the Respondent be detained in custody while proceedings on the application for an order under section 55 are pending. 13 The Application filed by the State thus presented the court with three options. 4 Exhibit S2, pp 454 - 465. 5 AS [6]. -- 6 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 7 14 First, the court could rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the respondent. Second, the court could make an order amending the conditions of the supervision order, or extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to the supervision order, or both. Third, the court could make an order affirming the supervision order, without amendment or extension. 15 The State submitted that the court should be satisfied the respondent contravened the supervision order, that it should be satisfied the respondent has not demonstrated he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, and that a supervision order would not adequately protect the community. On that basis, the State submitted that the court should rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the respondent. Legislative framework and relevant principles 16 The objects of the HRSO Act, as stated in s 8 of that legislation, are to provide for: (a) the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and (b) the continuing control, care, or treatment of high risk serious offenders. 17 The powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on the offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.6 18 Part 4 of the HRSO Act sets out the regime for the restriction of offenders, through the making of 'restriction orders', and div 5 thereof concerns contraventions of a 'supervision order'. Where an offender is charged with an offence under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act, s 53 provides that the State may make an application for an order under s 55. 19 Where such an application is made, if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender has contravened, is contravening, or is likely to contravene, a condition of a supervision order, the court must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order, or, subject to s 29 of the legislation, release the offender 6 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [55] - [56]. -- 7 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 8 on the supervision order. In the latter case, the supervision order may be amended and, in some cases, extended.7 20 Section 55 of the HRSO Act expressly provides as follows: 55. Court to make orders in certain cases (1) If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates has contravened or is contravening a condition of a supervision order, the court must — (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make an order amending the conditions of the supervision order, or extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to the supervision order, or both; or (c) except as provided in section 29, make an order affirming the supervision order without amendment or extension. (2) If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates is likely to contravene a condition of a supervision order, the court must — (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make an order — (i) amending the conditions of the supervision order; or (ii) amending the conditions of, and extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to, the supervision order. (3) In deciding which order to make under subsection (1) or (2), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. 21 In The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 5], Her Honour Justice Strk set out the principles applicable to the determination of a contravention application such as the present. I gratefully adopt her 7 The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 5] [2023] WASC 434 [10] - [21]. -- 8 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 9 Honour's statement of the principles at [10] - [21] of her reasons and note the following matters in particular. 22 In proceedings concerning an application for an order under s 55 of the HRSO Act, it is to be assumed that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender, and that the court is not required to make that determination afresh.8 23 As is made express by s 55(3), the paramount consideration in deciding which of the orders to make is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The need to ensure the adequate protection of the community does not exclude other considerations. The use of the word 'adequate' in s 55(3) indicates that a qualitative assessment is required.9 24 It is well accepted that the court should choose the order that is least invasive or destructive of the respondent's right to be at liberty while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.10 However, if, after considering all the evidence, the court is left in doubt as to whether the conditions of a supervision order would adequately protect the community, the court must impose a continuing detention order.11 The materials and evidence adduced at the hearings The material adduced by the State 25 The Application was first substantively heard on 26 May 2026. At that hearing, the State tendered documentary material in support of the Application, largely consisting of a Book of Documents in two volumes, running to some 580 pages.12 The State called evidence from three witnesses at the first hearing. 26 First, evidence was given by Dr Ben Bannister, a Forensic Psychologist, who testified in relation to the opinions expressed in his reports dated 13 April 2023 and 17 April 2026 (the latter which I will refer to as the Psychological Risk Assessment Report).13 8 The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [2023] WASC 144 [28]. 9 DPP (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 [57]. 10 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 [49]. 11 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [142]. 12 Book of Documents Volume 1 (Exhibit S1); Book of Documents Volume 2 (Exhibit S2); the affidavit of Ms Trudy Hill affirmed 16 October 2025 (Exhibit S3); and the prosecution notice in relation to charge KR 1250/2024 (Exhibit S4). 13 Exhibit S1, p 409 and Exhibit S2, p 534. -- 9 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 10 27 Second, evidence was given by Dr Sarah Barbas, a Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, in relation to the opinions expressed in her report dated 14 April 2026 (which I will refer to as the Treatment Progress Report).14 28 Third, evidence was given by Ms Emma Secker, a Senior Community Corrections Officer, in relation to her report dated 24 April 2026 (which I will refer to as the Performance Report).15 29 Each of these witnesses was cross-examined. There was no challenge to their qualifications or credibility, and no serious challenge to the opinions or evidence they gave. I accept the evidence and opinions these witnesses gave at the hearings. 30 At the conclusion of the hearing, I adjourned the Application through to 30 June 2026 to allow further evidence to be adduced by the State in relation to the status of the respondent's application to be admitted to a particular treatment program, being the 'Breathing Space Residential Program'. 31 At the resumed hearing on 30 June 2026, the State tendered an updated Community Corrections report dated 23 June 2026 (which I will refer to as the Updated Performance Report).16 In addition, in the absence of Ms Secker, who was on leave and unavailable at the resumed hearing date, further oral evidence was led from Ms Charnie Connelly, a Senior Community Corrections Officer and the current acting team leader for the High Risk Serious Offender Unit. There was no challenge to the evidence of Ms Connelly and I accept her evidence. 32 The State also filed comprehensive and helpful submissions in support of the Application, dated 20 May 2026 (AS). The respondent did not adduce any materials 33 The respondent did not testify on the Application and led no other evidence in relation to the orders sought by the State. Findings for the purposes of this Application 34 For the purposes of the Application, I will now set out the factual findings the court was able to make on the evidence adduced at the two 14 Exhibit S2, p 523. 15 Exhibit S2, p 553. 16 The Updated Performance Report is Exhibit S5. -- 10 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 11 hearings, starting with the respondent's personal background and circumstances. The respondent's personal background 35 The respondent is a 40 year old Indigenous man who was born in Perth but raised between Wyndham and the now closed Oombulgurri Community in the northern Kimberly region of Western Australia. He was born in February 1986.17 He identifies with the Kwini people who are the traditional owners of the land in that region. English is his second language. 36 The respondent is one of five children, being the second youngest. He has explained that his father was an alcoholic who assaulted his mother on numerous occasions, and also physically abused him and his siblings. He reported that he suffered further abuse at the hands of relatives at the age of about eight or nine. 37 His parents were both deceased by the time he was 10 years old. After this, he and his siblings were fostered with caregivers who he felt were not interested in his welfare, and he reported that his feelings of neglect preceded his first offending. His offending helped him fit in with an antisocial peer group, and gave him a sense of belonging. He had no positive male influences and often ran away to spend time with his grandparents. 38 The respondent has had several serious relationships in his life which have produced two children. The respondent's antecedents 39 In an earlier proceeding in this court, Fiannaca J provided the following summary of the respondent's antecedents:18 The respondent has numerous convictions for violent offences from 2005 to 2019, including one offence of assaulting a police officer, five offences of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm, one offence of aggravated unlawful wounding, one offence of aggravated grievous bodily harm, one offence of aggravated common assault, and one offence of doing an act, with intent to harm, that resulted in bodily harm, which is the offence for which he is currently serving a term of imprisonment. The respondent also has a conviction for dangerous driving causing death in 2004, and convictions for aggravated dangerous driving causing death and 17 Although some of the governmental records pertaining to the respondent indicate he was born in February 1987. 18 State of Western Australia v Meehan [2023] WASC 6 [22] - [23]. -- 11 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 12 aggravated dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm, which arose out of the same incident in 2011. The respondent has numerous convictions as an adult from 2004 to 2019 for a variety of other offences, including burglary and dishonesty offences, stealing motor vehicles and disorderly type offences. He also has numerous convictions for breaching community based orders and suspended imprisonment orders and for breaches of bail undertakings. Finally, he also has a conviction for escaping lawful custody in 2005, which arose from the same incident in which he committed the offence of assaulting a public officer, to which I have referred. 40 At the time of the initial application to declare the respondent a high risk serious offender under the HRSO Act before Forrester J, the respondent was serving a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months which had been imposed in the District Court on 5 November 2019. The sentence had been imposed for an offence of doing an act, with intent to harm, as a result of which bodily harm was caused, contrary to s 304(2) of the Criminal Code (WA). This sentence was backdated to 21 November 2018 and expired on 20 January 2023. 41 As to the circumstances of this particular offence, the conduct took place on 11 October 2018. The respondent had been at home with his de facto partner, either in the evening or the early hours of the morning, he flew into a rage with her for unknown reasons. He pushed his partner against a wall and punched her in the nose, causing her to fall to the ground. The respondent proceeded to kick her to various parts of her body, punched her several times to the head, and then dragged her by the hair into another room. 42 Fiannaca J summarised the balance of the offending as follows:19 As [the de facto partner] sat in a chair with her head in her hands, the respondent told her to get changed, as she was covered in blood. He punched her again when she refused. He then took her into the backyard. There, [the de facto partner] struck the respondent, who then left the scene. As a result of the respondent's violence, [the de facto partner] suffered a broken and bloodied nose, swelling to her face and bruises to her body. She also suffered two lacerations to her scalp which required staples to close. 43 This offence was committed two months into the term of a suspended imprisonment order that had been imposed on the respondent 19 State of Western Australia v Meehan [2023] WASC 6 [42] - [43]. -- 12 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 13 for the earlier offence of aggravated unlawful assault causing bodily harm. That earlier offence had also been committed against his de facto partner. The sentencing judge observed that the offence involved 'a sustained violent attack on a vulnerable woman', and that the injuries she received were 'a serious example of bodily harm'.20 Orders made under the HRSO Act 44 On 7 June 2023, on the application of the State, this court determined that the respondent was a high risk serious offender for the purposes of HRSO Act.21 The court declined to impose a continuing detention order, instead placing the respondent on a supervision order for a period of three years. 45 In reaching the view that there were reasonable grounds to find that the respondent was a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act view, Forrester J held that the type of offence the respondent was likely to commit in the community would be a violent offence causing serious injury to an intimate partner. Further, it would likely involve an improvised weapon, and be exacerbated by inhibition due to intoxication. Her Honour concluded that the risk of severe, or even fatal, injury was substantial, particularly having regard to the fact that the respondent had more recently attempted strangulation in the course of his offending. 46 The supervision order commenced on 5 July 2023. The supervision order contained 38 conditions, including the standard conditions and additional conditions relating to electronic monitoring, curfew, drug and alcohol testing, reporting, residency, and treatment. The order had an adjusted expiry date of 18 August 2027, once the relevant terms of imprisonment are recognised. 47 On 20 November 2025, his Honour Justice McGrath made an interim detention order pursuant to s 56(2)(b), detaining the respondent pending the final determination of the Application.22 48 At the time of the hearings in this matter, the respondent was a prisoner detained at the Roebourne Regional prison. He was serving a 12 month sentence for several offences, including for a contravention of the supervision order contrary to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. He has recently been denied parole in relation to this sentence and, accordingly, 20 As summarised by Fiannaca J in State of Western Australia v Meehan [2023] WASC 6 [44]. 21 State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 2] [2023] WASC 196. 22 State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 3] [2025] WASC 490. -- 13 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 14 absent a further successful application for parole, the respondent will remain in custody until 23 November 2026. 49 As explained below, the respondent has spent a considerable proportion of the last three years in custody, whilst ostensibly subject to the supervision order. The nature of the contraventions of the supervision order 50 As earlier noted, the respondent has been convicted on multiple occasions for contravening the conditions of his supervision order. The contraventions encompass a broad range of the conditions attached to the supervision order. The respondent was punished for the contraventions by fines and periods of imprisonment. 51 The contraventions are detailed in the reasons of his Honour Justice McGrath delivered in December 2025,23 in which his Honour draws from the particulars of the contraventions in the affidavit of Ms Hill affirmed on 16 October 2025 (which is Exhibit S3). July and August 2023 52 In the early period of the supervision order, in July 2023 and August 2023, the respondent was convicted of multiple contraventions, namely for: (a) consuming alcohol;24 (b) failing to attend urinalysis and supervision;25 (c) returning a positive cannabis urinalysis;26 (d) leaving his designated address during curfew;27 and (e) removing his electronic monitoring device.28 53 The respondent was sentenced on 25 January 2024 to 12 months imprisonment for the device removal contravention, which was 23 State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 3] [2025] WASC 490. 24 Contravention 2, PE 36743 of 2023; Contravention 4, KR 847 of 2023; and Contravention 10, KR 890 of 2023. 25 Contravention 3, KR 858 of 2023; Contravention 5, KR 1097 of 2023; and Contravention 7, KR 1099 of 2023. 26 Contravention 1, KR 857 of 2023; and Contravention 6, KR 1098 of 2023. 27 Contravention 2, PE 36743 of 2023; and Contravention 8, KR 887 of 2023. 28 Contravention 9, KR 888 of 2023. -- 14 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 15 backdated to 10 August 2023. He received fines for the other contraventions. 54 It should be noted that the respondent was then in custody between 10 August 2023 and 9 August 2024 (some 367 days), having also spent six days on remand between 23 and 28 July 2023. August to October 2024 55 In the next period, between August 2024 and early October 2024, the respondent was convicted of multiple contraventions, namely for: (a) failing to attend psychological counselling;29 (b) failing to report to supervision;30 (c) failing to report to the police;31 (d) leaving designated address during curfew;32 (e) being in company of persons consuming alcohol;33 (f) returning a positive blood alcohol content reading;34 (g) returning a positive cannabis urinalysis;35 (h) making direct telephone contact with the victim of his grievous bodily harm offence;36 (i) returning a positive breath test;37 and (j) returned multiple positive urinalysis tests for cannabis (between 2 September and 3 October 2024), for which he received a global fine of $1,000.38 29 Contravention 14, KR 1269 of 2024. 30 Contravention 13 KR 1268 of 2024. 31 Contravention 15, KR 1270 of 2024. 32 Contravention 12, KR 1250 of 2024; Contravention 16, KR 1271 of 2024; and Contravention 17, KR 1272 of 2024. 33 Contravention 18, KR 1273 of 2024. 34 Contravention 19, KR 1274 of 2024. 35 Contravention 11, KR 1251 of 2024. 36 Contravention 20, KR 1342 of 2024. 37 Contravention 22, KR 1344 of 2024. 38 Contravention 21, KR 1370 of 2024; Contravention 23, KR 1401 of 2024; Contravention 24, KR 1478 of 2024; and Contravention 25, KR 1529 of 2024. -- 15 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 16 56 On 19 February 2025, the respondent was involuntarily removed from the Breathing Space Residential Program as a result of his negative behaviour and threats of physical violence to other participants. He was fined $1,800 for this contravention. 57 In respect of the above contraventions, the respondent initially received suspended sentences, but the later convictions occurred during the period of the suspension, resulting in the imposition of custodial sentences. 58 I note the respondent was in custody for nine days in August 2024 (on remain), then between 1 October 2024 and 28 October 2024 (again on remand),39 and then between 21 February 2025 and 25 June 2025 (on remand and as a sentenced prisoner, for 126 days).40 June to September 2025 59 In the next period, between June 2025 and September 2025, the respondent was convicted of several more contraventions of the supervision order, namely for: (a) failing to record his movements in his diary, for which a sentence of one month imprisonment was imposed;41 (b) failing to telephone his Community Corrections Officer as directed, for which a sentence of one month imprisonment was imposed;42 (c) not being present at his designated address during curfew, for which a sentence of one month imprisonment was imposed;43 (d) not complying with the requirements of all programs designed to address his offending behaviour or risk of reoffending;44 and (e) removing and cutting off his electronic monitoring device, for which a sentence of 12 months imprisonment was imposed and wilfully damaging his electronic monitoring device, for which a sentence of one month imprisonment was imposed.45 39 ts 129 (26 May 2026). 40 Exhibit S2, p 560. 41 Contravention 27, KR 1191 of 2025. 42 Contravention 28, KR 1193 of 2025. 43 Contravention 29, KR 1194 of 2025. 44 Contravention 26, SHE 498 of 2025. 45 Contravention 30, KR 1324 of 2025. -- 16 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 17 Summary of the contraventions 60 During the currency of the supervision order, the respondent has therefore breached the following conditions of his supervision order: (a) condition 2, which provided that the respondent: 'Report to and received visits from, a CCO as directed by that CCО'; (b) condition 4, which states that the respondent is to: 'Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the [HRSO Act])'; (c) condition 7, which provides that the respondent: 'Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the Act'; (d) condition 8, which provided that the respondent: 'Take up residence at [a specific address] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you'; (e) condition 10, which provided that the respondent must: 'Attend appointments, receive visits from, consult and engage with any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO'; (f) condition 11, which provided that the respondent must: 'Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCО'; (g) condition 13, which provided that the respondent must: 'Report to WA Police at times and at locations as directed by a CCO or WA Police'; (h) condition 17, which provided that the respondent: 'Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice'; (i) condition 21, which provides that the respondent is: 'Not to possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, -- 17 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 18 including, but no limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider'; (j) condition 22, which states that the respondent is to: 'Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the Act, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time' (and I note that the Department of Justice staff had provided a direction to the respondent that his curfew was between 6pm and 6am each night); (k) condition 25, which requires the respondent to: 'Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations if and as directed by the CCO and present this diary to the CCO and Police Officer on request'; (l) condition 26, which states that the respondent is: 'Not to remain in the premises of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by alcohol and/or prohibited drug, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO'; (m) condition 28, which provides that the respondent must: 'Not possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol'; and (n) condition 29, which required the respondent to: 'Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place'. 61 As can be seen from the above, and the details in Attachment A to these reasons, the respondent breached conditions of his supervision order concerned with the possession or consumption of alcohol on six separate occasions. The respondent also breached conditions concerned with the possession or use of prohibited drugs on seven separate occasions. Further, the respondent breached conditions concerned with compliance with directions of Community Corrections Officers or Police Officers on nine separate occasions. Further still, the respondent failed to comply with his curfew conditions on four separate occasions. Finally, the respondent breached the electronic monitoring condition on two separate occasions. -- 18 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 19 62 In addition to the formal charges against the respondent (and convictions), several behavioural contraventions on his part have been documented, including allowing family members access to his electronic devices without approval from a Community Corrections Officer, failing to maintain and produce his daily diary as directed, entering GPS geographical exclusion zones on multiple occasions (including near licensed premises and a known antisocial address), and failing to attend psychological counselling appointments. 63 Given the number and frequency of the contraventions of the supervision order, it is unnecessary to recount the details of each of the contraventions. The following examples are sufficient for present purposes. (a) In respect of the contravention which led to charge KR 858 of 2023, the respondent had been issued with a verbal direction by a Community Corrections Officer on 1 August 2023 to attend for urinalysis at PathWest in Kununurra at noon that day. The respondent was given a further verbal direction to report to Kununurra Adult Community Corrections for supervision following his urinalysis. The respondent failed to attend at PathWest as directed and failed to attend for supervision. (b) In respect of the contravention which led to charge KR 888 of 2023, the Department of Justice had reported to WA Police on 10 August 2023 that the respondent's electronic monitoring device had been cut off in the vicinity of Centenary Park near Victoria Highway in Kununurra. Police subsequently located the respondent in his bedroom at his curfew address. He had positioned a mattress to block the bedroom door. The monitoring device was not affixed to the respondent. The removal of the device meant the Department had been unable to monitor the respondent's location. (c) In respect of the contravention which led to charge KR 1324 of 2025, the respondent was approached in Wyndham on 5 September 2025 by Police Officers in relation to a separate matter. When the officers approached, the respondent ran away, actively avoiding them. The officers chased the respondent however lost sight of him and were unable to locate him. The officers located the respondent's electronic monitoring device, which was unrepairable. The following day, the respondent was arrested after again attempting to run from the officers. -- 19 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 20 The psychiatric report of Dr Peter Wynn Owen 64 Dr Wynn Owen did not give evidence on the Application but I received his report as part of the Book of Materials tendered by the State. Dr Wynn Own is a Forensic Psychiatrist. I refer to his psychiatric report dated 30 April 2023.46 It is only necessary to refer to certain aspects of that report. 65 Within his report, Dr Wynn Owen concluded that the respondent does not suffer from any mental illness. Rather, the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder (alcohol, amphetamine, cannabis). 66 In his 2023 report, Dr Wynn Owen concluded that the respondent had significant outstanding treatment needs relating to violent offending and intimate partner violence. 67 As to the respondent's risk, Dr Wynn Owen opined that:47 Poor treatment response and ambivalent engagement and compliance with treatment and supervision, combined with long periods of incarceration, have contributed to perpetuation of the patterns of behaviour resulting in violence. Personality type and substance abuse are the most significant risk factors for future offending. 68 Dr Wynn Owen described the respondent as having the following strategy for avoiding future violence offending, namely the respondent 'essentially demonstrated primary reliance on his will to change his behaviour future and thereby reduce risk'.48 69 Dr Wynne Owen concluded the respondent had a 'high likelihood of future violent behaviours', and that 'the presence of antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, lack of prosocial supports, lack of employment, and poor treatment engagement and response, all contribute to the high likelihood that [the respondent] will commit a new violent offence.'49 46 Exhibit S1, p 381. 47 Exhibit S1, p 405. 48 Exhibit S1, p 403. 49 Exhibit S1, p 405. -- 20 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 21 The evidence of Dr Bannister 70 Dr Bannister is a Forensic Psychologist. He prepared the detailed reports which are dated 13 April 2023 and 17 April 2026. Dr Bannister gave evidence at the hearing on 26 May 2026. 71 In the second of the reports, being the Psychological Risk Assessment Report, Dr Bannister recounted the history of the respondent's contraventions of the supervision order and the respondent's additional behavioural concerns which had been documented. I will commence by summarising these background matters identified by Dr Bannister, and then turn (at [83] below) to the specific opinions he expressed. 72 Dr Bannister referred to the respondent's concerning behaviours, as reported by Community Corrections staff. The behaviours concerned the formation of intimate relationships (including the dynamics of his relationships and family and domestic violence behaviours), accommodation issues, difficulties coping with conditions of the supervision order, and the respondent's return to illicit substance use in the community. Dr Bannister expanded on these behaviours, by reference to the matters disclosed by the respondent in his previous interviews and the various contraventions of the supervision order which I have earlier recounted. 73 As to the subject of intimate relationships, Dr Bannister recorded the following matters in particular:50 …Mr Meehan reportedly said that he wanted to be 'free', including drinking and socialising in the community without any restrictions. He was also reported to have claimed he would not use violence in future relationships, however did not identify how he would refrain from the use of violence in high-risk situations, specifically substance use and conflict with an intimate partner. … More recently, on 15/05/2025, Mr Meehan disclosed that he was in an intimate relationship with a partner, and concerns were raised about her safety. It was reportedly when police approached Mr Meehan to discuss such concerns, that he removed his GPS device and absconded. Concerns continued to be raised around Mr Meehan's behaviours towards her after his incarceration, with a record of their telephone contact revealing Mr Meehan using abusive language towards her, and holding her responsible for his imprisonment. For the current assessment, 50 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [12]. -- 21 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 22 Mr Meehan stated that he was not currently in a relationship with this woman at the moment, and acknowledged that he 'shouldn't have been in a relationship with her'. He added that he 'wouldn't want to be with her if she was drinking' and that 'I don't think I'm ready for any relationship… I want to get myself sorted out'. He recognised that he was aggressive and disrespectful towards her, but insisted: 'I didn't threaten her… there are people worse than me'. 74 As to the respondent's return to illicit substance use in the community, Dr Bannister summarised the matter as follows:51 … it has been noted that he has a documented history of alcohol and substance misuse while on [the supervision order]. Between 26/07/2023 and 12/11/2024, he returned positive test results for cannabis on nine occasions. Mr Meehan has reportedly also admitted while on the [supervision order] that he experienced temptation and pressure to consume alcohol and use illicit substances. Further, he stated he was unable to implement the tools and strategies he learned in treatment to assist him with this. Additionally, Mr Meehan was said to have disclosed experiencing shame for being subject to his [supervision order] and was therefore reluctant to advise family and peers of the stringent conditions of his Order. He said that in turn, his family and peers did not support him maintaining abstinence. Generally, Mr Meehan was reported to have attributed his substance use to maladaptive stress management, and for sleep difficulties. 75 Dr Bannister noted that the respondent's explanation for his contravention behaviour was 'vague and inconsistent'. Further, the respondent was, according to Dr Bannister, unable to explain why he was not able to apply the skills he said he had learned in treatment to successfully manage high risk situations he had found himself in when in the community.52 76 Dr Bannister summarised in his report the treatment received by the respondent following his declaration as a high risk serious offender. The respondent was referred to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team and engaged in numerous psychological treatment sessions. The respondent's presentation during these sessions was reportedly 'varied', with the respondent being 'sometimes despondent, agitated and pessimistic', and at other times being dismissive towards his supervision order, with a focus on 'perceived injustices and prejudices against him'. Nonetheless, the respondent was reported to have engaged appropriately, and remained polite and respectful throughout the sessions. 51 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [15]. 52 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [16]. -- 22 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 23 77 In broad terms, the treatment needs on which the intervention team focused included the respondent's violent lifestyle and attitudes, intimate partner violence including attitudes of male entitlement, polysubstance use, self-awareness and emotional management issues, poor problem solving and conflict resolution skills, personality factors, antisocial peers, interpersonal aggression, weapon use, lack of insight into violence, lack of community support and re-integration issues (including release to high risk situations), violence cycle, impulsivity, and compliance with supervision.53 78 The respondent's treatment was also directed at addressing his relapse management plan. It was reported that, while the respondent was apparently able to verbalise basic strategies on how he planned to manage various expected stressful situations, he relapsed when in the community. A recommendation was made that the respondent would benefit from specific intervention concerning substance use. The respondent apparently agreed to this. 79 Additionally, coping skills were addressed during his treatment and while the respondent was able to verbalise various coping strategies and demonstrate an ability to challenge problematic thinking on occasions, he nonetheless appeared to return to well entrenched responses such as ideas of persecution and injustice when experiencing situations of heightened stress.54 80 Dr Bannister explained that, at the end of October 2024, the respondent was transferred to the Breathing Space Residential Program in South Hedland, to address his criminogenic needs related to family violence. Following his aggressive behaviour during the program, the respondent was exited from the Breathing Space Residential Program, and he then re-engaged with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team. 81 His attendance at planned sessions with the intervention team was sporadic it seems, and his presentation continued to be varied, depending largely on external circumstances. According to Dr Bannister, the further sessions with the intervention team focussed on 'consolidating any gains made from the [Breathing Space Residential Program] and attempting to shift Mr Meehan to understanding that he had further 53 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [19]. 54 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [27]. -- 23 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 24 criminogenic needs that needed addressing, and internalising his locus of control'.55 However, this appeared to be largely unsuccessful. 82 The conclusions reached by the intervention team, as recounted by Dr Bannister, were as follows:56 Overall, Mr Meehan was reported by Ms Hamlett-Waller as not psychologically minded, and that his treatment with a female counsellor, particularly via videolink, was considered less than optimal. She explained that this was because such an approach was not adequate to meet his responsivity needs, nor his criminogenic needs. Ms Hamlett- Waller stated that Mr Meehan would likely respond more effectively to behavioural-based intervention, rather than insight orientated therapy. Overall, Mr Meehan was found to have largely minimised any problems he had with substance use and relationships, with conversations regarding these topics remaining at a superficial level, and that he made minimal treatment gains. Ms Hamlett-Waller also determined that Mr Meehan had remained typically in the pre-contemplative stage of change, meaning that he did not or could not recognise that he had particular problems that needed addressing in treatment. Ms Hamlett- Waller recommended that Mr Meehan be linked in – where possible – to local services and/or employment, given his apparent learned helplessness and institutionalisation, in order to assist with his successful reintegration. She noted that while this approach would potentially build protective factors such as stability and self-purpose, it was negatively impacted by the limited resources and opportunities in the locations to which Mr Meehan would be released. In interview, Ms Hamlett-Waller stated that it was her opinion Mr Meehan would benefit from additional treatment that was group- based, and ideally participated in – and facilitated by – Aboriginal people who he was culturally similar to. She explained that group-based programs would likely create a layer of accountability and “buy-in” from Mr Meehan, in the context of his cognitions and behaviours being challenged by individuals who he respected. Ms Hamlett-Waller confirmed that her attempting to facilitate individual treatment, as a Caucasian women, via videolink, likely hampered Mr Meehan's engagement. She also reported that Mr Meehan continued to need treatment for “the basics”. She elaborated that this included internalising his locus of control and motivation, gaining insight into problem awareness and realising he has the power to change. Further, that such change is often incremental, and requires consistency and persistence. (emphasis added) 83 It is important to now summarise the opinions expressed by Dr Bannister, based on his interviews of the respondent and the recorded 55 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [31]. 56 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [32] - [33]. -- 24 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 25 history of the respondent's treatment. Dr Bannister's opinions can be explained as follows.57 84 The respondent has experienced a life characterised by normalised violence through anti-social modelling, and reinforced beliefs supportive of pro-criminal behaviours, particularly relating to women and relationships. He has reported experiencing trauma related to physical, emotional and sexual abuse, as well as significantly disrupted development in his formative years typified by exposure to antisocial networks, including members of his own family, and substance abuse from a young age. 85 The combination of the above factors has significantly impeded the respondent's ability to develop healthy and adaptive coping mechanisms, respectful and functional relationships, effective emotional regulation, genuine empathy, and problem-solving skills. 86 Within the above frame of reference, the respondent's contravention behaviours point to his difficulty in applying any relevant behavioural and cognitive skills he was able to glean from treatment, in order to successfully manage risk-relevant situations. There is no evidence that these issues are the result of cognitive deficits, as Dr Bannister further explained in his oral evidence.58 87 Dr Bannister indicated in his earlier report that, provided the respondent had a genuine motivation to engage in treatment, he had the capacity to make significant and lasting gains that would assist in his risk management once release. Further, he considered that if the respondent's motivation remained 'extrinsically orientated', his gains were likely to be much less robust. Dr Bannister opined that the respondent would be in a position 'to demonstrate any treatment gains prior to release by showing a reduction in offence paralleling behaviours while incarcerated'.59 In his oral evidence, Dr Bannister explained his observations as to the respondent's 'motivation', as follows:60 TOOKER, MR: So can you explain what you mean by genuine motivation, and the difference between intrinsically orientated and extrinsically orientated motivation? 57 Psychological Risk Assessment Report [57] - [88]. 58 ts 103 (26 May 2026). 59 Exhibit S1, p 434 (at [134]). 60 ts 103 (26 May 2026). -- 25 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 26 BANNISTER, DR: Certainly. So genuine motivation is simply motivation that's not characterised by a performative approach for external reward. And the difference between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic, intrinsic motivation is essentially driven by internal rewards, meaning you do something because you see its inherent value to you, whereas extrinsic motivation is driven by external outcomes, often to avoid a negative consequence. 88 In his evidence, Dr Bannister also explained his observations as to the respondent's 'capacity' to make treatment gains, as distinct from 'capability'. Given the absence of cognitive deficits, Dr Bannister expressed the view that the respondent had the capacity to make gains. As to his capability, the respondent required significant support in this regard, such a finding prosocial accommodation, according to Dr Bannister.61 89 Dr Bannister was of the view that the respondent's personality structure (including many behavioural traits of psychopathy) has facilitated poor decision making, a lack of consequential thinking/impulsivity, and maintained a robust external locus of control. The respondent has likely developed a degree of resentment towards the imposed obligations of the supervised order, and when he was unable to cope with associated stressors, he reverted to prioritising his perceived needs, even when those were anti-social, and often through maladaptive mechanisms such as substance use. Some of the treatment of the respondent was not able to account for his responsivity factors, thereby working against maximising his potential treatment gains. 90 Dr Bannister's risk assessment of the respondent, to assess his current risk of recidivism using the Violence Risk Scale, second edition (VRS-2), led Dr Bannister to concluded that the respondent had a risk score which placed him in the Level V category of risk and needs on that scale. According to Dr Bannister, this placed him in the 'well above average risk' category, which he described as including people who typically had 'multiple criminogenic needs, often chronic, severe and entrenched, likely across psychological, interpersonal and lifestyle domains'. Such persons frequently need very intensive monitoring and supervision, as well as concentrated and lengthy psychological intervention if they are deemed suitable for it. The prognosis following 61 ts 105 (26 May 2026). -- 26 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 27 intervention for such people is that their initial risk is so high that their reoffending likelihood will often continue to be above average. 91 Despite participating in a range of intervention programs in the three year period from 2023 to the present, many of the previously identified treatment targets for the respondent remain outstanding. These include 'ongoing cognitive distortions and pro-criminal attitudes, poor emotion management, poor consequential thinking and problem-solving skills, substance use and relapse prevention, and family violence'. 92 So as to maximise the positive outcomes of any future treatment, the respondent's 'responsivity needs' would need to be considered, according to Dr Bannister. Ideally, the respondent: …should engage in intensive group-based programs addressing factors relevant to his risk factors, particularly violence/family violence and substance use. The groups should preferably be populated and facilitated by Aboriginal people who he is culturally similar to. Having his cognitions and behaviours being challenged by individuals who he respects will help to create a layer of additional accountability, as well as increase the chances that Mr Meehan will internalise the learning offered. Mr Meehan may further benefit from concurrent individual intervention, in person, by a culturally responsive or Aboriginal individual, to assist him to consolidate group treatment gains and specifically target areas of deficit. 93 Dr Bannister opined that the respondent's treatment gains were likely to be incremental at best, based on his response to the range of group and individual treatment he had received to date.62 I refer to the following exchange with counsel in this regard:63 TOOKER, MR: All right. And he has been diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder, is that right? BANNISTER, DR: Yes. TOOKER, MR: All right. And is that something that's fixed for a person through their life, or is it something that can – can change? BANNISTER, DR: Well, arguably through treatment someone can change elements of their personality. Having said that, in order - certainly to be diagnosed with a personality disorder, you need to demonstrate a range of specific characteristics 62 ts 105 (26 May 2026). 63 ts 105 (26 May 2026). -- 27 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 28 that are typically enduring. He is coming from a fairly low baseline as well, so any treatment that looks to change personality, it's perhaps a reasonable expectation that any changes might be incremental. TOOKER, MR: What does that mean, that he comes from a “low baseline”? BANNISTER, DR: Simply that he's dealing with long-standing issues, and he's been raised in and experienced as an adult the sort of environments that don't lend themselves to prosocial behaviours or activities. And so for him to be able to step out of that and make the sort of changes that he would need to make, that's the reason he would need significant support, I believe, to do that. 94 The most likely risk scenario for the respondent is, in the opinion of Dr Bannister, a breach of his supervision order, in circumstances similar to his contraventions over the preceding three years. Specifically in relation to 'serious offending' as defined in the legislation, the most likely risk scenario is that he assaults an intimate partner in the context of family violence, facilitated by anti-social cognitions and while disinhibited by substance abuse. The most serious risk scenario for the respondent continues to be if this assault results in serious injury or death, intentional or otherwise, for his victim. 95 Overall, Dr Bannister expressed the opinion that the respondent continued to pose a high risk of serious offending if not subject to either a continuing detention order or a community supervision order. The respondent's contravention behaviours primarily point to: … his difficulty in applying any relevant behavioural and cognitive skills he was able to glean from treatment, in order to successfully manage risk-relevant situations. There is no evidence that these issues are the result of cognitive deficits. Instead, his personality structure (including many behavioural traits of psychopathy) has facilitated poor decision making, a lack of consequential thinking/impulsivity, and maintained a robust external locus of control. Additionally, he likely developed a degree of resentment towards the imposed obligations of the [supervision order], and when he was unable to cope with associated stressors, he reverted to prioritising his perceived needs, even when those were anti-social, and often through maladaptive mechanisms, such as substance use. Furthermore, some of the treatment that Mr Meehan engaged in was not able to account for his responsivity factors, thereby working against maximising his potential treatment gains. -- 28 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 29 96 Dr Bannister concluded that the respondent had the 'capacity' to substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, but he has issues with external locus of control, extrinsic motivation, a lack of a pro-social support network, and difficulties in applying skills learned in treatment to real-world situations. 97 Significantly, the respondent has a range of outstanding treatment needs. These include ongoing cognitive distortions and pro-criminal attitudes, poor emotion management, poor consequential thinking and problem-solving skills, substance use and relapse prevention, and family violence. In the event the court made a detention order, Dr Bannister considered that the respondent's time in custody would most appropriately be spent focussed on further treatment attempts: This treatment should – at a minimum – consist of a culturally responsive high intensity program or programs addressing general violence/family violence and substance use. His time in custody should also be spent developing prosocial supports and networks with assistance, to prepare for any eventual re-release to the community. 98 In the event the court imposed a community supervision order, for the purpose of ensuring the adequate protection of the community and the continued rehabilitation of the respondent, Dr Bannister recommend that he engage in relevant and culturally responsive treatment: This treatment should consist of an intensive program or programs addressing general violence/family violence and substance use. Further residential rehabilitation will likely be beneficial to him. He will also likely gain from some form of culturally appropriate mentoring, with an individual who he respects. Continued efforts will need to be made to secure appropriate accommodation and sponsorship for Mr Meehan, as this will be crucial in ensuring his success in the community. It will also be important for him to be engaged in meaningful activity, such as employment. All conditions of Mr Meehan's previous CSO continue to be relevant to his risk management in the community. 99 As matters presently stand, Dr Bannister considered that the prosocial supports required by the respondent so as to ensure substantial compliance by him with a supervision order, were not in place, nor ready to be put in place.64 Further, Dr Bannister expressed the following opinions during this evidence at the first hearing:65 64 ts 108 (26 May 2026). 65 ts 113 (26 May 2026). -- 29 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 30 BANNISTER, DR: There's certainly evidence that he has engaged in elements of wilful - or apparently wilful deception and anti-social behaviour. There's clearly no doubt about that. But I would say that he hasn't been able to demonstrate that he currently has the capability to substantially comply at this point in time. TOOKER, MR: And in terms of the evidence that one might want to see about his capability of actually doing it in the future, you talked about what treatment might be given to Mr Meehan, but in terms of what he needs to show to demonstrate that he will substantially comply, is that where the last sentence of paragraph 134 of your first report is relevant? Where you talk about demonstrating and modelling that type of behaviour in a controlled environment? BANNISTER, DR: Yes, certainly that's - that's going to be the most obvious that he can demonstrate that he's made genuine treatment gains, for example, whether we'll see reduction in those offence paralleling behaviours in prison. It's obviously going to be difficult for him to demonstrate how he's going to behave in the community while he's in prison, but certainly if we look at those offences, well, there'll be the degree and the amount of those offence paralleling behaviours, that's certainly a good – a good objective indicator of - of any treatment gains he might have made. TOOKER, MR: All right. So if there's a reduction in those offence paralleling behaviours in a controlled prison environment, reduction, that would indicate that he's more likely to comply with the conditions? BANNISTER, DR: It's an objective indicator of treatment gains, yes. The evidence of Dr Barbas 100 Dr Barbas is a Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist with the Forensic Psychological Assessment Team, within Corrective Services. 101 In her report, which I have referred to as the Treatment Progress Report, Dr Barbas reported on the respondent's progress since being -- 30 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 31 released on the supervision order in June 2023. I have already recounted some of these matters when examining the evidence of Dr Bannister and it is unnecessary to repeat them. 102 Dr Barbas explained that the respondent had demonstrated a capacity for meaningful engagement at the outset of his intervention, but over time his motivation and engagement appeared to fluctuate based on whether he was detained in custody or supervised in the community. 103 The Respondent demonstrated an awareness of the link between his substance use and violence but was generally considered to be in the contemplative stage of change. The respondent's difficulties in this regard appeared to be entrenched and vulnerable to frequent lapses. 104 Over the course of treatment, the respondent was able to demonstrate capacity to challenge problematic thinking, though such skills did not appear to translate to situations of heightened stress. Instead, he appeared to return to patterns associated with ideas of persecution and injustice, which reinforced unhappy emotions. 105 Dr Barbas' summary of the respondent's treatment reveals that the respondent had minimised his past violent behaviours and future risks, as well as minimising the impact such behaviour would have on others, such as his children. The respondent's hostile attribution bias, consistent with his antisocial personality disorder, remained present throughout his treatment and the conclusion was reached that it would be difficult to shift in future intervention. 106 Overall, as submitted by the State, the use of telehealth to facilitate the respondent's treatment was considered sub-optimal and it is evident that minimal treatment gains were made. Dr Barbas accepted that any future intervention would need to be culturally appropriate and the recommendation was made that he would need a mentor and substance abuse counsellor. The evidence of Ms Secker and Ms Connelly 107 The report prepared by Ms Secker, which I have referred to as the Performance Report, provided a summary of the respondent's performance on the supervision order. Ms Secker provided an overview of the respondent's engagement with the following programs: (a) the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team; -- 31 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 32 (b) the Men's Outreach Service Aboriginal Corporation (MOSAC) and the 'Change Em Ways Program'; (c) the Kimberley Mental Health and Drug Service (KMHDS); (d) Breathing Space Residential Program administered by Communicare; and (e) the alcohol and drug counselling provided by Hope Community Services. 108 Ms Secker outlined the urinalysis testing results for the respondent, his accommodation needs, his behaviour in custody whilst subject to the supervision order, and the contraventions of the supervision order which I have already addressed in these reasons. 109 It is not necessary to traverse all the matters detailed in Ms Secker's report. The following matters are of particular significance and merit specific attention in these reasons. 110 As to the respondent's urinalysis testing, Ms Secker noted that the respondent had undertaken some 17 urinalysis tests during a period of 80 days whilst living in Kununurra. Of those tests, six were negative and 11 were positive for cannabis. The respondent also returned a positive test for cannabis whilst residing at the Breathing Spасе Residential Program. 111 Ms Secker provided evidence concerning the respondent's acceptance into the Breathing Space Residential Program in South Hedland, which I have earlier discussed in these reasons. The respondent was accepted into that program upon his release from custody on 28 October 2024. The submissions filed by the State provide a summary of Ms Secker's evidence concerning the Breathing Space Residential Program, which I accept as accurate:66 [51] …Initially, it was reported by program staff that he was engaging well. There was a positive result for cannabis as a result of a test done on 12 November 2024, but Breathing Space supported his continuation on the program. On 9 January 2025 the Respondent was involved in an incident at Breathing Space whereby he got angry, made accusations, threats and engaged in name calling. After providing an apology, Breathing Space issued him with a verbal warning and allowed him to continue on the program. On 19 February 2025 Breathing Space staff contacted ACC to advise 66 AS [51]. -- 32 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 33 them of concerns about the Respondent's behaviour, particularly towards other participants. He was reported to be an "explosion waiting to happen" and was exited from the program, with WA Police escorting him from the premises. 112 Ms Secker also noted in the Performance Report that the respondent had been spoken to about his telephone calls with his de facto partner, made in September 2025. The Community Offender Monitoring Unit had noted indications of coercive control and family violence behaviours in the calls. The respondent attempted to minimise any concerns in this regard, suggesting that this was an acceptable way to speak to your partner 'when frustrated' and claiming that 'he speaks to all his family members in this manner'. I need not detail the express language used by the respondent when speaking with his de facto partner in these reasons. The language does not reflect well on the respondent. During the calls, the respondent was offensive, accusatory, intimidating, and attempted to coerce his partner into declining to engage with the Police in respect of an alleged family violence incident. 113 Ms Secker also interviewed the respondent concerning his non- compliance with the supervision order. The respondent acknowledged his non-compliance but tended to externalise blame and minimise personal responsibility for his actions. The respondent suggested that his repeated incarceration was the result of persecution, systemic discrimination and racism. 114 Within the Performance Report, Ms Secker addressed seven accommodation options to allow for the respondent's return to the community. Several options were examined for the respondent to live with family members, in Wyndham or Kununurra. Some of these options had not been fully assessed at the time of the hearings, and in some cases the family members had declined consent. In general terms, each of these alternatives appeared to be sub-optimal environments for the respondent to obtain the prosocial support he requires. 115 The seventh accommodation option examined by Ms Secker was the Breathing Space Residential Program in South Hedland.67 I have mentioned this program already. As explained by Ms Secker, the Breathing Space Residential Program is a six-month residential program which has two parts. The first four months of the program involve intensive family violence-related intervention and is primarily delivered in a group setting. That said, the participants also have access to an 67 Exhibit S2, p 575 - 576. The program is also offered in Calista and Maylands. -- 33 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 34 individual case manager that supports them through the program. The last two months of the program, which continue to involve intervention, is intended to assist the participants with their transitioning into the community. As Ms Secker explained, some participants might start looking for employment during that period or considering training courses. Participants are permitted to leave the program during the day to see family and to go into the town as well. 116 In May 2026, the respondent was assessed by the organisers of the Breathing Space Residential Program for his suitability. A decision was not known in this regard at the first hearing on 26 May 2026. Ms Connelly gave evidence at the resumed hearing that the organisers had determined that the respondent was not suitable, given his previous behaviours when undertaking the program. I refer to the Updated Performance Report dated 23 June 2026.68 117 Ms Secker concluded her report by observing that, although the respondent was confident that he could comply with the conditions of his supervision order if provided with a further opportunity:69 …his past noncompliance, persisting anti-social attitudes and inability to implement previous learnings suggest an overestimation of his ability to avoid reverting to previous coping strategies if faced with high stress circumstances upon release. 118 There are two further matters to record, which were the subject of evidence at the resumed hearing. 119 The first concerns the residential rehabilitation centre organised by the Milliya Rumurra Aboriginal Corporation. That is a program offered in the Broome area, which provides a minimum 13-week program which seeks to address the effects of alcohol and drugs on an individual. I understand that participants can request to extend their stay past the minimum 13-week placement, with case management and counselling provided to participants on their return to the community. The respondent had expressed an interest in participating in this program.70 120 At the resumed hearing, Ms Connelly testified that a final decision had not been received from the Milliya Rumurra Aboriginal Corporation regarding the suitability of the respondent to enter the program. However, her evidence did not provide the court with an optimistic 68 Exhibit S5, p 2. 69 Exhibit S2, p 579. 70 Exhibit S5, p 3. -- 34 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 35 assessment that the respondent would be regarded as a successful candidate, in due course, given his past behaviours.71 121 In any event, the Milliya Rumurra Aboriginal Corporation program is aimed at treating alcohol and other drug needs and would not directly address the respondent's priority treatment and risk needs regarding family violence issues.72 122 The second matter concerns the treatment programs offered by the Department of Justice to sentenced prisoners, such as the 'Not Our Way' program. Ms Connelly gave evidence that, as the respondent was in the last six months of his sentence, generally speaking, he would not be assessed as suitable for the prison-based programs offered by the Department, which typically range in duration from 12 to 26 weeks. This is because there would not be sufficient time for the assessment process to be undertaken, for the respondent to be waitlisted and allocated to a program and then to complete the program, as well as having completion reports then undertaken.73 Disposition 123 There are essentially two issues to address on this application. 124 The first issue is straightforward. The State must demonstrate that the respondent has contravened his supervision order. This was admitted by the respondent but was, in any event, positively demonstrated by the State by reference to the proceedings in the Magistrates Court in respect of which the respondent had pleaded guilty. The numerous contraventions of the supervision order are detailed in Attachment A to these reasons, which summarise the convictions recorded for breaches of s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. 125 I accordingly find that the respondent contravened the supervision order in the manner and to the extent detailed in Attachment A. 126 The second issue to address is which order should then be made by the court under s 55(1) of the HRSO Act. The assessment as to which of the orders in s 55(1) should be made requires an assessment of the respondent's ability to comply with the standard conditions of a 71 ts 149 (30 June 2026). 72 Exhibit S5, p 3. 73 ts 149 - 150 (30 June 2026). -- 35 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 36 supervision order, and a consideration of the protection of the community. 127 The view I affirmatively reached at the conclusion of the hearing on 30 June 2026 was that the respondent had not discharged his onus to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that he would substantially comply with the standard conditions. 128 Further, even if I had been so satisfied, the evidence led on this Application strongly supported a finding that allowing the respondent to continue under a supervision order, even with additional conditions to those which had been in place since June 2023, would not ensure an adequate degree of protection of the community. Put another way, the making of a continuing detention order, to take effect upon the conclusion of the respondent's current sentence, was the appropriate order to be made under s 55(1) to ensure an adequate degree of protection of the community. 129 As to the question of substantial compliance, the court must in essence be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with, and will enable the attainment of, the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.74 130 In several decisions, this court has identified a number of factors to which regard should typically be had in undertaking this assessment.75 These factors include the respondent's history of non-compliance, the respondent's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order, the respondent's capacity to comply with the conditions, and what measures there are in place to ensure he would substantially comply. There are several others. Suitability of accommodation is one of them. 131 As the State submitted, the most significant of the factors in the present case is the respondent's history of non-compliance.76 That history is appalling. The respondent has a demonstrated history of wilfully breaching the conditions attached to his supervision order, including those conditions which form the 'standard conditions' under s 30(2) of the HRSO Act. 74 DPP (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. 75 DPP (WA) v Hart [52]; The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 [52]. 76 AS [71]. -- 36 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 37 132 For example, the standard conditions include a requirement to report to a Community Corrections Officer and to comply with reasonable directions from such officers.77 The respondent has repeatedly failed to comply with reasonable directions given by his Community Corrections Officer. 133 The standard conditions include a requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.78 The State has submitted in this respect that there is a heightened risk the respondent would commit a further serious offence.79 I accept that submission for the following reasons. 134 The evidence adduced on this Application highlights the existence of intimate relationships and substance use as primary factors which point to an elevated risk of further serious offending. I have earlier mentioned the telephone calls involving the respondent and his de facto partner, which indicate there is a continuing relationship and issues of jealousy between them, as well as a sense of disharmony in their relationship. There is also ample evidence to the effect the respondent has engaged in alcohol and cannabis use whilst in the community (and in breach of his supervision order). 135 In these circumstances, there is an elevated risk, in my view, of further serious offending occurring if the respondent was released into the community. 136 The final standard condition to which reference should be made is the requirement for electronic monitoring.80 The respondent has removed his monitoring device on two occasions, in breach of his supervision order. I accept the submission of the State that this casts doubt on his willingness to wear the device for the duration of a supervision order.81 137 The evidence presented by the State presents a strong case against any conclusion that the respondent would substantially comply. The respondent's history of non-compliance is extremely poor, and I do not presently accept that the respondent has demonstrated a genuine motivation, which is intrinsically orientated, to improve his behaviour and comply with a supervision order. Over a lengthy period, the 77 HRSO Act, s 30(2)(a) - (d). 78 HRSO Act, s 30(2)(f). 79 AS [73]. 80 HRSO Act, s 30(2)(g). 81 AS [74]. -- 37 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 38 respondent has made limited treatment gains, slowed no doubt by his anti-social personality disorder, as explained by Dr Bannister. Considerable, further, positive progress will need to be shown by the respondent whilst in custody to justify a change in this conclusion, in my respectful view, and to justify the making of a supervision order which would permit the respondent to be returned to the community. 138 Simply put, as matters stand, and quite apart from the absence of a suitable accommodation option, the respondent has not demonstrated that he would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. 139 The question of the adequate protection of the community is essentially answered by the matters I have outlined above. The State's submission in this regard is amply supported on the evidence, namely that the respondent's antecedents and criminal history, the assessment of him by Dr Bannister and Dr Barbas, and his repeated and wilful behaviour of contraventions whilst on the supervision order which was made in June 2023, mean there is 'an unacceptable risk of [the respondent] committing a serious offence and a supervision order would not adequately protect the community'.82 140 I understand from his counsel that the respondent is 'very eager' to undertake the further prison based programs which are available, and which would best be undertaken whilst he is under a continuing detention order, so as to allow for the time needed to demonstrate treatment gains which are more than merely incremental.83 And it seems to be agreed by his treating health practitioners that 'in person' treatment rather than 'telehealth' treatment, including residential rehabilitation, delivered with culturally appropriate mentoring, will maximise any gains which may be made. 141 Fundamentally, it will fall to the respondent, over the next 12 months or more, to demonstrate appropriate behaviour whilst in custody and refrain from offence paralleling behaviour. 142 To this end, I made the following comments to the respondent at the conclusion of the hearing on 30 June 2026:84 And what will be really important is that you'll be able to demonstrate that you're displaying the right types of behaviours for the court to 82 AS [82]. 83 ts 159 (30 June 2026). 84 ts 163 (30 June 2026). -- 38 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 39 consider releasing you on a supervision order, to then get back out into the community. All right? But a lot depends on you. A lot depends on you being a person who can act in the right way in prison, and demonstrate behaviours, and participate in these programs that show that you're not … going to cause harm in the community, and that you'll also comply with directions that are given to you by Community Corrections Officers. Conclusion and orders 143 For the foregoing reasons, I was satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent contravened the supervision order in the manner alleged by the State. Being so satisfied, the court must make one of the orders under s 55(1) of the HRSO Act. 144 Further, I consider the respondent has not demonstrated that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order and, in any event, I am satisfied that a supervision order would not adequately protect the community. 145 Accordingly, the court rescinded the supervision order which had been imposed on 7 June 2023 and made a continuing detention order in relation to the respondent. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. IR Associate to the Hon Justice Lundberg 8 JULY 2026 -- 39 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 40 ATTACHMENT A Contraventions of the Supervision Order No. Date Charge No. Description Condition of the Supervision Order 1 19 July 2023 KR 857 of 2023 Use of prohibited drugs. The respondent provided a urinalysis which returned a positive result for cannabis. Condition 21 - Not to possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) applied, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA) and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider. 2 22 July 2023 PE 36743 of 2023 Possession or consumption of alcohol. The respondent provided a sample of his breath which returned a positive result of 0.082 for alcohol. Condition 28 - Not possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol. 3 1 Aug 2023 KR 858 of 2023 Failure to comply with directions of CCO. The respondent was issued with a verbal direction to attend Kununurra Path West for a urinalysis and to report to Kununurra Adult Community Corrections for supervision. The respondent failed to attend. Condition 29 – Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place. -- 40 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 41 No. Date Charge No. Description Condition of the Supervision Order 4 1 Aug 2023 KR 847 of 2023 Possession or consumption of alcohol. The respondent provided a sample of his breath which returned a positive result of 0.057 for alcohol. Condition 28 - as above. 5 4 Aug 2023 KR 1097 of 2023 Failure to comply with directions of CCO. The respondent was issued a verbal direction by a CCO to attend Path West Kununurra before 3.00pm to submit a urinalysis. The respondent failed to attend. Condition 29 - as above. 6 8 Aug 2023 KR 1098 of 2023 Use of prohibited drugs. The respondent submitted a urine sample which returned a positive result for cannabis of 772 μg/L, above the cut off threshold of 15 μg/L. Condition 21 - as above. 7 8 Aug 2023 KR 1099 of 2023 Failure to comply with directions of CCO. The respondent failed to attend Kununurra Adult Community Corrections as directed. Condition 2 - Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by that CCO. -- 41 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 42 No. Date Charge No. Description Condition of the Supervision Order 8 10 Aug 2023 KR 887 of 2023 Failure to comply with curfew. WA Police attended the respondent's curfew address. The respondent was not located. Condition 22 - Be subject to curfew, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO. 9 10 Aug 2023 KR 888 of 2023 Electronic monitoring. the respondent removed his electronic monitoring device Condition 7 - Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the Act. 10 10 Aug 2023 KR 890 of 2023 Possession or consumption of alcohol. Condition 28 - as above. 11 13 Aug 2024 KR 1251 of 2024 Use of prohibited drugs. Condition 21 – as above. 12 17 Aug 2024 KR 1250 of 2024 Failure to comply with curfew. Condition 22 – as above. 13 12 Aug 2024 KR 1268 of 2024 Failure to comply with directions. Condition 2 - as above. 14 12 Aug 2024 KR 1269 of 2024 Failure to comply with directions. Condition 10 - Attend appointments, receive visits from, consult and engage with any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO. -- 42 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 43 No. Date Charge No. Description Condition of the Supervision Order 15 12 Aug 2024 KR 1270 of 2024 Failure to report to police. Condition 13 - Report to WA Police at times and at locations as directed by a CCO or WA Police. 16 20 Aug 2024 KR 1271 of 2024 Failure to remain at approved residence. Condition 8 - Take up residence at [redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you. 17 20 Aug 2024 KR 1272 of 2024 Failure to comply with curfew. Condition 22 – as above. 18 21 Aug 2024 KR 1273 of 2024 Possession or consumption of alcohol. Condition 26 - Not to remain in the premises of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by alcohol and/or prohibited drugs, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO. 19 21 Aug 2024 KR 1274 of 2024 Possession or consumption of alcohol. Condition 28 – as above. 20 20 Aug 2024 KR 1342 of 2024 Contact with victims. Condition 17 - Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your offending, unless such contact in conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice. -- 43 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 44 No. Date Charge No. Description Condition of the Supervision Order 21 2 Sept 2024 KR 1370 of 2024 Use of prohibited drugs. Condition 21 – as above. 22 5 Sept 2024 KR 1344 of 2024 Possession or consumption of alcohol. Condition 28 – as above. 23 9 Sept 2024 KR 1401 of 2024 Use of prohibited drugs. Condition 21 – as above. 24 20 Sept 2024 KR 1478 of 2024 Use of prohibited drugs. Condition 21 – as above. 25 26 Sep 2024 KR 1529 of 2024 Use of prohibited drugs. Condition 21 – as above. 26 19 Feb 2025 SHE 498 of 2025 Failure to comply with directions of CCO. Condition 11 - 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. 27 28 – 29 Jul 2025 KR 1191 of 2025 Failure to comply with directions of CCO. Condition 25 - Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations if and as directed by the CCO and present this diary to the CCO or Police Officer on request. -- 44 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 279 LUNDBERG J Page 45 No. Date Charge No. Description Condition of the Supervision Order 28 4 Aug 2025 KR 1193 of 2025 Failure to comply with directions of CCO. Condition 4 - Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the Act). 29 6 Aug 2025 KR 1194 of 2025 Failure to comply with curfew. Condition 22 – as above. 30 5 Sept 2025 KR 1324 of 2025 Electronic monitoring. Condition 7 – as above. -- 45 of 45 --