THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- PENDLETON [2026] WASC 271

[2026] WASC 271 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- PENDLETON [No 3] [2026] WASC 271 CORAM : FORRESTER J HEARD : 22 AND 29 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 3 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 15 of 2024 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND RYAN ANTHONY PENDLETON Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - First periodic review - Whether the respondent remains a high risk serious offender - Whether an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether continuing detention order should be affirmed or rescinded - Whether community can be adequately protected by imposition of supervision order - Whether the respondent will substantially comply with standard conditions of a supervision order Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 Page 2 Result: Continuing detention order affirmed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Mr J Lloyd Respondent : Ms A Fedele Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Legal Aid (WA) Cases referred to in decision: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 The State of Western Australia v ACW [No 3] [2022] WASC 41 The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115 The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 3] [2022] WASC 371 The State of Western Australia v Pendleton [No 2] [2025] WASC 219 -- 2 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 3 FORRESTER J: Introduction 1 This is an application by the State of Western Australia for the review of the continuing detention order (CDO) imposed on the respondent by me on 12 June 2025 pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). 2 For the reasons which follow, I have determined that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender and that the CDO should be affirmed. Background 3 The respondent's most recent term of imprisonment expired on 17 January 2025. 4 On 12 June 2025, I made an order that the respondent was a high risk serious offender, and that he should made subject to a CDO, that is, he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.1 5 On 12 January 2026, the State of Western Australia made an application for an order that the CDO be reviewed as soon as practicable after 12 June 2026, as required by the HRSO Act. 6 On 23 January 2026, I made orders regarding the examination of the respondent by a qualified expert, and orders for the provision of any other reports. 7 The review hearing proceeded before me on 22 June 2026. Evidence 8 The State relied upon a two volume Book of Materials prepared for the review hearing, and two supplementary exhibits. 9 The materials included, in particular, the following reports, prepared for the purposes of the review hearing: (1) Psychiatric Report of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 12 May 2026; 1 The State of Western Australia v Pendleton [No 2] [2025] WASC 219 (Restriction Hearing Decision). -- 3 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 4 (2) Community Supervision Assessment Report of Matthew Wyatt dated 29 May 2026; (3) Treatment Progress Report of Caris Hamlett-Waller dated 4 May 2026; and (4) Treatment Progress Report of Dr Sarah Barbas dated 11 May 2026. 10 At the hearing, the State called Dr Wojnarowska and Mr Wyatt and they were cross-examined on behalf of the respondent. 11 The respondent elected not to give or adduce evidence. Legal principles and statutory framework 12 The object of the review process was articulated by Hall J in The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5]: The clear intention of the review process is to allow for the possibility of a change of circumstances. Detention under the DSO Act is not a punishment for a past offending: it is a protective mechanism designed to prevent the risk of future serious sexual offending from being realised. If circumstances change such that the risk of reoffending reduces or can be adequately managed in the community, then the continuing need for detention must be considered. It does not follow from this that a court conducting an annual review is bound by the factual findings made at previous hearings. In practice, however, there is usually little prospect that expert evidence on a review will call into question the previous finding that the respondent was a serious danger to the community. It is a significant thing to deprive a person of his liberty, not for something he has done but for something that he might do in the future. In order to justify detention on these grounds the evidence must be acceptable and cogent and establish the existence of a serious danger to the community to a high degree of probability: s 7(2) DSO Act. Such a finding requires satisfaction that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious sexual offence if not placed under a supervision order or detained. The risk of reoffending may change over time. It may be affected by age, health, or the successful completion of treatment. The availability of new technology or resources in the community may also affect whether the risk of reoffending can be managed by a supervision order. There is also the possibility that the risk may increase because of a failure of treatment or a relapse into deviant thinking. -- 4 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 5 The justification for making a continuing detention order is the existence of an unacceptable risk of serious sexual offending that cannot be adequately controlled by conditional release. However, detention also serves the purpose of allowing treatment and care in a secure environment: s 17 DSO Act. This confirms an obligation on the part of prison authorities to facilitate change by offering programmes and access to counselling. If the risk changes or resources improve to enable more efficacious conditions then the need for detention may dissipate. In these circumstances, continuing detention may be unjust. The review process is intended to ensure that detention only continues where necessary. It mitigates the otherwise draconian effect of imprisoning people for crimes that they have not committed. Reviews are not, therefore, a mere welfare check: they are an exercise of judicial power to affirm, vary or rescind a detention order. Continuing detention should not be ordered unless that course is justified by the circumstances existing at the time of the review. The court should choose the order that is least invasive of the person's right to be at liberty, whilst ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.2 (citations omitted) 13 On review the court must determine whether an offender remains a high risk serious offender; that is, whether it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence.3 14 The State has the onus of satisfying the court that an offender remains a high risk serious offender.4 15 If the court does not find that the person remains a high risk serious offender, the CDO must be rescinded. If the court determines that the offender remains a high risk serious offender, it must either affirm the CDO, or, subject to s 29 of the HRSO Act, rescind the CDO and make a supervision order.5 16 It is a matter for the court conducting the review to independently decide whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, and whether the CDO should be affirmed, although the court conducting the 2 The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 5] [2017] WASC 115 [8] - [13] (citations omitted). 3 HRSO Act s 68, s 7(1). 4 HRSO Act s 7(2). 5 HRSO Act s 68. -- 5 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 6 review is entitled to have regard to, and give weight to, views expressed in earlier reviews and the original application.6 17 In deciding whether to affirm the CDO or make a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.7 18 The HRSO Act does not require that there be no risk of re-offending. The question is whether the risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level that ensures adequate protection of the community.8 19 The court cannot make a supervision order in relation to an offender unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.9 20 The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.10 21 In determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order', I respectfully adopt, without repeating here, the approach set out by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart.11 Restriction hearing 22 At the restriction order hearing, Dr Wojnarowska expressed the opinion that it would be difficult to manage the respondent's risk in the community, given his high level of sexual deviance, which appeared unchanged since his original offending. At the time of the restriction order hearing, Dr Wojnarowska was of the view that the respondent still appeared grandiose, anti-authoritarian and lacking in insight, while exhibiting impulsivity and immaturity for his age. 23 Dr Kathryn Riordan acknowledged the cumulative disadvantage impacting on the respondent from multiple adverse early childhood 6 The State of Western Australia v ACW [No 3] [2022] WASC 41 [27]; The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 3] [2022] WASC 371 [27]. 7 HRSO Act s 68(2). 8 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [33]. 9 HRSO Act s 29. 10 HRSO Act s 30(2)(f). 11 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [39] - [52]. -- 6 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 7 experiences, which spanned the full spectrum of harm across all critical periods of his development and said: The cumulative effect of this developmental trauma, chronic and recurrent experiences of rejection and perceived abandonment from all primary care providers has undermined [the respondent's] psychosocial, emotional and moral development, contributing to the development of a narcissistic self-focus and a psychopathic personality structure.12 24 Dr Riordan considered that the respondent had the capacity to comply with a supervision order, but lacked the motivation to do so. Any motivation on his part to engage in treatment was likely to be compliance focussed, rather than driven by a genuine attempt at behaviour and lifestyle change. 25 On the basis of the cogent and acceptable evidence before me at the restriction order hearing, I concluded: I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the totality of the evidence before me, including the respondent's: (a) criminal history; (b) sexual deviance, most notably his sexual attraction to very young female children; (c) willingness to act on his sexual attraction, even when under supervision and conditions designed to prevent access to children; (d) personality structure, which means that he is largely unconstrained by conscience or empathy for his victims; (e) past response to programmatic intervention and the fact that he has considerable outstanding criminogenic treatment needs; (f) lack of genuine motivation to change, particularly in relation to areas which increase his risk; and (g) performance under previous supervision leads to the conclusion that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence in the future, namely an offence which falls within sch 1, div 1, subdiv 3 items 3 - 8 and 16 - 19 of the HRSO Act. 12 Book Of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 3 filed 19 May 2025 (BOM for Restriction Order Hearing Vol 3), 1085 - 1086 [103]. -- 7 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 8 I find the risk to be unacceptable because of the immense harm which will almost certainly be caused to the child victim of the offending which the respondent is likely to commit, whether that child be known to the respondent or be the victim of offending which produced the CEM the respondent chooses to access.13 26 On this basis, I found that the respondent was a high risk serious offender.14 27 I was not satisfied that the respondent was likely to comply with the conditions of a supervision order. In particular, I was not satisfied that the respondent would not commit a serious offence during the period of a supervision order. Further, no suitable accommodation had been identified for the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent was made subject to a CDO. Criteria to be considered under s 7(3) of the HRSO Act 28 I refer to the summary of the information available to me at the time of the restriction order hearing and set out from paragraphs [32] - [268] of the Restriction Hearing Decision. That information remains pertinent to the review hearing and I rely on it as partly informing the criteria to be considered under s 7(3) of the HRSO Act for the purposes of the review hearing. 29 The respondent's personal history and his history of offending are set out in my decision on the initial restriction order application in relation to the respondent.15 30 The respondent has a history of serious contact sexual offending against very young children, and child exploitation material offences relating to that offending, commencing in 2007. Much of his offending occurred in the context of substance abuse. 31 It is plain that the respondent continues to have a propensity to commit serious child sexual offences and child exploitation material offences, as set out in the Restriction Hearing Decision. 32 The index offending occurred in breach of a Post-Sentence Supervision Order (PSSO) and reporting obligations pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA). 13 Restriction Hearing Decision [273] - [274]. 14 Restriction Hearing Decision [277]. 15 Restriction Hearing Decision [11] - [15], [32] - [79]. -- 8 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 9 Report prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act 33 For the purposes of her report, Dr Wojnarowska interviewed the respondent for a total of two hours, and had access to volume 1 of the Book of Materials prepared for the review hearing. 34 Dr Wojnarowska reported the respondent to participate well in the interview, and appeared to make an effort to present himself as someone who had gained insight into his condition and accepted the need for treatments and supervision. His affect was mildly grandiose, reactive, and mood congruent.16 35 According to Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent said he initially disagreed with her opinion and diagnosis as contained in her report for the restriction order hearing. However, he said that, after discussing the outcome with his psychologist, he came to the conclusion that her assessment as to his diagnoses was accurate, except for the diagnosis of psychopathy, and that her assessment as to risk of re-offending was also accurate.17 36 The respondent indicated that, during his psychological intervention, he had sought to understand his offending and diagnosis. He denied being a psychopath, and asserted he was able to demonstrate empathy. He claimed to be confident of managing his sexual fantasies regarding children in the community, with the help of his psychologist, and that the fear of being returned to prison would be sufficient motivation to suppress any desire to act on his fantasies.18 37 The respondent acknowledged that his attempts at self-harm were done with the intention of securing a transfer out of the punishment unit at Casuarina Prison. He had ultimately been successful in being moved to Hakea Prison,19 only three days after the last incident.20 38 According to Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent has maintained contact with his father and brother, who are both in custody. He has also continued to have contact with his mother, and his daughter. He hopes that, with his daughter nearing the age of 18, he would be able to 16 Book of Materials for the Review Hearing Volume 2 filed 15 June 2026 (BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2), 276 [49] - [51]. 17 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 274 [37]. 18 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 275 [41] - [42]. 19 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 274 [38]. 20 Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 1 filed 30 April 2024 (BOM for Restriction Order Hearing Vol 1), 132. -- 9 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 10 see her in the future.21 His only support is an older woman, through prison fellowship. 39 The respondent expressed a willingness to comply with the conditions of a supervision order, although he claimed a curfew would be 'annoying', because he is a 'nighttime person'. He did not regard a condition that he not consume alcohol as being something which would add protection to the community, but was agreeable to complying with such a condition.22 40 The respondent conceded that he might breach a supervision order in a minor way, but not by possession or use of drugs or child exploitation material, which he recognised would result in his return to prison.23 He expressed a desire to gain employment on release. He denied thinking about entering a relationship if released on a supervision order, but claimed that a good relationship was a protective factor and said that at some point in the future he would like to have a partner.24 41 Dr Wojnarowska indicated that her diagnostic opinion remained unchanged since her first assessment of the respondent, namely: He exhibits features of paraphilic disorder presenting with a dense history of sexual offending against prepubescent female children ranging in age between 2 and 6. His sexual offending against young girls, possession of explicit and deviant material, past acknowledgement of arousal wearing female children's clothes indicates the presence of a sexual deviance, namely Paedophilia non-exclusive type, attracted to female children. He also has a history of other paraphilic interests such as bestiality. [The respondent's] history of nappy wearing may suggest that he engaged in some role-playing, as part of adult baby/diaper lover (ABDL) activity. This may in turn suggest that his identification with children is much greater than what he has reported.25 42 In Dr Wojnarowska's view, the respondent also fulfils the criterial for Substance Use Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder and narcissistic traits, characterised by inflated self-image, grandiosity, egocentricity and self-serving behaviours. He has a childhood 21 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 274 [39]. 22 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 275 [44]. 23 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 275 - 276 [45]. 24 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 276 [46]. 25 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 277 [53] - [54]. -- 10 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 11 diagnosis of ADHD, which Dr Wojnarowska considered to be supported by his mental state examination.26 Risk Assessment 43 Dr Wojnarowska used the Static-99R actuarial tool and the RSVP risk assessment tool to inform her risk assessment in relation to the respondent.27 44 At the time of assessment, the respondent's score on the Static-99R placed him in the Well Above Average Risk category. While his score has now marginally reduced, having reached the age of 40, the respondent remains at that level. In routine samples with the same score, the five-year recidivism rate is between 36% and 45%, which is seven times higher than that of a typical sexual offender.28 45 Dr Wojnarowska did not reassess the respondent on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (Revised), but considered his presentation confirmed that all four facets remained elevated. On this occasion, Dr Wojnarowska noted the respondent was more subdued than in their previous interviews and appeared to have learned that his previous presentation would not have helped him secure release.29 46 On the RSVP, a structured professional judgement assessment tool, the respondent had factors of chronicity and psychological coercion and grooming of the mothers of his victims.30 He did not exhibit cognitive distortions, unlike in his previous interviews in which he attempted to minimise his offending and blame his victims.31 47 In Dr Wojnarowska's view, the respondent's insight continues to develop, and she considered there was some evidence that he had made some progress in understanding the background to his offending, possibly through psychological intervention. The respondent told Dr Wojnarowska he accepted the diagnosis of paedophilia and wished to explore that further in order to minimise his risk of re-offending. However, Dr Wojnarowska expressed some reservations as to whether 26 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 277 [56] - [57]. 27 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 277 - 279 [58] - [62], [67]. 28 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 278 [63] - [66]. 29 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 279 [67] - [68]. 30 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 279 [69] - [70]. 31 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 279 - 280 [71]. -- 11 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 12 the respondent was truly motivated to change or was merely saying what he believed he needed to in order to secure release.32 48 Dr Wojnarowska was of the opinion that the respondent's reactivity and impulsivity continue to be outstanding treatment needs, noting that his reactivity can at times translate to violence augmented by substance use, the latter being his primary coping strategy.33 49 The respondent continues to experience problems resulting from child abuse, and sexual deviance. His recent charge of using alcohol in prison demonstrates a continuing lack of capacity to cope emotionally, as well as a disregard for prison rules.34 50 The respondent again presented with features of psychopathy, including using his intellect to manipulate and deceive others, and lacking a genuine understanding of the victim's perspective.35 51 While he does not presently exhibit violent ideation, the respondent's conduct in the past has demonstrated a use of violence, both reactive and instrumental. He continues to have limited insight into his problems with intimacy. Contrary to his beliefs, being in a relationship does not appear to be a protective factor against future offending in his case. The problems with education and employment, problems with treatment and problems with supervision are present.36 52 Dr Wojnarowska considered that the most likely risk scenario for the respondent would be for him to enter a relationship with a woman who has young children, concluding: He is likely to present himself as not interested in children and then after gaining the mother's trust he would start grooming the child. He would attempt many different scenarios to satisfy his deviant sexual interest and is likely to take the pictures of his victims to use them in the future for masturbation purpose (sic). He is not likely to start with sexual penetration, but his abuse of the child may quickly escalate to sexual penetration. The psychological harm to the victim is likely to be significant; however, he is not likely to use physical coercion or additional violence 32 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 279 - 280 [71]. 33 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 280 [73]. 34 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 280 - 281 [74] - [80]. 35 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 281 [81]. 36 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 281 - 284 [82] - [97]. -- 12 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 13 against the child. Once [the respondent] reengages in criminal activity, it has the potential to occur frequently.37 53 In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, the offending may or may not involve substance use but a high degree of grooming and manipulation would be present. Specific warning signs may not be present, although any failure to comply with supervision orders, substance abuse, increased contact with antisocial peers or withdrawing from psychological counselling should be regarded as warning signs.38 54 Dr Wojnarowska viewed it as unlikely that the respondent would attempt to force a stranger child into a sexual act.39 Conclusion 55 Dr Wojnarowska concluded that the respondent continues to be a high risk of committing a serious sexual offence if not subject to restriction.40 56 However, in Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, the respondent demonstrated a motivation to comply with any supervision order, and he did not present with antisocial or antiauthoritarian attitudes on this occasion. While his treatment needs remain largely unchanged, he also appeared motivated to engage in counselling and acknowledged his sexual deviance.41 57 The respondent's change in attitude and motivation resulted in Dr Wojnarowska forming the view that the respondent's risk of re-offending could be properly managed in the community.42 58 Dr Wojnarowska recommended that, if the respondent were to be released, he engage in drug and alcohol counselling, with consideration given to pharmacological treatment for substance misuse and continuing psychological intervention to address his treatment needs including 'deviant sexual interests, anger, impulsivity, childhood trauma and antisocial personality variables as well as assisting with more robust emotional management, coping skills and exploration of factors that contributed to violence.'43 37 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 284 [98] - [99]. 38 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 284 - 285 [100] - [102]. 39 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 284 [100]. 40 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 285 [106]. 41 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 285 [103]. 42 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 285 [103] - [106]. 43 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 285 - 286 [107] - [110]. -- 13 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 14 Treatment Progress Report of Caris Hamlett-Waller dated 4 May 2026 59 Ms Hamlett-Waller reported that the respondent has participated in 21 sessions since June 2025, mostly face-to-face and that he did not appear to experience difficulty maintaining engagement, even in longer sessions.44 60 Ms Hamlett-Waller observed that the respondent's presentation appeared to be consistent with that reported for his 2025 restriction hearing: initially fidgety, guarded, evasive and suspicious. He also presented as verbose and tangential, and often maintained strong eye contact and could dominate the conversation. Over time, these behaviours tempered somewhat, but Ms Hamlett-Waller considered them characterological in nature.45 61 Ms Hamlett-Waller considered behaviour such as deflecting, focused on semantics over broader concepts, ruminating, anticipating what might be asked in session, and rehearsing responses as 'therapy interfering behaviours'.46 However, Ms Hamlett-Waller said that, in later sessions, the respondent showed a capacity to respond to redirection, self-monitor and self-correct following discussions on specific features of his interpersonal patterns.47 62 Ms Hamlett-Waller reported that the respondent was said to have committed an act of self-harm using a ligature, and acknowledged to her that, while he was experiencing suicidal ideation in the moment, his behaviour was an attempt to manipulate his prison placement. Records showed he made a threat to self-harm when he wanted a television, and again self-harmed to avoid being placed in a particular unit.48 63 Ms Hamlett-Waller indicated that intervention would require a protracted period of rapport building and collaborating on treatment goals. The respondent expressed concern to her that it would be difficult to address all his treatment needs by the first review date, and they discussed the need to target fundamental areas at first.49 64 Ms Hamlett-Waller and the respondent agreed upon goals for the ongoing intervention which included working towards discharging the respondent's onus to prove that he would substantially comply with the 44 Treatment Progress Report of Caris Hamlett-Waller dated 4 May 2026 (Hamlett-Waller Report) [3]. 45 Hamlett-Waller Report [4]. 46 Hamlett-Waller Report [20]. 47 Hamlett-Waller Report [4]. 48 Hamlett-Waller Report [6]. 49 Hamlett-Waller Report [7]. -- 14 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 15 standard conditions of a supervision order, and improving the respondent's self-management regarding risk of sexual recidivism. The latter was to be achieved by: (1) exploring and building motivation to manage unlawful sexual deviance; (2) increasing his capacity to sit with discomfort and dysphoric emotions to improve meaningful discussions regarding sexual offending and paraphilias; (3) exploring and building further insight into distal and proximal factors related to his sexual offending; (4) exploring and building insight into his sexual disorder diagnoses and how such diagnoses relate to his risk of sexual recidivism; and (5) exploring strategies and options to manage sexual preoccupations/intrusive deviant thoughts if motivated for such.50 65 Due to the respondent's personality structure, Ms Hamlett-Waller formed the view that it was appropriate to use an adjusted modality with the respondent, which focussed on him understanding his own internal experiences and enhancing his motivation. However, Ms Hamlett-Waller acknowledged that the respondent's motivation may always remain extrinsic, with him requiring external monitoring and constraints for a significant period if he is deemed suitable for release.51 66 Ms Hamlett-Waller expressed the opinion that, while the respondent appeared to increase his level of responsibility in relation to intervention, he continued to place it disproportionately on the therapist. This was not considered unusual in the respondent's case. In Ms Hamlett-Waller's view, the respondent appeared to approach intervention as merely instructive rather than introspective, although she accepted his review date might have also influenced his outlook.52 67 The respondent told Ms Hamlett-Waller that his primary reason for changing his behaviour was to have a relationship with his (soon to 50 Hamlett-Waller Report [8]. 51 Hamlett-Waller Report [9]. 52 Hamlett-Waller Report [10]. -- 15 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 16 be) adult daughter.53 He claimed to have been modifying his behaviour since he was first declared to be a high risk serious offender. While Ms Hamlett-Waller noted the incident involving the possession and use of alcohol, and his manipulative behaviour, she also acknowledged that the number of incidents in which the respondent had been directly involved appeared to have reduced.54 68 Ms Hamlett-Waller emphasised the need for the respondent to 'process his experience through deliberate and effortful reflection', but the respondent said this was difficult, as he would experience 'six thoughts at once'. He reported reacting to anxiety about being misunderstood, or having his words used against him, particularly by professionals, and seemed to have a need for certainty and control. Ms Hamlett-Waller considered that the respondent's description of his ongoing internal experiences indicated sustained fragmented, disorganised and chaotic internal states. While he displayed emerging insight, he appeared to have difficulty integrating such information.55 69 Ms Hamlett-Waller observed that the respondent made assumptions which perceived even neutral stimuli as hostile or malevolent due to adverse childhood experiences. He was able to identify when he had felt defensive or provoked in session. However, he appeared less defensive over time and actively sought feedback, which Ms Hamlett-Waller described as a treatment gain.56 70 In Ms Hamlett-Waller's opinion, the respondent's capacity to understand the function of his distorted beliefs and interpretations, as well as his affective states, would result in him being better equipped to understand internal factors which perpetuate his risk of offending. She considered this to be a fundamental aspect of long-term behaviour change and risk reduction.57 71 The respondent conceded his engagement with past Pathways programs had been superficial and intellectual and that he did not find the content useful or relevant to him.58 As for the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program, he considered that the lapse of time between completing the program and his release meant his risk management plan was no longer relevant, that the program did not 53 Hamlett-Waller Report [12]. 54 Hamlett-Waller Report [13]. 55 Hamlett-Waller Report [15] 56 Hamlett-Waller Report [16]. 57 Hamlett-Waller Report [18]. 58 Hamlett-Waller Report [21]. -- 16 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 17 focus on factors he considered to be relevant, and that he had been under the influence of substances on occasion, which had impacted his engagement.59 72 The respondent also reported that his relationship with his psychologist during his PSSO was lacking in rapport and he admitted he failed to engage beyond a superficial level.60 73 To Ms Hamlett-Waller, the respondent claimed that he had a poor working relationship with most of his Community Corrections Officers who were responsible for managing him during his PSSO. This resulted in a cycle of distrust and suspicion and poor behaviour, followed by increasingly strict supervision, reinforcing distrust and a feeling of being oppressed.61 74 The respondent claimed he was compliant with his PSSO for the most part (except for re-offending) and that his breaches were not directly relevant to his re-offending. He claimed to be unaware of some conditions, and he was therefore compliant according to his understanding. Ms Hamlett-Waller regarded his discussion regarding the PSSO as grievance focussed or reflecting resistance to fulfilling the expectations of others.62 75 The respondent acknowledged that he would have difficulties complying with conditions that he considered prevented him from 'living a normal life' or which he perceived as contradictory or irrelevant to him. He accepted that seeing himself as being unfairly treated or targeted by others had the potential to undermine compliance. Ms Hamlett-Waller considered these reflections to be demonstrative of a gain in insight, but noted that the respondent viewed being in the community as closer to a 'normal life' than being detained in custody and reported motivation to manage his views and experiences appropriately and to focus on future treatment.63 76 In Ms Hamlett-Waller's opinion, the respondent demonstrated an increased tolerance for discussing possible conditions of a supervision order, which she suggested was positive for future discussions and planning. She regarded the capacity to accept and tolerate his restrictions, despite disagreement, as a foundational skill for managing 59 Hamlett-Waller Report [22]. 60 Hamlett-Waller Report [20]. 61 Hamlett-Waller Report [19]. 62 Hamlett-Waller Report [23]. 63 Hamlett-Waller Report [23]. -- 17 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 18 entrenched oppositional and defiant behaviour that would undermine the protective nature of the conditions and will require further treatment.64 77 Ms Hamlett-Waller reported that the respondent indicated that a supervision order would protect against him using alcohol and substances, and that he had self-referred to the Allied Drug and Alcohol Programs and Treatment (ADAPT) service. He also intended to seek assistance from a pain specialist to assist him to deal with his chronic pain, which would, he thought, reduce his risk of self-medicating with illicit substances.65 78 Ms Hamlett-Waller recommended the respondent recognise the importance of a structured and meaningful day to minimise boredom and the opportunity to engage in risky behaviours. Gaining employment would improve his self-esteem and provide an opportunity to meet new friends and develop pro-social supports, of which he presently has very few.66 79 According to Ms Hamlett-Waller, much of the respondent's internalised social identity appears to be based on clandestine and nefarious activities, expanding to his knowledge of information technology. If the respondent were to develop and internalise a new social identity, this would be protective and reduce his risk of returning to old behavioural patterns. This will involve ongoing treatment and the development of suitable options to manage his need for stimulation and proneness to boredom.67 80 Ms Hamlett-Waller observed that, while the respondent's awareness of deviant sexual interests and the inherent challenges appeared to be emerging, his insight and motivation to change appeared to fluctuate. However, he seemed better able to manage his dysphoric emotions to improve discussions about his sexual offending and paraphilias.68 81 In sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller, the respondent continued to challenge his diagnoses, focussing on the subjectivity of terms and concepts rather than broader meaning.69 While prepared to 64 Hamlett-Waller Report [24]. 65 Hamlett-Waller Report [25]. 66 Hamlett-Waller Report [26]. 67 Hamlett-Waller Report [27]. 68 Hamlett-Waller Report [29]. 69 Hamlett-Waller Report [34]. -- 18 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 19 acknowledge he had traits consistent with antisocial personality disorder, he denied meeting the criteria for psychopathic personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. He did not view the phenomenon of post-coital dysphoria as relevant to his offending, but was encouraged to remain open to exploring the topic in combination with further treatment.70 82 With prompting, the respondent appeared to increase his cognitive flexibility in this regard, but further intervention is required for sustained change.71 83 In Ms Hamlett-Waller's view, the respondent's understanding as to the fact that children cannot consent and that his conduct was illegal has not yet developed into 'deeper insight into his rationalisations, justifications and implicit scripts that perpetuate sexual deviance, grooming, manipulation and subsequent elevated risk of recidivism'. This, and his problems with significant attachment and relationship issues will be the focus of ongoing treatment.72 84 Ms Hamlett-Waller noted that, while the respondent reported a willingness to use techniques to address his entrenched sexual deviance, concerns remain due to his ability to feign treatment progress and conceal salient information from those supervising and treating him.73 85 Ultimately, while the respondent was regarded as having made foundational treatment gains, his ongoing treatment was likely to be lengthy given his responsivity issues and the extent of his entrenched and pervasive criminogenic needs.74 86 Ms Hamlett-Waller observed that, ideally, the respondent would be transferred to a minimum security facility where he could continue to engage in Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) intervention and be able to demonstrate behavioural changes in a less restrictive environment.75 70 Hamlett-Waller Report [34] - [37]. 71 Hamlett-Waller Report [34]. 72 Hamlett-Waller Report [38]. 73 Hamlett-Waller Report [39]. 74 Hamlett-Waller Report [42]. 75 Hamlett-Waller Report [43]. -- 19 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 20 Treatment Progress Report of Dr Sarah Barbas dated 11 May 2026 87 For the purposes of her report dated 11 May 2026, Dr Sarah Barbas, a Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, spoke to the respondent for four hours, and also spoke to Ms Hamlett-Waller, and his Senior Community Corrections Officer. 88 As he did to Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Hamlett-Waller, the respondent admitted to Dr Barbas that his attempts at self-harm were instrumental, aimed at being relocated out of his then unit and hopefully to a different prison. This was ultimately successful.76 89 In his interview with Dr Barbas, the respondent participated well but focussed on perceived injustices associated with being made subject to an order under the HRSO Act, including being held in custody. Dr Barbas observed that, when given the opportunity, the respondent demonstrated antisocial attitudes associated with minimising, justifying and victim blaming, as well as engaging in impression management.77 90 The respondent told Dr Barbas that he had benefitted from his sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller, and claimed to have developed a good rapport with her, but said that he felt he could not apply the skills he had learned unless released. He acknowledged that he is engaging with Ms Hamlett-Waller in the hopes that doing so will assist him to progress to the community.78 91 The respondent was able to articulate some of the insights he had developed, and concepts he had learned in the course of the programs in which he had participated over the years, and following his treatment with Ms Hamlett-Waller. However, he still minimised some aspects of his offending, and engaged in externalisation of blame in relation to his violent offending.79 92 The respondent acknowledged that his risk would increase if he engaged in substance use, but claimed abstinence from substances would not be an issue as long as his pain was effectively treated. He reported that he would have difficulty abstaining from alcohol, as he associates much of his life with it, and believes that alcohol has not featured in his offending.80 76 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 258 [8]. 77 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 262 - 263 [30] - [31]. 78 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 263 [32]. 79 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 263 - 264 [33] - [38]. 80 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 264 [39]. -- 20 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 21 93 According to Dr Barbas, while the respondent expressed an intention to comply with any supervision order, he was somewhat resistant to the idea of a curfew, which he felt was unnecessary and would be 'tricky' for him given his pain and sleep issues.81 His plans for keeping occupied appear to be somewhat vague and unstructured, and include riding his motorbike, walking in Fremantle, spending time with (unidentified) friends and going to a gym.82 He considered his risk of breaching a supervision order was quite low, but appeared to fail to take responsibility for the extent of his previous breaches of his PSSO.83 94 In Dr Barbas' opinion, the respondent presents with a large number of outstanding treatment needs, specifically related to: [h]is violent lifestyle, interpersonal aggression, antisocial personality structure, emotional control, limited insight into violence, substance use, cognitive distortions related to both violent and sexual offending, limited available prosocial influences, limited insight and awareness into what constitutes IPV, poor problem solving skills, self-regulation, behavioural management, capacity for effective communication in interpersonal relationships (including being able to differentiate between aggressive and assertive communication), impulsivity, negative emotionality, the use of sex as a form of coping, sexual preoccupation and associated high sex drive and deviant sexual interest as evidenced by his paedophilic sexual interest in young female children and associated fetishes.84 95 Dr Barbas expressed the view that the respondent will require considerable time to establish intrinsic motivation to consolidate and maintain the skills required to effectively self-manage his risk of future offending, with protracted ongoing intervention.85 While he has demonstrated the capacity for new learning, he has yet to demonstrate an ability to apply learned skills to high-risk situations, and thus his current risk management strategies remain preliminary and avoidant, with significant reliance on external controls.86 81 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 264 - 265 [40], [43]. 82 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 265 [41]. 83 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 265 [43]. 84 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 266 [47]. 85 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 266 [47]. 86 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 266 [48]. -- 21 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 22 Community Supervision Assessment Report of Matthew Wyatt dated 29 May 2026 96 Matthew Wyatt, in the Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 29 May 2026, reports that in December 2025, the respondent self-referred to ADAPT, a transitional substance misuse program. The respondent has to date had two visits from his counsellor. As such, he is in the early stages of intervention with the service, but his self-referral is seen as positive, as is the fact that the service transitions from custody to the community.87 97 The respondent has also engaged with Uniting WA, both in relation to accommodation (as to which, see below) and reintegration plans in the event that he is released. 98 Mr Wyatt notes that it is proposed that the respondent continue to engage with the FPIT and ADAPT, as well as to commence engagement with Next Step for consideration of pharmacological treatment for his substance misuse, if he is to be released. 99 If he is to be released, the respondent will be assisted in relation to obtaining employment, but Mr Wyatt recommended that the relevant authorities be permitted to disclose information about the respondent to a prospective employer. Having regard to the respondent's previous offending, his preferred employment in the Information Technology area is considered difficult to manage, and Mr Wyatt recommended that if he were to obtain such employment, WA Police be enabled to review computer systems used by the respondent to manage his risk of re-offending.88 100 Conditions are also recommended in relation to the respondent's engaging in, and reporting of, relationships and access to children, device restrictions, drug and alcohol restrictions and testing, keeping a diary, and imposing a condition requiring the respondent to give notice of his intended movements. 101 It has been recommended that, if the CDO is not rescinded, the respondent should be moved to a minimum security prison, which would enable his FPIT sessions to continue, to assist him to develop independent living skills, be able to demonstrate behavioural changes in a less restrictive environment and increase his opportunity to practice 87 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 289, 3. 88 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 293 - 294, 7 - 8. -- 22 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 23 self-management skills. Such a move could be supported by the High Risk Serious Offenders Unit.89 Accommodation 102 Mr Wyatt indicates that the respondent has identified an address at which he can reside, for which he has paid a deposit. However, until there is a confirmed lease commencement date, the respondent cannot be assigned accommodation, and it will be subject to availability. Accordingly, the accommodation is not immediately available.90 103 A Desktop Spatial Analysis in relation to the proposed accommodation reveals that at least four other occupants of the premises are convicted child sex offenders, and other occupants have criminal convictions including possession of drugs. There has been a significant number of police attendances at that residence and nearby residences in the last 12 months.91 104 The respondent has engaged with Uniting WA but does not presently have access to any suitable housing through its Supported Accommodation Program.92 Conduct while in custody 105 Since June 2025, the respondent has been involved in six prison incidents, namely two occasions of threatening self-harm, two incidents of attempted self-harm, one incident of misconduct (cell damage) and one incident of possession of alcohol, which resulted in a charge. 106 The evidence regarding these is as follows: (1) On 1 August 2025, at about 7.05 pm, the respondent said to a night officer words to the effect of, 'Boss, I will kill myself'. Another night officer recorded that the respondent said he was going to hang himself. When another officer attended on him, the respondent said he wanted to go to a safe cell as he was feeling suicidal and repeated a number of times that he wanted to kill himself. The respondent was relocated to an observation cell.93 89 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 297, 11. 90 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 300, 14. 91 WA Police Desktop Spatial Analysis dated 8 June 2026. 92 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 291 - 292, 5 - 6. 93 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 93 - 96. -- 23 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 24 (2) On 22 September 2025, a liquid substance was found in the respondent's cell. The respondent claimed to have found it in his bin but later claimed ownership. The respondent tested positive on a breathalyser, with a blood alcohol level of 0.109.94 (3) On 10 October 2025, at about 5.05 pm, the respondent was challenged about taking a book without permission. He took the book and when challenged again, replied, 'I don't fucking care', or words to that effect. The respondent was told to return to his cell and had to be guided back. Shortly afterwards, the respondent activated the cell call system. When an officer attended, the respondent started yelling and demanded that his cell be opened at once. When the officer refused and started to walk away, he heard loud bangs coming from the cell. The respondent had begun damaging the cell and had smashed the viewing hatch window. The respondent was restrained and moved.95 (4) On 29 October 2025 at about 3.50 pm the respondent was seen climbing a grill with a green ligature around his neck and tied off on the grill. Officers were alerted and ran to the respondent. He was ordered to come down. One officer said that when they arrived, the respondent said, 'fuck you cunt' and dropped his weight, but the knot did not hold and he tried to retie the knot but was then physically brought down. He resisted violently and had to be mechanically restrained. Two officers heard him saying something like, 'I'll have your jobs you weak cunts, what then?' As he was taken to the infirmary, the respondent tried to spit on an officer.96 A suicide risk assessment was conducted on 30 October 2025, during which the respondent presented with an anxious mood and frustrated demeanour. He was said to have been teary at times and reported a low mood. He denied current active suicidal ideation. The notes record that the respondent: 94 Book of Materials for the Review Hearing Volume 1 filed 16 March 2026 (BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1), 98 - 101. 95 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 102 - 107. 96 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 108 - 119. -- 24 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 25 [a]cknowledged hanging attempt yesterday as act of desperation/self-harm; denies this being an attempt to end his life.97 A suicide risk assessment was carried out on 31 October 2025, during which the respondent denied current active suicidal ideation. The notes state that the respondent was: [a]ngry about close supervision status.98 A further suicide risk assessment was conducted on 7 November 2025. At that time, the respondent again denied current active suicidal ideation but was said to have made a 'conditional future-based threat of self-harm/suicidal behaviour if returned to U1.' The notes state: Angry about continued MPU placement.99 (5) On 8 November 2025 at about 2.40 pm, the respondent activated his cell call and said that he wanted to harm himself. When an officer attended, the respondent said he was going to kill himself if he remained in his cell, that he would use any item he could to make a ligature and hang himself, and that 'blood would be on your hands'. The respondent was moved into an observation cell. The reporting officer observed that earlier in the day, the respondent had said that he would make staff move him to another unit to enable him to have access to an in cell television, which he had been unsuccessfully demanding.100 A suicide risk assessment was conducted the following morning. The respondent said he currently had no thoughts of self-harm or suicidal ideation. The assessor recommended the alert be reduced and recorded: Noted nil current thoughts of self-harm/suicidal ideation, however, also recognise history of impulsively acting in order to create options that better suit his needs.101 The respondent was moved back to his unit the following day. 97 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 168 - 169. 98 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 167. 99 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 164. 100 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 120 - 123. 101 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 163. -- 25 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 26 (6) On 9 November 2025, at about 4.05 pm, the respondent was seen on CCTV in his cell making what appeared to be a ligature and trying to lodge it in a door frame and then place it around his neck. When officers attended, the respondent was standing without the ligature attached to him. He was removed to a different cell. The reporting officers noted that when the respondent had been moved back to his cell, he demanded he be issued a TV and radio and to have access to the yard. One officer reported his behaviour to be aggressive and threatening. When told his demands would not be accommodated, his behaviour escalated. He was heard to say words to the effect of 'watch me, I'll be somewhere where I get a TV today.'102 On 10 November 2025, a further suicide risk assessment was conducted, during which the respondent denied current active suicidal ideation. It was recorded that the respondent: Acknowledged suicidal gestures 29.10.25 and 09.11.25 were effectively instrumental in nature (deliberate attempts to achieve an exit from placements in U1 and MPU). Prolonged (18 month) U1 protection placement cited as stressful due to minimal rec time and lack of socialisation. Expressed refused to return to U1.103 The respondent was transferred to Hakea Prison on 11 November 2025.104 On 17 November 2025, the respondent was reported to have denied experiencing current ideations or intent to self-harm or attempt suicide. The counsellor recorded that the respondent cited his daughter as his only reason for living and noted: Recent hanging incidents discussed in detail as having been instrumental in achieving a change in placement while in Casuarina Prison.105 102 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 124 - 129. 103 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 162 - 163. 104 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 132. 105 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 159. -- 26 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 27 107 The Individual Management Plan dated 5 February 2026 records that the staff report the respondent to be 'reasonably settled', and an average worker.106 However, in early May 2026, he apparently lost his job as a Unit Worker, as a result of some minor misconduct, and was re-employed as a Unit Cleaner.107 108 In Dr Barbas' report dated 11 May 2026, she reported that the respondent said that he was housed in a segregated unit for 18 months with peers who were difficult to manage, and that the officers were upset with him because he had tried to tell them of his wish to relocate but was met with 'road blocks' and that he: [f]ormed the view that the only way he would be relocated from his unit was to engage in instrumental self-harm by hanging himself from his cell grill. He stated that he was subsequently relocated to the MPU, which was a similarly difficult environment to manage. He reported further self-harm and suicide attempts with the intention of being relocated to an alternate prison.108 109 In interview with Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent was reported to have told her that: He was more content since being moved out of the punishment unit at Casuarina, saying "there were too many crazy people in Casuarina, people running around naked all the time". He admitted that on two occasions he attempted to hang himself with the intention of pressuring the authorities to move him out of the unit, adding that this had ultimately been successful and transferred to Hakea Prison.109 110 Ms Hamlett-Waller observed that: [The respondent] acknowledged, whilst he had experienced suicidal ideation in the moment, his behaviour was a means to manipulate his placement from the unit.110 111 A footnote records: Mr Pendleton reported that his behaviour was "90%" to gain a new placement and "10%" suicidal ideation, which he described as an indifference to the possibility that his actions could result in his death.111 106 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 1, 179 [1.5]. 107 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 257 [6]. 108 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 258 [8]. 109 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 274 [38]. 110 Review Hearing Exhibit 1, 2 [6]. 111 Review Hearing Exhibit 1, 2 (Footnote 3). -- 27 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 28 Health 112 The respondent suffers chronic back pain and also claims to suffer chronic hand pain.112 He is presently medicated with an anti-depressant and mild painkillers.113 Application to re-open case and for the respondent to give evidence 113 At the Review Hearing, after the respondent indicated that he did not wish to give or adduce evidence, I raised my concerns about this evidence with the respondent's counsel. On 24 June 2026, the court was informed that the respondent sought to re-open his case and adduce evidence, and was later informed that the evidence intended to be given was in relation to the 'last suicide attempt'. 114 The application was listed for 29 June 2026, on the basis that if it were successful, the respondent would adduce the additional evidence at that hearing. On that date, I expressed concerns as to the fact that the issue was being addressed at such a late stage, particularly only after I had raised the issue with counsel in submissions, but in the absence of objection from the applicant, allowed the application to re-open, noting that the respondent would be expected to deal with the reasons for the late application in evidence. 115 After an opportunity to take further instructions, counsel for the respondent withdrew the application to re-open. The respondent personally confirmed he no longer sought to address the matter by way of evidence.114 Does the respondent remain a high risk serious offender? 116 In my view, the evidence is overwhelming that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender, that is, on the basis of cogent and acceptable evidence, I find that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk he will commit a serious offence. The respondent properly conceded that to be the case. 117 My reasons for so finding are unchanged from those set out at [269] - [277] of the Restriction Hearing Decision, and are reinforced by the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing. 112 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 258 - 259 [10], [13]. 113 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 258 [10]. 114 ts 157 (29 June 2026). -- 28 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 29 Continuing detention order or supervision order 118 As a result of the finding that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender, I am required, pursuant to s 68 of the HRSO Act, to determine whether to affirm the CDO or, subject to s 29 of the HRSO Act, rescind the CDO and make a supervision order. 119 The paramount consideration in deciding which order to make is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community. 120 Since the Restriction Hearing Decision, the apparent changes in the respondent's circumstances, which have in turn resulted in Dr Wojnarowska concluding that the respondent can be sufficiently managed in the community are, in Dr Wojnarowksa's opinion:115 (a) the respondent's motivation to comply with any supervision order; (b) the fact that the respondent did not present with antisocial or anti-authoritarian attitudes on this occasion; and (c) despite the fact that the respondent's treatment needs remain largely unchanged, he also appeared motivated to engage in counselling and acknowledged his sexual deviance. 121 However, I am not satisfied that those changes are sufficient to demonstrate that: (a) the respondent can be satisfactorily managed in the community, such as to ensure the adequate protection of the community; or (b) that I should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, as required by s 29 of the HRSO Act. 122 I make that finding for the following reasons: (1) The fact that the respondent's significant risk to the community of committing very serious offences remains unchanged since the Restriction Hearing Decision. (2) The fact that the respondent's treatment needs remain unchanged. 115 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 285 [103] - [106]. -- 29 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 30 (3) The respondent is singularly motivated by his desire for release, and lacks any apparent internal motivation to reform and reduce his significant risk to the community. (4) Since the Restriction Hearing Decision, the respondent cynically and dangerously, on at least two occasions, manipulated the prison authorities by engaging in acts of apparent attempted self-harm, to obtain an advantage as to his prison placement, demonstrating a willingness to engage in extremely harmful, damaging and deceptive behaviour to achieve his goals in relation to his custodial setting. While I accept that the respondent did claim, to one person, a 10% contribution of suicidal ideation on one of those occasions, I am satisfied at least that the respondent's dominant purpose on each occasion was to achieve an improvement in his custodial conditions. (5) Since the Restriction Hearing Decision, the respondent has used alcohol in the prison setting, resulting in him returning a breath test result of 0.109, showing a willingness to engage in rule-breaking behaviour to use alcohol, a substance in relation to which he denies having misuse issues. The respondent has also expressed concern about the imposition of a condition that he not use alcohol if made the subject of a supervision order, given its importance to him in a social setting. (6) The respondent's somewhat ambivalent attitude to compliance with a curfew. (7) While the respondent did not demonstrate antisocial or anti-authoritarian attitudes in his interview with Dr Wojnarowska, in his interview with Dr Barbas, the respondent was observed to display antisocial attitudes associated with minimising, justifying and victim blaming, as well as engaging in impression management.116 (8) The respondent's current refusal to accept full responsibility for the extent of his non-compliance with the PSSO, and his previous comprehensive lack of compliance with court orders and community reporting requirements. 116 BOM for Review Hearing Vol 2, 262 - 263 [31]. -- 30 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 31 (9) The lack of community supports available to the respondent, and his vague plans for daily structure. (10) The fact that the likely victims of any serious offending on the part of the respondent are particularly young and vulnerable, making them susceptible to grooming and detection of offending against them much more difficult. 123 I acknowledge that the respondent has, in the opinion of Ms Hamlett-Waller, made some treatment gains as a result of their sessions, including in foundational areas. 124 I also accept that there is some merit in the respondent's assertion that, until he is in the community, it is difficult to demonstrate the application of many of the skills which he is meant to be learning in his psychological intervention settings. However, there are other learnings as to which he could demonstrate progress, and yet has failed to do so, or, in my view, failed to genuinely do so. 125 I am also conscious that the respondent will likely react adversely to a refusal to release him on a supervision order, and may be demotivated to continue his treatment and demonstrate compliance with requirements in the prison setting. However, it is clear that the respondent has the power to control his conduct if he so wishes. If he is genuinely motivated to work towards release, even if it is only external motivation, he will at least need to demonstrate that he is able to exert that control over himself in the prison setting under challenging circumstances. 126 The respondent bears the onus of satisfying me that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. I am not satisfied he has made out that onus. 127 I am also satisfied that release on a supervision order at this time will not ensure that the community will be adequately protected from the unacceptable risk that the respondent presently poses. In my view, a staged release plan, involving further psychological intervention, substance abuse counselling with ADAPT, management of the respondent's pain, and potential reduction of custodial security by moving him to Karnet Prison Farm, enabling the respondent to make and demonstrate treatment gains and skill development, is a necessary pre-condition to rescinding the CDO. Accordingly, I will affirm the CDO. -- 31 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 271 FORRESTER J Page 32 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. BF Associate to the Hon Justice Forrester 3 JULY 2026 -- 32 of 32 --