THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- RAVEN [2026] WASC 263

[2026] WASC 263 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- RAVEN [No 2] [2026] WASC 263 CORAM : WHITBY J HEARD : 22 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 29 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 17 of 2025 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND VICTOR REDVERS RAVEN Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether community can be adequately protected by supervision order - Turns on own facts Legislation: Bush Fires Act 1954 (WA) Criminal Code (WA) Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 Page 2 Result: Supervision order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : B E F Tooker Respondent : D J McKenzie Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office (WA) Respondent : Legal Aid (WA) Cases referred to in decision: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 The State of Western Australia v Raven [2026] WASC 57 The State of Western Australia v UJG [No 2] [2023] WASC 77 -- 2 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 3 WHITBY J: Introduction 1 By application made on 11 November 2025, the State of Western Australia (State) applies for a restriction order to be made in respect of the respondent, pursuant to s 46 and s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). The respondent was, at the time that the State made the application, serving a term of imprisonment of 3 years imposed by the Albany District Court for a 'serious offence' of wilfully lighting a fire likely to injure or damage, contrary to s 32(2)(a) of the Bush Fires Act 1954 (WA) (Bush Fires Act) (Index Offence). That term of imprisonment commenced on 7 March 2023 and expired on 6 March 2026.1 2 On 27 February 2026, Quinlan CJ heard the preliminary hearing and determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing the court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find the respondent a high risk serious offender.2 His Honour was also satisfied it was necessary and desirable for the protection of the community that the respondent be subject to an interim supervision order, pending the final determination of the restriction order application. 3 The final hearing of the restriction order application came before me on 22 June 2026. The respondent did not concede that he is a high risk serious offender. Counsel for the respondent advised the court that it was a difficult argument to make that the respondent was not a high risk serious offender.3 4 As to whether it was appropriate to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order in the event that I found the respondent to be a high risk serious offender, the State and counsel for the respondent both submitted that a supervision order was appropriate. 5 Based on the evidence, I have reached the conclusion that the respondent is a high risk serious offender and a supervision order is appropriate. My reasons for this finding follow. Evidence 6 At the hearing, the State tendered a book of materials comprising two volumes - volume 1 dated 20 March 2026 and volume 2 dated 1 Exhibit 1.1, page 15. 2 The State of Western Australia v Raven [2026] WASC 57. 3 ts 58. -- 3 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 4 5 June 2026. These volumes were received into evidence without objection. They are exhibits 1.1 - 1.2. 7 The first volume consists of background material including the respondent's criminal record, chronology of offending, transcripts and records relating to the respondent's previous offences and criminal hearings, and prison records. 8 The second volume includes the following material specifically prepared for this application: (1) National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) plan dated 18 March 2026; (2) proposed HRSO treatment options report of Luke Carmichael dated 29 May 2026; (3) psychiatric report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 4 May 2026; (4) psychological report of Dr Tara Yewers dated 2 May 2026; and (5) community supervision assessment of Natalie Milsom dated 29 May 2026. 9 At the hearing the State tendered the Adult Community Corrections Written Lawful Direction dated 6 March 2026 issued to the respondent upon the imposition of the interim supervision order (exhibit 2) and a draft supervision order (exhibit 3). 10 The State called Professor Pyszora, Dr Yewers, Mr Carmichael and Ms Milsom to give evidence at the hearing of the application. 11 The respondent elected not to give or adduce any evidence. Statutory framework and legal principles applicable to the application 12 The objects of the HRSO Act are to provide for: (1) the detention in custody or the supervision of a high risk serious offender to ensure adequate protection of the community and victims of serious offences; and -- 4 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 5 (2) continuing control, care or treatment of a high risk serious offender.4 13 The State may apply to the court for a restriction order in relation to a serious offender under a custodial sentence.5 If the offender is in custody, the State cannot make an application unless there is a possibility that the offender might be released within one year after the date of the application.6 14 A high risk serious offender is defined in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act as: An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. 15 A 'serious offence' is defined by s 5 of the HRSO Act, which relevantly provides: 5. Term used: serious offence (1) An offence is a serious offence if - (a) it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 1; or (b) it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 2, and is committed in the circumstances indicated in relation to that offence in that Division. (2) An offence is a serious offence if - (a) it was an offence under a written law that has been repealed; and (b) the offender's acts or omissions that constituted the offence under the repealed provision would constitute a serious offence under subsection (1). (3) An offence is a serious offence if it is an offence of conspiracy, attempt or incitement to commit an offence that is a serious offence under subsection (1) or (2). 4 HRSO Act s 8. 5 HRSO Act s 35. 6 HRSO Act s 35(3). -- 5 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 6 16 Relevant to the respondent's offending history, a serious offence includes: the offence of lighting or causing to be lit a fire likely to injure or damage, contrary to s 32(2)(a) of the Bush Fires Act;7 the offence of breach of duty of person in control of ignition source or fire contrary to s 445A of the Criminal Code (WA);8 and criminal damage by fire contrary to s 444(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.9 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.10 18 The State has the onus of satisfying the court that the respondent is a high risk serious offender in accordance with s 7(1) of the HRSO Act.11 In considering whether it is satisfied that a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the matters set out in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. Those matters are: (1) any report prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act for the hearing of the application, and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section (s 7(3)(a)); (2) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender (s 7(3)(b)); (3) information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future (s 7(3)(c)); (4) whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender (s 7(3)(d)); (5) any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation program (s 7(3)(e)); (6) whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the offender (s 7(3)(f)); (7) the offender's antecedents and criminal record (s 7(3)(g)); 7 HRSO Act sch 1 div 1 sub-div 1 item 1. 8 HRSO Act sch 1 div 1 sub-div 3 item 36. 9 HRSO Act sch 1 div 2 sub-div 1 item 2. 10 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [55] - [56]. 11 HRSO Act s 7(2). -- 6 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 7 (8) the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence (s 7(3)(h)); (9) the need to protect members of the community from that risk (s 7(3)(i)); and (10) any other relevant matter (s 7(3)(j)). 19 Further, the court must disregard the possibility that the respondent might be temporarily prevented from committing a serious offence by imprisonment, remand in custody, or the imposition of bail conditions.12 20 The words 'high degree of probability' import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt. They are otherwise not capable of further definition.13 The court is required to identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, and then consider whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard by acceptable and cogent evidence.14 21 A restriction order means a continuing detention order or a supervision order.15 A continuing detention order is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.16 A supervision order is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers to be appropriate in accordance with s 30 of the HRSO Act.17 The standard conditions of a supervision order include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.18 Issues to be determined 22 As a threshold issue, the application must meet the requirements of the HRSO Act. The application does meet those requirements in the respondent's case because: 12 HRSO Act s 7(4). 13 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 14 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [34]. 15 HRSO Act s 3. 16 HRSO Act s 3, s 26(1). 17 HRSO Act s 3, s 27(1). 18 HRSO Act s 30(2)(f). -- 7 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 8 (1) on 11 November 2025 (that is the date the application was made), the respondent was serving a custodial sentence for a serious offence; and (2) the respondent's custodial sentence was due to expire on 6 March 2026, that is within 12 months of the date of the application. 23 Those threshold requirements having been satisfied, the issues I must decide on the application are: (1) is the respondent a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act?; and, if so, (2) should the court make an order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (a continuing detention order)19 or that he be released into the community, subject to conditions that the court considers appropriate (supervision order)?20 24 In order to determine these issues, I will consider the matters specified in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act to which I must have regard. Relevant personal and offending history of the respondent s 7(3)(g) 25 I must consider the respondent's antecedents and criminal record including all prior offences to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act (whether they are serious offences or not). I must also have regard to the context in which the past offences were committed.21 26 The respondent's criminal record and antecedents are not only relevant in and of themselves but are also relevant to whether the respondent has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future, and whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour.22 27 The respondent is now 69 years old. He was born in Kojonup and is the eldest of two children. The respondent grew up in the Albany area and attended Albany Primary School and Albany High School. He was born with a cleft palate, has a mild intellectual disability and a 19 HRSO Act s 26. 20 HRSO Act s 27. 21 The State of Western Australia v UJG [No 2] [2023] WASC 77 [35]. 22 HRSO Act s 7(3)(c) - (d); The State of Western Australia v UJG [No 2]. -- 8 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 9 schizoid, paranoid mental disorder. The respondent has one sibling, his younger brother Roger. 28 The respondent was bullied and teased at school. He left school at the age of 13 or 14. He has been on a Disability Support Pension since the age of 14. The respondent has never worked, has never had an intimate relationship or any children. He has lived a socially isolated life and does not have any friends. 29 The respondent's parents are now both deceased. The respondent has a good relationship with his brother. The respondent currently lives with his brother in Northam in a house they jointly own. The property was purchased through a trust their grandfather had set up for them. The respondent and his brother also own a rural block in Kauring. The respondent has never had a problem with drugs or alcohol and has no significant health issues. 30 The respondent's offending has often been linked to Albany Senior High School, a place with which he has a long-standing grievance. His most recent 3-year term of imprisonment for the offence of wilfully lighting a fire likely to injure or damage contrary to s 32(a) of the Bush Fires Act involved the respondent tying a match to an incense stick and leaving it in dried undergrowth at the back of Albany Senior High School, igniting a fire that burnt 20 sqm of bushland before it was extinguished. A second fire ignited later the same day, likely caused by a flare up of the earlier fire, burnt 60 sqm of bushland. 31 This offence was the last in the respondent's long history of lighting fires over the past five decades, commencing when he was 16 years old in 1972. 32 In 1977, the respondent stood trial for offences for lighting fires in 1972, 1973 and 1977. He was found not guilty on the grounds of unsoundness of mind. The respondent spent over a decade in custody at the Governor's pleasure for these offences. 33 After he was released, the respondent was convicted on a further 13 occasions for serious offences relating to lighting fires, including offences for arson contrary to s 444 of the Criminal Code and wilfully lighting fires contrary to s 32 of the Bush Fires Act. This offending was as follows: (1) five offences of wilfully lighting a fire likely to injure or damage in February 1991: the respondent was driving his -- 9 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 10 mother's car between Esperance and Albany when he stopped in the Wellstead area and poured petrol onto an ant nest and used matches to ignite the fuel. He lit a further four fires on the road verge; (2) one offence of attempted criminal damage by fire in March 2002: the respondent went into bushland in Gledhow and hid a candle in heavy bush 300 m from a house. A witness saw him and police attended before the bushland was ignited; (3) five offences of wilfully lighting a fire with intent to injure or damage between December 2004 and March 2005: the respondent deliberately lit bushland in the Talbot area during the peak fire season. At sentencing, counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent had become frustrated at his mother's decision to leave the Albany area in 2001 after his father died; and (4) the offence of placing a match or other inflammable or combustible substance, matter or thing so that it may cause fire, with the intent to cause fire in November 2016: the respondent placed a time delayed incendiary device among dry grass in dense bushland in the Bertram area and then lit the fuse. Reports and assessments Professor Natalie Pyszora (Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist) 34 Professor Pyszora is a qualified expert within the meaning of the HRSO Act.23 Professor Pyszora interviewed the respondent on 13 April 2026 for a duration of 2 hours and 40 minutes and prepared a report dated 4 May 2026.24 35 Professor Pyszora confirmed the respondent's previous diagnoses of mild intellectual disability and paranoid personality disorder and reported a new diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.25 36 Professor Pyszora undertook an assessment of the respondent's risk of reoffending using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R) and Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) assessment tools. 23 HRSO Act s 3; Exhibit 1.2, page 546. 24 Exhibit 1.2, pages 490 - 546. 25 Exhibit 1.2 [209], page 530. -- 10 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 11 37 Under the PCL-R tool, which is used to assess the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy, the respondent scored in the low range for psychopathy.26 38 Using the HCR-20 V3 tool which measures both static and dynamic factors that are associated with violent recidivism, Professor Pyszora observed that the respondent had several historic risk factors, including problems with violence, antisocial behaviour, major mental health disorder and substance use.27 The respondent also had previously demonstrated poor compliance with treatment and supervision requirements. Professor Pyszora identified several clinical risk factors including problems with insight and violent ideation.28 39 Having regard to the findings in the HCR-20 V3, Professor Pyszora described the probable risk scenario as being that the respondent will set a fire after rumination on a grievance related to those who the respondent perceives 'antagonise' or have mistreated him. This may be a longstanding grievance, for example his grievance against Albany Senior High School for his treatment there, or a new grievance, such as perceived victimisation by police. There is also a risk, in Professor Pyszora's opinion, the respondent will feel he needs to lift or soothe his mood and start a fire due to not having any adaptive coping strategies or help-seeking strategies to deal with his negative emotions. Professor Pyszora reported that increasing anxiety, depression, frustration or feelings of rejection experienced by the respondent may be early indicators.29 40 Professor Pyszora's opinion is that the respondent, if not subject to a restriction order, remains at a high risk of committing a further serious offence by setting a fire.30 41 Professor Pyszora recommends the respondent have access to Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) and occupational therapist intervention through the NDIS to address his treatment needs. Further, Professor Pyszora recommends the court provide the expert reports to the PBS practitioner working with the respondent.31 26 Exhibit 1.2 [229] - [231], pages 534 - 535. 27 Exhibit 1.2 [240] - [250], pages 537 - 538. 28 Exhibit 1.2 [251] - [256], pages 538 - 540. 29 Exhibit 1.2 [267], page 542. 30 Exhibit 1.2 [272], page 543. 31 Exhibit 1.2 [279] - [280], pages 543 - 544. -- 11 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 12 42 At the hearing, Professor Pyszora gave evidence that, in her opinion, the respondent poses a high risk of committing a further serious offence without a supervision order being in place.32 Dr Tara Yewers (Clinical and Counselling Psychologist) 43 Dr Yewers is a clinical and counselling psychologist with over 22 years' experience.33 Dr Yewers interviewed the respondent at Midland Adult Community Corrections Centre on 20 March 2026 for a duration of 1 hour and 20 minutes34 and prepared a report dated 2 May 2026.35 44 Dr Yewers assessed the respondent's risk of recidivism using the HCR-20 V3 and PCL-R assessment tools. Dr Yewers' results were the same as Professor Pyszora's results.36 45 In Dr Yewers' opinion, the respondent presents as a high risk of committing a serious offence in the future if not subject to a restriction order.37 46 Dr Yewers recommends that, should the court make a supervision order, a period of three years would be sufficient.38 47 Dr Yewers gave evidence at the hearing that, given the respondent's level of risk, he should be subject to a restriction order.39 Nicole Milsom (Senior Community Corrections Officer) 48 Ms Milsom is the respondent's current case manager. Ms Milsom's report dated 29 May 2026 summarises the respondent's proposed community supervision plan, compliance whilst subject to the interim supervision order, behaviours to be managed and strategies to manage offending behaviours.40 32 ts 80. 33 Exhibit 1.2 [3], page 548. 34 Exhibit 1.2 [5], page 548. 35 Exhibit 1.2, pages 547 - 577. 36 Exhibit 1.2 [100] - [131], pages 568 - 575. 37 Exhibit 1.2 [140], page 576. 38 Exhibit 1.2 [141], page 576. 39 ts 88. 40 Exhibit 1.2, pages 578 - 592. -- 12 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 13 49 Ms Milsom reported that the respondent has expressed frustration around his current interim supervision order and the conditions, in particular the exclusion and inclusion zones.41 50 Ms Milsom's report concludes with 22 proposed conditions of a supervision order should the court consider the respondent suitable for one.42 51 At the hearing, Ms Milsom gave evidence that the respondent could get to his bush block in Kauring via road, without having to go through bushland.43 Ms Milsom also confirmed that the respondent has engaged well with the interim supervision order.44 Mr Luke Carmichael (HRSO Planning Manager) 52 Mr Carmichael is a HRSO Planning Manager for the Department of Justice and produced a report dated 29 May 2026 which summarises the respondent's treatment options available through the Department of Justice.45 53 Mr Carmichael reported the respondent has not previously participated in any group-based intervention to address his offending behaviour whilst in custody. The respondent, however, has previously participated in two separate periods of psychological counselling.46 54 Mr Carmichael confirmed, following the recommendations from both Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers, a referral to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) was completed by Ms Milsom on 12 May 2026. Inquiries with the Manager of FPIT revealed that the respondent was not put on the waitlist for the service as he does not meet the suitability criteria for the service, specifically noting the barriers of his cognitive impairment, reasoning, personality pathology and negligible treatment response. However, it was determined that 'FPIT may be in a position to adopt a consultative role, providing criminogenic psychological input into his supervision and support where appropriate'.47 41 Exhibit 1.2, page 580. 42 Exhibit 1.2, pages 589 - 591. 43 ts 103. 44 ts 103. 45 Exhibit 1.2, pages 487 - 489. 46 Exhibit 1.2 [4] - [5], page 487. 47 Exhibit 1.2 [12] - [14], page 489. -- 13 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 14 55 At the hearing, Mr Carmichael confirmed that FPIT would always remain open to receiving a new referral for the respondent.48 Respondent's propensity to commit serious offences in the future and pattern of offending - s 7(3) (c), (d) 56 The respondent's offending history indicates that he has a propensity to commit serious offences, those being offences of fire setting. The respondent has demonstrated a pattern of offending in the context of experiencing negative emotions followed by rumination, and then fire setting in an attempt to relieve those negative emotions. Any other relevant matter - (s 7(3)(j) HRSO Act) 57 The respondent is currently living with his brother in stable accommodation. His brother is supportive of him and a pro-social influence in his life. 58 The respondent has an approved NDIS plan. The respondent's current NDIS plan allows for total supports of $614,125.33 over 24 months and will be reassessed on 8 March 2028.49 Currently a support worker attends the respondent's home three times a week for four hours at a time. More supports will be added over time. Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? 59 In order to determine whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, I must be satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order against him in order to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. 60 The court is required to be satisfied of two things - firstly, that the risk the respondent will commit a serious offence is unacceptable, and secondly, that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community against that unacceptable risk. 61 In determining whether there is an 'unacceptable risk' that the respondent will commit a serious offence, the court must balance the nature of the risk, the extent of harm that serious offending may cause, the likelihood of the risk coming to pass and the serious consequences 48 ts 97. 49 Exhibit 2.2, page 457. -- 14 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 15 for the respondent if an order declaring them a high risk serious offender is made.50 62 The respondent's extensive offending history of fire setting over many decades demonstrates that he has a propensity to commit serious fire related offences as provided for in the HRSO Act. 63 The expert evidence of both Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers is that there is a high risk of the respondent committing a fire setting offence if he is not subject to a restriction order. 64 The harm that serious fire related offences may cause is catastrophic - to human life, animal welfare, emergency responders and native flora and fauna. The public interest in preventing such harm is extremely high. 65 In all of these circumstances, I find the risk the respondent will commit a serious offence is unacceptable. 66 I must now consider whether it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent to adequately protect the community. In doing so, I must consider whether there are measures other than the imposition of a restriction order, which would adequately protect the community from the unacceptable risk. 67 Both Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers are of the opinion that a restriction order is necessary to adequately protect the community against the risk of the respondent committing a serious fire setting offence. Both gave evidence that the provision of NDIS funding and the respondent's stable accommodation with his brother is not adequate to manage the risk that the respondent will commit a serious fire setting offence. 68 Professor Pyszora's evidence was that the respondent has a very long history of engaging in fire setting and has very complex issues which will take some time for him to manage.51 69 Dr Yewers' evidence was the respondent presents with risk related to his life-long ruminative and grievance-based thinking, and, given his emotional regulation issues, that thinking will persist. Any change in his way of navigating the world will, in the opinion of Dr Yewers, be incremental and not rapid, if it is to occur at all. In Dr Yewers' view, the 50 Garlett [73] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ). 51 ts 75. -- 15 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 16 respondent's NDIS support and living with his brother is not sufficient to remove the risk the respondent presents.52 70 Although the respondent was subject to a post-sentence supervision order (PSSO) after the completion of his most recent term of imprisonment, upon being subject to an interim supervision order, the PSSO was cancelled.53 If the respondent is not made subject to a restriction order, he will be released to the community without being subject to any supervision. 71 I recognise that a finding that the respondent is a high risk serious offender will have serious consequences for him. He will either be detained in custody or subject to a supervision order, including the imposition of electronic monitoring and other conditions that restrict his personal liberty. However, the paramount consideration is the protection of the community and, in this case, that outweighs the serious consequences to the respondent. 72 The evidence satisfies me to a high degree of probability that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community from an unacceptable risk the respondent will commit a serious offence. The respondent presents a high risk of committing a future serious offence and the likelihood of further serious offending is such that the community cannot be adequately protected unless a restriction order is imposed. 73 I therefore declare the respondent a high risk serious offender. Continuing detention order or supervision order? 74 Having found that the respondent is a high risk serious offender and it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk the respondent will commit a serious offence, I must decide whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order. 75 In deciding whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.54 52 ts 89 - 90. 53 Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) s 74J(3). 54 HRSO Act s 48(2). -- 16 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 17 76 The court should impose the order which is least invasive or destructive to the respondent's right to be at liberty while at the same time ensuring an adequate degree of protection to the community.55 77 A supervision order, under s 48(1)(b) of the HRSO Act, is least invasive or destructive of the respondent's right to be at liberty. I must, therefore, consider whether the release of the respondent on a supervision order ensures an adequate degree of protection to the community. 78 Adequate protection for the community does not require there is no risk of the respondent reoffending, rather it requires any risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level.56 79 I also cannot make a supervision order unless I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of such an order.57 80 The respondent has the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions.58 81 In order to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, I must be satisfied the respondent will comply with the standard conditions so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community from the unacceptable risk of the respondent committing a serious offence.59 82 In Hart,60 Fiannaca J considered the construction of the phrase 'substantially comply with', as it appeared in s 23(1B) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (now repealed). His Honour determined those words should be given their ordinary meaning consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall objectives of which are to adequately protect the community and mitigate the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. As these words are identical to the words of the HRSO Act, this construction is equally applicable to s 29(1) and s 29(2) of the HRSO Act. 55 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [21]. 56 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393 [103]. 57 HRSO Act s 29(1). 58 HRSO Act s 29(2). 59 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. 60 Hart [52]. -- 17 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 18 83 Counsel for the State submits the risk to the community of the respondent committing a serious offence can be managed and the protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent's release on a supervision order. 84 I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. That is because he has substantially complied with the conditions of the interim supervision order and he has stable accommodation and support in the community from his brother and through his NDIS funding. 85 I find that it is appropriate to make a supervision order in relation to the respondent. Supervision order conditions 86 The State tendered proposed conditions of a supervision order.61 The terms of the supervision order were largely not opposed by counsel for the respondent, save for the scope of the conditions that restricted the respondent's movements. 87 The State submitted that the following conditions (with amendments in italics to reflect the expert evidence given at the hearing) restricting the respondent's movements were necessary to ensure the adequate protection of the community: 17. Not attend any bushland (with the exception of [redacted] pursuant to Condition 18) unless approved by a CCO. 'Bushland' means unimproved land where there is native vegetation. 18. Not attend the township of Albany. 19. Not leave the township of Northam unless accompanied at all times by an NDIS support person, Roger Raven or if the travel is approved in advance by your CCO. 'NDIS support person' means a person engaged pursuant to your NDIS plan to provide you with support. 88 Counsel for the respondent submitted that condition 18, but not condition 17, was necessary to adequately protect the community.62 61 Exhibit 3. 62 ts 118 - 119. -- 18 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 19 Counsel for the respondent submitted that condition 19 would allow the respondent to travel to his block in Kauring with his brother or a support person. 89 Professor Pyszora gave evidence at the hearing that, in her opinion, condition 19 of the proposed supervision order, in combination with any written lawful instruction that precludes the respondent from entering exclusion zones, is appropriate because it would allow greater flexibility and provide scope for the restrictions on the respondent's movement to be gradually reduced.63 90 Dr Yewers gave evidence that, in her opinion, the respondent should not attend Albany and that it is prudent he not attend bushland, although it would be helpful to him if the term 'bushland' was clearly defined.64 Dr Yewers agreed that it is appropriate the respondent be permitted to attend his rural block in Kauring as it is something meaningful in his life.65 Dr Yewers was of the opinion that restrictions on the respondent's movements needed to be reduced over the term of the supervision order so that he can adjust to manage himself. Dr Yewers was also of the view that the restriction order should provide for the respondent to travel to bushland with the approval of the CCO to provide flexibility in the order.66 91 Most of the respondent's offending history has been directed towards bushland. The respondent's offending has also been associated with his grievance against Albany High School, a grievance held for decades. In my view, it is appropriate that the respondent is precluded from attending any bushland unless it is his Kauring block with his brother or a NDIS support worker, or as otherwise approved by his CCO. This proposed condition still permits flexibility to reduce the restrictions on the respondent's movements over the term of the supervision order. It is also appropriate that the respondent does not attend the township of Albany at all for the term of the supervision order given his long-standing grievance with Albany Senior High School and his persistent offending in Albany. I therefore consider each of the conditions proposed by the State to restrict the respondent's movement are appropriate to adequately manage the risk that the respondent will commit a serious fire setting offence. 63 ts 63 - 64. 64 ts 83. 65 ts 84. 66 ts 85. -- 19 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 20 92 There were two further orders that were the subject of evidence at the hearing. Those being a curfew condition and a condition which permits disclosure of the respondent's offence history to associates of the respondent. 93 Although the interim supervision order contained a curfew condition, both Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers gave evidence at the hearing that a curfew condition is not necessary as the respondent's risk of offending was not associated with a particular time of day. Although it may have been helpful in providing structure upon initial release from prison, given the respondent has been on an interim supervision order for over three months, a curfew no longer serves that purpose.67 Accordingly, it is appropriate in my view that a curfew condition is not included in the supervision order. 94 Proposed condition 16 of the supervision order provides: Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offence history. 95 Professor Pyszora and Dr Yewers both gave evidence that this condition is not relevant to the respondent as he does not have any associates outside of his brother and agencies involved in his support and supervision.68 Both counsel for the respondent and the State agreed this condition could be removed. 96 Dr Yewers recommended that the term of the supervision order be for three years in order to allow the respondent time to demonstrate a capacity to manage himself in the community.69 Professor Pyszora agreed a three-year term would extend beyond the respondent's two-year NDIS package and give the respondent time to make progress.70 97 Accordingly, the respondent is released into the community subject to the supervision order in the terms attached and marked Annexure 'A'. The term of the supervision order is three years from 29 June 2026. 67 ts 62, 82. 68 ts 72, 87. 69 ts 88. 70 ts 74. -- 20 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 21 98 For the benefit of the agencies that are involved with the respondent, I note that Professor Pyszora stressed that it is very important that those agencies take as supportive and empathetic approach to the respondent as possible, as it will take him some time to develop trust with them. Professor Pyszora also observed the importance of information sharing between those agencies, particularly given the respondent's tendency to develop grievances. The sharing of information will minimise the chances of any new grievances forming. -- 21 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 22 Annexure A Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of three years from 29 June 2026, on the following conditions: You, VICTOR REDVERS RAVEN, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at Northam Adult Community Corrections on the day this order commences and advise the officer of your name and address; 2. Report to and receive visits from a CCO, as directed by a CCO; 3. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens; 4. Be under the supervision of a CCO and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); 5. Not leave or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO; 6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of this Order; 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31; ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 8. Reside 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; -- 22 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 23 9. Consult, engage and attend all appointments (including any group programs) and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, support service and or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO, this includes any specialist services for mental health; 10. Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of any treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re- offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice; 11. Permit any medical practitioner or medical practitioners to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware or suspect that you have or intend to cease undergoing medical treatment contrary to the advice of the medical practitioner or medical practitioners, or you have apparently ceased to consult with that medical practitioner or medical practitioners on such treatment; 12. Report to and receive visits from WA Police at times and locations as directed by the Officer in Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad, or their delegate; 13. If requested, permit Police Officers to enter your residence and search your residence and/or vehicle and/or search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order and allow seizure of any such items that the Police Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the order; 14. Remain at your residence and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle under the High-Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA); 15. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information; -- 23 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 24 16. Not attend any bushland (with the exception of [redacted] pursuant to Condition 18) unless approved by a CCO; ‘Bushland’ means unimproved land where there is native vegetation. 17. Not attend the township of Albany; 18. Not leave the township of Northam unless accompanied at all times by an NDIS support person, Roger Raven or if the travel is approved in advance by your CCO; 'NDIS support person' means a person engaged pursuant to your NDIS plan to provide you with support. 19. You must not: (a) Possess, carry, purchase, acquire or have under your control any fire- starting implement (including but not limited to lighters, matches, ignition devices or accelerants), unless previously approved by a CCO for a legitimate purpose; (b) Possess any flammable thing or substance unless previously approved by a CCO for a legitimate purpose; nor (c) Dispose of, drop, throw, or extinguish any cigarette, match or other burning materials in a way that creates risk of ignition or fire; 20. You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a member of the departmental staff or an agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice. -- 24 of 25 -- [2026] WASC 263 WHITBY J Page 25 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CS Associate to the Hon Justice Whitby 29 JUNE 2026 -- 25 of 25 --