THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MWX [2026] WASC 252

[2026] WASC 252 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MWX [No 2] [2026] WASC 252 CORAM : PALMER J HEARD : 26 MAY 2026, 23 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 23 JUNE 2026 PUBLISHED : 23 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 5 of 2025 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND MWX Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Application for restriction order - Whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether community can be adequately protected by supervision of the respondent Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 Page 2 Result: Supervision order made Suppression order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Mr J Lloyd Respondent : Mr D McKenzie Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Geoffrey Miller Chambers Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 DPP (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 The State of Western Australia v AB [No 3] [2022] WASC 126 The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 The State of Western Australia v El Waly [No 2] [2025] WASC 394 The State of Western Australia v Hansen [No 2] [2025] WASC 4 The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 -- 2 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 3 PALMER J: Introduction 1 These reasons concern whether the respondent (Mr MWX) should be made the subject of a restriction order under s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act) and, if so, the nature of the restriction order that should be made. 2 The applicant (the State) has applied for an order that Mr MWX be made the subject of a restriction order under s 48 of the HRSO Act. The application raises two principal issues: (a) first, is Mr MWX a high risk serious offender?; and (b) secondly, if so, what type of restriction order should be made: a supervision order or a continuing detention order? 3 In relation to the first issue, counsel for Mr MWX conceded that he was a high risk serious offender. As discussed in greater detail below, I consider that that concession was properly made and Mr MWX is a high risk serious offender. 4 With regard to the second issue: the order that should be made, the State's position was that the court might be satisfied that the community would be adequately protected by a supervision order in the terms of a draft order provided by the State. Counsel for Mr MWX agreed and submitted that such an order would be appropriate. 5 For the reasons that follow, I consider that such an order is appropriate and will make such an order. When restriction orders may be made under the HRSO Act 6 I discussed the restriction orders that may be made under the HRSO Act and when they are made in The State of Western Australia v El Waly [No 2].1 I do not propose to repeat everything that I said there, but I will repeat three matters. 7 First, in preparing these reasons I have had regard to the legal principles discussed by the High Court in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.2 1 The State of Western Australia v El Waly [No 2] [2025] WASC 394 [13] - [23]. 2 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 (Garlett). -- 3 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 4 8 Secondly, I have also had regard to each of the matters identified in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. I discuss each of those matters below. 9 Thirdly, I respectfully agree with and adopt Tottle J's summary of the relevant legal principles in The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2].3 An overview of the evidence relied upon by the State 10 The State relied on two books of documents that it filed in support of its application. Those books were tendered at the hearing without objection. 11 The State also led oral evidence from three witnesses (who have each prepared reports relied upon by the State): (a) Dr Dylan Galloghly, a Consultant Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, who reviewed Mr MWX and prepared a report dated 1 October 2025; (b) Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, a Forensic Consultant Psychiatrist, who reviewed Mr MWX and prepared a report dated 5 October 2025; (c) Ms Nicole Bennetts, Acting Team Leader of the High Risk Serious Offender Unit who prepared a report dated 19 June 2026. Mr MWX's antecedents and criminal record 12 The HRSO Act requires me to have regard to Mr MWX's antecedents and criminal record when considering whether or not he is a high risk serious offender.4 Mr MWX's personal background 13 Mr MWX is 40 years old. He is a Noongar man. 14 Mr MWX seems to have given different personal histories to different people who have interviewed him. He has been described as a 'poor historian'.5 Mr MWX's personal background appears to be as follows. 3 The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 [4]. 4 HRSO Act, s 7(1) and 7(3)(g). 5 Exhibit 1, page 391. -- 4 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 5 15 Mr MWX is the youngest of two children. He had an elder brother but his brother died in 2021. 16 Mr MWX's parents separated when he was young due to his father's alcoholism and domestic violence towards his mother. 17 After Mr MWX's parents separated, he lived with his mother until he was 20 years old. Mr MWX's mother lived a transient lifestyle and lived with extended family for periods. She was an alcoholic and also used cannabis. He now has sporadic contact with his mother. 18 Mr MWX's mother had two subsequent relationships and he had two younger half-siblings. He has a positive relationship with them. 19 Mr MWX's father died on 3 September 2011, from an alcohol related illness. He had been in a nursing home for a number of years. 20 Mr MWX was exposed to violence throughout his childhood. This included domestic violence, family feuding and the use of weapons. He was also exposed to substance abuse and criminality. 21 Mr MWX attended a number of different schools and struggled academically. He repeated at least one year of school. He had difficulty forming relationships with his peers and experienced racism. He began to truant often and was disinterested with school. He left school in year 9 or year 10. Since leaving school he has never been employed. 22 When Mr MWX was 17 he formed a relationship with Courtney. They were in a relationship for 9 years and had three children. Their relationship was marred by arguments, substance abuse issues, infidelity and domestic violence. 23 In 2012, Mr MWX met Narelle. That relationship lasted about five years and they had a daughter. Again, the relationship was affected by domestic violence and substance abuse. Mr MWX's daughter is in foster care and he has only seen her once. 24 Mr MWX subsequently formed a relationship with another woman which lasted about four years. That relationship was also affected by domestic violence and substance abuse. 25 Mr MWX began inhaling volatile substances (mainly paint) with relatives on a daily basis from the age of 13. He continued doing this until he was 16. From that age he inhaled volatile substances only -- 5 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 6 occasionally, when other substances were not available. His inhalation increased again after he turned 21. 26 Mr MWX's relatives also introduced him to cannabis when he was 13. He continued to use cannabis regularly until he was 21, when he began to experience panic attacks. He started using cannabis again when he was 24 years old. 27 Mr MWX began drinking alcohol with relatives at the age of 15. By the age of 18 he was binge drinking with them. From the age of 20, he drank daily. He started taking amphetamines and methamphetamine in 2012. 28 Mr MWX has suffered from depression intermittently throughout his life and has experienced panic attacks and anxiety. Mr MWX's criminal record 29 Mr MWX was first charged with offences when he was 14 but no conviction was entered. 30 In 2006, he was convicted in the Magistrates Court of aggravated common assault, breach of bail and giving false personal details to police. He received fines for these offences. 31 The aggravated common assault involved Mr MWX threatening to hit his domestic partner with a metal baseball bat after she threw water at him. 32 In 2007, Mr MWX was convicted in the Magistrates Court of assaulting a public officer, disorderly conduct and driving without a licence. He received a 6 month community based order and 60 hours community work for the assault and disorderly conduct offences and fines for the others. 33 The assaulting a public officer offence involved Mr MWX assaulting a police officer when he was being arrested. He was intoxicated after inhaling paint all afternoon. 34 On 15 January 2008, Mr MWX was convicted of unlawful damage and burglary for which he was fined. 35 Later that year, on 28 July 2008, Mr MWX was convicted in the Northam Magistrates Court of one count of aggravated assault -- 6 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 7 occasioning bodily harm and two counts of unlawful damage. He was sentenced to a 7 month term of imprisonment. 36 The aggravated assault involved Mr MWX assaulting his partner in the early morning after he had spent most of the day drinking. He punched his partner on her arms, bit her back, arm and leg. He also smashed a plastic chair over her head. When his partner tried to call the police, he smashed her phone against the wall. He also smashed the window of nearby commercial premises. 37 On 29 September 2010, Mr MWX was fined in the Perth Magistrates Court for disorderly conduct. 38 On 16 February 2011, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of unlawful wounding in circumstances of aggravation, breaching a police order and breaching a bail condition. A pre-sentence order was made. 39 The breach of a police order and protective bail condition offences arose out of Mr MWX's failure to comply with a police order and police bail condition that required him to keep away from his partner. 40 The unlawful wounding in circumstances of aggravation offence involved Mr MWX ramming his partner's head into a wall and smashing her over the head with a broom a number of times. His partner was left semi-conscious and bleeding heavily. 41 On 1 August 2012, Mr MWX received a total effective sentence of 6 months immediate imprisonment for those offences. A 3 month concurrent immediate term of imprisonment was imposed for a breach of bail by not appearing. 42 On 14 January 2013, Mr MWX was convicted in the Northam Magistrates Court of one count of stealing. He received a 6 month community based order. 43 On 1 August 2013, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of possessing stolen property. He was fined. 44 On 5 November 2013, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of breaching protective bail conditions and fined. This offence involved Mr MWX breaching a bail condition by contacting a person he was prohibited from contacting. -- 7 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 8 45 On 23 January 2014, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of aggravated unlawful assault causing bodily harm. A pre-sentence order was made. 46 The aggravated unlawful assault causing bodily harm offence arose out of a drunken assault by Mr MWX on his partner. He punched her 10 times in the head. When she ran away, he grabbed her by the hair and pulled her back onto the bed. He bit her and punched her again. His partner sustained bruising and a cut to her ear where he had bitten her. 47 On 26 April 2014, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of one count of stealing and one count of giving false personal details and fined. 48 On 14 May 2014, Mr MWX breached his pre-sentence order but an order was made that the order continue. 49 On 25 June 2014, Mr MWX was sentenced to 9 months immediate imprisonment for the aggravated unlawful assault causing bodily harm that was the subject of the pre-sentence order. He also received a concurrent 1 month term of immediate imprisonment for breaching his bail by failing to appear. 50 On 14 July 2015, Mr MWX was convicted in the Armadale Magistrates Court of disorderly behaviour in a public place and fined. 51 On 4 December 2015, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of criminal damage, possession of drug paraphernalia and trespass for which he was fined. 52 On 18 December 2015, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of disorderly behaviour in public and fined. 53 On 3 August 2016, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of disorderly conduct and aggravated unlawful assault causing bodily harm. He was fined for the disorderly conduct and received a 1 year 7 month term of immediate imprisonment for the assault. 54 The aggravated unlawful assault involved Mr MWX punching his de facto partner in the head, knocking her unconscious. While she lay unconscious on the ground, Mr MWX punched her another 10 times. She sustained bruising and cuts to her head. Mr MWX was intoxicated. -- 8 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 9 55 On 27 February 2018, Mr MWX was convicted in the Midland Magistrates Court of stealing and fined. 56 On 27 February 2018, Mr MWX was convicted in the Midland Magistrates Court of disorderly behaviour and received a 6 month community based order. 57 On 30 October 2018, Mr MWX was convicted in the Armadale Magistrates Court of trespass and fined. 58 On 1 November 2018, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of possession of cannabis, breach of a protective bail condition and breach of a community based order. He was fined. An order was made that the community based order continue. 59 On 1 July 2020, Mr MWX was convicted in the District Court of attempted aggravated sexual penetration and doing an act causing bodily harm with intent to harm. Mr MWX pleaded guilty to the second offence on the first day of trial and was convicted of the other offence after trial. He received a total effective sentence of 6 years 6 months immediate imprisonment. 60 These charges arose out of an incident in which Mr MWX beat his de facto partner with a mop handle after accusing her of cheating on him. He then tried to force the handle into her vagina. His partner escaped into the bedroom but fell over. He followed her into the bedroom and jumped on her head an unknown number of times. 61 On 9 July 2020, Mr MWX was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of breaching protective bail conditions and aggravated unlawful wounding. He received a 4 month term of imprisonment for the first offence and a 12 month term of imprisonment for the second, to be served concurrently from 9 July 2020. 62 The aggravated unlawful wounding involved Mr MWX threatening to kill his former partner with a 30cm long kitchen knife and stabbing her in the shoulder and leg. Mr MWX had been drinking heavily at the time. -- 9 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 10 Whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour 63 In considering whether or not Mr MWX is a high risk serious offender, the HRSO Act requires me to have regard to whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the accused.6 64 A pattern as it pertains to behaviour, is a recurrent way of acting by an individual or group towards a given object or in a given situation.7 65 The pattern that emerges from Mr MWX's offending behaviour is one of Mr MWX using serious violence against his intimate partner while intoxicated. That pattern of violence includes the use of items as weapons, including a plastic chair, a broom, a mop handle and a knife. Medical, psychiatric or other assessments relating to Mr MWX 66 The HRSO Act requires me to have regard to any medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to Mr MWX, in considering whether or not he is a high risk serious offender.8 Psychological report of Tanina Oliveri dated 23 July 2012 67 Ms Oliveria is a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist who reviewed Mr MWX to prepare a psychological report for his sentencing in the Perth Magistrates Court on 1 August 2012. 68 Ms Oliveria attempted to assess Mr MWX using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, Third Edition, but was unable to complete the assessment because Mr MWX became frustrated and agitated. 69 Ms Oliveria assessed Mr MWX using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) tool which she explained is a clinical checklist of 20 items used to screen for risk factors for spousal assault. She considered that Mr MWX had many factors known to correlate with increased recidivism for spousal assault. 70 Ms Oliveria considered that there was a high risk that Mr MWX would engage in future violent behaviour in intimate relationships. She considered that his level of risk might reduce if he abstained from 6 HRSO Act, s 7(3)(d). 7 The State of Western Australia v AB [No 3] [2022] WASC 126. 8 HRSO Act, s 7(1) and 7(3)(b). -- 10 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 11 substance abuse, improved his poor life skills, maintained contact with his children and developed a functional intimate relationship. 71 Ms Oliveria considered that Mr MWX had many treatment needs to address his risk of re-offending. Psychological report of Jane Sampson dated 6 April 2020 72 Ms Sampson is a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist who reviewed Mr MWX to prepare a psychological report for his sentencing in the District Court in July 2020. 73 Ms Sampson assessed Mr MWX using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence - 2nd Edition (WASI-II) which she explained is a reliable measure of intelligence. 74 Ms Sampson reported that Mr MWX's overall performance on the test placed him in the 'extremely low' range of intellectual capacity. She said that 99.8% of others his age would be expected to perform higher. She said that his verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning scores placed him in the 'extremely low' range of intellectual capacity and 99.9% and 99% of others his age would be expected to perform higher. 75 Ms Sampson suspected that a neurodevelopmental disability such as Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) might be present but she noted that a proper assessment for FASD was onerous and required a number of professionals. 76 Ms Sampson thought it likely that Mr MWX's substance use had impacted his cognitive functioning. She considered that he had very limited self-awareness and insight, due to significant cognitive limitations. 77 Ms Sampson assessed Mr MWX using the STATIC 99R, which she explained was an instrument designed to assist in the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism for sexual offenders. 78 Ms Sampson considered that Mr MWX's risk of re-offending in a similar manner was in the 'above average' category. She said that the STATIC 99R suggested that offenders that fell into the same category had a 11% chance of sexual re-offending within a 5-year period. -- 11 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 12 79 Ms Sampson also assessed Mr MWX using the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) which she explained evaluates sexual violence risk in clinical and forensic decision making. 80 Ms Sampson observed that Mr MWX was in denial of his sexual offending. She thought that his self-awareness was very limited because of his likely cognitive disability. 81 Ms Sampson thought that Mr MWX had committed an opportunistic offence to punish his partner for perceived infidelity and that his offending did not establish a stable pattern of deviant sexual arousal. 82 Ms Sampson also assessed Mr MWX using the SARA tool, which she explained assists in prediction of the likelihood of domestic violence. She considered that there were a number of risk factors evident for him. She thought that Mr MWX was at high risk of re-offending in a similar manner. 83 Ms Sampson recommended that Mr MWX be considered for relevant programs but thought that he might be unsuitable due to his likely cognitive disability. She suggested that he be assessed for assistance under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Neuropsychological Report of Dr Jonson Moyle dated 18 June 2020 84 Dr Moyle is a Clinical Neuropsychologist who also reviewed Mr MWX to prepare a report for his sentencing in the District Court in July 2020. 85 Dr Moyle considered that Mr MWX's premorbid intellectual abilities were estimated to be within the extremely low to borderline range. 86 Dr Moyle examined Mr MWX's core intellectual skills using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), which he explained provides index scores examining base verbal and nonverbal abilities, working memory and processing speed. He said that Mr MWX's results were as follows: -- 12 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 13 Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) <1st-4th % Extremely Low Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) 5th-21st % Low Average Processing Speed Index (PSI) 1st-12th % Borderline Full-Scale Summary 1st-5th % Extremely Low 87 Dr Moyle said that Mr MWX's summary full-scale result was within the extremely low range. He said that this was consistent with results seen in people diagnosed with an intellectual disability. 88 Dr Moyle considered that overall, Mr MWX's memory for verbally and visually-presented material was impaired. 89 Dr Moyle thought that Mr MWX's results on measures of executive functioning also reflected difficulties. 90 Dr Moyle's opinion was that Mr MWX's results were consistent with those seen in people diagnosed with an intellectual disability. He considered that this conclusion was consistent with Ms Sampson's report. He thought that Mr MWX also demonstrated multiple impairments in his processing speed, core language skills, complex visual spatial skills, memory and executive functioning. 91 Dr Moyle also considered that while Mr MWX could be described as having a neurodevelopmental disability such as FASD, such a label might be inappropriate given his multiple other factors that predispose cognitive impairments. 92 Dr Moyle considered that providing Mr MWX with solid community supports regarding future court orders and being involved in disability supports such as the NDIS would assist with compliance. Treatment Options Report of Luke Carmichael dated 13 October 2025 93 The State referred to a HRSO treatment options report prepared by Mr Carmichael dated 13 October 2025. 94 Mr Carmichael said that a Treatment Assessment Report was completed in 2020, following Mr MWX's neuropsychological assessment by Dr Moyle. He said that that assessment did not recommend group based criminogenic intervention because of -- 13 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 14 Mr MWX's cognitive limitations. He said that the author of the report recommended Mr MWX be assessed for individual psychological intervention. 95 Mr Carmichael said that the resultant Individual Psychological Treatment Assessment Report outlined similar barriers and Mr MWX was deemed unsuitable for individual psychological intervention. He said that a further referral to the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) was completed in August 2025 by Senior Community Corrections Officer, Ms Heather Aplin but this referral was declined for the same reasons as the 2020 referral. 96 Mr Carmichael referred to the reports prepared by Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly (see below) and observed that they had recommended that Mr MWX be referred to FPIT for consideration of his suitability for individual psychological counselling. 97 Mr Carmichael said that he had liaised with Mr Lockhart the Manager of FPIT. He said that Mr Lockhart had told him that a new referral for individual intervention would not be considered differently until a new neuropsychological report was obtained. 98 Mr Carmichael said that Mr Lockhart indicated that if a new referral were submitted to FPIT alongside a new neuropsychological report, FPIT might be able to provide consultative services to assist external support services address Mr MWX's criminogenic needs. Assessment of Heather Applin dated 23 October 2025 99 The State referred to a community supervision assessment prepared by Ms Applin dated 23 October 2025. 100 Ms Applin indicated that Mr MWX had participated in two voluntary programmes while in custody: (a) Community Transition: Family Domestic Violence- Treatment Readiness Program (he had completed three sessions); and (b) Community Transition: Alcohol and Other Drugs - Treatment Readiness Program (he had completed three sessions). 101 Ms Applin said that between December 2019 and May 2025, Mr MWX incurred one prison charge related to being in possession of alcohol. -- 14 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 15 102 Ms Applin reviewed Mr MWX's previous response to supervision and observed that he has been subject to numerous community dispositions previously with most being breached due to re-offending and non-compliance. 103 Ms Applin said that during discussions with Mr MWX around his most recent offending, he told her that he has no knowledge of the whereabouts of his victim and has no interest in establishing a further intimate relationship upon his eventual release from custody. 104 Ms Applin discussed accommodation options with Mr MWX and he expressed a desire to be closer to his mother. 105 Ms Applin also discussed with Mr MWX participating in programmes. Mr MWX indicated that he was willing to participate in programmes targeted to his capacity to engage. 106 Ms Applin also discussed with Mr MWX the link between his offending, alcohol and illicit substances and mental health. She said that Mr MWX accepted responsibility for his behaviour but was unable to link his use of alcohol and substances to his use of violence within an intimate relationship. 107 Ms Applin said that Mr MWX was receiving funds from the NDIS and that the plan ran until April 2026. 108 Ms Applin said that Mr MWX indicated that he would be seeking employment with the assistance of the Waalitj Foundation. Ms Applin spoke to Mr Gavin Jackson from the Waalitj Foundation who advised that Mr MWX has been engaged with them for approximately three and a half years. 109 Ms Applin contacted the Victim Engagement Unit who confirmed that Mr MWX is subject to a lifetime violence restraining order in relation to the victim of his most recent offending. 110 Ms Applin discussed various risk management strategies that would be employed if a supervision order was imposed and made recommendations about the terms of any supervision order. Updated Assessment of Heather Applin dated 18 May 2026 111 The State referred to an updated community supervision assessment prepared by Ms Applin dated 18 May 2026. -- 15 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 16 112 Ms Applin said that on 2 December 2025 a Functional Capacity Assessment Report was completed for Mr MWX by [redacted], Senior Occupational Therapist from [redacted]. Ms Applin said that [redacted] thought that Mr MWX would benefit from support in key areas including daily functioning, cognitive management, communication needs, and routine establishment. 113 She also said that [redacted] considered that Mr MWX required ongoing, structured 1:1 daily support to manage all aspects of personal, domestic, social and community participation to assist with supporting his memory, sequencing of tasks as well as his completion of tasks overall. 114 Ms Applin stated that on 23 January 2026, the State Administrative Tribunal made Guardianship and Administration orders in respect of Mr MWX. She said that these orders mean that important decisions concerning Mr MWX must now be approved by his allocated Guardian from the Office of the Public Advocate. 115 Ms Applin set out Mr MWX's NDIS funded supports. She noted that on 24 April 2026 Ms Rachel Loffler from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) advised that Mr MWX's plan had been automatically extended for a further year, with no changes. She said Mr MWX's NDIS plan currently runs from 14 April 2026 to 13 April 2027 and is inclusive of $102,408 funded supports which have been budgeted to core supports, capacity building supports and capital supports for Mr MWX. 116 Ms Applin stated that the NDIA Justice Planning Team has confirmed that upon Mr MWX's release, he will be assisted by his NDIS funded Specialist Support Coordinator to engage with core supports who will provide support to him in the home and in the community. 117 Ms Applin said that she had attended a number of interagency meetings between December 2025 and May 2026 to discuss appropriate supports for Mr MWX. 118 Ms Applin said that two accommodation options had been identified for Mr MWX. 119 The first was a long-term respite address for Emerging Supports, and currently had no other participants residing within it. At the time, -- 16 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 17 the assessment of the suitability of the address was still being undertaken. 120 The other address was available from [redacted]. The assessment of the suitability of that address was also being undertaken. 121 Ms Applin said she had made contact with Mr MWX's aunt on 19 March 2026. She said that Mr MWX's aunt confirmed her ongoing support for Mr MWX and indicated that she is aware that Mr MWX would prefer the first accommodation option as it was closer to his mother. 122 Ms Applin said that she had submitted a further referral to FPIT on 12 March 2026. She said that the referral was accepted based on Dr Vidovich's assessment that Mr MWX does not meet the diagnostic criteria for an Intellectual Developmental Disorder (see below). She said that Mr MWX is currently on the FPIT waiting list. Updated Community Supervision Assessment of Nicole Bennetts dated 19 June 2026 123 A further community assessment report was prepared by Ms Bennetts, Acting Team Leader of the High Risk Serious Offender Unit on 19 June 2026. 124 Ms Bennetts indicated that the police had completed desk top spatial analyses of both possible properties and those analyses had not raised any concerns. 125 Ms Bennetts said that Mr MWX's guardian had indicated that he considered the second property to be preferable because the first property lacked a confirmed staffing model and was not operationally ready for a high release while the second property was fully staffed and was shared accommodation. 126 Ms Bennetts noted that Mr MWX has been allocated a new Specialist Support Coordinator and a Positive Behavioural Support Practitioner. 127 Ms Bennetts recorded that the HRSO Unit was contacted by [redacted] Senior Complex Needs Justice Planner from the Justice Planning Team at the NDIA on 15 June 2026, regarding Mr MWX's current NDIS funding. The report identified an issue with Mr MWX's NDIS funding for SIL but indicated that this was being addressed and -- 17 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 18 that confidence had been expressed that an uplift could be obtained to alleviate any issues. Reports prepared under s 74 of the HRSO Act 128 In considering whether or not Mr MWX is a high risk serious offender, I am also required to have regard to any report prepared under the HRSO Act.9 Psychological Report of Dr Dylan Galloghly dated 1 October 2025 129 As I have mentioned, Dr Galloghly is a Consultant Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. 130 Dr Galloghly reviewed Mr MWX in person on 4 September 2025 and 30 September 2025 for a total of three hours. He also spoke to Mr MWX's Senior Community Corrections Officer and reviewed various materials identified in his report. 131 Dr Galloghly diagnosed Mr MWX as suffering from an Intellectual Disability likely caused by a lack of education and a chronic history of substance abuse, particularly solvent abuse. He considered that Mr MWX has deficits across multiple cognitive domains that impair his ability to communicate, problem solve, plan and self-regulate, highly associated with his general life dysfunction and his offending. 132 Dr Galloghly also considered that Mr MWX meets the criteria for a diagnosis of Substance Use Disorder, given his chronic history of alcohol and solvent abuse. Dr Galloghly observed that Mr MWX's substance abuse problems have also underpinned his violence, offending and general dysfunction. 133 Dr Galloghly noted that Mr MWX has a history of depression and has likely met the criteria for a major or persistent depressive disorder at various stages in his life. However, he considered that Mr MWX's depressive features revealed a depressive personality structure. He also thought that Mr MWX's past behaviour indicated the presence of antisocial personality traits. 134 Dr Galloghly assessed Mr MWX using the Static-99R. He said that Mr MWX scored two on the Static-99R, placing him in the Average (Level III) risk band for sexual reoffending. He explained that 9 HRSO Act, s 7(1) and 7(3)(a). -- 18 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 19 in routine samples of individuals charged or convicted of a sexual offence, the average 5-year sexual recidivism rate was between 5% and 15%. He said that about half the individuals at Level III are expected to transition down to a Level II, Below Average Risk, within a year or two after a sufficient dosage of treatment or positive life changes. 135 Dr Galloghly also assessed Mr MWX using the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol - Version 2 (RSVP-V2). 136 Dr Galloghly considered that Mr MWX's assessment using the RSVP-V2 revealed the following relevant risk factors: (a) in relation to the Nature of Sexual Violence: Physical Coercion in Sexual Violence. He observed that Mr MWX has used significant physical violence in the commission of sexual offending; (b) in relation to Perpetrator Characteristics: Psychological Adjustment: (i) Problems with Minimization/Denial of Sexual Violence. He said that Mr MWX denied committing the sexual index offence; (ii) Problems with Self Awareness. He observed that Mr MWX has limited self-awareness, likely due to his intellectual disability; (iii) Problems with Stress and Coping. He said that Mr MWX has limited coping skills and typically resorts to substance abuse to cope; (iv) Problems resulting from Child Abuse. He said that Mr MWX was exposed to neglect and violence in childhood; (c) in relation to Perpetrator Characteristics: Mental Health: (i) Major Mental Disorder. He noted that Mr MWX has a diagnosis of an intellectual disability that impacts his behaviour and functioning; and (ii) Problems with Substance Abuse. He observed that Mr MWX has a long history of abusing alcohol and other drugs, associated with offending; -- 19 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 20 (d) in relation to Perpetrator Characteristics: Social Adjustment: (i) Problems with Intimate Relationships. He noted that Mr MWX has a chronic history of domestic violence; (ii) Problems with Non-Intimate Relationships. He observed that Mr MWX's peer group is typically associated with substance abuse and antisocial behaviour; (iii) Problems with Employment. He said that Mr MWX has no history of employment; and (iv) Problems with Antisocial Attitudes. He observed that Mr MWX has a significant history of engaging in antisocial behaviour, although he thought this currently appeared less problematic; and (e) in relation to Perpetrator Characteristics: Manageability: (i) Problems with Living Situation. He said that Mr MWX has typically been homeless; (ii) Problems with Treatment. He observed that Mr MWX has not participated in treatment and his intellectual disability impedes treatment options and responsivity; and (iii) Problems with Supervision. He said that Mr MWX has previously breached orders but currently seems motivated towards compliance. 137 Dr Galloghly considered that Mr MWX's risk of sexual violence recidivism based on the RSVP-V2 was assessed as being in the moderate range, given the presence of 14 out of 23 relevant risk factors. He observed that Mr MWX did not present with many sexual offending-specific risk factors and he does not have a history of sexual offending beyond the index offence. 138 Dr Galloghly also assessed Mr MWX using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide Version 3 (SARA-V3). 139 Dr Galloghly considered that Mr MWX's assessment using SARA-V3 revealed the following risk factors: (a) in relation to Nature of Intimate Partner Violence: -- 20 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 21 (i) Intimidation. He said that Mr MWX has used intimidation in prior relationships; (ii) Threats. He observed that Mr MWX has made threats to kill in prior relationships; (iii) Physical Harm. He said that Mr MWX has physically assaulted his partners; (iv) Sexual Harm. He observed that Mr MWX committed a sexual assault in the index offending; (v) Severe intimate partner violence (IPV). He said that Mr MWX has used weapons to seriously harm victims; (vi) Chronic IPV. He noted that Mr MWX has a persistent history of IPV; (vii) Escalating IPV. He observed that Mr MWX's IPV offending escalated to a sexual assault; and (viii) IPV-Related Supervision Violations. He said Mr MWX breached protective bail conditions and other orders; and (b) in relation to nature of Perpetrator Risk Factors: (i) Intimate Relationships. He said that Mr MWX has a long history of intimate relationship problems; (ii) Non-Intimate Relationships. He noted that Mr MWX tends to socialise with peers who engage in substance abuse and antisocial activity; (iii) Employment/Finances. He observed that Mr MWX has no employment history; (iv) Trauma/Victimisation. He said that Mr MWX was exposed to violence and neglect in childhood; (v) General Antisocial Conduct. He noted that Mr MWX has a generalist offending history; (vi) Major Mental Disorder. He noted that Mr MWX has been diagnosed with an Intellectual Disability; and -- 21 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 22 (vii) Substance Abuse. He referred to Mr MWX's severe substance abuse issues. 140 Dr Galloghly considered that Mr MWX's risk of intimate partner violence based on the SARA-V3 was in the high range, given the presence of 15 out of 18 risk factors that could be assessed. He said that Mr MWX had a chronic history of intimate partner violence and his risk had 8 out of 8 intimate partner violence pattern-related risk factors. 141 Overall, Dr Galloghly considered Mr MWX's risk of committing a serious offence (as defined in the HRSO Act) was assessed in the high range without restrictions. Dr Galloghly thought that Mr MWX is more likely to commit a violent offence within a relationship than a sexual offence, as he has a chronic history of intimate partner violence and a limited history of sexual offending. He considered that Mr MWX's risk of sexual recidivism was in the average/moderate range. 142 Dr Galloghly thought that Mr MWX's primary risk factors relate to substance abuse and problems associated with his intellectual disability (e.g., self-awareness, problem-solving, planning and self-regulation). Dr Galloghly considered that these issues were particularly problematic within intimate relationship dynamics. 143 Dr Galloghly considered that Mr MWX also has a plethora of other risk factors and treatment needs related to the lack of structure and stability in his life to date (e.g. stable accommodation, employment and prosocial support). 144 Dr Galloghly thought that these were all treatment needs and Mr MWX will need consistent compliance with risk management principles to mitigate his risk of recidivism. 145 Dr Galloghly considered that Mr MWX experienced adverse childhood experiences that likely underpin his intellectual challenges, proclivity for substance abuse and intimate partner violence. 146 Dr Galloghly observed that Mr MWX's serious violent offending is primarily chronic intimate partner violence, characterised by a pattern of volatile relationships, substance abuse, homelessness and high conflict. He thought that the violence could be triggered by menial disputes, was impulsive and emotionally driven and made worse by intoxication. He considered that Mr MWX's intellectual disability limits his ability to manage relationship conflict. He considered that -- 22 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 23 Mr MWX's sexual offending was likely an extension of anger and violence as opposed to being sexually motivated. 147 Dr Galloghly thought that Mr MWX's violence is perpetuated by his intellectual difficulties, substance abuse and the chaos in his life, including homelessness, no employment and lack of personal and professional support and direction. 148 Dr Galloghly considered that the probable re-offending scenario pertains to Mr MWX assaulting a partner due to a dispute or conflict. He thought that without rehabilitation, Mr MWX is likely to relapse into substance abuse and possibly become homeless again where he is more likely to encounter vulnerable females and enter into a high-conflict relationship. 149 Dr Galloghly thought that an escalation in violence could see Mr MWX use a weapon and/or commit severe acts of intimate partner violence such as strangulation or sexual assault. He considered that intoxication is likely to intensify the severity of the violence. 150 Dr Galloghly considered that Mr MWX's risk of recidivism needs to be managed through comprehensive support, supervision and monitoring. 151 Dr Galloghly thought that some of these issues could be addressed with appropriate NDIS funding. He considered that comprehensive support and HRSO supervision and monitoring practices should enable the management of Mr MWX's risk within the community. He observed that there is also little value in ongoing detention from a treatment perspective, given Mr MWX's unsuitability for custodial treatment programmes. 152 Dr Galloghly said that Mr MWX has several treatment needs, including substance abuse, self-regulation, emotional management, communication, problem-solving, and avoiding antisocial peers. He also thought that Mr MWX had more generic needs related to living a prosocial, stable and meaningful life, including education/employment, reconnecting with family and prosocial peers and finding prosocial pursuits. 153 Dr Galloghly thought that while psychosocial and behavioural support may better align with Mr MWX's responsivity issues, he would also benefit from tailored individual counselling with a psychologist -- 23 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 24 skilled in disability and offending matters. He thought that Mr MWX would benefit from being re-referred to FPIT. 154 Dr Galloghly also considered that Mr MWX would benefit from basic supportive alcohol and other drug counselling and relationship counselling. 155 Dr Galloghly thought that Mr MWX appears motivated to comply with typical HRSO community supervision order conditions, although he noted that supervision and some conditions would need to be adapted to Mr MWX's intellectual functioning. Psychiatric Report of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 5 October 2025 156 Dr Wojnarowska interviewed Mr MWX for three hours on 11 September 2025 and reviewed various documents provided to her which she identified in her report. 157 Dr Wojnarowska diagnosed Mr MWX with Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic traits likely caused by his exposure to domestic violence, drug and alcohol use and his experience of neglect in his childhood and formative years which resulted in disorganised attachment. 158 Dr Wojnarowska considered that Mr MWX's behaviour was the result of deep-seated psychological problems dating from his childhood. 159 Dr Wojnarowska also considered that Mr MWX met the criteria for a diagnosis of a Substance Use Disorder. 160 Dr Wojnarowska assessed Mr MWX using the Static-99R. She considered that Mr MWX scored three on the Static-99R, placing him in the average risk for sexual reoffending. 161 Dr Wojnarowska also assessed Mr MWX using the Hare Psychopathy Check-list - Revised (PCL-R) which she explained assessed the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy. 162 Dr Wojnarowska said that Mr MWX's total score of 21 did not reach the threshold for psychopathy. She said there were elevations in the Factor 2, Facet of 'lifestyle' and 'antisocial' which is consistent with being impulsive, sensation seeking and unstable. She explained that this result is related to his diagnosis of antisocial personality traits and -- 24 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 25 is relevant when considering his future risk of re-offending and management in the community. 163 Dr Wojnarowska also assessed Mr MWX using SARA-V3. She identified similar risk factors to those identified by Dr Galloghly. 164 Dr Wojnarowska considered that the most likely scenario in which Mr MWX might commit a future serious offence was an assault, including sexual assault on his intimate partner. She thought that when intoxicated Mr MWX may misinterpret his partner's behaviour as cheating which would lead to an argument that would escalate to significant violence. 165 Dr Wojnarowska thought that any infidelity could also lead to an argument that could escalate into significant violence, particularly if Mr MWX had used substances. She said that any argument, even an insignificant one, could escalate to violence using a weapon and could result in serious physical harm, including death. 166 Dr Wojnarowska considered that it was possible that Mr MWX could also offend against members of the community, including the police. She thought that if Mr MWX returned to committing crimes, he may do so frequently. 167 Dr Wojnarowska thought that clinical dynamic factors pertaining to Mr MWX's risk of re-offending had not been addressed because he was not offered any treatment. She considered it positive that he was motivated to engage in treatment and had been able to regulate his behaviour in prison. 168 Dr Wojnarowska observed that Mr MWX was a versatile offender who is likely to engage in both intimate and violent offending in the future, with some of those offences likely being serious offences as defined in the HRSO Act. 169 Dr Wojnarowska thought that Mr MWX's violence was related to the complex relationship between the personality deficits and entrenched beliefs which have developed during his lifespan, having witnessed violence both in his family and the community. 170 Dr Wojnarowska considered that Mr MWX is currently motivated to make positive life changes, though his success relies heavily on stable housing and family support. She considered that targeted therapy to build his empathy could yield very positive outcomes. -- 25 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 26 171 Dr Wojnarowska thought that future treatment programs needed to be modified to match Mr MWX's lower cognitive and verbal abilities. 172 Dr Wojnarowska considered that it was possible that Mr MWX's cognitive functioning had improved as he had abstained from solvents for the last six years. She recommended a neuropsychological assessment be completed to assess his functioning and ability to learn new information. 173 Dr Wojnarowska expressed the opinion that if Mr MWX was not made subject to an order under the HRSO Act, he was at high risk of violently re-offending in a serious manner as defined in that Act. She expressed the view that his risk could not be managed in the community as none of his previous treatment needs had been addressed during his sentence. 174 Dr Wojnarowska recommended that Mr MWX be given the chance to participate in psychological treatment once an updated neuropsychological assessment is completed. She also recommended a separate assessment to determine if Mr MWX is suitable for individual counselling while in prison. 175 Dr Wojnarowska thought that therapeutic intervention should focus on outstanding needs relating to anger, cognitive distortions, communication skills and antisocial personality variables as well as assisting with more robust emotional management and coping skills and exploration of factors that contributed to intimate partner violence. She considered that Mr MWX's mental state should be monitored for symptoms of depression and recommended that he be treated with antidepressant medication, if required. Neuropsychological Report of Dr Mandy Vidovich dated 6 March 2026 176 Dr Vidovich is a Clinical Neuropsychologist who assessed Mr MWX on 3 and 4 February 2026. She reviewed information that she identified in her report, including the reports prepared by Dr Galloghly and Dr Wojnarowska. She also spoke to Mr MWX's aunt. 177 Dr Vidovich said that Mr MWX was co-operative and compliant with all aspects of the assessment process and impressed as motivated to engage with the evaluation and any potential opportunity for treatment. -- 26 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 27 178 She said that Mr MWX was able to engage well in the interview process, though needed extra time to gather his thoughts and express himself. She said that he impressed as open and forthcoming and motivated towards change. 179 Like Dr Moyle, Dr Vidovich assessed Mr MWX's intellectual abilities using the WAIS-IV. She said that whilst he managed an average score upon the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), his results upon the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) and Working Memory Index were of very low qualities. She said his Processing Speed Index (PSI) performance fell within the extremely low range. 180 Dr Vidovich performed a screen of Mr MWX's academic skills using subtests from the WIAT-III. She said that his single word reading and spelling abilities were of an extremely low quality, with very low written mathematical skills. She said that collectively, his performances were equivalent to a year 3/4 grade level and in keeping with his limited educational opportunities and achievement. 181 Dr Vidovich considered that Mr MWX did well to focus on tasks in a 1:1 setting. She said that whilst he scored poorly upon the Working Memory Index from the WAIS-IV, inspection of his performances revealed challenges associated with the increasing working memory demands of tasks. She said that in contrast, he produced very sound, average results upon a visual attentional task, having no difficulty attending to and recalling the visual sequences. 182 Dr Vidovich thought that highly varied results were produced across the administered measures assessing Mr MWX's visual- information processing speed. She considered that attentional factors and his idiosyncratic approach to some of the subtests appeared contributing factors to the variable outcomes. 183 With regard to language skills, Dr Vidovich said that Mr MWX had a very low result upon the VCI from the WAIS-IV which reflected an extremely low capacity to provide word definitions of increasing complexity and for low average verbal abstract reasoning abilities. 184 She considered that exploration of Mr MWX's expressive and receptive language abilities revealed his performances to be in line with his academic skills and of a year 3/4 equivalent - reflective of extremely low to very low abilities relative to similarly age-matched peers. -- 27 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 28 185 With regard to learning and memory, Dr Vidovich said that when Mr MWX was presented with a short story to recall, he was very quickly overwhelmed by the language and working memory demands of the task, and this had to be discontinued. 186 Dr Vidovich considered, however, that Mr MWX produced a very satisfactory learning curve across a 9-item list learning task and produced average immediate and delayed recall performances. She said that he had no difficulty encoding and retaining visual material, with his immediate and delayed memory for a series of visual designs falling within the low average to average range for his age. She considered that his immediate and delayed incidental recall of a complex visual design was also firmly within average limits for his age. 187 Dr Vidovich thought that Mr MWX's performances across tasks that placed demands upon his executive abilities revealed consistent indications of reductions in his ability to manage complex attentional requirements. 188 Dr Vidovich referred to the assessment of Mr MWX's cognition undertaken in 2020 and noted that it had revealed a low level of intellectual functioning, together with deficits across aspects of his learning and executive functioning. She said that it appeared that this assessment was taken to confirm that Mr MWX had an intellectual disability, despite the lack of supporting information required for such a diagnosis. 189 Dr Vidovich thought that a review of Mr MWX's neuropsychological profile revealed a highly varied range of strengths and weaknesses. She considered that he did not meet the DSM-5-TR criteria for an Intellectual Developmental Disorder (Intellectual Disability) when consideration was given to his cognitive profile and reports regarding his adaptive functioning. 190 Dr Vidovich said that Mr MWX performed particularly well on visual measure with scores in the average range. She said that by contrast his auditory processing and language skills made it difficult for him to process information and express himself. She considered that this suggested a Communication Disorder (likely the DSM-5-TR Language Disorder). She thought that Mr MWX might also have a Specific Learning Disorder, although she said that this was difficult to confirm without further assessment. -- 28 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 29 191 Dr Vidovich considered that Mr MWX would meet the DSM-5-TR criteria for an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder noting the difficulties he experienced on testing with more complex attentional requirements, inhibition, and generativity. 192 Dr Vidovich also considered that Mr MWX met the diagnostic criteria for FASD and the DSM-5-TR criteria for a Neurodevelopmental disorder associated with pre-natal exposure to illicit drugs (cannabis). 193 Dr Vidovich thought that the available information regarding Mr MWX's adaptive functioning, revealed a capacity to manage his activities of daily living, and some instrumental activities of daily living (e.g. cooking), when in a stable environment that allows opportunity for support and structure, if needed. 194 Dr Vidovich considered that Mr MWX had shown a willingness and capacity to engage in employment within the prison setting and had been able to commit to task requirements and follow rules and expectations regarding performance outcomes. She thought that whilst he will require oversight, support, and supervision within the community, his inclusion within the NDIS, will afford some opportunities for these structures to be developed and implemented. 195 Dr Vidovich noted that Mr MWX's treatment needs have not been addressed during his time in custody, and without opportunity for intervention, his risk to others remains elevated. 196 Dr Vidovich said that Mr MWX has very limited language and communication skills, which further impact on his capacity to develop prosocial interpersonal relationships, manage conflict resolution, and to express his emotional experiences. 197 Dr Vidovich considered that Mr MWX's behaviour suggested a disorder of regulation and a propensity towards violence in managing conflict. She said that his stress resilience and coping skills are limited, and his maladaptive use of substances serves to lower inhibitions. 198 Dr Vidovich considered that Mr MWX would benefit from therapy programs, delivered at a 1:1 level. She considered that he was very open to engage with such programs. 199 Dr Vidovich made recommendations about how such therapy might be conducted with Mr MWX. -- 29 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 30 Other relevant matters 200 I am required to consider any other relevant matter.10 201 I consider that the evidence given by Ms Bennetts, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly at the hearing of the State's application on 26 May 2026 is also relevant. Ms Bennetts's supplementary oral evidence 202 Ms Bennetts gave evidence that in the past visual aides had been prepared to explain conditions to persons subject to supervision orders. There was discussion about this being done to assist Mr MWX, if he was made subject to a supervision order. 203 Ms Bennetts indicated that Adult Community Corrections did not have any concerns that Mr MWX would be able to comply with a supervision order. She said that Mr MWX had been engaging and is positive in wanting to engage in treatment. Dr Wojnarowska's supplementary oral evidence 204 Dr Wojnarowska indicated that since she had prepared her report, she had been provided with a copy of Dr Vidovich's report, Ms Applin's updated community supervision report dated 18 May 2026 and the draft supervision order prepared by the State. 205 Dr Wojnarowska said that in light of Dr Vidovich's assessment that Mr MWX did not have an intellectual disability, she considered that the prospect of treatment was far better. 206 Dr Wojnarowska considered that the terms proposed in the draft supervision order prepared by the State were all necessary. 207 Dr Wojnarowska indicated that she had now changed her view and now considered that Mr MWX's risk could be managed in the community. 208 Dr Wojnarowska considered that adjustments needed to be made to how material was explained to Mr MWX and communication might need to be in a visual form. 209 Dr Wojnarowska indicated that she did not have any preference regarding the two proposed accommodation options. 10 HRSO Act, s 7(3)(j). -- 30 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 31 210 Dr Wojnarowska said that given Mr MWX's significant issues, a supervision order of 5 years would be appropriate. Dr Galloghly's supplementary oral evidence 211 Dr Galloghly also indicated that since he had prepared his report, he had been provided with a copy of Dr Vidovich's report, Ms Applin's updated community supervision report dated 18 May 2026 and a draft supervision order. He indicated that consideration of these materials had not caused him to alter the substance of his opinion. 212 Dr Galloghly said that with assistance and support he thought that Mr MWX would be able to understand the conditions of a supervision order. 213 Dr Galloghly was asked about the accommodation options. He said that there were pros and cons of both and that the key consideration might be the level of NDIS funding. 214 Dr Galloghly considered that a supervision order of five years would provide a realistic timeframe for Mr MWX to work towards the possibility he might come off the order. Attempts and effects of any rehabilitation program 215 The HRSO Act requires me to have regard to: (a) any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme;11 and (b) whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender.12 216 Mr MWX has participated in two short voluntary programmes while in custody, a Community Transition: Family Domestic Violence Treatment Readiness Program and a Community Transition: Alcohol and Other Drugs - Treatment Readiness Program. 217 Mr MWX has otherwise been unable to participate in any rehabilitation programmes. 11 HRSO Act, s 7(3)(e). 12 HRSO Act, s 7(3)(f). -- 31 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 32 218 As I have already explained in detail above, the neuropsychological assessment of Mr MWX undertaken for his sentencing in the District Court in 2020 suggested that he suffered from an intellectual disability. 219 Mr MWX was therefore considered unsuitable to participate in group programmes. Although recommendations were made that Mr MWX be assessed for individual psychological intervention in 2020, he was assessed as unsuitable for these too because of his presumed intellectual disability. 220 The neuropsychological assessment of Mr MWX undertaken by Dr Vidovich this year has revealed that Mr MWX does not suffer from an intellectual disability, however. He has now been deemed suitable to participate in individual intervention with FPIT. 221 The result is that, through no fault of his own, Mr MWX has not had the opportunity to make substantial gains through treatment. He has, however, indicated a willingness to engage in treatment and this looks likely to be facilitated. Propensity to commit serious offences in the future, the risk of committing such offences, and the need to protect the community 222 In considering whether or not Mr MWX is a high risk serious offender, I am required to have regard to: (a) whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;13 (b) the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence;14 and (c) the need to protect members of the community from that risk.15 223 The term 'propensity' is to be given its ordinary meaning, that is, to have an inclination or tendency to do something. In DPP (WA) v GTR,16 Murray AJA stated: [Propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences, generally in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some 13 HRSO Act, s 7(3)(c). 14 HRSO Act, s 7(3)(h). 15 HRSO Act, s 7(3)(i). 16 DPP (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 [178]. -- 32 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 33 identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his make up or personality which may or may not be of the quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder. 224 In my view, Mr MWX's criminal history reveals a propensity to use serious violence against his intimate partner while intoxicated. Although most of the offences that Mr MWX has committed to date are not defined as serious offences under the HRSO Act, given the violence and persistence of Mr MWX's offending, this may be more due to chance than any degree of restraint on Mr MWX's part. 225 It seems likely to me that if Mr MWX were to be released without restriction now, without his treatment needs being addressed, there is a high likelihood that he will return to his pattern of offending again in the future. Whether Mr MWX is a high risk serious offender Is there an unacceptable risk that Mr MWX will commit a serious offence? 226 The concept of 'unacceptable' risk connotes a balancing exercise that requires the court to have regard to, amongst other things, the nature of the risk and extent of the harm, the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition and the serious consequences for the offender if an order is made.17 227 I am satisfied that the evidence before me establishes, to a high degree of probability, that there would be an unacceptable risk that Mr MWX might commit a serious offence against an intimate partner if he is released without any restriction. 228 Ms Oliveri, Ms Sampson, Dr Galloghly, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Vidovich all considered that Mr MWX has significant treatment needs that need to be addressed. That evidence was cogent and compelling and was not challenged and I accept it. 229 Unfortunately, Mr MWX has not yet had the opportunity to participate in any programmes to meaningfully address those treatment needs. 17 Garlett [73] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ); The State of Western Australia v Hansen [No 2] [2025] WASC 4 [35] discussing Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 [21] (Steytler P and Buss JA) (GTR) [28]; The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 [39] - [40]. -- 33 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 34 230 As I have said, it seems likely to me that if Mr MWX were to be released without restriction now, there is a high likelihood that he will return to his pattern of offending again in the future. 231 In my view, Mr MWX's willingness to use weapons, the persistent nature of his assaults on his intimate partners and the persistent nature of that offending means that there is a significant risk that if Mr MWX is released without any restriction, his future offending could include offences that are defined as serious offences under the HRSO Act such as: (a) grievous bodily harm contrary to s 297 of the Criminal Code, (b) persistent family violence contrary to s 300(1) of the Criminal Code; or (c) an act or omission causing bodily harm or danger done with intent to harm, contrary to s 304(2) of the Criminal Code. 232 My conclusion is fortified by the fact that Dr Galloghly and Dr Wojnarowska both expressed the opinion that if Mr MWX was not made subject to a restriction order, he was at high risk of committing a future serious offence. Their evidence was not challenged, they gave detailed reasons for their conclusions and I found that evidence to be persuasive and cogent. 233 Their conclusions are also consistent with the opinions expressed by Ms Oliveri, Ms Sampson and Dr Vidovich. 234 The consequences of making an order for Mr MWX are serious but this consideration must be balanced against the serious consequences that any future offending may have on others. Mr MWX's propensity to use violence against intimate partners means that they are at risk of serious injury if he re-offends. Is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community? 235 I am also satisfied to a high degree of probability that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community. 236 In my view, absent a restriction order, the risk to the community that I have identified would remain unmanaged. I am reinforced in this view by the evidence of Dr Galloghly and Dr Wojnarowska. -- 34 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 35 Mr MWX is a high risk serious offender 237 Given all of these matters, I am satisfied that Mr MWX is a high risk serious offender. Whether a continuing detention order or supervision order should be made? 238 The effect of s 48(1) of the HRSO Act is that upon finding Mr MWX to be a high risk serious offender, I must either make a continuing detention order or a supervision order. The court should choose the order that is least invasive or destructive of Mr MWX's right to be at liberty while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate degree of protection for the community.18 239 The combined effect of s 29 and s 48(1)(b) of the HRSO Act is that a court cannot make a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order as made. The onus is on the offender to satisfy the court of this. 240 The words 'will substantially comply with' have their ordinary meaning. In context, the word 'substantially' is used in a relative sense and involves an assessment of the degree of compliance that the respondent is likely to achieve.19 241 While the prospect of trivial or minor contraventions will not (and ordinarily should not) preclude a finding that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the assessment of whether the respondent will do so involves considerations other than simply whether any potential breach will be trivial or minor.20 242 The court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.21 18 GTR [21]. 19 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52(1)] (Hart). 20 Hart [52(5)]. 21 Hart [52(6)]. -- 35 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 36 243 Factors that are relevant to that assessment include the following:22 (a) the offender's history of non-compliance; (b) the offender's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular whether he is likely to deliberately flout the conditions); (c) his capacity to comply with the conditions; (d) what measures there are in place to ensure he would substantially comply; (e) the relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order in achieving the objects of the HRSO Act; (f) the respondent's motivation to remain offence free and in the community; (g) any willing participation in an offender treatment programme; (h) abstinence from drugs; (i) conduct while in prison; and (j) demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management, and life skills. 244 In this case, Mr MWX's criminal record suggests that he has in the past had difficulty complying with supervision. More recently, however, Mr MWX seems to have conducted himself well while in prison. 245 It also seems that Mr MWX has demonstrated some capacity for self-management and is motivated to participate in treatment. 246 The evidence of Ms Bennetts was that Adult Community Corrections did not have any concerns that Mr MWX was unable to comply with the terms of a supervision order. She discussed the possibility of preparing a visual aid to assist him to understand the order. 22 The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 [52]. -- 36 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 37 247 Ultimately, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr MWX will comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. 248 The State seeks a supervision order and provided me with a draft set of conditions for such an order. I have reviewed those draft conditions and consider that they are appropriate to address the issues raised on the evidence concerning Mr MWX, his risk of offending, his treatment needs and his supervision and monitoring needs. 249 With regard to Mr MWX's accommodation, I consider that the risk he poses is best managed in the second accommodation option favoured by his guardian. 250 I consider the appropriate length of time for the supervision order is five years. This is the period of time that both Dr Galloghly and Dr Wojnarowska considered to be necessary and appropriate. Mr MWX has significant treatment needs that must be addressed. Conclusion 251 For all of these reasons, I will make the following orders: 1. Having found the respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the respondent be the subject of a supervision order for a period of five years commencing on 21 July 2026 on the conditions set out in Annexure A. 2. There is to be no publication of any means of the address of the property at which the Respondent will be residing, or of any information that identifies or is likely to identify the disability services provider or its staff, or persons involved in the supervision of the Respondent. The prohibition does not apply to communication by any representative of a party to these proceedings for the purpose of conducting the case or providing advice in respect of the case, or by any person who is responsible for supervising or providing disability support to the Respondent, if the communication is necessary for those purposes. The address will be redacted in the copy of the supervision order available publicly. Any reference to the name of the service provider in the reasons to be published will also be redacted. -- 37 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 38 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SO 5 of 2025 IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant -and- MWX Respondent _________________________________________________________________________ SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE PALMER ON 23 JUNE 2026 _________________________________________________________________________ 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 five years from 21 July 2026, not being a date earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions: You, MWX, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Within 48 hours of this order starting, report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the Adult Community Corrections Centre you are told to attend before your release from prison, and tell the officer your current name and address; 2. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court; 3. Notify a CCO of every change to your name, home address, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens; -- 38 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 39 4. Be under the supervision of a CCO, including complying with any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); 5. Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO; 6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order; 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31; ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Reside (live) at [suppressed] and spend each night there (period can be defined by a CCO). You can only stay at a different address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you; Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO 9. On the day of your release, report to a CCO at the prison, or at a place directed by a CCO, and allow for fitting of electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake; Attendance at programs or treatment 10. Attend and engage in all appointments as directed and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO; 11. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO; Medications / Mental Health 12. To engage with mental health services and follow the instructions given to you by the treating psychiatrist about treatment and medication; -- 39 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 40 13. Undertake any medication regime as directed by the CCO, in consultation with a medical practitioner, or as directed by a medical practitioner. Comply with all testing to check your compliance with that medication, as directed by a CCO; Reporting to WA Police 14. Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad at the Hatch Building, 144 Sirling Street, Perth WA, 6000, or their delegate at a nominated Police station within 48 hours of this Order starting and report to and receive visits from Police as directed by the OIC of the High Risk Serious Offender team or another officer; 15. If asked to, let Police Officers enter and search your residence and/or vehicle, and/or search you so that they can check your compliance with this Order and allow Police Officers to seize (take) any they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order. 16. Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under condition 15; Disclosure/Exchange of information 17. Let any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and their opinions about your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment; 18. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by the CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with or may spend time with and, where appropriate, to tell them confidential information, including your offending history; Restrictions on contact with victims 19. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your offending, unless you have the prior approval of the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice and approved in advance by a CCO. -- 40 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 41 20. Unless contact with victims is allowed under condition 18, if you see any victim, you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them, and you must look away from the victim at all times; 21. Report any contact with the victims of your offending to the CCO and WA Police on the next day you report to them; Criminal conduct 22. Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments; 23. Not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, which includes cannabis. This does not apply to a drug that a doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you follow their instructions for using the drug; 24. Not breach any provision of, or commit any offence under, the Restraining Orders Act 1997; Curfew 25. Comply with a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020, requiring you to remain at and not leave your approved address, as directed by a CCO; 26. When subject to a curfew under this order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence; a. go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you; and b. speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, if they call to check you are at home; 27. When subject to a curfew under this Order, tell all adults at your home who may answer the telephone or door that you are on a curfew and ask them to tell you about attempts by police or a CCO to contact you; -- 41 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 42 Prevention of high-risk situations 28. Not enter any home where a female lives, or is known to live, who you are currently in a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship with, or have previously been in such a relationship with, unless approved in advance by a CCO; 29. Not let any female enter your home, who you are currently in a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship with, or have previously been in such a relationship with, unless the identity of that person has been approved in advance by a CCO; 30. Report any new female social association (someone you have contact with more than once), friendship, or domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship to your CCO when you next report to them; 31. If directed by your CCO, tell any female that you are in, or have previously been in, a domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship with, about your past offending and this current order, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer; 32. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the Supervising Officer or by a Police Officer, including going with them to an appropriate place for such testing to take place; 33. Provide a valid sample under condition 32 (above); 34. Not possess, purchase, consume or use any alcohol; 35. Not go to any licensed premises, except for cafes, restaurants or sporting venues, unless required to do so for the following reasons: a. Avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; or b. For a reason and duration approved in advance by a CCO; or c. If a CCO or Police Officer tells you to do so; -- 42 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 43 36. Not to be with anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by alcohol or a prohibited drug, unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by a CCO; 37. Not remain anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used or, if the drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of your home, or ask the people using the drugs to leave; 38. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device that you possess or use that can store digital data or information, whether or not it can connect to the internet (device), including each device's location; 39. Have a password on all electronic devices referred to in condition 36 and do not tell anyone your passwords, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer; 40. If asked to do so by a CCO or a WA Police Officer, let them use any electronic device in your possession or control that is capable of storing data so that they can check your device-related activities, and tell them any passwords needed to access the device. If any other entity needs to access your devices, the CCO must give prior approval; 41. Not delete or otherwise remove, disguise or cause or allow to be removed, disguised or deleted, any data on your devices, including calls, text messages, search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that device, whether or not the device can connect to the internet, without the prior approval of a CCO or WA Police; 42. Not possess, hold a licence to possess, or apply for a licence to possess any firearm, ammunition or offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article; 43. Follow any conditions and requirements of and National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider that is providing you with any services and/or accommodation. -- 43 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 44 I authorise Police Officers from the Western Australian Police Force (WA Police Force) to access any cloud-based platforms or services associated with the devices I use and examine the internet accounts at any time for the purposes of monitoring my online behaviour (absent any investigation for any offence) I understand and acknowledge WA Police Force will use passwords or tokens located within my devices to access any cloud- based platforms and services and that a password may not be required. By authorising this I understand and acknowledge a Police Officer from the WA Police Force may change the password(s) to these accounts so I will no longer have access for the period they determine or in entirety. _________________________________ THE HON JUSTICE PALMER I have received a copy of this Order. I have had it explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it. Signed by the Respondent _________________________________ MWX In the presence of: _________________________________ Name and address: _________________________________ _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ -- 44 of 45 -- [2026] WASC 252 PALMER J Page 45 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. SK Associate to the Hon. Justice Palmer 23 JUNE 2026 -- 45 of 45 --