THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- STARY [2026] WASC 249

[2026] WASC 249 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- STARY [No 2] [2026] WASC 249 CORAM : PALMER J HEARD : 19 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 19 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 2 of 2025 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND ZAC DANIEL STARY Accused Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Contravention proceedings - Application for interim detention pending determination of contravention proceedings - Need to ensure adequate protection of the community Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 53, s 56 Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6 Result: Offender detained pending determination of contravention proceedings -- 1 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 Page 2 Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Mr D McDonnell Accused : Ms A Fedele Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Accused : Legal Aid - Perth - Criminal Law Division Case(s) referred to in decision(s): The State of Western Australia v Ciavalini [No 3] [2026] WASC 109 The State of Western Australia v Farrell [2025] WASC 50 The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] [2021] WASC 465 -- 2 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 3 PALMER J: Introduction 1 On 20 November 2025, I made orders declaring the respondent (Mr Stary) a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act) and I made him the subject of a supervision order (the Supervision Order).1 2 The applicant (the State) contends that Mr Stary has contravened the Supervision Order. By an application dated 16 June 2026 (the Application), the State has applied for orders rescinding or amending the Supervision Order and that Mr Stary be detained in custody until the determination of the Application. 3 The Application was listed before me on 19 June 2026, for directions and the hearing of the application for an interim detention order. For the reasons that follow, I made an interim detention order. When an interim detention order will be made 4 The State's application for an interim detention order was made pursuant to s 53(2)(b) and 56(2)(b) of the HRSO Act. 5 Section 53 of the HRSO Act provides that: 53. State may seek orders (1) This section applies to — (a) an offender who is brought before the Supreme Court under a warrant issued under section 51(3) or 56(7)(d); and (b) an offender who is charged with an offence under section 80(1). (2) In relation to the offender, the State may apply for — (a) an order under section 55; and (b) an order for the offender to be detained in custody while proceedings on the application for an order under section 55 are pending. (3) The application must state what order is sought under section 55. 1 The State of Western Australia v Stary [2025] WASC 489 (the Restriction Order Reasons). -- 3 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 4 6 Section 53(1)(a) refers to an offender being brought before the Supreme Court under a warrant issued under s 51(3). 7 Section 51 provides for the issue of an arrest warrant in relation to a contravention or likely contravention of a supervision order. 8 Section 51(1) provides that a police officer or community corrections officer (CCO) who reasonably suspects that an offender subject to a supervision order is likely to contravene, is contravening, or has contravened, a condition of the order may apply to a magistrate for the issue of a warrant under s 51(3). 9 Section 51(3) provides that if the magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion described in subsection (1), the magistrate must issue a warrant for the offender to be arrested and brought before the Supreme Court. 10 Section 56 of the HRSO Act provides: 56. Orders made during contravention proceedings (1) This section applies if an offender who is subject to a supervision order is before the Supreme Court and proceedings on an application made under section 53 in respect of the offender are pending (the pending proceedings). (2) The court may at any time in the pending proceedings — (a) if the offender is detained in custody, order the offender to be released, subject to subsection (3); or (b) if the offender is not detained in custody, order the offender to be detained in custody. (3) The court cannot order the offender to be released unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that — (a) releasing the offender is justified by exceptional circumstances; and (b) the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order, including any amendments to the standard conditions made under subsection (7)(b). (4) The onus of proof as to the matter described in subsection (3)(b) is on the offender. … -- 4 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 5 (7) If the court releases the offender – … (d) if it is alleged that the offender has further breached the supervision order or breached an order made under paragraph (c), the court may issue a warrant to have the offender arrested and brought before the court. (emphasis added) 11 In The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2],2 Quinlan CJ held that properly construed 'detained in custody' as that term is used in s 56(2)(a) means detained under a warrant issued under the provisions of the HRSO Act. He reasoned that this meant that s 56(3) (which requires the offender to establish exceptional circumstances for their release) has no application when an offender is detained for some other reason. 12 This construction has been adopted by other judges in the general division of this court.3 I respectfully agree with and adopt the Chief Justice's construction. 13 In this case, Mr Stary has not been detained pursuant to a warrant issued under the HRSO Act. Rather, he has been detained after being charged with offences, including offences under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. There is therefore no onus on Mr Stary to establish special circumstances. 14 It is for the State to establish that the protection of the community against the risk of Mr Stary committing a serious offence under the HRSO Act requires that he be detained.4 Why the Supervision Order was made and its terms 15 Before turning to consider the evidence relied upon by the State and whether an interim detention order should be made, it is useful to recall three matters. 16 First, Mr Stary has a history of committing violent offences against intimate partners. I considered that one pattern that emerged from his offending was the use of intimidation and violence towards 2 The State of Western Australia v Slater [No 2] [2021] WASC 465 (Slater [No 2]) [15] - [20]. 3 See, for example: The State of Western Australia v Ciavalini [No 3] [2026] WASC 109 (Ciavalini) [28] - 30]; The State of Western Australia v Farrell [2025] WASC 50 (Farrell) [19] - [21]. 4 Ciavalini [32]; Farrell [23]; Slater [No 2] [25]. -- 5 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 6 intimate partners, with the intensity of that intimidation and violence escalating over time.5 17 Mr Stary's offending culminated in him being convicted in the District Court of 17 offences against his former partner over a four year period between 9 June 2013 and 6 May 2017. The offences included convictions for the following offences which are defined as serious offences under the HRSO Act: (a) one count of unlawful act or omission with intent to harm endangering life, health or safety, contrary to s 304(2) of the Criminal Code; (b) one count of deprivation of liberty, contrary to s 333 of the Criminal Code; and (c) one count of aggravated stalking, contrary to s 338E(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. 18 Secondly, my conclusion that Mr Stary was a high risk serious offender rested upon my acceptance of the uncontested, cogent and compelling evidence given by Professor Pyszora (a psychiatrist) and Dr Riordan (a psychologist).6 19 Professor Pyszora's evidence was that: (a) Mr Stary has a number of risk factors for stalking, violence, and he presents a high risk of violence should he enter into another intimate relationship in which he feels rejected;7 (b) there was a high risk of Mr Stary resuming stalking behaviours in the context of him being rejected in another intimate relationship if his risk factors were not managed, including the provision of treatment, positive response to treatment, and compliance with other risk management strategies such as abstinence from alcohol and illicit substances;8 (c) future serious offending against an intimate partner would involve physical violence as well as abuse, threats, intimidation and manipulation, and related serious offences of deprivation of liberty and stalking. She considered that it might involve 5 Restriction Order Reasons [102] - [104]. 6 Restriction Order Reasons [273] - [277]. 7 Restriction Order Reasons [192]. 8 Restriction Order Reasons [193]. -- 6 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 7 weapons and strangulation or choking, with a risk of serious or fatal outcomes;9 (d) if Mr Stary experienced an intimate relationship breakdown or perceptions of rejection in that relationship, he will present a high risk of resuming serious offending behaviours. She thought that any resumed intimate partner violence and/or stalking behaviours would be persistent;10 and (e) monitoring strategies should be implemented to ensure early detection of warning signs of escalating risk. She considered that these strategies should include regular review by the senior community corrections officer, regular and random drug and alcohol testing and review of electronic communications to monitor for the presence of any warning signs of risk factors relevant to serious offending.11 20 Dr Riordan's evidence was that: (a) Mr Stary had a moderate risk of stalking the same partner and a moderate to high risk of stalking a different partner over the medium to long term;12 (b) risk scenarios for Mr Stary engaging in future violence would include him assaulting an intimate partner, stalking a partner, behaving in a threatening, intimidating and violent manner to a family member who he thought had slighted him, or engaging in acts of sexual harm towards known adult women;13 (c) the presence and use of a weapon and illicit drug intoxication during the commission of an offence would significantly escalate the level of violence used and result in the perpetration of serious and/or life-threatening violence;14 and (d) Mr Stary as being at above average risk for future reoffending of a violent nature, including intimate partner violence, 9 Restriction Order Reasons [195]. 10 Restriction Order Reasons [196]. 11 Restriction Order Reasons [199]. 12 Restriction Order Reasons [230]. 13 Restriction Order Reasons [240]. 14 Restriction Order Reasons [241]. -- 7 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 8 moderate to high risk for recurrent stalking and well above average risk for perpetrating acts of sexual harm.15 21 Thirdly, to manage the risks identified, the Supervision Order included terms that required Mr Stary to: (a) take up residence at [REDACTED] and spend each night there. He could only stay at a different address if the different address was approved in advance by a CCO; (b) not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) (Misuse of Drugs Act) applies; (c) report any new domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship that he started with any person when he next reported to his CCO; (d) not enter any residential address where a female that he has, or has previously had, an intimate, domestic, romantic or sexual relationship, is present or is known to live, without the prior approval of his CCO; (e) not let any female enter his home with whom he has, or has previously had, an intimate, domestic, romantic, or sexual relationship, without the prior approval of a CCO; (f) not purchase or consume alcohol; (g) advise a CCO of every new device that he possesses within 2 days of purchasing or first using the device; (h) if asked to, let a CCO or WA Police access his device at any place that they direct and tell them any passwords or other means needed to unlock the device; and (i) not delete, or allow to be deleted, any data on his devices. The evidence relied upon by the State 22 The State relied upon two affidavits in support of its application that Mr Stary be detained in custody until further order: 15 Restriction Order Reasons [244]. -- 8 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 9 (a) an Affidavit of Rafaela Lico Affirmed 12 June 2026 (Lico Affidavit); and (b) an Affidavit of Tanya-Maree Hollaway Affirmed 16 June 2026 (Hollaway Affidavit). 23 Those affidavits establish the following. 24 Ms Lico is a Senior Community Corrections Officer who has been supervising Mr Stary since 13 November 2025.16 25 Ms Lico expressed concerns that Mr Stary has been deceitful and has attempted to circumvent the terms of the Supervision Order, particularly those relating to the need to disclose any intimate relationship.17 26 Ms Lico says that Mr Stary has repeatedly said that he is unwilling to disclose whether he had entered into an intimate relationship, despite the terms of the Supervision Order requiring him to do so.18 27 Ms Lico says that the High Risk Serious Offenders Unit (HRSOU) suspected that Mr Stary had formed an intimate relationship with a woman, but he consistently denied this and said they were just friends.19 28 On 31 March 2026, Mr Stary was convicted on guilty pleas in the Armadale Magistrates Court of three counts of contravening a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act and one count of using a prohibited drug contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He received fines totalling $1,400.00.20 29 Two of the contravention offences concerned Mr Stary staying overnight at a different address without telling his CCO.21 The other two offences related to a positive drug test for methylamphetamine and amphetamine that Mr Stary returned on 23 March 2026.22 16 Lico Affidavit [1] and [5]. 17 Lico Affidavit [20]. 18 Lico Affidavit [22]. 19 Lico Affidavit [24]. 20 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 10, 120 - 127. Lico Affidavit [9] - [10]. 21 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 120 - 123, 129 - 130. 22 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 130 - 132. -- 9 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 10 30 The address at which Mr Stary stayed was that of the woman with whom the HRSOU suspected he had formed a relationship.23 31 In April 2026, concerns were raised about Mr Stary's behaviour towards the woman with whom it was suspected he had formed a relationship, including that he had been manipulating and coercing her. This resulted in the HRSOU making Mr Stary subject to a curfew and imposing exclusion zones, to avoid contact with the woman. He was also issued with a written lawful instruction not to contact her.24 32 On 11 May 2026, the woman contacted the HRSOU saying that she no longer wanted any contact with Mr Stary. 25 33 On 15 May 2026, Mr Stary was disqualified from driving and fined $1,500.00 for driving more than 45 km over the speed limit.26 On the same day, Mr Stary entered a not guilty plea to a charge of contravening a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act. That charge involves an allegation that Mr Stary returned a positive breath sample for alcohol.27 34 On 25 May 2026, Mr Stary was convicted on guilty pleas in the Armadale Magistrates Court of two further counts of contravening a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act. He received a fine of $1,000.00.28 35 These offences related to being in possession of a mobile telephone discovered at his house which he had not told his CCO about and refusing to provide a password for the device.29 36 On 25 May 2026, Mr Stary was also charged with: (a) one count of doing an act causing bodily harm with intent, contrary to s 304(2)(a) of the Criminal Code; (b) one count of unlawful detention in circumstances of aggravation (he was in a family relationship with the victim), contrary to s 333 of the Criminal Code; 23 Lico Affidavit [25] - [26]. 24 Lico Affidavit [27] - [38]. 25 Lico Affidavit [39]. 26 Hollaway Affidavit, page 10. 27 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 133 - 137. Lico Affidavit [12]. 28 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 10, 138 - 140. Lico Affidavit [10] - [11]. 29 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 142 - 143. -- 10 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 11 (c) one count of threatening to kill, in circumstances of aggravation (he was in a family relationship with the victim), contrary to s 333B(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code; and (d) stalking with intent to intimidate in circumstances of aggravation (he was in a family relationship with the victim), contrary to s 338E(1)(A) of the Criminal Code;30 and (e) with 11 further counts of contravening a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act.31 37 The statement of material facts in relation to the first three offences states:32 At approximately 6:30pm on Saturday 9 May 2026, the accused was present at [redacted] his residential address. The victim who has had an ongoing intimate relationship with the accused, was requested by the accused to attend his address and return a piece of clothing. The victim complied with the accused request and attend his address, upon arrival the victim realised the accused was intoxicated and attempted to leave when the accused grabbed hold of the victim on her shoulders and arms, pulling her inside the house. The victim retreated to the spare bedroom of the address and closed the door; the accused forced the door open and slammed it into the victim whilst she was positioned between the door and the wall. The accused grabbed hold of the victim's head and slammed the back of her head into the wall, the movement also causing her back to hit the wall. The accused threatened to kill the victim should she have tried to leave the address or interrupted him. The accused and victim moved into the kitchen area of the address; the victim sat on the bench to try and create distance from the accused when he grabbed her and pulled her to the floor. The victim began crying, shaking and begging to leave, repeatedly telling the accused she wanted to leave. She made attempts to get to the front door which were blocked by the accused using his body to block the doorway and physical grabbing hold of the victim. 30 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 144 - 149. 31 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 158 - 163. 32 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 150 - 155. -- 11 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 12 The accused picked the victim up by her hair, gripping tightly with two hands and slammed the back of her body onto the arm of the couch in the living room. The accused continued to hold onto the victim's hair tightly, pressed his face against hers and said he was going to kill her, the accused threw the victim down by her hair. The victim sobbed and attempted to leave, again being stopped by the accused grabbing hold of her and dragging her into the kitchen area. The accused open palm slapped the victim to the front of her head, instinctively the victim slapped him back which stunned the accused momentarily, giving the victim an opportunity to escape. The victim ran out of the front door to her vehicle which was parked across the road from the address. The accused pursued the victim who managed to get inside the vehicle and lock the door. The accused attempted to get inside the vehicle through the back door, but it was locked. The accused hit the victim's vehicle with his fists. 38 The statement of material facts in relation to the fourth offence states that the offence involved Mr Stary using mobile telephones, emails and WhatsApp to contact his partner between 27 April 2026 and 21 May 2026. It is alleged that over 50 emails and WhatsApp messages were sent and hundreds of texts and voicemails. It is alleged that Mr Stary used degrading, intimidating, emotionally abusive and threatening language.33 39 Four of the charges of contravening a supervision order concerned alleged breaches of the Supervision Order by committing the four offences just mentioned.34 40 Five of the charges concerned Mr Stary allegedly not telling his CCO about the relationship that he had formed, asking his partner to visit his home and meeting her without telling his CCO.35 41 The last two charges related to data that Mr Stary had allegedly deleted from electronic devices.36 42 Mr Stary was remanded in custody for these charges and refused bail.37 33 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 150 - 155. 34 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 164 - 168. 35 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 169 - 171. 36 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 171 - 175. -- 12 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 13 43 On 27 May 2026, Mr Stary called the woman with whom it was suspected he was having a relationship. There is a suggestion that he tried to persuade her not to cooperate with the police investigation into him.38 44 On 28 May 2026, Mr Stary was served with a family violence restraining order, relating to the woman with whom it was suspected he had had a relationship.39 45 On 29 May 2026, Mr Stary's accommodation provider, ReSet, terminated his lease. They have not been able to locate any alternative accommodation for him.40 46 Ms Lico describes Mr Stary as seeking to minimise, justify and rationalise his conduct and as having difficulties accepting the purpose and necessity of supervision requirements, particularly those relating to intimate relationships. She described him as belligerent.41 47 Ms Lico says that Mr Stary ceased engaging with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team after the restriction order hearing on 6 November 2025 as he felt he had been misunderstood. She says that he re-engaged for some sessions in 2026 but indicated in May 2026 that he would not attend any further sessions.42 Why I made an interim detention order 48 I considered that on the evidence before me, the protection of the community against the risk of Mr Stary committing a serious offence required that he be detained. I reached this conclusion for three reasons. 49 First, I made Mr Stary the subject of a restriction order to manage the risk that he might commit a future serious offence against an intimate partner. The evidence presently before me suggests that Mr Stary has attempted to circumvent the terms of the Supervision Order relating to his involvement with an intimate partner, thereby increasing the risk he poses to the community. 37 Hollaway Affidavit, pages 144 - 149. 38 Lico Affidavit [27] - [38]. 39 Lico Affidavit [58]. 40 Lico Affidavit [59]. 41 Lico Affidavit [42] - [44]. 42 Lico Affidavit [60] - [63]. -- 13 of 14 -- [2026] WASC 249 PALMER J Page 14 50 Secondly, the evidence before me suggests that Mr Stary may have committed further serious offences against an intimate partner (although whether that is the case has yet to be determined). The similarity between the scenarios that Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan predicted for any future offending and the offences with which Mr Stary has been charged is both striking and concerning. It is also concerning that the serious offences with which Mr Stary is now charged, are offences that he was convicted of previously in relation to his former partner. 51 Thirdly, the evidence before me suggests that adequately managing the risk to the community posed by Mr Stary has been made more difficult by the loss of his accommodation, his general attitude to supervision and his decision to withdraw from counselling. All of these matters increase the risk that he presently poses to the community. Conclusion 52 For these reasons, I made Mr Stary the subject of an interim detention order. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. VS Associate to the Hon Justice Palmer 19 JUNE 2026 -- 14 of 14 --