THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MILLS [2026] WASC 203

[2026] WASC 203 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MILLS [No 5] [2026] WASC 203 CORAM : MUSIKANTH J HEARD : 25 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 28 MAY 2026 PUBLISHED : 28 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 8 of 2022 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND DWAYNE ANTHONY MILLS Respondent Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Review hearing - Whether respondent remains a high risk serious offender - Whether respondent likely to substantially comply with standard conditions of supervision order - Whether community would be adequately protected if respondent released on a supervision order subject to proposed conditions - Supervision order made - Turns on own facts Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 Page 2 Result: Supervision order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Ms T M Hollaway Respondent : Ms F A Cain Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Not applicable Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 96 ALJR 88 The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [2025] WASC 456 The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126 The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] [2024] WASC 348 The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 7] [2022] WASC 342 The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2] [2024] WASC 339 -- 2 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 3 MUSIKANTH J: 1 On 26 April 2023, Vandongen J found the respondent to be a high risk serious offender pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act) and imposed a five-year supervision order containing some 37 conditions (2023 supervision order).1 2 On 25 September 2024, I found the respondent to have contravened the 2023 supervision order, rescinded that order, and made a continuing detention order in its place.2 3 On 7 November 2025, the State applied pursuant to s 64 of the Act for a review of the continuing detention order. 4 On such an application, the court must consider whether the respondent remains a high risk serious offender and, if so, whether to affirm the continuing detention order or, subject to s 29, rescind it and instead make a supervision order.3 5 For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied: (1) By acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence and that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community against that risk. (2) The respondent therefore remains a high risk serious offender. (3) It is more likely than not that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. (4) A supervision order should be made subject to the conditions set out in the Annexure. Evidence 6 The State tendered and relied upon a three-volume book of materials.4 1 The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126. 2 The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] [2024] WASC 348. 3 Act, s 68 read with ss 64 and 66. 4 Exhibit 1. -- 3 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 4 7 The State also adduced oral evidence from Ms Julie Hasson, a consultant forensic psychologist, and Ms Chloe Jones, the respondent's Community Corrections Officer (CCO) until recently. 8 The respondent did not testify but tendered written material comprising a recent letter from Wungening ReSet Service, a certificate confirming he had had successfully completed the ReSet Drug and Alcohol Brief Intervention Program (ReSet program), and a letter and email in support from his mother and partner respectively.5 9 The court also received correspondence from the High Risk Serious Offender Unit concerning the respondent's proposed primary and secondary accommodation in the event of his release on a supervision order.6 10 No objection was taken to any of the evidence. Legal Principles 11 In The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5],7 I discussed the legal principles applicable to whether a person is (or remains) a high risk serious offender and the determination of the appropriate form of restriction order. I have taken these principles into account in reaching the conclusions set out at [5] above. 12 I have also had regard to, and gratefully adopt, Tottle J's summary in The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2]8 of the central principles underpinning the Act following the decision of the High Court in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.9 Does the respondent remain a high risk serious offender? 13 In determining this question, the court may have regard to any relevant matter but must consider the matters set out in s 7(3)(a) - (j) of the Act.10 14 I turn to consider those matters. 5 Exhibit 2. 6 Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 1-5, respectively. 7 The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [2025] WASC 456. 8 The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 [4]. 9 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 96 ALJR 88. 10 Act, s 7(3) read with s 7(1) and s 68(1); The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [27]. -- 4 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 5 Antecedents and criminal record (s 7(3)(g))11 15 The respondent is presently 46 years of age. 16 In The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2],12 Vandongen J summarised the respondent's antecedents and criminal history in considerable detail. I adopt his Honour's summary and do not repeat it. 17 It suffices to note that the respondent has a lengthy criminal record commencing in his early adolescence, with numerous offences having involved violence including armed robbery. Section 74 report and cooperation (s 7(3)(a)) Ms Julie Hasson 18 Ms Hasson, a qualified expert,13 prepared a report as required by s 74 of the Act14 (Hasson 2026 report).15 19 On 18 March 2026, Ms Hasson interviewed the respondent for 2¾ hours. She recorded that the respondent engaged well in the assessment process, answered all questions, displayed some insight into his behaviour in the community, and generally demonstrated sound emotional and behaviour regulation skills.16 20 Ms Hasson assessed the respondent's risk of future serious offending using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20, version 3 (HCR-20v3). 21 The respondent's PCL‑R score did not meet the threshold for psychopathy, consistent with earlier assessments, but remained indicative of antisocial personality disorder.17 22 The HCR20‑V3 assessed the respondent's risk for violent reoffending relying on three domains of risk factors: historical, clinical and risk management.18 11See also The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2022] WASC 211 [18] - [29]; The State of Western Australia v Dempster [2023] WASC 211 [50] - [64]. 12 The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [35] - [45]. 13 Act s 3(b) (definition of 'qualified expert'), s 74. 14 Cf. Orders of the Honourable Justice McGrath dated 1 December 2025, order 2. 15 Hasson 2026 report (Exhibit 1-2, 377). 16 Hasson 2026 report [1] (Exhibit 1-2, 379). 17 Hasson 2026 report [38] (Exhibit 1-2, 386). 18 Hasson 2026 report [41] (Exhibit 1-2, 386). -- 5 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 6 23 Ms Hasson identified the overwhelming majority of historical risk factors as being present, including problems with history of violence, antisocial behaviour, substance abuse, with poor history of treatment and supervision response, and with violent attitudes. 19 In contrast, only one clinical risk factor was found present (recent problem with insight) although, Ms Hasson noted the respondent had maintained some improvements in this respect.20 Ms Hasson assessed all relevant risk management factors to be present.21 24 In the above context, Ms Hasson observed that her 'most significant concern' was the respondent's ability, motivation and willingness to abide by conditions of any supervision order, and that the respondent's behaviour in the community, when subject to the 2023 supervision order, highlighted his inadequate coping and emotional regulation skills and the importance of him continuing to work on these matters in counselling.22 25 That said, Ms Hasson accepted that the respondent had developed some insight into his behaviour and motivations; however, concerns remained regarding his appreciation of the extent of his risk of reoffending, the consequences of failing to maintain abstinence, and the level of commitment required to achieve lasting change. 23 26 Encouragingly, Ms Hasson reported that the respondent had responded well to individual treatment while in custody, appeared to recognise his need for assistance in maintaining a prosocial lifestyle and managing challenges, stress, and new relationships, had distanced himself from antisocial influences in prison, and had identified a support network comprising his partner, mother, and daughter. 24 27 At the same time, Ms Hasson considered the respondent's antisocial personality traits to be a significant contributing factor to his future compliance with any supervision order, noting his historical tendency to act in accordance with his own preferences despite the consequences. In her view, the development of an 'internal locus of control' would be critical to the respondent's ability to reintegrate successfully and maintain a prosocial lifestyle.25 19 Hasson 2026 report [42] (Exhibit 1-2, 387). 20 Hasson 2026 report [43] - [49] (Exhibit 1-2, 387 - 388). 21 Hasson 2026 report [50] - [56] (Exhibit 1-2, 388 - 389). 22 Hasson 2026 report [50], [55], [70]. 23 Hasson 2026 report [44]. 24 Hasson 2026 report [44] - [45], [52]. 25 Hasson 2026 report [52]. -- 6 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 7 28 Ms Hasson also identified possible scenarios for future violent offending. She opined the most likely scenario would involve the respondent relapsing into substance use, leading to him committing an armed robbery or robbery with violence in order to support his drug use or alleviate financial stress. Ms Hasson explained that such offending may involve the use of a weapon and threats of harm to gain compliance. According to Ms Hasson, the potential for harm in such a case would be significant.26 29 Ms Hasson also outlined two further potential scenarios the first of which would see the respondent engaging in violent, aggressive or life-threatening behaviour including actual assault of a stranger or acquaintance after becoming involved at the behest of an antisocial acquaintance or loved one. In such a case, Ms Hasson considered a weapon might also be used if easily accessible.27 30 In her oral evidence, Ms Hasson clarified that such a scenario would be 'more linked to generalised violence', with the extent of any resulting injury or harm dependent upon a range of factors. She considered that there was potential for such future offending to involve grievous bodily harm, 28 or an act or omission causing bodily harm or danger, done with intent to harm,29 or with intent to rob, 30 each constituting a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act.31 31 Ms Hasson further observed that in the event of a relapse into substance abuse, the respondent would likely return to regular offending and continue to offend until he was apprehended.32 32 However, Ms Hasson described the risk of such offending as likely to crystalise within 'weeks to months, not necessarily the following day'.33 33 According to Ms Hasson, indicators that the respondent was relapsing into an offending cycle would include illicit substance use, an increased expression of anti-authority and antisocial attitudes, heightened resistance and hostility towards supervision and monitoring staff, disengagement from support services, and a rise in stressors. In 26 Hasson 2026 report [58] (Exhibit 1-2, 389). 27 Hasson 2026 report [59] (Exhibit 1-2, 389). 28 Sch 1, item 14 of the Act. 29 Sch 1, item 15 of the Act. 30 Sch 1, item 35 of the Act. 31 ts 25 May 2026, 201 - 202. 32 Hasson 2026 report [65] (Exhibit 1-2, 390). 33 ts 25 May 2026, 200. -- 7 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 8 such circumstances, she considered that the imminence of the risk of future violence would increase unless effective measures were implemented to interrupt the cycle.34 34 Ultimately, Ms Hasson concluded that the respondent would continue to present a high risk of committing a future serious offence, involving violence, if not made subject to a supervision order.35 Other assessments (s 7(3)(b)) Earlier reports and assessments 35 Ms Stagg,36 Professor Pyszora,37 Dr Barbas,38 Ms Hasson,39 and Dr McCann40 prepared reports in respect of the respondent for the purposes of the restriction order hearing in 2023 and the contravention hearing in 2024. These reports have been summarised in previous judgments.41 36 Reports prepared more recently provide a more reliable (and, indeed, somewhat more positive) picture of the respondent's current level of functioning. Ms Caris Hamlett-Waller 37 Since October 2024, the respondent has the benefit of more than 25 individual counselling sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller,42 a counselling psychologist with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT). 38 Ms Hamlett-Waller's reports suggest the respondent has not only generally engaged well in these sessions but also displayed a level of 34 Hasson 2026 report [64] (Exhibit 1-2, 390). 35 Hasson 2026 report [72] (Exhibit 1-2, 392). 36 HRSO Treatment Progress Report of Tara Stagg dated 24 February 2023 (Exhibit 1-1, 207 - 211). 37 Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 22 January 2023 (Pyszora report) (Exhibit 1-1, 212 - 367). 38 HRSO Treatment Progress Report of Dr Sarah Barbas dated 21 May 2024 (Exhibit 1-1, 298 - 308). 39 Psychological report of Julie Hasson dated 17 January 2023 (Hasson 2023 report) (Exhibit 1-1, 268 - 297); Psychological report of Julie Hasson dated 14 May 2024 (Hasson 2024 report) (Exhibit 1-1, 309 - 334). 40 Neuropsychological report of Dr Marie McCann dated 15 July 2024 (Exhibit 1-1, 335 - 349). 41 The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [2023] WASC 126 and The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4]. 42 Report of Ms Hamlett-Waller dated 20 January 2025, 2 (Hamlett-Waller 2025 report) (Exhibit 1-2, 351); Report of Ms Hamlett-Waller dated 5 March 2026 (Hamlett-Waller 2026 report) [4] (Exhibit 1-2, 355). -- 8 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 9 insight into his behaviour while he was still subject to the 2023 supervision order.43 39 Relevantly according to Ms Hamlett-Waller, the respondent: (1) Acknowledged that his previous defiance of the 2023 supervision order stemmed from perceptions of injustice and long-standing difficulties with authority.44 (2) Whilst initially indicating that he would not agree with a finding that he was a HRSO, and that he found the conditions of the 2023 supervision order onerous, confusing and restrictive, nevertheless professed that he would abide by the conditions of any future supervision order and accept its imposition.45 (3) Expressed a desire to cease using aggression or intimidation to have his needs met.46 (4) Confirmed that he would be more discerning in his associations and would focus on prosocial supports to mitigate the risk of substance use.47 (5) Demonstrated ongoing awareness that his previous negative behaviours were exacerbated by his antisocial peers.48 (6) Expressed a willingness to engage with FPIT, self-referred to the ReSet program,49 and verbalised a need for professional supports to successfully reintegrate into the community.50 (7) Demonstrated a shift in his longstanding antisocial attitudes, Ms Hamlett-Waller noting that (since the respondent returned to prison) he remained in a trusted employment position, received positive reports and had not been subject to any charges.51 43 Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 352); Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [15] - [16], [23] (Exhibit 1-2, 358, 360). 44 Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 352); Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [16] (Exhibit 1-2, 358). 45 Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 352). 46 Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 352). 47 Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 4 (Exhibit 1-2, 353). 48 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [20] (Exhibit 1-2, 359). 49 Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 4 (Exhibit 1-2, 353). As to which see below. 50 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [29] (Exhibit 1-2, 361 - 362). 51 Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 4 (Exhibit 1-2, 353); Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [15] (Exhibit 1-2, 358). -- 9 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 10 (8) Recounted that his reincarceration triggered feelings of failure, embarrassment and distress.52 (9) Demonstrated a softening in his 'cognitive rigidity', as evidenced by an increasing willingness to take responsibility for his past and future behaviour, and an openness to engaging with a range of staff, indicative of developing insight. 53 (10) As his counselling sessions progressed, began to reflect on his own internal state and the need to regulate and self-manage.54 (11) Appeared more receptive to empathic confrontation and feedback on his behaviour (I infer by COMU staff) and, although at times defensive, was never aggressive or threatening.55 (12) Acknowledged he wanted to begin expressing his needs to others rather than building up resentment.56 40 Ultimately, Ms Hamlett-Waller: (1) Concluded that the respondent has demonstrated a 'sound capacity for meaningful engagement in counselling',57 whilst acknowledging that these gains had not yet been demonstrated over the long term or tested in a community setting.58 (2) Recommended that should the respondent be found suitable for a supervision order, counselling with FPIT continue, as it would assist with his reintegration and should focus on reducing his identified criminogenic needs. 59 (3) Noted the respondent having reported a desire to continue with his engagement.60 (4) Opined that further treatment in a custodial setting was unlikely to yield substantial gains for the respondent.61 52 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [15], [17] (Exhibit 1-2, 358). 53 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [15] (Exhibit 1-2, 358). 54 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [27] (Exhibit 1-2, 361). 55 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [34] (Exhibit 1-2, 363). 56 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [37] (Exhibit 1-2, 364). 57 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [39] (Exhibit 1-2, 364). 58 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [41] (Exhibit 1-2, 364 - 365). 59 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [42] (Exhibit 1-2, 365). 60 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [42] (Exhibit 1-2, 365). 61 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [43] (Exhibit 1-2, 365). -- 10 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 11 Ms Emily Selby 41 Ms Selby, a Forensic Psychologist with the Forensic Psychological Assessment Team, interviewed the respondent in March 2026 for a total of two hours. 42 The respondent also appears to have engaged well with Ms Selby, who described him as 'cooperative, engaged and articulate'.62 He demonstrated willingness, motivation, and the capacity to continue to meaningfully engage with Ms Hamlett-Waller.63 43 According to Ms Selby, the respondent had exhibited positive behaviour throughout his continuing detention order which he had continued to maintain in 'a less secure environment'; the Wooroloo Prison Farm where he has been residing since early February 202664 (although discussions regarding his transfer to a minimum-security facility had already commenced in October 2025).65 44 Whilst noting these changes have been relatively recent, and not yet tested in the community 'across time and high risk situations',66 Ms Selby nonetheless opined that the respondent had:67 (1) Demonstrated a good understanding of his risk factors, risk management plans and insight into the factors which had contributed to his offending. (2) Largely abandoned his previously held 'victim stance', having accepted responsibility for his past behaviour and current situation. (3) Articulated insight into his past problems including substance use, antisocial peer associations, antisocial attitudes and cognitive distortions, poor emotion management, difficulties with communication and interpersonal skills, and defiant response to supervision. (4) Was able to describe the skills he would utilise to manage these areas accordingly if released. 62 Report of Ms Selby dated 2 April 2026 (Selby report) [26] (Exhibit 1-2, 372). 63 Selby report [36], [39] (Exhibit 1-2, 374 - 375). 64 Selby report [36] (read with [11]), [39] (Exhibit 1-2, 368 - 369, 374 - 375). 65 Community supervision assessment report authored by Ms Jones dated 20 April 2026, 2 (Jones Report) (Exhibit 1-2, 396). 66 Selby report [36] (Exhibit 1-2, 374). 67 Selby report [37] - [38] (Exhibit 1-2, 374 - 375). -- 11 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 12 (5) Also described appropriate plans to reintegrate into the community if a supervision order were made. 45 Ms Selby recommended that, if the respondent were released on a supervision order, he continue individual intervention with Ms Hamlett-Waller to support him in applying his risk management strategies in the community and, additionally, engage in counselling through the Allied Drug and Alcohol Programs and Treatment (ADAPT) program for further support.68 Ms Chloe Jones 46 Ms Jones in her report among other things records that: (1) The respondent initially presented as hostile, but has since become consistently reflective, openly acknowledging the factors that contributed to his difficulties while subject to the 2023 supervision order.69 (2) The respondent acknowledged he had deliberately engaged in defiant behaviour as a 'protest'. 70 (3) In more recent sessions, the respondent has been receptive to feedback, and able to articulate ways he can increase personal responsibility and autonomy. 71 (4) The respondent has not only avoided the attention of prison staff for adverse behaviour, but demonstrated 'above and beyond' conduct, and been described as setting a 'positive example' for other prisoners.72 47 In relation to programmatic intervention, Ms Jones reports that the respondent: (1) Has maintained engagement with insight-oriented therapy with the FPIT.73 (2) In September 2025, 'self-referred' himself to the ADAPT program; a collaborative initiative between Holyoake and Cyrenian House (alcohol and other drug services), designed to 68 Selby report [40] (Exhibit 1-2, 374). 69 Jones 2026 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 397). 70 Jones 2026 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 397). 71 Jones 2026 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 397). 72 Jones 2026 report, 2 (Exhibit 1-2, 396). 73 Jones 2026 report, 2 (Exhibit 1-2, 396). -- 12 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 13 support individuals in custody affected by alcohol and drug use, which commences three to six months prior to release.74 (3) As at the time of her report, had participated in three sessions with a Cyrenian House counsellor who reported the respondent as having presented as engaged, was cognisant of his alcohol and drug triggers, and expressed a willingness to implement abstinence strategies.75 (4) Would, if released on a supervision order, be eligible for six sessions through the ADAPT program as well as additional community-based supports if requested.76 (5) In February 2026, also commenced engagement with the ReSet program, which provides case management, counselling, and group work for six months prior to release until 12 months post-release;77 Ms Jones noting that the respondent's engagement to date has been appropriate and constructive, and that ReSet has developed a support plan with him.78 48 If the respondent were released on a supervision order, Ms Jones reports that he proposes residing with his partner and her father, as well as with his mother at a separate address.79 He seeks to reside at both locations to allow for flexibility, given the distance between them.80 49 According to Ms Jones, the respondent also expressed an intention to limit his social interactions beyond his immediate family, and has consistently expressed a desire to maintain a pro-social lifestyle stating that 'prison is not for me anymore'.81 Propensity to seriously reoffend (s 7(3)(c)) 50 A person has a 'propensity to commit serious offences in the future' if they have an inclination, tendency, or disposition to commit serious offences, be it generally, in a particular way, or against a particular type of victim.82 74 Jones 2026 report, 2 - 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 396 - 397). 75 Jones 2026 report, 2 - 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 396 - 397). 76 Jones 2026 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 397). 77 Jones 2026 report, 4 (Exhibit 1-2, 398). 78 Jones 2026 report, 4 - 5 (Exhibit 1-2, 398 - 399). 79 Jones 2026 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 397). 80 Jones 2026 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 397). 81 Jones 2026 report, 5 (Exhibit 1-2, 399). 82 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178]. -- 13 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 14 51 As Vandongen J noted, the respondent has, since 1992, committed a significant number of robbery, attempted robbery, and armed robbery offences; a history which 'clearly establishes that [the respondent] has a propensity to commit offences of robbery, or robbery-related offences'.83 52 His Honour's conclusion is, with respect, amply supported by views expressed by Professor Pyszora,84 and Ms Hasson.85 Pattern of offending (s 7(3)(d)) 53 A 'pattern' as it pertains to behaviour, is recurrent way of acting by an individual or group towards a given object or in a given situation.86 54 The respondent's significant number of charges and convictions for violent behaviour evidences a clear pattern of violence, which has escalated over time,87 although, as Ms Hasson observes, the respondent's violent behaviour has shown some diversity. In this regard, as Ms Hasson explains, the respondent:88 … has used various weapons as well as his own body when assaulting others. He has targeted strangers and acquaintances. Some of [the respondent's] violent acts have been reactive, motivated by anger and other emotions, cognitions and beliefs. Other episodes of violence have been instrumental and motivated by financial strain and a desire to obtain needs and wants. The severity of violence perpetrated by [the respondent] has varied, resulting in physical injury to some victims as well as psychological harm to others. In many if not all instances [the respondent] has been the instigator/aggressor. Efforts to address cause(s) of offending behaviour, rehabilitation, treatment and effect (s 7(3)(e) - (f)) 55 Prior to his release into the community on the 2023 supervision order, the respondent participated in a substance use program and skills training for aggression control in 1999, a Pathways program in 2011, a violent offender treatment program in 2016, and the Think First program in both 2017 and 2019 (which he did not complete on either occasion due to personal stressors), as well as 13 self-funded voluntary 83 The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 2] [79]. See also Exhibit 1-1, Respondent’s criminal history as at 17 February 2026, 2 - 22. 84 Pyszora report [256] (Exhibit 1-1, 263). 85 Eg. Hasson 2023 report [86] (Exhibit 1-1, 288); Hasson 2024 report [96] (Exhibit 1-1, 330); and Hasson 2026 report [42], [72] (Exhibit 1-2, 387, 392). 86 The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 7] [2022] WASC 342 [229] (Derrick J). 87 Hasson 2023 report [86] (Exhibit 1-1, 288). 88 Hasson 2023 report [86] (Exhibit 1-1, 288). -- 14 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 15 sessions at the Whitehaven Clinic in 2021 to address his substance use.89 56 Regrettably, it appears that the respondent's engagement in these programs did not result in lasting behavioural change. 57 However, as noted, since the respondent's return to custody, his engagement in counselling with Ms Hamlett-Waller has been sustained and meaningful. 58 Ms Selby reports that the respondent consistently attended his sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller punctually and in a prepared state, and was described overall as 'an engaged participant', 90 with both Ms Selby and Ms Hamlett-Waller considering his participation to have had a positive effect. 59 Indeed, according to Ms Hasson, the respondent had 'nothing but positive feedback' regarding his counselling sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller, and was able to identify the areas they had addressed and what he had gained from those sessions, which was described as 'really reassuring'.91 60 In addition, as noted, the respondent self-referred to the ADAPT program, in relation to which he was described as presenting as engaged, cognisant of his triggers and willing to implement abstinence strategies, and more recently to the ReSet program, where his participation was likewise described in positive terms. Risk and need for community protection (s 7(3)(h) - (i)) 61 The unchallenged evidence of Ms Hasson is that the respondent continues to pose a high risk to the community of committing a serious offence if not made subject to a restriction order. 62 Although the evidence overwhelmingly supports an inference that the respondent has made considerable positive strides towards developing insight and coping skills over the course of the past 20 months, his gains are recent and have not been tested over time and in high-risk situations. 63 In all the circumstances, I find there is a high risk that the respondent will seriously reoffend if not made subject to a restriction 89 Selby report [9] (Exhibit 1-2, 368). 90 Selby report [16] (Exhibit 1-2, 370). 91 ts 25 May 2026, 197 - 198 (Hasson). -- 15 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 16 order, and that there is a need to protect members of the community from that risk. Other relevant matters (s 7(3)(j)) 64 I do not consider there to be any other materially relevant matters. Determination 65 At the hearing, the respondent accepted that there was a sufficient basis for the court to find that he remained a high risk serious offender. 66 The contention was well made. 67 For the foregoing reasons I am satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high degree of probability, that the statutory test is met. 68 Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender. What order should be made? 69 The principles relevant to determining what order should be made are summarised in, among other decisions, The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5].92 70 Mindful of those principles, and noting I may not make a supervision order unless the respondent has satisfied me it is more likely than not he will comply with the standard conditions of such an order, I have considered this question by reference to the factors which appear relevant to its assessment in the present case.93 71 Having carefully considered these factors, and for the following reasons, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions if released on a supervision order. 72 First, the respondent has, over a sustained period of many months, engaged in over 25 individual counselling sessions Ms Hamlett-Waller. Through his participation, he has achieved significant treatment gains across all identified areas of need, having demonstrated a capacity for 92 The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [118] - [123]. See also The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2] [2024] WASC 339 [123] - [128]. 93 Cf. Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52] (Fiannaca J); The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 [34] (Archer J). -- 16 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 17 identifying his risk factors, and risk management plans for implementation of strategies for behavioural regulation.94 73 Secondly, over this period the respondent has developed a relationship of trust and rapport with Ms Hamlett-Waller, to whom he reportedly considers he 'could talk … about anything'. 95 If released on a supervision order, it is envisaged that he would continue counselling with Ms Hamlett-Waller, initially on at least a weekly basis (and later likely fortnightly). 96 I infer that the positive relationship he has developed with Ms Hamlett-Waller would provide a foundation for him to articulate his stresses and concerns while in the community, with the potential for an even greater positive effect. 74 Thirdly, the respondent has demonstrated a clear willingness to implement abstinence strategies learned through the ADAPT program, having also engaged constructively and successfully with ReSet which, as noted, has developed a support plan to assist him if released on a supervision order. 75 Fourthly, during his time in custody the respondent continued to self-report abstinence for all illicit substances and to submit he was distancing himself from those involved in the illicit substance trade. Both urinalysis for illicit substances and breath analysis for alcohol have returned negative results.97 76 The respondent has also indicated he plans to continue with his opiate substitution therapy (OST) from which he has derived benefit over the past two years. 98 77 According to Ms Hasson, this treatment has been integral in assisting the respondent to abstain from drug use in custody, and he has recognised the importance of its continuation in any transition to life in the community.99 78 Ms Hasson further explained that opiates had, in the past, been one of the respondent's primary difficulties, that he was happy with his OST 94 See in particular Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [27] (Exhibit 1-2, 361); Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 4 (Exhibit 1-2, 353). 95 Selby report [27] (Exhibit 1-2, 372). 96 ts 25 May 2026, 198. 97 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [32] (Exhibit 1-2, 362). 98 Hamlett-Waller 2026 report [32] (Exhibit 1-2, 362); Hasson 2026 report [26] (Exhibit 1-2, 384). 99 Hasson 2026 report [9] (Exhibit 1-2, 381). -- 17 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 18 treatment (in the form of a monthly injection), felt it had been working well, and had very positive views about its benefits.100 79 Noting the above matters, I am satisfied there are measures that will be in place to ensure substantial compliance with the standard conditions of a supervision order. 80 Fifthly, Ms Hasson, Ms Hamlett-Waller, and Ms Selby all observe that the respondent has expressed an intention not only to remain abstinent from drugs101 but also to abide by the conditions of any future supervision order.102 81 I consider it more than reasonably open to conclude that the respondent has undergone a significant change in attitude since the continuing detention order was made; having not only verbalised an acceptance of personal responsibility for compliance with the terms of any future supervision order but also now shown at least a degree of insight into his behaviour while he was subject to the 2023 supervision order. 82 Sixthly, as noted, the respondent has demonstrated positive behaviour throughout the period of his continuing detention order. According to Ms Jones he has been described as going 'above and beyond' and setting a 'positive example' for other prisoners.103 This is reflected in his transfer from maximum to minimum security; an outcome said to have occurred 'for the first time' in his case.104 83 Seventhly, the respondent is in the fortunate position of having no fewer than two suitable accommodation options available should he be released into the community: a primary residence with his partner, and a secondary residence with his mother. Both have been described as 'significant supports' for the respondent.105 84 Eighthly, while the respondent's capacity to comply may be undermined by his antisocial personality traits and entrenched 100 ts 25 May 2026,198. 101 Hasson 2026 report [13] (Exhibit 1-2, 381). 102 Hasson 2026 report [14] (Exhibit 1-2, 382); Hamlett-Waller 2025 report, 3 (Exhibit 1-2, 352); Selby report [30] (Exhibit 1-2, 372 - 373). See also ts 25 May 2026, 203. 103 Jones 2026 report, 2 (Exhibit 1-2, 396). 104 ts 25 May 2026, 197. 105 Selby report [15] (Exhibit 1-2, 369). -- 18 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 19 antiauthoritarian attitude,106 he now appears to have demonstrated the ability to identify and challenge these views.107 85 Finally, the State has proposed a series of conditions to which any supervision order would be subject. The proposed conditions are supported by Ms Hasson, with many evidently designed to assist in mitigating the risk of the respondent entering another offending cycle. 86 Having considered all the above matters, I am satisfied that the prospect of the respondent substantially complying with the standard conditions of a supervision order no longer hinges merely on a combination of words and hope.108 87 Moreover, as counsel for the State observed in closing:109 [The respondent] now knows what is likely to happen if he doesn't [substantially comply with a supervision order]. He has spent now a considerable period of time in custody, for which he was both sentenced to a term as well as on the continuing detention order. So he's under no illusion as to the seriousness that the court takes these matters and the potential outcomes for him if he doesn't comply. 88 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the respondent will in fact substantially comply with those conditions. 89 In reaching this conclusion, I remain cognisant that the Act's protective purpose does not require the risk to the community to be reduced to zero. Duration of supervision order 90 Initially, Ms Hasson opined that the appropriate duration of any supervision order be five years. However, in her oral evidence, she expressed the view that a period of two to three years would be suitable, and that, if the respondent were to successfully navigate a supervision order for two years, he would be 'well placed to continue on and reduce his risk of committing a serious offence in the future'.110 106 Hasson 2026 report [50] (Exhibit 1-2, 388). 107 Selby report [38] (Exhibit 1-2, 374). 108 Cf. The State of Western Australia v Mills [No 4] [210]. 109 ts 25 May 2026, 218. 110 ts 25 May 2026, 208. -- 19 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 20 91 The respondent accepts that, on this evidence, it is open to the court to make a supervision order of such duration.111 I agree. Conclusion 92 For the above reasons, I make a supervision in relation to the respondent for a period of two (2) years from 18 June 2026, being a date not earlier than 21 days from the date this Order, subject to the conditions which I now publish. 111 ts 25 May 2026, 218. -- 20 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 21 Annexure SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE MUSIKANTH ON 28 MAY 2026 Pursuant to section 68(1)(b)(ii) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent remains a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), rescinds the continuing detention order made in relation to the Respondent on 25 September 2024 and makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of two (2) years from 18 June 2026, not being a date earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions: You, DWAYNE ANTHONY MILLS, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the prison at the time of your release and tell the CCO your current name and address; 2. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at such times and at such places as reasonably directed by that CCO. 3. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens. 4. Be under the supervision of a CCO and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including any direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32). 5. Not leave or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO. 6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order. 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA). ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Live at [redacted] (primary address) and spend each night there. You may also live or stay overnight at [redacted] (secondary address) provided you advise a CCO of your intention to stay at the secondary address before you stay there. You can only stay at an address which is different from the primary address or the secondary address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO. -- 21 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 22 Attendance at programs or treatment 9. Attend all appointments and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO. 10. Let any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, program facilitator, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person tell a CCO about your treatment and their opinions about your level of risk of reoffending. Reporting to WA Police 11. Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 or other location within 48 hours of this Order starting. Report to and receive visits from Police as directed by the OIC of the SOES or their delegate. 12. If requested, let Police Officers enter and search your home and/or vehicle, and/or person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this Order. Allow Police Officers to seize items they believe to contravene the conditions of the order. 13. Stay and not leave your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under the conditions of the order. Disclosure/Exchange of information 14. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this Order, including confidential information. Restrictions on contact with victims 15. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, including contact in person, by mail, telephone, through a third person or by electronic means, with [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] or [redacted]. 16. Report to the CCO any direct or indirect contact with any of the persons named in condition 15 of this Order on the next working day you report to a CCO. Criminal conduct 17. Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves: a. Violence b. Threats of violence -- 22 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 23 c. Possession of weapons or offensive instruments d. Being armed and causing fear in public places e. Breaches of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (for example possessing and using illicit substances). Curfew 18. Comply with a curfew, requiring you to remain at and not leave your approved addresses, as directed by a CCO. 19. When subject to a curfew under this Order you must: a. go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, asks to see you. 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. c. 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 any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, to contact you. Prevention of high-risk situations 20. Not to associate with [redacted] or [redacted]. 21. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for prohibited drugs or any prescription medication not prescribed, as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place. 22. Provide a valid sample pursuant to Condition 21. 23. Not remain in the presence of any person who you know or ought to know is affected by prohibited substances unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO. 24. Not remain in any place where you know or ought to know that prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place, or remove the persons consuming prohibited drugs from your residence. 25. Have no contact with anyone you know to be a nominee, associate or member of any Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, unless approved in advance by your CCO. -- 23 of 24 -- [2026] WASC 203 MUSIKANTH J Page 24 26. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device you possess or use, that can store digital data or information, whether or not it can connect to the internet, including each device's location. You must tell a CCO or Police Officer within 48 hours of purchasing, using or possessing a new device, including its location. 27. Not let any person, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer, use any electronic device referred to in condition 26 or access any of your online accounts without prior approval of a CCO. 28. Have a password on all electronic devices referred to in condition 26 and all online accounts and do not tell anyone your passwords, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer. 29. If asked to do so by a CCO or a WA Police Officer, let them access any electronic device in your possession or control which can store data, so that they can investigate the device. Tell them all your internet service providers, telephone services, passwords, screen names, usernames and email addresses needed for them to access the device. If any other entity needs to access one of your devices, you must get the prior approval of a CCO. 30. On all electronic devices referred to in condition 26, you must not delete, or otherwise remove and/or disguise, (or cause, or allow to be removed and/or disguised), any data on your devices, including calls, text messages, search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that device, without the prior approval of a CCO. 31. Disclose and provide reasonable details of your activities, movements and the associations you come into contact within the community, to a CCO when reasonably requested by that CCO. 32. Not assault, threaten, insult, or behave in an intimidating manner to a member of the Departmental staff or any agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. IL Associate to the Hon Justice Musikanth 28 MAY 2026 -- 24 of 24 --