THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TIPPING [2026] WASC 186

[2026] WASC 186 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TIPPING [No 3] [2026] WASC 186 CORAM : FORRESTER J HEARD : 10 NOVEMBER 2025, 6 FEBRUARY 2026, 6 MARCH 2026, 7 & 21 APRIL 2026 & 12 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 15 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 5 of 2023 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND HIRIM GEORGE TIPPING Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether community can be adequately protected by imposition of supervision order - Whether the respondent will substantially comply with standard conditions of a supervision order Legislation: Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) -- 1 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 Page 2 High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) Result: Supervision order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : J Bennett Respondent : T Hager Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Legal Aid (WA) Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 The State of Western Australia v Bellamy [2013] WASC 467 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 The State of Western Australia v McCabe [2016] WASC 226 The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 -- 2 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 3 FORRESTER J: Introduction 1 This is an application made by the State of Western Australia on 9 June 2023 for a restriction order to be made in respect of the respondent, Hirim George Tipping, pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). 2 On 22 June 2023, a preliminary hearing pursuant to s 46 of the HRSO Act was held before Justice Derrick.1 His Honour was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the court might find the respondent to be a high risk serious offender and ordered that the application for a restriction order be heard on 17 November 2023. 3 On 8 August 2023, Derrick J ordered that, until the final determination of the restriction order application, the respondent be detained subject to an interim detention order pursuant to s 46(2) of the HRSO Act.2 4 There have been regrettable delays in the progress of this matter since that time, related to the progress of an application for funding for the respondent, but ultimately the respondent did not seek to pursue that application, and the matter came on for hearing before me on 10 November 2025. 5 On the application for a restriction order, the matters I must decide are: (1) whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act; and, if so (2) whether to make an order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (a continuing detention order)3 or that he be released into the community subject to conditions that the court considers appropriate (supervision order).4 6 For the reasons below, I am satisfied that the respondent is a high risk serious offender, and that it is necessary that a restriction order should be made to ensure adequate protection of the community. 1. Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 1 filed 21 August 2023, 254 (BOM Vol 1). 2 BOM Vol 1, 254. 3 HRSO Act s 26. 4 HRSO Act s 27. -- 3 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 4 Subject to the availability of appropriate accommodation, I have determined that a supervision order is the appropriate form of restriction. Procedural background 7 When the application was made on 9 June 2023, the respondent was serving a term of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, imposed by Whitby DCJ (as her Honour then was) on 2 February 2022, for offences of sexual penetration without consent and unlawful and indecent assault.5 That sentence expired on 24 June 2023.6 8 The offence of sexual penetration without consent is a serious offence under the HRSO Act.7 As at the date of the application, he was under a custodial sentence for that offence.8 9 Accordingly, the respondent was, at the time the application was made, 'a serious offender under custodial sentence'9 who was not a serious offender under restriction. Accordingly, pursuant to s 35 of the HRSO Act, the State is entitled to make the application for a restriction order in relation to the respondent. Evidence 10 The State produced a Book of Materials comprised of five volumes, containing the criminal history of the respondent and detailed evidence relating to it, including statements of material facts and transcripts, as well as the respondent's custodial history, medical records, program completion reports relating to the various programs undertaken by the respondent while in custody, parole and other assessment reports, and reports prepared for this hearing, namely: (a) Psychiatric Reports of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 15 October 2023, 18 January 2024 and 29 January 2025; (b) Psychological Reports of Dr Dylan Galloghly dated 7 October 2023, 16 January 2024 and 21 January 2025; (c) Neuropsychological Report of Dr Elizabeth Vuletich dated 12 January 2024; 5 BOM Vol 1, 1, 351 - 352. The respondent was made eligible for parole, but parole was refused: BOM Vol 1, 65 - 66. 6 BOM Vol 1, 70. 7 HRSO Act s 5 and sch 1, div 1, sub-div 3, item 21. 8 HRSO Act s 3. 9 HRSO Act s 3. -- 4 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 5 (d) Functional Capacity Assessment of Jack Beer, dated 1 November 2023; (e) Treatment Progress Reports of Caris Hamlett-Waller dated 30 April 2024 and 8 August 2024; (f) High Risk Serious Offender Treatment Options Reports of Ms Emma Cashmore dated 25 October 2023, 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024; and (g) Community Supervision Assessment Reports dated 2 February 2024, 29 May 2024 and 5 February 2025. 11 The State called Dr Wojnarowska, Dr Galloghly and Ms Bennetts at the hearing of the application, and they were cross-examined by the respondent's counsel. Statutory framework and legal principles 12 The objects of the HRSO Act are: (a) to provide for the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and (b) to provide for continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.10 13 If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that an offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must make a continuing detention order or, except as provided in s 29, a supervision order in relation to the offender. In deciding whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.11 14 The term 'high risk serious offender' is defined in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act as follows: An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate 10 HRSO Act s 8. 11 HRSO Act s 48. -- 5 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 6 protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. 15 A 'restriction order' means a continuing detention order or a supervision order.12 A continuing detention order is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.13 A supervision order is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers to be appropriate in accordance with s 30 of the HRSO Act.14 16 Relevantly, an offence is a 'serious offence' if it is an offence listed in sch 1 div 1 of the HRSO Act.15 17 The State has the onus of satisfying the court in accordance with s 7(1).16 18 When considering whether it is satisfied that a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the factors set out in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. 19 The jurisprudence established in respect of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed) is relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act, with necessary adaptation.17 20 The powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on the offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.18 21 The words 'high degree of probability' import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt, but are otherwise not capable of further definition.19 The court is required to identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, thereafter considering whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard by acceptable and cogent evidence.20 12 HRSO Act s 3. 13 HRSO Act s 3, s 26(1). 14 HRSO Act s 3, s 27(1). 15 HRSO Act s 5. 16 HRSO Act s 7(2). 17 The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [31]. 18 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 (Garlett) [55] - [56] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ). 19 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 (GTR) [28] - [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 20 GTR [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA). -- 6 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 7 22 In Garlett the court said:21 Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the [c]ourt's judgment as to the nature and extent of the harm said to be in prospect. Further, whether a restriction order is 'necessary' to protect against that risk requires recognition of what would otherwise be the offender's entitlement to be at liberty, an entitlement not lightly to be denied. 23 The meaning of 'unacceptable risk' was considered by Wheeler JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams22 in the following terms: In my view, an 'unacceptable risk' in the context of s 7(1) is a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations which may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of sexual offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted) and the consequences of making a finding that an unacceptable risk exists. That is, the judge is required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of the person offending and the offence likely to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding that the person has already been punished for whatever offence they may have actually committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that the person is subject to further control or detention. 24 In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,23 Corboy J considered that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act (in conjunction with s 48) requires the court to assess two separate matters. The first is whether a risk that an offender will commit a serious offence is unacceptable. The second is, if the risk is found to be unacceptable, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against a risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. His Honour stated: [T]he court should choose, as between a continuing detention order and a supervision order, the order that is 'least invasive or destructive' of a person's right to be at liberty while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community. That constraint also applies in determining the non-standard conditions (if any) of a supervision order. Moreover, as Hall J pointed out in Director of Public Prosecutions v Decke,24 '[i]t cannot simply be assumed that the most assured 21 Garlett [73] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ). 22 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [63] (Wheeler JA). 23 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 (SOWA v Garlett). 24 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [14]. -- 7 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 8 preventative is detention and, therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order'.25 25 The court cannot make a supervision order in relation to an offender unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.26 26 The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.27 27 In determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order': [t]he 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.28 Matters to be considered pursuant to s 7(3) HRSO Act Antecedents and criminal history Criminal history Index offence 28 The facts of the index offence and the other offence for which the respondent was sentenced by Whitby DCJ on 23 February 2022 were that on 23 January 2020, at about 8.00 pm, the respondent, who was then 34 years old, was at his house with the 16 year-old female complainant, who was a friend of the respondent's then-partner. The complainant saw the respondent as a father figure, a role which he accepted. 29 The respondent attempted to kiss the complainant, who tried to turn away. The respondent gripped her face and held it so he could kiss her, which he did. He then tried to put his hand down her pants. She swatted his hand away and said no, but the respondent said, 'Let me' 25 SOWA v Garlett [143]. 26 HRSO Act s 29. 27 HRSO Act s 30(2)(f). 28 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. -- 8 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 9 and then forced his hand into her pants, before forcibly penetrating her vagina with more than one of his fingers. He kept them there for some time before removing them. He was then distracted by another person at the house, which enabled the complainant to leave. 30 The respondent pleaded guilty to the offences on the morning his trial was to take place. Other serious offence 31 The respondent has been convicted of one other serious offence, namely an offence of indecently dealing with a child of or over the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years. That offence occurred on 17 January 2008, but the respondent was not convicted of it until 3 March 2017.29 32 The facts as found by the trial judge, Derrick DCJ (as his Honour then was), are that on 17 January 2008, the then 22 year-old respondent was at a beach with some associates. At that beach, under a jetty, was some furniture and other items which could not readily be seen from the beach. 33 The 13 year-old male complainant was also at the beach, and he was familiar with the area under the jetty. The complainant was in the area on his own, but was able to contact his mother at will. 34 The respondent noticed the complainant and that he was alone. Near dark, the complainant decided to go near the entry to the area under the jetty to urinate. He pulled his shorts down to do so. Just as he had finished and went to pull his shorts up, the respondent grabbed his right ankle and pulled him to the ground. He then dragged the complainant under the jetty, where it was dark. The respondent pulled down his own shorts to his ankles, while continuing to detain the complainant. He got on top of the complainant, who was lying on his back, and rubbed his erect penis up and down, around and near the complainant's penis. He also rubbed his penis around and near the complainant's bottom area. As he did this, he held his hand over the complainant's face, preventing him from calling out. 35 At one point, the complainant squeezed and twisted one of the respondent's nipples in an attempt to stop him. This did stop him briefly, but he then grabbed the respondent's hands and pushed them under his back, before continuing to rub his penis against the 29 BOM Vol 1, 1. -- 9 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 10 complainant's penis. The respondent continued to hold his hand over the complainant's face. 36 Eventually, the respondent stopped, put his shorts back on, and fled. The complainant called his mother and received assistance. The respondent was only able to be identified in 2014 after advances in DNA testing. 37 The respondent was sentenced, after trial, to a term of 4 years' immediate imprisonment from 6 August 2016.30 Other relevant offending 38 On 8 March 2022, the respondent was also convicted of two offences of failing to comply with his reporting obligations pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) (Community Protection Act). In or about June 2020, the respondent had been in contact with a 16 year-old female (not the complainant of the index offending), both in person and by electronic communication, which he had failed to report as he was required to do.31 39 On the same date, the respondent was convicted that on 9 June 2020, he had been in possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property, including a mobile phone and identification in the name of another person.32 Family background and relationships 40 The respondent was born in Western Australia to his Aboriginal mother. He was raised by his mother and stepfather until he was 6 years old, after which he mainly lived with his stepfather, but had contact with his mother. The respondent's mother reported that his stepfather was a violent and controlling man.33 The respondent found out that his stepfather was not his biological father when another relative told him when he was 24.34 He has since had contact with his biological father and claims to have a good relationship with him.35 He 30 BOM Vol 1, 1, 324. 31 BOM Vol 1, 1. 32 BOM Vol 1, 1. 33 BOM Vol 1, 284. 34 BOM Vol 1, 274 - 275. 35 BOM Vol 1, 284. -- 10 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 11 continues to have regular telephone contact with his mother, who resides interstate, and has significant health issues.36 41 The respondent was raised with an older half-brother, an identical twin brother and a younger half-sister. His biological father has three other children.37 42 The respondent's mother has previously reported that the respondent and his twin were born eight weeks premature, and that both had been assessed as being developmentally and mentally delayed.38 43 The respondent's twin has also apparently been convicted in the past of committing child sexual abuse as an adolescent.39 44 The respondent reported that his stepfather was an alcoholic, and that he was seriously sexually abused by his stepfather between the ages of 6 and 14 years old, as well as being subject to physical abuse at his stepfather's hands. It is unnecessary to further detail that abuse for the purposes of this decision, but the respondent described it to Dr Galloghly in some detail in 2023.40 The respondent also told Dr Wojnarowska that his stepfather continued the sexual contact after the respondent reached adulthood, but before he was married.41 The stepfather is now deceased. 45 The respondent said that his brothers were also sexually abused by the respondent's stepfather. He reported the abuse to authorities in about 201542 and gave evidence at his stepfather's trial, but that trial resulted in an acquittal.43 46 The respondent left home in his mid-teens and moved all around Australia.44 47 The respondent reported having a very high sex drive and having had ten to twenty short-term casual relationships. He admitted to watching pornography nightly when by himself. He denied being same-sex attracted or attracted to children. He told Dr Bala that he had 36 Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 2 filed 2 February 2024, 466 (BOM Vol 2), Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 3 filed 5 February 2025, 833 (BOM Vol 3). 37 BOM Vol 1, 275. 38 BOM Vol 1, 283. 39 BOM Vol 1, 284. 40 BOM Vol 2, 465. 41 BOM Vol 2, 453. 42 BOM Vol 1, 275. 43 BOM Vol 1, 339. 44 BOM Vol 1, 275. -- 11 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 12 had four or five serious relationships, which he said ended because he got bored and 'took off'. He was married for two years.45 The marriage ended shortly after the 2008 offence.46 The respondent later told some Pathways facilitators that his substance use contributed to the breakdown of his marriage.47 48 The respondent says he has eight children to different women, aged between one and nine, and that he has re-established phone contact with three of his children and speaks to his youngest daughter every weekend.48 49 The respondent reported having few friends.49 Education and employment 50 The respondent attended high school until the beginning of year 11. He said his grades were poor. He started truanting in high school and was suspended several times for fighting and damaging property.50 He is at least lacking proficiency in reading and writing.51 51 After leaving school, the respondent briefly worked in furniture removal and at a roadhouse, but was unmotivated to work and lived on a disability pension since that time.52 Substance abuse 52 The respondent told Dr Bala in 2017 that he had been an 'alcoholic' when he was 18 and 19 years old, consuming alcohol day and night, but he stopped after being hospitalised, and thereafter drank only one or two beers every few weeks. He rarely smoked cannabis, claiming it did nothing for him. However, he said he started smoking methylamphetamines at the age of 27, and would often smoke it daily. He reduced his use while on bail, but stopped only when imprisoned. He told Dr Bala it relaxed and calmed him,53 but acknowledged to Ms Zuin that he could at times become aggressive under its influence.54 45 BOM Vol 1, 275. 46 BOM Vol 1, 337. 47 BOM Vol 1, 379. 48 BOM Vol 3, 825. 49 BOM Vol 1, 276. 50 BOM Vol 1, 275. 51 BOM Vol 1, 406; BOM Vol 2, 494. 52 BOM Vol 1, 275. 53 BOM Vol 1, 274. 54 BOM Vol 1, 287. -- 12 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 13 53 The respondent has been reported as saying he used LSD 'a lot' and at times had abused dexamphetamine medication, which was prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).55 Medical and Psychiatric History 54 The respondent reported having been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) when he was ten, and being treated with dexamphetamine until he was fourteen years old. He also claimed to have been diagnosed with schizophrenia at one point, but admitted it was later revised to drug induced psychosis. He also has said he suffered from depression and anxiety,56 and is taking medication for depression. 55 The respondent claims he was diagnosed with pericarditis as a child and has been seen regularly since then; however, Dr Wojnarowska observed there is no evidence in the medical notes as to this.57 His prison medical record showed issues with ADHD, hearing impairment, hypertension, sleep apnoea, anxiety, depression, gastritis, migraines, metabolic syndrome and asthma. The respondent also reported back pain problems.58 56 The respondent reports that he continues to take Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) medication and is willing to do so into the future. Since taking that medication, he says his libido has significantly decreased.59 Conduct while in custody 57 The respondent was convicted of three prison offences between November 2016 and August 2023, all for insubordination or misconduct.60 One related to receiving tattoos in prison in June 2017,61 one related to possession of a makeshift tool in December 2017,62 and the other related to being found with a new tattoo on 7 June 2018.63 55 BOM Vol 1, 287; BOM Vol 2, 451. 56 BOM Vol 2, 451 - 452, 468. 57 BOM Vol 2, 452. 58 BOM Vol 2, 468, 495. 59 BOM Vol 3, 825. 60 BOM Vol 1, 6. 61 BOM Vol 1, 6, 16 - 23. 62 BOM Vol 1, 8, 33 - 38. 63 BOM Vol 1, 6, 49 - 52. -- 13 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 14 58 The respondent was also disciplined for being out of bounds by being in a unit other than his own,64 misconduct by not being ready for muster,65 misconduct by disrupting a muster,66 lending his stereo to another prisoner,67 misconduct by disobeying an order to attend work.68 59 During his first sentence of imprisonment, the respondent was said to be generally polite and respectful towards staff, to follow directions and to comply with rules.69 He was described as having a 'great work ethic' and requiring minimal supervision.70 60 During his sentence for the index offence, the respondent was considered to be polite and compliant and to abide by rules without issue, and to be a good worker.71 61 The respondent has not tested positive for any substance during his time in custody.72 He has been presently employed as a cleaner in custody and considered to be 'always willing to do above and beyond' in his duties.73 62 Surveillance of the respondent's prison phone calls demonstrated that the respondent was engaging in sexually explicit discussions with two women in July 2024, telling one of them he wanted to marry her. The calls also revealed the other woman was using drugs.74 Previous Response to Supervision 63 The respondent was released on parole on 16 January 2019. His release was delayed pending his completion of a sex offender's treatment program, but that was ultimately not made available to him. He claims to have engaged with a psychologist on a regular basis for 19 months.75 64 BOM Vol 1, 7, 26 - 29. 65 BOM Vol 1, 8, 39 - 41. 66 BOM Vol 1, 8, 42 - 44. 67 BOM Vol 1, 8, 46 - 48. 68 BOM Vol 1, 8 - 9, 53 - 59. 69 BOM Vol 1, 72, 76. 70 BOM Vol 1, 86. 71 BOM Vol 1, 91. 72 BOM Vol 1, 251 - 253; BOM Vol 3, 838; Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 4 filed 6 February 2025, 861 (BOM Vol 4); Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 5 filed 3 November 2025, 884 (BOM Vol 5). 73 BOM Vol 5, 885, 875. 74 BOM Vol 3, 824 - 825. 75 BOM Vol 2, 454. -- 14 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 15 64 The respondent tested positive for methylamphetamine use on 29 March 2019, following which he was verbally warned. He returned negative results on the next eight occasions.76 65 The index offence occurred in January 2020, while the respondent was on parole for his earlier sexual offending. However, the offence was not immediately reported, and he was only arrested on 9 June 2020. His counsel informed the court at his sentencing proceedings that the respondent had recommenced using methylamphetamine almost immediately on his release on parole.77 66 The respondent's supervision on parole was to expire in August 2020. However, the respondent's parole was suspended in June 2020, and he served the remainder of his term in custody.78 67 The respondent also committed the two offences of failing to comply with his reporting obligations pursuant to the Community Protection Act during his parole period. 68 Notwithstanding this, Mr Jeremy Marsden, a Senior Community Corrections Officer (Senior CCO) reported on 24 March 2022 that the respondent's 'response to parole in relation to his attendance for supervision, counselling and urinalysis was entirely reasonable' which would indicate that he has the capacity and is likely to be compliant with any future period of community supervision.79 69 The respondent was denied parole in relation to the sentence for the index offence in April 2022. He was made subject to a Post Sentence Supervision Order (PSSO) on 24 June 2023. However, he was never released on that order, as a result of the order of Derrick J that he be detained pending the outcome of the application for a restriction order. The PSSO has now expired.80 76 BOM Vol 2, 530. 77 BOM Vol 1, 339. 78 BOM Vol 1, 66. 79 BOM Vol 1, 408. 80 BOM Vol 3, 552. -- 15 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 16 Reports prepared under s 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section. Psychological reports of Dr Dylan Galloghly 70 Dr Galloghly prepared a report dated 7 October 2023,81 an updated report dated 16 January 202482 and a further report dated 21 January 2025.83 In preparation for those reports, he interviewed the respondent on four occasions, three times in 2023 for a total of four and a half hours and again in January 2025 for one hour. He also spoke to the respondent's mother, his nominated support person (who is the foster mother of the respondent's former partner, and has custody of the respondent's youngest child),84 Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) counselling psychologist, Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU) and his Community Corrections Officers (CCOs). In addition, Dr Galloghly had access to volume 1 of the Books of Material and, later, the neuropsychological report of Dr Vuletich, the respondent's prison visit history, incident reports, substance use testing results and medical progress notes and summary.85 71 The respondent engaged appropriately in the assessment process. In the first interview, the respondent reported that he was feeling low and hopeless due to his legal situation.86 However, in the second interview, he reported 'doing really well', and his discourse was centred on his focus to live a prosocial life in the future.87 72 In discussing the 2008 offending, the respondent told Dr Galloghly that his offending occurred in the context of the use of methylamphetamines and no sleep for six days. He said it was impulsive and occurred after he heard a voice, which he thought was likely similar to things his stepfather said to him as a boy, telling him to indecently assault the complainant. He had noticed a voice saying such things from the age of 20, although he claimed they conflicted with his image of himself, and he had not acted on them until then.88 81 BOM Vol 2, 462. 82 BOM Vol 2, 521. 83 BOM Vol 3, 823. 84 BOM Vol 2, 473. 85 BOM Vol 2, 462 - 463, 521; BOM Vol 3, 823 - 824. 86 BOM Vol 2, 463. 87 BOM Vol 3, 825. 88 BOM Vol 2, 464 - 465. -- 16 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 17 73 The respondent also claimed the index offending occurred after hearing a voice telling him that the complainant 'was asking for it', that he believed she had previously made sexual advances to him, including groping him on the bottom. He told Dr Galloghly that he was under the influence of substances at the time, although Dr Galloghly noted that the respondent had denied this in 2022.89 74 To Dr Galloghly, the respondent reported an increased libido when using illicit substances, but denied any history of having aggressive or deviant fantasies, or abnormal sexual interests or behaviours.90 75 The respondent told Dr Galloghly that the voice he heard prior to his offending now 'comes and goes'. He reported experiencing other psychotic-type symptoms in the past, but confirmed these mainly occurred in the context of methylamphetamine use. He also said he continues to experience symptoms consistent with depression, anxiety and PTSD, including low mood, feelings of worthlessness, difficulty relaxing, excessive worrying, lack of motivation and interests, rapid breathing, difficulty falling asleep, being easily startled, difficulties concentrating, and repeated disturbing memories, thoughts and images of past stressful events.91 76 Dr Galloghly questioned the respondent using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-592 Personality Disorders, which is a semi-structured diagnostic interview for clinicians to assess the ten DSM-5 personality disorders across clusters A, B, and C, as well as other specified personality disorders, and said: His responses indicated dependent personality traits of relying on and needing assurance from others to make decisions, difficulty disagreeing with others, and difficulty starting tasks on his own. [The respondent] reported symptoms associated with borderline personality disorder, including fear of abandonment, impulsivity, difficulties controlling anger and affective instability. Lastly, [the respondent] depicted symptoms consistent with antisocial personality disorder including the possible presence of conduct disorder before the age of 15, and adult behavioural issues of criminal behaviour, impulsivity, reckless behaviour, aggressiveness/engaging in physical fights and consistent irresponsibility.93 89 BOM Vol 2, 465. 90 BOM Vol 2, 466. 91 BOM Vol 2, 469. 92 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (2013). 93 BOM Vol 2, 469. -- 17 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 18 77 The respondent was unable to describe a relapse prevention plan, and claimed he had less desire or need to use substances, as his stepfather is now deceased. As to how he would manage sexual urges in the company of younger females, he claimed he would 'not go … there anymore'.94 78 The respondent's more recent behaviour in prison supported Dr Galloghly's view that the respondent has a high sexual drive, is quick to form intimate relationships with women, and can be prone to deception or non-disclosure.95 79 The respondent told Dr Galloghly he wanted to maintain sobriety in the long-term, and to be a better parent, which entailed being there for his children and not constantly going back to prison. In January 2025, he had established contact with three of his children and hoped to enhance communication with them overall.96 He still has contact with his youngest child. He hopes to buy his own house, although had limited concrete plans as to how he would do this. He plans to attend church, Men's Shed, and to manage boredom and stress by listening to music, cooking, playing video games, spending time with his daughter and working on cars. He is interested in attending TAFE.97 80 The guardian of the respondent's youngest child was positive about the respondent's communication regarding his daughter, and she told Dr Galloghly that the respondent had a 'decent support network' through her shared friends' network.98 81 The respondent also expressed a desire to develop a relapse prevention plan. He reported being focused on avoiding people who use drugs, wanting to recommence substance abuse counselling and counselling with his psychologist, and wanting to undertake both a parenting and a sexual offender treatment program in the community.99 82 The respondent told Dr Galloghly that he intends to support himself by returning to the disability support pension (DSP),100 94 BOM Vol 2, 471. 95 BOM Vol 3, 826. 96 BOM Vol 3, 825. 97 BOM Vol 2, 472; BOM Vol 3, 826. 98 BOM Vol 3, 473. 99 BOM Vol 3, 825. 100 BOM Vol 2, 467. -- 18 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 19 although Dr Galloghly observed that his plan to remain on the DSP indefinitely is inconsistent with his rehabilitation.101 83 Dr Galloghly considered that the respondent has a chronic substance use disorder, PTSD (possibly in remission), antisocial, borderline, and dependent personality traits. In January 2024, he acknowledged and considered Dr Vuletich's assessment of the respondent's cognitive impairments.102 84 Dr Galloghly's formulation of offending was that the primary predisposing factors to the respondent's offending are his cognitive/intellectual difficulties, which impair his executive functioning, and his experience of childhood sexual abuse, which predisposed him to emotional difficulties and likely overly sexualised him.103 85 In Dr Galloghly's opinion, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a sexual interest in children, although sexual deviance was an alternative hypothesis as a precipitating factor for his offending.104 86 Key antecedents to the respondent's offending are substance abuse and exposure to vulnerable victims. High sexual drive is likely his primary motivation for offending, with methylamphetamine being of particular concern, having regard to its stimulant effect on the respondent's sexual drive and its disinhibitory effect, particularly having regard to his already poor impulse control and decision-making skills.105 87 Maintaining factors include his executive function deficits, ongoing substance abuse problems, high sexual drive, intimate relationship instability issues, lack of supports and life structure, lack of assertive communication skills, his gravitation towards antisocial associations, and personality factors.106 Static-99R 88 The Static-99R is an actuarial tool that is intended to position offenders in terms of their relative degree of risk of sexual recidivism based on commonly available demographic and criminal history 101 BOM Vol 2, 479. 102 BOM Vol 2, 521 - 522. 103 BOM Vol 2, 474. 104 BOM Vol 2, 474. 105 BOM Vol 2, 474. 106 BOM Vol 2, 475. -- 19 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 20 information that has been found to correlate with sexual recidivism in adult male sex offenders.107 89 The respondent's Static-99R score was 6, placing him in the Well Above Average Risk category for being charged and convicted of another sexual offence. Out of 100 sexual offenders with the same risk score, between 21 and 30 would be charged or convicted of a new sexual offence after five years in the community (and between 79 and 70 would not be).108 Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol - Version 2 (RSVP) 90 The RSVP is intended for use with adults who have a known or suspected history of sexual violence. It contains 23 risk factors, divided into five assessment domains: Nature of Sexual Violence and Perpetrator Characteristics, including Psychological Adjustment, Mental Health, Social Adjustment, and Manageability. It can be used to identify the nature of risk for sexual violence and to develop and inform risk management strategies.109 91 In Dr Galloghly's view, the assessment of the respondent using the RSVP revealed that the following risk factors were present or partially present: diversity of sexual violence, physical coercion, problems with self-awareness, stress and coping, sexual health, substance abuse, intimate and non-intimate relationships, employment, living situation, treatment and supervision, problems resulting from child abuse and a major mental disorder.110 92 Dr Galloghly concluded that the respondent's risk of sexual violence based on the RSVP was in the moderate to high range, given the relevance of 14 of the 23 risk factors assessed. He further noted that the respondent's risk is equally spread amongst the five domains, although he noted that the respondent did not present with sexual deviance.111 PCL-R 93 Psychopathy is a significant risk factor for offending, recidivism and violence. The PCL-R is widely regarded as the most accurate instrument for measuring psychopathy and is used extensively for doing 107 BOM Vol 2, 475. 108 BOM Vol 2, 475. 109 BOM Vol 2, 475 - 476. 110 BOM Vol 2, 476. 111 BOM Vol 2, 477. -- 20 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 21 so.112 The respondent's PCL-R score of 22 did not meet the diagnostic cut-off for psychopathy.113 Summary of risk assessment 94 The most likely reoffending scenario, in Dr Galloghly's opinion, is the respondent encountering a vulnerable female minor or non-consenting adult in his network, and acting impulsively on sexual drive/desire while under the influence of substances. He may also engage in some planning or grooming to offend, again, most likely against a female minor. It is also possible that the respondent could impulsively sexually offend against a male or female child when his judgment is impaired due to heavy intoxication.114 Recommendations 95 Dr Galloghly considered that, overall, in the absence of a restriction order, the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence within the meaning of the HRSO Act is moderate to high. His relevant dynamic risk factors, which are numerous across various domains, aggravate the risk based on static factors alone. Dr Galloghly concluded that the imminence of sexual reoffending should be considered low given the respondent's relative stability and reported motivation towards rehabilitation.115 96 In Dr Galloghly's opinion, as expressed in 2025, the respondent seemed motivated to engage in supervision and risk management, and his release plans are suitable for someone with his level of intellectual functioning.116 The respondent has personal support in the community but would benefit from significant professional support.117 Similarly, Dr Galloghly observed that, given the respondent's intellectual difficulties and rehabilitation needs, he would benefit from significant case management, funding, and assistance in developing prosocial long-term plans inclusive of vocational or occupation plans.118 97 Dr Galloghly recommended that the respondent's risk of reoffending be managed in the community with appropriate 112 BOM Vol 2, 477. 113 BOM Vol 2, 477. 114 BOM Vol 2, 478. 115 BOM Vol 2, 477, 522; BOM Vol 3, 826. 116 BOM Vol 3, 826. 117 BOM Vol 2, 479. 118 BOM Vol 2, 478 - 479. -- 21 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 22 supervision, monitoring and support.119 The respondent's treatment and supervision should align with his cognitive strengths and limitations, while his substance abuse and relationship issues will require comprehensive monitoring, recognising his history of non-disclosure and potential for impression management.120 Neuropsychological report of Dr Elizabeth Vuletich dated 12 January 2024 98 Dr Vuletich is a qualified expert within the meaning of the HRSO Act.121 She prepared a report dated 12 January 2024, for which she interviewed the respondent on two occasions, for a total of four and a half hours in December 2023 and January 2024.122 Dr Vuletich also had access to information provided by Dr Aimee Goode of COMU, volume 1 of the Book of Materials, Dr Galloghly's report dated 7 October 2023, Dr Gosia Wojnarowska's report dated 15 October 2023 and the occupational therapy functional capacity assessment report of Mr Beer dated 1 November 2023.123 99 Dr Vuletich found the respondent to be polite, affable and candid with her, and rapport was easily established and maintained. She observed him to appear restless and fidgety, which she attributed to a degree of hypervigilance and distractibility.124 She also noted that clinically, the respondent appeared to be engaging in some degree of impression management.125 100 The respondent reported that his main concerns were his limited attention span, history of not thinking before doing things, distractibility, poor memory and learning difficulties.126 He described finding it hard to express himself, understand others, and problem-solve. He reported always having been impulsive, which he noted was worse when he used alcohol and drugs, and that he was trying to learn to stop and think before doing.127 101 During her testing of the respondent, Dr Vuletich formed the view that the respondent showed good persistence and apparent determination on selected demanding tasks, but noted that his capacity 119 BOM Vol 2, 479; BOM Vol 3, 826. 120 BOM Vol 2, 522; BOM Vol 3, 826. 121 HRSO Act s 3; BOM, Vol 2, 510. 122 BOM Vol 2, 493. 123 BOM Vol 2, 493. 124 BOM Vol 2, 499. 125 BOM Vol 2, 500. 126 BOM Vol 2, 498. 127 BOM Vol 2, 499. -- 22 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 23 to consistently attend to and engage in the testing fluctuated, which she observed to be because of his distractibility rather than unwillingness.128 While there were some inconsistent results in performance validity measures, she did not think that the respondent was consciously underperforming. It did, however, cause her to interpret his test results in the context of the inconsistency, and with caution.129 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) 102 The WAIS-IV was administered to the respondent to estimate his intellectual abilities. Dr Vuletich found the respondent's WAIS-IV index results to be fairly uniform, with his testing results being between the very low and extremely low range. She assessed his level of intellectual capacity would fall within the extremely low range of functioning.130 103 However, Dr Vuletich formed the view that the respondent's test results likely underestimated his true, underlying intellect, and there were other factors impacting his test scores.131 She recognised this view stood 'in stark contrast' to the report of Mr Beer, the occupational therapist, and theorised that that assessment may have reflected the respondent's negative self-appraisal or other factors.132 104 Results as to attention varied from extremely low to average. His overall working memory produced consistently very low scored, and his processing speed also tested in the extremely low range, although on a second testing occasion, he produced much stronger results. Dr Vuletich concluded that there was evidence of impaired sustained and selective attention, although the amount of information he could attend to was considered relatively well preserved.133 105 The respondent's expressive language was functional, but in the domain of verbal and language abilities, his results tended to be quite poor, often at or below the very low range.134 128 BOM Vol 2, 500. 129 BOM Vol 2, 500. This was in keeping with Ms Marley's earlier testing of the respondent in 2018 (see below at [192] onwards. 130 BOM Vol 2, 501. 131 BOM Vol 2, 501. 132 BOM Vol 2, 502. 133 BOM Vol 2, 502 - 503. 134 BOM Vol 2, 503. -- 23 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 24 106 Dr Vuletich considered that the respondent's basic perception, visual scanning, spatial awareness, and constructional abilities were broadly intact. The variability in his test scores was, in her view, a result of the respondent being easily distracted and limited in his more abstract fluid reasoning.135 107 Dr Vuletich observed the respondent to be a functional historian. She assessed his memory as being clearly preserved and found consistent evidence of encoding, storage, and retrieval of both verbal and visual information.136 108 Dr Vuletich also assessed the respondent's executive capacities, which include higher level cognitive abilities. She formed the view that his executive capacities were quite varied, and at times inconsistent, again likely due to his attentional fluctuations. His results indicated limitations in planning and reasoning and, variable difficulties with inhibition and attentional regulation. They also demonstrated some degree of inefficiency in mental flexibility, but also some awareness and capacity to generate concepts and follow sequences.137 His literacy was at the level of a mid-primary school student.138 Further, his performance in a social cognition test was in the average range.139 109 Ultimately, Dr Vuletich was of the opinion that the respondent demonstrated clearly preserved functioning in some areas, and compromised functioning in other areas.140 She was of the view that he exhibited difficulties with sustained and selective attention, had weaknesses in certain aspects of executive functioning - particularly in planning, organisation, and abstract reasoning, and showed school-acquired verbal knowledge (with limited receptive and expressive vocabulary) and basic literacy skills.141 110 Conversely, Dr Vuletich determined that the respondent's cognitive functioning remained intact in the areas of motor and cognitive processing speed, core verbal attentional capacity, verbal and visuospatial working memory, visual attention and scanning, 135 BOM Vol 2, 503 - 504. 136 BOM Vol 2, 504. 137 BOM Vol 2, 504 - 505. 138 BOM Vol 2, 505. 139 BOM Vol 2, 506. 140 BOM Vol 2, 506. 141 BOM Vol 2, 507. -- 24 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 25 perception, spatial awareness, constructional abilities, and the ability to encode and store both visual and verbal information.142 111 Dr Vuletich was of the opinion that the respondent's historical presentation and current neuropsychological profile are consistent with his existing diagnoses of ADHD, as well as known disrupted attachment and complex PTSD. She was unable to discount the potential contribution from the respondent's reportedly untreated sleep apnoea.143 112 However, Dr Vuletich shared the concerns of other professionals that the trauma the respondent experienced in childhood may at least partially, if not wholly, account for the symptoms that led to his ADHD diagnosis.144 113 There were some neuropsychological strengths which Dr Vuletich identified in the respondent's profile which would hopefully serve to support his capacity to adhere to any court requirements, to acquire and maintain new life and coping skills.145 However, she agreed with past opinions that the respondent's cognitive challenges, particularly his attention, poor planning and reasoning, restricted insight, and personality characteristics, pose a barrier to his ability to meaningfully engage with and benefit from traditional psychological interventions.146 114 Further, Dr Vuletich cautioned that the respondent's attention difficulties may translate into slower thinking at times, and may also impede his ability to recognise his own mistakes and adjust his behaviour in response.147 She recommended that those working with him closely monitor his focus and redirect it when necessary, provide clear structure in his therapy and treatment, and offer support in breaking down complex, goal-directed tasks and formulating plans.148 115 In her view, it will be difficult for the respondent to generate alternative approaches or options when facing a novel challenge, and he is likely to revert to responses he has used in the past, irrespective of how suitable they are. However, he does have the capacity to learn to apply strategies, provided he recognises that a problem has arisen, what 142 BOM Vol 2, 507. 143 BOM Vol 2, 507. 144 BOM Vol 2, 508. 145 BOM Vol 2, 508. 146 BOM Vol 2, 508. 147 BOM Vol 2, 508. 148 BOM Vol 2, 508 - 509. -- 25 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 26 it is and what strategies for dealing with it he might be able to select from.149 116 Dr Vuletich recommended that, in addition to ongoing medical monitoring and management, the respondent continue to undergo individual, intensive psychological therapy.150 Psychiatric reports of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska 117 Dr Wojnarowska is a qualified expert within the meaning of the HRSO Act.151 She prepared a report dated 15 October 2023,152 an addendum report dated 18 January 2024,153 and a further addendum report dated 29 January 2025.154 In preparation for her initial report, she interviewed the respondent on two occasions, for a total of more than five hours,155 and interviewed him again on 21 January 2025.156 118 Initially, Dr Wojnarowska had access to the first volume of the Book of Materials.157 For her addendum report, she also had access to the neuropsychological report of Dr Vuletich.158 At the time of her further addendum report, she also had access to the respondent's updated custodial and medical records.159 119 Dr Wojnarowska found the respondent to be cooperative and to engage well with the interview, making no apparent attempt at impression management. She considered him to be forthcoming and genuine with answering questions, and able to concentrate on the questions throughout the prolonged first interview.160 120 Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent provided her with elaborated information on his life, although this was partially disorganised, and the chronology was difficult to follow. She observed him to have good insight into his current circumstances and an unimpaired judgment.161 149 BOM Vol 2, 509. 150 BOM Vol 2, 508. 151 HRSO Act s 3; BOM Vol 2, 444. 152 BOM Vol 2, 443. 153 BOM Vol 2, 519. 154 BOM Vol 3, 820. 155 BOM Vol 2, 444. 156 BOM Vol 3, 820. 157 BOM Vol 2, 444. 158 BOM Vol 2, 519. 159 BOM Vol 3, 820. 160 BOM Vol 2, 455 - 456. 161 BOM Vol 2, 456. -- 26 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 27 121 Dr Wojnarowska observed that the circumstances of the 2008 offence and the index offence were very different.162 122 As to the former, the respondent reported feeling depressed, and smoking 'crystal meth', taking MDMA and drinking alcohol. He said that intoxication would usually trigger 'voices' in his head, specifically his stepfather's voice, which he heard say 'touch him'. His mood then deteriorated, and he became angry, wanting to punish the complainant. He said it was possible he became sexually aroused. He claimed to have no memory of what happened next, but accepted what he was told.163 123 The following day, the respondent had arguments with his wife and mother about his drug use, and packed his bags and left. His stepfather assisted him to get to Victoria, where the respondent lived with his stepfather for a while, drinking and smoking drugs.164 124 In relation to his index offence, the respondent described the victim, who was 16 years old at the time, as having viewed him as a father figure, despite also claiming that she behaved in an oversexualised manner towards him. He claimed to have never been sexually attracted to her because she was too young, but that his 'mind and hands started wandering' on the night he offended. He said he had been using substances and drinking alcohol to excess that day, and admitted to digitally penetrating her but denied placing his penis in her hands.165 125 The respondent expressed remorse and some understanding of the long-term effect of his offending on the victims, stating to Dr Wojnarowska, ' I wrecked their life', but was unable to reflect further on this matter. Dr Wojnarowska formed the view that his expression of guilt was genuine, that he accepted full responsibility for his offending, noting that he accepted he could not use the abuse he had experienced as an excuse.166 126 The respondent told Dr Wojnarowska that he was happy to continue with his prescribed medications and mood stabiliser, which he 162 BOM Vol 2, 445. 163 BOM Vol 2, 445. 164 BOM Vol 2, 453. 165 BOM Vol 2, 446, 454. 166 BOM Vol 2, 454. -- 27 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 28 noted assisted with his anger and low mood difficulties, which he described as 'highs and lows with no reason.'167 127 In response to questioning about his sexual drive, the respondent indicated that since being in custody, his sexual drive has declined significantly, which he attributes to his age and medications.168 He denied having sexual fantasies about boys or female children and said that he had never had sexual intercourse with any. When reminded of the index offence, the respondent said that the complainant 'wasn't a kid', explaining that she was post-pubescent (although he did understand that from a legal point of view, people under the age of 16 are children).169 128 In his initial interview with Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent reported that he would not seek female company once released from custody, as he needed to concentrate on himself first. In this interview, he reflected on the poor quality of his previous relationships, his superficial engagement in them and his tendency to become bored with them after a short period of time. He also did not know how he could improve the quality of his intimate relationships in the future.170 129 However, in his most recent interview with Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent reported that he had recently reconnected with a previous partner, who lives in Victoria and whom he has known for 14 years. He is hopeful that she will relocate to Western Australia so that they can get married later this year.171 He confirmed that he was willing to continue with the medication that has lowered his sexual drive as he understands that 'relationships are not based on sex only.'172 130 In 2023, the respondent claimed that he believed that he would not reoffend as he has been and will continue abstaining from drugs and would not associate with negative peers and would walk away if alcohol or drugs were offered.173 However, Dr Wojnarowska noted that he was unable to recognise his impulsivity or the likelihood that he would get bored and lonely when isolated in the community.174 167 BOM Vol 2, 454 168 BOM Vol 2, 455; BOM Vol 3, 822. 169 BOM Vol 2, 455. 170 BOM Vol 2, 455. 171 BOM Vol 3, 821. 172 BOM Vol 3, 822. 173 BOM Vol 2, 455. 174 BOM Vol 2, 455. -- 28 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 29 131 In 2025, the respondent said he was fully aware of the possible consequences of a relapse into methamphetamine use being, 'I can reoffend and will end up in prison.' He claimed he does not experience any cravings for substances and that he feels much better not using methamphetamine.175 132 The respondent said that he has friends in the community who are engaged with the Mormon faith, and that he would like to attend church services and follow his faith when released. His other supports in the community include Uniting Care staff, his drug and alcohol counsellor, his biological father and the carer of his five-year-old daughter. The respondent considered that he will not require assistance from the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the community as he can function well independently.176 133 The respondent indicated to Dr Wojnarowska that he was willing to comply with any conditions of his order in the community, and that he would like to attend regular counselling. He reported his treatment goals are to 'not reoffend and never use drugs again'.177 Psychiatric Diagnoses 134 In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, the respondent's history of generalist offending is directly related to his personality disorder, which developed against the background of highly traumatic life events, social modelling and significant neglect associated with his emotional needs. However, she was also of the view that his attack on the complainant of the 2008 offence suggests that sexual deviance, such as paedophilic interest in children, cannot be excluded.178 135 Dr Wojnarowska concluded that the respondent fulfilled the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder with borderline traits, evidenced by his non-sexual offending history, substance use, impulsivity, recklessness, self-harm, suicidal ideations and emotional dysregulation. She noted that he was previously diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (at least, suspected PTSD), characterised by intrusive flashbacks and nightmares. However, these are currently in remission, although occasionally triggered by reminders of his 175 BOM Vol 3, 821. 176 BOM Vol 3, 821. 177 BOM Vol 3, 822. 178 BOM Vol 2, 456. -- 29 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 30 stepfather. His Substance Use Disorder is currently in remission, due to his being imprisoned.179 136 Having read Dr Vuletich's report, Dr Wojnarowska reported that the respondent also meets the criteria for ADHD, complex PTSD and Mild Intellectual Disability.180 Static-99R 137 Dr Wojnarowska administered the Static-99R. The respondent's score placed him in the 'well above average risk' category. The historical factors relating to the respondent, which are known to correlate with sexual recidivism, include that one of his victims was unrelated, male and a stranger.181 Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) 138 On Dr Wojnarowska's assessment using the PCL-R, the respondent's score of 14 was in the moderate range, and reflected his deficits around intimacy, responsibility taking, impulsivity, proneness to boredom, and tendency to act in a reckless manner, as well as his diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.182 Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) 139 Dr Wojnarowska applied the RSVP to the respondent.183 140 Dr Wojnarowska expressed some concerns that the factor of diversity of sexual offending could be applied to the respondent, given the different nature of the sexual offending committed by the respondent. Further, there is some information which suggests a background of alleged offending on the part of the respondent as a teenager and an adult (of which he has been neither charged nor convicted) in South Australia, which added to Dr Wojnarowska's conclusion that diversity of sexual violence is a partial risk factor for the respondent.184 141 Dr Wojnarowska assessed the respondent as having deficits pertaining to self-awareness, critical reasoning, problem-solving and social skills. Further, prior to his imprisonment, the respondent's 179 BOM Vol 2, 456. 180 BOM Vol 2, 456; BOM Vol 3, 822. 181 BOM Vol 2, 457. 182 BOM Vol 2, 457. 183 BOM Vol 2, 457. 184 BOM Vol 2, 457. -- 30 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 31 coping strategies were limited, and were further hampered by his cognitive deficits. Dr Wojnarowska observed that, while his maladaptive coping strategies have not been observed during his last imprisonment and he appeared to be stable on his current medication regimen, his ability to implement healthy coping strategies when faced with life stressors can only be fully assessed once released to the community.185 142 The factors of problems resulting from child abuse, substance use, problems with intimate relationships, employment, planning, treatment and supervision were all present or partially present.186 Risk Scenarios 143 Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent's plan not to reoffend was rudimentary at best and that it was likely he would continue to be socially rejected. Further, his impulsivity and gullibility mean he is easily taken advantage of and led by antisocial peers to use substances.187 144 In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, if the respondent were to reoffend, it would likely be in a manner similar to his last offence; that is, it would likely involve the teenage child (male or female) of an adult friend, and while he may not target the child, this may change if he uses substances. Grooming is not likely, with the offending likely to be spontaneous and opportunistic. It will possibly involve physical restraint. Dr Wojnarowska considered the respondent to be capable of escalation if his sexual preoccupation reaches certain thresholds.188 145 It is also possible that the respondent could attack a peri or post pubescent child when intoxicated. However, Dr Wojnarowska was of the view that the respondent would be unlikely to offend against a prepubescent child.189 Opinion and recommendations 146 In October 2023, Dr Wojnarowska formed the opinion that the respondent is at high risk of serious violent or sexual reoffending if he is not subject to restriction. A PSSO was not adequate to manage his 185 BOM Vol 2, 458. 186 BOM Vol 2, 458 - 460. 187 BOM Vol 2, 460. 188 BOM Vol 2, 460. 189 BOM Vol 2, 460. -- 31 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 32 risk. However, Dr Wojnarowska did consider that the respondent's risk could be managed in the community under a Supervision Order.190 147 She recommended that the respondent receive psychological counselling as well as drug and alcohol treatment, continue his current medication, be encouraged and supported to participate in employment and leisure activities that foster interaction with prosocial adults. He will require a high level of supervision and support within the community.191 148 Dr Wojnarowska's risk assessment did not change as a result of her review of Dr Vuletich's neuropsychological assessment, although she noted that any psychological interventions in relation to the respondent would need to be adjusted to his cognitive abilities, treatment strategies would need to be implemented accordingly, and treatment goals set to avoid a perception of treatment failure.192 149 In January 2025, following her review of updated materials and the further interview with the respondent, Dr Wojnarowska confirmed her opinion remained unchanged.193 Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the offender Forensic Psychological Intervention Team Treatment Plan Report dated 26 April 2023 150 The respondent was referred to the FPIT to address his outstanding criminogenic needs. He was allocated an FPIT psychologist, Ms Hamlett-Waller, who initially commenced sessions with the respondent in January 2023, but the program was disrupted and then suspended as a result of a lack of suitably private facilities.194 151 No clear formulation of the respondent's offending behaviour was able to be developed at that time due to inconsistent information provided by the respondent over time, including as to his mental health.195 190 BOM Vol 2, 460. 191 BOM Vol 2, 460 - 461. 192 BOM Vol 2, 520. 193 BOM Vol 3, 822. 194 BOM Vol 1, 430. 195 BOM Vol 1, 433. -- 32 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 33 152 Ms Hamlett-Waller indicated that, given the respondent's responsivity issues, risk management would be best facilitated through stringent behavioural controls and environmental supports.196 Forensic Psychological Intervention Team Treatment Progress Report dated 30 April 2024 153 The respondent attended a number of individual counselling sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller after January 2024. He reported increasing anxiety symptoms leading up to a court appearance in February. Further, he expressed that he was experiencing a decline in his wellbeing, with an increase in depressive symptoms, following difficulties contacting his daughter. He also disclosed persistent thoughts related to death, but denied suicidal ideation.197 154 Ms Hamlett-Waller had the benefit of Dr Vuletich's neurological assessment, which guided her intervention sessions with the respondent. She identified a significant number of treatment needs for the respondent, which necessitated prioritising initial treatment, which she determined to be: (a) build rapport and meaningful engagement in intervention, including barriers to authenticity/openness; (b) exploration of sexual drive/preoccupation; (c) commence developing a basic management plan.198 155 While the respondent did demonstrate some difficulty recalling or repeating what had been discussed at sessions, he was able to show a basic ability to reflect on content and integrate some ideas which had been discussed into future planning.199 156 In the sessions, the respondent acknowledged that he struggled to be honest with his supports and staff tasked with his supervision and intervention. He also cited issues with trust and suspicion, including when engaging with his CCO. Ms Hamlett-Waller observed that his disclosures were reflected as consistent with features of antisocial personality disorder, and that the respondent would therefore require significant effort and motivation to overcome possible discomfort at 196 BOM Vol 1, 434. 197 BOM Vol 3, 807. 198 BOM Vol 3, 808. 199 BOM Vol 4, 808. -- 33 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 34 what may feel like counterintuitive behaviours (such as being honest in his disclosures) and move towards authentic engagement.200 157 Limited progress was made by April 2024 in the area of exploration of sexual drive/preoccupation.201 158 The respondent was able to make rudimentary progress on a management plan, in the areas of peers, antisociality, substance use, boredom and relationships.202 159 Ms Hamlett-Waller reported that, given insight orientated therapy does not appear to be indicated for the respondent, if he were made subject to a Continuing Detention Order, intervention would likely be suspended until six months prior to his review.203 Forensic Psychological Intervention Team Treatment Progress Report dated 8 August 2024 160 By the time of this report, the respondent had attended a further seven sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller. He continued to exhibit selective and inconsistent disclosure, and that, combined with his shallow affect and emotion expression suggested a level of impression management in the respondent's engagement.204 161 When Ms Hamlett-Waller raised a number of inconsistencies with the respondent, he acknowledged he still experienced ongoing issues with trust and suspicion. While Ms Hamlett-Waller was of the view that those working with the respondent could assist him to change, she also noted that they appear to be long-standing in nature and not amendable to change, requiring utilisation of stringent case management strategies cognisant of his capacity for deception or omission, with interagency monitoring.205 162 The respondent said he believed the victim of the index offence wanted sexual conduct with him, noting that substance use impacted his judgment and increased his already high sexual drive. He expressed an interest in medication to manage his sexual drive, while maintaining it 200 BOM Vol 3, 809. 201 BOM Vol 3, 810. 202 BOM Vol 3, 810. 203 BOM Vol 3, 812. 204 BOM Vol 3, 813. 205 BOM Vol 3, 814 - 815. -- 34 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 35 was then low (something which was potentially contradicted by the content of his phone calls).206 163 Uncertainty as to where the respondent would live and what supports he would have on release impacted the more detailed development of his management plan, although the respondent continued to explore options, including warning signs and potential solutions. However, concerns remained regarding his ability to 'follow through' with strategies discussed.207 164 Ms Hamlett-Waller was of the view that, while the respondent's progress to that stage appeared to be commensurate with his complex needs and various responsibility issues, it was unlikely that he would make further substantial gains through intervention with FPIT while in custody. He was more likely to be responsive to practical, behavioural based approaches in a community setting.208 Occupational Therapy Report dated 1 November 2023 165 In light of the neuropsychological assessment of Dr Vuletich, the respondent was assessed by Mr Jack Beer, an occupational therapist. The respondent was assessed using the Care and Needs Scale, an eight level categorical scale to measure the level of support needs. The respondent was assessed as requiring Level 4 support, meaning he could be left alone for part of the day and overnight, but needing support for up to 11 hours a day for assistance, supervision, direction and/or cueing for occupational activities.209 166 Other assessments of the respondent's abilities produced consistent results.210 167 It was observed that the respondent has limited engagement with activities of daily living relating to domestic management, meal preparation and community engagement, with a history of institutionalisation and difficultly managing previous accommodation. He will require significant assistance upon release to allow him to develop safe routines and independence at home and in the community, 206 BOM Vol 3, 815. 207 BOM Vol 3, 815 - 816. 208 BOM Vol 3, 816 - 817. 209 BOM Vol 2, 485 - 486. 210 BOM Vol 2, 486 - 487. -- 35 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 36 without which he will be at significant risk, increasing the potential for social isolation, reoffending and substance use.211 168 It was recommended that the respondent receive occupational therapy input in relation to a number of areas, as well as speech pathology, physiotherapy, specialist support coordination, and funding for daily supports. Goals were agreed to between the respondent and Mr Beer, which related to housing, activities of daily life and community engagement.212 Treatment Options Reports of Emma Cashmore 169 Ms Cashmore, the acting HRSO Planning Manager, has prepared a treatment options report dated 25 October 2023,213 an addendum dated 22 January 2024,214 a further addendum report dated 10 May 2024,215 and a further addendum report dated 20 May 2025.216 Ms Cashmore had access to the s 74 reports of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly, as well as Ms Hamlett-Waller's reports. 170 Unfortunately, following Ms Hamlett-Waller's report dated 8 August 2024, it was determined that the respondent's referral with FPIT should be closed, and his intervention has ceased. If he is to be released, a new referral will be required.217 Community Supervision Assessment Reports 171 Ms Katrina Czechowski, a Senior CCO, prepared a Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 2 February 2024.218 At that time, she had access to the reports which had then been compiled by Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly, the report of Mr Beer and the report of Dr Vuletich, as well as other materials.219 172 Ms Czechowski commenced her involvement with the respondent in July 2023, from which time she reported that he engaged with her positively and appropriately. Their discussions focussed around his plans upon release. In November 2023, however, he required prompting before disclosing information about contact he was then 211 BOM Vol 2, 486. 212 BOM Vol 2, 487 - 489. 213 BOM Vol 2, 439 - 442. 214 BOM Vol 2, 516. 215 BOM Vol 3, 818 - 819. 216 BOM Vol 5, 869. 217 BOM Vol 5, 870. 218 BOM Vol 2, 524. 219 BOM Vol 2, 525. -- 36 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 37 having with women. In December 2023, he struggled to articulate strategies for self-managing his risk without prompting. He continued to have difficulty identifying options for accommodation. He authorised Ms Czechowski to proceed with an application to the NDIS.220 173 In January 2024, Ms Czechowski had cause to counsel the respondent regarding his dishonesty regarding his contact with women. The respondent acknowledged his attempted deception, saying he was fearful that Ms Czechowski would think he was trying to be in contact with people with children, and he didn't want her to think badly of him. Ms Czechowski informed the respondent that she had been able to independently verify his contacts, and it would be in his best interests to be honest. He said he wanted to be.221 174 In discussions with Ms Czechowski, the respondent was unable to articulate learnings from the programs he had undertaken, other than to say what he had learned about consequential thinking. He could not recall any strategies he had learned to avoid re-offending, but said his biggest motivation for doing so was to avoid going back to prison.222 175 An updated report dated 29 May 2024 was prepared by Ms Czechowski.223 The respondent continued to engage well. In April 2024, the respondent reported that he had commenced a relationship with one of his ex-partners and intended to marry her. While she has children, they are not presently in her care. He says that she does not use illicit substances, although he was using them while in a relationship with her. She then lived interstate but intended to move to WA. Ms Czechowski was unable to establish contact with this woman. However, by July 2024, the relationship appeared to have reduced in intensity somewhat.224 176 The respondent had been referred to Uniting WA for support, and is waitlisted for accommodation. He was receiving regular visits from a Case Officer. His NDIS application was still undetermined.225 220 BOM Vol 2, 526 - 528. 221 BOM Vol 2, 528. 222 BOM Vol 2, 529. 223 BOM Vol 3, 827. 224 Exhibit 2. 225 BOM Vol 3, 829 - 830. -- 37 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 38 Community Supervision Assessment Reports of Ms Nicole Bennetts 177 On 5 February 2025, a further updated Community Supervision Assessment Report was prepared by Ms Nicole Bennetts, a Senior CCO.226 Ms Bennetts commenced working with the respondent in late 2024.227 178 Ms Bennetts reported that the respondent had continued to positively engage with her and Uniting WA workers. However, there had been significant delays in his NDIS assessment, and further information had been sought in August 2024. Systemic issues in the prison and the Department meant that the respondent was denied or unable to get assistance in gathering the relevant medical information within the required time frame, and NDIS funding was therefore denied.228 179 The respondent informed Ms Bennetts that he did not feel that he needed NDIS funding and did not want to further pursue any application at that time, although he was open to doing so in the future. However, Ms Bennetts was concerned that the respondent may not be well-equipped to make that assessment, and all experts were of the view that his rehabilitation and management in the community would be enhanced with access to funding.229 180 In February 2025, accommodation was available for the respondent under the HRSO Supported Accommodation Program, which was broadly suitable for the respondent.230 Unfortunately, that accommodation was released due to the delays in hearing this application. He remains first on the waitlist.231 181 The respondent has been approved for supervised telephone contact with his 4 year-old daughter.232 182 In further reports dated 5 June 2025,233 28 August 2025,234 and 3 November 2025,235 Ms Bennetts reported that the respondent had engaged in group counselling with the Prison Health Service, which has 226 BOM Vol 3, 831. 227 BOM Vol 3, 832. 228 BOM Vol 3, 835. 229 BOM Vol 3, 835 - 836. 230 BOM Vol 3, 836. 231 BOM Vol 5, 874. 232 BOM Vol 5, 872. 233 BOM Vol 5, 871. 234 BOM Vol 5, 878. 235 BOM Vol 5, 882. -- 38 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 39 allowed him to explore his own trauma, which he found helpful. He has maintained his stance that he does not wish to pursue any NDIS application.236 Previous Reports Psychiatric report of Dr Siva Bala, Associate Professor of Psychiatry dated 14 February 2017 183 The respondent was assessed by Dr Siva Bala for the purposes of providing a report for his sentencing for the offence of indecently dealing with a child over 13 and under 16 in 2016.237 184 To Dr Bala, the respondent denied his offending (as he had at trial), claiming he had only 'dacked' the complainant. Dr Bala felt the respondent was defensive and guarded about his actions and feelings, and that he lacked empathy for the complainant. He looked around the room and through the blinds in a somewhat exaggerated manner, particularly when being challenged about his offending. He claimed that he was being watched.238 185 Dr Bala opined that the respondent presented with a mixed personality disorder, with features of antisocial and borderline personality disorders, amphetamine use disorder, and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder.239 186 Dr Bala assessed the respondent using the Static-99R assessment. He received a total score of 6, which placed him in the well above average risk range, and predicts a recidivism rate of 20% in five years for sexual offending.240 187 In Dr Bala's opinion, the respondent's offending was likely to be related to his own history of having been abused as a child. Dr Bala recommended that the respondent engage in psychiatric and psychological counselling to treat his personality disorder and unresolved childhood trauma. He also recommended that the respondent's substance use issues in the community be monitored and that he engage in some form of meaningful activity.241 236 BOM Vol 5, 880. 237 BOM Vol 1, 271. 238 BOM Vol 1, 276. 239 BOM Vol 1, 277 - 278. 240 BOM Vol 1, 279. 241 BOM Vol 1, 280. -- 39 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 40 Psychological Report of Ms Cinzia Zuin dated 17 February 2017 188 Ms Zuin assessed the respondent prior to his sentencing for his 2008 offence.242 189 To Ms Zuin, the respondent also denied responsibility for committing the offence, claiming again that he had 'dakked' the boy, that is, pulled down the shorts of the boy. He further claimed to her that it was a case of mistaken identity and that the person who indecently dealt with the boy must have been someone else.243 190 Ms Zuin assessed the respondent using the Static-99R assessment, which placed him in the high risk category. She considered that he had issues with cognitive functioning, periods of unstable mental health, longstanding drug and alcohol abuse, a diagnosis of ADHD and aside from his mother, no prosocial support network.244 191 In Ms Zuin's opinion, the respondent required intensive treatment, but said that, given the issues with his capacity to engage with, and eligibility for, group programmes, the respondent would be better placed to undergo individual counselling.245 Psychological Report of Ms Tina Marley dated 21 December 2018 192 Ms Marley prepared a psychological report in relation to the respondent for the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia.246 193 The respondent told Ms Marley that he was 'not saying I did not do it. I just can't remember'.247 194 Ms Marley opined that, on cognitive testing alone, the respondent would meet the criteria for diagnosis of Intellectual Disability, but noted that he would not meet that criteria if his adaptive behaviour was identified as a strength.248 She reported that cognitive testing indicated that the respondent has broad-ranging deficits impacting upon his thinking and behaviour, in particular his fluctuating attention, impulse 242 BOM Vol 1, 282. 243 BOM Vol 1, 288. 244 BOM Vol 1, 289. 245 BOM Vol 1, 289. 246 BOM Vol 1, 385. 247 BOM Vol 1, 387 - 388. 248 BOM Vol 1, 389. -- 40 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 41 control, organisation and planning.249 He also showed some executive functioning difficulties.250 195 Ms Marley assessed the respondent using the Static-99R, finding him to fall into the 'well above average risk' category.251 196 Ms Marley applied the STABLE-2007 assessment tool, which considered dynamic risk factors, finding him to score in the 'moderate' category when compared to other adult male sex offenders in the normed sample.252 197 The respondent's combined scores related to a predicted recidivism rate in the 'well above average' range, with 26.8% of offenders (with a 95% confidence range of 17.4% to 36.3%) with the same score as the respondent reoffending sexually within a five year period.253 198 In Ms Marley's opinion, the most likely scenario for the respondent re-offending is that he will engage in impulsive and sexually aggressive behaviour towards a stranger, when intoxicated or drug affected.254 199 Ms Marley concluded that the respondent would benefit from referral to the NDIS and from its assistance in providing mentors, recreation, accommodation, supported employment and risk management.255 She recommended that he be considered for individual psychological intervention for his treatment needs specifically related to sexual offending.256 Parole Assessment Report dated 15 June 2018 200 On assessment for parole in relation to the 2016 sentence for the 2008 offence, the respondent's release plan was considered to be lacking, as he had no plan for employment, and his only means of addressing his risk of relapse and recidivism was to engage in substance abuse counselling and to consult with his general practitioner as may be required. The respondent was also considered to have limited 249 BOM Vol 1, 390. 250 BOM Vol 1, 389 - 390. 251 BOM Vol 1, 391. 252 BOM Vol 1, 391. 253 BOM Vol 1, 391. 254 BOM Vol 1, 391. 255 BOM Vol 1, 393. 256 BOM Vol 1, 393. -- 41 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 42 protective factors. His poor prison behaviour was assessed as demonstrating enduring impulsivity and poor consequential thinking.257 201 Again, the respondent claimed to have a limited memory of the offence, and said he believed he was under the influence of alcohol and methylamphetamine.258 Post Sentence Supervision Order Report dated 10 June 2020 202 By the time the respondent was considered for a PSSO, the respondent was acknowledging that he had committed the 2008 offence, and also expressed remorse for his conduct and some recognition of the impact his offending would have had on the complainant.259 203 This increased insight may have been the result of the fact that the respondent had by that time completed 21 sessions of independent psychological counselling and was engaged in fortnightly substance abuse counselling.260 204 However, it is also noted that the respondent's parole had, by that time, been suspended as a result of the index offending. Parole Assessment Report dated 24 March 2022 205 In this report, dated 24 March 2022,261 it was revealed that the respondent was not 'treatment assessed' during his sentence for the index offence. However, he told the report author that he would like to undertake a program or counselling to address his sexual offending.262 Further, he was assessed in October 2022, and it was recommended that he participate in individual intervention in relation to his sexual offender treatment needs.263 Post Sentence Supervision Order Report dated 17 March 2023 206 The respondent was assessed for a PSSO in March 2023, and it was recommended that he be made subject to a PSSO on certain 257 BOM Vol 1, 370. 258 BOM Vol 1, 372. 259 BOM Vol 1, 400. 260 BOM Vol 1, 401. 261 BOM Vol 1, 405. 262 BOM Vol 1, 406. 263 BOM Vol 1, 419. -- 42 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 43 conditions on his release.264 Such an order was made on 24 May 2023.265 National Disability Insurance Agency Assessment 207 On 20 January 2023, the respondent was informed that he was not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) on the basis that he did not meet the disability requirements, in that the available evidence was that his disability was not caused by an impairment or combination of impairments, and they did not result in a reduced ability to engage in daily life activities.266 Propensity to commit serious offences in the future, and whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour 208 I am required to consider whether the respondent has a propensity, being an inclination or tendency,267 to commit serious offences in the future. In this context, the most likely serious offences to be committed by the respondent are sexual offences involving non-consensual contact against a young female, or involving a peri or post-pubescent child. 209 The respondent committed his first confirmed sexual offence in 2008, but was not convicted of it until 2016. There is no suggestion that he engaged in any sexual offending in the intervening period. 210 While there is a suggestion of a relevant 2001 incident alleging 'gross indecency' in the available history,268 that charge was dismissed, and I have accordingly not taken it into account. 211 The index offence was committed in January 2020, and the respondent was charged with it in June 2020. 212 The 2008 offence and the index offence were, as Dr Wojnarowska observes, very different. The former involved an adolescent male, who was a stranger to the respondent, in a public place. The offending involved significant force. The respondent was heavily intoxicated, on his own account. The index offence involved a 16 year-old female, who was well known to the respondent, and was committed in the 264 BOM Vol 1, 426 - 429. 265 BOM Vol 1, 435. 266 BOM Vol 1, 421 - 423. 267 The State of Western Australia v Bellamy [2013] WASC 467 [70]; see also The State of Western Australia v McCabe [2016] WASC 226 [25] - [26]. 268 See for example BOM Vol 1, 287. -- 43 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 44 respondent's home. The respondent now claims to have been intoxicated at the time of that offence also. 213 There cannot be said to be any discernible pattern in the respondent's offending. 214 Both Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly express the opinion that the respondent is at least a moderate to high risk of committing a serious offence in the absence of restriction. Each considers the most likely scenario to be one which is of a similar nature to the index offending. While there are many factors which influence the risk assessment, the apparently high sexual drive of the respondent, his cognitive issues, his substance abuse disorder, his personality disorders and his impulsivity all factor heavily in that risk assessment. 215 Accordingly, I am satisfied that, at least in certain circumstances, the respondent does have a propensity to commit a sexual offence which would constitute a serious offence within the meaning of the HRSO Act, in the sense that he has an inclination or a tendency to commit such an offence. Any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of the offending behaviour, including whether the respondent has participated in any rehabilitation program, and whether the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the offender 216 In 2017, while serving his first sentence of imprisonment, it was recommended that the respondent participate in the Intensive Sex Offenders Treatment Program (ISOTP), the Pathways (Addiction) Program and the Think First (Cognitive Skills) Program.269 Unfortunately, the ISOTP was not made available to the respondent during that sentence.270 217 Again, while serving his sentence for the index offence, no sex offender treatment program or individual intervention was available for the respondent.271 269 BOM Vol 1, 73. 270 BOM Vol 1, 87. 271 BOM Vol 1, 92. -- 44 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 45 Programs Think First Program 218 The respondent completed the Think First (Sex Offender) Program on 17 November 2017, and a completion report was completed by the Program Facilitators and a Senior Psychologist on 27 November 2025.272 219 The Think First Program is a 30 session program (of which the respondent attended 29) which 'aims to help group members develop their social problem solving skills and apply these skills to real-life situations'. It particularly focuses on the problem of offending behaviour.273 220 The respondent informed the facilitators that he did not recall events leading up to the 2008 offence and said he was heavily under the influence of illicit substances.274 221 The respondent was initially reserved but participated more readily as the program progressed. However, his overall participation was seen to be inconsistent, often presenting as distracted, impulsive and occasionally disruptive.275 222 The facilitators assessed that the respondent was able to identify factors in his substance use and offending behaviour, and to generate examples of alternative strategies for managing his negative emotions. He also demonstrated 'emerging gains' in problem solving, critical reasoning and social skills. However, his ability to apply the skills he learned in the program remained a concern.276 Pathways Program 223 The respondent completed the Pathways Program in August 2018. This is a 50 session program which aimed to assist participants to understand the stages of change in relation to drug use and offending behaviour, to develop a relapse and recidivism prevention plan and acquire a range of skills to maintain a drug and crime-free lifestyle. A 272 BOM Vol 1, 362 - 367. 273 BOM Vol 1, 362. 274 BOM Vol 1, 363. 275 BOM Vol 1, 363 - 364. 276 BOM Vol 1, 364. -- 45 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 46 completion report dated 28 August 2018 was prepared by the Program Facilitators and a Senior Psychologist.277 224 The report authors considered that predisposing factors to the respondent's offending involved cognitive/intellectual impairment, antisocial and abusive parents, learning difficulties and related school adjustment difficulties, early onset and normalisation of substance use, polysubstance use and antisocial peers.278 225 Precipitating factors were his substance use as a maladaptive emotional coping strategy, relationship issues and breakdown, lack of daily structure, disengagement from a prosocial support network and experiencing feelings of stress.279 226 The factors considered to be perpetuating were, again, his substance use as a maladaptive emotional coping strategy, as well as antisocial peers, poor problem solving skills, lack of daily structure and experiencing feelings of stress. Further, his cognitive deficits and intellectual impairment may complicate his meaningful engagement in prosocial leisure and community pursuits.280 227 The respondent was regarded as showing some insight into the connection between his substance use and offending, and impressed as willing to learn, despite being observed to have some difficulty completing tasks without assistance, with his intellectual impairment remaining a consistent barrier for him.281 228 The respondent was seen to show emerging communication skills (including refusal skills), with limitations still evident. He was also assessed as showing emerging gains in the area of cognitive skill deficits (which included poor judgment, problem solving and consequential thinking), at least with assistance and prompting. He presented with 'preliminary gains' in the area of maladaptive coping skills, in that he was able to show some insight but not an ability to implement his skills.282 229 The respondent required extensive assistance to develop a release plan, and his ability to self-manage remained a concern, and the report 277 BOM Vol 1, 378 - 384. 278 BOM Vol 1, 379. 279 BOM Vol 1, 379. 280 BOM Vol 1, 379. 281 BOM Vol 1, 380. 282 BOM Vol 1, 380. -- 46 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 47 authors observed that 'it remains to be seen if [the respondent's] gains are sustainable within a community context.'283 Effect on the respondent 230 When assessed by Ms Marley in December 2018, the respondent was able to reflect on some of the programmatic content of each of these programs, but had some difficulties remembering what he had learned.284 Ms Marley observed that it was unfortunate that he was included in those programs without a full awareness of his cognitive strengths and weaknesses, which clearly placed limits on his participation. Further, his executive functioning deficits will impact on the ability of criminogenic programs to effect change.285 231 In one of his interviews with Dr Galloghly, when asked about treatment gains, the respondent said he had learned about 'consequential thinking'. He expressed confidence in remaining abstinent from substance use, claiming his motivators were not going back to prison and his children. However, he was unable to describe a relapse presentation plan. 232 It is apparent from the program completion reports and the reports of Dr Wojnarowska, Dr Galloghly and Dr Vuletich, that the respondent experiences significant challenges in relation to intervention programs, his recall of the skills and strategies learned in them, and his ability to articulate any treatment gains he has made. This means that not only is it more difficult for the respondent to absorb the content, but it is also more difficult to know whether he has. 233 The respondent undertook the programs in 2017 and 2018. He re-offended in January 2020, having recommenced using drugs almost immediately on his release, suggesting he made limited treatment gains during them, at least, which he could put into practise without support and guidance. 234 Further, since June 2020, the respondent has had no further time in the community in which to develop skills and put into place any strategies he might have learned. He has not participated in any further group programs, and Ms Hamlett-Waller considered that the respondent was unlikely to gain much more from individual intervention while in custody, resulting in that individual intervention ceasing in August 283 BOM Vol 1, 382. 284 BOM Vol 1, 387. 285 BOM Vol 1, 390. -- 47 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 48 2024. In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to conclude that by now the respondent has lost most, if not all, of anything he learned in the programs he undertook. The risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence and the need to protect members of the community from that risk 235 The respondent's combination of cognitive deficits, personality disorders and substance use, together with a lack of prosocial supports in the community, and a lack of structure in his life, including a lack of meaningful employment, means that the respondent is likely to face significant challenges to remain abstinent from illicit substances and alcohol, and then to stay offence free, in the early stages of his release into the community. I am satisfied that, if he were to re-establish his negative peer associations and drug use, it would be a relatively short step for the respondent to engage in serious sexual offending. 236 Accordingly, I accept the evidence of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly that the respondent poses at least a moderate to high risk of committing a serious offence in the absence of restriction. 237 The need to protect the community from such a risk is obvious. Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? Is there an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? 238 In my view, the likely harm which will be inflicted on any victim of such serious offending on the part of the respondent is significant. Such harm could be serious psychological harm and/or serious physical harm. I am satisfied that, unchecked, a moderate to high risk of committing an offence of such a nature is unacceptable. Is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? 239 The assessments made of the respondent to date demonstrate that he experiences significant challenges in self-management and resisting adverse external influences, including in both intimate and non-intimate relationships. He is vulnerable to being drawn back into negative relationships, as well as substance misuse. He has an apparently very limited capacity to form prosocial relationships, to initiate prosocial -- 48 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 49 leisure activities, or to gain meaningful employment without substantial prompting and support. 240 At least initially on his release, the respondent will require a high level of scaffolding to live independently, and there will need to be extensive monitoring and support to ensure that he develops sound relationships and activities, which will be protective factors which will help guard against him being lured back into past habits. This is so even though the respondent appears to be motivated to change and remain substance and offence free. 241 In those circumstances, I am satisfied, on the basis of acceptable and cogent evidence, and to a high level, that a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. 242 Accordingly, I find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. Continuing detention order or supervision order? 243 In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2], Beech J (as he then was) observed: In choosing between an indefinite detention order or a supervision order, the fact that the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community does not exclude other considerations. The use of the word 'adequate' indicates that a qualitative assessment is required. In considering whether a supervision order would adequately protect the community, account must be taken of conditions which can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the respondent and his care and treatment. The Act does not require that there be no risk of reoffending. Such a requirement could never be met and would mean no person to whom the Act applies would ever be released. The question is whether the risk is reduced to a reasonably acceptable level that ensures adequate protection of the community. That requires a weighing of the nature and degree of risk in the context of methods for the management and reduction of that risk. If, after considering all the evidence, the court is left in doubt as to whether the conditions of a supervision order would adequately protect the community, because the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the court must expressly decline to rescind the continuing detention order.286 286 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [33] (citations omitted). -- 49 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 50 244 I am satisfied, on the basis of the expert evidence available to me, that the community can be adequately protected by the imposition of a supervision order, and that a continuing detention order is not required in order to do so. 245 The respondent has many outstanding treatment needs, including substance abuse counselling and intensive, individual psychological intervention. He has cognitive impairments, which make his rehabilitation more difficult. It is unfortunate that he has chosen not to engage with the NDIS. In the circumstances, he needs to be closely monitored, as does his abstinence from prohibited drugs, and he needs to be comprehensively supported to develop a prosocial life with activities which occupy him and his mind, to enable him to integrate into his community. It is in the interests of the community that this occur. Has the respondent satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions? 246 The respondent has expressed a desire to stay offence free, and to have contact with some of his children. He has plans, although somewhat superficial, as to how he will re-engage in his community and his faith, in order to stay offence free. He has been largely compliant in custody. 247 That is not to suggest that the respondent will not experience a number of challenges on such an order. His cognitive impairment will likely make it difficult for him to comply, at least initially, and it is plain that he will find abstaining from illicit drugs a significant challenge when first released. 248 Notwithstanding the caution which should be exercised, I am satisfied that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. Conditions and duration of the order 249 I consider the supervision order should be made with the conditions as set out in Annexure A to this judgment. It should be for a duration of four years. 250 The State submitted that the following condition be included in the supervision order: -- 50 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 51 Not to conduct computer searches for, not collect or access or be in possession of, in either electronic or permanent form, images of children, including drawings or sketches, whether indecent or not, unless they relate to your biological children. Possession of images depicting a child or children on items such as household items or items in your household that are not explicitly yours, may be authorised by a CCO. You are directed to review and remove any items that you have in your prison property within 48 hours of your release to this Order and then your compliance will be confirmed by your CCO and or WA Police. 251 Dr Wojnarowska supported the inclusion of such a condition; Dr Galloghly did not. 252 It my view, this condition is neither necessary nor appropriate. Such a condition is highly restrictive and extremely difficult to comply with in practice, due to the high number of unsolicited images that a person may receive, both physically and online, at any given time. Further, there is no evidence that the respondent has ever been involved in viewing exploitative imagery of children as any part of his offending. The conditions enabling monitoring of the respondent's devices will allow authorities to detect any concerning online interactions on the part of the respondent, and, if the authorities consider his risk has changed, an application can be made to amend his conditions if required. -- 51 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 52 Annexure A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SO 5 of 2023 IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant -and- HIRIM GEORGE TIPPING Respondent _________________________________________________________________________ SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER ON 15 MAY 2026 _________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Act, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of four years from 5 June 2026, not being a date earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions: You, HIRIM GEORGE TIPPING, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the prison at the time of your release and tell the officer your current name and address. 2. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the court. 3. Tell a CCO of every change to your name, home address, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens. -- 52 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 53 4. Be under the supervision of a CCO, including following any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the Act). 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 of the Act. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Live at [redacted] and spend each night there (your CCO will set the times for you). 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. Report to a CCO at your approved address between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm on the day of your release. 10. Not start, change or increase any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO. 11. Tell the CCO the name and details of any paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work that you are going to start, so it can start to be assessed and approved. 12. If your job needs you to work at different places, you must tell the CCO of each new place where you work on that day of work, or as otherwise directed by your CCO. -- 53 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 54 Attendance at programs or treatment 13. Attend and engage in all appointments as directed. 14. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO. 15. As directed by a CCO, follow the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending. Reporting to WA Police 16. Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the High Risk Serious Offender team (HRSOT) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 within 48 hours of this Order starting, and report to and receive visits from Police as directed by the OIC of the HRSOT or their delegate. 17. Follow all obligations imposed on you by the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. 18. If requested, let Police Officers to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle and/or search your person for the purpose of checking your compliance with the conditions of this Order and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officers believe contravene the conditions of the Order. 19. Stay at your premises and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle. 20. When asked, tell the Police the names of all of your internet service providers, all telephone services you use and all screen names, usernames and email addresses. Disclosure/Exchange of information 21. Let the CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by the CCO, speak to anyone you spend time with or may spend time with and, where appropriate, to tell them information about you, including your offending history. -- 54 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 55 Restrictions on contact with victims 22. Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO and the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice, you must have no contact with the victims of your serious offending for which you were sentenced on 23 February 2022 (victims), when your most recent term of imprisonment was imposed. Contact in this condition and conditions 23 to 24 means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim. 23. Unless contact with the victim is permitted by condition 22, if you see any of the victims, 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. 24. Report any contact with the victims to the CCO and WA Police within 48 hours of any contact happening. Criminal conduct 25. Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment. 26. 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. Curfew 27. Obey a curfew, under section 32 of the Act requiring you to stay at and not leave your approved address, as directed by a CCO. 28. When subject to a curfew under this Order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence: -- 55 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 56 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. 29. 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. Prevention of high-risk situations 30. Not get into any vehicle, except for public transport, where a female is present unless the identity of that person has been approved in advance by the CCO. 31. Not allow any female hitchhikers to enter your vehicle. 32. Not enter any home where a female lives unless approved in advance by a CCO. 33. Not let any female enter your home unless the identity of that person has been approved in advance by a CCO. 34. Report any contact with females at your residential address to the CCO and the HRSOT at your next scheduled appointment. 35. Report any new social association (someone you have contact with more than once) or new relationship with a female to your CCO when you next report to them. 36. If told to do so by your CCO, tell anyone that you have a social association or relationship with (someone you have contact with more than once) about your past offending, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer. 37. Not associate with any person that you know has committed a sexual offence, unless you have the prior approval of a CCO. -- 56 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 57 38. Not buy, possess or drink alcohol. 39. 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. 40. Provide a valid sample pursuant to Condition 39. 41. Not go to or remain at any licensed premises with the exception of cafes, restaurants and sporting venues, unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons: a. For the purpose of preventing or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person b. For a purpose, and duration approved in advance by a Supervising Officer; and c. On the order of a CCO or Police Officer. 42. 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. 43. Not be anywhere that prohibited drugs or alcohol 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. 44. Have no contact with any child, whether in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless: (a) the contact is approved in advance by the CCO and is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO. (b) the contact is necessary for a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required and another adult is present. ('Contact' under this condition and conditions 45 and 46 means any form of interaction or communication whether by word, gesture, expression or touch -- 57 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 58 and whether in person, in writing, by telephone or electronic means, but does not include the bare minimum of interaction or communication needed to end any uninvited or unintended interaction or communication with a child). 45. If a child makes contact with you while they are not supervised, you must immediately leave the presence of the child, unless the contact is allowed under condition 44. 46. Give the name, address, location and any other details of any contact with a child under the age of 18 years to both your CCO and the Police the next time you report to them. 47. Not form a relationship with a person who has a child, or cares for a child, without the prior approval of a CCO. 48. Have no contact with, membership of, or association with any clubs or groups where children are members, unless approved in advance by a CCO. You must cancel such memberships if told to do so by a CCO or Police Officer. 49. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device, including its location, that you use or possess that can store digital data within 48 hours of obtaining the device, whether or not it can connect to the internet. 50. Not let any person, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer, use any electronic device referred to in condition 49 without prior approval of a CCO. 51. Have a password on all electronic devices referred to in condition 49 and do not tell anyone your passwords, except for a CCO or WA Police Officer. 52. If asked to by the CCO or WA Police, let them access any device capable of storing digital data so they can determine your device-related activities and give them any passwords, screen names, usernames or email addresses needed to unlock or access the device. -- 58 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 59 53. If any other entity needs to access one of your devices, they must get the prior approval of a CCO. 54. Not delete, or allow to be 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. 55. 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. 56. Not attend concerts, events or venues where children usually attend, without prior approval of a CCO. 57. When reasonably requested by your CCO, give them details of your activities, movements and the people you have contact with in the community. 58. You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a staff member of the Department of Justice (Department) or other persons working on behalf, or with, the Department to provide services. Medications/Mental Health 59. Allow any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and their opinions about your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with medical treatment. -- 59 of 60 -- [2026] WASC 186 FORRESTER J Page 60 60. Comply with the requirements of Uniting WA and any programs designed to assist you to perform daily living activities and/or to rejoin the community, as directed by a CCO. _______________________________ THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER 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 _________________________________ HIRIM GEORGE TIPPING In the presence of: _________________________________ Name and address: _________________________________ _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CA Associate to the Hon Justice Forrester 15 MAY 2026 -- 60 of 60 --