THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- ROWORTH [2026] WASC 182

[2026] WASC 182 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- ROWORTH [No 3] [2026] WASC 182 CORAM : MUSIKANTH J HEARD : 29 APRIL 2026 DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2026 PUBLISHED : 8 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 9 of 2021 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND SHAUN MEECHAM ROWORTH Respondent Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Restriction order application - Whether respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether supervision order or continuing detention order appropriate - Whether respondent likely to substantially comply with standard conditions of supervision order - Supervision order made - Turns on own facts Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 Page 2 Result: Supervision order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Ms F Allen Respondent : Mr 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 GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 96 ALJR 88 R v Roworth [2003] WASCA 120 The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [2025] WASC 456 The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 The State of Western Australia v Roworth [2016] WASCR 81 The State of Western Australia v Roworth [2021] WASC 309 The State of Western Australia v Roworth [2022] WASC 71 The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2] [2024] WASC 339 -- 2 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 3 MUSIKANTH J: 1 In August 2021, the State applied for a restriction order in respect of the respondent pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act). 2 In September 2021, Quinlan CJ was satisfied, following a preliminary hearing, that there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent might be found to be a high risk serious offender and made an interim supervision order pending determination of the application.1 3 In February 2022, the State filed a separate application alleging that the respondent had contravened conditions of the interim supervision order made by Quinlan CJ, seeking recission of that order and an interim detention order in its place. 4 In March 2022, McGrath J heard and dismissed the latter application, and the respondent remained subject to the interim supervision order.2 5 Between April 2022 and February 2023, the respondent offended on multiple occasions. 6 As a result, the State again commenced contravention proceedings against the respondent. 7 In November 2024, Cobby J made an interim detention order pending final determination of the restriction order application and contravention proceedings. The interim detention order was made two months before the respondent's maximum release date as a sentenced prisoner. 8 Although the restriction order application and contravention proceedings were listed to be heard before me together, the State subsequently contended it was unnecessary for me to deal separately with the contravention proceedings and that I could, instead, simply take the alleged contraventions into account in determining the form of restriction order (assuming I found the respondent to be a high risk serious offender). 9 Accordingly, and in circumstances where the respondent in any event conceded the contraventions, the issues I must decide are: 1 The State of Western Australia v Roworth [2021] WASC 309. 2 The State of Western Australia v Roworth [2022] WASC 71. -- 3 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 4 (1) Whether the respondent should be declared a high risk serious offender. (2) If so, what form of restriction order should be made. 10 For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied: (1) 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 respondent to ensure the adequate protection of the community from an unacceptable risk he will seriously reoffend. (2) That the respondent should accordingly be declared a high risk serious offender. (3) That it is more likely than not that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. (4) That a supervision order should be made in relation to the respondent subject to the conditions reflected in the Annexure to these reasons. Evidence 11 At the hearing, the State tendered and relied upon a seven-volume book of materials. 12 The State also led oral evidence from Prof Pyszora, Ms Hasson, and Ms Chloe Jones, who was until recently the respondent's assigned Community Corrections Officer (CCO). 13 The respondent did not object to any of the State's evidence, did not testify and adduced no evidence of his own. Legal principles 14 I discussed the legal principles applicable to the declaration of a person as a high risk serious offender and as to the determination of the form of restriction order in The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2]3 and The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5].4 3 The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2] [2024] WASC 339. 4 The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [2025] WASC 456. -- 4 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 5 15 I have had regard to these principles in reaching the conclusions summarised in [10] above. 16 In doing so I have also had regard to, and gratefully adopt, Tottle J's summary in The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2]5 of the central principles underpinning the Act's application following the decision of the High Court in Garlett v The State of Western Australia.6 Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? 17 At the hearing the respondent's counsel properly conceded that there was sufficient evidence for the court to find the respondent was a high risk serious offender. 18 In considering that question, the court may have regard to any relevant matter but must consider the matters in s 7(3)(a) - (j).7 19 I now turn to consider those matters. Antecedents and criminal record (s 7(3)(g)) 20 The respondent is a 49-year-old man. He was born in Queensland in 1977 and moved to Western Australia with his parents the same year.8 21 The respondent has been described as having been a 'problematic child, teenager and adult'.9 He absconded at age 12 in response to restrictions imposed by his 'strict' family because of his antisocial behaviour and moved in with his maternal grandmother at age 15.10 22 The respondent has an extensive history of antisocial behaviour and criminal offending, having over his lifetime accumulated a tremendous number of convictions including for driving and drug offences, armed robbery (including aggravated armed robbery), making threats to kill, and unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation. 5 The State of Western Australia v Clarke [No 2] [2023] WASC 53 [4]. 6 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 96 ALJR 88. 7 The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2] [18]; The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [27]. 8 R v Roworth [2003] WASCA 120 [6] (Malcolm CJ). 9 Report prepared by Ms Chloe Jones dated 28 July 2025 (2025 Jones Report), 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 801). 10 2025 Jones Report, 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 801). -- 5 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 6 23 The respondent first offended in 1988, age 11, when convicted of theft.11 He left school at age 13,12 and was first convicted of a violent offence in 1996, age 18, by which time he had been convicted of 51 offences of unauthorised use or theft of cars and 66 offences of burglary.13 His offending has escalated in seriousness throughout adulthood.14 24 The respondent also has a prolific history of breaching bail (by committing offences) and escaping from custody (in 1992, 1994 and 1998).15 A number of the respondent's past serious offences were committed while in the community on parole.16 25 In April 2016, the respondent was convicted of aggravated armed robbery17 (a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act) and sentenced to three years and nine months' imprisonment.18 26 In October 2016, the respondent was also sentenced by a magistrate to 26 months' imprisonment for non-serious offending, including aggravated burglary, theft and unlawful damage. That sentence was ordered to be served cumulatively on the aggravated armed robbery sentence. 27 After his release from custody, and while subject to the interim supervision order made by Quinlan CJ, the respondent continued to offend by driving without authority in November 2021. 28 He also contravened that order in February 2022 by possessing a phone without advising a CCO and by deleting data from it. 29 After the hearing before McGrath J in March 2022 the respondent again offended multiple times between April 2022 and February 2023 by: (1) Using prohibited drugs in March, April and November 2022 thereby also contravening his interim supervision order. (2) Stealing cars twice in November 2022. 11 R v Roworth [6]. 12 R v Roworth [6]. 13 R v Roworth [6]. 14 R v Roworth [6]. 15 Report of Prof Natalie Pyszora dated 2 March 2026 (2026 Pyszora Report) [92] (Exhibit 1-7, 775). 16 2026 Pyszora Report [92] (Exhibit 1-7, 775). 17 Contrary to s 392(c) and (d) of the Criminal Code (WA) 18 The State of Western Australia v Roworth [2016] WASCR 81 (Allanson J). -- 6 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 7 (3) Driving without authority, again, in November 2022. (4) Committing unlawful assault doing bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation (i.e. on his wife) in January 2023, thereby also contravening his interim supervision order. 30 These contraventions were properly conceded. 31 The respondent has had a severe drug dependency since his early teens and committed serious offences to fund his dependency. Between 1995 and 1997, he persuaded others to bring drugs into prison for him.19 32 Owing to his offending, the respondent has spent little time in the community.20 This has limited his ability to find employment.21 33 The respondent had a supportive relationship with his mother, who died last year,22 and maintains good relationships with his stepfather, sister and mother-in-law.23 34 The respondent and his wife have two young daughters. 35 The respondent has no prosocial supports outside his family and a long history of criminal associations with antisocial peers, including outlaw motorcycle gangs.24 He was the victim of a serious assault by outlaw motorcycle gang members while in prison in 2013.25 36 The respondent denied any ongoing associations of this kind in February 2026.26 Section 74 expert reports prepared for the hearing; the respondent's cooperation in examination required by that section (s 7(3)(a)) 37 Prof Pyszora and Ms Hasson's reports were prepared pursuant to s 74 of the Act. 38 Both reports suggest the respondent was cooperative and engaged.27 19 2026 Pyszora Report [92] (Exhibit 1-7, 775). 20 2026 Pyszora Report [85] (Exhibit 1-7, 774). 21 2026 Pyszora Report [85] (Exhibit 1-7, 774). 22 2026 Pyszora Report [17] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). 23 2026 Pyszora Report [18] (Exhibit 1-7, 762). 24 2026 Pyszora Report [24] (Exhibit 1-7, 763). 25 2026 Pyszora Report [89] (Exhibit 1-7, 775). 26 2026 Pyszora Report [25] (Exhibit 1-7, 763). -- 7 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 8 Prof Natalie Pyszora 39 Prof Pyszora is a qualified expert within the meaning of the Act.28 She interviewed the respondent on 24 February 2026 for two hours. 40 According to Prof Pyszora, the respondent has been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder (in remission on maintenance therapy),29 has never been diagnosed with (or displayed signs or symptoms of) a major mental disorder,30 and does not have impaired intellectual functioning although his cognitive functioning falls within the low‑average range.31 41 Prof Pyszora assessed the respondent's risk of future offending using the revised Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL‑R), the revised Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG‑R), the Historical-Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR20-V3), and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA‑V3). 42 The PCL-R measured the respondent for prototypical psychopathy. The respondent's score was well below the threshold for psychopathy.32 43 The VRAG‑R assessed his risk of violent recidivism.33 44 The respondent's VRAG-R placed him in the 93rd percentile and the highest of the nine risk categories for violent reoffending.34 According to Prof Pyszora, 76% of individuals in this category statistically commit a further violent offence within five years, and 87% within 12 years,35 though the VRAG‑R cannot determine whether the respondent falls within the approximately 24% of individuals in the category who do not offend within five years.36 27 2026 Pyszora Report [60] (Exhibit 1-7, 769); Report of Ms Julie Hasson dated 6 March 2026 (2026 Hasson Report) [1] (Exhibit 1-7, 790). 28 Act s 3(a) (definition of 'qualified expert'), s 74. 29 2026 Pyszora Report [63] (Exhibit 1-7, 769). 30 2026 Pyszora Report [87] (Exhibit 1-7, 774). 31 2026 Pyszora Report [87] (Exhibit 1-7, 774). 32 2026 Pyszora Report [72] (Exhibit 1-7, 771). 33 2026 Pyszora Report [73] (Exhibit 1-7, 772). 34 2026 Pyszora Report [76] (Exhibit 1-7, 772). 35 2026 Pyszora Report [76] (Exhibit 1-7, 772). 36 2026 Pyszora Report [76] (Exhibit 1-7, 772). -- 8 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 9 45 The HCR20‑V3 assesses static and dynamic factors relevant to the respondent's violent recidivism relying on three scales: historical, clinical and risk management.37 46 On the historical scale, Prof Pyszora found the following risk factors to be present or partially present: history of problems with previous violence, with other antisocial behaviour, with relationships, with substance use, with personality, with violent attitudes, with treatment or supervision response, and with employment.38 47 On the clinical scale, Prof Pyszora found the risk factor of recent problems with insight to be present, and with treatment or supervision response to be 'possibly present'.39 However, none of the risk factors of recent problems with violent ideation or intent, or with symptoms of major mental disorder and instability, were present.40 48 On the risk management scale, Prof Pyszora found the risk factor of future problems with stress or coping was present, and the risk factors of future problems with personal support and with treatment or supervision response to be 'possibly present'.41 The risk factors of future problems with professional services and plans, and living situation were not present.42 49 The SARA-V3 is a spousal violence risk assessment tool.43 It includes guidance for risk formulation, risk scenario and management planning, and is comprised of three domains: nature of intimate partner violence, perpetrator risk factors, and victim vulnerability factors.44 50 In applying this tool, Prof Pyszora noted the respondent had only one conviction for intimate partner violence; namely, the January 2023 offence.45 Prof Pyszora further noted while this offending involved the respondent grabbing his wife by the hair and punching her repeatedly in the presence of their daughters,46 the SARA‑V3 did not classify it as 37 2026 Pyszora Report [80] (Exhibit 1-7, 773). 38 2026 Pyszora Report [82] - [86], [88], [90] - [91] (Exhibit 1-7, 773 - 774). 39 2026 Pyszora Report [98], [102] (Exhibit 1-7, 777). 40 2026 Pyszora Report [99] - [100] (Exhibit 1-7, 777). 41 2026 Pyszora Report [ 110] - [115] (Exhibit 1-7, 779). 42 2026 Pyszora Report [103] - [107] (Exhibit 1-7, 777 - 778). 43 2026 Pyszora Report [116] - (Exhibit 1-7, - 780). 44 2026 Pyszora Report [117] (Exhibit 1-7, 780). 45 2026 Pyszora Report [118] - [119] (Exhibit 1-7, 780). 46 2026 Pyszora Report [118] - [119] (Exhibit 1-7, 780). -- 9 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 10 'severe' since 'it did not involve a weapon and the injuries were not 'grievous or life threatening''.47 51 According to Prof Pyszora, this offending occurred after months of protracted arguments between the respondent and his wife;48 however, the respondent denied any history of physical violence towards his wife and any intimate partner violence towards previous girlfriends.49 52 Prof Pyszora also noted perpetrator risk factors were present including intimate relationship problems, personality disorder, substance use problems, non-intimate relationship problems, and general antisocial conduct.50 53 Prof Pyszora opined the most likely risk scenario for the respondent engaging in future serious violent offending would be in the context of an armed robbery of a pharmacy or other commercial premises with a cash register to fund his drug dependency and/or directly obtain opioid, sedative, or stimulant drugs from pharmacy premises for himself or for antisocial peers.51 54 According to Prof Pyszora, in such a scenario, the respondent may be armed with a weapon to ensure victims comply with demands to surrender money and/or pharmaceutical drugs; may be intoxicated; and would likely be in the company of antisocial peers, most likely stealing a car to commit the robbery and using it as a getaway vehicle. 55 Prof Pyszora considered such conduct would likely be accompanied by a series of aggravated burglaries of other premises as part of an acquisitive crime spree occurring over hours or days,52 and that if a victim were to resist, it is possible the respondent (or a co- offender) would inflict serious physical or psychological harm.53 56 Prof Pyszora also opined the respondent could engage in reckless and dangerous driving (especially if intoxicated), which could in turn result in a serious offence by endangering other road users.54 57 According to Prof Pyszora: 47 2026 Pyszora Report [119] (Exhibit 1-7, 780). 48 2026 Pyszora Report [120] (Exhibit 1-7, 780). 49 2026 Pyszora Report [120] (Exhibit 1-7, 780). 50 2026 Pyszora Report [121] (Exhibit 1-7, 781). 51 2026 Pyszora Report [125] (Exhibit 1-7, 781). 52 2026 Pyszora Report [126] (Exhibit 1-7, 781). 53 2026 Pyszora Report [126] - [127] (Exhibit 1-7, 781). 54 2026 Pyszora Report [128] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). -- 10 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 11 (1) At the time of his interview with her, the respondent was on Opiate Substitution Therapy (OST), in the form of 80mg oral methadone taken daily, having recommenced such therapy in August 2023.55 (2) The respondent stated he felt stable on his dose of methadone, had not experienced cravings to use illicit drugs in custody despite allegedly being offered them, and planned to continue with his current dose if released into the community.56 (3) The respondent's prison records confirmed doctors had regularly reviewed his OST, and that he had been stable on methadone 80mg daily. 57 (4) When his OST was reviewed by a doctor in March 2025, the respondent stated his aim was to stay on methadone 'for life'.58 58 Although indicating there was a 'high' risk the respondent may perpetrate further intimate partner violence towards his wife if his risk factors were not managed, Prof Pyszora considered it unlikely any such offending would reach the threshold of a serious offence59 noting that before his assault on his wife in January 2023 there had been 'no previous charges [of that kind] at all'.60 59 Nonetheless, according to Prof Pyszora, if the respondent were to relapse into substance use and/or begin re-associating with antisocial peers, there was a high likelihood of him relapsing into serious robbery offences.61 60 Moreover, and although the respondent's car theft offence in November 2022 did not involve violent or serious offending, Prof Pyszora noted the respondent's driving had caused other road users to take evasive action, and the police to abandon the pursuit, and illustrated the respondent's vulnerability to become impulsively involved within group offending, placing other persons at risk of harm.62 55 2026 Pyszora Report [11] - [12] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). 56 2026 Pyszora Report [12] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). 57 2026 Pyszora Report [26] (Exhibit 1-7, 763). 58 2026 Pyszora Report [26] (Exhibit 1-7, 763). 59 2026 Pyszora Report [134] (Exhibit 1-7, 782); ts 67, 81. 60 ts 67. 61 2026 Pyszora Report [129] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). 62 2026 Pyszora Report [130] - [131] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). -- 11 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 12 61 According to Prof Pyszora, if the respondent relapsed into recidivism his offending (including violence) 'may be frequent if not terminated through arrest',63 and may escalate to 'serious offending over a matter of days to weeks', with contact with antisocial peers, experience of significant stressors (including significant conflict with his wife and death of a loved one) being warning signs of escalating risk increasing his vulnerability to relapse back into substance use even if he is maintained on OST.64 62 Ultimately Prof Pyszora concluded that the respondent would present a 'high risk' of serious reoffending if not made subject to a restriction order.65 63 Prof Pyszora opined the respondent had 'significant outstanding criminogenic treatment needs', including his 'antisocial personality disorder, antisocial cognitions, substance abuse, interpersonal relationship problems (including intimate partner abuse, association with antisocial peers, poor peer refusal skills, and avoidant coping in both intimate and non‑intimate relationships), lack of employment, relative lack of education, and lack of pro-social leisure or recreation activities'. 66 According to Prof Pyszora, each of these matters needed to be addressed in treatment and supervision to manage the respondent's risk.67 64 In this connection, Prof Pyszora recommended that the respondent engage in weekly individual psychological counselling sessions,68 with a primary focus on his family relationships, communication, and conflict resolution skills.69 Ms Julie Hasson 65 Ms Hasson is a qualified expert within the meaning of the Act.70 She interviewed the respondent for two and a half hours on 25 February 2026. 63 2026 Pyszora Report [132] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). 64 2026 Pyszora Report [133] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). 65 2026 Pyszora Report [136] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 66 2026 Pyszora Report [137] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 67 2026 Pyszora Report [137] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 68 2026 Pyszora Report [145] (Exhibit 1-7, 785). 69 2026 Pyszora Report [37] (Exhibit 1-7, 765). 70 Act s 3(b) (definition of 'qualified expert'). -- 12 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 13 66 Ms Hasson assessed the respondent's risk of future offending using three of the tools employed by Prof Pyszora the day before: the PCL-R, HCR20-V3 and SARA-V3.71 67 The respondent's PLC-R score confirmed that he did not meet the psychopathy diagnosis threshold.72 68 His HCR20‑V3 results suggested that all historical scale risk factors were present.73 69 On the clinical scale, recent problems with violent ideation or intent, symptoms of mental disorder, instability, and poor treatment and supervision response were not found present (though Ms Hasson considered each of these 'acute dynamic' factors remained of future relevance for risk assessment and management).74 70 On the risk management scale, several risk factors were found present (or partially present), including future problems relating to supervisory or rehabilitative efforts, available personal support, stability of his intimate relationship, engagement with positive affiliations and social influences, avoidance of procriminal or antisocial peers and employment opportunities.75 71 In her written report, Ms Hasson had opined that the respondent's risk of violent reoffending towards intimate partners and others remained 'high',76 considering the respondent's most likely offence in the short term to be a physical assault on his wife triggered by a period of high stress, conflict, miscommunication or other negativity.77 72 Nonetheless, in oral evidence, Ms Hasson noted the respondent's wife was his first significant intimate relationship; that he had no prior charges or convictions for intimate partner violence; and that there was insufficient information in the respondent's history to conclude he would commit a further serious offence involving intimate partner violence which, at this stage, seemed unlikely.78 71 2026 Hasson Report [21] - [30] (Exhibit 1-7, 794 - 795). 72 2026 Hasson Report [25] (Exhibit 1-7, 794). 73 2026 Hasson Report [27] (Exhibit 1-7, 795). 74 2026 Hasson Report [28] (Exhibit 1-7, 795). 75 2026 Hasson Report [29] (Exhibit 1-7, 795). 76 2026 Hasson Report [31] (Exhibit 1-7, 795). 77 2026 Hasson Report [32] (Exhibit 1-7, 796). 78 ts 81. -- 13 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 14 73 Ms Hasson's opinion was otherwise substantially the same as that of Prof Pyszora: the remaining risk scenarios related to the respondent relapsing back into illicit substance abuse and committing offences of a violent nature in similar circumstances to those alluded to by Prof Pyszora.79 74 Ultimately, Ms Hasson opined the respondent presents as a 'high' risk of serious reoffending if not made subject to a restriction order, the most relevant factors including his antisocial personality disorder, attitudes and beliefs supportive of the use of violence, a procriminal identity, substance abuse issues, unstable marital/relationship factors, the presence of weapons, antisocial peers and family members.80 Other assessments (s 7(3)(b)) 75 A report by counselling psychologist Ms Caris Hamlett-Waller dated 14 October 2024 (Hamlett-Waller Report), an updated HRSO treatment options report by Ms Emma Cashmore, an HRSO Planning Manager in the High Risk Serious Offenders Unit (HRSO Unit), dated 20 March 2026 (2026 Cashmore Report), and updated community supervision assessments by Ms Chloe Jones dated 28 July 2025 (2025 Jones Report) and 19 March 2026 (2026 Jones Report), were also provided. Ms Caris Hamlett-Waller 76 The respondent attended eight sessions with Ms Hamlett-Waller between May and October 2024.81 77 According to Ms Hamlett‑Waller, the respondent became comfortable with her and 'enjoyed discussing his family and the meaning and motivation his family had provided him, shifting away from an antisocial identity'.82 78 Ms Hamlett‑Waller considered the respondent's treatment would need to be protracted as his personality characteristics appeared entrenched and required repetition and rehearsal over time.83 79 2026 Hasson Report [33] (Exhibit 1-7, 796). 80 2026 Hasson Report [38] - [39] (Exhibit 1-7, 797). 81 Hamlett-Waller Report (Exhibit 1-6, 620). 82 Hamlett-Waller Report (Exhibit 1-6, 621). 83 Hamlett-Waller Report (Exhibit 1-6, 621). -- 14 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 15 79 Ms Hamlett‑Waller considered the respondent's most recent offending and contraventions would have been precipitated by various stressors and significant life events.84 80 She encouraged the respondent to initiate discussions about expressing his emotions in healthy and productive ways with prosocial supports, in preparation for further significant events if released.85 81 According to Ms Hamlett‑Waller, the respondent reported a desire to 'move away from an antisocial identity and focus on his role as a father and husband' and referred to some of his positive achievements and earned privileges in custody.86 Ms Emma Cashmore 82 Ms Cashmore's report provides an updated overview of the treatment options available to the respondent through the Department. It should be read with a treatment options report prepared by Mr Luke Carmichael, Senior CCO and HRSO Planning Manager, dated 17 April 2024, and an addendum to that report dated 30 October 2024.87 83 According to Ms Cashmore: (1) Should the respondent be made subject to any form of restriction order, it is intended he would re-engage in individual psychological intervention with Ms Hamlett-Waller.88 (2) Should a supervision order be made, the respondent could be referred to the community‑based Connect and Respect Programme. This is a 12‑week, group‑based family and domestic violence (prevention) program facilitated by Communicare and available in metropolitan Perth.89 Ms Chloe Jones 84 The 2025 Jones Report focusses on the respondent's proposed accommodation in the community.90 84 Hamlett-Waller Report (Exhibit 1-6, 622). 85 Hamlett-Waller Report (Exhibit 1-6, 623). 86 Hamlett-Waller Report (Exhibit 1-6, 623). 87 Exhibit 1-5, 364 - 368; Exhibit 1-6, 624 - 625. 88 2026 Cashmore Report [8] (Exhibit 1-7, 758). 89 2026 Cashmore Report [9] (Exhibit 1-7, 758). 90 2025 Jones Report, 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 801). -- 15 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 16 85 In her report, Ms Jones confirms she visited the proposed address and interviewed the householder, a relative of the respondent. The householder advised Ms Jones that he does not tolerate antisocial behaviour and would not permit any of the respondent's associates or friends to attend the premises.91 He also denied drinking or using drugs and did not consider there was any risk of the respondent obtaining either at his home.92 86 While the householder noted another relative residing at the premises (who, according to Departmental records, has past convictions for 'some illicit substance-related offending') drinks from time to time, there was no suggestion alcohol has been associated with any of the respondent's past offending.93 87 During the interview with Ms Jones, the householder reiterated he would have no hesitation in contacting authorities to report any concerns about the respondent.94 88 Ms Jones also reports that she and the householder discussed possible visits by the respondent's wife to, and overnight stays by one of his daughters at, the respondent's proposed accommodation.95 89 According to Ms Jones, although the householder indicated he would not permit the respondent's wife to attend the address under any circumstances or the respondent's daughter to reside there, the respondent acknowledged he had no issues with these requirements and intended on travelling to see his wife and their daughters at his wife's home some distance away.96 90 Ms Jones also reported that:97 (1) If released on a supervision order, the respondent intended to engage with Thrive Integration, an employment service designed to mentor ex-prisoners within positions of employment in the construction industry. Ms Hasson supported this initiative. 91 2025 Jones Report, 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 801). 92 2025 Jones Report, 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 801). 93 See ts 64 (Prof Pyszora). 94 2026 Jones Report, 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 801). 95 2026 Jones Report, 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 805). 96 2026 Jones Report, 2 (Exhibit 1-7, 805). 97 2026 Jones Report, 3 (Exhibit 1-7, 806). -- 16 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 17 (2) The respondent remained engaged with ReSet, a voluntary reintegration service providing a throughcare service to participants. (3) The respondent had attended 18 sessions with his allocated ReSet case worker, was reported to have engaged positively, and had sought assistance to improve his parenting skills and obtain employment; referrals for these services had been made. (4) The respondent's ReSet case worker had indicated that the respondent had demonstrated motivation to engage in alcohol and drug intervention with Wungening Aboriginal Corporation, and that ReSet would complete a referral to that service if he were released into the community. 91 Ms Jones confirmed the respondent had remained engaged 'very consistently' with ReSet whose services could continue following any release into the community, and that ReSet had also completed a release plan for him.98 92 According to Ms Jones, if the respondent were to be released on a supervision order, it was intended he would see Ms Hamlet-Waller within the first week following any release.99 Propensity to seriously reoffend (s 7(3)(c)) 93 A person has a 'propensity to commit serious offences in the future' if they have an inclination, tendency, or disposition to commit serious offences, be it generally, in a particular way, or against a particular type of victim.100 94 I accept Prof Pyszora's and Ms Hasson's opinions that the respondent has a propensity to commit at least a particular kind of serious offence: instrumental violence in the context of armed or unarmed robbery, committed to obtain money to fund his drug dependency or drugs themselves, and which may involve car theft.101 Pattern of offending (s 7(3)(d)) 95 As noted, the respondent's instrumental violent offending involving armed robberies and car thefts usually occurs while he is 98 ts 91. 99 ts 90. 100 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 [178]. 101 2026 Pyszora Report [126], [128] (Exhibit 1-7, 781, 782). -- 17 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 18 intoxicated or in furtherance of his drug dependency and targets commercial premises with cash on site or pharmacies.102 His drug use and criminality are linked: drug use destabilises and disinhibits him, increasing his impulsivity and thereby his probability of him offending.103 96 Offending of this kind may also occur in the context of group offending with antisocial peers, including ex-prison associates.104 97 I accept other factors likely to increase the respondent's risk of reoffending or relapse, even if otherwise compliant with treatment, include significant conflict with his wife and the death of family members or friends.105 Risk that, if not subject to a restriction order, the respondent would commit a serious offence (s 7(3)(h)); need to protect community from that risk (s 7(3)(i)) 98 I accept the opinions of Prof Pyszora and Ms Hasson to the effect that there is a high risk the respondent will seriously reoffend if not made subject to a restriction order. 99 In those circumstances, the need to protect the community from the risk the respondent will commit further serious offences if not subject to a restriction order is self‑evident. The risk of serious reoffending carries with it a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to potential victims from which the community must be protected. Other relevant matters (s 7(3)(j)) 100 I do not consider there to be any other materially relevant matters. Determination 101 For the foregoing reasons, I am 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 respondent to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. 102 I am therefore satisfied that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. 102 2026 Pyszora Report [125] (Exhibit 1-7, 781). 103 2026 Pyszora Report [129] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). 104 2026 Pyszora Report [130] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). 105 2026 Pyszora Report [133] (Exhibit 1-7, 782). -- 18 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 19 What order should be made? 103 Should the respondent be detained under a continuing detention order or released into the community on a supervision order? 104 Once again, the relevant principles are summarised in, among other decisions, The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2]106 and The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5].107 105 Mindful of those principles, and noting I may not make a supervision order unless the respondent has satisfied me it is more likely than not he will comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, I now turn to consider that question. 106 I do so by reference to the following factors which appear relevant to an assessment of that question in the context of this case.108 History of compliance and non‑compliance 107 As noted, the respondent has a prolific history of breaching bail (by committing offences), escaping from custody,109 and serious offending while on parole.110 108 In addition, the respondent has more recently repeatedly contravened the interim supervision order made by Quinlan CJ, and engaged in further offending, following the hearing before McGrath J, as summarised in [27] to [29] above. 109 Concerningly, some of this offending occurred:111 (1) Despite the respondent having told Prof Pyszora, in December 2021 and May 2022, he was 'confident' he would not lapse into drug use. (2) In circumstances where, despite having been aware of the serious consequences of cannabis use after his first arrest in early 2022, the respondent used methylamphetamine shortly after his release from custody, in April 2022, and suboxone both 106 The State of Western Australia v Thorne [No 2] [123] - [128]. 107 The State of Western Australia v Dempster [No 5] [118] - [123]. 108 Cf. Director of Public Prosecutions v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52] (Fiannaca J); The State of Western Australia v Gorham [No 2] [2022] WASC 351 [34] (Archer J). 109 2026 Pyszora Report [92] (Exhibit 1-7, 775). 110 2026 Pyszora Report [92] (Exhibit 1-7, 775). 111 2026 Pyszora Report [93] (Exhibit 1-7, 776). -- 19 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 20 after his release in September 2021 and in the couple of months prior to his offending in January 2023. 110 Nonetheless, it is encouraging that following his return to custody, the respondent recommenced OST apparently with significant beneficial effect.112 History of abstinence from drugs 111 Although the respondent has a longstanding and severe drug dependency, he appears to have stabilised since recommencing OST113 and returned negative results on two urinalysis drug screens in October and December 2025.114 Relative importance of any contravention 112 As Prof Pyszora opined, the most likely risk scenario involving future serious violent offending by the respondent would be in the context of an armed robbery of a pharmacy or other commercial premises to fund the respondent's drug dependency and/or to obtain drugs from pharmacy premises for himself or antisocial peers. 113 It follows there would be a clear association between any relapse by the respondent into drug dependency and any future serious offending. Conduct in custody 114 Despite the respondent's history of drug use in prison, of persuading others to bring drugs to him, antisocial behaviour towards corrections staff, and serious violence against other prisoners, the material before me suggests the respondent has taken some steps towards reform during his most recent period of incarceration. 115 Indeed, since April 2025, the respondent has only been the subject of two negative entries in the prison database. Both were of a minor nature.115 116 Encouragingly, the respondent is now employed in the canteen, is entrusted with distributing spends, has reportedly become 'very settled' 112 2026 Pyszora Report [26] (Exhibit 1-7, 763). 113 2026 Pyszora Report [65] (Exhibit 1-7, 770). 114 2026 Pyszora Report [10] (Exhibit 1-7, 760). 115 2026 Pyszora Report [14] - [15] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). -- 20 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 21 in the Acacia Prison self‑care unit and has denied any problems or conflicts with other prisoners.116 117 Prof Pyszora believes this arrangement has been in place for about 18 months and noted it was an indication of the respondent's good behaviour in prison.117 118 Indeed, according to Ms Hasson, the respondent's good conduct and adjustment to life in the Acacia Prison self‑care unit has been 'unprecedented'.118 Demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management and life skills 119 Prof Pyszora described the respondent's mood during his most recent interview as 'good', noting the respondent had also denied any recent difficulties with emotional regulation, significant anxiety, sleep disturbance, or suicidal ideation.119 120 In addition, according to Prof Pyszora, the respondent had remained compliant with his OST,120 reported feeling stable on it, and had not experienced cravings to use drugs.121 121 The respondent's principal treatment gain since being reincarcerated has been achieving sobriety. He has also engaged with ReSet and demonstrated motivation in engaging in intervention with Wungening Aboriginal Corporation. 122 On the other hand, the respondent has not sustained gains he had made in previous group and individual treatment, and he will require prolonged treatment and supervision to assist him in translating skills he has learned into behavioural change and autonomous risk management, his progress also depending on his motivation to engage in a meaningful way.122 123 Although Ms Hasson observed the respondent had not engaged in any further group or individual intervention since their last interview, the respondent:123 116 2026 Pyszora Report [16] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). 117 ts 61 - 62. 118 2026 Hasson Report [1] (Exhibit 1-7, 790). 119 2026 Pyszora Report [61] (Exhibit 1-7, 769). 120 2026 Pyszora Report [11] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). 121 2026 Pyszora Report [12] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). 122 2026 Pyszora Report [69] (Exhibit 1-7, 770). 123 2026 Hasson Report [13] (Exhibit 1-7, 793). -- 21 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 22 (1) Regretted not being 'more open to the benefits of counselling while he was in the community' and demonstrated an awareness of the need to be more open about his challenges and stresses. (2) Recognised the importance of engaging with professional supports to assist him in avoiding reoffending and remaining in the community. Attitude towards conditions; motivation to remain offence-free 124 There is nothing before me suggesting it is likely the respondent might deliberately flout the conditions of a supervision order. 125 The evidence relating to the respondent's attitude towards a potential supervision order and his motivation to remain offence free is encouraging. 126 If released into the community, the respondent has indicated he wishes to continue OST.124 Indeed, as noted, the respondent's stated aim was to remain on methadone 'for life'.125 127 It was Prof Pyszora's evidence that the respondent's behaviour and mental state were stable, that he had a good understanding of his obligations if released on a supervision order, felt able and intended to comply with those obligations, and now recognised the seriousness of being subject to the Act.126 128 In relation to some of the proposed additional supervision order conditions, the respondent indicated to Prof Pyszora that he regarded the requirement to keep a daily diary of his activities and associations as 'silly', but acknowledged he would comply with such a condition if required.127 129 The respondent also indicated he did not consider he required substance‑use counselling but that he would engage with it if he experienced cravings.128 He said he would comply with further psychological intervention if required, adding, 'maybe it will be useful'.129 124 2026 Pyszora Report [12] (Exhibit 1-7, 761). 125 2026 Pyszora Report [26] (Exhibit 1-7, 763). 126 ts 61 - 62. 127 2026 Pyszora Report [58] (Exhibit 1-7, 769). 128 2026 Pyszora Report [59] (Exhibit 1-7, 769). 129 2026 Pyszora Report [59] (Exhibit 1-7, 769). -- 22 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 23 130 Whatever the case, Prof Pyszora accepted the respondent had demonstrated a motivation to comply with the conditions of a supervision order.130 131 From Prof Pyszora's perspective the 'only issue' was the respondent's insight into the nature of his problems. According to Prof Pyszora, the respondent needed to continue working, specifically, on recognising when he was at risk of re-engaging in situations which could lead to him breaching his supervision order, including substance use or offending; and treatment and supervision would assist the respondent in developing appropriate coping strategies.131 132 Ms Hasson noted the respondent believed he had 'matured' and, with his 50th birthday approaching, did not want to spend the rest of his life in prison. He was motivated to assume the roles of parent, step‑parent and husband, and to reintegrate as a productive and responsible member of the community.132 133 Ms Hasson further observed the respondent could articulate the challenges he thought he would face in the community and could identify some risk management strategies.133 134 Regarding his attitude to some of the proposed additional conditions, it appears the respondent was somewhat more amenable in his interview with Ms Hasson than he had been with Prof Pyszora the day before. 134 Capacity to comply with conditions of supervision order 135 As noted, the respondent has never been diagnosed with or displayed signs or symptoms of a major mental disorder, and does not have impaired intellectual functioning. 136 Despite the respondent having contravened his interim supervision order, Prof Pyszora nonetheless considers he has capacity to comply substantially with the conditions of a supervision order.135 137 Prof Pyszora considers that the factors favouring such a conclusion include: 130 ts 70. 131 ts 61 - 62. 132 2026 Hasson Report [11] (Exhibit 1-7, 792). 133 2026 Hasson Report [1] (Exhibit 1-7, 790). 134 Cf. 2026 Hasson Report [34] - [36] (Exhibit 1-7, 796 - 797). 135 ts 70 - 71. -- 23 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 24 (1) The respondent's stabilisation on and intention to continue methadone OST; this will reduce, but not eliminate, his risk of relapsing.136 (2) The respondent being offered 'stable and supportive' accommodation, located near public transport which he can use in travelling to comply with reporting obligations and the like,137 with a prosocial householder who has 'clear boundaries and expectations' around the respondent's behaviour.138 138 According to Prof Pyszora: (1) The householder intends to 'rapidly inform' authorities 'should he have any concerns' about the respondent.139 (2) The respondent intends to continue his relationship with his wife.140 However, it is important that the respondent's expectations regarding the frequency and duration of contact with his wife and daughters conforms with the householder's boundaries.141 (3) The respondent is aware of the likely consequences of contravening and intends to comply fully with a supervision order, if made.142 (4) The respondent is motivated to remain in the community and is deterred by the prospect of being reincarcerated.143 139 Ms Hasson likewise considered that the respondent has capacity to comply with the conditions of a supervision order.144 Measures in place to ensure substantial compliance 140 If the respondent is made subject to a supervision order, Prof Pyszora considers 'stringent' monitoring and supervision necessary to ensure early warning signs of substance use, association with 136 2026 Pyszora Report [140] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 137 2026 Pyszora Report [140] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 138 2026 Pyszora Report [140] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 139 2026 Pyszora Report [140] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 140 2026 Pyszora Report [141] (Exhibit 1-7, 784). 141 2026 Pyszora Report [141] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 142 2026 Pyszora Report [142] (Exhibit 1-7, 784). 143 2026 Pyszora Report [142] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 144 ts 85. -- 24 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 25 antisocial peers, intimate partner violence, and attitudes supportive of violence are detected.145 141 Noting the above, Prof Pyszora recommends that if the respondent were made subject to a supervision order, several additional conditions are required to ensure the community's adequate protection.146 Are the proposed conditions adequate to protect the community? 142 At the commencement of the final hearing, the State proposed 36 conditions should the court be minded to make a supervision order. 143 During the course of the hearing it became apparent that a further potential condition might be desirable:147 expressly prohibiting the respondent's taking, use, or possession of any prescription medication (unless lawfully prescribed). 144 Following conferral between the parties, the court was advised that both had agreed to the inclusion of a further condition to this effect. 145 Both experts considered that the proposed conditions were sufficient to manage the respondent's risk of committing a serious offence in the community, and that the respondent could substantially comply with them.148 146 I am satisfied the proposed conditions (as amended) would adequately protect the community against the risk the respondent will commit a serious offence in the future. 147 It was the opinion of both experts that the appropriate duration of a supervision order, if made, should be five years.149 I agree. Conclusion 148 Having declared the respondent a high risk serious offender, I make a supervision order in relation to the respondent for a period of five (5) years, with effect from 29 May 2026, subject to the conditions set out in the Annexure. 145 2026 Pyszora Report [139] (Exhibit 1-7, 783). 146 2026 Pyszora Report [143] - [153] (Exhibit 1-7, 784 - 786). 147 ts 66. 148 ts 69 (Prof Pyszora) and ts 82 (Ms Hasson). 149 ts 69, 71 - 71, 2026 Hasson Report [44] (Exhibit 1-7, 798). -- 25 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 26 Annexure SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE MUSIKANTH ON 9 MAY 2026 Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act), the Court, having found that SHAUN MEECHAM ROWORTH is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Act, makes a supervision order (Order) in relation to the Respondent, for five (5) years from 29 May 2026, not being a date earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions: You, SHAUN MEECHAM ROWORTH, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the prison at the time of your release and tell the officer of your current name and address. 2. Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court; 3. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, home address, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens. 4. Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32). 5. Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO. 6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order. 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Live at [redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you, (the period referred to as 'night' can be defined by your CCO throughout the order). Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO 9. Disclose to the CCO the name and details of any paid or unpaid employment, education, training, or volunteer work in which you intend to commence and -- 26 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 27 allow the details to be confirmed before commencement or during your period of engagement with the employment, training or other activity. Attendance at programs or treatment 10. Attend and engage in all appointments as directed. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, mentor, counsellor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO. Reporting to WA Police 11. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the High Risk Serious Offender team at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 within 48 hours of your release from custody, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the High Risk Serious Offender team or his/her delegate. 12. If requested, let Police Officers enter and search your residence and/or vehicle and/or search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order and allow the seizure of any such items that the Police Officers believes to contravene the conditions of the order. 13. Remain at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle under the Act. Disclosure/Exchange of information 14. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information. 15. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate to disclose to them the confidential information including your offence history. Criminal conduct 16. Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments. 17. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA), and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the prescriber. 18. You must not assault or threaten any member of the departmental staff or an agency providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice. -- 27 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 28 Curfew 19. Comply with a curfew, under section 32 of the Act, requiring you to remain at and not leave you approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time. 20. When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or front yard of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew. 21. When subject to a curfew under this Order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew. Prevention of high risk situations 22. Not associate with any person known by you to be subject to a High Risk Serious Offender Interim or Supervision Order in the community, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO. The term 'associate' does not include the bare minimum of interaction or communication necessary between two people to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited invitation or communication. 23. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs, including prescription substances you are not prescribed, as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place. 24. Provide a valid sample pursuant to Condition 23. 25. Not remain in the presence of anyone who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by prohibited drug, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO. 26. Not remain anywhere prohibited drugs are being consumed 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 or request police assistance if they are not prepared to leave. 27. Not be in possession of any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article and not to apply for, acquire or hold a licence to possess any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article. 28. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every computer, telecommunication and/or any other electronic device capable of storing digital data or information about your interactions with other people, possessed or used by you, within 48 hours of that -- 28 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 29 use or new possession, whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device. 29. Not allow any person other than a CCO or WA Police access to any computer, telecommunication and/or any other electronic device capable of storing digital data or information about your interactions with other people, referred to in condition 30, without prior approval of your CCO, and not share devices or online accounts without the prior approval of a CCO. 30. Enable device locking or password access of your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic devices referred to above. Not provide or disclose such passwords or other means used to access any computer, telecommunications and/or electronic device referred to above, or any online accounts, to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer without prior approval of a CCO. Should any other entity be required to access a device for instances such as technical advice, approval must be sought in advance from a CCO. 31. If requested 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 password, screen names, username(s) or email addresses needed to unlock the devices. 32. Without the prior approval of a CCO or Police Officer, not delete or otherwise remove or disguise any search histories or logs that can identify your activities on any computer or telephone in your possession that you have used to access the internet. 33. Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities, and associations, if and as directed, by the CCO and present this diary to the CCO and Police Officer upon request. 34. Report at your next contact with your CCO, the formation of any friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual, or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person. Medications 35. Permit any medical practitioner or associated service to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of compliance with this treatment to the Department of Justice, such as your use of methadone. 36. Advise a CCO about any new script for medication, in the manner they direct, before starting to take the medication. If medication is administered to you as an inpatient in hospital, urgently after hours, or in other emergency circumstances, you must advise the CCO about the change as soon as practical after the emergency. -- 29 of 30 -- [2026] WASC 182 MUSIKANTH J Page 30 37. Not take, use or possess any prescription medication unless it has been lawfully prescribed to you, is taken strictly in accordance with that prescription, and has been disclosed to a CCO. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. NH Associate to the Hon Justice Musikanth 8 MAY 2026 -- 30 of 30 --