THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SACH [2026] WASC 160

[2026] WASC 160 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SACH [No 2] [2026] WASC 160 CORAM : MCGRATH J HEARD : 31 MARCH 2026 DELIVERED : 31 MARCH 2026 PUBLISHED : 30 APRIL 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 5 of 2024 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND JAMES SACH Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order - Whether necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether community can be adequately protected by a supervision order - Turns on own facts Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 Page 2 Result: Restriction order made Supervision order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Ms T M Hollaway Respondent : Ms A Fedele Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Legal Aid WA Case(s) referred to in decision(s): 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 Hart [2019] WASC 4 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 [73]; (2022) CLR 1 Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116 The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 -- 2 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 3 MCGRATH J: Introduction 1 On 28 May 2024, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of the respondent under s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).1 The State's application contends that the respondent is a high risk serious offender and that it is necessary that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment and, in the alternative that should he be released, then he be subject to a supervision order under the HRSO Act. 2 On 21 June 2024, the preliminary hearing was heard before Quinlan CJ who determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing the Court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. On 2 August 2024, Quinlan CJ ordered that the respondent be subject to an interim detention order pending the determination of the application. 3 At the final hearing of the application, the State submitted that whilst the respondent should be subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act, it would be open for the Court to find that a supervision order would adequately manage the risk of the respondent reoffending. Counsel for the respondent accepted that a restriction order should be made but that the respondent should be released on a supervision order. Both submissions were properly made. 4 On the day of the hearing, I ordered that the respondent be subject to a restriction order and released on a supervision order. I stated that I would provide written reasons for making those orders. I now do so. Legal principles High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) 5 The State may make an application for a restriction order where a person is a serious offender under custodial sentence pursuant to s 35 of the HRSO Act. The term 'serious offender under custodial sentence' is defined in s 3: serious offender under custodial sentence means a person - (a) who is under a custodial sentence for a serious offence; or 1 Application for Restriction Order filed on 28 May 2024. -- 3 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 4 (b) who - (i) is under a custodial sentence for an offence or offences other than a serious offence; and (ii) has been under that sentence at all times since being discharged from a custodial sentence for a serious offence; 6 At the time this application was made, the respondent was serving a term of imprisonment for a 'serious offence' as defined by s 3 and s 5 of the HRSO Act. 7 A 'serious offence' is defined by s 5 of the HRSO Act, which relevantly provides: 5. Term used: serious offence (1) An offence is a serious offence if - (a) it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 1; or (b) it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 2, and is committed in the circumstances indicated in relation to that offence in that Division. (2) An offence is a serious offence if - (a) it was an offence under a written law that has been repealed; and (b) the offender's acts or omissions that constituted the offence under the repealed provision would constitute a serious offence under subsection (1). (3) An offence is a serious offence if it is an offence of conspiracy, attempt or incitement to commit an offence that is a serious offence under subsection (1) or (2). 8 The respondent has committed offences that come within this category. The respondent has also committed a number of offences that are not characterised as serious offences. Offences of other types may be relevant in assessing the risk of serious offences being committed in the future because other offences may be connected to behaviour which has the real potential to lead to serious offending.2 9 Section 7(1) of the HRSO Act provides that an offender is a high risk serious offender if the Court 'is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent 2 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246 [10]. -- 4 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 5 evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure the adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence'. The State has the onus of satisfying the Court that a person is a high risk serious offender. This is a greater standard than a finding on the balance of probabilities and less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt but is otherwise incapable of further definition.3 This does not necessarily mean that the risk must be at some high percentage of probability; a risk may be less than 50% yet still be unacceptable. 10 If the Court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk of the kind described in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, it necessarily follows that the person concerned is a high risk serious offender.4 However, the Court must identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, and then consider whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard, that being to a high degree of probability, furnished by acceptable and cogent evidence.5 11 In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,6 Corboy J identified that there is arguably a material difference between s 7(1) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act), read with s 17, and s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, read with s 48.7 His Honour observed that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act requires that the Court be satisfied that 'it is necessary to make a restriction order', stating:8 It is arguable that the words 'necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community' introduce a further evaluative element over and above an evaluation of whether the risk of an offender committing a serious offence is unacceptable. 12 Corboy J recognised in The State of Western Australia v Garlett that the current form of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act requires that the need to ensure adequate protection of the community form part of the Court's determination of whether the offender is a high risk serious offender (the first step in making a restriction order), and should not merely be 3 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 (GTR) [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 4 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 (Williams) [66], [68] (Wheeler JA); GTR [21] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 5 GTR [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 6 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 (Garlett). 7 Garlett [133]. 8 Garlett [135]. -- 5 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 6 the paramount consideration in deciding what form of order should be made in respect to an offender who has been found to be a high risk serious offender (the second step).9 13 In The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3],10 Quinlan CJ agreed with Corboy J's construction of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act. 14 I also agree with Corboy J's construction of the HRSO Act. Therefore, the Court is required to make two evaluative judgments under s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, being first, whether the risk of future offending is unacceptable and, second, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community. 15 The Court could find that it is not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community despite the Court finding that the risk of future offending was unacceptable. As Quinlan CJ observed, it would be a rare situation that the Court would find that it was not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community notwithstanding that it has been found that the risk of future offending was unacceptable.11 Quinlan CJ gave the example where 'other external restraints on an offender (such as a post-sentence supervision order (PSSO) under the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA)) may provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence (such that a restriction order is not 'necessary')'.12 16 A finding that there is an unacceptable risk involves a balancing exercise requiring the Court:13 [T]o have regard to, among other things, the nature of the risk (the commission of a serious sexual offence, with serious consequences for the victim) and the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition whilst having regard, on the other hand, to the serious consequences for the respondent if an order is made (either detention, without having committed an unpunished offence, or being required to undergo what might be an onerous supervision order). 17 An unacceptable risk in the context of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act is therefore a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of 9 Garlett [139]. 10 The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412 (D'Rozario [No 3]). 11 D'Rozario [No 3] [21]. 12 D'Rozario [No 3] [21]. 13 Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116 [46]. -- 6 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 7 considerations. These may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of serious offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted), and the consequences of finding that an unacceptable risk exists. 18 I am required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of the respondent offending and the nature of the offence likely to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent has already been punished for the offences he has committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that he is subject to further control or detention.14 19 In Garlett v The State of Western Australia,15 the High Court stated: Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the Court'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 be the offender's entitlement to be at liberty, an entitlement not lightly to be denied. The Court must consider whether a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. 20 Section 7(3) of the HRSO Act sets out a number of matters that the Court must have regard to in considering whether a person is a serious danger to the community. Those matters are: (3) In considering whether it is satisfied as required by subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following – (a) any report prepared under section 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section; (b) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender; (c) information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future; (d) whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender; 14 Williams [63] (Wheeler JA). 15 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 [73]; (2022) CLR 1 (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ). -- 7 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 8 (e) any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme; (f) whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender; (g) the offender's antecedents and criminal record; (h) the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence; (i) the need to protect members of the community from that risk; (j) any other relevant matter. 21 I note that s 7(3)(j) of the HRSO Act provides that the list of matters to be considered by the Court is not limited by those otherwise delineated in s 7(3). 22 While s 7(3)(g) of the HRSO Act provides that the Court must have regard to the offender's criminal record in deciding whether a person is a serious danger to the community, the mere fact that a person has committed previous offences does not necessarily mean that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious offence in the future. The relevance of a prior criminal record would depend on the nature of the offences committed, the number of offences, and the period of time over which they occurred. However, past behaviour is often a good indicator of future conduct. 23 If the Court determines that an offender is a high risk serious offender, then the Court is required to make a restriction order.16 24 The term 'restriction order' is defined in s 3 of the HRSO Act to mean 'a continuing detention order' or 'a supervision order'. The terms 'continuing detention order' and 'supervision order' are defined in s 26 and s 27 respectively, in similar terms to those that were used in the DSO Act.17 16 High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 48. 17 Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) s 17. -- 8 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 9 25 Section 26 of the HRSO Act provides: (1) In this Act a continuing detention order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment. (2) A continuing detention order has effect in accordance with its terms from the time the order is made until rescinded by a further order of the court. 26 Section 27 of the HRSO Act provides: (1) In this Act a supervision order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers appropriate, in accordance with section 30. (2) A supervision order has effect in accordance with its terms – (a) from a date stated in the order; and (b) for a period stated in the order. (3) The date from which a supervision order has effect must not be earlier than 21 days after the date the order is made unless the court is satisfied that the implementation of the order from an earlier date is practically feasible. 27 In making a determination between those two alternatives, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.18 28 However, other considerations do apply. The use of the word 'adequate' in the section indicates that a qualitative assessment is required. It cannot be assumed that the most preventative action is detention and that therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order.19 29 Given the more onerous nature of a continuing detention order, the scheme of the HRSO Act requires that the Court do no more than is necessary for the continuing control, care or treatment of the offender to achieve an adequate degree of protection of the community.20 30 Section 29 of the HRSO Act provides that the Court cannot make a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, 18 High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 48(2). 19 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [14] (Decke). 20 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 [24]; Decke [15]. -- 9 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 10 that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order. The onus of proof is on the respondent pursuant to s 29(2) of the HRSO Act. 31 The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.21 32 The term 'standard condition', in relation to a supervision order, is defined by s 3 of the HRSO Act as meaning a condition that under s 30(2) must be included in the order. Section 30(2) of the HRSO Act provides seven conditions that must be included in any court ordered supervision order. Therefore, the respondent must satisfy the Court that he will substantially comply with those standard conditions before the Court can make a supervision order. The seven standard conditions set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act require that the person: (a) report to a community corrections officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the offender's current name and address; and (b) report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court; and (c) notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens; and (d) be under the supervision of a community corrections officer and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); and (e) not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer; and (f) not commit a serious offence during the period of the order; and (g) be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31. 21 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. -- 10 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 11 Evidence 33 The State tendered a Book of Materials in three volumes that comprised the relevant material pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act.22 The State relied upon the oral testimony of four witnesses, namely Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, Forensic Consultant Psychiatrist; Dr Ben Bannister, Consultant Forensic Psychologist; Ms Emma Cashmore, HRSO Planning Manager at the Department of Justice and author of the Treatment Options Report; and, Mr Matthew Wyatt, Community Corrections Officer at the Department of Justice and author of the updated Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 11 March 2026. 34 The respondent did not give evidence nor adduce any evidence. 35 I now turn to the matters relevant to determining whether or not the respondent is a high risk serious offender pursuant to s 7 of the HRSO Act. I will do so by considering the evidence in the context of the HRSO Act. Factors under s 7 of the HRSO Act History of offending and antecedents - s 7(3)(c), s 7(3)(d) and s (7)(g) 36 In deciding whether a person is a high risk serious offender, the Court must have regard to the person's antecedents and criminal record. That requires that all prior offences be considered, to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act. 37 The criminal record and antecedents are relevant in and of themselves, but are also relevant as to whether the person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future,23 and as to whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour.24 Antecedents 38 The respondent is now 48 years of age, being the oldest of three children. The respondent's parents separated when he was 12 years of age. 22 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials. 23 High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 7(3)(c). 24 High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 7(3)(d). -- 11 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 12 39 The respondent was never close with anyone in his family and did not confide in them when he began hearing voices at the age of 10.25 40 The respondent has had an established diagnosis of schizophrenia since 2012 and had been engaged with the Community Forensic Mental Health Services prior to his imprisonment. The mental health challenges of the respondent are significant. 41 In an Occupational Therapy Functional Capacity Assessment report produced by Ms Tidmarsh, Occupational Therapist, dated 23 October 2024, the key areas of support required were identified as including medication management, meal planning and preparation, activities of daily living, social relationships and communication.26 The assessment concluded that the respondent's level of capacity requires 24/7 support during the day and 1:2 support ratio for the majority of the day and at night. 42 The Respondent's score of the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) determined that his percentage disability was 75% which puts the respondent in the severe functional limitation level. The respondent's Care and Needs Scale (CANS) result achieved a score of 7 which suggests that he cannot be left alone and requires 24/7 care.27 43 On 1 April 2025, the State Administrative Tribunal ordered that there be a plenary administrator of the respondent's estate and a guardian be appointed. The respondent has now been granted significant NDIS support. 44 The respondent suffers from Type 2 diabetes which requires daily insulin injections and hyperthyroidism which is treated with medication. 45 The respondent's last employment was in 2011 when he worked in a call centre and since that time, he has been receiving a disability pension. Relevant criminal history 46 The respondent has committed a significant number of offences in Western Australia. The respondent's offending history is outlined in his 25 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, page 595. 26 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, pages 529 - 580. 27 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, pages 549 - 550. -- 12 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 13 criminal record which forms part of the material relied upon by the State.28 The offending history is summarised, in part, in a chronology of offending which was received in evidence.29 I will outline the index offending and then turn to the respondent's other convictions. Index offence 47 On 4 August 2022, the respondent committed the index offence of indecent dealing with a child under 13 years contrary to s 320(4) of the Criminal Code (WA) and received a term of two years immediate imprisonment. 48 The factual circumstances of the offending involved the respondent approaching an 11-year-old girl (the victim) through a reserve park in Armadale while she was accompanied by her younger brother and his friend, both aged 8 years. The respondent spoke to the victim briefly before using his left hand to rub and squeeze the victim's chest. The victim pushed the respondent away and ran from him with the two other children. The incident was captured on CCTV. The respondent subsequently stated the victim 'was into it' and that she was 'a naughty girl'. Other serious offences 49 The respondent has committed other offences of a sexual nature against children which are also deemed as serious offences under the HRSO Act. On 17 May 2019, the respondent was convicted of eight counts of exposing a child under 13 years to indecent matter contrary to s 204B(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, one count of involving a child in child exploitation contrary to s 217(2) of the Criminal Code, and two counts of using electronic communication to expose a child under 16 years to indecent matter contrary to s 204B(2)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code. Other offences 50 The respondent has committed other offences not deemed as serious under the HRSO Act. Relevantly, the offending includes a conviction on 23 October 2006 of indecent assault contrary to s 323 of the Criminal Code. The offending involved the respondent grabbing the breast of a woman unknown to him. The respondent was sentenced to a two year intensive supervision order. The respondent has 28 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal Record of the Respondent, pages 1 - 7. 29 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Chronology of Offending, pages 8 - 11. -- 13 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 14 17 convictions of breaching a violence restraining order contrary to s 13 of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). Propensity to commit serious offences in the future - s 7(3)(c) & whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour - s 7(3)(d) 51 The word 'propensity' is taken to have its ordinary meaning in the context of the criminal law. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR, Murray AJA stated that:30 [Propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder. 52 The question of whether the respondent has a propensity to commit a serious offence in the future and whether there is a pattern to his offending are informed by his antecedents; in particular, his past offending, and by the assessments that have been made by the experts who have assessed his risk of offending.31 53 The respondent has committed a series of serious sexual offences against female children which were the subject of two separate prosecutions on indictment in the District Court. The index offences were committed approximately four months after the respondent was released subject to a PSSO made in respect to the respondent's 11 convictions in 2019 for offending comprising exposing a child under 13 years of age to indecent matter, one count of involving a child in child exploitation and two counts of using electronic communication to expose a child under 16 years of age to indecent matter. 54 Dr Wojnarowska observed that there has been an escalation in respect to the respondent's offending from online offences to physical contact with an intention to penetrate the victim of the respondent's 2018 offending.32 The respondent has used extensive grooming when engaging in online offending. The targeted victims of the respondent's offending are prepubescent female children. 55 The State submits that the respondent has a propensity to commit sexual offences against prepubescent female children that are unknown 30 GTR [178] (Murray AJA). 31 The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [116]. 32 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, page 590. -- 14 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 15 and unconnected to him. I agree with that submission and find that the respondent has that propensity. Efforts to address offending behaviour and whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect - s 7(3)(e) and s 7(3)(f) 56 I must also consider if the respondent has made any efforts to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including by participating in any rehabilitation programs and whether or not the participation has had a positive effect. 57 The respondent has undertaken a number of courses including the Pathways Program and Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program. 58 The Pathways Program was undertaken in 2020 and comprised 50 sessions delivered over 100 hours. It is reported that the respondent attended 49 of the 50 sessions, having missed one session due to a hospital visit, and that he 'generally presented as an attentive and motivated participant in the program'.33 During the program, the respondent also resumed taking his medication for his schizophrenia, experimenting with different doses to determine effectiveness and minimise problematic side effects. Further, throughout the course the respondent was able to identify negative thought patterns he would have before using drugs.34 The respondent identified long term goals as including seizing to engage in criminal and antisocial behaviour and addressing both his substance abuse and self-regulation and self-control. 59 In respect to the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program, the Program was targeted to the respondent's assessed needs, including relationship difficulties, self-regulation difficulties, and sexual issues.35 The respondent undertook the program from 2020 to 2021. The respondent ceased taking his medication during the program without prior consultation with health professionals or facilitators. It was also noted that the respondent demonstrated little insight of his presentation when he ceased medication and struggled to accept feedback that he needed to continue his medical regime.36 33 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Pathways Program Report, page 483. 34 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Pathways Program Report, page 484. 35 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program Report, page 494. 36 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program Report, page 494. -- 15 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 16 Psychiatric reports prepared under s 74 and extent to which the respondent cooperated with examination - s 7(3)(a) - Dr Wojnarowska 60 Dr Wojnarowska, Forensic Consultant Psychiatrist, produced two reports, dated 5 November 202437 and 18 November 202538 respectively, and gave evidence at the hearing.39 61 Dr Wojnarowska diagnosed that the respondent meets the criteria for paedophilia, non-exclusive type, attracted to female children. Further, Dr Wojnarowska stated that there is a possibility of a diagnosis of paraphilia frotteurism and voyeurism.40 62 In addition, Dr Wojnarowska confirmed the previous diagnosis of the respondent as suffering from chronic, treatment-resistant schizophrenia with prominent negative symptoms. Dr Wojnarowska observed that this diagnosis is well-documented and established by previous medical practitioners. The respondent has a history of psychotic symptoms as early as childhood. The respondent's illness has been treatment-resistant. In addition to psychotic symptoms, the respondent has persistent impairment of social functioning which has consequently led to a lack of intimate relationships and meaningful non-intimate relationships. 63 The respondent fulfils the criteria for substance use disorder, namely amphetamines and alcohol dependence. This condition is currently in remission due to his incarceration. 64 Dr Wojnarowska undertook an assessment of the respondent's risk of reoffending utilising the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, (2nd Edition) (PCL-R), the Static-99R, and the RSVP. 65 In respect to the Static-99R assessment, Dr Wojnarowska said that in routine samples of sexual offenders the average five-year sexual recidivism rate is between 5% and 15%. The respondent scored 5 on the Static-99R and after adjustment his risk is assessed as above average risk. 66 The PCL-R assesses the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy. Dr Wojnarowska determined that the respondent's total score of 16 did 37 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, pages 585 - 606. 38 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, pages 898 - 913. 39 ts 84 - 105 (31/3/2026). 40 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, page 598. -- 16 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 17 not reach the threshold for psychopathy. There were, however, elevations in the Factor 1, Facet of 'Affective', which is consistent with being manipulative, lacking remorse and lacking empathy.41 67 The RSVP produces a structured professional judgment assessment which has been guided by psychological theory. Dr Wojnarowska stated that the RSVP is intended to evaluate conduct and comprehensively assess the risk of sexual violence in clinical and forensic settings. Dr Wojnarowska stated chronic and escalation of sexual violence is partially present in the respondent's case. The longevity of his offending and the admitted multiple occasions of voyeurism and frotteurism self-reported by the respondent are contributing to the presence of chronicity.42 68 Dr Wojnarowska found a number of risk factor variables present or partially present for the respondent. The factors included diversity of sexual violence (partially present), escalation of offending, psychological coercion, extreme minimisation or denial of sexual violence, attitudes that support or condone sexual violence, major mental illness, substance use problems and problems with supervision (partially present).43 69 Dr Wojnarowska confirmed the most likely risk scenarios for future offending will occur in the context of alcohol and/or methamphetamine use. In such circumstances, the respondent may become disinhibited and overtly sexualised when intoxicated. The respondent would attempt to engage an unknown female child into a sexual discussion online which would then escalate to attempts at meeting the child in person. The respondent would attempt to sexually penetrate the child. 70 Dr Wojnarowska also expressed the opinion that an indecent assault of a stranger, either a child or adult female in a public place, was likely. Such offending would be impulsive, commencing with attempts to engage in frotteurism which would then escalate. 71 Dr Wojnarowska stated that the respondent is at a high risk of sexually reoffending in a serious manner, but that that risk could be adequately managed in the community subject to a supervision order. 41 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, page 600. 42 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, page 600. 43 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Wojnarowska, pages 600 - 604. -- 17 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 18 72 Dr Wojnarowska stated that the supervision order should be five years in duration. 73 Dr Wojnarowska recommends that the respondent be placed on a Community Treatment Order. Psychological report prepared under s 74 and extent to which the respondent cooperated with examination - s 7(3)(a) 74 Dr Bannister, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, produced two reports, dated 6 December 202444 and 11 November 202545 respectively, and gave evidence at the hearing.46 75 Dr Bannister outlined the respondent's relevant history, noting that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder in 2012. Further, in 2019 the respondent was assessed to have dependent, narcissistic and antisocial personality traits as well as having auditory hallucinations which were not properly medicated.47 76 Dr Bannister stated that during his consultation assessment the respondent told him that he had a preoccupation with pornography that increased with his methamphetamine use. Further, he stated that as the respondent matured his sexual preference has skewed towards younger people and more recently this has extended to children, including prepubescent children.48 77 Dr Bannister undertook an assessment of the respondent's risk of reoffending utilising the PCL-R and the Violence Risk Scale: Sex Offender Version (VRS:SO). 78 Dr Bannister assessed the respondent as being within the moderate range of the PCL-R which is less than the clinical cutoff score for psychopathy. 79 VRS:SO is a clinical judgment tool designed to assess risk and predict sexual recidivism. Utilising the VRS:SO, Dr Bannister determined that a number of risk factors are relevant in respect to the respondent's risk of sexual offending. The respondent's total score on the static (historical) variable is 15 out of a possible 21 placing him in 44 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, pages 607 - 630. 45 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, pages 914 - 920. 46 ts 106 - 114 (31/3/2026). 47 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, page 612. 48 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, page 610. -- 18 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 19 the percentile range of 93.7%.49 The dynamic variables are changeable and may reflect changes in risk after treatment. The respondent's score on the dynamic variables is 43 out of a possible score of 51 placing him in the percentile range of 99.7%. 80 The respondent's total score, combining both static and dynamic variables, is 58 out of 72 which places him in the 'high risk' category of sexual reoffending. 81 The VRS:SO identified several areas of treatment required for the respondent including his sexual compulsivity, cognitive distortions, emotion and behavioural control, insight, substance use, intimacy deficits/social skills and sexual deviancy.50 82 In respect to likely risk scenarios, Dr Bannister stated that it is likely to involve the respondent acting on his sexual deviancy against a child victim through poor sexual and self-regulation and most likely whilst disinhibited through substances.51 83 Dr Bannister expressed the opinion that the respondent poses a high risk of serious reoffending if not subject to an order under the HRSO Act. Dr Bannister says that a supervision order would manage the risk in the community but should be of a duration of at least five years as the respondent may take some time to consolidate and internalise the skills required to successfully self-manage his risk.52 Section 7(3)(b) medical or other assessments relating to the respondent - Treatment Options Report 84 Ms Cashmore, Community Corrections Officer, produced a Treatment Options Report (TOR)53 and gave evidence at the hearing but only to confirm that the respondent has been tentatively allocated a Forensic Psychological Intervention Team clinician. It is not known when the clinician may commence due to workloads.54 85 The purpose of the TOR is to provide an overview of the respondent's intervention history and identify treatment options delivered and available through the Department. The TOR summarises the respondent's therapeutic intervention programs including the 49 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, page 622. 50 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, page 627. 51 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, page 628. 52 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Bannister, page 630. 53 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, HRSO Treatment Options Report, pages 581 - 584. 54 ts 115 (31/3/2026). -- 19 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 20 Pathways Program in 2020 and the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program in 2021. 86 Ms Cashmore states that should the respondent be made subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act, he would need to be referred for individual counselling and most likely be on a waitlist to be allocated a clinician.55 Other reports or assessments relating to the respondent - s 7(3)(b) Community Supervision Assessment Reports 87 Mr Wyatt, Senior Community Corrections Officer, gave evidence at the hearing. I also received a number of Community Supervision Assessment Reports dated 27 December 2024,56 22 May 2025,57 16 July 2025,58 26 November 2025, 59 and 11 March 2026 respectively. Mr Wyatt was appointed the respondent's Community Corrections Officer in January 2026. 88 Mr Wyatt gave evidence concerning the terms of the proposed supervision order. Mr Wyatt accepted that the proposed supervision order was amended to take into account the opinions of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister.60 89 Mr Wyatt confirmed that accommodation had been secured for the respondent that was considered appropriate. The accommodation is to be shared with another person who is also provided 24/7 support. Mr Wyatt expressed the opinion that there is likely to be some benefit for the respondent to having another person in the accommodation.61 However, it was noted that the other person has a female visitor. Both Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister recommended that the visits be managed to minimise any risk. 90 Mr Wyatt confirmed that the NDIS funding support will be managed flexibly by the respondent's support providers and with his Specialist Support Coordinator. 55 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, HRSO Treatment Options Report, page 583. 56 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, pages 631 - 655. 57 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, pages 884 - 888. 58 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, pages 889 - 892. 59 Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, pages 893 - 897. 60 ts 119 - 120 (31/3/2026). 61 ts 119 (31/3/2026). -- 20 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 21 The risk that a serious offence will be committed if a continuing detention or supervision order is not made - s7(3)(h) 91 Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister expressed the opinion that the respondent is at a high risk of committing a serious offence if he is not subject to a restriction order. 92 I am satisfied that the evidence supports the finding that the respondent is at a high risk of committing further serious sexual offences. I have outlined the likely scenarios of possible future offending when considering the opinions of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister. The need to protect members of the community from that risk - s 7(3)(i) 93 I find that there is a need to protect the community from the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order. I am satisfied that there is a need to protect the community from the risk that he will commit sexual offences against prepubescent female children. Assessment and conclusion 94 Counsel for the respondent submitted that I should be satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order and that the risk may be managed in the community with a supervision order. Counsel for the State accepted that it is open to the Court to find that the risk may be managed in the community with a supervision order. 95 After considering the evidence in respect to the factors under s 7(3) of the HRSO Act, and finding that evidence to be acceptable and cogent, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the respondent currently presents an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence under the HRSO Act. 96 Accordingly, I am satisfied there is a high degree of likelihood that the respondent will commit a serious violent offence in the future and that that risk is an unacceptable risk. 97 In respect to the evaluative judgment as to whether it is necessary to make the restriction order, I am of the opinion that it is so. I make that finding based on the experts' opinion, in respect to the respondent's risk of reoffending and committing a serious offence being at a high risk or above average risk. -- 21 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 22 98 Having determined that a restriction order should be made, it is necessary for me to determine whether a detention order or supervision order should be made. 99 The Court must choose the order that is the least invasive to the respondent's liberty, while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community. 100 In considering whether a supervision order will adequately protect the community, it is necessary to take into account any conditions which can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the respondent, his care and treatment needs, and the adequate protection of victims of offences committed by the respondent.62 101 I must also be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has established that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order under s 30 of the HRSO Act. I am satisfied. There is a significant level of support to the respondent. This will, in turn, greatly assist the respondent in complying with the standard conditions. 102 In my view, there are conditions that may be imposed under a supervision order that will provide adequate protection of the community. 103 The respondent requires extensive support in the community. The extensive support may be provided and the treatment needs addressed with the necessary restrictions that are imposed by the HRSO Act. 104 In this case, the State understandably accepts that it is appropriate for the respondent to continue in the community on a supervision order. I agree with that submission. It is wholly consistent with the expert testimony and the entire evidence led at the hearing. 105 The conditions that are to be imposed are outlined in the supervision order, which is attached as Annexure One. The conditions are extensive and serve to manage the risk in the community. 106 In respect to the duration of the supervision order, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Bannister expressed the opinion that the 62 High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 30(5). -- 22 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 23 supervision order should be of five years duration. I will impose a supervision order of five years in duration. Conclusion 107 For the above reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the respondent. Further, I have determined that the risk of reoffending may be adequately managed in the community with the imposition of a supervision order for a period of five years. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CEM Associate to the Hon Justice McGrath 30 APRIL 2026 -- 23 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 24 ANNEXURE ONE SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE MCGRATH ON 31 MARCH 2026 Pursuant to s 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act makes a supervision order (Order) in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 5 years from 28 April 2026, not being a date earlier than 28 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions: You, James SACH, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the prison on the day of your release and tell the CCO 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, including complying with any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including direction for the purposes of s 31 or s 32 of the HRSO 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 s 31 of the HRSO Act. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Reside at [redacted] and spend each night there. You can only stay at a different address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO. -- 24 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 25 Supervision by a CCO 9. Not start or change paid or unpaid employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of a CCO. Attendance at programs or treatment/Medications/Mental health 10. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending and/or designed to help you perform daily living activities, as directed by a CCO. 11. Attend and engage with appointments as directed. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO. 12. Engage with mental health services and comply with the instructions of the treating psychiatrist about treatment and medication. 13. Take any medication as directed by a medical practitioner and comply with all testing to monitor your compliance with that treatment, as directed by a CCO. 14. Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of your treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice. 15. Allow any medical practitioner to tell a CCO immediately if you know that you have: a) stopped, or plan to stop, taking medication against the advice of the medical practitioner; or b) stopped consulting with that medical practitioner about your treatment. 16. Comply with any conditions and requirements of any National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider that is providing you with any services and/or accommodation. -- 25 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 26 Reporting to WA Police 17. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 or their delegate at the nominated Police station within 48 hours of this Order commencing, and then continue to report to and receive visits from WA Police as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of SOES or their delegate. 18. If requested, allow police officers to 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. Allow any such officer to seize (take) any items that they reasonably believe to contravene any condition of this Order. 19. Remain at your premises and/or vehicle when police officers are searching your residence and/or vehicle under Condition 18. 20. When requested, tell WA Police the names of all your internet service providers, all telephone services you use and all screen names, usernames and email addresses. Disclosure/Exchange of information 21. Agree to the exchange of information, including confidential information, between people and agencies involved in carrying out this Order. 22. Allow a CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by a CCO, to speak to anyone you spend time with and, where appropriate, to tell them about this Order and your offending history. If directed by a CCO, you are required to fully or partly disclosing your past offending and this Order to anyone that you have an ongoing social association (someone you have contact with more than twice) or relationship with, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a police officer. Restrictions on contact with victims 23. Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, have no contact with the victim of your serious offending for which you were sentenced on 4 August 2022. -- 26 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 27 Contact means speaking to the victim/child in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim/child, messaging the victim/child using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim/child, and includes indirect contact with the victim/child. 24. Unless contact with the victim is allowed under Condition 23, if you see the victim, you must immediately leave where you are without speaking or gesturing to the victim and you must look away from the victim at all times. 25. Report any direct or indirect contact with the victim to a CCO and WA Police on the next working day you report to the CCO or WA Police. Criminal conduct 26. Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves: a) sexual offences; b) indecent or obscene acts; c) violence; d) threats of violence; e) possession of weapons or offensive instruments; f) breaches of restraining orders; g) breaches of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004; or h) breaches of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (for example possessing and using illicit substances). 27. Not assault, insult or use abusive or threatening language to your CCO or any other departmental officer performing a function under this Order. Curfew 28. Comply with a curfew, requiring you to remain at, and not leave, your approved address, as directed by a CCO. -- 27 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 28 29. When subject to a curfew under this Order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence: a) go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or police officer asks to see you; and b) speak on the telephone, to any CCO or police officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, if they call to check you are at home. 30. 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 WA Police or a CCO to contact you. Prevention of high-risk situations 31. Except for public transport, not enter any vehicle, including taxis and rideshare vehicles, such as Uber, where a female is present (whether that vehicle is under your control or not), unless the identity of that person is approved in advance by a CCO. 32. Not enter any home where a female lives, or is known to live, 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, or the female is a NDIS support worker or is visiting a housemate. 34. Report any unsolicited interaction with females at your home to a CCO and the SOES at your next appointment. 35. Report any new social association (someone you have contact with more than twice) or domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person to your CCO when you next report to them. 36. Not associate with any person that you know has committed a sexual offence, unless you have the prior approval of a CCO. -- 28 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 29 37. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by a CCO or by a police officer, including going with them to an appropriate place for a sample to be taken. 38. Provide a valid sample under Condition 37. 39. Not purchase, possess, consume or use alcohol. 40. Not to go to any licensed premises, with the exception of licensed cafes and restaurants, except for the following reasons: a) avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; or b) for a reason and duration approved in advance by a CCO; or c) if a CCO or police officer tells you to do so. 41. Not be in the presence of 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. 42. Not remain anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used or, if the drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of your home, or ask the people using the drugs to leave. 43. Have no contact with any child under the age of 16 years, whether in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless: a) the contact is approved in advance by a CCO and is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by a CCO; or b) the contact is necessary for a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required and another adult is present. 44. If a child under the age of 16 makes contact with you, leave where you are immediately unless the contact is approved under Condition 43. 45. Give both your CCO and WA Police the name, address, location and any other details of any contact you have with a child under the age of 16 the next time you report to each of them. -- 29 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 30 46. Not form a domestic relationship with a person who has a child, or cares for a child under the age of 16, including victims of your previous offending, without the prior approval of a CCO. 47. 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. 48. Advise a CCO or police officer of every electronic device that you use that can store digital data or information, whether or not it can connect to the internet, including the location of the device. You must advise a CCO or police officer of every new device that you use or possess within 48 hours of purchasing or first using the device, including its location. 49. Not let any person, except for a CCO or police officer, use any electronic device referred to in Condition 48 without prior approval of a CCO. If any other entity needs to access one of your devices, they must get the prior approval of a CCO. 50. If requested by a CCO or police officer, let them access any electronic device that can store digital data so that they can check your activities on that device. If requested, you must tell them any password or other means needed to unlock the device, including all screen names, usernames and email addresses. 51. Not delete or otherwise remove or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed or disguised, any data on your devices, including calls, text messages, search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that device, whether or not the device can connect to the internet, without the prior approval of a CCO or WA Police. 52. Not go to concerts, events or places where children under 16 years usually attend, without the prior approval of a CCO. 53. Not enter the premises of, or access the services of, escort agencies or sex workers, unless approved in advance by a CCO. -- 30 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 31 54. Unless approved in advance by a CCO, you are not to possess any item that is capable of enticing children to you when you are in a public place. 55. Keep and maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations, if and as directed by a CCO, and show this diary to a CCO and WA Police upon request. 56. Not collect, possess or use the internet to access any document or other medium used for displaying words that describe any sexual activity with a child. 57. Not to access social media without the prior approval of a CCO. Your CCO can define 'social media', given contemporary changes to chat functions and uses of websites for discussion with others. 58. If directed to by your CCO, you must provide your projected daily movements to your CCO in writing at your supervision sessions each week. If there are any projected movements that you are unable to provide at your supervision session, or your projected movements change, you must tell your CCO by telephone call. You must tell your CCO your projected movements for the weekend by 3.00 pm on the Friday before that weekend. You must not make the movement unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, except for the following circumstances: a) to get urgent medical or dental treatment for yourself; b) to avoid or minimise a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; c) to obey an order issued under a written law (such as a summons) requiring you to be somewhere else; d) if told to do so by a CCO and/or police officer; or e) if accompanied by a support worker. ______________________________ THE HON JUSTICE MCGRATH -- 31 of 32 -- [2026] WASC 160 MCGRATH J Page 32 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. I authorise police officers from the WA Police Force to access any cloud-based platforms or services associated with the devices I use and examine the internet accounts at any time for the purposes of monitoring my online behaviour (absence any investigation for any offence). I understand and acknowledge WA Police Force will use passwords or tokens located within my devices to access any cloud-based platforms and services that a password may not be required. By authorising this, I understand and acknowledge a police officer from the WA Police Force may change the password(s) to these accounts so I will no longer have access. Signed by the Respondent _________________________________ JAMES SACH In the presence of: _________________________________ Name and address: _________________________________ _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ -- 32 of 32 --