THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- DAL [2026] WASC 147

[2026] WASC 147 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- DAL [No 6] [2026] WASC 147 CORAM : LEMONIS J HEARD : 16 MARCH 2026 DELIVERED : 28 APRIL 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 2 of 2015 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND DAL Respondent Catchwords: Application for a restriction order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Respondent previously the subject of a supervision order - State seeks a new restriction order in the form of a supervision order Legislation: Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 Page 2 Result: Respondent found to be a high risk serious offender Supervision order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : G Colborne Respondent : T Hager Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Legal Aid (WA) Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 State of Western Australia v Jackson [2019] WASCA 118 The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 -- 2 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 3 LEMONIS J: Introduction 1 These reasons concern an application by the State of Western Australia for a restriction order to be made in respect of the respondent pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). 2 By way of initial background, on 11 June 2015, the respondent was declared to be a dangerous sexual offender under the now repealed Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act), and a continuing detention order (CDO) was made. 3 On 24 August 2017, the CDO was rescinded and a supervision order was made for eight years. Pursuant to s 125 of the HRSO Act, that supervision order is taken to have been made as a supervision order under the HRSO Act. 4 The respondent was subsequently the subject of contravention proceedings, and on 19 July 2022, the supervision order was affirmed and amended. 5 The supervision order was due to expire on 14 September 2025. 6 On 11 July 2025, the State filed its application for a new restriction order. The application was brought pursuant to s 36 of the HRSO Act, which authorises the State to apply for a new restriction order in the year prior to the expiration of an existing supervision order. As part of its application, the State also sought an order pursuant to s 58(3) that the existing s upervision order continue until the State's application is finally determined. 7 On 29 August 2025, at the necessary preliminary hearing, I found that the criterion under s 46 of HRSO Act was met, and I made an order extending the existing supervision order until the final determination of the State's application. Specific orders sought and material relied on 8 The State seeks a finding that the respondent is a high risk serious offender and seeks a restriction order in the form of a supervision order. 9 DAL opposes the State's application and says that the risk he presents can be adequately managed in the community, when regard is -- 3 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 4 had to his present circumstances, and to his obligations under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (CPOR Act). 10 The material for the hearing comprised of three books of materials and also a performance report dated 4 July 2022. A number of other documents were tendered during the hearing. 11 At the hearing, the State called Dr Wojnarowska, a psychiatrist, and Dr Galloghly, a psychologist. Both had prepared reports directed to the respondent's risk of offending. The State also called Ms Manton, who is the community corrections officer responsible for supervising DAL. Ms Manton is also a co-endorsee of the most recent community supervision assessment report that is before me. 12 DAL did not give evidence and did not call any witnesses. 13 As will become apparent, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly assessed DAL's risk of committing a serious offence at different levels. Dr Wojnarowska assessed that risk as being high, whereas Dr Galloghly assessed DAL's risk as being in the below average, or low to moderate risk, category. The State urges me to accept Dr Wojnarowska's opinion in preference to that of Dr Galloghly. Relevant provisions of the HRSO Act 14 Section 48 sets out the court's power to make a restriction order. It provides: (1) If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that the offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must — (a) make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make a supervision order in relation to the offender. (2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1)(a) or (b), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. 15 Pursuant to s 48, if the court finds the offender is a high risk serious offender the court must make a continuing detention order or a supervision order. The ability to make a supervision order is subject to s 29, which provides that the offender must satisfy the court on the -- 4 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 5 balance of probabilities that they will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order. 16 Section 7(1) defines the phrase 'high risk serious offender' as follows: An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. 17 The phrase 'high degree of probability' connotes a standard that is more than the civil standard of balance of probabilities but less than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The State has the onus of satisfying the court to this standard that DAL is a high risk serious offender.1 18 In considering whether I am satisfied that DAL is a high risk serious offender, I must have regard to the matters that are set out at s 7(3)(a) - (j). Section 7(3)(j) is a 'catch all' type provision, which in effect provides that I must have regard to any other relevant matter in addition to those set out at s 3(a) - (i). 19 In The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2],2 I analysed the application of the HRSO Act, in particular by reference to the joint judgment of Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ, and the separate judgment of Edelman J in Garlett v Western Australia.3 20 I remain of the view that the assessment of whether a person is a high risk serious offender is undertaken as follows:4 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 possible harm. The assessment of the nature and extent of the possible harm directs attention to the possible serious offences that might be committed and the harm they may cause. It also directs attention to the likelihood that the offender might commit such offences (that is, the likelihood the risk might eventuate). The extent to which deterrent factors have operated to reduce risk in the past feeds into the assessment of current and future risk, as does the offender's 1 HRSO Act, s 7(2). 2 The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215. 3 Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; Williams [22] - [38]. 4 Williams [39] - [40]. -- 5 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 6 historical and current response to rehabilitation. These are all factors that inform the assessment of whether the risk is 'unacceptable'. They are by no means exhaustive … If the risk is found to be 'unacceptable', the nature and extent of that unacceptable risk then informs the assessment of whether a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. And, as Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ explained, the assessment of whether the order is necessary requires recognition that an offender's entitlement to be at liberty is not lightly to be denied. 21 In respect of the significance to be attached to expert opinions, in Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v GTR, Steytler P and Buss JA said in respect of the DSO Act:5 … Although there is no doubt, under the Western Australian Act, that a court must have regard to the psychiatrists' reports (and must bear in mind that the authors have an area of expertise not shared by the court), the reports are only a part of the materials that must be considered and the weight to be accorded to them will depend upon their cogency and reliability, when considered in the light of the whole of the evidence. The responsibility for deciding whether or not the offender is a serious danger to the community as defined and, if so, what order should be made is that of the judge alone. 22 Their Honours' observations apply with equal force to expert evidence given in respect of applications brought under the HRSO Act. DAL's personal circumstances and history of offending 23 DAL is now 76 years of age. He is in good physical health. He has lived at the same accommodation for a significant period of time. He has positive support at that accommodation. He engages in positive activities, including gardening and doing handy man type work. He takes sertraline which is managed by his general practitioner. 24 DAL's personal history is sufficiently summarised in the following extract from Dr Galloghly's report:6 [DAL] was one of four siblings. He was taken into state care when he was five years old after his father had deserted the family. He had limited relationships with his parents, and his mother had psychiatric issues. His parents are now deceased. [DAL] resided in various care and foster homes as a child. He has subsequently received compensation for child sexual abuse when in the care of a Christian Brothers facility. He has also reported being sexually abused by foster 5 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 [62]. 6 Book of Material Vol 3, page 812, par 9. -- 6 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 7 carers. [DAL] was assessed as being emotionally deprived, insecure, isolated and having borderline defective intelligence as a child. He was also placed in special education classes. 25 Beech J summarised DAL's history of offending in his Honour's reasons concerning the first review of the CDO. I respectfully adopt his Honour's summary:7 DAL was convicted of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 13 years in July 1975 when he was 25 years old. The respondent sexually offended against his daughter, LML, from 1979 to 1986, beginning when LML was 6 years old. The offending began with touching of the breasts and vagina, progressing to penile penetration when she was 10 years old. He was convicted on his pleas of guilty of sexually penetrating LML and was sentenced in 1987 to a total effective sentence of 6 years. The respondent was in custody from 1986 until 1989 when he was granted a work release order and then parole. He commenced offending against his nephew, RJL, in the car on the way home from prison. The offending escalated to various forms of penetration and continued until the respondent went back to prison in October 1991. As will be seen, when he was released from prison, he resumed his offending. In mid-1990, the respondent commenced offending against RGH, who was 11 years old and the younger brother of a member of a children's football team that the respondent coached. The respondent was convicted of two counts of unlawfully indecently dealing with a child (RGH) under the age of 13 years on 30 October 1991. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 3 years' imprisonment. The respondent was released from prison during 1993 on a work release order and was granted parole in November 1993. Shortly after release from prison in June 1993, the respondent recommenced offending with RJL, his nephew. His sexual abuse of RJL continued regularly until January 2000. In November 2003, the respondent was convicted on his own plea of guilty of a number of offences of child abuse and sexual penetration of a child (RJL) between July 1989 and January 2000. He was sentenced 7 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v DAL [No 2] [2016] WASC 212 [6] - [16]. -- 7 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 8 to a total effective sentence of 12 years' imprisonment, backdated to June 2003, with no eligibility for parole. The respondent was in custody from June 2003 until 2015 when the continuing detention order was made. The expert evidence Dr Wojnarowska 26 Dr Wojnarowska is a psychiatrist. She has provided expert reports in respect of DAL since the first annual review of his CDO was undertaken in June 2016. 27 Dr Wojnarowska provided a written report for the hearing and also gave evidence at the hearing. 28 In her written report, Dr Wojnarowska said that DAL continues to fulfil the criteria for a diagnosis of paedophilia, attracted predominantly towards males.8 In oral evidence, she said her diagnosis of paedophilia is not likely to change in the future.9 She said that while sexual drive decreases with age,10 deviant sexual interests are likely to persist over a lifetime.11 29 Dr Wojnarowska explained in her report that DAL takes sertraline medication. In oral evidence, Dr Wojnarowska explained the characteristics of sertraline. She said it is an anti-depressant that also has the effect of reducing libido. She said that in DAL's case, it works both for his history of depression and anxiety, and also should reduce his libido and should reduce his deviant sexual thoughts about children.12 30 In her report, Dr Wojnarowka said that DAL had told her that he was very happy with the medication, adding that his physical and mental state is stable.13 She said that DAL felt confident that, with the supports and pharmacological treatment he has been receiving, and the restrictions placed on him by the supervision order, he poses no risk to the community.14 8 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 801, par 46. 9 ts 434. 10 ts 434. 11 ts 435. 12 ts 434. 13 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 799, par 33. 14 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 801, par 43. -- 8 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 9 31 She conducted a Static-99R assessment of DAL. His total score was three. Dr Wojnarowska halved that score to take account of DAL's eight years living in the community without committing any sexual offence. She then treated the resultant score of one and a half, as a two. That score correlates with an average risk band of sexual recidivism. Had Dr Wojnarowska rounded down the score of one and a half to a one, that score would also fit within the average risk band.15 32 Dr Wojnarowska also assessed factors arising under the RSVP tool, but did not appear to express a separate view as to his risk category solely from the use of that tool.16 33 In respect of DAL's treatment, Dr Wojnarowska explained in her report that:17 [DAL] expressed the view that he would not like to come off the medication as he could not state with certainty that he wouldn't act on sexual thoughts related to children. It was discussed that medication taken for anti-libidinal purposes should form one component of a more comprehensive set of risk management strategies, including those developed during psychological intervention. While [DAL] agreed, he stated that he lacked confidence to manage his sexual urges in the absence of medication. 34 Dr Wojnarowska said in her oral evidence that DAL told her this during her interview with him, which was conducted on 14 October 2025.18 35 Dr Wojnarowska identified the following risk scenarios:19 High-risk situations and contexts for relapse pertain to his experience of stress, social isolation, and negative emotionality related to managing his deviant sexual interest in prepubescent children (boys particularly). The protective factors include his non-psychopathic personality structure, his current level of community engagement, and no history of substance abuse. If [DAL] were to reoffend, it is likely to be in a similar manner to his previous offences, which were predominantly intra-familiar, associated with a period of grooming. The likely victim will be a pre-pubescent male with whom [DAL] forms a long term "relationship". 15 ts 436. 16 Book of Materials, Vol 3, pages 803 - 807, pars 54 - 81. 17 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 806, par 76. 18 ts 437; Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 795, par 7. 19 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 807, pars 80 - 81. -- 9 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 10 36 In the conclusion to her report, Dr Wojnarowska expressed the following opinion:20 I am of the opinion that [DAL] remains at a high risk of committing a serious sexual offence as defined by the HRSO Act if not subject to the relevant legislation. His extensive trauma history means that he would continue to experience difficulties with self-management, interpersonal functioning, and judgement. Therefore, developing skills in self-regulation and maintaining his connection to his pro-social support network to manage interpersonal relationships are important. These treatment needs have remained present despite extensive involvement in psychological intervention over more than two decades. As such, supervision and monitoring should be prioritised over individual psychological intervention, which does not require to be a condition of his Restriction Order. 37 She was also of the view that DAL's risk of sexual offending can continue to be managed in the community.21 38 The following additional matters arise from Dr Wojnarowska's oral evidence. 39 She was of the opinion that the current curfew and diary components of the supervision order are not necessary.22 40 Dr Wojnarowska said there are three factors that explain why DAL has not re-offended for the eight years he has been on the supervision order. First, he was very well supported in the community and he managed to develop very good connections within the community, together with social supports. Second, his use of medications. Third, he does not want to re-offend and he would not want to hurt any more children in his life.23 41 Dr Wojnarowska was asked how important the supervision order was, and she said that DAL made it very clear to her that 'he does not feel confident to manage his deviant sexual interest in children when he is not supported'.24 42 As to the length of the supervision order she said that 'perhaps two years on this occasion would be sufficient'.25 20 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 807, par 82. 21 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 807, par 83. 22 ts 439. 23 ts 438. 24 ts 438. 25 ts 438. -- 10 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 11 43 Dr Wojnarowska explained the significance of DAL accessing non-indecent images of children. She said that even non-indecent images can trigger deviant sexual fantasies.26 44 In cross-examination, Dr Wojnarowska said that contact offences are less likely now and are certainly not imminent.27 She said there is a greater risk that DAL will commit an offence such as a child exploitation material offence.28 She accepted that DAL was aware that possessing child exploitation material was unlawful and would bring him to the attention of the authorities.29 45 Further, she accepted that he is aware that under his community offender monitoring obligations, the police can access his devices.30 Dr Galloghly 46 Dr Galloghly is a psychologist, who also provided a written report for the hearing and gave evidence at the hearing. 47 In his report, Dr Galloghly explained that DAL reported he 'manages risk by avoiding children when possible and not placing himself in situations where he could be accused of wrongdoing'.31 Further, DAL considers that he now has a low libido, which he attributed to his age and anti-depressant medication.32 48 Using the Static-99R assessment tool, Dr Galloghly assessed DAL in the below average risk band.33 In very broad terms, Dr Galloghly assessed that DAL's Static-99R score was three. He then took into account that DAL had spent eight years sexual offence free in the community. He then applied a model adopted in academic literature,34 and concluded that DAL was in the below average risk band on the Static-99R assessment tool.35 49 Using the RSVP-V2 assessment tool, Dr Galloghly assessed DAL's risk of sexual recidivism as low to moderate. 26 ts 438 - 439. 27 ts 440. 28 ts 440. 29 ts 440. 30 ts 440. 31 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 818, par 47. 32 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 818, par 46. 33 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 820, pars 56 - 57. 34 The model became Exhibit 7. 35 ts 416, 428 and Exhibit 7. -- 11 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 12 50 Overall, Dr Galloghly assessed DAL's risk of committing a serious offence under the HRSO Act as being in the below average or low to moderate risk category.36 51 Dr Galloghly identified that sexual deviancy, in particular DAL's paedophilia, remains his most prominent risk factor. Dr Galloghly said that should DAL sexually reoffend, he is more likely to commit an offence associated with viewing child sexual exploitation material.37 52 As to the potential risk scenarios, Dr Galloghly said:38 Should [DAL] sexually reoffend, he is most likely to offend by viewing child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online, with some form of distress being the catalyst. This scenario is likely to be preceded by viewing non-indecent images of children online before progressing to CSEM. This scenario is more likely due to the ease of online access. An escalation to contact sexual offending would likely necessitate [DAL] forming a relationship with an adult with a child and then grooming the family and victim. The victim would likely be a young male, given his homosexual preference. This scenario is less likely given [DAL's] advanced age and limited opportunities to form such relationships. The awareness of his social network (ie his paedophilia and risk), along with his management paedophilia and internal restraints, such as victim empathy, low sexual drive, and fear of losing his current lifestyle, further reduces the likelihood. Additionally, [DAL] does not experience impulsivity or substance abuse issues that could heighten risk. 53 Dr Galloghly was of the opinion that:39 There is little benefit for a new HRSO community supervision order beyond monitoring [DAL] for the rest of his life due to his paedophilia, with him being aware of the consequences of breaching his order. There are no rehabilitation improvements to be made given his positive functioning, support and lifestyle. There is also limited benefit to many typical CSO restrictions, such as urinalysis testing or exclusion zones, as [DAL] does not have a substance use issue and his offending was predicated on relationship building, as opposed to offending against strangers. While having no CSO order in place may restrict risk management, [DAL's] overall risk of reoffending was assessed as being below average. Protective factors include his advanced age, which is linked to 36 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 823, par 61. 37 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 823, par 62. 38 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 824, pars 65 - 66. 39 Book of Materials, Vol 3, pages 824 - 825, pars 72 - 73. -- 12 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 13 reduced sexual drive and function; his strong support system that is aware of his offending and actively works to reduce risk; [DAL's] apparent empathy for his victims; and the importance he places on his current quality of life, along with his fear of losing it should he reoffend. He will also remain subject to restrictions and monitoring as a reportable offender under the Community Protection (offender Reporting) Act 2004. 54 In his oral evidence, Dr Galloghly said that there is a benefit in DAL continuing to use SSRI (sertraline) medication, observing that DAL seems to think it helps him and therefore it is beneficial in continuing.40 55 In cross-examination, Dr Galloghly agreed that DAL was more likely to reoffend by a child sexual exploitation material offence, and that 'contact offending' was less likely.41 56 Dr Galloghly identified important factors in reducing DAL's risk were his advanced age, his support structures, and his awareness that authorities could search his electronic devices and search history.42 Dr Galloghly accepted that DAL's treatment position is 'as advanced as it's going to be'.43 57 Dr Galloghly clarified that his opinion that DAL was at a below average risk of reoffending related to a combination of child sexual contact offending and possession of child exploitation material offences.44 58 I asked Dr Galloghly to explain what, if any, impact would DAL viewing child sexual exploitation material have on his risk of engaging in contact sexual offending. Dr Galloghly said that it would not immediately have a direct impact, but over time, if DAL engaged in that behaviour consistently and repetitively, it could lead to him thinking about contact offences.45 59 I now turn to the assessment of the factors set out in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. 40 ts 420. 41 ts 421. 42 ts 422 - 423. 43 ts 424. 44 ts 425. 45 ts 426. -- 13 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 14 Mandatory factors Section 7(3)(a) 60 Section 7(3)(a) requires that I have regard to the reports prepared under s 74 and the extent to which DAL cooperated in the examinations required for the purposes of those reports. The relevant reports are those of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly, which I have addressed above. There is no suggestion that DAL did not cooperate in the assessments undertaken for the purposes of those reports. Section 7(3)(b) - medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessments relating to DAL 61 Section 7(3)(b) requires that I have regard to any other assessment regarding DAL. 62 There are two relevant reports, being a treatment options report and a community supervision assessment report (CSA report). 63 The treatment options report noted the opinions of Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly that no further criminogenic intervention is required.46 The treatment options report also noted that if DAL is subject to a supervision order and risk relevant concerns arise, he can be referred back to the forensic psychological intervention team.47 64 The CSA report notes that DAL continues to live in stable accommodation, has positive supports around him, and has a positive support network.48 65 The CSA report also detailed three examples where DAL had started to implement self-management strategies in planning trips to public places.49 66 The CSA report explained that DAL's curfew was removed in January 2019 and the exclusion zones that he has been subject to have been substantially reduced over time.50 67 The CSA report noted that DAL was currently subject to reporting obligations under the CPOR Act and will remain a reportable offender 46 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 793, par 9. 47 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 793, par 10. 48 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 829. 49 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 829. 50 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 830. -- 14 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 15 until 5 April 2033. As part of his reporting requirements, he reports on a three-monthly basis to the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) HRSO team.51 68 The CSA report set out incidents of non-compliance by DAL with the supervision order since July 2022. Of most significance is that in September 2024, DAL viewed two videos on his YouTube account that had children in them.52 This was detected during a routine supervision compliance check. As a result, he was charged with contravening the supervision order. He was convicted of that offence and fined $1,200.53 There is no suggestion the videos contained illicit material. 69 Ms Manton, a senior community corrections officer, gave evidence at the hearing. She has been DAL's community corrections officer since August 2025.54 She said he is now on fortnightly reporting which is the minimum allowable frequency for reporting.55 70 In cross-examination, Ms Manton accepted that DAL's compliance on the supervision order over an extended period has largely been positive.56 Section 7(3)(c) and (d) 71 It is useful to address s 7(3)(c) - (d) together. Section 7(3)(c) requires that I have regard to information indicating whether or not DAL has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future. Section 7(3)(d) requires that I have regard to whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour by DAL. 72 I am satisfied for present purposes that the word 'propensity' encapsulates DAL having an inclination or disposition to behave in a particular way.57 73 There can be no doubt that DAL's offending reflects a long-standing enduring sexual interest in children and a preparedness to act on it in circumstances where he is in a relationship of trust with the victim. 51 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 830. 52 Book of Materials, Vol 3, page 830. 53 Book of Materials, Vol 1, page 1. 54 ts 444. 55 ts 445. 56 ts 451. 57 See for example, State of Western Australia v Jackson [2019] WASCA 118 [20]. -- 15 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 16 74 There is also no doubt that DAL retains that sexual interest. 75 However, whether, and if so, to what extent, DAL retains an inclination or tendency to act on that interest is a different matter. In this case, the inclination or tendency is wrapped up with his risk of reoffending, and there is no benefit in endeavouring to assess it separately to assessing that risk. Section 7(3)(e) and (f) 76 It is useful to address s 7(3)(e) - (f) together. 77 Section 7(3)(e) requires that I have regard to any efforts made by DAL to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including whether he has participated in any rehabilitation program. Section 7(3)(f) requires that I have regard to whether DAL's participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect. 78 The treatment options report and CSA report set out DAL's history of engagement in rehabilitation programs. I am satisfied that those programs have contributed to DAL's desire to not engage in any further offending of a sexual nature. Further, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly consider that there is no current need for any further therapeutic intervention. Section 7(3)(g) 79 Section 7(3)(g) requires that I have regard to DAL's antecedents (personal background) and criminal record. I have addressed this above. Section 7(3)(h) 80 Section 7(3)(h) requires that I have regard to the risk that if DAL were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence. 81 As will be apparent, Dr Wojnarowska and Dr Galloghly have expressed different opinions on this. Dr Wojnarowska's opinion is that DAL presents a high risk of offending, if not subject to a restriction order. Dr Galloghly's opinion is that DAL is in the below average, or low to moderate risk, category. 82 The State urges me to accept Dr Wojnarowska's opinion. Respectfully, I do not think that an approach of accepting one expert over another is the correct approach to determining an assessment of -- 16 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 17 risk in this case. There are sound reasons for both opinions. Their respective approaches to the application of the Static-99R tool reflect a different approach to factoring in the reduction in risk arising from the number of years DAL has been in the community without committing a sexual offence. 83 The following factors are of importance in assessing his current risk. The extensive nature of his offending, the enduring nature of his sexual interest in children, his advanced age, positive supports, the significant period he has lived in the community without committing any sexual offences, his positive attitude and his use of sertraline medication. 84 Reflecting on those matters as a whole, in my view, DAL presents with a moderate risk of committing a serious sexual offence if not subject to a restriction order. I think it is more likely that he would commit an offence of possession of child exploitation material. His opportunity to commit sexual contact offending against children is quite limited. However, that being said, I accept Dr Galloghly's observation that repeated access to child exploitation material can then increase the risks of him engaging in sexual contact offending against children. In addition, any decline in DAL's mental health carries with it a risk of reducing his ability to manage his paedophilia. Section 7(3)(i) 85 Section 7(3)(i) requires that I have regard to the need to protect members of the community from the risks I have just identified. There is an obvious need to do so. As is said regularly, offences of possession of child exploitation material are not victimless crimes. Further, horrific harm arises from sexual contact offending against children. Section 7(3)(j) 86 Section 7(3)(j) requires that I have regard to any other relevant matter. 87 The most significant additional matter is that DAL is a reportable offender, who is subject to the CPOR Act. -- 17 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 18 88 Given his offending history, DAL is a serious reportable offender under s 108A of the CPOR Act. Section 108E of the CPOR Act provides police officers with extensive powers in respect of a serious reportable offender. These include: (1) entering and searching premises which the police officer reasonably suspects are occupied by the serious reportable offender;58 and (2) inspecting and seizing any electronic device at the premises.59 89 Further, the CSA report says that DAL is required to report to police any:60 (1) internet and social media activity; (2) unsupervised contact with children. 90 As I understand it, DAL does not dispute that he has these obligations. Assessment of whether DAL is a high risk serious offender 91 I am satisfied that the evidence overall is acceptable and cogent evidence upon which I can make the requisite assessment. In particular, in my view, the evidence sufficiently and cogently addresses the mandatory topics set out in s 7(3). 92 I have found that: 1. DAL presents with a moderate risk of committing a serious sexual offence if not subject to a restriction order. 2. It is more likely that he would commit an offence of possession of child exploitation material. 3. His opportunity to commit sexual contact offending against children is quite limited. 4. If he repeatedly accesses child exploitation material, this can increase the risk of him engaging in sexual contact offending against children. 58 Section 108E(1). 59 Section 108E(2). 60 Book of Materials, Vol 3, pages 830 - 831. -- 18 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 19 5. A decline in DAL's mental health carries the prospect of a resulting reduction in his ability to manage his paedophilia. 93 It hardly needs to be said, but still must be acknowledged, that the nature and extent of the harm from the type of offending that DAL is at risk of committing is immeasurable. 94 DAL has lived at the same accommodation for a significant period of time, has a positive support network and engages in positive activities. He is now of an advanced age. His mindset is firmly set against committing any further serious offences. 95 He regularly takes sertraline, which had, and continues to have, a positive impact on him. 96 Mr Hager, who persuasively represented DAL, emphasised that adequate protection to the community is provided by a combination of: 1. the current, and recent, stable and positive circumstances of DAL's life; and 2. DAL's reporting obligations, and police officers' search and seizure powers, under the CPOR Act. 97 The submission is to the effect that DAL does not present with an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence, nor is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community. 98 There is much force in this submission. 99 However, it is DAL's own assessment as explained to Dr Wojnarowska that is telling. DAL's confidence about not re-offending is anchored, in part, on his pharmacological treatment, and on the restrictions placed on him by the supervision order. 100 If DAL is not subject to a supervision order, there will be no ability to monitor his use of sertraline, or to ensure that he continues to take it. The sertraline medication is important both for its anti-libidinal effect, and also its positive impact on DAL's mental health. Were DAL's mental health to decline, this would likely increase his risk of re-offending. 101 Further, absent a supervision order, there is limited ability to externally monitor DAL's mental health, and to refer him for treatment -- 19 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 20 if necessary. Thus, there is a limited ability to redress a decline in mental his health; such a decline has the real potential to reduce DAL's ability to manage his paedophilia. 102 Ultimately, I have concluded that taking away the supports of a supervision order, including the ability to ensure that DAL continues to take sertraline, results in him presenting with an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious sexual offence. That being so, I am satisfied it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against that risk. 103 I am therefore satisfied to the requisite standard that DAL is a high risk serious offender. In finding this, I am not saying he will remain a high risk serious offender in perpetuity. His risk should continue to reduce as he ages, and the longer he lives in the community without committing a serious sexual offence. Further, his risk may also reduce if he continues to live positively in the community, and if he gains greater confidence in his ability to do so without the benefit of a supervision order. Whether the combination of these factors is enough to reduce his risk to an acceptable level is a question for another day. Form of restriction order 104 The State quite rightly accepts that the appropriate restriction order is a supervision order. My reasons for finding that DAL is a high risk serious offender also demonstrate why a supervision order provides adequate protection of the community. For those same reasons, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that DAL will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. 105 The duration of the supervision order should ensure the adequate protection of the community while imposing the least amount of intrusion necessary on an offender's liberty. I am satisfied that two years is appropriate. This timeframe should give DAL sufficient time to adjust to the prospect of living in the community without being subject to a supervision order. 106 The conditions of the supervision order as discussed at the hearing are appropriate. No longer is there a curfew, and the exclusion zones have been cut down. Otherwise, there appears little benefit in making wholesale changes to achieve simplicity of language. DAL is very familiar with the order and its workings, and changes to achieve simplicity may in this case be counterproductive. -- 20 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 21 107 DAL has been on a supervision order now for a significant period of time. He has also lived at the same accommodation for a significant period of time. I am therefore satisfied it is practically feasible for a new supervision order to commence earlier than the usual 21-day default period from the delivery of these reasons.61 The precise start date will need to be finalised with the parties. 61 See s 27(3) of the HRSO Act. -- 21 of 22 -- [2026] WASC 147 LEMONIS J Page 22 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CS Associate to the Hon Justice Lemonis 28 APRIL 2026 -- 22 of 22 --