THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BURT [2026] WASC 295

[2026] WASC 295 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BURT [No 2] [2026] WASC 295 CORAM : FORRESTER J HEARD : 25 AUGUST 2025, 2 & 3 JULY 2026 DELIVERED : 3 JULY 2026 PUBLISHED : 24 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 17 of 2024 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND MARK FREDERICK BURT Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether community can be adequately protected by imposition of supervision order - Whether the respondent will substantially comply with standard conditions of a supervision order -- 1 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 Page 2 Legislation: Criminal Code 1913 (WA) Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) Result: Supervision order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : T Holloway Respondent : R Wilson Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Murray Chambers Cases referred to in decision: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 The State of Western Australia v Bellamy [2013] WASC 467 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 The State of Western Australia v McCabe [2016] WASC 226 The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 -- 2 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 Page 3 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 Factual background..................................................................................................................... 6 Materials relied upon .................................................................................................................. 6 Inadmissible material .............................................................................................................. 7 Index offences............................................................................................................................. 8 Statutory framework and legal principles ................................................................................... 9 Matters to be considered pursuant to s 7(3) HRSO Act ........................................................... 12 Antecedents and criminal history ......................................................................................... 12 Family background and relationships ............................................................................... 12 Education and employment .............................................................................................. 14 Substance abuse ................................................................................................................ 15 Medical and Psychiatric History....................................................................................... 16 Criminal history ................................................................................................................ 18 Conduct while in custody ................................................................................................. 20 Previous Response to Supervision.................................................................................... 21 Contraventions of Interim Supervision Order dated 4 February 2025 ............................. 22 Reports prepared under s 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section ............................................. 24 Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 14 July 2025 .................................. 24 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 29 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 32 Addendum Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 1 June 2026 ................. 32 Psychological Report of Ms Julie Hasson dated 9 July 2025 ............................................... 35 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39 Addendum Report of Ms Julie Hasson dated 29 May 2026 ................................................. 40 Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the offender .............................................................................................................................................. 43 Community Supervision Assessment of Ms Chloe Jones dated 25 July 2025 ................. 43 Community Supervision Assessment of Ms Elizabeth Chapman dated 23 June 2026 .... 45 Treatment Options Report of Luke Carmichael dated 30 June 2026 ............................... 46 Previous Reports ............................................................................................................... 47 Propensity to commit serious offences in the future and whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour ......................................................................................................... 49 Any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of the offending behaviour, including whether the respondent has participated in any rehabilitation program, and -- 3 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 Page 4 whether the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the offender................................................................................................................................. 50 Programs ........................................................................................................................... 50 Effect on the respondent ................................................................................................... 52 The risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence and the need to protect members of the community from that risk .............................................................................................................................................. 53 Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? ........................................................................ 53 Is there an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? ............... 53 Is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? ........................... 54 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 55 Continuing detention order or supervision order? .................................................................... 55 Has the respondent satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions? ............................................................. 56 Conditions and duration of order .............................................................................................. 57 STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT .......................................... 58 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 59 Residence .............................................................................................................................. 59 Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO ................................................................... 59 Attendance at programs or treatment.................................................................................... 59 Reporting to WA Police ....................................................................................................... 59 Disclosure/Exchange of Information .................................................................................... 60 Restrictions on contact with Victims .................................................................................... 60 Criminal conduct .................................................................................................................. 61 Prevention of high-risk situations ......................................................................................... 61 -- 4 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 5 FORRESTER J: Introduction 1 This is an application made by the State of Western Australia on 5 December 2024, for a restriction order to be made in respect of the respondent, Mark Frederick Burt, pursuant to the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). 2 On 22 January 2025, a preliminary hearing pursuant to s 46 of the HRSO Act was held before Lemonis J. His Honour was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the court might find the respondent to be a high risk serious offender and ordered that the application for a restriction order be heard on 25 August 2025, and that, from 4 February 2025, the respondent be subject to an interim supervision order pursuant to s 58(5) of the HRSO Act.1 3 On 25 August 2025, I heard evidence from witnesses, but the hearing was adjourned part heard to enable the respondent to deal with certain matters in the Magistrates Court. It came back before me for further hearing on 2 July 2026. 4 On the application for a restriction order, the matters I must decide are: (1) whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender, within the meaning of s 7 of the HRSO Act; and, if so (2) whether to make an order that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (continuing detention order)2 or that he be released into the community subject to conditions that the court considers appropriate (supervision order).3 5 For the reasons below, I am satisfied that the respondent is a high risk serious offender, and that it is necessary that a restriction order should be made to ensure adequate protection of the community. I have determined that the appropriate order is a supervision order for a period of four years. 1 Book of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 2 filed 27 June 2025 (BOM Vol 2), 544 - 556. 2 HRSO Act s 26. 3 HRSO Act s 27. -- 5 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 6 Factual background 6 When the application was made on 5 December 2024, the respondent was serving a term of four years and seven months' imprisonment for the offences of deprivation of liberty contrary to s 333 of the Criminal Code, and with intent to harm omitted to do or did an act causing bodily harm contrary to s 304(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, imposed by Petrusa DCJ on 18 June 2021.4 The respondent was made eligible for parole. 7 The respondent did not seek release on parole.5 His sentence expired on 1 February 2025.6 8 Offences contrary to s 304(2) and s 333 of the Criminal Code are both serious offences under the HRSO Act.7 As at the date of the application, the respondent was under a custodial sentence for those offences. 9 Accordingly, the respondent was, at the time the application was made, 'a serious offender under custodial sentence'8 who was not a serious offender under restriction within the meaning of s 35 of the HRSO Act. Materials relied upon 10 The State produced a Book of Materials which was ultimately comprised of five volumes, containing the criminal history of the respondent and detailed evidence relating to it, including statements of material facts and transcripts, the respondent's custodial history, program completion reports relating to the various programs undertaken by the respondent while in custody, parole and other assessment reports, and reports prepared for this hearing, namely: (1) Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 14 July 2025; (2) Psychological Report of Ms Julie Hasson dated 9 July 2025; (3) Community Supervision Assessment Report of Ms Chloe Jones dated 25 July 2025; 4 BOM Vol 2, 641 - 682. 5 Book Of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 1 filed 27 June 2025 (BOM Vol 1), 18, 451. 6 BOM Vol 1, 14. 7 HRSO Act s 5 and sch 1, item 15, item 31. 8 HRSO Act s 3, s 5. -- 6 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 7 (4) Treatment Options report Mr Luke Carmichael dated 17 July 2025; (5) Addendum Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 1 June 2026; (6) Updated Psychological Report of Ms Julie Hasson dated 29 May 2026; and (7) Updated Community Supervision Assessment Report of Ms Elizabeth Chapman dated 23 June 2026. 11 The State called Professor Pyszora, Ms Hasson and Ms Jones at the initial hearing of the application, and the respondent's counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine each of them. 12 At the resumed hearing, Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson gave further evidence, and Ms Chapman gave evidence and the respondent's counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine them. Inadmissible material 13 The State initially sought to adduce evidence of a number of Incident Reports, relating to reports people have made to police, over time, which have not resulted in a charge, or at least a conviction on any charge. The Incident Reports are redacted so as to conceal the identity of the complainants. 14 The State has not adduced any evidence to support the Incident Reports. In the circumstances, I do not consider this evidence to be admissible and I have disregarded the documents at pages 463 - 535 of the Book of Materials. 15 The State also sought to rely on largely unredacted versions of these Incident Reports, which were included in the Book of Materials at pages 794 - 867. While the identity of the complainants/informants in relation to these incidents is now able to be ascertained, there are still significant issues with placing reliance on these Incident Reports. 16 While such material is potentially admissible pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act, the evidence contained in the Incident Reports is hearsay. In some cases, the information does not disclose any conduct alleged against the respondent. In others, the information is merely an additional record of offending which is properly evidenced in other materials. -- 7 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 8 17 In my view, this material is not admissible, or, even if it is admissible, it is not sufficiently cogent or reliable to place any weight on in these proceedings, and accordingly I have not relied upon it in arriving at a conclusion in this matter. 18 I also made it clear to the parties that, while I would receive the significant number of medical records in relation to the respondent, I would not rely on them except where they formed the foundation of an expert opinion provided to the court. Index offences 19 The respondent and the complainant had been in an intimate partner relationship for about six months at the time of the index offending. 20 On or about 19 June 2020, the respondent and the complainant were drinking at a friend's house. They stayed overnight in a caravan on the property. During the night, the respondent became angry about a minor issue and began arguing with the complainant. He sat on top of her and put his hand over her mouth, so she could not talk or breathe. He forced his hand into her mouth and she bit him. He removed his hand, wrapped it in a blanket and forced it into her mouth and down her throat, causing her to gag, and stopping her breathing. As he did this, he yelled at her that he had told her to shut up. 21 After about 20 seconds, the respondent removed his hand, but he then strangled the complainant for a further 10 – 20 seconds. The complainant thought she was going to die, and scratched the respondent's arm and face. She eventually managed to get out from underneath him and tried to leave the caravan, but the respondent pushed her into the corner of the kitchen cupboards. 22 The respondent grabbed the complainant and took her back to the bedroom area of the caravan again. He asked if she was going to bite him again. She was crying and still trying to breathe. The respondent tried to make her lie down but she said she needed to sit up to breathe. He allowed her to sit up, but held her by the waist. He refused to let her get up to get water, or to leave the caravan to use the bathroom. He told her she was not going anywhere, and demanded she let him cuddle her. She complied and he held her in a bearhug. She eventually fell asleep. -- 8 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 9 23 When she awoke in the morning, she was in the same position. Her throat was sore. The respondent drove her home and a few days later, still experiencing pain, the complainant sought medical assistance. She was found to have a healing lesion at the back of her throat, and there was evidence of traumatic injury to the frenulum. She required antibiotics. 24 The police were notified and the respondent was arrested. He denied the offences, suggesting that the complainant's injuries were the result of vigorous (consensual) oral sex. 25 The offences were committed in the context of a relationship in which the respondent had engaged in a number of other acts of physical and psychological abuse of the complainant. 26 The respondent pleaded guilty after the prosecution had concluded its opening address in his trial for the offences. 27 In addition to the total effective sentence of four years and seven months' imprisonment, the respondent was made subject to a restraining order for the protection of the complainant for life,9 and a declaration was made that he was a serial family violence offender.10 Statutory framework and legal principles 28 The objects of the HRSO Act are: (a) to provide for the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and (b) to provide for continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.11 29 If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that an offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must make a continuing detention order (CDO) or, except as provided in s 29, a supervision order in relation to the offender. In deciding whether to make a CDO or a supervision order, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.12 9 BOM Vol 2, 673 - 674. 10 BOM Vol 2, 695. 11 HRSO Act s 8. 12 HRSO Act s 48. -- 9 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 10 30 The term 'high risk serious offender' is defined in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act as follows: An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. 31 A 'restriction order' means a CDO or a supervision order.13 A CDO is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.14 A supervision order is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers to be appropriate in accordance with s 30 of the HRSO Act.15 32 Relevantly, an offence is a 'serious offence' if it is an offence listed in sch 1 div 1 of the HRSO Act.16 33 The State has the onus of satisfying the court in accordance with s 7(1).17 34 When considering whether it is satisfied that a person is a high risk serious offender, the court must have regard to the factors set out in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. 35 The jurisprudence established in respect of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (repealed) is relevant in construing and applying the HRSO Act, with necessary adaptation.18 36 The powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on the offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.19 37 The words 'high degree of probability' import more than a finding on the balance of probabilities but less than a finding of beyond 13 HRSO Act s 3. 14 HRSO Act s 3, s 26(1). 15 HRSO Act s 3, s 27(1). 16 HRSO Act s 5. 17 HRSO Act s 7(2). 18 The State of Western Australia v ZSJ [2020] WASC 330 [31]. 19 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 (Garlett) [55] - [56] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ). -- 10 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 11 reasonable doubt, but are otherwise not capable of further definition.20 The court is required to identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, thereafter considering whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard by acceptable and cogent evidence.21 38 In Garlett,22 the court said: Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the [c]ourt's judgment as to the nature and extent of the harm said to be in prospect. Further, whether a restriction order is 'necessary' to protect against that risk requires recognition of what would otherwise be the offender's entitlement to be at liberty, an entitlement not lightly to be denied. 39 The meaning of 'unacceptable risk' was considered by Wheele JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams23 in the following terms: In my view, an 'unacceptable risk' in the context of s 7(1) is a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations which may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of sexual offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted) and the consequences of making a finding that an unacceptable risk exists. That is, the judge is required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of the person offending and the offence likely to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding that the person has already been punished for whatever offence they may have actually committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that the person is subject to further control or detention. 40 In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,24 Corboy J considered that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act (in conjunction with s 48) requires the court to assess two separate matters. The first is whether a risk that an offender will commit a serious offence is unacceptable. The second is, if the risk is found to be unacceptable, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against a risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. His Honour stated: 20 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307 (GTR) [28] - [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 21 GTR [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 22 Garlett [73] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ). 23 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297 [63] (Wheeler JA). 24 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 (SOWA v Garlett). -- 11 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 12 the court should choose, as between a continuing detention order and a supervision order, the order that is 'least invasive or destructive' of a person's right to be at liberty while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community. That constraint also applies in determining the non-standard conditions (if any) of a supervision order. Moreover, as Hall J pointed out in Director of Public Prosecutions v Decke,25 '[i]t cannot simply be assumed that the most assured preventative is detention and, therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order'.26 41 The court cannot make a supervision order in relation to an offender unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.27 42 The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the HRSO Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.28 43 In determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order': [t]he court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious … offence.29 Matters to be considered pursuant to s 7(3) HRSO Act Antecedents and criminal history Family background and relationships 44 The respondent is the youngest of seven siblings born to his parents. He has apparently given different accounts as to how many are still living.30 His mother was from the United Kingdom and his father was an aboriginal man and part of the stolen generation.31 His father 25 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312 [14]. 26 SOWA v Garlett [143]. 27 HRSO Act s 29. 28 HRSO Act s 30(2)(f). 29 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. 30 The respondent was said to have told Professor Pyszora that three of his siblings had died: Book Of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 3 filed 19 August 2025 (BOM Vol 3), 908 [71], but Ms Hasson recorded that he told her that two of his siblings had died: BOM Vol 3, 956 [2]. 31 BOM Vol 3, [72]. -- 12 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 13 drank heavily and inflicted significant verbal and physical violence upon his mother, and the children all left home as soon as they were able.32 The respondent has had little or no contact with them for 15 years33 and says he does not care about that.34 However, it appears he may have had some limited contact with one of his sisters.35 He also has daily contact with his aunt and niece who live nearby, and he assists his aunt to get to appointments.36 45 The respondent's father was also physically and sexually abusive of the respondent, and the respondent ran away on multiple occasions.37 46 The respondent's father died in about 1989, aged 55.38 His mother died in October 2024.39 He reported having a good relationship with his mother, whom he had felt the need to protect from his father, and was very close to her until her death. 47 At the age of 17, the respondent formed his first sexual relationship with the woman who eventually became his long-term partner.40 Three children were born from that relationship, which lasted 28 years.41 The relationship deteriorated after the respondent fell from a tree while working. 48 Both the respondent and his partner smoked cannabis, but he claimed she moved on to using methylamphetamine42 or 'trips', which he refused to do.43 49 The respondent was unable to say when his children were born, but described having them as being 'great', and denied any issues with adjusting to parenthood. He was unable to describe having emotional connections or events relating to his children.44 50 The respondent described the deterioration of his relationship with his long-term partner as starting when others told him she was 'selling herself for drugs', which he initially disbelieved. When the children 32 BOM Vol 2, 758 [5]. 33 BOM Vol 3, [71], [228]. 34 BOM Vol 3, [213]. 35 BOM Vol 3, [228]. 36 BOM Vol 3, [230]. 37 BOM Vol 3, [76]. 38 BOM Vol 2, 758. 39 BOM Vol 3, 910 [81]. 40 BOM Vol 3, 913 [91]. 41 BOM Vol 2, 758. 42 BOM Vol 2, 658, 758. 43 BOM Vol 3, 913 [91]. 44 BOM Vol 3, 913 [92]. -- 13 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 14 found needles in the car, he installed cameras in the house and said he then had proof that men were coming to the house.45 He said he tried to forgive her, but she was still using drugs. He minimised the violence in this relationship and, according to Professor Pyszora, who interviewed him for the psychiatric report in this matter, gave inconsistent accounts of timelines and his behaviours and was evasive regarding his family violence behaviours.46 51 The respondent has no present contact with his children, who are in their mid to late twenties.47 52 The respondent developed a sexual relationship with the complainant for the 2020 offending in 2019, on his release from prison. The respondent claimed to Professor Pyszora that this woman was friends with his previous partner, who wanted him back in prison. He told Ms Hasson, a psychologist who prepared a report in relation to the respondent for the purposes of this application, that he was not in a formal relationship with this woman.48 Education and employment 53 The respondent attended school in Albany. He finished school in Year 10. 54 The respondent has previously given mixed accounts of his work history. To Ms Wager, a psychologist who interviewed the respondent in 2015, he said that after school he worked in an abattoir for four years, before going on to work for Western Power for seven years doing skilled labouring.49 He injured his back due to a sudden movement and was then unable to work. He had been in receipt of the Disability Support Pension for several years.50 55 To Professor Pyszora, the respondent claimed he left school and worked as a car cleaner for two years, and then for Western Power as a tree lopper for seven years. Then, he fell from a tree and injured his back, which effectively ended that employment.51 He was able to continue with casual mechanic work, fixing and selling cars.52 45 BOM Vol 3, 913 [93]. 46 BOM Vol 3, 913 - 914 [96]. 47 BOM Vol 2, 789. 48 BOM Vol 3, 957 [8]. 49 He also gave this history to Ms Hasson: BOM Vol 3, 956 [4]. 50 BOM Vol 2, 759. 51 BOM Vol 3, 912 [88], see also BOM Vol 2, 658. 52 BOM Vol 3, 912 [88], see also BOM Vol 2, 661. -- 14 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 15 56 Ms Hasson observed that the respondent provided a 'confusing' work history as to the period following his workplace injury at the age of 25, which included various jobs including repairing and detailing cars and working at a dairy milking cows.53 Substance abuse 57 The respondent's self-reports as to his substance and alcohol use appear to have been somewhat inconsistent over time. 58 In 2015, the respondent claimed never to have consumed alcohol. He reported having used cannabis since he was 17 years old, which increased to twice weekly when his back pain was bad. He denied ever using amphetamines, claiming the amount he was charged of possessing was the property of his former partner.54 59 However, a friend of the respondent's reported to Ms Wager in 2015 that the respondent and his former partner had both used methylamphetamines during their relationship.55 60 Prison medical records from July 2020 record that the respondent admitted 'scamming doctors' for medication, and taking his mother's medication. In interview with Professor Pyszora, the respondent denied having scammed doctors, although he did admit taking some Valium from his mother to help him sleep when someone else had taken his own prescription.56 61 In his discussions with Professor Pyszora, the respondent said that he would get drunk four or five times a week in his thirties.57 Contrary to what he told the author of the Treatment Assessment Report dated 20 August 2021, he told Professor Pyszora he was not intoxicated at the time of the index offences.58 However, Ms Hasson noted that the respondent acknowledged that both he and the complainant had been drinking at the time of the index offences.59 53 BOM Vol 3, 956 - 957 [5]. 54 BOM Vol 2, 760. 55 BOM Vol 2, 760. 56 BOM Vol 3, 911 [85]. 57 BOM Vol 3, 911 [83]. 58 BOM Vol 3, 911 [83]. 59 BOM Vol 3, 959 [16]. -- 15 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 16 62 The respondent claimed to no longer use cannabis, as he no longer feels the euphoric effects he once did. However, he does have a prescription for medicinal cannabis oil to treat his pain.60 63 The respondent has repeatedly denied using amphetamines, providing explanations which blamed others for his being found in possession of amphetamines (despite him pleading guilty) and testing positive for the substance in custody. Medical and Psychiatric History 64 The respondent has had long standing chronic back pain. He has given different accounts as to how he suffered his back injury, including that he fell from a tree at the age of 11 years, and then suffered a further injury in 2011 (when he was approximately 43 years old).61 65 In 2015, the respondent claimed to a psychologist that he had suffered seven heart attacks in custody, but he did not report them after the first one. He claimed to have been prescribed medication but did not know what for.62 66 The respondent told the same psychologist that, while he had never been diagnosed with depression, he believed he had suffered from it for some years. He gave an inconsistent history regarding suicidal ideation and whether he had ever attempted self-harm.63 67 Medical records show that there was initially some concern the respondent had had a heart attack, but this was ruled out. He was prescribed medication for ischaemic heart disease with angina, although he initially refused to take it.64 The respondent was also offered assessments with a physiotherapist in relation to his back pain, but he was unwilling to undertake the assessment and treatment process.65 68 As a result of an accident while in custody in 2019, the respondent broke his ankle, causing ongoing issues for him.66 When he was received at Albany Prison on 3 July 2020, he reported he was taking 10 Panadeine Forte (opiate based) a day, which he had 'scammed' from 60 BOM Vol 3, 911 [84]. 61 BOM Vol 3, 959 [17]. 62 BOM Vol 2, 759. 63 BOM Vol 2, 759. 64 BOM Vol 3, 916 [108]. 65 BOM Vol 3, 916 [109]. 66 BOM Vol 2, 658. -- 16 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 17 doctors. Pain medication for his ankle was, he said, the only medication he was on.67 69 The respondent gained a substantial amount of weight in custody (having lost it after his earlier release). He was seen to be playing football in prison, but later used his ankle as a reason for not engaging in activity.68 He continued to complain of ankle, and then knee, pain over the following three years, and by June 2023 he was in a wheelchair and not weight bearing at all. He was also suffering health issues relating to his weight gain.69 70 In the first half of 2024, the respondent was having difficulty moving around due to his knee pain and weight gain. His blood pressure was elevated. His knee was scanned but no significant changes were identified. By the end of 2024, the respondent was 178 kg, and undergoing assessment for probable obstructive sleep apnoea. He was on a significant number of different types of medication.70 71 Following his release from custody, the respondent said he continued on most of the medication, although he had ceased the opiate analgesic. He has since been prescribed medicinal cannabis oil.71 He told Ms Hasson that his pain level is constantly seven out of 10.72 72 The respondent denied any significant mental health history. To Professor Pyszora, he reported suffering some mental health issues related to his medical conditions, and attempting suicide on one occasion in 2012 when he drove into a tree, although he omitted to mention this attempt when being interviewed by a psychologist in 2015.73 73 The respondent told Professor Pyszora that he ceased prescribed medicinal cannabis in October 2025, due to concerns about him driving while taking it. As a result, he has increased pain and his sleep has 67 BOM Vol 3, 917 [117]. 68 BOM Vol 3, 918 [120] - [121]. 69 BOM Vol 3, [124] - [126]. 70 BOM Vol 3, 919 [130]. 71 BOM Vol 3, 919 - 920 [131]. 72 BOM Vol 3, 959 - 960 [21]. 73 BOM Vol 3, 920 [132]. -- 17 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 18 deteriorated. He uses a wheelchair all of the time in custody. He continues to be obese.74 Criminal history Other 'serious' offences 74 In 2015, the respondent was convicted of and sentenced for two offences contrary to s 304(2) of the Criminal Code, together with a large number of other offences which were not 'serious' offences within the meaning of the HRSO Act. Indictment ALB 78 of 2014 and other charges dealt with pursuant to s 32 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) 75 On 27 July 2015, in the District Court at Albany, the respondent was convicted of the following relevant offences: (1) two offences, committed on separate occasions in June 2014, namely that with intent to harm, he did an act as a result of which the life, health and safety of the complainant (his former long-term partner) was or was likely to be endangered; (2) possession of a prohibited drug, namely amphetamine; (3) 17 offences, committed on separate occasions from June to December 2014, that he breached a violence restraining order; and (4) two offences, committed on separate occasions in July 2014, of attempting to induce a person, namely a witness to be called in a judicial proceeding, to withhold true testimony.75 76 The respondent and the complainant had been in an intimate partner relationship for 28 years. There had been three prior family violence incidents reported to police. 77 On 5 April 2014, the respondent was served with a violence restraining order made against him for the protection of the complainant. 78 On 9 June 2014, the complainant was at the respondent's house. They were arguing. The respondent told the complainant to go to the 74 Book Of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 5 filed on 23 June 2026 (BOM Vol 5), 1190 - 1191 [46]. 75 BOM Vol 2, 571 - 576. -- 18 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 19 area where his car was parked. He tied a rope to the roll bar of his car and placed the other end of the rope in a loop around the complainant's neck. He then drove the car around the property for a considerable distance, forcing the complainant to run after the car. Had she stopped, the rope would have tightened around her neck, stopping her breathing and dragging her behind the car. During the offence, the respondent yelled 'Run you dog, and don't stop or I'll go faster.' Their 18-year-old son was present at the time. When interviewed, the respondent denied the offence. 79 A week later, the respondent was being driven as a passenger in a car, with the same 18-year-old son as a passenger. The respondent saw the complainant driving her car along the road ahead of him. He urged the driver to speed up and follow her. When they caught up, the respondent gestured for the complainant to pull over, which she did. However, she then drove off. The respondent took over the driving and chased the complainant's car, causing other cars to take evasive action. The respondent travelled at speed towards the complainant's car, cutting her off. She drove around his car but he chased her again. After an extended chase, in which the respondent accelerated and braked heavily, constituting reckless driving, he again caught up with the complainant's car and intentionally drove into the rear driver's side of the complainant's car, causing it to flip and roll. The complainant suffered lacerations and required scans to rule out other injuries. Much of the offending was caught on a dash camera. The respondent later claimed the complainant had wrongly taken his car and that he had not intended to drive into the car. 80 The respondent later called another of his sons a number of times and told him to get the son who had been present at both incidents to retract his statement, and that he could have a car if he did so. 81 The respondent called his other son and told him to tell the complainant that she had a bounty on her head and that she had to get the charges lifted and that he could not stop her getting killed or injured unless she helped him. 82 The breaches of violence restraining order largely related to various contacts the respondent had with others aimed at persuading the complainant to withdraw the violence restraining order. Those contacts included coercive, abusive and threatening statements. Two counts -- 19 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 20 related to the complainant being at the respondent's property on two occasions, in breach of the violence restraining order.76 83 The respondent pleaded guilty to the offences and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment. He was made eligible for parole.77 Other relevant offending AL 252 of 2020 84 On 23 January 2018, the respondent was issued with a Family Violence Restraining Order for the protection of the complainant, his former partner. On 16 January 2020, the complainant's 22-year-old daughter (also the respondent's daughter) received a text message asking her to tell the complainant to 'pull her head in and stop trying to start shit as she mite find herself upside down again in her car'. The respondent told police he thought the restraining order had expired. The respondent pleaded guilty to breaching the Family Violence Restraining Order and was sentenced to a six-month Community Based Order with a supervision and programme requirement.78 Offending history generally 85 Otherwise, the respondent's criminal offending commenced when he was 17 years old, with dishonesty, traffic and cannabis related offences.79 His offending continued in the same manner throughout his twenties. His 2015 offending against his long-term partner constituted his first recorded violent offending, and his first serious offending.80 Conduct while in custody 86 Records adduced by the State show that, since 2014, the respondent has been found guilty of two prison charges: one of insubordination or misconduct in 2023 and one of use/possession of illicit drugs, namely methylamphetamine in 2016.81 He was apparently assaulted by two prisoners in 2016.82 76 BOM Vol 2, 577 - 588. 77 BOM Vol 2, 606 - 622. 78 BOM Vol 2, 752 - 755. 79 BOM Vol 1, 7 - 8. 80 BOM Vol 1, 4 - 6. 81 BOM Vol 1, 17. 82 BOM Vol 1, 42. -- 20 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 21 87 The same random testing which resulted in the prison charge in 2016 also produced a positive result for opiates.83 The respondent tested positive for benzodiazepines in February 2019 and July 2020, but no charges resulted.84 88 The 2023 charge related to a minor incident in which the respondent and another prisoner argued and they had both allegedly assaulted the other.85 89 An Individual Management Plan (IMP) from 2015 reported the respondent abided by unit rules, interacted with officers appropriately and appeared to get on with other prisoners. He was a hard worker under minimal supervision.86 IMPs from 2018, and 2021 to 2024 included similar assessments, although in 2022 it was noted that the respondent 'often appears to be rude when speaking to staff members'.87 90 Since his sentencing on 26 February 2026, the respondent has been subjected to urinalysis testing for illicit drugs on three occasions. While he returned positive tests, they were likely related to his drug use in the community, for which he was sentenced. The respondent has returned negative tests for alcohol on multiple occasions. 91 There is no indication of any management difficulty presented by the respondent during his most recent custodial period. Previous Response to Supervision 92 The respondent was sentenced to an Intensive Supervision Order in March 2005 for a period of 18 months, for the offence of supplying cannabis. He successfully completed the order.88 93 On 13 February 2020, he was sentenced to a Community Based Order for breaching a Family Violence Restraining Order.89 However, he breached that order by committing the index offences.90 94 A Post Sentence Supervision Order (PSSO) was made on 8 January 2025 in relation to the respondent, but that was cancelled 83 BOM Vol 1, 43. 84 BOM Vol 1, 108 - 109. 85 BOM Vol 1, 95 - 99. 86 BOM Vol 1, 431. 87 BOM Vol 1, 435 - 462. 88 BOM Vol 2, 765. 89 BOM Vol 2, 752 - 755. 90 BOM Vol 2, 788. -- 21 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 22 when the respondent was made subject to the ISO by Lemonis J, effective from 4 February 2025.91 Contraventions of Interim Supervision Order dated 4 February 2025 95 After being released on an ISO on 4 February 2025, the respondent was convicted on eight occasions of contravening a requirement of that order and served two periods of custody as a result. The first was from 19 August 2025 to 30 September 2025, being 41 days, and the second commenced on 25 January 2026 and continues to the present. 96 During a meeting on 7 May 2025, the respondent's Senior Community Corrections Officer (SCCO) inspected his mobile device and discovered that all call logs and text messages predating 3 May 2025 had been removed. The respondent claimed the deletions were the result of an automatic process on his phone. During police interview in relation to the deletions, he also acknowledged deleting text messages from his niece and his aunt, knowing that he would be in breach of the ISO by doing so.92 He was charged and ultimately convicted of two counts of breaching his ISO by deleting data from a telecommunications device.93 97 The third and fourth contraventions took place between 2 April 2025 and 19 August 2025. Over that period, the respondent, without reasonable excuse, violated his ISO on two occasions: first, by travelling in a vehicle with a female who had not been approved by a Community Corrections Officer; and second, by failing to disclose that he had formed a social connection with her.94 98 On 2 April 2025, the respondent's SCCO examined his mobile phone and found a contact saved under the name 'physio' that had not been previously disclosed. The contact was an elderly female neighbour whom the respondent had not known prior to his release (LG). A subsequent review of his phone on 19 August 2025 revealed that he had been in regular contact with LG and frequently initiated communication, including offering to drive her. CCTV footage from 9 July 2025 captured the respondent driving a vehicle, registered to LG, with her seated in the front passenger seat. When interviewed 91 Pursuant to s 74J(3) of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA). 92 BOM Vol 3, 903 [48]. 93 BOM Vol 3, 883 - 885. 94 Book Of Materials for the Restriction Order Hearing Volume 4 filed 12 May 2026 (BOM Vol 4), 1107 - 1110. -- 22 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 23 electronically on 19 August 2025, the respondent maintained that he had been unaware of the relevant condition, and acknowledged that he had taken LG shopping and to buy cigarettes on multiple occasions.95 The respondent was convicted of two charges of contravening a condition of his ISO and was sentenced to suspended fines.96 99 On 30 October 2025, the respondent was served with a notice requiring him to report to the Officer in Charge of Busselton Police Station at 10.00 am on 6 November 2025. He did not present until 6.30 pm that evening, attributing the delay to vehicle trouble. That explanation was undermined by GPS monitoring data, which placed him at multiple addresses in Australind and Busselton throughout the day. He was subsequently convicted of contravening a condition of his ISO and fined.97 100 On 6 November 2025, the respondent's electronic monitoring records showed that he exited his ISO inclusion zone between 10.37 am and 10.59 am. At 10.55 am, Community Corrections contacted him, and he acknowledged having left the inclusion zone, claiming he was searching for a mechanical service centre where his vehicle was being repaired. His electronic monitoring data told a different story: the locations he visited while outside the zone were residential addresses, not commercial ones. He was subsequently convicted of contravening a condition of his ISO and fined.98 101 Urinalysis conducted on 7 and 20 January 2026 returned positive results for methylamphetamine. The respondent was subsequently charged with, and pleaded guilty to, contravening a condition of his ISO while subject to a suspended imprisonment order and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 8 months' imprisonment, commencing on 24 February 2026.99 He is eligible for release on parole on 24 June 2026. Parole has been granted. The respondent's maximum release date is 23 October 2026.100 95 BOM Vol 4, 1112 - 1113. 96 BOM Vol 4, 1107 - 1110. 97 BOM Vol 4, 1103 - 1106. 98 BOM Vol 4, 1098 - 1102. 99 BOM Vol 4, 1006, 1085 - 1095. 100 BOM Vol 4, 1015. -- 23 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 24 Reports prepared under s 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 14 July 2025 102 For her report dated 14 July 2025, prepared for the purposes of these proceedings, Professor Pyszora spoke to the respondent for almost seven hours, reviewed the materials produced by the State in support of its application, and spoke to Community Corrections staff who have been involved with the respondent since he has been the subject of this application.101 103 In her interviews, Professor Pyszora observed the respondent to be engaging in impression management, and described his affect as 'glib, calm, and confident'. She observed his accounts of events to conflict with one another and that he had 'a rather suspicious interpretation' of various past events, and that when inquiring deeper into his accounts he could become 'evasive and uncomfortable'.102 104 In addition to recounting the physical abuse of his mother at the hands of his father, the respondent told Professor Pyszora that from the age of six or seven until the age of 12, he was himself sexually assaulted on a number of occasions by his father.103 However, he did not disclose the abuse in any way until after his father died.104 He was also physically abused by his father 'for as long as I can remember'. He claims he has dealt with these experiences in his own way and does not want therapy.105 105 The respondent also reported that he had been hit by the teacher at his school, including when he had not done anything wrong, leaving him always in fear of being hit.106 He said his concentration at school was poor, that he did not have friends, and kept to himself. He admitted getting into fights if he was called names or if other boys got him into trouble. He was bullied for being skinny; he reported that he was worried about being overweight like his father and siblings and would throw food out, but also somewhat inconsistently claimed he would steal food.107 He also reported that his behaviour at high school 101 BOM Vol 3, 895 [5]. 102 BOM Vol 3, 939 - 940 [233] – [234], [237]. 103 BOM Vol 3, 909 [73]. 104 BOM Vol 3, 909 [73], BOM Vol 2, 657. 105 BOM Vol 3, 909 [73]. 106 BOM Vol 3, 909 [75]. 107 BOM Vol 3, 909 [75]. -- 24 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 25 was poor; he continued to get into fights, and would throw rocks at windows and kick the walls.108 106 Professor Pyszora noted the respondent gave inconsistent accounts about the violence in his relationship with his long-term partner, and was evasive about his violent behaviours. He did admit that he became violent towards her because he 'got sick of the lies and lost control' and claimed he was remorseful, but then accused her of falsely accusing him of causing injuries to her.109 He contradicted submissions made by his counsel during the plea in mitigation as to the extent of a drug debt he claimed to have paid off for the complainant.110 107 Likewise, the respondent's description of his relationship with the complainant of the 2020 offending was inconsistent with his previous accounts. Professor Pyszora reported that the respondent laughed when it was put to him that he had been physically violent towards that complainant, and said that he only pleaded guilty because 'a woman's word is always believed over men'.111 He denied being jealous, but felt he had been 'played' when he realised she was seeing an old partner (he alleged).112 108 Professor Pyszora liaised with Eliot Becker, a Forensic Psychologist with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) who informed her that the respondent had several unmet treatment needs, including offending minimisation, impulse control, victim insight and emotional regulation. Mr Becker slowly established a sound therapeutic rapport with the respondent, who made some minor gains, but is expected to require ongoing intervention for many years.113 109 To Professor Pyszora, the respondent described his early offending behaviour as being 'just mucking around'. He initially denied cultivating cannabis, but then admitted growing seedlings. He admitted that his traffic offences were committed 'probably because I could', saying he was 'young and dumb and stupid back then'. He said he was undeterred by fines or even a short prison term. He claimed his lack of offending between November 2004 and November 2013 was because he had slowed down after having children.114 108 BOM Vol 3, 910 [78] - [80]. 109 BOM Vol 3, 914 [97]. 110 BOM Vol 3, 914 [100]. 111 BOM Vol 3, 914 - 915 [102]. 112 BOM Vol 3, 915 [103]. 113 BOM Vol 3, 928 - 929 [176]. 114 BOM Vol 3, 932 [195] - [197]. -- 25 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 26 110 The respondent claimed he had been given a coffee spiked with methylamphetamine by one of his former partner's friends, which caused him to test positive for that substance. He denied using methylamphetamine.115 111 The respondent claimed to be very remorseful for his offending against his long-term partner, although he continued to deny many of the alleged incidents occurred, and justified them to Professor Pyszora. He claimed the offences of breaching the Violence Restraining Order and corrupting a witness were 'all a lie', and the police added lies in the statements of material facts.116 112 As to the offending in 2020, the respondent denied drinking alcohol, or that there was any argument between him and the complainant. He claimed he tried to stop her driving home because she was drunk. He denied any sexual activity between them that night, saying that the explanation he was said to have offered at the time was just him agreeing with the police suggestion.117 He claimed to have pleaded guilty because he thought his previous partner was 'after him' and prison was 'the safest place to be' and that he would have been convicted anyway.118 113 The respondent told Professor Pyszora that he had developed insight with the assistance of two mentors from prison. He also recognised that he had gained useful information in the Stopping Family Violence Program, such as showing him how he had 'mucked up' by 'going off my brain instead of talking'. However, given that the respondent denies committing the 2020 offences, he claims he did not relapse into family violence behaviours after completing the program, and denies being a risk to anyone in the future.119 114 The respondent was either unwilling or unable to identify a high risk situation for him engaging in further intimate partner violence. He claimed he would not engage in another intimate relationship and does not want a partner, although Professor Pyszora observed that later in that interview, the respondent said, 'if I do meet a lady friend, I'll tell her straight out what I did, but I'm done with relationships'.120 115 BOM Vol 3, 933 [198]. 116 BOM Vol 3, 934 [204] - [206]. 117 BOM Vol 3, 934 - 935 [207]. 118 BOM Vol 3, 935 [211]. 119 BOM Vol 3, 936 [216] - [217]. 120 BOM Vol 3, 937 [219]. -- 26 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 27 115 The respondent described himself as having a kind heart, and being 'Mr Nice Guy', but claimed people would use him. He said he would give his last $20 to a homeless person, and said he had in fact recently done so. He said he needed to change, but was unable to identify specific changes, other than to 'go to church and help others'. He says he feels he has changed, and is more relaxed, and is not experiencing any current stress except relating to potential falls, finding housing and paying for his medication.121 116 In Professor Pyszora's opinion, the respondent did not present with symptoms of anxiety, depression or mood disorder. He admitted having nightmares about his childhood abuse, and being triggered if he sees parents mistreating their children. He neither reported, not presented with, any symptoms suggestive of a major mental illness. His rather paranoid interpretations of past events (in which he is always positioned as the victim) appeared, according to Professor Pyszora, to be part of his personality structure rather than due to a psychotic illness.122 His cognitive function appeared to be grossly intact, although it was not tested.123 117 Professor Pyszora considered that the respondent fulfils the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, having displayed a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since the age of 15. He does report some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, but does not meet all of the diagnostic criteria; in particular, he did not describe or exhibit clinically significant distress or impairment.124 Further, while it is prudent to regard his previous substance use as problematic, Professor Pyszora did not consider a diagnosis of substance use disorder as being appropriate,125 in the absence of more accurate information.126 118 Professor Pyszora assessed the respondent's treatment needs as including: addressing attitudes supportive of FDV, relationship skills, anger and emotional control, substance use, consequential thinking, impulsivity, and victim empathy. His broader criminogenic treatment needs include 121 BOM Vol 3, 937 [220] - [222]. 122 BOM Vol 3, 940 [237]. 123 BOM Vol 3, 940 [238]. 124 ts 31. 125 BOM Vol 3 940 [239] - [241]. 126 ts 32. -- 27 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 28 antisocial personality disorder, antisocial cognitions, family and relationship stressors, and substance use.127 119 The respondent would also benefit from support in relation to employment, leisure and lifestyle stability.128 120 Professor Pyszora described the respondent's personality and its effects in the following terms: He has an insecure dismissive attachment style, a lack of emotional connection with others, and an avoidant coping style whereby he will 'wipe people off' due to interpersonal issues rather than deal with the conflict. He can be antagonistic, controlling, deceptive, and manipulative. He is distrustful and intolerant of others with a tendency for hostile attribution bias. He lacks emotional depth, emotional stability, or genuine remorse for his behaviours which have hurt others. He is detached from others with a capacity to be cruel and callous. He engages in impression management and presents himself as the victim. These personality traits will make treatment and supervision more challenging, and progress is likely to be [s]lower. His tendency to give inconsistent accounts of reasons for behaviours, e.g. deleting data from his phone, mean there will need to be extra vigilance via external monitoring to manage risk factors rather than relying on his self-report.129 121 In Professor Pyszora's opinion, the respondent is not remorseful for his offending behaviour. Rather, his statements expressing remorse were rather 'rote', said without any change in his presentation or affect, which caused Professor Pyszora to doubt that the respondent was being genuine.130 122 Further, Professor Pyszora has observed that the respondent has a history of using cannabis, alcohol, addictive medications and methylamphetamine, and at times this use has been associated with family and domestic violence offending and to cope with emotional dysregulation. 127 BOM Vol 3, 941 [245]. 128 BOM Vol 3, 942 - 943 [246]. 129 BOM Vol 3, 941 - 942 [246]. 130 ts 30. -- 28 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 29 Risk Assessment 123 Professor Pyszora did not consider that the respondent's medical issues, including his impaired mobility, have any significant impact on his risk or his risk management at this time.131 Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; Hare, 2003 (PCL-R) 124 The PCL-R is a standardised rating scale which allows reliable identification of psychopathic traits. Psychopathy is strongly associated with the nature and severity of violence, and the PCL-R is considered to be an important consideration in assessing risk.132 125 The respondent's pro-rated score placed him in the higher end of the moderate range for psychopathy, with the weighting more heavily in the items relating to interpersonal and affective features.133 People who score highly on the PCL-R often pose challenges to service and treatment providers in terms of motivation, engagement, cooperation and interpersonal dynamics.134 Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, Version 3 (HCR-20v3) 126 The Historical, Clinical and Risk Management 20, Version 3 (HCR-20v3) is a Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) risk assessment method, and thus focusses on the prevention and management of future violence, rather than an exact probability to likely future violence. It measures static and dynamic factors and is the most widely used and best validated risk assessment instrument.135 127 The HCR-20v3 facilitates assessment of risk for interpersonal violence defined as 'actual, attempted or threatened infliction of bodily harm on another person. Bodily harm includes both physical and serious psychological harm, so long as it substantially interferes with the health or wellbeing of an individual. Psychological harm includes fear of physical injury, and other emotional, mental or cognitive consequences of the act in question.'136 As a result, the risk of interpersonal violence assessed is not able to be equated with the risk of commission of a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the HRSO Act. 131 ts 39. 132 BOM Vol 3, 942 [249]. 133 BOM Vol 3, 943 [251]. 134 BOM Vol 3, 943 [252]. 135 BOM Vol 3, 943 - 944 [254] - [256]. 136 BOM Vol 3, 944 - 945 [258]. -- 29 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 30 128 When the HCR-20v3 was applied to the respondent, the historical factors of problems with previous violence, other antisocial behaviour, relationships, employment, personality, traumatic experiences, violent attitudes, treatment or supervision response were present, and problems with substance use was also likely present.137 129 Of the clinical risk factors, the factors of recent problems with insight and violent ideation or intent were present, and recent problems with instability were partially present.138 130 The risk management factors were less clearly present, largely because of the respondent being in custody. However, Professor Pyszora considered that the respondent may experience problems with treatment or supervision response, personal support and stress or coping.139 Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide - Version 3 (SARA-V3) 131 The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide Version 3 (SARA-V3) is also a SPJ risk assessment tool, which has been shown to have moderate to good predictive validity, and includes guidance for risk formulation, risk scenario planning and risk management planning, as well as factors which aid in victim safety planning.140 132 The SARA-V3 is comprised of three domains, including risk factors as they relate to the Nature of Intimate Partner Violence, Perpetrator risk factors and Victim Vulnerability Factors.141 133 In Professor Pyszora's opinion, the family violence behaviours exhibited by the respondent would be classified as severe and chronic, as they have spanned a number of years, over two relationships, and have involved significant and potentially life-threatening acts of violence against both victims, as well coercive and intimidating behaviour. While his violence has been directed at his partners, the conduct was committed in the presence of some of his children, and they have been used as third parties to transmit threats to their mother.142 137 BOM Vol 3, 945 - 947 [259] - [273]. 138 BOM Vol 3, 947 [274] - [278]. 139 BOM Vol 3, 948 [279] - [283]. 140 BOM Vol 3, 948 [284]. 141 BOM Vol 3, 948 [285]. 142 BOM Vol 3, 949 [286] - [288]. -- 30 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 31 134 The Perpetrator risk factors relate to the perpetrator's problems with social, interpersonal and psychological adjustment. There are several risk factors present in the case of the respondent, including intimate relationship problems, personality disorder, likely substance abuse problems, non-intimate relationship problems, general antisocial conduct, history of trauma/victimisation and distorted thinking about family and domestic violence. Unemployment is an additional risk factor for severe and lethal family and domestic violence.143 135 It is apparent that both of the respondent's victims had vulnerabilities which interfered with their ability, opportunity or motivation to engage in self-protective behaviours. If the respondent were to engage in a future intimate relationship, his partner's specific vulnerability factors would need to be assessed.144 Scenarios for future serious offending 136 The most likely scenario of intimate partner violence involving the respondent would involve physical violence and may include serious offending, as it is likely to involve the use of readily available weapons (including a car) and/or to involve strangulation or asphyxiation, all of which increase the risk of serious or fatal outcomes. It may also involve threats, made directly or through others.145 137 Such incidents are likely to occur 'in the context of discharge of anger caused by interpersonal conflict with a victim'. The respondent may be jealous, or perceive an inability to control the victim. Substance use may be involved, but is not necessary.146 138 In Professor Pyszora's view, the respondent is likely to engage in further intimate partner violence if he develops another intimate relationship, unless he receives treatment addressing his family and domestic violence needs. Care would need to be taken to assess the vulnerability of any potential partner.147 Further, there would be warning signs of escalating risk, such as interpersonal conflict, including disapproval of a partner's behaviour and/or jealousy. As such, stringent supervision is likely to moderate the risk.148 143 BOM Vol 3, 949 - 950 [289] - [292]. 144 BOM Vol 3, 950 [293] - [294]. 145 BOM Vol 3, 950 [296]. 146 BOM Vol 3, 950 - 951 [297]. 147 ts 34 - 35. 148 BOM Vol 3, 951 [298] - [299]. -- 31 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 32 Conclusion 139 Professor Pyszora assessed the respondent as presenting a high risk of committing a further serious offence of intimate partner violence if not subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act.149 140 However, in her view, the respondent has the capacity to substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. Such an order should include monitoring strategies to ensure early detection of warning signs of escalating risk, conditions preventing the use of alcohol, illicit or non-prescribed medication, and random testing to ensure compliance. It is important to ensure he reports the development of new relationships he forms with women, regardless of their nature.150 He should also be supported by long-term individual psychological therapy, and to develop meaningful day time activities.151 141 Professor Pyszora was of the view that any supervision order should be of a minimum of five years' duration.152 Addendum Psychiatric Report of Professor Natalie Pyszora dated 1 June 2026 142 For her addendum report dated 1 June 2026, Professor Pyszora interviewed the respondent for a third time, reviewed the new materials produced by the State and spoke to Ms Elizabeth Chapman, the respondent's SCCO.153 143 Since her previous report, the respondent's therapy with Mr Becker has ceased, due to a conflict that arose due to Mr Becker treating a friend of the respondent, the respondent's resistance to responsibility taking during treatment, and his contraventions. The respondent was considered unsuitable for further treatment at that time.154 144 The respondent told Professor Pyszora that he was 'devastated' that he could no longer have any sessions with Mr Becker.155 He partly blamed his present SCCO for the cessation of his psychological therapy 149 BOM Vol 3, 951 [300]. 150 ts 35 - 36. 151 BOM Vol 3, 951 - 952 [302] - [305]. 152 ts 36. 153 BOM Vol 5, 1194 [6] - [7]. 154 BOM Vol 5, 1191 - 1192 [50] - [51]. 155 BOM Vol 5, 1194 [62]. -- 32 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 33 with Mr Becker. The respondent said that he had asked about resuming individual intervention with FPIT, claiming that when he had previously engaged in the program he did not get into trouble. He said that developing an understanding of his actions would be a useful skill and that psychological intervention could assist in this. He also indicated that, in the future, it would be beneficial to have someone to speak to if he was 'spiralling'. However, he did not want a female psychologist, claiming that this was only because his current ISO conditions restrict his association with females and not for any other reason.156 145 However, the respondent also said he did not think that he required any psychological therapy to avoid reoffending, nor did he express any interest in addressing his own trauma through such treatment. He said that his lawyer had told him it would 'look good' if he enrolled in programs.157 146 Notwithstanding these issues, FPIT is prepared to receive a re-referral of the respondent, although even if the respondent were allocated a psychologist, sessions could only be conducted via Microsoft Teams, as there is no south-west based FPIT psychologist available other than Mr Becker.158 147 The respondent claimed to not be interested in entering into another relationship, even if not on an ISO.159 148 In her third interview, Professor Pyszora did not observe any impression management on the part of the respondent. She described his affect as 'angry' and frustrated' being largely preoccupied with his current SCCO, whom he spoke of in disparaging terms and regarded as being responsible for his contraventions.160 Professor Pyszora considered rapport to be difficult, and that the respondent believed that things would be 'twisted in court' as he thought they had been in August 2025.161 149 The respondent considered that his SCCO should not have been dictating what he did, that she lied to him about his conditions, and was not helping him.162 He claimed that he could not read his conditions 156 BOM Vol 5, 1194 [62] - [64]. 157 BOM Vol 5, 1194 - 1995 [62] - [65]. 158 BOM Vol 5, 1192 [51]. 159 BOM Vol 5, 1195 [70]. 160 BOM Vol 5, 1192 [55]. 161 BOM Vol 5, 1197 [80]. 162 BOM Vol 5, 1194 - 1195 [64]. -- 33 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 34 but acknowledged he did not ask anyone to explain his conditions to him.163 150 The respondent's explanations for his contraventions, as provided to Professor Pyszora, lacked veracity. For example, he claimed he found a bag on his letterbox containing what looked like rock salt, and tasted it, only to realise it was methylamphetamine. When asked how he was able to identify it if he had never used it (as he had previously claimed), he said that he had previously 'tasted' his ex-wife's methylamphetamine.164 He did not think about reporting it, or why he kept the substance, only to use it again a couple of weeks later.165 151 The respondent reported to Professor Pyszora that he did not like his SCCO telling him about his conditions because he was not a threat to the community, and claimed his SCCO effectively put him back into prison.166 He said that he believed he would be able to comply with the conditions of his ISO in the future if he were assigned a new SCCO. He also asserted that he does not experience any temptation to use drugs while subject to an ISO, and stated that his prior use of methylamphetamine was motivated solely by a desire to be returned to custody from his ISO.167 152 The respondent complained that the ISO 'prohibits' him from having friends, and has resulted in him becoming a 'hermit'.168 On release, he intends to maintain contact with three friends, one of whom is his roommate. He claims to no longer be in contact with LG.169 153 Since receiving a compensation payout for his injury sustained at Albany Regional Prison in 2019, the respondent has spent a considerable proportion of it on three cars, a Jeep, and a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. In response to direct questioning by Professor Pyszora about how he is able to drive given his physical limitations and pain, he responded sarcastically. He denied any interest in driving at speed, despite his previous history.170 154 The respondent said he would like to contact one of his daughters via Facebook, but does not wish her to have his phone number or 163 BOM Vol 5, 1193 [57]. 164 BOM Vol 5, 1194 [59]. 165 BOM Vol 5, 1193 - 1194 [59] - [61]. 166 BOM Vol 5, 1194 [60]. 167 BOM Vol 5, 1195 [67] - [69]. 168 BOM Vol 5, 1195 - 1196 [71], [75]. 169 BOM Vol 5, 1196 [73]. 170 BOM Vol 5, 1196 [74]. -- 34 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 35 address, as he believes his ex-wife would seek financial assistance from him following his compensation payout. He further indicated that he does not wish to have contact with his two sons, as he believes his ex-wife has them 'wrapped around her finger'.171 155 Professor Pyszora reported that the respondent had historically had little regard for the presence of legal restrictions, but maintained that he would comply with the conditions of any supervision order imposed.172 156 Professor Pyszora's risk assessment in relation to the respondent remained unchanged since her initial report and evidence. In her opinion, he presents a high risk of committing a serious offence in the future if not subject to a restriction order. However, she is of the view that his risk can be sufficiently managed in the community.173 157 Professor Pyszora highlighted the respondent's claim that he cannot feel the buzzing of his GPS ankle monitor and recommended that the issue should be investigated by Adult Community Corrections to ensure his compliance with his conditions.174 Psychological Report of Ms Julie Hasson dated 9 July 2025 158 Ms Hasson is a qualified expert within the meaning of the HRSO Act.175 She prepared a report dated 9 July 2025.176 Ms Hasson interviewed the respondent, for more than four hours, and spoke with the respondent's supervising SCCO and Mr Becker, the forensic psychologist then engaged with the respondent.177 159 Ms Hasson found the respondent to be polite and cooperative with the assessment, and noted that he responded well to most questions posed, with his affect being congruent and reactive. There was no evidence of any issue with memory, attention, concentration, or formal thought disorder.178 160 The respondent reported to Ms Hasson that he hated his father, and had no happy or fond memories of him, describing him as very violent towards him, his mother and his siblings. He spent much of his early life wanting to kill his father. He felt unable to run away because his 171 BOM Vol 5, 1196 [76]. 172 BOM Vol 5, 1198 [88]. 173 BOM Vol 5, 1206 [133] - [134]. 174 BOM Vol 5, 1206 [137]. 175 BOM Vol 3, 987 - 988. 176 BOM Vol 3, 954. 177 BOM Vol 3, 955. 178 BOM Vol 3, 955 [1]. -- 35 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 36 father would then take his aggression out on the respondent's mother, which made the respondent feel powerless and helpless. The respondent disclosed to Ms Hasson that his father had also sexually abused him.179 161 The respondent denied having engaged in any behaviours which could be considered to fall under the umbrella of family and domestic violence, expressed annoyance at claims to the contrary by his former partner and made allegations of violence against her. He also made allegations of infidelity and drug use against his former partner and claimed he was intervening at the request of his children. Notwithstanding this, he professed his ongoing love for his former partner, but said he had no plans to reunite with her.180 162 According to the respondent, he was in a 'casual sexual arrangement' with the complainant in the case of the index offending, and, while she had asked him to 'choke' her on occasion, he had declined.181 Despite pleading guilty to the offences against her, he denied committing them.182 163 Having considered the respondent's medical and psychological factors, Ms Hasson observed that jealousy, abandonment and rejection are risk factors for the respondent, and the presence of proprietary attitudes and beliefs also seem relevant, while externalising of blame reduces his culpability and responsibility taking. She regarded the respondent's repeated use of violence to resolve conflict as suggesting his behaviour is maintained by 'offence supportive attitudes'.183 164 Ms Hasson reported that, in relation to the 2014 offence involving driving his car while his partner was tethered to it by a rope around her neck, the respondent said that his partner was 'holding on to a rope', but was not tied to it. He denied other incidents of violence. However, he later claimed his offending behaviour had occurred because he had 'blown his top and lost control'.184 165 In his interview with Ms Hasson, the respondent alleged that his former partner had stalked him after his release in 2019, but also made statements suggesting that he was monitoring his family, and 179 BOM Vol 3, 956 [3]. 180 BOM Vol 3, 958 [8] - [10]. 181 BOM Vol 3, 958 [11]. 182 BOM Vol 3, 963 [39]. 183 BOM Vol 3, 961 [27]. 184 BOM Vol 3, 965 - 966 [50]. -- 36 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 37 Ms Hasson observed that the respondent has a history of installing cameras to monitor his former partner's movements.185 166 In his first interview with Ms Hasson, the respondent was positive regarding his counselling with Mr Becker and said he felt comfortable talking with him about most topics. He generally had sessions once every two weeks, for 40 - 50 minutes. 167 In turn, Mr Becker reported to Ms Hasson that the respondent attended well, and had shown little frustration, notwithstanding his pain and the limitations from his disability. Mr Becker commented that the respondent demonstrated several insightful responses during session, but 'often appears to be overconfident, typically responding in an impulsive manner'.186 168 However, the respondent was also said to have minimised his offending behaviour and denied aspects of it, and Mr Becker observed to Ms Hasson that the respondent had 'significant ego defence mechanisms designed to reduce offending culpability' and tends to present himself as the victim.187 169 Mr Becker suggested the respondent's perceived lack of remorse and empathy might be explained by his defence mechanisms and fixation on being the victim, which are likely the product of his childhood trauma. This informed the primary goal of his psychological intervention: to address his offending minimisation and victim complex, which might be impeding his personal growth and ability to benefit from previous programmatic intervention.188 170 Mr Becker chose to use a Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy approach with the respondent in a third session. The approach can be confrontational and directly challenges the patient. The respondent provided the most insight into his offending during this session, and did not become frustrated or angry, although Mr Becker suggested that a female therapist might have experienced a different reaction. In later sessions, the respondent was considered to have made some gains in addressing his tendency to minimise his actions, but progress was very slow.189 185 BOM Vol 4, 971 [76]. 186 BOM Vol 3, 974 [98] - [99]. 187 BOM Vol 3, 974 [99]. 188 BOM Vol 3, 974 - 975 [99] - [100]. 189 BOM Vol 3, 975 [101] - [102]. -- 37 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 38 PCL-R 171 After applying the PCL-R, Ms Hasson concluded that the respondent does not fit the construct of psychopathy, but areas of concern were identified, including items suggesting limited remorse and empathy, poor behavioural controls, impulsivity, irresponsibility, parasitic and unstable lifestyle, failure to accept responsibility for his own actions, and a history of revocation of conditional release.190 SARA-V3 172 Ms Hasson also applied the SARA-V3 to the respondent's circumstances, and arrived at similar conclusions to those of Professor Pyszora. Ms Hasson noted that inadequate social networks and a general lack of prosocial interactions may allow a perpetrator to continue rationalising their behaviour and for their distorted thinking to go unchallenged. She also considered that, notwithstanding the respondent's expressed lack of interest in trauma counselling, this should be reviewed with him.191 173 Further, Ms Hasson opined that non-compliance and the emergence of antisocial and anti-authoritarian attitudes and beliefs should be monitored carefully, given that it is well established that offenders who violate terms of conditional release or community supervision are more likely to reoffend. She also noted that, while intoxication has likely caused or contributed to some of the respondent's behavioural disinhibition, it has not been a necessary factor in his offending.192 Scenarios for future offending 174 Ms Hasson was of the view that future intimate partner violence would involve physical violence, rather than 'just' pure psychological violence and may include serious offending. Like Professor Pyszora, Ms Hasson considered such offending would likely involve the use of readily available weapons, and involve strangulation and/or choking, which increase the risk of serious or fatal outcomes. Such violence would occur in the context of discharge of anger and emotional tension caused by interpersonal conflict and the respondent's own trauma history. 190 BOM Vol 3, 984 - 985 [163] - [164]. 191 BOM Vol 3, 979 - 982 [130] - [149]. 192 BOM Vol 3, 982 [146] - [147]. -- 38 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 39 175 Should the respondent enter into an intimate relationship without supervision, treatment and controls, his risk of further offending would be considered elevated. Warning signs might include expressions of jealousy, concerns about fidelity, his partner's drug or alcohol use, the emergence of attitudes or comments which devalue or demean the partner, expressions of hostility and evidence of mood changes.193 176 In Ms Hasson's opinion, the respondent's offending towards intimate partners has been expressive, and his use of violence and aggression appears impulsive, unplanned and motivated by strong emotion, specifically anger, rage, distress, jealousy and sensitivity to rejection. She considered relationship breakdown and perceived or real infidelity to be significant triggers for him.194 Conclusion 177 In Ms Hasson's opinion, the respondent would present a high risk of committing a serious act of intimate partner violence if his risk factors are not managed.195 178 Ms Hasson regarded the most relevant factors contributing to the respondent's offending as including: antisocial personality traits, his history of trauma, unstable and conflictual intimate relationships, substance abuse, and difficulties with emotional and behavioural regulation, especially the expression and/or inhibition of angry or aggressive impulses, trust issues and feelings of jealousy and betrayal. The presence of weapons and willingness to use weapons are salient factors in [the respondent's] serious offending.196 179 Further, lifestyle factors including absence of employment, financial stress, unstable lifestyle, limited prosocial supports, limited meaningful engagement in community-based hobbies or leisure pursuits, and reliance/dependence on welfare have also contributed to the respondent's risk of reoffending.197 180 Ms Hasson recommended that any supervision order be of two to five years' duration, focus on fostering positive relationships with those providing intervention and monitoring to ensure compliance, and on the respondent developing a fulfilling lifestyle, including healthy relationships and meaningful occupation and hobbies. Monitoring 193 BOM Vol 3, 983 - 984 [159] - [162]. 194 BOM Vol 3, 985 [167]. 195 BOM Vol 3, 982 [158], 986 [169]. 196 BOM Vol 3, 986 [170]. 197 BOM Vol 3, 986 [171]. -- 39 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 40 should be implemented to ensure abstinence from substance misuse, and to ensure adherence to protective conditions regarding past and future intimate relationships.198 181 In evidence, Ms Hasson noted that the respondent's justifications for his conduct, and his minimisation of responsibility for his conduct, will likely make him more difficult to manage, and thus his conditions, and instructions given to him, will need to be very clear and unambiguous to aid in compliance.199 182 Additionally, Ms Hasson considers that the respondent requires specialised intervention to assist with affect regulation, emotional and behavioural stability, distress tolerance, coping skills, communication and conflict resolution, trauma processing, and the exploration of his offending behaviour, including addressing offence minimisation and denial, victim mentality, victim blaming, and poor victim insight, awareness, and empathy. She considers these needs can be addressed through long-term individual psychological counselling. She further opines that the initial dozen or more sessions are likely to involve negotiation rather than therapy, with meaningful progress thereafter in his capacity to improve frustration tolerance, accept accountability for his choices, acknowledge responsibility for the consequences of his actions and others' reactions, and develop a sense of agency not reliant on domination or deceit.200 183 Ms Hasson reiterated that the respondent will most likely require ongoing intervention for many years, however, once his specific criminogenic issues are addressed, he can be referred to a community-based counsellor for ongoing general psychological wellbeing intervention.201 Addendum Report of Ms Julie Hasson dated 29 May 2026 184 For her addendum report dated 29 May 2026, Ms Hasson interviewed the respondent for two hours and spoke with the respondent's SCCO for 70 minutes.202 185 Ms Hasson observed that, on this occasion, there was some impulsivity in the respondent's response style, and she observed him to 198 BOM Vol 3, 986 [174]. 199 ts 42 - 43. 200 Psychological Report of Ms Hasson dated 29 May 2026, 11 [49], 20 - 21 [101]. 201 Psychological Report of Ms Hasson dated 29 May 2026, 10 [44]. 202 BOM Vol 5, 1210. -- 40 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 41 express feelings of anger and resentment toward his recent community supervision experience. She opined that he adopted a victim stance that limited his acceptance of personal responsibility and accountability for his behaviour in the community and subsequent imprisonment.203 186 When Ms Hasson interviewed the respondent for the second time, he reported struggling to cope with 'lots of change in a short space of time'. He reported he had failed to form a collaborative or trusting relationship with his new SCCO. He seemed to have a rigid view of what a SCCO's duties were, and felt that his SCCO wanted him to fail.204 187 The respondent said he did not understand why his supervision sessions were required to last between 45 minutes and an hour, and he was annoyed and angered by the need to account for his wish to spend more time with friends and acquaintances, particularly males. He reported that he deliberately avoided forming contacts that extended beyond two interactions so as to avoid having to disclose them to his SCCO or reveal his personal history. He also complained about having been denied permission to visit his mother's grave, and denied having been offered solutions to issues which had arisen in this regard, a claim rejected by his SCCO.205 188 The respondent expressed feelings of anger, resentment, distrust and a lack of respect towards his SCCO, and considers his relationship with her to be beyond repair. He has requested that, should he be released, he be assigned to a different officer.206 189 Against this background, which included his perception of a hostile relationship with his SCCO, feelings of isolation and overcontrol arising from his conditions, and the combined effect of his stressors and health issues, he experienced a sense of hopelessness and despair in which he breached his supervision order.207 190 The counselling sessions with Mr Becker had ended in September 2025 after a conflict of interest arose when the respondent attempted to influence Mr Becker's views regarding another of his patients who is known to the respondent. The respondent stated to Ms Hasson that he did not understand why there was a problem. He has not engaged in 203 BOM Vol 5, 1211 [2]. 204 BOM Vol 5, 1214 [26]. 205 BOM Vol 5, 1214 [27] - [28]. 206 BOM Vol 5, 1215 [30], 1218 [45]. 207 BOM Vol 5, 1215 - 1216 [30]. -- 41 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 42 further individual psychological treatment since then. Nevertheless, he expressed positive views about counselling, noting that he valued his sessions with Mr Becker and that, after they ceased, he felt he no longer had someone to listen to him or support him in dealing with the challenges he faced. 191 The respondent told Ms Hasson that he was willing to access additional support services while awaiting allocation to a departmental psychologist, and she noted that he had agreed to engage with Accordwest and obtain a referral to see a community psychologist.208 192 Ms Hasson observed that the respondent exhibited a pattern of pessimistic thinking, focusing on the negative aspects of his circumstances, magnifying perceived problems and difficulties, and filtering out any positives. He appeared unwilling to accept ownership or accountability for the role his attitudes and behaviours played in his perception of supervision as critical, judgmental, and hostile.209 193 In Ms Hasson's view, the respondent's personality is evident in his oppositional, controlling, deceptive and manipulative behaviour. She described him as displaying 'rigidity in his thinking' and considered that he needs to acquire the ability to quickly 'reset' after a bad day, to learn and adjust from making a bad decision and to learn that he cannot always control what happens to him or get his own way, but that he can control how long he allows situations to affect him. However, these personality traits are long standing and will be highly resistant to change. It will take 'years' to make meaningful progress and will require commitment on the respondent's part. In the meantime, supervision and monitoring will be challenging.210 194 Ms Hasson reviewed the respondent's risk using the SARA-V3 and the PCL-R and, while there was a slight increase in his PCL-R score, she was of the opinion that there was no significant change to his overall risk rating from her previous report.211 195 Ms Hasson continued to be of the view that the respondent presents a high risk of committing a serious offence of intimate partner violence if his risks are not managed under the HRSO Act. There was no difference in her assessment of risk scenarios.212 However, 208 BOM Vol 5, 1218 [42] - [43]. 209 BOM Vol 5, 1218 – 1219 [46]. 210 BOM Vol 5, 1219 [48]. 211 BOM Vol 3, 1223 [69]. 212 BOM Vol 5, 1226 [86] - [90], 1227 [94]. -- 42 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 43 Ms Hasson was of the opinion that, notwithstanding his history of contraventions, the respondent can be managed in the community and has the capacity to substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.213 196 Ms Hasson noted that the respondent's SCCO did not appear to have the same view of the respondent's engagement with her as he did, and was confident in her ability to manage the respondent in the future.214 197 In Ms Hasson's view, if the respondent is to be released on a supervision order, there will need to be very clear conditions around contact with his children (if they consent), prohibiting contact with the victims of his offending, and reporting of any potential social or intimate relationship by him with any person. However, she considered that the proposed condition regarding disclosure to any social contact seemed to be an 'over reach' and had the potential to increase negative feelings, including alienation, isolation and despair, which could contribute to non-compliance and/or hostility to monitoring.215 Ms Hasson also supported removal of the current curfew condition and a relaxation of the prohibition on entering a vehicle driven by women to allow for the use of rideshare vehicles.216 Any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the offender Community Supervision Assessment of Ms Chloe Jones dated 25 July 2025 198 Ms Chloe Jones is a Senior CCO. In her report dated 25 July 2025, she set out the respondent's background, and his performance on the interim supervision order after his release on 4 February 2025 (other than contraventions, which are detailed above). 199 The respondent attended all appointments set for him. While he did not reject any supervision, Ms Jones regarded his presentation as having been 'superficial'.217 200 Ms Jones noted that at one stage the respondent became fixated on the fact that a car owned by him had been allocated to his daughter 213 BOM Vol 5, 1227 [95] - [96]. 214 BOM Vol 5, 1220 [53]. 215 BOM Vol 5, 1221 - 1222 [56] - [60]. 216 BOM Vol 5, 1222 [63]. 217 BOM Vol 3, 993. -- 43 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 44 (with whom he has no contact) and there had been third party contact with his daughter, which was of concern. 201 According to Ms Jones, the respondent made intermittent admissions to his supervising CCO, his psychologist and Ms Jones of intentionally deleting data from his mobile phone, although he also claimed that his mobile phone was automatically doing so. The data the respondent admitted intentionally deleting was of conversations with his aunt and niece which were related to Mother's Day which was emotionally difficult for him.218 202 The respondent lived with one of the people he described as a 'mentor' from prison. They shared a tenancy in community housing. He had applied for the Disability Support Pension.219 In July 2025, the respondent received compensation for the ankle injury he sustained while in prison in 2019.220 203 The respondent intends to apply for his own housing in the future. He was living in supported accommodation prior to his sentencing. 204 According to Ms Jones, the respondent has limited community support. His only contact with family is with an elderly woman to whom he refers as 'aunty'.221 205 The respondent's former long-term partner and his children have expressed a desire that the respondent be prevented from contacting them.222 206 Having consulted with Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson, Ms Jones proposed a number of conditions which would be appropriate if the respondent is made the subject of a high risk serious offender declaration, and placed on a supervision order. Given the respondent's risk assessment, it was not considered necessary for the respondent to be subject to a curfew, or for there to be as many limitations on his associations with women as the interim supervision order required. However, monitoring of his intimate relationships, and therefore his communications, are still regarded as important conditions to manage the respondent's risk.223 218 BOM Vol 3, 994. 219 BOM Vol 3, 938 [226] - [227], 996. 220 BOM Vol 3, 996. 221 BOM Vol 3, 995. 222 BOM Vol 3, 995. 223 BOM Vol 3, 999 - 1000. -- 44 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 45 Community Supervision Assessment of Ms Elizabeth Chapman dated 23 June 2026 207 Elizabeth Chapman commenced supervising the respondent in October 2025. Unfortunately, for reasons which I was told related to workload, Ms Chapman did not complete her report in the time ordered by the court, despite an extension, and her report, when ultimately provided, was not as thorough as it might have been. 208 Ms Chapman reported that she had difficulty establishing rapport with the respondent, generally and in supervision sessions, but considered that an appointment on 4 June 2026 was completed satisfactorily. 209 Ms Chapman reported that the respondent reported difficulty with a condition of his ISO which required disclosure of his offending. He identified a period starting in September 2025 in which he had an increasing sense of losing control. After having difficulty arranging a visit to his deceased mother's resting place, he tested positive to methylamphetamine and was ultimately remanded in custody.224 210 The respondent has apparently been approved for release on parole as of 24 June 2026, if he is released on a supervision order. It is proposed that he continue to reside at the address to which he was previously released, living with a friend. There are no concerns with the accommodation, although he intends to seek his own accommodation when possible.225 211 While employment opportunities are limited for the respondent, there are potential prosocial community activities open to him. However, the respondent declined to engage, expressing the view that the conditions of his ISO prevent him doing so.226 212 The respondent has been accepted for counselling with Accordwest. He has been assigned a counsellor, but that counsellor is only able to provide reintegration support and general counselling, not criminogenic treatment.227 However, the respondent continues to be 224 BOM Vol 5, 1231 - 1232. 225 BOM Vol 5, 1232. 226 BOM Vol 5, 1233. 227 ts 69 - 70. -- 45 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 46 difficult to engage.228 He said he did not wish to engage in substance abuse counselling,229 although it is available.230 213 In evidence at the hearing, Ms Chapman said that the respondent had been informed that he was, as part of the ordinary course, to be assigned a new Case Manager (SCCO) from the Busselton office during July. However, when he was told this on 30 June 2026, the respondent told Ms Chapman that he did not want a new Case Manager, and wanted her to continue to be his Case Manager.231 214 Ms Chapman also indicated that there is the potential for the respondent to be referred to the clinical intervention group program 'Safer Families'. That program is available to offenders subject to community-based sanctions who are mandated to attend. There would be some logistical challenges for the respondent, given his mobility issues, but the respondent told Ms Chapman that he was willing to consider participating in that program if he were assessed as being suitable.232 215 Ms Hasson gave evidence at the hearing that, while it would be appropriate for the respondent to participate in a program such as 'Safer Families', she would anticipate that the respondent would be exited early, given his personality style and the fact that he would likely disrupt a group program of that kind.233 Treatment Options Report of Luke Carmichael dated 30 June 2026 216 In the Treatment Options Report of Luke Carmichael dated 30 June 2026, Mr Carmichael reported that, while the respondent has been referred again to FPIT for further psychological intervention, given FPIT's 'current service capacity constraints': FPIT has prioritised allocation to cases where there is a reasonable prospect of meaningful therapeutic engagement and risk reduction. [The respondent's] suitability for intervention would be reconsidered upon demonstration of improved insight, responsibility-taking and willingness to engage in offence-specific work.234 228 BOM Vol 5, 1233. 229 BOM Vol 5, 1234. 230 ts 72. 231 ts 66 - 67. 232 ts 71. 233 ts 83. 234 Treatment Options Report of Luke Carmichael dated 30 June 2026, 2 [5]. -- 46 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 47 217 It was not explained how it is intended that the respondent develop and then demonstrate the required improved attributes in the absence of intervention. 218 In evidence at the hearing on 2 July 2026, both Professor Pyszora235 and Ms Hasson236 recommended that the respondent be provided with FPIT intervention when available. Ms Hasson expressed concern that being separately assigned an Accordwest counsellor, being required to do a group-based family violence program and substance abuse counselling might be less conducive to compliance given the number of different interactions and relationships that would require, when FPIT intervention could deal with all of the respondent's criminogenic needs at once.237 Previous Reports Psychological Report of Wendy Wager dated 5 July 2015 219 Ms Wendy Wager prepared a psychological report in respect of the respondent, dated 5 July 2015, for the purposes of his 2015 sentencing in the District Court. 220 Ms Wager administered the Millon Clinical Multi-axial Inventory (3rd Edition) (MCMI-III), a self-report questionnaire designed to assess personality traits and emotional adjustment as well as screen for the presence of psychological and clinical issues.238 221 Ms Wager reported that: The personality profile obtained … revealed elevations consistent with people who turn to others for nurturance and security and can be interpersonally submissive. They tend to view themselves as needing others, without whom they can feel anxious and alone and so they relate to others from an inferior or interpersonally deferential stance. They tend to engage in self-defeating behaviour and act to perpetuate their own pain and anguish.239 235 ts 77. 236 ts 83. 237 ts 84. 238 BOM Vol 2, 760 [13]. 239 BOM Vol 2, 760 [14]. -- 47 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 48 222 The clinical scales related to both anxiety and depression were elevated. Ms Wager thought it likely that the respondent's depression was chronic and exacerbated by his situation.240 223 Ms Wager observed that, while the respondent's profile seemed consistent with his presentation at interview, it was not consistent with his offending.241 224 To Ms Wager, the respondent denied tying a rope around the complainant's neck, or committing that offence. He admitted being involved in the car chase, but minimised his conduct and denied intentionally hitting the car.242 225 Ms Wager noted the lack of previous convictions related to intimate partner violence. However, she did note that the respondent had factors related to psychosocial adjustment, such as recent relationship problems, substance abuse and childhood victimisation through domestic violence, and potentially attitudes which could support spousal assault. Ms Wager assessed the respondent as having a moderate likelihood of reoffending in a domestic violence contact, but a low level of violence towards others generally, but noted that her assessment was inhibited by her inability to contact the complainant, and thus the risk of future violence in a domestic relationship could be greater.243 226 Ms Wager recommended that the respondent engage in a program for domestic violence perpetrators.244 Treatment Assessment Report dated 20 August 2021 227 The respondent was again assessed following his sentencing in 2021. He continued to deny the offending and was assessed as externalising blame and minimising and justifying his conduct.245 He claimed to be heavily affected by alcohol at the time, but claimed his partner had forced him to drink. He denied any drug use.246 228 The respondent was assessed as being a high risk of general reoffending and a high risk for future violent offending. He was again 240 BOM Vol 2, 760 [15]. 241 BOM Vol 2, 760 [14]. 242 BOM Vol 2, 760 - 761 [17] - [18]. 243 BOM Vol 2, 762 [21]. 244 BOM Vol 2, 762 [23]. 245 BOM Vol 2, 780. 246 BOM Vol 2, 781 - 782. -- 48 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 49 recommended for the Stopping Family Violence Program and the Pathways Program.247 Victim-Offender Mediation Unit Report dated 15 December 2022 229 When interviewed by an officer from the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit, the respondent is reported to have denied being in a relationship with the complainant for the index offences either at the time of the offences or now. He was said to have engaged in victim blaming, and sought to discredit her behaviour. He failed to take responsibility for his offending behaviour. He did not think anything he had done would have affected her. He claimed he would abide by the conditions of the lifetime Family Violence Restraining Order.248 Post Sentence Supervision Order Report dated 31 October 2024 230 It was recommended that the respondent be made subject to a PSSO on his release from custody on 1 February 2025. In his interview on 16 October 2024 for the PSSO Report, the respondent was unable to identify confirmed accommodation on his release. He said he intended to reapply for the Disability Support Pension on his release. 231 The respondent was again reported to have denied the offending and claimed that it was a set up between the complainant and her (other) partner, demonstrating no victim empathy or insight into his behaviour.249 232 The respondent initially refused to participate in either the Stopping Family Violence Program or the Pathways Program. He verbalised interest in participating in programs in December 2023 and June 2024, but the programs were not then available prior to his release. The report authors indicated that the respondent 'impressed as being unmotivated to address his issues or to undertake counselling'.250 Propensity to commit serious offences in the future and whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour 233 I am required to consider whether the respondent has a propensity, being an inclination or tendency,251 to commit serious offences in the future. In this context, 'serious offences' are likely to be serious assaults 247 BOM Vol 2, 782. 248 BOM Vol 2, 784. 249 BOM Vol 2, 787. 250 BOM Vol 2, 788. 251 The State of Western Australia v Bellamy [2013] WASC 467 [70]; see also The State of Western Australia v McCabe [2016] WASC 226 [25] - [26]. -- 49 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 50 causing significant personal and psychological injury to the victim, who will be an intimate partner with whom the respondent has developed interpersonal conflict. 234 The respondent has had few intimate partner relationships, having been in one relationship for 28 years. However, when that deteriorated, the respondent's reaction to the conflict between him and his partner was violent, controlling, retributive, and extremely dangerous, involving life threatening conduct on a number of occasions. 235 The respondent denied he was in an intimate partner relationship with the complainant of the index offences. However, it seems clear that the relationship was objectively of such a nature. That relationship, which came into being relatively shortly after the respondent's release from custody, deteriorated more rapidly into conflict, but again the respondent reacted in a controlling, violent and extremely dangerous manner, substantially impeding the breathing of the complainant by choking and strangulation, causing her significant injury, and then detaining her of her liberty for a number of hours. 236 In my view, this course of conduct is sufficient to establish that the respondent does have a propensity to commit serious offences in the context of intimate partner relationships. Any efforts by the respondent to address the cause or causes of the offending behaviour, including whether the respondent has participated in any rehabilitation program, and whether the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect on the offender Programs 237 Following his sentencing in 2015, the respondent was assessed as to his treatment needs, and it was recommended that he complete the Stopping Family Violence Program and a medium intensity Addictions program.252 Stopping Family Violence Program Completion Report dated 28 November 2017 238 The respondent completed the Stopping Family Violence Program in October 2017. This is a 28 session, 70-hour program which focusses on addressing domestic and family violence, seeking to have individuals take responsibility for their behaviour, develop skills to 252 BOM Vol 2, 771. -- 50 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 51 manage risk and to increase accountability to their family and community.253 239 During the program, the respondent denied the presence of abuse or violence within his family.254 240 While the respondent continued to deny tying a rope around the complainant's neck, he did cite strong feelings of anger as motivating his conduct in relation to the other offence. He reported having experienced a build-up of emotional stress beforehand, following the breakdown of the relationship.255 He was also assessed as having a lack of insight into his abuse related beliefs and thoughts, poor emotional management and impulsivity in the face of relationship stressors, and having held beliefs minimising or denying the impact of his offending and externalising causation for his emotional distress and behaviours towards the complainant.256 241 The respondent was reported to have openly engaged in the program, and to have made some gains by developing increased insight into the importance of identifying and challenging his abuse related thoughts, emotions and behavioural responses in the face of perceived provocations from others. He did admit to deliberately turning to collide with the car his former partner was driving.257 While he continued to cite his former partner's alleged drug use as precipitating his offending, he also claimed to no longer blame her, and said he had learned that he needed to be more honest with himself.258 242 The report authors observed that the respondent would benefit from further intervention and skills practice in developing an increased internal locus of control in response to interpersonal stressors,259 and predicted that, should the respondent 'relapse into a pattern of externalisation and abuse related thinking in response to future relationship stressors he would be at increased risk of engaging in further abusive practices'.260 253 BOM Vol 2, 772. 254 BOM Vol 2, 773. 255 BOM Vol 2, 773. 256 BOM Vol 2, 774. 257 BOM Vol 2, 775. 258 BOM Vol 2, 775, 777. 259 BOM Vol 2, 776. 260 BOM Vol 2, 778. -- 51 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 52 Other program opportunities 243 Following his sentencing in 2021, it was recommended that the respondent again complete the Stopping Family Violence Program. However, this was at least initially unavailable prior to the respondent's earliest eligibility date and on 30 June 2022,261 the respondent signed a document indicating his refusal to participate.262 244 It was also recommended that the respondent complete the Pathways (Addictions) Program.263 However, the respondent signed a document refusing to participate in that program on 28 March 2022, citing ongoing medical appointments and external family concerns.264 245 On 19 December 2023, the respondent indicated that he would then like to participate in treatment programs, but none were available prior to his release date.265 Effect on the respondent 246 Having regard to the fact that on his release from custody in 2019, the respondent committed further offences of a reasonably similar nature to those for which he had been imprisoned, it is apparent that any treatment gains the respondent made from participating in the Stopping Family Violence Program were limited, and did not produce behavioural change of any note. Further, the respondent was disinclined to make further attempts to engage in rehabilitative programs during his sentence of imprisonment for the index offences, suggesting that he lacked genuine motivation for change, at least in a group program setting. 247 The respondent did engage well with Mr Becker during the period of his ISO, but progress was reported to be very slow, and there is no evidence that he made any meaningful treatment gains in that time. His willingness and motivation to engage in psychological intervention in the future appears to be conditional at best, and it is difficult to have any confidence that he will actually engage with either community intervention or FPIT in the future. 261 BOM Vol 1, 440. 262 BOM Vol 1, 444. 263 BOM Vol 1, 440. 264 BOM Vol 1, 444. 265 BOM Vol 1, 456, BOM Vol 3, 928 [174]. -- 52 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 53 The risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence and the need to protect members of the community from that risk 248 Both Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson have assessed the respondent as being a high risk of committing a further serious offence of intimate partner violence, if he were not subject to restriction under the HRSO Act.266 249 I accept the opinions of both experts. They are based on the available history, their extensive interviews with the respondent over a period of time, and the use of various risk assessment methods which have been well validated for use in this context. 250 While the respondent is not presently in an intimate partner relationship, and claims to have no intention of entering into one, it is reasonably plain that, until the respondent makes measurable and meaningful treatment gains in relation to dealing with relationships and interpersonal conflict, he constitutes a significant danger to any woman with whom he does form such a connection. Further, the likely timeline for the individual psychological intervention to produce such treatment gains is a lengthy one. 251 As Ms Hasson noted, the respondent's offending behaviour has been expressive in nature, and his use of violence and aggression appears to have been impulsive, unplanned and motivated by strong emotions, designed to hurt, humiliate and degrade. The use of substances, outstanding treatment needs, and the willingness to use weapons all lead me to the conclusion that he poses a substantial risk of committing an offence which constitutes a serious offence within the meaning of the HRSO Act. Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? Is there an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? 252 The principal question in this matter is whether there is an 'unacceptable risk' of the respondent committing a serious offence. In determining this question, I am required to have regard to the likelihood of the respondent committing a serious offence, the nature of the serious offence likely to be committed, the potential consequences of 266 BOM Vol 3, 951 [300], 927 [169]. -- 53 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 54 such offending, and the consequences for the respondent of making a finding that the risk is unacceptable. 253 As I have outlined, the nature of the offence likely to be committed and the extent of the potential harm which would result from a serious offence of the kind which the respondent would likely commit are both significant. The respondent's past conduct indicates that he is willing to engage in conduct which is of a life-threatening nature. He has also shown a willingness to use opportunistic weapons in the course of his offending, elevating his risk. 254 The victims of any future offending are likely to be both psychologically and physically vulnerable in any conflict with the respondent, and seriously harmed in the event of him committing an offence against them. 255 I accept that the respondent is not presently in an intimate relationship and that the risks I have identified are not, therefore, imminent. However, that does not materially affect my assessment of the nature of the risk the respondent poses. In my view, that significant risk outweighs the importance of the fact that the respondent has served his punishment for his previous offending and that the provisions of the HRSO Act impose considerable restriction on the liberty of a person who is not being convicted of further offences. 256 On that basis, I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. Is it necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? 257 In the circumstances of this case, there is no available means of ensuring that the respondent does not commit a serious offence other than making him subject to an order pursuant to the HRSO Act. 258 This is particularly so in light of what I consider to be the respondent's unreliable self-reporting. There is strong evidence supporting a conclusion that the respondent says what he thinks will most assist him in the circumstances (even if his assessment of that is wrong). Most notably, this relates to his inconsistent reporting of matters, including his family history, his relationships, his convictions, and matters which have been put before courts on his behalf (and, apparently, on his instructions) which he now denies or disputes. -- 54 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 55 Further, it is apparent that he is prepared to deny matters even in situations where the evidence to the contrary (of which he is aware) is overwhelming. 259 This means that the respondent cannot, in my view, be relied upon to reliably provide information in a less formal and structured setting; he needs to be carefully monitored and supervised, and that those entrusted to do so must, in turn, be provided with sufficient tools to enable objective verification of the true situation. 260 Counsel for the respondent has conceded that the evidence establishes that the respondent meets the threshold to be declared a high risk serious offender. 261 In my view, the evidence adduced in this matter is acceptable and cogent, and compels the conclusion that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate community protection against the risks I have outlined. 262 I am satisfied of that necessity to a high degree of probability. Conclusion 263 It follows that I am satisfied that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. Continuing detention order or supervision order? 264 I am satisfied that the imposition of a supervision order is adequate to protect the community against the unacceptable risk presented by the respondent. Conditions can be imposed which enable the authorities to have good awareness of the respondent's relationships, and to detect warning signs of elevated risk within any such relationships at an early stage. He will continue to receive treatment and support to better deal with interpersonal conflict and to improve his coping skills, as well as to address his other criminogenic treatment needs. He will also be supported to develop a greater community of prosocial supports, and leisure activities, which will aid in the future reduction of risk. -- 55 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 56 Has the respondent satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions? 265 I have some reservations about whether the respondent has established on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. 266 The respondent developed a disturbing antipathy towards his SCCO, at least insofar as he described his relationship with her to Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson. Much of his resentment arose, it seems, from his SCCO's routine supervision and monitoring of the ISO, which the respondent appears to regard with resentment and was based on his view of how his SCCO should perform their role. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at least part of his attitude was referrable to the fact that his SCCO is a woman, although he plainly has a more general disregard for authority. 267 If the respondent does not accept that he does not have the power to dictate how he is monitored and supervised, it is very difficult to find that he will comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order, which include that he comply with the lawful instructions of his SCCO. 268 The respondent's stark change of attitude towards Ms Chapman remaining his Case Manager is unexplained. In the absence of evidence to the contrary from the respondent, it is difficult to conceive of an explanation for it other than that, now he has what he asked for, he realises that he will have less of an excuse (at least as he sees it) to engage in acts of resistance towards supervision and monitoring in the manner in which he has to date. 269 The respondent also appears to have taken a somewhat fatalistic view of the conditions of his ISO and his SCCO's supervision of him, using that as an excuse to avoid genuine engagement with treatment and prosocial activities which might assist in risk reduction in the longer term. He also appeared to have engaged in manipulative conduct at least towards his SCCO, if not also his FPIT psychologist, the latter resulting in the termination of the therapeutic relationship. Finally, as with his serious offending, he refuses to take responsibility for his role in his previous non-compliance. 270 It is also highly relevant that the respondent has committed a number of contraventions of his ISO since the preliminary hearing. -- 56 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 57 271 Notwithstanding these matters, the State has conceded that the respondent has met the burden of proof required of him by s 29 of the HRSO Act. That concession was supported by the reports of Professor Pyszora and Ms Hasson, as well as the evidence of Ms Hasson at the hearing, she having been made aware of the respondent's change of position towards Ms Chapman.267 272 With some hesitation, I have determined that the respondent has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. He needs to be under no illusions, however, that he has already demonstrated a certain degree of unwillingness to fully submit to the supervision and monitoring which is a condition of his release, and his previous return to substance use during the interim supervision order (about which he gave wholly incredible explanations) is a matter of significant concern. 273 The respondent should expect to be stringently monitored for such substance use. Most importantly, the respondent should understand that he will be placed under substantial scrutiny in relation to his associations and, in particular, his potential intimate relationships or relationships with any woman in his sphere. It is imperative that he be open and cooperative with authorities regarding these matters. I would consider his non-compliance in these areas in particular as demonstrating an increased risk of reoffending in a serious manner, with greater imminence. Conditions and duration of order 274 I have determined that the conditions of the supervision order should be as set out in Annexure A attached to this judgment. 275 The supervision order will be for a period of four years. 267 ts 86. -- 57 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 58 Annexure A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SO 17 of 2024 IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant -and- MARK FREDERICK BURT Respondent _________________________________________________________________________ SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER ON 3 JULY 2026 _________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Act, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of four years from 7 July 2026, on the following conditions: You, Mark Frederick Burt, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the time and place stated in the order and tell the officer 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 to 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 and follow any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the Act). -- 58 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 59 5. Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO. 6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order. 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the Act. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Reside (live) at Unit 4, 130 Bussell Highway, West Busselton WA 6280 and spend each night there. You can only stay at a different address if the different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you. Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO 9. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO at times and at places as directed by the CCO. You can discuss with a CCO to make sure this does not clash with your job(s) or other employment. Attendance at programs or treatment 10. Attend and engage in all appointments as directed. Receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO. 11. Let any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and opinions about your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment. Reporting to WA Police 12. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) of the Western Australian Police Force, or their delegate, at a nominated Police station in WA, and receive visits from Police as directed by the Office-in- Charge of the SOES or their delegate. -- 59 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 60 13. If asked to, let Police Officers enter and search your home and/or vehicle, and/or search you so that they can check your compliance with the conditions of this Order. Let Police Officers seize (take) any items that they believe to contravene the conditions of the Order. 14. Stay at your home and/or vehicle when Police Officers are searching your home and/or vehicle under condition 13. Disclosure/Exchange of Information 15. Agree to the exchange of information between people and agencies involved in carrying out this order, including confidential information; 16. Let the CCO, WA Police, or other people or agencies approved by the CCO, speak to anyone you spend time with, or may spend time with. Restrictions on contact with Victims 17. Have no contact directly or indirectly or by a third party with the victims of your serious offending, unless such contact is approved by the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice. 'Contact' under conditions 17, 18, 19 and 20 means any form of interaction or communication, whether by word, gesture, expression or touch and whether in person, in writing, by telephone or electronic means. It does not include the minimum interaction or communication needed to promptly and civilly end any inadvertent interaction or communication. 18. Unless contact with victims is allowed under condition 17, if you see any victim, you must immediately leave where you are without speaking to the victim, and must look away from the victim at all times. 19. Report any contact with a victim of your serious offending to the CCO and WA Police within 48 hours of the contact happening. 20. Have no contact with [redacted] unless such contact is either: (i) approved by the Victim Engagement Unit of the Department of Justice; or -- 60 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 61 (ii) approved in advance by the CCO and the prohibited person consents to the manner of contact Criminal conduct 21. Not commit any criminal offence that can be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and which involves either violence or threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments. 22. Comply with the conditions of any current Violence Restraining Order. 23. Not possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, including cannabis or any prescription medication that is not prescribed to you. You may use a drug that a doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you only use the amount that they have told you to use. Prevention of high-risk situations 24. Report any new social association or relationship with any female (someone you have contact with more than twice) to your CCO at your next contact with your CCO. 25. If told to do so by your CCO, tell any female that you start an intimate, sexual, or romantic relationship with about your past offending and the current order, which can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer. You must allow your CCO or Police Officer to disclose this information if you fail to do so. 26. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol, prohibited or non- prescribed drugs and/or medication as directed by a CCO or by a Police Officer, including going with them to an appropriate place for such testing to take place. 27. Provide a valid sample under condition 26. 28. Not purchase, possess or consume alcohol. 29. Not go to any licensed premises, excluding grocery stores, sporting venues, cafes and restaurants, except for the following reasons: -- 61 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 62 (i) Avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; (ii) For a reason and duration approved in advance by a CCO; (iii) If told to do so by a CCO or Police Officer. 30. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every electronic device that you acquire or start using that is capable of storing digital data or information, whether or not it can connect to the internet, including its location. You must advise the CCO or Police Officer within 48 hours of acquiring or first using the device. 31. Not let any person, other than a CCO or WA Police Officer, access any electronic device referred to in condition 30, without the prior approval of a CCO. 32. Have a password on all electronic devices and do not tell anyone any of your passwords, other than a CCO or WA Police Officer. 33. If asked to do so by a CCO or WA Police Officer, let them access any electronic device capable of storing digital data, so they can check your electronic device- related activities, and tell them any passwords needed to access the device, this includes all screen names, user names and email addresses. If any other entity needs to access your devices, the CCO must give prior approval. 34. Not delete, or allow to be removed, 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. 35. Not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to anyone working for, or providing services to, the Department of Justice. 36. Not be in the presence of anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by a prohibited drug, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO. -- 62 of 63 -- [2026] WASC 295 FORRESTER J Page 63 37. Not be anywhere that prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if prohibited drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of your home. _________________________________ THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER I authorise Police Officers from the Western Australian Police Force (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 (even if I am not being investigated 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 and 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 for as long as is required for legitimate evidentiary or law enforcement purposes only. I have received a copy of this Order. I have had it explained to me and understand the effect of this Order and what may happen if I contravene it. Signed by the Respondent _________________________________ MARK FREDERICK BURT In the presence of: _________________________________ Name and address: _________________________________ _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. BF Associate to the Honourable Justice Forrester 24 JULY 2026 -- 63 of 63 --