THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- QUARTERMAINE [2026] WASC 297

[2026] WASC 297 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- QUARTERMAINE [No 7] [2026] WASC 297 CORAM : LUNDBERG J HEARD : 21 JULY 2026 DELIVERED : 29 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 16 of 2020 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND LAWRENCE HENRY QUARTERMAINE Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Contravention proceedings under s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - The respondent was prosecuted in respect of, and pleaded guilty to, six contraventions of the court's supervision order - Whether respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order - Whether necessary to make a detention order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether an amended supervision order should be made - Nature of conditions proposed - Turns on own facts Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 29, s 30, s 53, s 55, s 56, s 80 -- 1 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 Page 2 National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) Result: Amended supervision order made. Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : D S McDonnell Respondent : P X Tobin Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Tony Hager Case(s) referred to in decision(s): DPP (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 DPP (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 State of New South Wales v Stone [2024] NSWSC 435 The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [2023] WASC 144 The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 5] [2023] WASC 434 The State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 4] [2026] WASC 279 The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 2] [2021] WASC 267 The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 5] [2024] WASC 226 The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 6] [2025] WASC 397 The State of Western Australia v White [No 7] [2023] WASC 432 -- 2 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 Page 3 Table of Contents Introduction and summary .......................................................................................................... 4 The Application .......................................................................................................................... 8 Legislative framework and relevant principles .......................................................................... 8 The materials and evidence adduced at the hearings ................................................................ 11 Documentary material ......................................................................................................... 11 Witnesses .............................................................................................................................. 12 Factual findings for the purposes of this Application............................................................... 13 The respondent's personal background ............................................................................... 13 The respondent's antecedents .............................................................................................. 13 The current contraventions .................................................................................................. 14 The respondent's prior contraventions ................................................................................ 18 The medical assessment of the respondent .......................................................................... 19 The supports available in the community ............................................................................ 23 Conditions to the supervision order..................................................................................... 25 Disposition ................................................................................................................................ 26 Contravention of the supervision order ............................................................................... 26 The appropriate order to be made ....................................................................................... 27 Conclusion and orders .............................................................................................................. 29 ATTACHMENT A Schedule of Contraventions ..................................................................... 31 ATTACHMENT B Proposed Amended Supervision Order .................................................... 33 -- 3 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 4 LUNDBERG J: Introduction and summary 1 The respondent is a 45 year old, cognitively impaired Indigenous man, with an established diagnosis of both schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. 2 He has a long history of violent offending. The respondent's prior offences include obscene acts in public and aggravated indecent assault, for which he received a 15 month sentence of imprisonment. 3 In 2021, before his release from custody in respect of that sentence, an application was made by the State to declare the respondent a high risk serious offender under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act). 4 The respondent was initially declared to be a high risk serious offender on 6 August 2021. He was then released on a 10 year supervision order, with effect from 6 December 2021.1 From this point, the respondent commenced living in the community subject to the conditions of the supervision order. 5 In March 2022, the respondent was charged with various criminal offences and contraventions of the supervision order, contrary to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. On 13 May 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty to all charges. This led, in February 2023, to the State of Western Australia bringing proceedings in this court alleging breaches of the supervision order by the respondent. The State adopted the position that the respondent could be released into the community on an amended supervision order. The contravention proceeding was determined by McGrath J in June 2024, with his Honour concluding that the respondent should be released on an amended supervision order.2 6 The present reasons concern the application filed by the State in September 2025 alleging further contraventions by the respondent of his supervision order (the Application).3 The State filed particulars of the contraventions,4 which I have summarised in Attachment A to these reasons. The contraventions are alleged to have occurred between 1 The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 2] [2021] WASC 267 (Smith J). 2 The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 5] [2024] WASC 226 (McGrath J). 3 Application dated 16 September 2025. 4 Particulars of Contravention Allegations (the Particulars). -- 4 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 5 22 April 2025 and 19 July 2025, involving breaches of conditions 26 and 27 of the supervision order. Those conditions are as follows: 26. Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments. 27. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA) and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider. 7 I also note that condition 34 of the supervision order obliges the respondent to 'attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the Community Corrections Officer (CCO) or by WA Police, including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place'. 8 The present Application has been brought pursuant to s 53(2) of the HRSO Act, seeking orders under s 55(1) or s 55(2) of the legislation (being for a continuing detention order or for an amended supervision order to be made by the court). 9 Following the filing of the present Application, McGrath J heard an application for the interim detention of the respondent pending determination of the contravention proceedings. His Honour concluded that the respondent should be subject to interim detention pending the determination of the contravention proceedings.5 10 On this Application, the State has made no submission against a finding that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of his supervision order. The State submits that the risks of the respondent committing a future serious offence can be adequately managed in the community, relying on the opinions expressed by Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, on the substantial NDIS supports which are available, and on the availability of suitable accommodation, among other matters. 11 At the conclusion of the hearing on 21 July 2026, I indicated to both counsel and also to the respondent that the evidence in the matter largely pointed one way, namely in support of an order that the 5 The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 6] [2025] WASC 397 (McGrath J). -- 5 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 6 respondent be re-released into the community - but be subject to more restrictive conditions. I foreshadowed that I would make orders to this effect upon the return of the matter. 12 Having had the opportunity to further review the evidence and the respondent's history, I am of the view that an order under s 55(1) of the HRSO Act should be made, and that the appropriate order is for the present supervision order to be continued on the amended (and more restrictive) terms proposed by the State. The power to do so is found in s 55(1)(b) of the HRSO Act. The amended terms are set out in Attachment B to these reasons. I will not read out now, but will formally publish, my reasons for reaching this view. 13 Before the court adjourned, I made some comments to the respondent to ensure he understood the effect of the orders and the reasoning of the court, as follows: Mr Quartermaine, I am going to say some things to you now to which I want you to listen carefully. If you have any questions about what I am going to say, you can ask your lawyer after the hearing today and I am sure he will explain it to you. You can also ask your Community Corrections Officer if you have any questions. Mr Quartermaine, you will remember that some years ago, in 2021, a Judge made an order that you should be subject to a supervision order. That was an order that allowed you to be back in the community and not in prison. Do you remember that? And a little while after that, you did some things which amounted to a breach of that order. You committed an obscene act in a police station, you assaulted police officers, you stole a vacuum cleaner, and you failed to comply with many of the restrictions in your supervision order. I won't mention them all. You will no doubt remember what then happened. It meant you had to go back into prison. And you then had to come before another Judge of this court to be dealt with. That was about two years ago, in 2024. That Judge said you had breached the order, but the court thought it was sufficiently safe to release you back to the community. But last year, you will remember that you engaged in violent and obscene acts at Royal Perth Hospital and at the police station afterwards. That was in April 2025. It was terrible and disgusting behaviour. You subjected the hospital staff and the police officers to conduct which the community does not tolerate. You also failed many drug tests, Mr Quartermaine. I am confident you remember those events, despite your use of methylamphetamine. -- 6 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 7 All of that conduct meant you had to go back to prison. You have been there for many months now. What I have been asked to decide is whether you should be released back into the community and, if I think you should, what conditions I should place you under. The doctors who have been managing and treating you have told me there are continuing concerns and risks about your behaviour if you are allowed back in the community. You have, in the past, had a craving for illicit substances, and you have committed violent offences and had sexual impulses which also lead to violent and non-violent behaviour. This is the type of conduct which the community will not tolerate, Mr Quartermaine. The doctors and Community Corrections staff who have been managing you also think there are many supports available to you in the community which will help to manage these risks and help you cope. I agree with them, Mr Quartermaine. You are in the very fortunate position that these supports are available and that our society can offer this assistance to you. If you did not have the funding under your NDIS plan, and the services and housing which it financially supports, it would be extremely difficult to justify your release. I am still very worried about your breaches of the supervision order. The law says the court must have as its paramount concern the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. What does that mean? It means I need to find a way to minimise the risk that you will be a danger to the people who live near you and who you might meet when you leave your home. That is why I think the only way you can be re-released back into the community is if this court imposes more restrictive conditions than the court previously ordered. These new conditions will restrict you from leaving your home without someone with you and limit your ability to go to parks on your own. There are other conditions I will impose as well. Your Community Corrections Officer will explain the conditions to you before you are released. You will need to comply with these new conditions, as well as the other conditions in the order. It is very important that you listen to your Community Corrections Officer when he or she tells you about the conditions and that you understand what will happen if you do not comply with them. If you fail to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court, you will be in breach of your supervision order and you will likely be returned to prison. -- 7 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 8 The Application 14 Within the Application, the State asserts the respondent contravened the supervision order on several occasions and notes that the respondent had been charged with offences pursuant to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. 15 By s 80(1), it is an offence for an offender who is subject to a supervision order to contravene a requirement of the order, without reasonable excuse. Section 80 relevantly provides: 80. Offence of contravening supervision order (1) An offender subject to a supervision order must not, without reasonable excuse, contravene a requirement of the order. Penalty for this subsection: imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of $36 000. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), if an offender is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) for an act or omission that is also a contravention of section 33(3) then, despite any other written law, the court sentencing the offender — (a) must sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months; and (b) must not suspend the term of imprisonment. (3) If a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months would be clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person, the court may decide — (a) to sentence the person to a term of imprisonment of less than 12 months; or (b) 11 not to sentence the person to a term of imprisonment. 16 The details of the contraventions alleged by the State are set out in Attachment A to these reasons, and further detailed at [47] to [67] of these reasons. Legislative framework and relevant principles 17 The objects of the HRSO Act, as stated in s 8 of that legislation, are to provide for: -- 8 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 9 (a) 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) the continuing control, care, or treatment of high risk serious offenders. 18 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.6 19 Part 4 of the HRSO Act sets out the regime for the restriction of offenders, through the making of 'restriction orders', and div 5 thereof concerns contraventions of a 'supervision order'. Where an offender is charged with an offence under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act, s 53 provides that the State may make an application for an order under s 55. 20 Where such an application is made, if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender has contravened, is contravening, or is likely to contravene, a condition of a supervision order, the court must rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order, or, subject to s 29 of the legislation, release the offender on the supervision order. In the latter case, the supervision order may be amended and, in some cases, extended.7 21 Section 55 of the HRSO Act expressly provides as follows: 55. Court to make orders in certain cases (1) If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates has contravened or is contravening a condition of a supervision order, the court must — (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make an order amending the conditions of the supervision order, or extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to the supervision order, or both; or 6 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [55] - [56]. 7 The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 5] [2023] WASC 434 [10] - [21]. -- 9 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 10 (c) except as provided in section 29, make an order affirming the supervision order without amendment or extension. (2) If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates is likely to contravene a condition of a supervision order, the court must — (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make an order — (i) amending the conditions of the supervision order; or (ii) amending the conditions of, and extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to, the supervision order. (3) In deciding which order to make under subsection (1) or (2), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. 22 In The State of Western Australia v MAR [No 5], her Honour Justice Strk set out the principles applicable to the determination of a contravention application such as the present. I gratefully adopt her Honour's statement of the principles at [10] - [21] of her reasons and note the following matters in particular. 23 In proceedings concerning an application for an order under s 55 of the HRSO Act, it is to be assumed that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender, and that the court is not required to make that determination afresh.8 24 As is made express by s 55(3), the paramount consideration in deciding which of the orders to make is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community. The need to ensure the adequate protection of the community does not exclude other considerations. The use of the word 'adequate' in s 55(3) indicates that a qualitative assessment is required.9 25 It is well accepted that the court should choose the order that is least invasive or destructive of the respondent's right to be at liberty 8 The State of Western Australia v CA [No 3] [2023] WASC 144 [28]. 9 DPP (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206 [57]. -- 10 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 11 while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.10 However, if, after considering all the evidence, the court is left in doubt as to whether the conditions of a supervision order would adequately protect the community, the court must impose a continuing detention order.11 The materials and evidence adduced at the hearings Documentary material 26 At the hearing of the Application, the State produced four volumes of materials, which I will refer to as BOM Volumes 1 to 4, running to over 1,000 pages12 I received that material pursuant to s 84(2) and s 84(5) of the HRSO Act. 27 Volume 1 contains materials concerning the original supervision order made in relation to the respondent, the amended supervision order made by McGrath J, various materials from the Department of Justice concerning incidents involving the respondent in prison, and medical records pertaining to the respondent. 28 Volume 2 contains the prosecution documents which relate to the present contraventions of the supervision order, including certified copies of the prosecution notices, statements of material facts and transcripts of the proceedings. Additionally, the State produced in this volume previous medical assessments of the respondent from 2021 and 2023, and his NDIS Plan approval letter. 29 Volume 3 contains further medical records for the respondent from 2025, some additional materials concerning the contraventions, and treatment and psychiatric reports for the respondent prepared in 2026. I will refer to these in more detail in due course. 30 Finally, volume 4 contains some further transcripts of proceedings in the Magistrates Court, of the hearings in December 2025, as well as the updated performance report prepared by Ms Charnie Connelly from the Department of Justice, to which I will return. 10 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 [49]. 11 The State of Western Australia v Garlett [2021] WASC 387 [142]. 12 Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 (BOM Volumes 1-4). -- 11 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 12 Witnesses 31 At the hearing on 21 July 2026, in addition to the documentary material to which I have just referred, I heard evidence from three witnesses. 32 First, Dr Gosia Wojnarowska gave evidence. Dr Wojnarowska is an experienced medical practitioner registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, with a specialty in Psychiatry and a sub-specialty in Forensic & Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. She is a fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists with approximately 15 years' experience in forensic psychiatry. Dr Wojnarowska prepared a Psychiatric Report in relation to the respondent dated 8 January 2026,13 and prepared a short update in relation to the respondent dated 14 July 2026.14 33 Second, the court heard evidence from Ms Charnie Connelly, who prepared a Performance Report in relation to the respondent dated 16 January 2026,15 and an Updated Performance Report dated 7 July 2026.16 Ms Connelly is a Senior Community Corrections Officer and the current acting team leader for the High Risk Serious Offender Unit. 34 Third, Ms Chantal Spiccia gave some brief evidence. Ms Spiccia is a Senior Clinical and Counselling Psychologist with the Forensic Psychological Assessment Team (referred to as FPIT). That team forms part of the Offender Services division within Corrective Services. Ms Spiccia prepared a brief Treatment Progress Report dated 13 January 2026.17 35 Ms Spiccia is registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Psychology Board of Australia as a psychologist with endorsement in the areas of clinical and counselling psychology. She has a Master of Psychology (Counselling Psychology) from Curtin University and a Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Psychology from UWA. Ms Spiccia has over 10 years of experience treating a wide range of psychological concerns within various settings, including custodial ones. 13 BOM Vol 3, p 948. 14 Exhibit 5. 15 BOM Vol 3, p 972. 16 BOM Vol 4, p 1000. 17 BOM Vol 3, p 946. -- 12 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 13 36 There was no challenge to the evidence or qualifications of these witnesses, and I will accept their evidence and the opinions they each expressed. 37 The respondent did not give evidence and did not adduce any materials in response to the Application. Factual findings for the purposes of this Application 38 The documentary and oral evidence supports the following findings for the purposes of the present Application, which I have organised below by reference to the respondent's personal background, the respondent's antecedents, the current contraventions, the prior contraventions, the medical assessment of the respondent, and the supports available to the respondent should he be released into the community. The respondent's personal background 39 The respondent was born in April 1981 and is 45 years of age. He is an Indigenous man, with an unhappy upbringing marred by alcohol abuse and relationship dysfunction on the part of his parents. He was later largely raised by his maternal aunt and uncle in Tammin, which was a more positive experience. Subsequently, following the passing of his aunt, his life returned to one of dysfunction, leaving high school at an early age and with much of his late adolescence revolving around criminal activity and time in custody. 40 The respondent has never been employed, has always survived on Centrelink payments and by using crime to support himself. He has never held a driver's licence and has not lived independently from his family. 41 The respondent has an established diagnosis of schizophrenia and, antisocial personality disorder. The respondent's antecedents 42 The respondent has a history of sexual offending as an adult. In 2003, he was convicted of indecent assault against a nurse in a hospital, two counts of sexual penetration without consent in respect of a stranger victim, two counts of sexual penetration without consent in the context of aggravated home burglary, having returned to the victim from the earlier offence. -- 13 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 14 43 Between 2017 and 2019, he was convicted of some eight indecent acts in public and one count of unlawful and indecent assault. 44 In 2020, the respondent was convicted of aggravated indecent assault. Whilst he was on bail, the respondent followed a 19-year-old stranger female onto a train, sitting next to her. He put his arm around her and asked her for a kiss. She denied his request and he proceeded to put his hand on her pubic area and force his hands between her legs. The respondent squeezed her crotch on the outside of her clothes. The victim called the Public Transport Authority and left the train. The respondent followed the victim and watched her as he sniffed the same hand that he had used to touch her vaginal area. Following his arrest and whilst in the police lock up, the respondent began to masturbate while staring at another female, who was attending the police station with her child. 45 The respondent's non-sexual offending as an adult has included, in 2007, one count of aggravated common assault against his pregnant partner who denied his sexual advances. The respondent punched her repeatedly to the face and said, 'I'm your man, you're supposed to give it to me whenever I want'. Further, in 2008, he was convicted of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm against his partner who had refused to have sex with him. The respondent punched her several times to the face as she was breastfeeding their child. 46 The materials indicate that the respondent has also had an extensive criminal history dating back to his adolescence. He has been convicted of possession of cannabis and methamphetamine, breaching orders, possession of weapons, stealing, burglaries, and serious assaults on strangers and police. Additionally, in 2002 he was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm and unlawful wounding against his then partner. The current contraventions 47 The State has alleged six contraventions of the supervision order by the respondent. The respondent has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to the criminal charges which underpin these contraventions. This court can thus proceed on the basis that the facts which form the basis of the charges have been proven. There was no real opposition to this contention at the hearing on 21 July 2026. 48 The relevant facts for the contraventions are set out below. -- 14 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 15 Contravention 1 – PE 24085/2025 49 At about 10.42 pm on 22 April 2025, the respondent presented at the Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) for medical treatment. 50 At a time before 3.50am on 23 April 2025, the respondent made inappropriate comments to female staff members of RPH and was refused treatment. 51 At 3.50am, the respondent was seen to be masturbating approximately two metres from the entry to the emergency department. RPH security guards approached the respondent and directed him to leave the area. In response, the respondent threatened to 'punch them in the head' and adopted a fighting stance, swinging his arms towards the security guards. The respondent then threw the contents of a cup he was holding, which was believed to have contained semen, onto one of the security guards. 52 At approximately 4.30am, police officers attended RPH and arrested the respondent at scene. The police officers conveyed the respondent to the Perth Watchhouse. 53 At a time between 7.07am and 10.40am, while lawfully detained at the Perth Watchhouse, the respondent began masturbating. The respondent maintained eye contact with lockup officers and nurses while masturbating and refused to cease masturbating after being directed to do so. The respondent ejaculated and smeared the ejaculate across the lower half of his face. 54 The respondent was charged with: (a) one count of assault public officer, contrary to s 318(1)(d) of the Criminal Code Acts Compilation Act 1913 (WA) (Criminal Code); (b) one count of obscene acts in public, contrary to s 202(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; and (c) one count of obscene acts in a police station, contrary to s 202(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. 55 All of these offences carry a maximum penalty which includes imprisonment. -- 15 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 16 56 On 4 December 2025, the respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court on charge PE 24085/2025 and pleaded guilty.18 A conviction was recorded, with the presiding Magistrate describing the conduct as 'really quite bizarre, erratic and…disgusting behaviour', both at the hospital and the Watchhouse.19 Together with other offences for which he was convicted, the respondent was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. Contravention 2 – PE 29050/2025 57 On 9 May 2025, the respondent attended the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre (EPACCC) where he completed a urinalysis test as directed. On 15 May 2025, the result of the urinalysis test was received and found to be positive to methamphetamine, with that result recording a concentration of 1929 ug/L (the cut off threshold being 150 ug/L). 58 On 17 May 2025, the respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court where he was convicted of charges PE 29050-29051 of 2025 and sentenced to a $1,000 global fine.20 Contravention 3 – PE 35868/2025 59 On 11 June 2025, the respondent attended the EPACCC where he completed a urinalysis test as directed. On 16 June 2025, the result of the urinalysis test was received and found to be positive to methylamphetamine, with that result recording a concentration of 322 ug/L (the cut off threshold being 150 ug/L). 60 On 17 June 2025, the respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court where he was convicted of charges PE 35868-35869 of 2025 and sentenced to a $1,000 global fine.21 Contravention 4 – PE 37784/2025 61 On 23 June 2025, the respondent attended the EPACCC where he completed a urinalysis test as directed. On 26 June 2025, the result of the urinalysis test was received and found to be positive to methylamphetamine, with that result recording a concentration of 3316 ug/L (the cut off threshold being 150 ug/L). 18 BOM Vol 4, pp 984 – 999. 19 BOM Vol 4, p 994. 20 BOM Vol 2, pp 564 – 575. 21 BOM Vol 2, pp 577 – 591. -- 16 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 17 62 On 27 June 2025, the respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court where he was convicted of charges PE 37784-37785 of 2025 and sentenced to six months and one day imprisonment, suspended for six months, for charge PE 37784 of 2025, with a fine of $300 for charge PE 37785 of 2025.22 Contravention 5 – PE 44356/2025 63 On 28 July 2025, the respondent was an inpatient at Graylands Hospital and provided a sample of his urine for a drug screen test. The result of the drug screen test was positive to amphetamine and methylamphetamine. 64 On 4 December 2025, the respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court on charge PE 44356/2025 and pleaded guilty. A conviction was recorded, and a sentence of three months' imprisonment was imposed to be served concurrently.23 Contravention 6 – PE 44357/2025 65 On 19 July 2025, the respondent was an inpatient at Graylands Hospital and provided a sample of his urine for a drug screen test. The result of the drug screen test was positive to methylamphetamine. 66 On 4 December 2025, the respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court on charge PE 44357/2025 and pleaded guilty. A conviction was recorded, and a sentence of three months' imprisonment was imposed to be served concurrently.24 Sentence imposed on 4 December 2025 67 As noted above, the respondent was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for various offences on 4 December 2025. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for seven months for the following offences, all of which were committed whilst he was subject to the supervision order: (a) one count of assault public officer, contrary to s 318(1)(d) of the Criminal Code; (b) two counts of using a prohibited drug (amphetamine), contrary to s 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA); 22 BOM Vol 2, pp 592 – 608. 23 BOM Vol 4, p 997. 24 BOM Vol 4, p 997. -- 17 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 18 (c) one count of an obscene act in public, contrary to s 202(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; (d) one count of an obscene act in a police station, contrary to s 202(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; and (e) three counts of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. The respondent's prior contraventions 68 As earlier noted, this is not the first occasion the State has brought contravention proceedings against the respondent. The contraventions which were the subject of those earlier proceedings were summarised by McGrath J.25 The prior contraventions comprised 14 charges to which the respondent pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court. The following summary draws from his Honour's reasons. As will be seen, the prior contraventions bear some similarities to the conduct which forms the basis of the present contraventions. 69 On 3 March 2022, the respondent was charged with two offences, namely stealing contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code and using a prohibited drug (amphetamine) contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). 70 On 4 March 2022, the respondent was charged with one charge of disorderly behaviour in a police station contrary to s 74A(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. That charge was subsequently substituted with one charge of committing an obscene act in a police station contrary to s 202(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and one charge of assaulting a public officer contrary to s 318(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. 71 On 3 March 2022, the respondent was charged with five charges of contravening his supervision order contravening s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. On 20 April 2022, five further contravention charges were preferred pursuant to s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. 72 The stealing charge involved the respondent stealing a vacuum cleaner from Kmart to the value of $99.00. The charge of using a prohibited drug, namely amphetamine, arose from the respondent providing a positive sample of urine for analysis. 25 The State of Western Australia v Quartermaine [No 5] [6] – [9]. -- 18 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 19 73 The conviction for assaulting a public officer involved the respondent resisting police officers who were attempting to place him in a cell in the Perth Watch House after his arrest. The respondent commenced fighting the officers, which resulted in two officers and the respondent falling to the floor. During the struggle the respondent, whilst lying on his back, kicked a police officer three times to his neck, chin and chest area. The assault resulted in moderate pain to the officer's neck, head and chest area. 74 The charge of committing an obscene act in a police station contrary to s 202(1)(b) of the Criminal Code involved the respondent pulling down his trousers and holding his erect penis and masturbating intermittently for 20 minutes in the presence of staff at the lockup. 75 The ten contravention charges comprised breaches of the conditions of his supervision order, namely, leaving his residential address between 6.07 pm and 6.31 pm without seeking approval from his CCO thereby breaching his curfew; whilst subject to a curfew, visited a female without having obtained prior approval from his CCO; failing to comply with the instruction of his treating psychiatrist; failing to meet with a clinical nurse to administer his medication; and failing to attend an appointment with Uniting Church WA. In addition, further contravention charges arose from the respondent committing the criminal charges I have identified above. 76 On 13 May 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges, including the charges regarding the contravention of his supervision order. The learned Magistrate imposed a term of immediate imprisonment of 7 months for the charge of assaulting a public officer contrary to s 318(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. The immediate term of imprisonment was backdated to commence on 4 March 2022. Fines were imposed in respect to the charges of contravening s 80(1) of the HRSO Act and the other charges. The medical assessment of the respondent 77 Dr Wojnarowska's opinions are detailed in her report dated 8 January 2026 and her letter dated 14 July 2026. On the basis of the opinions expressed in the report and letter, and her evidence at the hearing, the court is able to make the following findings in respect of the respondent: (1) The respondent has a history of psychotic symptoms including auditory hallucinations, somatic delusions and passivity -- 19 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 20 phenomena. His illness has been in remission while in prison due to forced abstinence and structured and restricted lifestyle. However, his symptoms return when he ceases his medications and/or uses illicit substances. (2) The respondent has a diagnosis of schizophrenia with negative syndrome (avolition and amotivation) as well as cognitive impairment, most likely secondary to chronic schizophrenia and chronic substance use. The presence of schizophrenia has no direct nexus with his sexual offending, as the content of his psychosis is not related to sexual themes. However, his social deficits are to some extent related to the symptoms of major mental illness and therefore future relapses which are likely to be associated with further decline in social functioning are the risk factor in sexual reoffending. (3) The diagnostic formulation of the respondent's personality indicates that he fulfils the criteria for antisocial personality disorder. There was no evidence of illicit substance or alcohol use in prison, however he used methamphetamine shortly after being released, therefore a diagnosis of polysubstance use disorder is still warranted. (4) There is still uncertainty whether the respondent's non-contact offending signifies the presence of sexual deviance such as exhibitionism. It is possible it is an outlet for sexual impulses in a cognitively compromised man who has major intimacy deficits and therefore most of the time is unable to secure a consenting sexual partner. (5) There is no evidence of a preoccupation with violence in the respondent's offences. The offences have not been predatory in nature, and they are more related to his impulsivity, unmet sexual needs and substance use. The respondent has denied the presence of violent thoughts. (6) The respondent has limited motivation to address his substance use. However, the respondent reported that he was considering entering a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program to address his methamphetamine addiction. He also appears to have some insight into the factors that place him at risk of reoffending. He does not accept that he has a limited capacity for developing -- 20 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 21 and maintaining stable relationships and denies having hostile attitudes towards women. (7) The respondent denies current or past problems with violence. There is no evidence of preoccupation with violence and his offending is driven by his negative emotionality and hostility with a tendency to feel victimised and mistreated by others. (8) The respondent's mental illness had responded well to medication. He is not presently demonstrating antisocial attitudes and has some identified family supports. (9) Based on the respondent's clinical presentation, his history and the outcomes of risk assessment tools used by Dr Wojnarowska, she was of the opinion that the respondent is at:26 …high risk of engaging in serious sexual and non-sexual violence if not subject to the relevant legislations under the HRSO Act. He appears to have limited insight into his sexual offending and has demonstrated negative and hostile attitudes towards woman and authority in the past. He has a history of breaching orders in the community. Mr Quartermaine has numerous outstanding treatments needs that require extensive supports in the community. He was deemed not suitable for treatment by psychological services, having been assessed as cognitively impaired. However, the NDIS support with behavioural therapist input is likely to address some of his outstanding treatment needs, specifically his limited social skills and poor coping skills addressing his loneliness and social isolation. Anti-libidinal treatment: In 2023, Mr Quartermaine was assessed by Dr Peter Wynn Owen, however, it is my understanding that given that Mr Quartermaine predominantly offends whilst under the influence of illicit substances and due to his medical conditions, he was considered not suitable for treatment with antilibidinal medications. He has been commenced on a SSRI (Escitalopram) however, it appears to be used as an antidepressant treatment. If released into the community, his treatment should continue to be delivered by the State Forensic Community Mental Health Service, co-managed with State Aboriginal Mental Health Service (SAMHS). 26 BOM Vol 3, p 970. -- 21 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 22 I have not reviewed the proposed supervision order conditions. However, in my view, it should also include a restriction on Mr Quartermaine frequenting parks where he is likely to encounter children who may become unintentional victims of his non-contact sexual offending. I support Mr Quartermaine's placement with Sovereign Lives that provide him with accommodation and support (home and living package). However, his recent interest in entering a drug rehabilitation program is strongly encouraged. In my opinion, a live-in option would be preferable in this case. (10) The court has been provided with a letter from Dr Wojnarowska dated 14 July 2026 which, in substance, confirms her opinion that there is no change to her previous risk assessment which was completed in January 2026. Dr Wojnarowska indicated in her letter that she reassessed the respondent on 17 June 2026, having previously assessed him in December 2025. The further matters set out in her recent letter are summarised below. (11) The respondent reported that he continued to take his antipsychotic medications, remembering that 'Olanzapine' was one of them. He was also taking his prescribed medical treatment. The respondent acknowledged to Dr Wojnarowska that he had a mental illness, namely paranoid schizophrenia which required him to take medication to remain well. Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent was prescribed Escitalopram (SSRI) as his antilibidinal treatment. (12) The respondent denied experiencing any psychotic symptoms and reported he was sleeping well and functioning well in the unit. He confirmed he had a NDIS package which he understood would provide support to him in the community. He apparently maintains contact with his family by regular phone contact. (13) The respondent expressed a belief that he was 'ready to get out' and planned to spend time in the community shopping, visiting family and establishing his new home. He has been engaging in an educational program whilst he awaits the outcome of his legal matters. He denied any recent incidents of concern. (14) On specific questioning, the respondent reported he was able to 'control' his sex drive and was masturbating one to two times per week. He denied cravings for illicit substances and was -- 22 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 23 willing to accept medication to assist him with relapse prevention in the community. He stated he was willing to abide by the order conditions including reporting to his CCO and wearing a GPS bracelet. The supports available in the community 78 There are several matters to address in this regard. The respondent's NDIS funding 79 The respondent was assessed some years ago by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) as meeting the eligibility criteria for funding under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). These funding arrangements have legislative effect through the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act). 80 I have previously set out the terms and effect of the legislative regime which operates under the NDIS Act, in the context of a respondent who is subject to the HRSO Act. I refer to my reasons in The State of Western Australia v White [No 7].27 It is not necessary to repeat those comments here, save to observe that I have had regard to the matters set out in that earlier decision. 81 The important matter to emphasise for the purposes of the present Application is that the respondent was previously supported through an NDIS plan when he was living in the community under this supervision order, and he remains subject to a comprehensive NDIS plan. That plan, which commenced on 25 November 2025, expires on 25 November 2026, being a yearly plan. The total funding of the one- year plan is quite sizeable, being $686,571. As the respondent has spent much of the last year in custody, the present plan has not been extensively drawn upon and funds remain in the budget for use by the respondent. 82 The current NDIS plan includes funding for housing and accommodation, flexible core supports, transport, capacity building therapies, and specialist support coordination. I understand the capacity building supports will assist with developing behavioural management strategies to reduce behaviour concerns and will include specialist behavioural intervention. The NDIS funding includes behavioural intervention support, development of a behaviour management plan, and training of support staff in behaviour management strategies. 27 The State of Western Australia v White [No 7] [2023] WASC 432 [52] – [62]. -- 23 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 24 83 In November 2023, the respondent's NDIS plan was reviewed by the NDIA, and the funding was increased to an individual, 24/7 support, through what is described as a supported independent living package (or SIL). This involves one to one support from a carer. It was determined at the time that this level of support was reasonable and necessary to enable the respondent to transition back into the community, noting he had limited previous opportunities for capacity building and skills development due to significant periods of time spent in custody. 84 Representatives within the NDIA and within Corrective Services have been liaising for some time regarding the respondent's NDIS plan and the funding available to the respondent, and there are presently no indications that the plan will be reduced when it is reviewed in November 2026. The court can proceed on this basis, although it must be acknowledged there is no guarantee in this regard. 85 The NDIS plan will specifically support the funding for suitable accommodation for the respondent, through Sovereign Lives, which is a private NDIS provider. That provider has confirmed to Corrective Services its ability and willingness to continue its support of the respondent should he be released, by providing accommodation and disability related supports. Mental health support 86 Additionally, in the event the respondent is re-released into the community, he will be able to re-engage with the Community Forensic Mental Health Service team (CFMHS) for ongoing support regarding to his mental health and medication regime. The respondent has previously engaged with CFMHS in a positive manner, including through regular consultation with a psychiatrist, engagement with the community team such as frequent contact with an assigned community mental health nurse and a social worker. It is evident that, upon release from custody, representatives from Corrective Services and from CFMHS would resume regular contact with the respondent as part of the risk management process. 87 However, it presently appears unlikely the respondent will be accepted for further counselling by the FPIT team, if released into the community. In this regard, the evidence discloses that the respondent has not participated in any criminogenic treatment since around 2022. The respondent attended numerous sessions of individual intervention with a Senior Counselling Psychologist with the FPIT team in 2021 and -- 24 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 25 2022. However, the respondent had difficulty engaging meaningfully in counselling and appeared to gain very little from individual intervention. I accept the evidence of Ms Spiccia that the respondent is:28 …a poor candidate for ongoing psychological intervention due to his significant mental health issues, intellectual limitations, limited attention span, and considerably impoverished reflective capacity. 88 The FPIT recommended, instead, that the respondent's future mental health risk be managed through support funded on the NDIS plan (through a positive behaviour support practitioner to develop behaviour management skills), in conjunction with monitoring by the Community Offender Monitoring Unit. Medication regime 89 The respondent has been largely compliant with his medication regime whilst in prison, with some incidents reported, but it appears little of any significance. 90 Dr Wojnarowska gave evidence in relation to the current medication regime to which the respondent is subject. I have touched on this above. The medication currently prescribed includes Aripiprazole, Atorvastatin, Escitalopram, Olanzapine, Pantoprazole and Quetiapine, all in tablet form. This medication includes SSRI medication which is anti-libidinal. I accept it is appropriate that this medication regime continue if the respondent is released into the community. Conditions to the supervision order 91 The additional conditions proposed by the State are found at conditions 44 to 48 of the draft amended supervision order in Attachment B. In my assessment, these conditions and reasonable and appropriate. 92 Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Connelly both supported adding a condition to the supervision order that the respondent, should he be released, is 'not to leave or be away from [his] approved address unless accompanied by a person approved in advance by [his] CCO'. Ms Connelly gave evidence that, as the respondent is currently funded for 24/7 support, this condition was not likely to be overly restrictive on 28 Letter from Chantal Spiccia to the Court dated 13 January 2026; BOM Volume 3 p 946-947. -- 25 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 26 the respondent's ability to access the community as he would typically be in the presence of a support worker. 93 Dr Wojnarowska and Ms Connelly both supported the tightening of the condition within the supervision order concerning the respondent's attendance at parks. That is, the supervision order should include a restriction on the respondent frequenting parks where he is likely to encounter children who may become unintentional victims of his non-contact sexual offending. 94 Factors which are associated with the respondent's offending behaviour include intoxication with alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamine. Substance use was determined as a strong causal factor for the respondent's reoffending. I have earlier noted the respondent tested positive to methamphetamine use while an inpatient at Graylands Hospital. I accordingly accept that the previous conditions relating to urinalysis testing and for the respondent not to associate with people under the influence of substances, should remain in any further supervision order. Additionally, I accept it is appropriate that the respondent be directed to attend and engage in substance use counselling to address his substance use, should a supervision order be appropriate. Disposition 95 There are essentially two issues to address on this application. Contravention of the supervision order 96 The first issue is not controversial. 97 The State must demonstrate that the respondent has contravened his supervision order. This was not contested by the respondent and has, in any event, been positively demonstrated by the State by reference to the proceedings in the Magistrates Court in respect of which the respondent pleaded guilty. The contraventions of the supervision order are detailed in Attachment A to these reasons, which summarise the convictions recorded for breaches of s 80(1) of the HRSO Act. 98 I accordingly find that the respondent contravened the supervision order in the manner and to the extent detailed in Attachment A. -- 26 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 27 The appropriate order to be made 99 The second issue to address is which order should then be made by the court under s 55(1) of the HRSO Act. The assessment as to which of the orders in s 55(1) should be made requires an assessment of the respondent's ability to comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, and a consideration of the protection of the community. The onus is on the respondent in this regard: s 29(2) of the HRSO Act. In considering these matters, the nature of the conditions which should be attached to the supervision order require examination, noting that the State has proposed amended and restrictive conditions. 100 As counsel for the State observed in closing, the requirements of s 29(1) are directed at whether the respondent 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order'. 101 The standard conditions are those detailed in s 30(2). 102 The standard conditions include a requirement to report to a CCO and to comply with reasonable directions from such officers.29 The standard conditions preclude the offender leaving the State without permission.30 The standard conditions include a requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.31 The standard conditions also include the requirement for electronic monitoring.32 103 As to the question of substantial compliance, the court must in essence 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.33 104 In several decisions, this court has identified a number of factors to which regard should typically be had in undertaking this assessment.34 These factors include the respondent's history of non- compliance, the respondent's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order, the respondent's capacity to comply with the 29 HRSO Act, s 30(2)(a) - (d). 30 HRSO Act, s 30(2)(e). 31 HRSO Act, s 30(2)(f). 32 HRSO Act, s 30(2)(g). 33 DPP (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52]. 34 DPP (WA) v Hart [52]; The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 [52]. -- 27 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 28 conditions, and what measures there are in place to ensure he would substantially comply. There are several others. Suitability of accommodation is one of them. 105 The view I have reached is that the respondent had discharged his onus to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that he would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. On the evidence presented on this Application, I do not consider that a detention order is necessary to adequately safeguard the community. 106 It is particularly relevant to the analysis in this regard that the respondent does not have recent history of contravening any of the standard conditions. The respondent's history of non-compliance may be contrasted with the history of the offender in The State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 4].35 In that matter, the offender had a demonstrated history of wilfully breaching the conditions attached to his supervision order, including those conditions which form the 'standard conditions' under s 30(2) of the HRSO Act, such as removal of his GPS device, committing serious offences, and failing to comply with the requirements of a CCO. 107 The respondent's non-compliance in 2025, whilst of great concern, did not amount to a contravention of any of the standard conditions. There, of course, remains a risk in this regard, but the medical evidence and professional opinions received by the court support the view that the risk can be appropriately managed in the community given the supports available. As counsel for the State observed, and I agree, the evidence discloses there will be considerable 'scaffolding' around the respondent if he is released back into the community, to provide him with appropriate support. 108 In particular, it is significant that the respondent has available to him a high level of intensive support funded through the NDIS plan. This will mean the respondent is under almost constant observation and, indeed, in the early weeks of any reintegration into the community, the supervision would be more focused and concentrated, as explained by Ms Connelly in her evidence. 109 This level of support, coupled with the proposed amended and increased restrictive conditions, will great assist to manage the 35 The State of Western Australia v Meehan [No 4] [2026] WASC 279. -- 28 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 29 respondent's risk of non-compliance with the supervision order, and ensure the adequate protection of the community. 110 In my view, the amended conditions proposed by the State are appropriate (and, indeed, are necessary) as part of any release of the respondent into the community. 111 No specific condition was proposed by the State concerning the respondent's access to pornographic material, whether by way of a prohibition or through a regime requiring notification of a CCO. This issue had been referred to by McGrath J in his Honour's reasons in September 2025, to which I have earlier referred (based on observations which had been made by Dr Wojnarowska).36 Absent support for such a condition in the proposed supervision order, I will refrain from including it. Conclusion and orders 112 For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent contravened the supervision order in the manner alleged by the State. Being so satisfied, the court must make one of the orders under s 55(1) of the HRSO Act. 113 I consider the respondent has demonstrated that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order and I am satisfied that a supervision order, on the amended conditions, would adequately protect the community. 114 Accordingly, I will order that the respondent be released from custody on an amended supervision order in the terms proposed by the State. That order will take effect in 14 days to allow the State adequate time to make practical arrangements for the respondent's reintegration into the community. 36 I note that conditions of this nature were recently examined by Wright J in State of New South Wales v Stone [2024] NSWSC 435 [74] – [81], in the context of the equivalent regime in New South Wales and such conditions have formed part of supervision orders previously made by this court. -- 29 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 30 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. LM Associate to the Honourable Justice Lundberg 29 JULY 2026 -- 30 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 31 ATTACHMENT A Schedule of Contraventions No. Date(s) Nature of Breach Description of Conduct Outcome 1 22 & 23 April 2025 Condition 26 of the Supervision Order (Not to commit criminal offence involving violence/threats) At Royal Perth Hospital, made inappropriate comments to female staff, masturbated at the entrance, threatened security guards, and threw a cup of suspected semen onto a guard. Later, at Perth Watchhouse, masturbated while making eye contact with staff and smeared ejaculate on his face. Convicted on 4 December 2025. Sentenced to 7 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. 2 9 May 2025 Condition 27 of the Supervision Order (Not to possess/consume prohibited drugs) Urinalysis test positive for Methamphetamine (1929 ug/L). Convicted on 17 May 2025. Sentenced to a $1,000 global fine. 3 11 June 2025 Condition 27 of the Supervision Order (Not to possess/consume prohibited drugs) Urinalysis test positive for Methylamphetamine (322 ug/L). Convicted on 17 June 2025. Sentenced to a $1,000 global fine. 4 23 June 2025 Condition 27 of the Supervision Order (Not to possess/consume prohibited drugs) Urinalysis test positive for Methylamphetamine (3316 ug/L). Convicted on 27 June 2025. Sentenced to 6 months' and 1 day imprisonment (suspended for 6 months) and a fine of $300. -- 31 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 32 No. Date(s) Nature of Breach Description of Conduct Outcome 5 28 July 2025 Condition 27 of the Supervision Order (Not to possess/consume prohibited drugs) Urine drug screen at Graylands Hospital positive for Amphetamine and Methylamphetamine. Convicted on 4 December 2025. Sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. 6 19 July 2025 Condition 27 of the Supervision Order (Not to possess/consume prohibited drugs) Urine drug screen at Graylands Hospital positive for Methylamphetamine. Convicted on 4 December 2025. Sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. -- 32 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 33 ATTACHMENT B Proposed Amended Supervision Order Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the HRSO Act, makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 10 years from 6 December 2021, not being a date earlier than 21 days from the date this Order is made, on the following conditions: You, LAWRENCE HENRY QUARTERMAINE, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street, East Perth within 48 hours of release to the order time and advise the officer of your current name and address. 2. Report to, and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the court. 3. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens. 4. Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including direction for the purposes of sections 31 or 32). 5. Not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO. 6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order. 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Take up residence at [redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you. -- 33 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 34 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 and comply with the lawful orders and directions of a CCO. 10. Not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, education, training or volunteer work without the prior approval of the CCO. Medications/mental health and attendance at programs/treatment 11. Attend all appointments and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, nurse, social worker, psychologist, support service and/or support person as directed by a CCO. 12. Undertake any medication regime as prescribed by a medical practitioner(s) and as directed by a CCO, and comply fully with that treatment (and any testing to monitor your compliance with that treatment as directed by a CCO). 13. Comply with the instructions of the treating psychiatrist with regard to mental health treatment and medications. 14. Permit any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, nurse, social worker, psychologist, support service and/or support person to disclose details of your medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment or programs to the Department of Justice. 15. Permit any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, nurse, social worker, psychologist, support service and/or support person to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware, or suspect, that you have, or intend to, cease undergoing pharmaceutical medication contrary to the advice of a medical practitioner, or if you appear to have ceased to consult with that medical practitioner on such treatment. 16. Engage with any providers that may be engaged to provide you with any services and/or supports funded under your National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) Plan as directed by a CCO. Reporting to WA Police 17. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sex Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, PERTH WA 6000 within 48 hours of your release from custody and thereafter report to and receive visits from WA Police at -- 34 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 35 times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of SOES or his/her delegate. 18. Comply with all obligations imposed on you pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA). 19. If requested, permit WA Police to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under this order and allow the seizure of any such items that the WA Police believes to contravene the conditions of the order. 20. Remain at your premises and/or vehicle when WA Police conduct a search under the HRSO Act. Disclosure/Exchange of Information 21. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information. 22. Allow the CCO, WA Police, or other person or agencies approved by the CCO, to interview any associates or potential associates and, where appropriate, to disclose to them confidential information including your offence history. Restrictions on contact with Victims 23. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims of your sexual offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice. 24. Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to the previous condition, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your sexual offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture, and must avert your gaze from such victim at all times. 25. Report to the CCO and WA Police any direct or indirect contact with the victims of your sexual offending within 48 hours of such contact occurring. -- 35 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 36 Criminal conduct 26. Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment, and which involves either violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments. 27. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA) and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the provider. Curfew 28. Be subject to a curfew, pursuant to section 32 of the HRSO Act, such that you are to remain at and not leave your approved address as directed by a CCO from time to time. 29. When subject to a curfew under this order, present yourself for inspection at the front door or outside the front of the house of your approved address, or speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their agent monitoring your compliance with the curfew. 30. When subject to a curfew under this order, you must ensure that all those people present in the residence, who may answer the telephone or door, are aware as to your obligations and request their assistance to comply with your obligations by alerting you to such attempts to contact you by persons monitoring your compliance with the curfew. Prevention of high-risk situations 31. Report at your next contact with your CCO, the formation of any friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person. 32. As directed by your CCO, make disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence a friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or WA Police. 33. Not enter any residential address in which a female resides or is known to reside, unless authorised in advance by a CCO. -- 36 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 37 34. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by WA Police, including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place. 35. Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 34. 36. Not to possess, or consume, or purchase, or use alcohol. 37. Not go or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons: (a) For the purpose of averting or minimizing a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person. (b) For a purpose, and for a duration, approved in advance by a CCO. (c) On the order of a CCO or WA Police. 38. Not to remain in the presence of any person who you know, or ought to know, to be affected by prohibited drug, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO. 39. Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place. 40. Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO. 41. Advise a CCO of every telecommunication device in your possession and upon request, permit a CCO or WA Police to access your telecommunications devices, at any location nominated by the CCO or WA Police, for the purpose of ascertaining your activities and associations. 42. Not allow any person other than a CCO or WA Police access to any telecommunication device referred to in condition 41, without prior approval of the CCO. 43. Not to delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, any data on your telecommunication devices, including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS) or logs capable of identifying your activities and associations. 44. Not to attend any parks unless approved in advance by a CCO. -- 37 of 38 -- [2026] WASC 297 LUNDBERG J Page 38 45. Not enter any escort agency or the premises of a sex worker, or use the services of a sex worker (including by telephone or online communication), unless you have prior approval from a CCO. 46. Not permit any female to enter any residential address in which you reside, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO. 47. Stay at, and not leave your approved home address unless accompanied by a person approved in advance by a CCO. 48. Not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to Department of Justice staff, or persons working on behalf of, or with, the Department of Justice to provide services. -- 38 of 38 --