THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- VAN BEEK [2026] WASC 341

[2026] WASC 341 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- VAN BEEK [No 2] [2026] WASC 341 CORAM : HOWARD J HEARD : 11 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 18 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 7 of 2025 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender - Whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order - Whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether the community can be adequately protected by the imposition of a supervision order - Turns on own facts Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) s 48 -- 1 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 2 Result: Respondent declared a high risk serious offender Supervision order imposed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Ms G Colborne Respondent : Ms A Fedele Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Legal Aid (WA) Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 The State of Western Australia v Van Beek [2025] WASC 363 The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 -- 2 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 3 HOWARD J: Introduction 1 On 6 May 2025, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of the respondent under s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Application).1 From here I have referred to that legislation as the Act or the HRSO Act. 2 The State contended by that Application that the respondent is a 'high risk serious offender' within the meaning of the Act and, so, the Court must make a 'restriction order' within the meaning of the Act. 3 On 30 May 2025, Lemonis J (as he then was) pursuant to s 46 of the HRSO Act was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing the Court might find the respondent is a high risk serious offender.2 4 His Honour imposed an interim supervision order (ISO) on the respondent pending the determination of the proceedings.3 The respondent was released from custody on the ISO on 26 July 2025. 5 The Application under s 48 of the Act was heard by me on 11 May 2026. 6 The State, at that hearing, submitted that the Court should find that the respondent is a high risk serious offender for the purpose of the HRSO Act.4 The respondent, by counsel, conceded that it was difficult to dispute that the Court should make that finding.5 As will be seen, I have found that the respondent is a high risk serious offender for the purpose of the HRSO Act. 7 The State submitted, however, that the unacceptable risk that the respondent posed to the community could be adequately managed on a supervision order on similar terms and conditions as the ISO.6 As will be seen, I have reached the view that an order in similar terms to the ISO will ensure the adequate protection of the community and should be made. 1 Application dated 6 May 2025. 2 The State of Western Australia v Van Beek [2025] WASC 363 [54]: Book of Materials Volume 3, 1048. I have described references to the Book of Materials by marking the volume in which the document can be found, followed by 'BOM' and the page numbers of the document. 3 The State of Western Australia v Van Beek [2025] WASC 363 [57]: 3 BOM at page 1048. 4 ts 37. 5 ts 40. 6 ts 37. -- 3 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 4 8 The conditions which were initially proposed by the State were the subject of further evidence at the hearing before me which led, in turn, to a refining of the conditions proposed by the State. Evidence adduced in the application 9 Without objection, the State tendered four volumes of a book of materials (BOM): these became Exhibits 1- 4.7 10 A submission from a victim of the respondent's serious offending was made to me by letter dated 5 January 2026 under s 60 of the HRSO Act. 11 With the consent of that victim, that submission was made available to counsel for the State and for the respondent under s 61 of the HRSO Act at the commencement of the hearing. The submission became Exhibit 5. I have had regard to it as required by s 62 of the Act. Counsel handed back copies of that submission at the conclusion of the hearing.8 12 Very properly, counsel for the respondent did not seek to show the submission to the respondent.9 Though no order has been sought in relation to Exhibit 5, I foreshadow that if the respondent or any other person were to seek access to Exhibit 5, then the matter should come back before me or another judge before any such access occurred. 13 I have read and considered the materials within those exhibits which were the subject of submissions or oral evidence. 14 Further, at the hearing before me on 11 May 2026, the State called: 1. Dr Peter Wynn Owen, a forensic psychiatrist who prepared a psychiatric report for the purpose of the Application dated 28 April 2026 (Dr Wynn Owen's Report); 2. Dr Benjamin Bannister, a forensic psychiatrist who prepared psychiatric reports for the purpose of the Application dated 3 November 2025 (Dr Bannister's 2025 Report) and 23 March 2026 (Dr Bannister's 2026 Report); and 7 ts 38. 8 ts 77. 9 ts 42. -- 4 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 5 3. Ms Rafaela Lico, a Senior Community Corrections Officer employed by the High Risk Serious Offender Unit, who prepared a community assessment report for the purpose of the Application dated 17 April 2026 (Community Assessment Report). The Community Assessment Report addressed the respondent's compliance with the ISO. 15 Each of the State's witnesses was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent. Dr Peter Wynn Owen 16 Dr Wynn Owen is a qualified expert within the meaning of the Act,10 and prepared his report under s 74 for the purpose of this Application. 17 Dr Wynn Owen conducted three interviews with the respondent in preparing his report,11 reporting the respondent to have been 'superficially co-operative at interview'.12 Dr Benjamin Bannister 18 Dr Bannister is a qualified expert within the meaning of the Act and prepared his two reports under s 74 for the purpose of this Application. 19 Dr Bannister reported that the respondent attended interviews as requested, was generally talkative, answered all questions put to him and asked clarifying questions when he felt it necessary.13 Ms Raffaela Lico 20 Ms Lico has been the respondent's senior community corrections officer since 12 November 2025.14 Is the respondent a high risk serious offender? 21 In the circumstances, I can state my reasons shortly for reaching the conclusion that, relevantly, the respondent is a high risk serious offender within the definition of s 7(1) of the Act. 10 HRSO Act, s 3. 11 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1309. 12 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1320. 13 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [6] - [7]: 4 BOM at pages 1337 - 1338. 14 ts 64. -- 5 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 6 22 As has been made clear in many cases, the Act does not provide that any risk that the offender will commit a serious offence is an unacceptable risk. What is an 'unacceptable' risk requires the Court's judgement as to the nature and extent of the possible harm: see, eg. The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 [39] - [40] (Lemonis J). 23 It is also well established that if the Court concludes that a person is a high risk serious offender, then the Act requires the imposition of an order that does no more than is necessary to achieve an adequate degree of protection of the community.15 24 By s 7(3) of the Act, in considering whether the Court is satisfied that the offender is a high risk serious offender, the Court must have regard to the matters set out in s 7(3)(a) - (j). 25 With the possible exception of those in s 3(g) of the Act (which I have set out separately below), the matters which I must consider under s 7(3)(a) - (i) of the Act were the subject of the reports prepared by, and the oral evidence of, the three witnesses called by the State. In those circumstances, I have not considered, or set out, those statutory matters separately. To do so, in my view, would be quite artificial given the scope of the reports and evidence. Respondent's offending history 26 As it was not disputed, it is convenient to reproduce here the State's summary of the respondent's offending. [14] On 26 July 2025 the Respondent finished serving an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years imprisonment imposed in the District Court by Judge Bowden on 20 October 2017 in relation to the following 'serious offences' under the HRSO Act: 7 x aggravated sexual penetration without consent, contrary to s.326 of the Criminal Code (Index Offences) [15] The Index Offences consisted of two separate courses of offending against the same victim. The circumstance of aggravation was that the victim was the Respondent's former de-facto partner with whom he shares two children. At the time of the offending, a Violence Restraining Order (VRO) was in 15 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [85] (Kiefel CJ, Keane & Steward JJ). -- 6 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 7 force for the protection of the victim. The offences breached that VRO. [16] At the Sentencing for the Index Offences, Judge Bowden imposed a mandatory lifetime restraining order protecting the victim, under s.63A of the Restraining Orders Act. [17] The Index Offences occurred in the context of alcohol and substance abuse. [18] The Respondent's Criminal Record contains the following other relevant convictions in relation to the same victim: (a) 'serious offences' under the HRSO Act: • 2 x aggravated stalking contrary to s. 338E (1) (a) of the Criminal Code (2013). (b) other offences: • 5 x Breach of VRO, and aggravated common assault (2018); • 2 x Breach of VRO, breach of protective bail condition, and aggravated common assault (2014); and • Breach of protective bail (not to act in an abusive, intimidatory or threatening nature towards the victim) (2014). [19] The Respondent was also convicted of one offence of threat to harm under s338 B of the Criminal Code, in relation to threats he made to harm the victim's child, if she did not continue with their relationship. (2013).16 (emphasis in the original) 27 I accept the State's submissions above that the offences it identifies as 'serious offences' were such, as defined in s 5 of the Act. 28 The respondent's risks of re-offending were identified by the experts in unchallenged evidence. For the avoidance of doubt, I have accepted that the respondent is at risk of re-offending in the way identified. Those opinions have also informed the drafting of certain conditions. 16 State's outline of submissions dated 7 May 2026 (State's submissions). -- 7 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 8 The respondent's personal circumstances 29 I have taken the following from Dr Wynn Owen's Report as a convenient summary of the respondent's personal circumstances: Mr Van Beek was born in Canberra [on 22 October 1989] … . His parents were practicing [sic] Mormons and he was raised in that faith. He has an older sister, and 6 younger siblings; one brother was stillborn. His father, who worked in human resources and computing in the mining industry, was violent towards his mother and the children. Mr Van Beek believes that he attracted a lot of his father's anger because he was 'clingy' with his mother and did not meet his father's expectations of being 'his little shadow'. He reported that his father 'would beat the shit out of me'; on one occasion his father broke his nose, on another choked him, also reporting to another assessor that his father broke his jaw. Mr Van Beek said that he reported his father's behaviour to a chaplain and there was a report to the Department of Child Protection that resulted in the children being interviewed. Reportedly Mr Van Beek's father explained that he had to restrain [Mr Van Beek]. Notwithstanding this environment Mr Van Beek also stated that aspects of his childhood were 'pretty good'. The family moved on multiple occasions resulting in Mr Van Beek living in WA, the ACT, Queensland and New Zealand and frequently moving between these. He believes now that the family would move when his father's sexual offending was suspected or discovered. Mr Van Beek also reported that his mother would often leave his father, the couple eventually separating for the last time when he was aged 14 years. Mr Van Beek stated he was close to his siblings and became aware that his father was sexually abusing his sisters. He reported that having discovered this was occurring he would sleep in his sister's bed or they would come to his to avoid abuse. Mr Van Beek's father's sexual offending was reportedly known to the church and at one point he was excommunicated. He was then given the opportunity to return to the church if he completed '7 steps to repentance' however, notwithstanding that he did not meet this requirement, his father was welcomed back to the church leading to Mr Van Beek thinking 'why live up to his standard when he is allowed back in'. When Mr Van Beek's parents separated for good, after his mother's discovery of her husband's sexual offending against his sisters, she left and took the girls to New Zealand. Mr Van Beek remained with his father. -- 8 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 9 Mr Van Beek reports being sexually abused by his parental uncle over a period of several years, commencing when he was staying with his grandparents. As well as sexually abusing him Mr Van Beek reported that his uncle and an adult male friend of his uncles would hurt him for their pleasure, giving an example of having dressmaking pins put under his toenails and being made to stand and walk.17 (citations omitted) 30 As to the respondent's two significant, intimate relationships, Dr Wynn Owen stated: Mr Van Beek has had 2 significant intimate relationships. His first relationship started when he was aged 15 years with a girl, [H], he knew from High School. Mr Van Beek worked for her father of [sic] a farm near Bunbury, where he, [H] and [H's] father lived. He denied any violence in the relationship and said 'she cheated on me a fair bit', and that the relationship ended because [H] was unfaithful to him while he was in New Zealand. When he returned [H] told him she had got pregnant and then had a termination (Mr Van Beek told Ms Samson in 2013 and Ms Hasson in 2017 that his partner had an early miscarriage). Mr Van Beek had known his second serious partner, [B], for some years before they commenced a relationship. When the relationship stated [sic] [B], who is 3 years older than Mr Van Beek, had 2 children and had separated from her husband reportedly because of domestic violence. [B] worked at a childcare centre. Mr Van Beek reported being happy that after 6 months the children started to call him 'dad' and that he had 'an instant family'. Tensions arose in relation to parenting, decisions about the children and discipline. Mr Van Beek reporting that 'we used to fight a lot'. He was feeling that 'I'm paying for their shit but not getting to be the dad… their father was just a drinker'. Mr Van Beek also reported being unhappy about how much time his partner spent being 'distracted' by social media websites. Mr Van Beek further reports that as he became closer to her children the tension and arguments increased. Mr Van Beek also reported that in relation to the issues they argued about 'nothing was ever resolved, just swept under the rug'. When [B] became pregnant with their daughter the relationship was already very volatile, the couple had separated on a number of occasions and Mr Van Beek had been convicted of a number of domestic violence related offences. Notwithstanding this, and further to Mr Van Beek participating in programs to address domestic violence, being charged with aggravated stalking and serving a prison term, [B] became pregnant with twins. The twins were born prematurely and one twin died on Mr Van Beek's birthday. Soon after this the serious offending that resulted in the relationship finally ending occurred. Mr Van Beek denied any controlling or coercive behaviour at interview. However he reported to Ms Sampson in 2013 that he would not allow his partner to have friends and monitored and limited her use of social 17 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at pages 1311 - 1312. -- 9 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 10 media because he was concerned that she would leave him and he would become jealous.18 31 Again, I have adopted Dr Wynn Owen's Report setting out the respondent's history of alcohol and other substance use as follows: Mr Van Beek started to use cannabis in his mid teens and, finding the effects preferable to those of prescribed stimulants, he ceased stimulant use. When in the community prior to index offending he was using cannabis several times a day, a pattern that had been established since his late teens. Mr Van Beek started drinking alcohol in his late teens and reports excessive drinking for a few years, after this not having problematic use until he started to drink heavily after the death of his son in October 2013. Prior to index offending Mr Van Beek was using cannabis and alcohol and methamphetamine. He reported that he used oral methamphetamine initially to stay awake, however then moved to intravenous use. In addition to illicit drug use Mr Van Beek has a pattern of concurrent use of multiple prescribed medications, including analgesics, opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants and antipsychotics to cope with stress and negative emotional states. Notwithstanding prescribed opioids (oral methadone daily transitioning to buvidal/buprenorphine monthly subcutaneous injection)[,] Mr Van Beek continued to seek additional prescribed medications and to procure illicit drugs and medications not prescribed for himself during the recently completed term of imprisonment.19 Diagnoses of the respondent 32 Dr Wynn Owen diagnosed the respondent with: 1. substance use disorder (alcohol, cannabis, amphetamine and opiates); 2. borderline personality disorder with additional prominent antisocial traits; and 3. complex post-traumatic stress disorder.20 33 Dr Wynn Owen noted that the respondent was, at the time of the report, in remission for alcohol and substance use but remained opiate 18 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at pages 1312 - 1313. 19 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1311. 20 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at pages 1320 - 1321. -- 10 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 11 dependent via regular buprenorphine injections.21 In his oral evidence, Dr Wynn Owen said that the respondent reported that he had reduced his dose of buprenorphine and had not experienced any serious side effects or cravings and Dr Wynn Owen accepted that the respondent may have ceased such treatment entirely.22 Outstanding treatment needs and conditions required to manage risk 34 Both experts identified the respondent’s substantial outstanding treatments needs. 35 Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr Van Beek had 'outstanding treatment needs in relation to sexual offending, violent offending and substance use'.23 36 Dr Wynn Owen noted that, during the current period of supervision, the respondent had continued to show a pattern of behaviours which were present in his past violent and sexually violent offending. A significant outstanding treatment need related to a pattern of behaviours described by Dr Wynn Owen as an inability to manage stressful situations, which caused the respondent to become emotionally dysregulated and act impulsively without considering consequences. Dr Wynn Owen considered the respondent avoided attempts at emotional regulation through the use of substances and illicit substances.24 37 Dr Bannister opined that Mr Van Beek had a 'range of outstanding treatment needs',25 particularly in terms of interpersonal aggression, emotion management, relationship issues, cognitive distortions, substance use, insight (particularly into high-risk situations) and problem solving.26 38 Dr Bannister noted that a number of the matters that the respondent will be required to address will be stressful and/or unsettling for him with the potential for high risk situations where the respondent may become stressed and then consider the use of substances.27 21 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1320. 22 ts 52. 23 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1332. 24 ts 46 and 51. 25 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [145]: 4 BOM at page 1368. 26 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [145]: 4 BOM at page 1368; Dr Bannister's 2026 Report [18]: 4 BOM at page 1374. 27 ts 54. -- 11 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 12 39 Ms Lico reported that the respondent's engagement in programmatic interventions to date has been limited and his progress has been modest.28 40 In 2023, the respondent completed the Medium Intensity Sex Offender Program, at the conclusion of which he continued to present with significant unresolved risk factors, particularly in relation to emotional regulation, interpersonal functioning and self-esteem.29 41 Up until the time of the Community Assessment Report, the respondent had been engaging with Next Step for treatment which he reported as beneficial, however that engagement had ceased by the time the matter came before me for hearing.30 42 On 10 October 2025, a referral was completed for the Clinical Intervention Program resulting into his acceptance into the Stopping Family Violence Program. He attended a pre-group interview on 27 March 2026 and, at the time of the hearing before me had commenced the program, attending one session.31 43 Ms Lico reported the respondent having demonstrated some ability to establish boundaries in interpersonal situations, but it remained an area requiring further development.32 44 She noted there being a gap remining between his insight and his ability to consequently apply strategies in practice.33 45 Ms Lico considered continued monitoring and intervention remained necessary to support the translation of insight in which the respondent is displaying into sustained behavioural change.34 46 The respondent has expressed a willingness to engage with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team and a referral was completed on 21 July 2025, however, he remains on a waitlist for services.35 28 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1382. 29 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1382. 30 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at pages 1379 - 1380; ts 67. 31 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1382; ts 65. 32 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1380. 33 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1380. 34 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1379. 35 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1382; ts 66. -- 12 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 13 Recommendations as to future treatment and management 47 It was recommended by Dr Wynn Owen that the respondent: … should be allocated a psychologist to address identified outstanding treatment needs including understanding sexual offending behaviour, emotional and behavioural awareness, management and self-regulation, problem solving, stress management, maintenance of abstinence from substance use, and interpersonal communication including communication within an intimate relationship.36 48 In particular, Dr Wynn Owen recommended that the respondent be allocated a psychologist to address his outstanding treatment needs and should be referred to the Community Forensic Mental Health Team for oversight and management of medications.37 49 Dr Bannister considered that Mr Van Beek would benefit from developing relapse prevention and risk management plans.38 He also considered that Mr Van Beek should be referred for individual psychotherapy with a psychologist, as well as family and domestic violence treatment programs in the community.39 Respondent's risk of re-offending and committing a further serious offence 50 Both Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister assessed the respondent using a number of tools to gauge risk, risk management, and treatment responsivity and to assess risk and predict recidivism of both sexual and violent offences, including the risk of intimate partner violence. Such tests were said to be of use to predict the risk of any future violence and sexual offending, not only of offences in the HRSO Act defined as 'serious offences'. 51 I do not consider it necessary to set out the tools used by Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister or to recount in any detail the results each reported. 52 It suffices for present purposes, in my view, to say that the reported results from diagnostic tools were not challenged and fully supported the opinions expressed as to the respondent's risk of committing a further serious offence. 36 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1334. 37 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1334. 38 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [145]: 4 BOM at page 1368; Dr Bannister's 2026 Report [18]: 4 BOM at page 1374. 39 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [153]: 4 BOM at page 1369. -- 13 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 14 53 Dr Wynn Owen opined that the respondent: … has a high risk of committing a future serious offence if not subject to a Restriction Order. This risk is underpinned in particular by personality traits and poor emotional and behavioural regulation in combination with substance abuse accentuating impulsivity, impairing consequential thinking. There is a very high risk of future violent offending not listed as serious in Schedule 1 of the HRSO Act. The most likely serious offence is a violent offence against an intimate partner, violence against a partner may include threats, acts of physical violence and or sexual violence. It is of note that all perpetrator risk factors identified in the SARA tool are present in Mr Van Beek. Potential victims of non-serious violence, in addition to an intimate partner, could include children in his and or a partner or ex-partners care, the violence toward children could include threats and actual physical harm.40 54 Dr Wynn Owen opined that the most likely scenario for sexual offending is: … In the context of an established intimate relationship there is a developing sense of isolation, feelings of powerlessness and potentially fear of abandonment. To manage these negative emotions there is all or any of misuse of prescribed medications, alcohol, cannabis and other drugs. Further to a real or perceived conflict as a trigger sexual violence is used to assert authority and possibly to demand that the partner not leave the relationship. The offending would include threats of violence, threats of sexual violence, non-consensual sexual penetration and may involve use of restraints. … Any serious sexual offence will have the potential to cause immediate psychological and possibly physical harm and significant lasting psychological harm to the victim. … Based on Mr Van Beek's history of sexual offending it is most likely that a sexual offence will occur in the context of an intimate relationship at a time of conflict, communication difficulty and/or potential for separation. The ex-partner victim remains at risk, new partners would also potentially be at risk.41 40 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1334. 41 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1329. -- 14 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 15 55 Of the respondent's risk of serious violence, Dr Wynn Owen opined: The most likely risk scenario for serious violence would be in the context of an intimate relationship at a time of conflict and/or potential separation. Violence would occur instrumentally to assert authority and to prevent the partner from leaving. Threats of violence and actual violence may occur. Threats of violence may include threats to harm children. Physical assault may be accompanied by sexual assault. Violence is more likely to occur in the presence of acute intoxication or on a background of ongoing substance/alcohol use due to adverse effects on impulsivity, emotional regulation and consequential thinking.42 56 Dr Wynn Owen considered the nature of the respondent's past intimate partner violence, including: conditional and direct threats of harm to the victim and indirect threats of harm to the victim's children; physical and sexual harm to the victim; a chronic pattern of intimate partner violent, being both frequent and persistent and occurring across more than one relationship; escalation; and involving multiple supervision violations including after imprisonment for intimate partner violence, to be highly relevant to the respondent's future risk of serious offending, risk management and treatment targets.43 57 Dr Bannister assessed the respondent as having an elevated risk of future offending, particularly violent and sexual offending. 58 Dr Bannister opined that the respondent: … currently poses a high risk/above average risk of committing a further serious offence (as defined in Schedule 1 of the HRSOA 2020) if not subject to either a Restriction Order for Continuing Detention or a Community Supervision Order under the High Risk Serious Offender Act 2020.44 59 As to the most likely risk scenario, Dr Bannister said: The most likely risk scenario for Mr Van Beek is that he breaches the conditions of a Community Supervision Order, in the context of relapsing into drug use, and/or through acting out aggressively due to poor emotional particularly in the context of an intimate relationship. The most serious risk scenario for Mr Van Beek is if in this same 42 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at pages 1332 - 1333. 43 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1323. 44 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [151]: 4 BOM at page 1369. -- 15 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 16 scenario, his behaviour is sufficiently disinhibited to result in serious injury to another person.45 60 There was no challenge by the respondent to these opinions and I have accepted them. Would a supervision order provide adequate protection? 61 Having found that the respondent is a high risk serious offender, the Court must make one of the two orders set out in s 48(1) of the Act. As per s 48(2), in deciding which of the orders to make: 'the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community'. 62 As I have noted above, the State submitted that it could be appropriate to make a supervision order under s 48(1)(b) of the Act. 63 Of course, notwithstanding the State's submission, the Court must reach its own view as to the appropriateness of that order in the statutory framework. 64 The Court should choose the order that is least invasive or destructive of the Respondent's right to be at liberty while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.46 65 Both Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Bannister assessed the respondent as presenting a high risk of committing a future serious offence if not subject to a restriction order.47 66 Dr Wynn Owen considered that, despite the high baseline risk, the risk could be adequately managed under a supervision order.48 67 Dr Bannister similarly opined that the respondent remained at a high or above-average risk of serious offending but that such risk could be adequately managed by a supervision order incorporating the proposed conditions.49 45 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [146]: 4 BOM at page 1368. 46 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 [21] (Steytler P & Buss JA). 47 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1334; Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [151]: 4 BOM at page 1369; ts 46 and 59. 48 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1335; ts 46. 49 ts 59 -- 16 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 17 68 In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, the conditions which were discussed in his evidence, in their totality, would adequately manage the risk the respondent poses to the community.50 69 Dr Wynn Owen opined that supervision and monitoring would significantly mitigate risk and noted that supervision should monitor the respondent's ability to manage stressors including intimate relationship stresses, assist him to avoid association with negative peers and provide him with support to remain abstinent from alcohol and illicit drug use, including through regular and random testing.51 70 Dr Wynn Owen considered, in particular, that the conditions should facilitate the monitoring of illicit substances and contact with females.52 While initially his view was that there should be no unsupervised contact with females without prior approval, it was clear in his evidence that what he considered was essential was close monitoring of any new relationships with women with respect to both the individual and children in their care including through monitoring of telephone, messaging and social media.53 That, he accepted, would be satisfactorily achieved by the proposed conditions under discussion at the hearing. 71 Dr Bannister initially opined that any conditions imposed under a supervision order should 'at least incorporate those that are currently included in the [ISO]'.54 72 Dr Bannister further opined that close monitoring should be employed, in the event that Mr Van Beek commenced an intimate relationship.55 Compliance with, and insight into, conditions 73 Before a supervision order can be made, the Court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order to be made; the respondent bears the onus of so satisfying the Court: s 29(1) and s 29(2) of the Act. 50 ts 50. 51 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1333. 52 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1335. 53 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1335. 54 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [154]; 4 BOM at page 1369. 55 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [154]; 4 BOM at page 1369. -- 17 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 18 74 In relation to the question of whether an offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions imposed by s 30 of the Act, the joint judgment in Garlett quoted with approval the following observations of Fiannaca J in ACJ:56 The question of whether the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order requires consideration of all of the circumstances, both personal to him and external, which will affect him. External circumstances include the conditions of the supervision order, the available means to monitor, supervise and treat him, and any pro-social support available to him. 75 The assessment of whether the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions takes account of the protective and supportive measures provided by the terms of the order. 76 In respect of the additional conditions that a court might impose over and above the standard conditions of a supervision order, Edelman J in Garlett observed:57 The requirement of appropriateness [in s 27(1)] imposes a duty on the Court to make only the additional supervision conditions required to ensure 'adequate' protection of the community, while imposing the minimum intrusion on an offender's liberty. (footnotes omitted) 77 This observation applies equally to the period of a supervision order. The period should reflect the minimum intrusion necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. 78 Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent said at interview in both 2025 and 2026 that he would comply with any conditions imposed upon him by the Court should he be made subject to a supervision order.58 Dr Wynn Owen opined that the respondent would be substantially able to comply as demonstrated by his compliance with the ISO.59 79 Although the respondent initially questioned his previous CCO on the need for conditions relating to unsupervised contact with females,60 Dr Wynn Owen reported that the respondent, in discussions between 56 Garlett [103]; The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [416]. 57 Garlett [230]; see HRSO Act, s 30(5), which requires that conditions are 'appropriate'. 58 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1320; ts 43. 59 ts 43. 60 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1317. -- 18 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 19 them, demonstrated an awareness of why the conditions were in place and tried to understand them rather than challenge them.61 80 On a re-evaluation for the purposes of Dr Bannister's 2026 Report, the respondent's score on the factor 'Compliance with Community Supervision' was reduced by on point on both the VRS-SO and VRS-2.62 81 Dr Bannister recorded that such reduction reflected the respondent's positive and compliant approach to the supervision process.63 82 However, Dr Bannister considered the recorded reduction was not sufficient to reduce the respondent's overall risk level, and he remained a high / above average risk of committing a serious offence likely in the form of his prior offending.64 83 While Dr Bannister considered it a significant risk the respondent's patterns of behaviour are still present and may emerge when he is under stress, Dr Bannister was quite supportive of some of the monitoring and said that some of the more preventative and restrictive conditions may fall away with the effluxion of time and as the order progresses.65 84 Because his risk is elevated in circumstances involving the formation or pursuit of intimate or inappropriate relationships, Ms Lico agreed with Dr Bannister that any conditions imposed by the Court should incorporate close monitoring, particularly in the event that he enters into an intimate relationship.66 Conduct while on the ISO 85 Since being placed on the ISO the respondent has generally demonstrated compliance with the conditions of his order and no significant breaches were identified.67 86 Minor non-compliance was observed, including repeated instances of returning marginally late for curfew. Ms Lico reported that the 61 ts 43. 62 Dr Bannister's 2026 Report [17]: 4 BOM at page 1374. 63 Dr Bannister's 2026 Report [17]: 4 BOM at page 1374. 64 Dr Bannister's 2025 Report [102]: 4 BOM at page 1360. 65 ts 55. 66 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1386. 67 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1378. -- 19 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 20 respondent has acknowledged these issues and attributed them primarily to poor time management and work-related factors.68 87 She says that the respondent consistently attended supervision sessions as directed, engaged appropriately, was co-operative and communicative and was willing to discuss his circumstances.69 88 Since taking over the respondent's supervision on 12 November 2025, Ms Lico says that there has been a positive change in the respondent's thought process around the order and that he has complied positively and engaged appropriately.70 89 That opinion was made following reports by the respondent's previous CCO of the respondent's ongoing pessimism about being on a supervision order.71 90 Ms Lico reported that the respondent appeared to understand the expectations of his order and the consequences of non-compliance but his behaviour indicated that under pressure he may prioritise immediate stressors over compliance. She said that this reflects his ongoing difficulties with decision making under stress impulsivity and prioritisation, which remain risk factors.72 91 In relation to contact with females, Ms Lico reported that the respondent has demonstrated a generally co-operative approach in disclosing during supervision, acknowledged the need for ongoing transparency, and demonstrated emerging (though still limited) insight into his risk in the context of intimate relationships.73 92 Ms Lico reported that the respondent had verbalised that his risk is linked to intimate partner dynamics and had expressed a desire to avoid relationships currently. She reported there to be some remaining minimisation in his understanding of the breadth of his risk, which was evidenced by his questioning of the relevance of restrictions relating to females more broadly but she noted that there has been no covert or deceptive behaviour in relation to female contact.74 68 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1378. 69 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1379. 70 ts 64. 71 ts 64. 72 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1379. 73 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1380. 74 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1380. -- 20 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 21 93 She noted that his compliance appears to be externally motivated and reliant on supervision oversight.75 94 In Ms Lico's opinion, of particular concern, is the respondent's risk within intimate or emerging relationships, which remains largely untested in the community and will require close monitoring.76 95 Notwithstanding that he had demonstrated capacity to engage in supervision, comply with the conditions of the ISO, established accommodation, maintained employment and is progressing toward engagement in structured intervention, the respondent continued to present with significant dynamic risk factors particularly in relation to interpersonal functioning, emotional regulation and the use of violence within intimate relationships. Those factors remain central to his risk of serious re-offending.77 96 She considered the proposed supervision framework necessary and proportionate to mitigate risk, support behavioural change, and ensure ongoing community safety.78 97 It is noted that the respondent had been charged with (and convicted on his pleas) a number of offences since the imposition of the ISO. 98 Those charges included: 1. PE 44783/2025 - Possess a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) - committed on 31 July 2025; 2. PE 44784/2025 - Contravened a requirement of a supervision order - committed on 31 July 2025; 3. PE 78474/2025 - Reckless driving - committed on 29 November 2025; 4. AR 4575 and 4577/2026 - 2 x no authority to drive - committed on 9 March 2026; and 5. AR 6864/2026 - Stealing - committed on 30 December 2025. 99 The respondent received fines for each of those offences. 75 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1381. 76 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1385. 77 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1388. 78 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1388. -- 21 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 22 100 Following the hearing before me, the respondent was charged with two further offences for which he entered guilty pleas and was convicted and fined. 101 Those charges included: 1. AR 15299/2026 - Use of a prohibited drug - committed on 28 July 2026; and 2. AR 15298/2026 - Contravened a requirement of a supervision order - committed on 28 July 20263. 102 By email dated 5 August 2026, the State advised that, notwithstanding those charges, it did not contend that there is currently a heightened risk of serious offending such that the respondent’s detention in custody was desirable. 103 While no offending can be condoned, especially when a person is on a supervision order, I do not consider that the above offences significantly indicate, or more accurately throw doubt on, the respondent's substantial compliance with the standard conditions as per s 29(1) of the Act. Disposition re a supervision order 104 I find that the community may be adequately protected by the respondent being placed on a supervision order on similar conditions as those of the ISO. 105 I am satisfied that the respondent has discharged his burden based on: 1. the evidence of his current attitude towards supervision; 2. his substantial compliance with the conditions of the ISO; and 3. the opinions expressed by the State's three witnesses. 106 In the following paragraphs I will briefly discuss the conditions that were the subject of argument before me at the hearing. The matters most in dispute in the hearing 107 Given that there was no significant dispute between the parties either as to the respondent being a high risk serious offender, nor as to the adequacy of a supervision order, the parties' oral submissions -- 22 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 23 primarily dealt with the proposed conditions to which the respondent should be subject if a supervision order were to be imposed. 108 The State, on 7 May 2026, filed a proposed supervision order with 44 conditions. 109 The proposed conditions in that proposed order to which submissions were primarily directed were: 1. proposed Conditions 15 and 16 which required the respondent to facilitate WA Police searching his residence and/or vehicle; 2. proposed Conditions 27 to 31 which required certain disclosures by the respondent in relation to new friendships and relationships with females; and 3. proposed Condition 43 which restricted the respondent's access to social media unless approved by a community corrections officer. 110 Further, attention was given in the hearing as to what should be the duration of a supervision order, if made. Duration of any supervision order 111 Dr Wynn Owen recommended that a supervision order be imposed for a maximum duration of four years.79 In Dr Wynn Owen's opinion, a supervision order of that duration gave the respondent the opportunity to address a number of his outstanding criminogenic needs, some of which could take some time.80 112 He said that the respondent would need to engage with a trusted therapist, work through therapy to develop strategies, put such strategies in place, and have the opportunity to demonstrate that the strategies are sufficient while under supervision.81 113 While maintaining that a duration of four years is appropriate, Dr Wynn Owen accepted that the conditions may be relaxed to an extent throughout the duration of the order.82 79 Dr Wynn Owen's Report: 4 BOM at page 1335. 80 ts 51 81 ts 51 82 ts 51 -- 23 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 24 114 While under cross-examination, Dr Wynn Owen did not oppose a shorter order of three years but noted that the appropriateness of a shorter order would be contingent on how quickly the respondent can be engaged with a psychologist.83 115 Dr Bannister opined that the respondent will require quite a long period, about 24 months, of treatment before he should be given the opportunity to start reducing the conditions and demonstrating self-management of risk.84 116 Dr Bannister similarly considered that a duration should be sufficiently long enough to allow the respondent to engage with a therapist, establish a meaningful therapeutic relationship, address the necessary criminogenic needs that are outstanding, and allow him to demonstrate he can self-manage. He considered that three to four years would be appropriate.85 117 Ms Lico opined that consideration may be given to the gradual reduction or variation of conditions where appropriate, contingent upon the respondent demonstrating sustained stability and an ability to effectively self-manage his risk.86 118 In all of the circumstances, I consider that the supervision order should be for a period of four years. I note that the State and its witnesses were in favour of the conditions, or at least some of them, being relaxed progressively as the respondent demonstrated stable self-management. Providing access to search person, premises and/or vehicle 119 Proposed Conditions 15 and 16 were as follows: [15] If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your person, 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 Police Officers believes to contravene the conditions of the Order; [16] Remain at your premises and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle under the provisions of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020; 83 ts 54. 84 ts 55. 85 ts 61 - 62; Dr Bannister's report [155]: 4 BOM at page 1369. 86 Community Assessment Report: 4 BOM at page 1386, ts 72. -- 24 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 25 120 Dr Wynn Owen explained that the purpose of Conditions 15 and 16 was to ensure that any information the respondent may be attempting to conceal can be ascertained if he were to be visited by police for any particular purpose and to ensure there will be no problem in providing access for checking whether there was any substance or alcohol use.87 121 He opined that such conditions are required as part of the management of substance use, which is of particularly high risk to the respondent.88 122 In cross-examination, Dr Wynn Owen accepted that Condition 15 may not be necessary if police could immediately enter and search the respondent's person, residence and/or vehicle without the need for a warrant under ordinary powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act.89 123 Dr Bannister agreed with Dr Wynn Owen as to the purpose of Conditions 15 and 16, and also as to his acceptance that such conditions may not be required.90 He emphasised the operational aspect of the conditions and noted that their inclusion may allow the HRSO team to act more quickly in executing such searches.91 124 Ms Lico confirmed that, following a telephone call between her team leader and the HRSO team, she considered that Conditions 15 and 16 were necessary in order for them to conduct their business and act quickly in conducting such searches.92 125 On balance, I consider that such conditions are necessary in order to allow the efficient entry and search of the respondent's person, residence, and/or vehicle. Prevention of high risk situations 126 Proposed Conditions 27 - 31 were as follows: Prevention of high-risk situations [27] Report any new friendship or relationship (someone you have contact with more than once) by you with a female to your CCO when you next report to them; 87 ts 47. 88 ts 47. 89 ts 53 - 54. 90 ts 60. 91 ts 60. 92 ts 70. -- 25 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 26 [28] If told to do so by your CCO, tell anyone with that you have a friendship or relationship with (someone you have contact with more than once) about your past offending, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer; [29] With the exception of public transport, not enter any vehicle, including taxis and rideshare vehicles (such as but not limited to Uber), where a female is present (whether that vehicle is under your control or not), unless such person is approved in advance by the CCO; [30] Not enter any residential address in which a female resides or is known to reside, unless authorised in advance by a CCO; [31] Not let any female enter your home unless the identity of that person has been approved in advance by a CCO; 127 Dr Wynn Owen described this set of conditions as being necessary in understanding whether the respondent is on a pathway to developing a new relationship in the context of his serious offending being within such relationships.93 That description was echoed in the evidence of both Dr Bannister and Ms Lico. 128 As to Condition 27, Dr Wynn Owen indicated that a new friendship or relationship with a female would not need to be reported after a single contact, but rather once the respondent becomes aware that a relationship may be forming, noting that the past offending occurred only once the relationship was well established. He said that reporting would be appropriate in this regard after two or possibly three interactions. 94 129 Dr Bannister similarly emphasised that the respondent's risk emerges within relationships and, while reluctant to prescribe a fixed number of contacts, stressed that community corrections must be informed as soon as the respondent's intention toward a female become clear. He considered three to four contacts reasonable to determine whether a relationship is forming, should any supervision order require a numerical threshold.95 130 As to Condition 28, Dr Wynn Owen considered it reasonable that the respondent disclose his offending history to a female after two to four contacts, stressing that the community corrections team must be aware when an interaction has the potential to develop into a 93 ts 47. 94 ts 47 - 48. 95 ts 60. -- 26 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 27 relationship.96 Dr Bannister agreed that such disclosure is necessary to support the respondent's self-management of risk and to ensure that others are sensitised to any risk he may pose. He considered that it would be appropriate for community corrections to manage once initial disclosure occurs and to determine when further notification is appropriate based on the respondent's relationship with the individual. 97 While again hesitant to prescribe a fixed number of contacts, he regarded three to four as appropriate.98 131 In respect of Conditions 27 and 28, Ms Lico's evidence was that community corrections would not regard fewer than three instances of contact as sufficient to trigger reporting, and therefore the respondent should be required to notify corrections of any new friendship or relationship with a female and disclose his offending history to that person within up to three contacts.99 132 Neither Dr Wynn Owen nor Dr Bannister considered Condition 29 or Condition 31 to be a necessary condition in relation to the sort of risk that would be expected of the respondent to pose.100 133 Similarly, in relation to the risk that it is expected that the respondent would pose, neither Dr Wynn Owen nor Dr Bannister considered that the respondent should be prohibited from entering a vehicle where a female is present as proposed by Condition 30.101 However, Dr Wynn Owen considered it would be appropriate for the respondent to report afterwards where he had been. 102 134 Ms Lico's evidence was that Conditions 29 - 31 sat within overall disclosure and compliance and community safety and are standard in that they are implemented for those with similar offending to the respondent. She says that they would allow corrections to manage the respondent on an ongoing basis in terms of compliance and disclosure.103 96 ts 48. 97 ts 60 - 61. 98 ts 61. 99 ts 70 - 71. 100 ts 49; 61. 101 ts 49; 61. 102 ts 49. 103 ts 70 - 71. -- 27 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 28 135 I consider that proposed Conditions 27 and 28 should be amended to read as follows: [27] Report any new friendship or relationship (someone you have contact with on three occasions) by you with a female to your CCO when you next report to them; [28] If told to do so by your CCO, tell anyone with that you have a friendship or relationship with (someone you have contact with on three occasions) about your past offending, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer; 136 These amendments are consistent with the State's submissions following the evidence of its witnesses.104 137 I consider that the above amendments are appropriate to meet the concerns raised by the State but do not go further than is necessary. 138 I would not impose conditions in terms of proposed Conditions 29 to 31. I consider that these proposed conditions would go further than is necessary. That is particularly so when one has regard to Conditions 27 and 28 which I intend to impose. I note that finding is consistent with the opinion expressed by Dr Wynn Owen.105 Social Media 139 Proposed Condition 43 is as follows: [43] Not access online social media (website or applications) unless approved in advance by a CCO. Before accessing a website or application, ask your CCO whether it is considered social media; 140 Dr Wynn Owen emphasised that monitoring the respondent's social contacts would be an important means of verifying honesty about the formation of new relationships or friendships.106 He considered it unnecessary for the respondent to seek permission to access social media and emphasised that the focus should be on ensuring he does not delete material,107 that he provides community corrections and WA Police with access to his accounts upon request, and informs 104 ts 75. 105 ts 48 - 49. 106 ts 49. 107 ts 49 - 50. -- 28 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 29 community corrections of any new account and its log in details and passwords.108 141 Dr Bannister broadly accepted the rationale for such a condition insofar as it assists supervision of emerging relationships, but stated that if the respondent is prohibited from deleting social media content so that exchanges can be reviewed, the condition itself is not strictly necessary.109 142 Similarly, Ms Lico maintained that community corrections should be able to monitor the respondent's social media activity and that he should not be permitted to delete any content, enabling oversight of ongoing relationships or potential stalking behaviours.110 143 I consider that Condition 43 is not necessary when one has regard to proposed Condition 38 which I think should be amended to add the words 'and social media' after the word 'information'. With that amendment, Condition 38 would read: Advise a CCO or Police Officer on every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or information and social media, that you own or use, within 48 hours (two business days), whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device. 144 Further, I consider that monitoring is supported by proposed Condition 17 which was not in dispute. The amendment was also consistent with the State's submissions after its witnesses gave their evidence.111 Form of the supervision order 145 Following the above reasons, I will impose a supervision order in the terms attached as 'Annexure A' to these reasons. 108 ts 49 - 50. 109 ts 61 and ts 63. 110 ts 71. 111 ts 76. -- 29 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 30 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. TM Associate to the Hon Justice Howard 18 AUGUST 2026 -- 30 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 31 'Annexure A' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SO 7 of 2025 IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant -and- DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK Respondent _________________________________________________________________________ SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE HOWARD ON 18 AUGUST 2026 _________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of section 7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 4 years from 18 August 2026, on the following conditions: You, DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) for intake at the place and time stated in the order and advise the officer of your current name and address; 2. Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court; -- 31 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 32 3. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, home address, or place of employment at least 2 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 a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); 5. Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO; 6. Not commit a serious offence as defined by the Act during the period of the Order; 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31; ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Reside at [redacted] and spend each night there or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to you; Employment 9. Not start or change paid or unpaid employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of the CCO; Attendance at programs or treatment 10. Attend and engage in all appointments as reasonably directed and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, mentor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO; 11. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO; -- 32 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 33 12. Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of any treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice; 13. Permit any medical practitioner or medical practitioners to advise the CCO immediately if they become aware or suspect that you have, or intend to cease undergoing medical treatment contrary to the advice of the medical practitioner or practitioner or medical practitioners on such treatment; Reporting to WA Police 14. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) located at the 'Hatch Building' Ground Floor, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 within 48 hours of the Order starting, and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad or another officer; 15. If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your person, 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 Police Officers believes to contravene the conditions of the Order; 16. Remain at your premises and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle under the provisions of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020; 17. When requested, advise Police of the names of all of your internet service providers, all mobile or landline telephone services used by you and all screen name(s), username(s), and email addresses. Further authorise police officers from the Western Australia Police Force (WA Police Force) to access any cloud-based platforms or services associated with the devices you use and examine the internet accounts at any time for the purposes of monitoring your online behaviour (absent any investigation for any offence); -- 33 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 34 Disclosure/Exchange of Information 18. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information; 19. 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 offending history; Restrictions on contact with Victims 20. Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO, have no contact with the victims of your serious offending and any current or previous partners who are victims of your offending. Contact in this condition means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim; 21. Unless contact with the victim is permitted by Condition 20, if you see any victim, you must immediately leave where you are, without speaking to them or gesturing to them, and you must look away from the victim at all times; 22. Report any contact with your victims of your offending to the CCO and WA Police within 48 hours of such contact occurring. Contact in this condition means speaking to the victim in person or by phone, making any gestures towards the victim, messaging the victim using electronic devices, or asking someone else to speak to or send a message to the victim; Criminal conduct 23. Not commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty includes imprisonment, and which involves either sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments; -- 34 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 35 24. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 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, and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the prescriber; Curfew 25. Comply with a curfew, requiring you to remain at and not leave your approved address, as directed by a CCO; 26. When subject to a curfew under this Order you must: a. go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, asks to see you. b. speak on the telephone, to any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, if they call to check you are at home. c. tell all adults at your home who may answer the telephone or door that you are on a curfew and ask them to tell you about attempts by any CCO or Police Officer or their representative monitoring your curfew, to contact you; Prevention of high-risk situations 27. Report any new friendship or relationship (someone you have contact with on three occasions) by you with a female to your CCO when you next report to them; 28. If told to do so by your CCO, tell anyone with that you have a friendship or relationship with (someone you have contact with on three occasions) about your past offending, which can be confirmed by a CCO or Police Officer; 29. Not to possess, use or purchase any alcohol; 30. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a Police Officer including going with them to an appropriate place for a sample to be taken; -- 35 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 36 31. Provide a valid sample pursuant to Condition 30; 32. Not to be with anyone who you know, or should know, is affected by a prohibited drug, with or without CCO approval; 33. Not stay anywhere that prohibited drugs are being used or, if drugs are being used at your home, go to another part of the house, or ask the people using prohibited drugs to leave your home; 34. Not go to any licensed premises, other than cafes, restaurants and sporting clubs, except for the following reasons: a. avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; or; b. if a CCO or Police Officer gives you prior approval; 35. Advise a CCO or Police Officer of every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or information and social media, that you own or use, within 48 hours (2 business days), whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device; 36. Not allow any person other than a CCO or WA Police access to any computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device referred to in condition 38, without prior approval of the CCO; 37. Enable device locking or password access of your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic devices; Not give or disclose such passwords or other means used to access any computer, telecommunications and/or electronic device referred to in condition 40, or any online accounts, to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer; 38. Upon request, allow a CCO or WA Police at any location nominated by them, to access any computer, telecommunication and/or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic -- 36 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 341 Page 37 device related activities, and provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords or any other means used to unlock or access the device; Should any other entity be required to access a device for instances such as technical advice, approval must be sought in advance from a CCO; 39. Not delete or otherwise remove and/or disguise, or cause or allow to be removed and/or disguised, any data including but not limited to calls, Short Message Service (SMS), search histories or logs capable of identifying your activities on that computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device, whether or not the device is capable of connecting to the internet, without the approval in advance by a CCO or WA Police; 40. You must not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a member of the departmental staff or an agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice. _______________________________ THE HON JUSTICE HOWARD 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 _________________________________ DAMIEN JOSEPH VAN BEEK In the presence of: _________________________________ Name and address: _________________________________ _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ -- 37 of 37 --