THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HOSKIN [2026] WASC 346

[2026] WASC 346 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HOSKIN [No 4] [2026] WASC 346 CORAM : FORRESTER J HEARD : 13 AUGUST 2026 DELIVERED : 21 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 9 of 2023 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND JASON JAMES PAUL HOSKIN Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Contravention proceedings - Application under s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) for rescission or, alternatively, amendment of supervision order - Whether respondent proved to have contravened the supervision order - Whether the supervision order should be rescinded, affirmed, amended or extended - Whether the respondent has proved, on balance of probabilities, that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of supervision order Legislation: Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 Page 2 Result: Supervision order amended Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Mr T Hollaway Respondent : Ms S Casey Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Shirley Casey Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 The State of Western Australia v CA [2023] WASC 144 The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [2023] WASC 355 The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104 The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 3] [2025] WASC 318 -- 2 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 3 FORRESTER J: Introduction 1 This is a contravention application in respect of the respondent, Jason James Paul Hoskin, pursuant to s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (Act). 2 As at the date of the application, the respondent was subject to a five year supervision order, which commenced on 27 March 2024 (SO). 3 The State alleges the respondent has contravened the SO on a number of occasions. 4 The matters I must decide are: (1) whether, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent has contravened, or is likely to contravene, the SO; and if so (2) whether the SO should be rescinded and a continuing detention order made, or whether the respondent should be permitted to remain on the supervision order with or without amendment or extension. For the reasons which follow: (1) I am satisfied that the respondent has contravened the SO; and (2) I am satisfied that the SO can be amended in such a manner that the community will be adequately protected against the unacceptable risk that, if not subject to restriction, the respondent will commit a serious offence; and (3) I am satisfied, having regard to the amended conditions, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of such an order. 5 Accordingly, the respondent will be released on an amended supervision order, with the conditions as set out in Annexure A to these reasons. Background 6 The history of these proceedings and the circumstances in which the respondent was found to be a high risk serious offender are set out -- 3 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 4 in detail in The State of Western Australia v Hoskin;1 The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2];2 and The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 3].3 These reasons are to be read in conjunction with the reasons in those decisions. Procedural background 7 On 16 August 2023, the State made an application, in relation to the respondent, for a restriction order under s 48 of the Act. Pending the final determination of that application, the respondent was made the subject of an interim supervision order pursuant to s 58(5) of the Act.4 8 After the hearing of the restriction order application on 21 March 2024, Strk J held that it was necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious offence. Strk J concluded that the SO was appropriate, and imposed conditions in addition to those required by the Act, to guard against the risk that the respondent posed to the community.5 9 The respondent was released on the SO on or about 27 March 2024. 10 Following the respondent's release on the SO, he was charged with 75 offences of contravening a requirement of the SO contrary to s 80(1) of the Act, and seven offences of failing to comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) (CP(OR) Act). 11 On 2 October 2024, the respondent was convicted of these 82 offences on his own plea of guilty. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 8 months' imprisonment and was made eligible for parole.6 Parole was refused, and the respondent's term of imprisonment ended on 6 May 2025.7 12 Following the respondent's release on the SO on 6 May 2025, he was charged with a further 13 offences of contravening a requirement of the SO contrary to s 80(1) of the Act, and three offences of failing to 1 The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [2023] WASC 355 (Hoskin [No 1]). 2 The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 2] [2024] WASC 104 (Hoskin [No 2]). 3 The State of Western Australia v Hoskin [No 3] [2025] WASC 318 (Hoskin [No 3]). 4 Hoskin [No 1]. 5 Hoskin [No 2]. 6 Book of Materials for the Contravention Hearing (BOM) Vol 1, 5 - 15. 7 BOM Vol 1, 71. -- 4 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 5 comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 63(1) of the CP(OR) Act. On 24 June 2025, the respondent was arrested and remanded in custody in relation to those charges. 13 The State made the contravention application on 4 August 2025. On 7 August 2025, Strk J made orders for reports to be produced, and ordered that the respondent be detained in custody until the final determination of the application, pursuant to s 56(2)(b) of the Act. 14 On 16 September 2025, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to a term of 10 months' imprisonment, backdated to 5 June 2025.8 Materials 15 The State produced a Book of Materials comprised of four volumes, containing the criminal history of the respondent and detailed evidence relating to it, including statements of material facts and transcripts, the respondent's custodial history, program completion reports relating to the various programs undertaken by the respondent while in custody, parole and other assessment reports, and reports prepared for this hearing, namely: (1) Performance Reports of Ms Tracey Lilly dated 1 October 2025, 5 January 2026, 29 June 2026 and 9 July 2026; (2) HRSO Treatment Progress Report of Chantal Spiccia dated 31 December 2025 and updated HRSO Treatment Progress Report of Ms Spiccia dated 29 June 2026; and (3) Psychiatric Report of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 18 December 2025 and supplementary report dated 26 July 2026. 16 The State called the authors of these reports at the hearing of the application, and they were cross-examined by the respondent's counsel. 17 The State also included in the Book of Materials the respondent's custodial medical record,9 but at the hearing indicated it relied only on the materials referred to by Dr Wojnarowska, being those contained in Volume 4 of the Book of Materials.10 8 BOM Vol 1, 3 - 4. 9 BOM Vol 1, 79 - 152; BOM Vol 4, 1210 - 1248. 10 ts 104 - 105. -- 5 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 6 Statutory framework and legal principles 18 The objects of the Act are: (a) to provide for the detention in custody or the supervision of high risk serious offenders to ensure adequate protection of the community and of victims of serious offences; and (b) to provide for continuing control, care or treatment of high risk serious offenders.11 19 The powers conferred by the 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.12 20 If a respondent is brought before the Supreme Court under a warrant under s 51(3) of the Act, the State may make an application for an order under s 55 of the Act.13 21 On such an application, 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 the supervision order, the court must:14 (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order; or (b) subject to s 29, make an order amending the conditions and/or extending the period for which the offender is subject to the supervision order or both; or (c) except as provided in s 29, make an order affirming the supervision order without amendment or extension. 22 A continuing detention order is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment.15 A supervision order is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers to be appropriate in accordance with s 30 of the Act.16 11 Act s 8. 12 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 277 CLR 1 [55] - [56]. 13 Act s 53(2). 14 Act s 55. 15 Act s 3, s 26(1). 16 Act s 3, s 27(1). -- 6 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 7 23 It is to be assumed that the respondent remains a high risk serious offender; the court is not required to make the determination again.17 24 In deciding which order to make, the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.18 25 The court cannot release an offender on a supervision order unless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order, the onus of establishing which is on the offender.19 26 Even if the court is satisfied that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the court must not release the offender unless satisfied that a supervision order will ensure an adequate degree of protection to the community.20 27 The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30 of the Act and include the requirement that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order.21 28 In Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart, Fiannaca J observed that, in determining whether an offender 'will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order':22 [t]he court must be satisfied that the respondent will comply with the standard conditions in a manner and to an extent that is consistent with and will enable the attainment of the general object of the supervision order and the legislation, namely the adequate protection of the community by management and mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious … offence. Alleged contraventions 29 The 75 offences of contravening the SO of which the respondent was convicted on 2 October 2024 were committed between 11 March 2024 and 6 September 2024, and included conduct such as: (1) accessing YouTube without approved supervision or authorisation from his CCO, contrary to condition 36 of the SO; 17 The State of Western Australia v CA [2023] WASC 144 [28]. 18 Act s 55(3). 19 Act s 29, s 55. 20 The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [38]. 21 Act s 30(2)(f). 22 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 [52(6)]. -- 7 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 8 (2) failing to notify his CCO of his possession of a PlayStation 5 within 48 hours of acquiring it, contrary to condition 36 of the SO; (3) frequent occasions (often on multiple occasions per day, with each date attracting a separate charge) on which he accessed the internet without approval from his CCO, including by participating in online gaming chats, contrary to condition 36 of the SO; (4) failing to notify his CCO of his acquisition and possession of an electronic storage device within 48 hours, contrary to condition 43 of the SO; (5) failing to notify his CCO of his acquisition and possession of a new telecommunication device within 48 hours, contrary to condition 43 of the SO; (6) deleting data from his mobile device without authorisation from his CCO, contrary to condition 46 of the SO; and (7) being in possession of a pamphlet containing non-indecent images of a baby and a 14-year-old girl, contrary to condition 41 of the SO.23 30 The breaches of the CP(OR) Act were committed by failing to report information, namely new accounts and application downloads, as required to the Sex Offender Registry and the Serious Offender Management Squad.24 31 While there was no allegation that any of the offending involved access to indecent material or communications of a sexual nature, at sentencing the respondent admitted, through his counsel, that he was aware of the restrictions on his access to the internet but deliberately went ahead with that access without seeking permission as required.25 The pre-sentence report was said to have suggested that the offending reflected the respondent's continuing treatment needs in the areas of impulsivity, poor consequential thinking, poor problem solving, poor emotional management and a lack of realistic plans in relation to 23 BOM Vol 1, 185 - 265, 276 - 348, 356 - 361. 24 BOM Vol 1, 266 - 275, 348 - 355. 25 BOM Vol 1, 375 - 377. -- 8 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 9 preventing his reoffending, but also suggested a somewhat superficial participation in his SO to that time.26 32 Following his release from custody on 6 May 2025, the respondent was charged with a further 13 offences of contravening a requirement of his SO and three further charges of failing to comply with his reporting conditions under the CP(OR) Act. The offences were committed between 12 May 2025 and 24 June 2025 and were based on the following facts.27 33 On 12 May 2025, the respondent purchased a USB without disclosing that purchase to his CCO or police, as required by condition 42 of the SO.28 34 On 11 June 2025, the respondent purchased a mobile phone without prior approval from his CCO as required by a lawful written instruction and condition 4 of the SO.29 35 Between 25 May 2025 and 24 June 2025, without reasonable excuse, the respondent: (1) deleted or disguised data on his mobile phone; (2) failed to maintain a daily diary as required by a lawful written instruction and condition 33 of the SO; (3) bought a smart television without advising his CCO or police; (4) accessed the internet through the smart television and his mobile phone; (5) accessed pornographic material on the internet; (6) created a Netflix profile; (7) accessed (non-indecent) images of children on the internet; (8) accessed YouTube on the smart television; and (9) created an Outlook account, Netflix account, Gmail account and YouTube account without disclosing this to his CCO or police.30 26 BOM Vol 1, 382. 27 BOM Vol 1, 3 - 4. 28 BOM Vol 1, 387. 29 BOM Vol 1, 389. -- 9 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 10 36 The pornographic material accessed by the respondent was searched for using phrases which will not be repeated here, but clearly included searches for young people involved in sexual activity.31 37 The respondent also contravened the conditions of the SO on numerous occasions, which did not result in a charge but did result in non-compliance warnings being given to the respondent. These contraventions included:32 (1) failing to accurately record movements in his diary; (2) failing to maintain his GPS equipment; (3) failing to comply with an instruction to notify his CCO regarding rectification of a reported problem with his SIM card; (4) failing to comply with an instruction to provide evidence of disposal of a laptop; and (5) failing to attend appointments with the Community Forensic Mental Health Services (CFMHS). 38 The respondent was also reported to have engaged in a number of 'concerning behaviours' such as:33 (1) using public computers to minimise detection when creating email addresses; (2) failing to declare electronic devices and SIM cards; (3) engaging in online chat rooms; (4) accessing the internet without approval; and (5) repeated loss or damage to phones and SIM cards. Finding on the contravention application 39 On the basis of the convictions entered against the respondent, on his own pleas of guilty, since his release on the SO, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has contravened a condition of his SO on numerous occasions. 30 BOM Vol 1, 387 - 418. 31 BOM Vol 3, 875 - 876. 32 BOM Vol 3, 885 - 890. 33 BOM Vol 3, 890 - 895. -- 10 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 11 40 I am also satisfied that many of the contraventions involved conduct of a kind which was identified by Dr Hall in the course of the restriction order proceedings as conduct which would give rise to an assessment of both increased risk of serious offending and increased imminence of serious offending, when he said: Warning signs that might signal that risk is increasing or imminent include use of legal child images for masturbatory purposes and increasing time spent online. A potential shift in Mr Hoskin's offending behaviour could involve the above scenario with activities undertaken on internet capable devices acquired surreptitiously (such as a 'burner' phone) and connected via third party Wi-Fi networks in an effort to avoid detection.34 Consequences of finding 41 Having so found, I must do one of three things, as provided by s 55(1) of the Act: (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order; or (b) subject to s 29, make an order amending the conditions and/or extending the period for which the offender is subject to the supervision order or both; or (c) except as provided in s 29, make an order affirming the supervision order without amendment or extension. 42 I do not propose to repeat the comprehensive summary set out by Strk J in Hoskin [No 2] in relation to the respondent's antecedents and medical and psychiatric history. For the purposes of the contravention application, I will only address additional relevant matters. Conduct while in custody 43 The respondent did not incur any adverse incidents or charges during his time in custody and was described as presenting with appropriate prison conduct, being respectful to custodial staff and engaging well with other prisoners.35 34 BOM Vol 3, 1076. 35 BOM Vol 3, 1139. -- 11 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 12 Psychiatric report of Dr Gosia Wojnarowska dated 18 December 2025 and supplementary report dated 26 July 2026 prepared in accordance with s 74 of the Act 44 Dr Wojnarowska is a qualified expert within the meaning of the Act.36 She prepared a report dated 18 December 202537 and a supplementary report dated 26 July 2026.38 In preparation for her reports, she interviewed the respondent twice and reviewed the first three Volumes of the Book of Materials, the updated Treatment Progress Report dated 29 June 2026, the Updated Performance Report of 9 July 2026, and affidavits prepared for the contravention proceedings.39 45 In August 2025, the respondent identified conflict with his mother, pushing her, his weight loss, and his messy room as the circumstances that led to his arrest for contravening his SO.40 46 The respondent denied looking at child exploitation material for the last five years. He accepted that his diagnosis of paedophilia was correct. He claimed he had never attempted to meet with a child in person and appeared to Dr Wojnarowska to understand that this would be seen as a major escalation in his offending. However, when questioned on what would stop him from approaching a child, he indicated only that he would not know what to say to them.41 47 Dr Wojnarowska reported that when questioned about his treatment, the respondent remembered attending a sex offender program and learning 'how not to offend', which he could not elaborate on. Dr Wojnarowska observed him to have a limited insight into the drivers or triggers of his deviant behaviour.42 48 Dr Wojnarowska reported that the respondent told her that he now understood that online offending and child exploitation material 'are not victimless crimes' but appeared to struggle to understand the damaging effect of his behaviour on the child's development and their future wellbeing. He said that his current sexual interest continued to include prepubescent females aged between six and 11 years old. To Dr Wojnarowska, the respondent appeared to accept that his sexual 36 Act s 3; BOM Vol 3, 1177. 37 BOM Vol 3, 1176 - 1194. 38 BOM Vol 4, 1296 - 1298. 39 BOM Vol 3, 1177; BOM Vol 4, 1280. 40 BOM Vol 3, 1182. 41 BOM Vol 3, 1184 - 1185. 42 BOM Vol 3, 1884. -- 12 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 13 deviance is an issue that he needs to address in therapy and that doing so would reduce his risk of reoffending. He acknowledged that he was likely to be imprisoned again in the future for contravening conditions of his SO, but expressed the view that if he had a partner, he 'would not need to look at CEM'.43 49 In his most recent interview, the respondent told Dr Wojnarowska that he did not think he was at risk of reoffending, as, while subject to his SO, he had gained more insight into and understanding of his risks and behaviours.44 However, he then told her that his sexual drive increased in the community as he had access to the internet, and felt lonely and bored.45 50 In response to Dr Wojnarowska asking the respondent what his schizophrenia diagnosis meant to him, he said that, when in the community, 'the force of the universe' is against him, as he cannot gain muscle despite training, cannot retain employment and has been rejected by numerous women.46 51 The respondent informed Dr Wojnarowska that he did not believe that either his schizophrenia or his autism was a factor in his offending.47 52 The respondent told Dr Wojnarowska that he had been experiencing chronic fatigue. He reported that, as a result, he spent most of his time sitting and staring at the floor, was required to take a break every ten seconds when writing and had been unable to engage in regular muscle training.48 However, he attributed his inability to hold down employment to anxiety, which often manifested itself as poor body image, and his struggles with the requirements of his allocated duties.49 53 When asked by Dr Wojnarowska about his goals for the future, the respondent reported that he wished to live independently, complete a business course at TAFE, and have his teeth corrected. However, he reported that due to his 'chronic fatigue' he would be unable to work 43 BOM Vol 3, 1885. 44 BOM Vol 4, 1284. 45 BOM Vol 4, 1285. 46 BOM Vol 3, 1183. 47 BOM Vol 3, 1183. 48 BOM Vol 4, 1284. 49 BOM Vol 3, 1183 - 1184. -- 13 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 14 and that he did not have any means to pay for the procedure to correct his teeth.50 Diagnosis 54 In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, the respondent has a complex psychiatric presentation characterised by atypical symptoms and multiple overlapping disorders. His adverse early childhood experiences all compounded his undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Dr Wojnarowska considered it possible that the early symptoms of schizophrenia emerged during the respondent's adolescence, characterised by declining social and academic functioning and emerging anxiety. He developed delusions and experienced a period of undiagnosed and untreated psychosis for 16 - 17 years, progressing in his thirties.51 55 The respondent's longstanding sexual interest in prepubescent children, specifically female children, and the extent to which he has acted upon it, led Dr Wojnarowska to conclude that his diagnosis is paedophilic disorder, non-exclusive type, sexually attracted to females.52 Risk assessment tools 56 Dr Wojnarowska used the following tools to assess the risk that the respondent would commit acts of sexual violence in the future, and the steps which could be taken to minimise that risk. Static-99R 57 The respondent received a score of 5, which placed him in the Above Average Risk category for reoffending. Offenders in this category have a predicted five-year recidivism rate of 21-24%, and a ten-year rate of 32%-37%. PCL-R 58 The respondent scored 14 on the PCL-R, meaning he does not reach the threshold for psychopathy. Elevations were evident in the factor 2 domains, namely a lack of long-term goals, impulsivity, 50 BOM Vol 4, 1285. 51 BOM Vol 3, 1185. 52 BOM Vol 3, 1186. -- 14 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 15 irresponsibility, poor behavioural control and revocation of conditional release.53 RSVP 59 In the domain of sexual violence history, the risk factors of chronicity of violence and escalation of sexual violence were present. The risk factors of diversity of sexual violence and psychological coercion in sexual violence were partially present.54 60 In the psychological domain, the factors which were present or partially present were an extreme minimisation or denial of sexual violence, attitudes that support or condone sexual violence, problems with self-awareness and problems with stress or coping.55 61 As to the mental disorder domain, the risk factors present were sexual deviance and major mental illness. In Dr Wojnarowska's view, the presence of sexual deviance is the most relevant, as its presence is strongly associated with the risk of sexual violence and is a causal factor that predisposes a person to engage in sexual offending.56 The factor of violent ideation was possibly present.57 62 In the domain of social adjustment, the risk factors of intimate relationships and problems with employment were present. The risk factor of non-intimate relationships was partially present.58 63 In terms of management, the risk factor of problems with supervision was present, and the factors of problems with planning and problems with treatment were partially present. Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent's recent contraventions undermine the improvements previously demonstrated in the psychological domains, such as the respondent being less impulsive and able to self-reflect.59 64 The clinical analysis of risk factors as they relate specifically to the respondent, as guided by the RSVP, caused Dr Wojnarowska to conclude that the respondent's risk of reoffending in a sexual manner continues to be high.60 53 BOM Vol 4, 1288. 54 BOM Vol 4, 1288. 55 BOM Vol 4, 1289. 56 BOM Vol 3, 1189. 57 BOM Vol 4, 1290. 58 BOM Vol 4, 1290. 59 BOM Vol 4, 1291 - 1292. 60 BOM Vol 3, 1191. -- 15 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 16 Risk scenarios 65 The most likely risk scenario for reoffending would be the repetition of prior offending, namely accessing child exploitation material or participating in internet chatrooms to write about and distribute such material, with likely reoffending within six months to two years. Dr Wojnarowska opined that the warning signs that the risk is increasing or imminent include the use of legal child images for masturbatory purposes and increasing time spent online.61 66 According to Dr Wojnarowska, a potential escalation in the respondent's behaviour may involve accessing child exploitation material or distributing such material through online chatrooms using internet-enabled devices that have been covertly acquired and connected to third-party Wi-Fi networks for the purpose of avoiding detection.62 67 She considered that there is a potential, albeit unlikely, scenario in which the respondent escalates to direct contact offending against children. However, given his limited social skills, any such offending would likely require access to children who are both readily accessible to him and predisposed to trust him. Dr Wojnarowska observed that the respondent's very limited social network, together with his limited capacity to develop future networks, significantly reduces the likelihood of such offending occurring. In the event that direct contact offending were to occur, she considered that the risk of escalation to serious physical violence would remain low; however, the psychological harm suffered by any victim would likely be severe.63 Assessment of Risk 68 Dr Wojnarowska was of the opinion that the respondent is a high risk of serious sexual offending if not subject to a restriction order.64 69 Dr Wojnarowska recommended that the respondent receive individual sex offender treatment with a psychologist from the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT) to address his criminogenic needs, deficits associated with autism, and address emotional regulation 61 BOM Vol 3, 1191 - 1192. 62 BOM Vol 3, 1192. 63 BOM Vol 4, 1292 - 1293. 64 BOM Vol 4, 1294. -- 16 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 17 and social skills,65 as well as directing him to more appropriate sexual outlets.66 70 Additionally, Dr Wojnarowska considered that the respondent should engage with an occupational therapist, speech pathologist and practical support in securing suitable employment or engaging in meaningful and rewarding activities.67 71 Dr Wojnarowska noted that the respondent would have access to 32 hours per week of core supports during his first three months after release.68 72 Dr Wojnarowska was of the view that, due to the respondent's high levels of sexual preoccupation, anti-libidinal treatment should be considered.69 In evidence at the hearing of the application, she said that the respondent was a very good candidate for such treatment, because of his sexual preoccupation and paedophilic interest. It would decrease his libido and, she said, the research showed that it also decreased sexual preoccupation.70 The medication could be prescribed to him at a dose higher than previously, which would have an anti-libidinal effect after two to four weeks.71 73 In evidence at the hearing of the application, Dr Wojnarowska expressed the opinion that the combination of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) supports and psychological counselling would make his risk manageable,72 particularly if he commenced anti-libidinal medication, as that would make him more open to therapeutic intervention and the psychological effect of the intervention would be more imminent.73 74 She recommended that effective monitoring of the respondent should include vigilant oversight of his online activities, taking of medications and adherence to the conditions of a restriction order, and that disengagement from health services or supervision, entering a relationship or obtaining employment would warrant reassessment. 65 BOM Vol 4, 1294. 66 ts 111 - 113. 67 BOM Vol 4, 1294. 68 BOM Vol 4, 1284. 69 BOM Vol 4, 1294. 70 ts 109 - 110. 71 ts 116. 72 ts 108. 73 ts 111 - 112, 115 - 116. -- 17 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 18 75 In Dr Wojnarowska's view, the respondent's internet access should be limited only to sites or platforms approved by his CCO, prohibiting contact with children, and prohibiting the purchase of mobile phones or internet-capable devices unless pre-approved. Further, she recommended he have disclosure obligations and be limited to viewing adult pornography in print form.74 Treatment Progress Report of Chantal Spiccia dated 31 December 2025 and Update dated 29 June 2026 76 Ms Spiccia, a Senior Counselling Psychologist, prepared a report dated 31 December 2025 in relation to the respondent. By letter dated 29 June 2026, Ms Spiccia provided an updated Treatment Progress Report. 77 In December 2023, the respondent commenced individual intervention with Mr Summerton, a Senior Counselling Psychologist with FPIT. Prior to the restriction order hearing in 2024, he attended 12 sessions, and after the hearing, he attended a further 25 individual sessions.75 78 Ms Spiccia reported that Mr Summerton observed the respondent to engage meaningfully in the intervention and, during its early stages, demonstrate a reasonable degree of insight into his entrenched beliefs and worldview. He further reported that he had begun addressing the respondent's sexual deviance, but the respondent's progress had been interrupted by his incarceration.76 79 The respondent presented to Ms Spiccia as polite and calm, with his affect restricted in range and reactivity. Ms Spiccia noted that the respondent did not offer information without being prompted and that his answers to questions were very concrete.77 80 The respondent reported to Ms Spiccia that he was experiencing limited side effects from his medication. He denied experiencing auditory hallucinations or delusional beliefs for the past few years.78 81 The respondent told Ms Spiccia that, while subject to the SO, he used the internet for online banking, accessing streaming services, watching YouTube, and gaming. He stated that, for several hours a 74 BOM Vol 4, 1294 - 1295. 75 BOM Vol 3, 1171 - 1172. 76 BOM Vol 3, 1172. 77 BOM Vol 3, 1172. 78 BOM Vol 3, 1172. -- 18 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 19 day, he played a single game that he had purchased on a PlayStation 5 console and used online gaming chat functions to invite other players to play against him and to socialise. He further reported that the restrictions imposed on his internet use under the SO resulted in feelings of boredom and expressed that he wished to cultivate 'alternative ways to live without the internet that's fulfilling'.79 82 The respondent reported to Ms Spiccia that he searched for and watched adult pornography, and denied searching for or watching pornography depicting children, homosexual or incestual acts. He also denied watching a television series depicting children for sexual gratification, instead explaining that he watched it to observe social interactions.80 83 Ms Spiccia observed that the respondent believed his individual intervention with Mr Summerton had assisted him to develop insight into his upbringing, his atypical approach to dating women, and his difficulties in forming and maintaining romantic relationships. He also considered his capacity for employment and ways in which he could increase his independence. The respondent further reported that the intervention had encouraged him to better understand his offending behaviour, identify high-risk situations, and develop risk management strategies. However, he stated that he had not disclosed his contravening behaviour to Mr Summerton because he was aware that it would be reported to the Community Offender Monitoring Unit (COMU).81 84 The respondent reported to Ms Spiccia that his sessions with Mr Summerton have assisted him in understanding the perspective of his index offending victims, and that he recognised now that chat hosts must have been 'shocked' by the content of his messages. He told her that considering the perspective of his victims would help him avoid reoffending. 85 The respondent did not consider his contravention behaviours to be high-risk situations because he had not accessed child exploitation material.82 86 The respondent reflected that, when faced with setbacks such as a delayed Centrelink payment, he experienced feelings of anger and 79 BOM Vol 3, 1173. 80 BOM Vol 3, 1172. 81 BOM Vol 3, 1173. 82 BOM Vol 3, 1173. -- 19 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 20 coped by using the internet as a means of escaping his problems and emotions. He said that he planned to manage these risks by engaging in pro-social activities, including strength training, volleyball, and other sporting pursuits, spending time with family members, and participating in outings with his NDIS support workers. In doing so, he aims to reduce boredom, loneliness, and the amount of time he spends in his bedroom, which he considered to be high-risk situations for him.83 87 The respondent also acknowledged a sexual attraction to underage females. He stated that, in an effort to reduce his risk of reoffending, he intended to limit his use of the internet and instead obtain pornographic magazines depicting adult women. He further explained that, if he were to have incidental contact with children in the community, his strategy would be to avoid interaction by moving away and presenting himself as though he did not have such an attraction. The respondent also indicated that he does not consider himself ready to enter into a romantic relationship until he is living independently, and that he expects to use online dating platforms should he seek a relationship in the future.84 88 The respondent told Ms Spiccia that he hoped to obtain independent accommodation through the NDIS and to undertake correspondence studies in Information Technology, Business, or Human Resources. He identified his mother, sister, and the Frankland Centre as key sources of support if released into the community. 89 The respondent outlined a number of strategies to assist his ongoing stability and rehabilitation, including maintaining a notebook, using alarm reminders to ensure he keeps a daily diary, and participating in pro-social activities. He claimed now to understand the strictness of the SO and the consequences of non-compliance.85 90 In Ms Spiccia's opinion, the factors which contributed to the respondent's contraventions included difficulties adjusting to the conditions of his SO, impulsivity, poor coping and problem-solving skills, boredom, loneliness, deviant sexual interests and sexual preoccupation. His primary socialising and coping strategy was video gaming. When this was no longer available, he was not able to generate alternative strategies and returned to using sexual activity to 83 BOM Vol 3, 1173. 84 BOM Vol 3, 1173. 85 BOM Vol 3, 1174. -- 20 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 21 cope. However, he minimised the seriousness of his contravention behaviours.86 91 Ms Spiccia observed that the respondent's concrete understanding of risk factors, procedural approach to managing risk and relapse prevention planning are products of his ASD and rigid thinking style. She considered that this thinking style, together with longstanding mental health difficulties, cognitive distortions that minimise and justify his offending, sexual deviance, limited intrinsic motivation, and a tendency to avoid personal responsibility when coping with stressors contributed to difficulties in treatment responsivity. Nevertheless, Ms Spiccia noted that the respondent's individual intervention with Mr Summerton had begun to address offending-related risk factors, as well as issues concerning his broader functioning and motivation for behavioural change.87 92 Ms Spiccia considered that, if the respondent were made subject to a Continuing Detention Order, he should be re-referred to FPIT to continue engaging in individual intervention with Mr Summerton at a later time, close to his review, noting that individual intervention in custody would provide fewer opportunities for the respondent to apply his developing insight and self-management skills.88 93 Ms Spiccia further recommended that, if the respondent remained subject to detention, he be referred to Psychological Health Services to assist him in managing any additional stressors associated with ongoing detention. She also recommended that he continue to engage with his NDIS-funded support worker to support the development of appropriate leisure activities and to assist with any future transition into the community. 94 Ms Spiccia considered that, if released on his SO, the respondent should be re-referred to FPIT to continue individual intervention with Mr Summerton, enabling him to further develop insight and self-management strategies. The respondent would be assisted to better manage and reduce feelings of boredom and loneliness, and should be encouraged and supported to engage with his NDIS-funded support workers in order to participate in appropriate pro-social hobbies and activities.89 86 BOM Vol 3, 1174. 87 BOM Vol 3, 1174. 88 BOM Vol 3, 1175. 89 BOM Vol 3, 1175. -- 21 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 22 95 In her update, Ms Spiccia said that, if released on the SO, the respondent would be on a waitlist to see Mr Summerton, and would be prioritised, but no accurate time frame for resumption of psychological intervention could be given.90 She confirmed that position in evidence at the hearing of the application.91 Reports of Ms Tracy Lilly dated 27 September 2024, 22 November 2024, 1 October 2025, 5 January 2026, 29 June 2026 and 9 July 2026, and Affidavit affirmed 4 August 2025 96 To the extent the content of Ms Lilly's reports and evidence replicated information already referred to in the summaries of the reports and evidence of Dr Wojnarowska, I accept it but do not repeat it. Respondent's performance on the SO 97 Ms Lilly is a Senior Community Corrections Officer for the COMU, who was responsible for the case management of the respondent. 98 Ms Lilly referred to the behaviours of concern exhibited by the respondent, his conduct which attracted non-compliance warnings, and his contraventions of the SO. Ms Lilly opined that these behaviours were deliberate and deceptive, demonstrating the respondent's capacity to conceal information to avoid monitoring and detection, and an apparent inability to comply with his SO conditions related to his internet use.92 99 Ms Lilly noted that, prior to his being made subject to an interim detention order, the respondent was attending counselling with Mr Summerton. She observed that, while the respondent was said to have appeared willing to engage in discussions about his offending behaviour, his continuing offending during the intervention period 'highlighted a significant inability to translate insight and understanding into meaningful behavioural change'.93 She later noted that his engagement during supervision sessions was superficial and that he was not forthcoming or truthful.94 90 BOM Vol 4, 1277. 91 ts 120. 92 BOM Vol 3, 1137. 93 BOM Vol 3, 895. 94 BOM Vol 3, 1129, 1199. -- 22 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 23 100 Ms Lilly also reported that the respondent was managed by the CFMHS while in the community, and was prescribed a long-acting antipsychotic and a daily antidepressant. He was medication compliant but, as noted above, failed to attend appointments on three occasions in May 2025 and, in that period, administration of his medication was delayed. According to Ms Lilly, the respondent told Mr Summerton that if he was not under supervision, he would come off his medication because he did not believe he had schizophrenia.95 NDIS Support 101 The NDIS has approved funding for Core Supports and Capacity Building Supports, including funding for Specialist Support Coordination and Occupational Therapy for the respondent until 11 May 2027. This includes funding for support to assist the respondent to engage in community, social, recreational or economic activities.96 102 However, prior to his incarceration pending the outcome of the contravention application, the respondent failed to engage with his NDIS support providers and build community supports, despite ongoing encouragement. He did not acknowledge the importance of community support in reducing the potential for him to reoffend in a serious manner.97 Further, his mother was noted to 'often make it difficult for support workers to attend his home address'.98 Availability of Accommodation 103 Ms Lilly reported that the respondent's previous accommodation, at his mother's house, did not support him in complying with his SO, as his mother demonstrated limited awareness of his offending behaviour, believed his SO to be excessive and was not supportive of his reintegration into the community. Ms Lilly further reported that his mother has exhibited hostility towards support staff, which resulted in them attempting to arrange sessions outside of the home. However, the respondent frequently cancelled those appointments.99 104 In discussions with Ms Lilly, the respondent acknowledged that residing with his mother did not support him in complying with his order conditions and agreed to work with his Specialist Support 95 BOM Vol 3, 896. 96 BOM Vol 3, 1197. 97 BOM Vol 3, 897. 98 BOM Vol 3, 1135. 99 BOM Vol 3, 897. -- 23 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 24 Coordinator and Program Provider to source alternative accommodation.100 105 Ms Lilly indicated that the respondent's NDIS supports have sourced a single-occupancy property for the respondent and will hold it vacant for four weeks from the date of the hearing.101 A Desktop Spatial Analysis found no particular concerns with the property,102 although care will need to be taken as to the respondent's outlook from the property to ensure he does not gain access to regular viewing or access to children.103 Programs 106 The respondent has not been given the opportunity to participate in any programs during his time in custody. Respondent's attitude towards the SO 107 The respondent elected not to give evidence at the hearing of the application. However, his counsel confirmed that the respondent's instructions were to the effect that, while he did not wish to take anti-libidinal medication, he would do so if it would mean he would be released on his SO.104 108 While I do not consider it to be appropriate to make it a condition of the supervision order that the respondent take medication to reduce his risk, it is appropriate to recognise that if the respondent is willing to take such medication, the court may have more confidence in the manageability of his risk. In this case, there have been no significant concerns to date about the respondent's taking medication as recommended by his treating physicians. 109 The respondent also informed Ms Lilly that he now appreciated the seriousness with which his internet access is regarded, and that the consequence of future breaches is likely to be imprisonment. However, the respondent apparently did not explain to Ms Lilly why he did not come to this realisation after his first term of imprisonment, and he did not give evidence about this or any other matter. 100 BOM Vol 3, 1196 - 1197. 101 BOM Vol 4, 1297; ts 128. 102 BOM Vol 4, 1276. 103 ts 115. 104 ts 129 - 130. -- 24 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 25 110 The respondent also told Ms Lilly that he intended to engage more fully with his NDIS supports if released on his SO. Ms Lilly reported that the respondent has expressed difficulty with his supports in the past, but now recognised the need to access those supports to avoid accessing the internet and the consequences which flow from doing that.105 The risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence and the need to protect members of the community from that risk 111 It is not necessary for the purposes of this application that I be satisfied that the respondent is a high risk serious offender. However, I am positively satisfied, on all of the evidence, including the previous reports and evidence of Dr Hall and Dr Bannister for the restriction order hearing, the evidence of Dr Wojnarowska on the contravention application, and the evidence of the contraventions and other conduct of the respondent while subject to the SO, that the respondent remains a high risk of committing a serious offence if not subject to restriction and that there is no means of adequately protecting the community than a restriction order under the Act. Should the Supervision Order be rescinded, affirmed, amended or extended? 112 In deciding which order to make under s 55(1) of the Act, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. 113 Before determining that the SO should not be rescinded, I must be satisfied that it will adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. I must also be satisfied that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order. Will the SO adequately protect the community against the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence? 114 In Dr Wojnarowska's opinion, the combination of psychological intervention and NDIS supports as presently anticipated will be sufficient to manage the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence if released on his SO. The manageability of the respondent's risk will be enhanced over time if the respondent is prepared to take 105 ts 126. -- 25 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 26 anti-libidinal medication, because it will reduce his sexual pre-occupation, making him more open to therapeutic intervention, and, in all likelihood, making treatment progress more rapid. 115 The protection of the community is not achieved simply by incarcerating individuals, although, plainly, sometimes that will be necessary. Protection of the community may also involve teaching an offender the skills, strategies and tools which enable them to progress to living in the community in a prosocial manner, and ultimately in an offence-free manner. 116 The respondent's present incarceration has seen him receive no treatment for a considerable period. Accordingly, the gains he had previously made are likely to have been lost, and there is little to no prospect of him making any treatment gains while he remains in custody. If he is released on his SO, he is likely to resume treatment with Dr Summerton, and receive significant support to develop an independent and prosocial life, all of which will contribute to his rehabilitation. 117 I do accept that the change in accommodation arrangements for the respondent is a significant difference in circumstances, and that the respondent is likely to be able to engage more meaningfully with his NDIS supports and to be less confined to his bedroom when he is no longer living with his mother. However, it is also relevant to note that, while important to give the respondent independence and structure and occupy his time developing skills which will assist him in the future, living on his own will also give the respondent a greater degree of freedom in his home which will potentially enable him to engage in risk-increasing conduct with less prospect of immediate detection. 118 Ultimately, however, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to rescind the SO in order to adequately protect the community against the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. I am satisfied that his risk can be effectively managed in the community, with appropriate conditions. Has the respondent satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions? 119 Notwithstanding that I am satisfied that the respondent can be adequately managed in the community on the SO, I must not release him on the SO unless I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that -- 26 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 27 he will substantially comply with the standard conditions, the onus of proving which lies on him. 120 The performance of the respondent on his SO to date does not inspire confidence in his ability or willingness to comply with the conditions of his SO. He chose not to give evidence about the issue. 121 One of the standard conditions of the SO is not to commit a serious offence. Ultimately, the very purpose of a restriction order under the Act is to protect the community against the risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence. So far, the SO has achieved that aim. The respondent has not committed a serious offence. Further, the conditions of the SO have meant that conduct which signified an elevated risk of such offending has been readily detected and dealt with. 122 However, a further standard condition of the SO is to comply with the lawful directions of a CCO. The respondent's contraventions involved a number of breaches of this standard condition. 123 The respondent has now been in custody since October 2024, except for a period of about six weeks in May and June 2025. He now claims to more fully appreciate the gravity of accessing the internet in breach of his SO. 124 I am prepared to take into account that the respondent's ASD, in particular, means that fully grasping the consequences of contraventions such as accessing the internet, even for innocent purposes, has been more challenging for the respondent. In particular, he has found it difficult to understand why accessing the internet is linked to an increased risk of serious offending. His mother has not assisted in this, in that she has failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the respondent's conduct and the need for the onerous conditions to which he has been made subject. 125 However, the respondent has not at any time been ignorant of the fact that those contraventions would have consequences. He has been deliberately dishonest about his conduct when engaging in supervision and counselling, seeking to avoid those consequences. 126 Notwithstanding these concerns, I have had regard to all of the adjustments which have been made to attempt to deal with the difficulties experienced by the respondent in complying with his SO, and the circumstances under which he will be released, including -- 27 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 28 independent accommodation and intensive counselling and supports, as well as anti-libidinal medication (if he consents). In those circumstances, I am prepared to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the SO. 127 The respondent is fully capable of understanding that future breaches of his SO are less likely to be tolerated than they have in the past and that they are likely to attract further terms of imprisonment. Having assured the court that he does now understand that, and that he will engage with the intervention and supports on offer, it is now incumbent on the respondent to demonstrate that he can and will comply. Failure to do so may well result in future assurances of intended compliance being insufficient to satisfy the requirement of s 29 of the Act. Conditions and duration of order 128 The SO will be amended to reflect the respondent's new address, and the recommendation of Dr Wojnarowska regarding access to print form adult pornography. The conditions of the order will be as set out in Annexure A to these reasons. -- 28 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 29 Annexure A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SO 9 of 2023 IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant -and- JASON JAMES PAUL HOSKIN Respondent _________________________________________________________________________ SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HON JUSTICE STRK ON 27 MARCH 2024 AS AMENDED BY THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER ON 21 AUGUST 2026 _________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to section 55(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent has contravened a condition of the supervision order made by the Hon Justice Strk on 27 March 2024 (Supervision Order), amends the Supervision Order such that the Respondent is required to abide by the following conditions: You, JASON JAMES PAUL HOSKIN, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street, East Perth, Western Australia within 48 hours of this order being issued and advise the officer of your current name and address. 2. Report to and receive visits from a Community Corrections Officer as directed by the Court. -- 29 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 30 3. Notify a Community Corrections Officer 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 Community Corrections Officer, which includes complying with any reasonable direction of the officer (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32). 5. Not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a Community Corrections Officer. 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 Community Corrections Officer (CCO) assigned to you. Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO 9. Report to a CCO at your approved address within normal business hours on the day of commencement of this order. 10. Not commence or change paid or unpaid employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of the CCO. -- 30 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 31 Attendance at programs or treatment 11. Permit any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to disclose details of medical treatment and opinions relating to your level of risk of reoffending and compliance with treatment to the Department of Justice. 12. To engage with mental health services as directed by the CCO. 13. To satisfy any therapeutic conditions and requirements of any National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider that is providing you with any services and/or accommodation, as directed by the CCO. Medications/Mental Health 14. Attend any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist, or counsellor as directed by the CCO. 15. 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 medical practitioners, or you have apparently ceased to consult with that medical practitioner or medical practitioners on such treatment. Reporting to WA Police 16. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Serious Offender Enforcement Squad (SOES) at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, PERTH WA 6000, or their delegate at a nominated Police station within 48 hours of your release from detention and thereafter report to and receive visits from Police at times and locations as directed by the Officer- in-Charge of SOES or their delegate. 17. If requested, permit Police Officers to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle and/or search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your -- 31 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 32 obligations under this order and allow seizure of any such items that the Police Officer believes to contravene the conditions of the order. 18. Remain at your residence and/or vehicle when Police Officers conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle. 19. Comply with all obligations imposed on you pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA). Disclosure/Exchange of Information 20. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of this order, including confidential information. 21. 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 22. Have no contact with any child under the age of 18 years, whether such contact is in person, in writing, by telephone or by electronic means, unless: a. the contact is authorised in advance by the CCO and such contact is supervised at all times by an adult approved in advance by the CCO; or b. the contact is necessary to complete a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required to complete the transaction, and another adult is present. ('Contact' under this condition and the following two conditions means any form of interaction or communication, whether by word, gesture, expression or touch and whether in person, in writing, by telephonic or electronic means, but does not include the bare minimum of interaction or communication necessary between an adult and child to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication); -- 32 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 33 23. Where any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18 years is initiated by the child, unless the contact is permitted under the condition immediately above, you must withdraw immediately from the presence of the child. 24. Provide the name, address, location and any details known by you, of any contact with a child under the age of 18 years both to your CCO and to the Police on the next occasion you report to that person or agency. 25. Have no contact with, membership of or affiliation with clubs, associations or groups where membership includes children, unless approved in advance by a CCO; and to cease/cancel such memberships if directed to do so by a CCO or Police Officer. 26. Report at your next contact with your CCO and Police any association or relationship by you with a person who has a child, or children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time. 27. Not to form any domestic relationship with a person who has a child, or children under the age of 18 years in their care either full time or part time, without prior approval of a CCO. Criminal conduct 28. Not commit any other criminal offence where: a. the maximum penalty for that offence includes imprisonment; and b. the offence involves either sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments. 29. Not commit an offence under s 202, s 203, s 204, s 557K of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) or s 17(1) Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021 (WA). 30. Not associate with any person known by you to have committed a sexual offence, unless such association is authorised in advance by the CCO. -- 33 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 34 31. Not commit any offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996 (WA). Prevention of high-risk situations 32. Maintain a daily diary of your movements, activities and associations, if and as directed by the CCO, and present this diary to the CCO and Police upon request. 33. Report at your next contact with your CCO the new formation of any ongoing social association (of more than 2 contacts by any means), friendship, domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person. 34. When and as directed by your CCO, make full disclosure regarding your past offending and the current order to anyone with whom you commence an ongoing social association (of more than 2 contacts by any means), domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or a Police Officer. 35. Subject to Condition 36, not access the internet on any computer, telecommunication or other electronic device capable of internet access unless such access is supervised at all times by a person approved in advance by a CCO and/or for a purpose approved in advance by a CCO. 36. If he or she is satisfied, following assessment by your risk management team, that it is appropriate to do so and the risks can be properly managed, your CCO may permit you to possess one smartphone for unsupervised access to the internet. You are required to provide the IMEI Number, the SIM card number, the telephone number, any password or PIN required to gain access to such device, and the name of the network provider of that device to the officer in charge of the High Risk Serious Offender Team of the WA Police within 48 hours of the commencement of this Order, or where applicable, within 48 hours of obtaining that device. -- 34 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 35 37. Not to be in possession of any pornographic material, in digital form, or access or view pornography on the internet, unless approved by a CCO. Pornographic materials means visual or any medium of material that contains the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity but does not include chests, breasts or nipples or backsides with clothing covering the anus. 38. Not to access online social media (websites or applications) unless approved in advance by a CCO. Due to the progressive development of social media, you are to enquire with your CCO if a website or application is considered social media and this will be defined for you, therefore you will not inadvertently contravene this condition if you are enquiring with your CCO and access the public component of any website or application; you must however not progress to gain a login (temporarily or otherwise) unless you have explicit CCO approval to do so. 39. Not to enter any internet cafe or use any publicly available computer without prior approval of a CCO. 40. Not conduct computer searches for, nor collect or access, or be in possession of, in either electronic or permanent form, images of children, including drawings or sketches, whether indecent or not; with the exception of images of yourself or immediate family that are not indecent images, if and only if approved in advance by a CCO. Possession of such images depicting a child or children on items, such as on household items or items in your household that are not explicitly yours, may be authorised by a CCO. You are directed to review and remove any items that you have in your property within 48 hours of your release to this Order, and then your compliance will be confirmed by your CCO and/or WA Police. 41. Not access the internet for, nor collect or be in possession of any document, paper, or any other medium used for displaying words, either in written or printed form, that describes sexual activity with a child and/or children. 42. Within 48 hours of the making of this order, advise a CCO of every computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device capable of storing digital data or -- 35 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 36 information, possessed or used by you, whether or not it is capable of being connected to the internet, and the location of that device, alternatively, within 48 hours of obtaining every such computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device. 43. Enable device locking or password access of your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic devices. 44. Not provide or disclose such passwords or other means used to access any computer, telecommunications and/or electronic device, or any online accounts, to any person other than a CCO or Police Officer. 45. Upon request, permit 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 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. 46. 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. 47. 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), user name(s), and email addresses. 48. 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. -- 36 of 37 -- [2026] WASC 346 FORRESTER J Page 37 _________________________________ THE HON JUSTICE FORRESTER 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 _________________________________ JASON JAMES HOSKIN In the presence of: _________________________________ Name and address: _________________________________ _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CA Associate to the Hon Justice Forrester 21 AUGUST 2026 -- 37 of 37 --