THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- KPB [2026] WASC 351

[2026] WASC 351 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- KPB [No 5] [2026] WASC 351 CORAM : PALMER J HEARD : 9 JUNE 2026, 24 AUGUST 2026 DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2026 PUBLISHED : 24 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 16 of 2022 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND KPB Respondent Catchwords: Criminal law - Contravention proceedings - Application made under s 53 and s 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) for the rescission of a supervision order and for a continuing detention order to be made - Whether on the balance of probabilities the respondent has contravened the supervision order - Whether the supervision order should be rescinded, affirmed or amended - Turns on own facts. Legislation: High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) -- 1 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 Page 2 Result: Supervision order made Suppression order made Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Mr J Lloyd 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 for Western Australia v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 404 ALR 182 The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 8] [2021] WASC 171 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 -- 2 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 3 PALMER J: Introduction 1 The respondent (KPB) has a long history of criminal offending that commenced in his childhood, including five 'serious offences' as that term is defined in the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the HRSO Act). 2 On 2 November 2023, Derrick J determined that KPB was a high risk serious offender as that term is defined in the HRSO Act and made him subject to a continuing detention order. 3 On 23 April 2025, at the first statutory review hearing, Lemonis J (as he then was) rescinded the continuing detention order and made a supervision order for a period of 3 years and 6 months, commencing 4 June 2025 (the Supervision Order). 4 Justice Lemonis found that KPB remained an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence but considered that this risk could be adequately managed by the imposition of a supervision order. His Honour was satisfied that KPB had a substantially improved NDIS plan to that which had been in place at the time of the restriction order proceedings before Derrick J. His Honour considered that the accommodation, care and support provided for in the plan would provide sufficient protection of the community. 5 Between 16 July 2025 and 27 November 2025, KPB contravened the conditions of the Supervision Order on multiple occasions. The contraventions were associated with KPB's repeated and persistent use of methylamphetamine and amphetamine. 6 By an application dated 28 October 2025 (the Application), the State applied under s 55 of the HRSO Act for an order rescinding the Supervision Order and making a continuing detention order, alternatively, amending the terms of the Supervision Order. 7 At the hearing of the Application, the State submitted that whilst the decision was finely balanced, it was open to the Court to release KPB back into the community subject to his current Supervision Order, if it were amended.1 1 Applicant's Written Submissions for Contravention Hearing on 9 June 2026 (Applicant's Written Submissions), par 105. -- 3 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 4 8 Ultimately, I was satisfied that KPB had contravened the conditions of the Supervision Order and that the appropriate course was to release him back into the community subject to his current Supervision Order (with the amendments proposed by the State). How applications under s 55 of the HRSO Act are determined 9 The State's application is made under s 55 of the HRSO Act. Section 53 of the HRSO Act provides that where an offender has been charged with an offence under s 80(1) of the HRSO Act, the State may apply for an order under s 55. Section 55 provides as follows: 55. Court to make orders in certain cases (1) If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates has contravened or is contravening a condition of a supervision order, the court must — (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make an order amending the conditions of the supervision order, or extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to the supervision order, or both; or (c) except as provided in section 29, make an order affirming the supervision order without amendment or extension. (2) If, on the hearing of an application under section 53, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender to whom the application relates is likely to contravene a condition of a supervision order, the court must — (a) rescind the supervision order and make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make an order — (i) amending the conditions of the supervision order; or -- 4 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 5 (ii) amending the conditions of, and extending the period for which the offender is to be subject to, the supervision order. (3) In deciding which order to make under subsection (1) or (2), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. 10 In relation to what is required to find a contravention proved under s 55 of the Act, the court is not required to be satisfied that the person intentionally or deliberately contravened the order, unless the condition which is in issue includes a mental element.2 11 Sections 55(1)(b) and (c), permit me to make orders amending, extending or affirming a supervision order, 'except as provided in s 29'. Section 29(1) of the HRSO Act provides that a court cannot make, affirm or amend a supervision order unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender will 'substantially comply' with the standard conditions of the order. 12 Section 29(2) of the HRSO Act provides that the onus of proof is on the offender. 13 The standard conditions of a supervision order are set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act and require an offender to: (a) report to a community corrections officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the offender's current name and address; and (b) report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court; and (c) notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least two days before the change happens; and (d) be under the supervision of a community corrections officer and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); and (e) not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer; and 2 The State of Western Australia v Corbett [No 8] [2021] WASC 171 [180] - [181]. -- 5 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 6 (f) not commit a serious offence during the period of the order; and (g) be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31. 14 The words 'substantially comply' with the standard conditions were considered by Fiannaca J in Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart,3 after reviewing the relevant authorities Fiannaca J distilled the observations made in the authorities to seven propositions:4 (1) The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and of the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence. (2) The question of what will be substantial compliance will be a matter of judgment that will depend on the circumstances of each particular case. (3) The assessment is to be made in the context that it is one aspect of the broader exercise of determining whether the community can be adequately protected if the respondent is released again subject to a supervision order. (4) It is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of the section, in context, that the word 'substantially' is used in a relative sense and involves an assessment of the degree of compliance that the respondent is likely to achieve. (5) While the prospect of trivial or minor contraventions will not (and ordinarily should not) preclude a finding that the respondent will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, the assessment of whether the respondent will substantially comply involves considerations other than simply whether any potential breach will be trivial or minor. (6) The 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 3 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Hart [2019] WASC 4 (Hart). 4 Hart [52]. -- 6 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 7 mitigation of the risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence. (7) Factors that are relevant to that assessment would include the respondent's history of compliance and non-compliance and the factors set out at [50] above. 15 In paragraph [50] (referred to in proposition (7) above) Fiannaca J observed that: In the context of predicting future conduct, the factors identified in Kim v Witton translate into questions concerning the respondent's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular whether he is likely to deliberately flout the conditions), his capacity to comply with the conditions, what measures there are in place to ensure he would substantially comply, and the relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order in achieving the objects of the Act. Considerations of the kind relied on by Corboy J in The State of Western Australia v A and by Derrick J in Misko [No 6] would be relevant in that context. In particular, where engagement in counselling is to be a condition of the supervision order, the respondent's willingness to engage in a meaningful way, rather than just attend the counselling session, will be a relevant consideration, given the significance of counselling as a means of monitoring risk as well as assisting in the reduction of risk. (footnotes omitted). 16 Elsewhere in his judgment, his Honour observed that: (a) self-evidently from the statutory scheme, the fact that the respondent has contravened the conditions of a supervision order will not necessarily result in a continuing detention order; (b) given the onerous nature of supervision orders, missteps are to be expected; and (c) the frequency or regularity of contraventions might inform the question of whether the person will substantially comply.5 17 In The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2],6 Archer J identified (by reference to Fiannaca J's analysis in Hart) the following ten factors as relevant to the assessment of whether an offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions: 5 Hart [21], [36] and [51]. The State of Western Australia v CF [No 2] [2022] WASC 424 (CF [No 2]) [49] (Archer J). 6 CF [No 2] [52]. -- 7 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 8 (1) the offender's history of non-compliance; (2) the offender's attitude to the conditions of the supervision order (in particular whether he is likely to deliberately flout the conditions); (3) his capacity to comply with the conditions; (4) what measures there are in place to ensure he would substantially comply; (5) the relative importance of any breach that might occur, in terms of the impact it would have on the practical effect of the supervision order achieving the objects of the HRSO Act; (6) the offender's motivation to remain offence free and in the community; (7) any willing participation in a treatment program; (8) abstinence from drugs; (9) conduct while in prison; and (10) demonstrated gains in treatment, self-management and life skills. 18 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.7 19 The powers conferred by the HRSO Act are not to be exercised for the purpose of imposing additional punishment on the offender, but rather for the ultimate purpose of protecting the community.8 20 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 for the community.9 21 When considering whether a supervision order would adequately protect the community, it is necessary to take into account any 7 The State of Western Australia v ACJ [2021] WASC 219 [38]. 8 Garlett v The State of Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; (2022) 404 ALR 182 [55] - [56]. 9 The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235 [49]. -- 8 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 9 conditions which can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure the adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the respondent and his care and treatment. As was observed by Hall J (as he then was) in Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Griffiths,10 there is no requirement that: [T]here be no risk of reoffending. Such a requirement could never be met and the effect would be that no person to whom the Act applies would ever be released. The requirement is that any risk be reduced to a reasonably acceptable level. This will always require a careful weighing of the nature and degree of risk and the context of methods for the management and reduction of that risk. An overview of the evidence relied upon by the State 22 At the hearing of the Application the State tendered two books of documents and led oral evidence from: (a) Dr Edward Petch a consultant forensic psychiatrist who reviewed KPB and prepared a report about him dated 21 May 2026;11 and (b) Ms Emma Ball, a Senior Community Corrections Officer in the High Risk Serious Offender Unit who prepared a performance report on 13 March 2026.12 KPB contravened the Supervision Order 23 There is no doubt that KPB has repeatedly contravened the Supervision Order. He has been convicted of multiple breaches of that order. I make the following findings regarding those contraventions. 24 On 28 July 2025, KPB was convicted on guilty pleas in the Perth Magistrates Court of: (a) three counts of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act; and (b) one count of using a prohibited drug (amphetamine), contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) (Misuse of Drugs Act). 10 Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Griffiths [2015] WASC 393 [107]. 11 Exhibit 2, pages 788 - 905. 12 Exhibit 2, pages 906 - 912. -- 9 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 10 25 KPB received a global fine of $1,500 for the contraventions of the supervision order and a further $300 fine for the other offence.13 26 These charges arose from positive drug tests that KPB returned for methylamphetamine on 21 July 2025. When spoken to by Police KPB admitted taking methylamphetamine with a stranger.14 27 On 8 August 2025, KPB was convicted on guilty pleas in the Perth Magistrates Court of: (a) one count of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act; and (b) one count of possession of a prohibited drug, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 28 KPB received a global fine of $1,000.15 29 These charges arose from a urinalysis test that KPB provided on 7 August 2025 which tested positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine. KPB admitted to using methylamphetamine.16 30 On 11 September 2025, KPB was convicted on guilty pleas in the Perth Magistrates Court of one count of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act. He received a fine of $500.17 31 The charge arose from a urinalysis test that KPB provided on 13 August 2025 which tested positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine.18 32 On 24 September 2025, KPB was convicted on guilty pleas in the Perth Magistrates Court of: (a) three counts of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act; and (b) one count of using a prohibited drug, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 13 Exhibit 1, page 4. 14 Exhibit 1, pages 242 - 246. 15 Exhibit 1, page 4. 16 Exhibit 1, pages 257 - 259. 17 Exhibit 1, page 4. 18 Exhibit 1, pages 270 - 272. -- 10 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 11 33 KPB received a global fine of $800.19 34 These charges arose from a urinalysis test that KPB provided on 22 September 2025 which tested positive for methylamphetamine.20 35 On 1 October 2025, KPB was convicted on guilty pleas in the Perth Magistrates Court of: (a) two counts of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act; and (b) one count of using a prohibited drug, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 36 KPB received a global fine of $800.21 37 These charges arose from a urinalysis test that KPB provided on 24 September 2025 which tested positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine.22 38 On 2 October 2025, KPB was convicted on a guilty plea in the Midland Magistrates Court of one count of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act. He received no punishment for this offence pursuant to s 46 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).23 39 This charge arose out of KPB breaching his curfew twice, on one occasion by four minutes and on another by ten.24 The Magistrate imposed no further punishment as his Honour considered that the night that KPB had already spent in custody was sufficient punishment.25 40 On 14 October 2025, KPB was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of: (a) two counts of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act; and (b) one count of using a prohibited drug, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 19 Exhibit 1, pages 3 - 4. 20 Exhibit 1, pages 283 - 287. 21 Exhibit 1, pages 3 - 4. 22 Exhibit 1, pages 302 - 306. 23 Exhibit 1, page 3. 24 Exhibit 1, pages 321 - 323. 25 Exhibit 1, page 326. -- 11 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 12 41 KPB received a global fine of $1,500.26 42 These charges arose from a urinalysis test that KPB provided on 3 October 2025 which tested positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine.27 43 On 10 February 2026, KPB was convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of: (a) one count of contravening a requirement of a supervision order, contrary to s 80 of the HRSO Act; and (b) five counts of using a prohibited drug, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 44 KPB received a global fine of $1,500.28 45 These charges arose from the following circumstances. 46 On 13 October 2025, KPB provided an invalid urinalysis test that and another that was positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine.29 47 On 16 October 2025, KPB provided an invalid urinalysis test. When he was arrested, he admitted to having used drugs between the urinalysis dates. He also provided another sample that was positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine.30 48 On 24 October 2025 and 27 October 2025, KPB provided urinalysis tests that were positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine. When arrested, he admitted using methylamphetamine at his mother's house.31 An interim detention order is made 49 On 28 October 2025, at the first hearing of the Application, Forrester J made orders that KPB be detained in custody under s 53(2)(b) of the HRSO Act. 26 Exhibit 1, pages 2 - 3. 27 Exhibit 1, pages 333 - 336. 28 Exhibit 1, page 2. 29 Exhibit 1, pages 347 - 350. 30 Exhibit 1, pages 355 - 358. 31 Exhibit 1, pages 362 - 364. -- 12 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 13 50 On 18 November 2025, KPB was then released back into the community subject to an interim supervision order pursuant to s 56(2)(a) of the HRSO Act, as amended by Forrester J.32 The interim supervision order included additional conditions that KPB not associate with his mother and sister, or attend their premises, due to his disclosure that they had recently provided him with the illicit drugs he had been accessing in the community.33 51 At that hearing the following exchange occurred between KPB and Forrester J:34 FORRESTER J: … [KPB] has to start understanding, and I believe he's capable of understanding, that he cannot keep taking drugs. [KPB], you've promised this before. You've got to stop taking methylamphetamine. You've got to stop. And I know it's very hard. Sorry, can we put him off — take him off mute? Yes? [KPB]: Since I've been — been in the last three weeks in the prison, I've cleaned my act up. And - - - FORRESTER J: You were clean when you got out in June. Though, so - - - [KPB]: So if I ever get this chance ever again to participate outside of the prison, I'm not going to go back down this path of taking drugs no more because me taking drugs is going to take my life away, and - - - FORRESTER J: It is. [KPB]: - - - it will put me back in prison - - - FORRESTER J: All right. Now - - - [KPB]: - - - it's just a waste of life, miss, but it's helped you, miss. I am - - - FORRESTER J: Okay. Well this is not an empty threat, KPB. You can anticipate that if you test positive one more time - - - [KPB]: Yes. FORRESTER J: - - - you will be back in, and you might not even get out in May. So you need — you need to think very carefully about the next move that you take once you get out of custody. All right? If you 32 Exhibit 1, pages 156 - 161. 33 Exhibit 2, page 749. 34 Exhibit 1, pages 747 - 748. -- 13 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 14 test positive again, you can expect to spend a substantial amount of time in custody. [KPB]: Yes, miss, yes. 52 In imposing the amended interim supervision order, her Honour found that exceptional circumstances existed to justify KPB's re-release into the community, and that the court could be satisfied that he would substantially comply with the standard conditions of the supervision order. Her Honour attached significance to the fact that KPB had not committed a serious offence, that he had been frank to his community corrections officer about his drug use, that he would accept a condition added to the supervision order to prevent him seeing members of his family that had supplied him with drugs in the recent past, and that he retained the support of [redacted], his NDIS supported independent living provider and had stable community accommodation.35 53 On 20 November 2025 and 24 November 2025, KPB provided urinalysis tests that were positive for methylamphetamine and amphetamine. When he was arrested, Mr KPB admitted to using methylamphetamine.36 54 On 27 November 2025, KPB provided urinalysis tests that were positive for methylamphetamine.37 55 On 4 December 2025, Forrester J made an order that KPB be detained in custody pursuant to an interim detention order under s 53(2)(b) of the HRSO Act until final determination of the Application.38 When making her orders, her Honour referred to the fact that she had told KPB that she was giving him a 'last chance' and that he had failed to take up the opportunity given to him. 39 KPB's personal circumstances and offending history 56 Before turning to consider what order should be made under s 55(1) of the HRSO Act, it is necessary to say something about KPB's personal circumstances, his history of offending and the evidence relied upon by the State. 35 Exhibit 2, pages 745 - 747. 36 Exhibit 1, pages 368 - 375. 37 Exhibit 1, pages 379 - 381. 38 Exhibit 2, pages 761 - 768. 39 Exhibit 2, pages 765 - 766. -- 14 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 15 57 KPB's history of offending and personal circumstances were summarised by Lemonis J as follows: 40 Offending History KPB has committed five serious offences within the meaning of that phrase under the HRSO Act. They are: 1. Two offences of aggravated armed robbery, committed on 8 January 2005 and 10 January 2005 respectively. Both are offences pursuant to s 393 of the Code. The first offence was committed as part of circumstances that constituted a separate offence of aggravated burglary, which is not a serious offence under the HRSO Act. For these three offences, [KPB] received a total effective sentence of 8 years. 2. One offence of grievous bodily harm, which is an offence pursuant to s 297 of the Code. This offence was committed on 23 December 2015. [KPB] was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months for this offence. 3. One offence of aggravated robbery, being an offence pursuant to s 392 of the Code, and one offence of aggravated assault with intent to rob, being an offence pursuant to s 393 of the Code. These offences were both committed on 15 September 2019. [KPB] was sentenced on 2 July 2020 to a total effective sentence of 3 years and 2 months, which was the sentence he was serving when the State brought the application for a restriction order determined by Derrick J. As to the significant physical harm caused by these offences, the armed robbery offence committed on 10 January 2015 involved [KPB] striking a man with a brick to the back of his head while the man was withdrawing money from an ATM. The man was rendered unconscious and suffered a fractured skull and bleeding to the brain. The offence of grievous bodily harm committed on 23 December 2015 involved [KPB] stabbing his brother-in-law with a steak knife to the left side of his body, resulting in a lacerated spleen and a punctured lung. Of course, the serious offences will also have likely caused mental trauma to the victims of the offences. Justice Derrick summarised [KPB]'s offending as follows, which I adopt: [KPB] has a long record of offending dating back to his childhood. Much of his juvenile offending and all his adult offending has occurred in the context of entrenched problematic substance use. He has spent a large portion of his life in detention and prison. 40 KPB [No 4] [65] - [83]. -- 15 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 16 [KPB] commenced committing offences when he was around 8 or 9 years old. He continued to offend throughout his childhood years. He was, as a child, convicted of among other things, numerous burglary, stealing, assault and breach of bail offences. … In addition to the five serious offences [KPB] has as an adult been convicted of a significant number of other offences including burglaries on dwellings (on occasions aggravated), aggravated unlawful assault, unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm, stealing, stealing motor vehicles, criminal damage, breaching bail, breaching an intensive supervision order by non-compliance and breaching a suspended imprisonment order. [KPB] has been released on parole on seven occasions. He has only successfully completed two of his parole orders (25 October 1999 - 21 December 1999; 24 November 2001 - 25 March 2002). He has breached the remainder of his parole orders by non-compliance and/or reoffending. The last time he was released in the community on parole was during the period 12 November 2004 - 14 September 2005. He breached this order through continued use of illicit substances. 58 I respectfully and gratefully adopt his Honour's summary. Psychiatric Report of Dr Edward Petch dated 21 May 202641 59 Dr Petch is a consultant forensic psychiatrist who prepared a report about KPB dated 21 May 2026.42 He previously reviewed KPB and provided evidence before both Lemonis J and Derrick J. 60 To prepare his most recent report, Dr Petch interviewed KPB at Acacia Prison on 30 March 2026 for 1½ hours and reviewed various materials provided to him.43 61 Dr Petch reviewed KPB's offending whilst subject to the Supervision Order. 44 62 Dr Petch described KPB as being 'very cooperative' when he interviewed him. He said that KPB discussed with him what happened in the community. He said that KPB had visited his mother in Victoria Park on a regular basis but had avoided his friends, as many were drug users and a bad influence. He said that KPB said that he also did not see his partner very much because she was using alcohol and drugs, and 41 Exhibit 2, pages 788 - 905. 42 Exhibit 2, pages 788 - 905. 43 Exhibit 2, page 796. 44 Exhibit 2, page 819 - 820, 861 - 879. -- 16 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 17 he did not think that it was suitable for him to go and see her because of the conditions of the Supervision Order.45 63 KPB told Dr Petch that he was around people who took amphetamines, so he bought some. He said that he had previously avoided people that were taking drugs and he had been completely free for five weeks and thought he was doing well.46 64 KPB told Dr Petch that he continued taking his medication. He attended drug and alcohol counselling between 12 and 14 times, receiving 1 to 1 counselling, which he thought went well.47 65 KPB said to Dr Petch that apart from taking drugs he had not committed any other offences. KPB denied being disrespectful and any incidents of violence. He acknowledged that he had 'stuffed up' and thought he had been going through a hard time.48 66 KPB told Dr Petch that if he was able to be in the community again, he would make additional plans. He said that he would attend whatever programmes were required, as well as church and continue with counselling. He said that he would not return to drug use anymore and he thought he had had enough.49 67 Dr Petch said that in his view KPB had not changed significantly during the course of the last year and nor had the risks that he poses.50 68 Dr Petch thought that despite the additional supports that were put in place following KPB release on 4 June 2025, he was unable to maintain abstinence from drugs, and the drugs quickly started to have a detrimental effect, resulting in significant changes to his impulsivity, emotional regulation, outbursts, threats, aggression and further offending.51 69 Dr Petch considered that as a result, at times KPB appeared to disregard the conditions of the Supervision Order and had little or no regard for the safety of those supporting him. Dr Petch noted that KPB's drug use continued to escalate despite appearing before the lower courts, and further short periods of custody, and even when 45 Exhibit 2, page 880. 46 Exhibit 2, page 880. 47 Exhibit 2, page 880. 48 Exhibit 2, page 881. 49 Exhibit 2, page 881. 50 Exhibit 2, page 882. 51 Exhibit 2, page 882. -- 17 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 18 warned by the Supreme Court of the consequences should this use continue, he continued to use, almost the following day. He noted that the only way to contain the risk of serious violence was to impose an interim detention order pending the contravention proceedings.52 70 Dr Petch observed that his previous conclusions about KPB's diagnoses remained unchanged. He said that there was evidence that from childhood KPB had suffered from an intellectual disability. He said that KPB had also developed a substance misuse disorder, an emotionally unstable personality disorder and an anti-social personality disorder.53 71 With regard to KPB's substance misuse disorder, Dr Petch noted that KPB had reverted to substance misuse whenever he had been released into the community, including after being told by the Supreme Court that no further use would be tolerated.54 72 Dr Petch observed that drug use has been the major determinant of KPB’s risk of future serious offending. He observed:55 I previously made a number of treatment recommendations, including referral for assessment of his treatment needs by substance misuse services, including consideration for residential or community rehabilitation programs. I thought that to be effective any of these would need to be tailored for his intellectual capabilities and delivered in such a way that the content could be retained. I thought that this was likely to be a very significant challenge. I understand that others had made the observation that he was not likely to benefit from either further group or individual interventions to address substance misuse because he does not have the intellectual capacity to do so. This is most probably correct, and has shown to be the case in the past. I now have little confidence that any intervention will make a significant difference, and that whatever is attempted, if he returns to the community, the risk of relapse into further substance will be very significant, almost certain, and likely to be very rapid, whatever interventions are put into place to prevent this from occurring. On this occasion he seemed to get supplies of the drug from family members. When having no contact with them because a new condition of his supervision order was imposed, he continued to use drugs, clearly obtaining it from an alternative source. 52 Exhibit 2, page 882. 53 Exhibit 2, pages 882 - 888. 54 Exhibit 2, page 885. 55 Exhibit 2, page 886. -- 18 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 19 73 In relation to KPB's diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder, Dr Petch considered that there were a number of potential targets for intervention about which he made recommendations. He observed, however, that while any treatment which enhances KPB's emotional stability may reduce his risk of serious offending, he suspected the effect of the treatment he recommended would be relatively marginal.56 74 Dr Petch's opinion was that the risk of KPB committing a serious offence is essentially unchanged from October 2023.57 75 Dr Petch assessed KPB using the Psychopathy Checklist (revised) (PCL-R). He explained that this is a reliable and valid rating scale used to determine the presence of psychopathy rather than risk per se. He considered that KPB's total score in the PCL-R remains in the lower range, and did not meet the necessary threshold for a diagnosis of psychopathy to be made.58 76 Dr Petch assessed KPB using the HCR 20 which he explained is a well validated and reliable semi-structured clinical judgement tool used to assess the risk for violence.59 77 Dr Petch found the following historical risk factors to be present or potentially present: 60 (a) violence; (b) other anti-social behaviour; (c) relationships; (d) employment; (e) substance misuse; (f) major mental disorder; (g) personality disorder; (h) traumatic experiences; 56 Exhibit 2, page 887. 57 Exhibit 2, page 888. 58 Exhibit 2, pages 889 - 892. 59 Exhibit 2, pages 892 - 893. 60 Exhibit 2, pages 893 - 894. -- 19 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 20 (i) violent attitudes; and (j) treatment or supervision order response. 78 Dr Petch found the following clinical risk factors to be present or potentially present: 61 (a) insight; (b) symptoms of major mental disorder; (c) instability; and (d) treatment or supervision response. 79 Dr Petch found the following future risk factors to be present or potentially present:62 (a) professional services and plans; (b) living situation; (c) personal support; (d) treatment or supervision response; and (e) stress and coping. 80 Dr Petch reviewed KPB's risk formulation. He observed:63 In a nutshell, the issue will be whether the risks posed by [KPB] can be realistically contained in the community when he is using drugs. When he is abstinent, he is reported to be a different man, calm, engaging, pleasant and cooperative. When intoxicated or he has had a relapse and has returned to using regularly, he is very challenging to contain, and I think his risk is fairly uncontainable in any community setting. When this occurs, it becomes simply a matter of time, and chance, if and when a violent incident ensues, and when it does, again simply a matter of chance whether it will result in a serious or less serious offence: it is not likely to be planned, but highly impulsive and without thought for potential consequences. 81 Dr Petch considered that KPB's intellectual disability was the most serious barrier to his progress. He considered that KPB lacked the intellectual capacity to reflect on his offending, the effects of the 61 Exhibit 2, pages 894 - 895. 62 Exhibit 2, pages 895 - 896. 63 Exhibit 2, page 896. -- 20 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 21 offending on his victims or himself, and make any connections relating to risk factors, how they may affect him and how their impact might be reduced. He thought that the effect of KPB's intellectual disability was further compounded by his substance use disorders and personality disorders, which when combined increased the risk of future offending exponentially.64 82 Dr Petch considered that KPB's inability to engage with previous periods of community supervision were a serious concern. He said that some of these may have been deliberate and others a reflection of his difficulties. He thought that KPB may not understand or remember conditions, or appointments, or be able to get to them.65 83 Dr Petch observed that KPB does not seem to have responded well to the containment provided by the conditions, nor the support provided by supervising officers. He said that his accommodation and living situation have always previously been somewhat precarious, and his peer group have also been unreliable and substance using, exposing him to multiple situations in which offending and anti-social behaviour are the norm.66 84 Dr Petch said that KPB's inability to remain abstinent despite the supports provided demonstrate the significant power of his addiction. He noted that KPB was unable to abstain from substances and to remain within the conditions of the order, despite being reminded to do so by staff supporting him. He considered that this strongly suggests that the package of care provided (that he thought was extremely significant and tailored to KPB's needs) was nonetheless insufficient.67 85 Dr Petch said that he was at a loss to see how the package of care might be improved. He noted that KPB's risk still rose with a higher staff ratio than anticipated, and even then, he continued to use. He said that the risk to staff may have felt reduced, but the possibility of violence occurring at any moment as a consequence of KPB's rising instability remained.68 86 Dr Petch noted that on each previous occasion KPB has returned to the community, drugs are the first thing he turns to. He said that 64 Exhibit 2, page 898. 65 Exhibit 2, page 899. 66 Exhibit 2, page 899. 67 Exhibit 2, page 899. 68 Exhibit 2, page 899. -- 21 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 22 once KPB was using drugs regularly, it was impossible for him to control their use.69 87 Dr Petch observed that the use of violence had become more frequent over the course of KPB's past offending. He said that KPB did not hesitate to use violence and that the violence did not appear to be planned, although KPB occasionally used weapons.70 88 Dr Petch observed that KPB's aggression during the period of his release seemed to arise from his frustration with not being able to do what he wanted when he wanted. He said that KPB's ability to cope with frustration appeared to be limited and sometimes resulted in escalation.71 89 Dr Petch observed that KPB's recent period in the community had demonstrated that the risks remained high even with a significant package, and that those risks could gradually escalate to the point where detention is necessary. He noted that to some this may demonstrate that the order is being effective and the interventions are preventing serious offending. He said that so far that had been the case, but it may not always be.72 90 Dr Petch thought that if a supervision order is made, the most likely outcome was that, a package will be established that has onerous restrictions, necessary to keep the community safe. He thought that irrespective of the level of support provided to KPB, he will struggle to adhere to the conditions of the order. He said that KPB may not remember them or not realise what they mean or not take them too seriously. He thought that KPB is likely to continue to struggle with adapting to the demands of living in the community and be relatively isolated, even if his accommodation is stable. He considered that KPB will likely resume drug taking.73 91 Dr Petch thought that if KPB lacked the will or capacity to avoid taking drugs, offending and ultimately violent offending, will likely follow. He thought that those most at risk were KPB's support workers.74 69 Exhibit 2, page 899. 70 Exhibit 2, page 899. 71 Exhibit 2, pages 899 - 900. 72 Exhibit 2, page 900. 73 Exhibit 2, page 901. 74 Exhibit 2, page 901. -- 22 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 23 92 Dr Petch considered that KPB's propensity to commit serious offending is still underpinned by his intellectual disability, his substance misuse disorders, and his personality disorders.75 93 Dr Petch said that KPB had a well-established tendency to steal for gain and resort to violence, some of which was serious. He said that KPB readily became emotionally unstable when intoxicated, and in this state violence was a serious and imminent risk. He said that if KPB was using drugs, he did not think that the risk could be moderated in the community.76 94 Dr Petch thought there were five main approaches to reducing KPB's risk of relapse: (a) treat his substance use through rehabilitation and ongoing psychological input. He said that KPB did not attend drug and alcohol services regularly. He said that it was not known whether such services would be able to contain the risk, but without this input, early relapse into drug use was inevitable (and might be anyway); (b) optimise KPB's other mental health conditions through ongoing treatment. He said this may have an effect and has not been attempted. He thought that mood stabilisation with medication and a psychological approach using dialectical behavioural therapy can be effective in enhancing emotional dysregulation, but it is far from clear whether he would be suitable or have the capacity to engage; (c) optimise KPB's psychosocial functioning in the community through the provision of stable accommodation, programs and activities tailored to meet his needs. He said that it is possible that this could be enhanced, but it did not prevent his descent into methamphetamine use; (d) provide very close ongoing supervision through the conditions of the order including guidance on how to keep within those conditions, although he noted that this did not seem to contain KPB's drug using behaviour; and 75 Exhibit 2, page 901. 76 Exhibit 2, page 901. -- 23 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 24 (e) ongoing daily support, occupational therapy, behavioural support and assistance to assist him in managing his intellectual difficulties.77 95 Dr Petch thought that the risk to the community from KPB engaging in further serious offending is likely to gradually rise after his release. He said his view was that KPB lacks the capacity to moderate his behaviour and his substance misuse in the community, even if a full package of support is provided.78 96 Dr Petch considered that as things stand KPB poses a high risk that he will commit future serious violence, and that this risk is likely to increase in certain situations, particularly if he is inadequately supervised, supported or treated. He said that KPB had little appreciation that these supports are needed for him to remain successfully in the community. He thought that KPB's overall understanding of the current situation was likely to be limited: even if it was explained to him, his capacity for remembering this explanation was also limited.79 97 Dr Petch thought that it may be necessary to impose a continuing detention order to manage his risk.80 98 Dr Petch also recommended monitoring and supervision strategies to ensure there is early detection of warning signs should the risk start to escalate, if KPB was released on a supervision order. 81 Dr Petch's evidence on 9 June 2026 99 The State called Dr Petch to give evidence on 9 June 2026. 100 Dr Petch's oral evidence was consistent with his report. He also made the following observations of note. 101 Dr Petch said that KPB functioned well within the contained prison environment. He described him as a different man in that environment.82 77 Exhibit 2, pages 901 - 902. 78 Exhibit 2, page 902. 79 Exhibit 2, page 902. 80 Exhibit 2, page 902. 81 Exhibit 2, pages 903 - 904. 82 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 249 - ts 250. -- 24 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 25 102 Dr Petch said that KPB was also a different man when he was not using drugs. He said that he was amenable and had good peer relationships.83 103 Dr Petch said that KPB struggled to cope in the community. He observed that KPB could manage for a short period before the stress became too much. He said that the longest that KPB had managed to remain in the community was about 7 ½ months.84 104 Dr Petch said that once KPB started using substances, he became unpredictable, volatile and prone to emotional outbursts. He considered that this mirrored KPB's behaviour in the lead up to his previous offending.85 105 Dr Petch described the risk to the staff caring for KPB and the community when he took drugs as very significant.86 He described KPB’s carers as being at ‘extraordinary risk’. 106 Dr Petch observed that when KPB was released he did not have access to the treatment that Dr Petch had recommended. He said that KPB did not have access to a substance misuse program and there was a delay in him commencing opiate replacement therapy. He observed that KPB also did not have access to a psychiatrist (although he noted that it might be challenging for KPB to access such services). He said that if KPB were released and he had access to a psychiatrist it might make a difference but he also said that he could not say that it would make a material difference.87 107 Dr Petch accepted that KPB genuinely wanted to remain abstinent. He was concerned that KPB lacked the capacity to learn from what went wrong previously or from the programmes that he has completed.88 108 Dr Petch was asked to comment on a comprehensive behaviour support plan that was prepared on 1 December 2025. He described the plan as 'very very good' and extremely helpful. He said, however, that there had been a number of incidents when KPB was intoxicated that had placed KPB's carers at very high risk. He said that the plan did not 83 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 250. 84 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 250. 85 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 252. 86 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 252. 87 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 252 - ts 253. 88 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 254 - ts 255. -- 25 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 26 address what to do in those circumstances and he did not know what could be done.89 109 Dr Petch said that he did not think that a further period in custody would make any material difference to his assessment.90 He said that it would take a period of KPB successfully remaining in the community to change his risk assessment.91 110 Dr Petch considered that the risk in the community would be manageable when KPB was not using drugs.92 111 He said that the risk to the community might be manageable, if the authorities were prepared to take earlier action in the future if KPB returned a positive drug test.93 He explained how this might work as follows:94 The only period when the risk, I think, in the community is likely to be manageable is when he's not using substances. So that's in the first, say, five weeks, six weeks. So if he was given a supervision order - the ideal scenario would be he's given a supervision order, he goes out for six weeks, the first time he uses, he goes back in. He then has a period in custody. And then he comes up on another supervision order for another six weeks. If he uses, he goes back in again. For me, and I'm only a - I - I'm not - I don't carry the responsibility of sort of managing him, I just assess the risk. But the risk was very, very high in October when he was using. Too high for my risk appetite, and it turned out actually too high for the court's appetite too. But I think it was, it took too long. For me, the risk was high earlier. So to contain him, to give him the maximum chance of remaining at lower risk in the community, much earlier intervention if he uses substances. Performance Report of Ms Emma Ball dated 13 March 202695 112 Ms Ball is a Senior Community Corrections Officer in the High Risk Serious Offender Unit who prepared a performance report on 13 March 2026. 113 Ms Ball said that KPB has been a participant in the NDIS since April 2023, following a successful application that was supported by a Neurological and Occupational Therapy Assessment.96 89 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 257 - ts 259. 90 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 261. 91 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 263 - ts 264. 92 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 261 - ts 263. 93 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 261 - ts 263, ts 275 - ts 277, ts 279 - ts 280. 94 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 262. 95 Exhibit 2, pages 906 - 912. -- 26 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 27 114 Ms Ball observed that multi-disciplinary team meetings were a vital tool in the case management of KPB and have continued monthly since the imposition of the current interim detention order.97 115 Ms Ball said that the HRSO Unit were notified during a multi- disciplinary team meeting on 12 March 2026 that although [redacted] will remain as KPB's supported independent living provider, [redacted] has been engaged as a separate community access provider (previously [redacted] was dual community access provider.98 116 Ms Ball said that [redacted] will be responsible for KPB's daily accommodation and in-home supports. She said that this includes assisting KPB with day-to-day routines within the home, maintaining safety, and implementing the strategies outlined in his behaviour support plan. She explained that their role will primarily relate to support within the home environment, taking him to medical appointments, and grocery shopping.99 117 Ms Ball explained that [redacted]'s role will be to support KPB to attend appointments and participate in community activities during the hours funded through his NDIS plan.100 118 Ms Ball said that KPB's current NDIS plan ends on 28 September 2026. She said that he has funding, including for supported independent living. She said that if KPB is released back into the community before 28 September 2026, his Senior Complex Justice Planner can seek to renew his plan earlier and seek an increase in funding, which might replenish his funding amounts and allow a higher ratio support for KPB on an ongoing basis.101 119 Ms Ball said that KPB's Specialist Support Coordination continues to be undertaken by ARK Support Coordination, however in March 2026, it was identified that KPB was being allocated to a new Specialist Support Coordinator.102 96 Exhibit 2, page 907. 97 Exhibit 2, page 907. 98 Exhibit 2, page 907. 99 Exhibit 2, page 908. 100 Exhibit 2, page 908. 101 Exhibit 2, page 908. 102 Exhibit 2, page 908. -- 27 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 28 120 Ms Ball said that [redacted] confirmed their property remains available to Mr KPB and there are currently no other occupants.103 121 Ms Ball said that [redacted] will continue to facilitate the supported independent living arrangement for KPB as per his NDIS funded plan. She confirmed that KPB remains approved for a one to three ratio, meaning that there will be a maximum of three participants.104 122 Ms Ball said that [redacted] have agreed to liaise with the HRSO Unit for any future participants to move into the property to assist with risk management regarding KPB as well as appropriate participant matching. She confirmed that the address remains viable for Global Positioning System electronic monitoring equipment.105 123 Ms Ball confirmed that KPB has been detained at Hakea Prison since the imposition of the Interim Detention Order and he has engaged appropriately during all discussions with her. She said that these discussions have primarily centred on his release planning and the intention to establish structured daytime activities that will support his reintegration back into the community. She said that KPB reported that he has relied on his Christian faith and biblical teachings to manage stress while in custody, and he expressed a clear desire to attend a local church upon release.106 124 Ms Ball said that KPB had requested access to art supplies and sporting equipment and that she had made enquiries about providing these to him. She said that KPB's positive behaviour practitioner thought physical activity played a significant role in supporting his emotional regulation, daily structure, and overall well-being.107 125 Ms Ball said that in relation to community supports, KPB will have access to post-release support through ReSet via Centrecare.108 126 Ms Ball said that KPB had expressed a desire to engage in vocational training upon release. She said that KPB's previous Specialist Support Coordinator has said that she will make enquiries 103 Exhibit 2, page 908. 104 Exhibit 2, page 908. 105 Exhibit 2, page 908. 106 Exhibit 2, page 909. 107 Exhibit 2, page 909. 108 Exhibit 2, page 909. -- 28 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 29 with the Waalijt Foundation, with the intention to identify vocational supports that are inclusive of his disability-related needs.109 127 Ms Ball said that KPB expressed a desire to re-engage with the Wungening Aboriginal Corporation following release, noting the value he said he placed on the individual counselling sessions previously provided by his assigned counsellor. She said that he acknowledged that his methylamphetamine use significantly hindered any therapeutic progress and reiterated his commitment to remaining drug-free.110 128 Ms Ball said that KPB is currently prescribed Buprenorphine, administered via monthly injection. She said that this treatment forms part of an Opioid Substitution Treatment, which aims to assist with reducing a person's urges for opiate addiction and withdrawal symptom management. She said that continuation of this medication regime is considered important in supporting KPB's abstinence from illicit substances.111 129 Ms Ball said that a review of the prison records indicates that KPB has not incurred any formal disciplinary charges since his return to custody on 28 November 2025. She said that KPB has been urinalysis tested on two occasions (17 February and 13 April 2026), both of which returned negative for illicit substances.112 130 Ms Ball said that KPB told her that he failed to comply with the supervision order because of his methylamphetamine use. He said that if he had not been using methylamphetamine, he would have complied with his curfew obligations. She said he understood that the curfew breaches were more concerning because of the positive urinalysis results.113 131 Ms Ball said that KPB told her that peer influence, particularly from family, had been difficult to manage. KPB told her that he does not wish to communicate with his family in person until he has solidified his compliance in the community and feels confident he will not be tempted to engage in illicit substance use.114 132 Ms Ball said that KPB self-identified several methods he believes will support his success with order conditions, including attending 109 Exhibit 2, page 909. 110 Exhibit 2, page 909. 111 Exhibit 2, page 910. 112 Exhibit 2, page 910. 113 Exhibit 2, page 910. 114 Exhibit 2, pages 910 - 911. -- 29 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 30 scheduled appointments, engaging with Wungening and Next Step, focusing on exercise, and communicating to support staff his interest in undertaking 'normal' everyday activities such as attending the zoo, parks, museums, and the cinema.115 133 Ms Ball also gave evidence on 9 June 2026. That evidence was consistent with her report and provided updates in relation to the matters addressed in her report.116 What order should be made pursuant to s 55 of the HRSO Act Will KPB substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order? 134 I must make a detention order unless I am satisfied that KPB will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. 135 The State submitted that the evidence before the court enabled it to find that it was more likely than not that KPB would do so.117 136 The State attached significance to KPB's engagement with Ms Ball, his willingness to engage in counselling, his acknowledgement that drug taking had hindered his recovery and his renewed commitment to remain free from drugs.118 137 The State also drew attention to the fact that KPB had cooperated with Dr Petch and had committed to abstaining from drugs.119 138 The State submitted that the ongoing support of [redacted] KPB's ongoing access to stable supported accommodation, as well as the recent extensive multidisciplinary team planning for KPB's release including the addition of [redacted], as a further community support provider, were significant protective factors in assessing whether KPB will be able to substantially comply with the standard conditions if released.120 139 KPB has exhibited good behaviour in prison and has demonstrated some gains during his time there. He is highly motivated to remain free 115 Exhibit 2, page 911. 116 Transcript 9.6.26, ts 287 - ts 264. 117 Applicant's Written Submissions, par 85. 118 Applicant's Written Submissions, par 90. 119 Applicant's Written Submissions, par 91. 120 Applicant's Written Submissions, pars 92 - 95. -- 30 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 31 and in the community, engage in counselling and remain abstinent from drugs. He will also be well supported while he is in the community. KPB's care package has also been recently recalibrated to better support him. 140 The difficulty is that KPB's history suggests that despite his good intentions, he may lack the capacity to remain abstinent from drugs. If he returns to drug use, there is a significant risk that he will reoffend. Any reoffending could involve the commission of a serious offence. One of the standard conditions of a supervision order is that a person not commit a serious offence during the period of the order. 141 Dr Petch's evidence was that while the supervision order had so far been effective in preventing serious reoffending, there was a risk that it might not in the future. His assessment of the likelihood that KPB could avoid relapsing into drug use was bleak. He thought that if KPB did relapse, it was likely that he would reoffend and could commit a serious offence. 142 I share Dr Petch's concerns. KPB's performance during his last period of release suggests that remaining abstinent from drugs will be a considerable challenge for him. Concerningly, drug use was a significant contributor to his previous violent offending. 143 Notably, however, Dr Petch accepted that KPB was a different person when he was abstinent from drugs. He also accepted that KPB had some capacity to remain abstinent from drugs for at least a period after his release. 144 The measures in place during KPB's previous period of release were effective in identifying his return to drug use. His drug taking was quickly identified through positive urinalysis tests. 145 It seems to me therefore that the risk that KPB might commit a future serious offence could be managed by the authorities taking prompt action against him, if there was evidence that he has returned to drug use. That way there might be intervention, perhaps in the form of an interim detention order (if necessary), before any extended period of drug use meant that there was a concerning risk that KPB would commit a serious offence. Dr Petch seemed to accept as much. 146 Ultimately, with some hesitation, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that KPB will comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. -- 31 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 32 Will a supervision order ensure an adequate degree of protection for the community? 147 Even if the court is satisfied that an 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 for the community. 148 While the State submitted that the risk that KPB might resume using drugs was concerning, it accepted that the evidence that supported a finding that KPB would comply with the standard terms of a supervision order, also supported the conclusion that a supervision order was sufficient to adequately manage KPB's risk of committing a serious offence. In doing so, the State drew attention to the need for supervising agencies to closely monitor KPB for drug use and to take swift action if he relapses.121 149 In my view, the State's concession was properly made. I am satisfied that the terms of KPB's current Supervision Order (with the amendments proposed by the State) will ensure an adequate degree of protection for the community. While I am concerned about the risk of KPB relapsing, that risk can be managed through him being closely monitored by the authorities and them taking swift action if he relapses. 150 Given that I am now familiar with this matter, if KPB does relapse, I would be prepared to hear any application that the State might make following any relapse on an urgent basis. Conclusion 151 For all of these reasons, while I am satisfied that KPB contravened the conditions of the Supervision Order, I will release him back into the community subject to his current Supervision Order (with the amendments proposed by the State). 121 Applicant's Written Submissions, pars 99 - 100. -- 32 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 33 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SO 16 of 2022 IN THE MATTER of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant -and- KPB Respondent _________________________________________________________________________ SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LEMONIS ON 23 APRIL 2025 AS AMENDED BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PALMER ON 24 AUGUST 2026 _________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to section 55(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), the Court, having found that the Respondent has contravened a condition of the supervision order made by Lemonis J on 23 April 2025, amends the conditions of the supervision order and orders that the supervision order recommence from 7 September 2026, to read as follows: Pursuant to section 68(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 s7(1) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), makes a supervision order in relation to the Respondent, for a period of 3 years and 6 months from 7 September 2026, on the following conditions: You, KPB, must: STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT 1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre: 30 Moore Street East Perth within 48 hours of the -- 33 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 34 order being issued and tell the officer of your current name and address; 2. Report to and receive visits from, a CCO at such times and at such places as reasonably directed by that CCO; 3. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens; 4. Be under the supervision of a CCO and follow any reasonable direction given to you by the CCO (including direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32 of the High Risk Serious Offender Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act)); 5. Not leave the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO; 6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order; 7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31 of the HRSO Act. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Residence 8. Reside (live) at [suppressed] and spend each night there. You can stay at a different address if such different address has been approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you; Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO 9. On the day of release, report to a CCO at the prison or at a place directed by a CCO and allow for fitting of electronic monitoring equipment and completion of intake; 10. Not start, change or increase any paid or unpaid employment, volunteer work, education, or training without the prior approval of the CCO; -- 34 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 35 Attendance at programs or treatment or support services 11. Attend and engage in all appointments as directed and receive visits from any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, social worker, psychologist, mentor, counsellor, support service or support person as reasonably directed by a CCO; 12. Follow the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as reasonably directed by a CCO; 13. Take any medication as directed by a medical practitioner and comply with all testing to monitor your compliance with that treatment as reasonably directed by a CCO; 14. Allow any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor to tell the Department of Justice about your medical treatment and their opinions relating to your level of risk of re-offending and compliance with treatment; 15. Follow any reasonable conditions and requirements of any National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider that is providing you with any services and/or accommodation; Reporting to WA Police 16. Report to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) 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 custody and report to and receive visits from Police directed by the OIC of SOES or another officer; 17. If asked to, allow Police Officers to enter and search your home and/or vehicle, and search you and allow them to seize (take) any items they believe to breach the conditions of this Order. The Police officer is to tell you they are using this power before acting pursuant to it; -- 35 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 36 18. Stay at your home and/or vehicle while Police Officers are searching for your home and/or vehicle under condition 17 of this order; Disclosure/Exchange of Information 19. Agree to the exchange of information about you between people and agencies involved in carrying out this Order, including any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor; 20. Agree to any disclosure of information deemed necessary by a CCO, in full or in part, with any current or proposed person that might live in your house, following consultation with the relevant NDIS agency; Restrictions on contact with Victims 21. Unless you have the prior approval of your CCO or the Victim-Offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice, have no contact with the victim and/or any victims of your violent 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 or send a message to the victim; 22. Report any direct or indirect contact with the victims of your violent offending to the CCO and WA Police within 48 hours of such contact occurring; Curfew 23. Comply with a curfew, requiring you to stay at (and not leave) your approved address as directed by a CCO; 24. When subject to a curfew under this Order, during the time when you must be at your approved residence: a. go to the front door or front yard if a CCO or Police Officer asks to see you; or -- 36 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 37 b. speak on the telephone to any CCO or Police Officer if they call to check you are at home 25. When subject to a curfew under this Order, you must all adults at your home address who may answer the telephone or door that you are on a curfew and ask them to tell you about any attempts by police or a CCO to contact you; Criminal conduct 26. Not to possess or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 applies, including cannabis. This does not apply to a drug a doctor has prescribed for you, as long as you don't use more than the doctor has told you to use; 27. Not to commit any other criminal offence where the maximum penalty for which includes imprisonment; Prevention of high-risk situations 28. Not to be in possession of any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, or replica and not to apply for or hold a licence to possess any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica; 29. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by a WA Police Officer including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for a sample to be taken; 30. Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 29; 31. Not to go to any licensed premises except for the following reasons: a) Avoiding a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person; b) For a reason and duration approved in advance by a CCO; c) If a CCO or WA Police Officer tells you to do so. 32. Not to purchase, possess, or use alcohol; -- 37 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 38 33. Not to be with any person who you know is under the influence of a prohibited drug or alcohol, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by a CCO; 33A. Not to associate with your mother, [redacted], and/or your sister, [redacted], without the prior approval of your CCO; 33B. Not to attend any premises which your mother [redacted], and/or your sister, [redacted], reside or are present at, without the prior approval of your CCO. 34. Not to associate with [redacted], (co-accused); 35. Tell your CCO about any new social association or relationship with anyone you know uses prohibited drugs or alcohol, when you report to your CCO next; 36. Allow WA Police or a CCO to look at any telecommunication device that you use and give them any passcode so they can access that device to look at your communication with other people' 37. Not assault, threaten or insult any person working for, or providing services for, the Department of Justice or your NDIS service provider/s; _______________________________ THE HON JUSTICE PALMER I authorise Police Officers from the Western Australia Police Force to access any cloud- based platforms or services associated with the devices I use and examine the internet accounts at any time for the purposes of monitoring my behaviour (absence any investigation for any offence). I understand and acknowledge WA Police Force will use passwords or tokens located within my devices to access any cloud-based platforms and services. By authorising this, I understand and acknowledge a Police Officer from the WA -- 38 of 39 -- [2026] WASC 351 PALMER J Page 39 Police Force may change the password(s) to these accounts so I will no longer have access. 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 _________________________________ KPB 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. SK Associate to the Hon. Justice Palmer 24 AUGUST 2026 -- 39 of 39 --