THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- PARAHA [2026] WASC 354

[2026] WASC 354 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- PARAHA [No 2] [2026] WASC 354 CORAM : LEMONIS J HEARD : 22 DECEMBER 2025, 17 MARCH 2026, 20 MARCH 2026, 18 AUGUST 2026 DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : SO 16 of 2024 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant AND TONY JAMES PARAHA Respondent Catchwords: Application for a restriction order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) - Respondent was most recently serving a term of imprisonment for manslaughter that expired on 26 January 2025 - Consideration of whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender Legislation: Criminal Code (WA) High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) -- 1 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 Page 2 Result: Respondent declared to be a high risk serious offender Supervision order to be made Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Mr J Lloyd Respondent : Mr R Wilson Solicitors: Applicant : State Solicitor's Office Respondent : Legal Aid (WA) Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Attorney General v WAW [2025] WASC 324 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30 The State of Western Australia v Burt [No 2] [2026] WASC 295 The State of Western Australia v Coyne [No 2] [2023] WASC 280 The State of Western Australia v Hood [2025] WASC 379 The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 8] [2025] WASC 528 The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20 The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 The State of Western Australia v Yorkshire [No 2] [2021] WASC 261 Tweed Shire Council v Hancomatic Music Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 350 -- 2 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 3 LEMONIS J: 1 On 3 December 2024, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of Mr Tony James Paraha under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (the HRSO Act). 2 Mr Paraha was most recently serving a sentence of imprisonment that expired on 26 January 2025. As part of its application, the State sought an order that Mr Paraha be detained in custody until these proceedings are finally determined. 3 On 22 January 2025, I heard the preliminary hearing in accordance with s 46 of the HRSO Act. I was satisfied that the requisite criterion had been met and made orders listing the matter for a hearing of the State's application for a restriction order. I also made an interim detention order. The hearing of the application was delayed pending accommodation being located for Mr Paraha. 4 The State says, quite properly, that if I find Mr Paraha to be a high risk serious offender, it is open on the evidence for Mr Paraha to be released on a supervision order. The State says that a term of 5 years should be set for the order. Mr Paraha says that he is not a high risk serious offender and therefore a restriction order ought not be made. 5 The State's case on the application relies on criminal conduct which is not the subject of any criminal convictions, and which Mr Paraha disputes. I address in these reasons how I consider the court should approach an application brought on that basis. Relevant provisions of the HRSO Act 6 Section 48 sets out the court's power to make a restriction order. It provides: (1) If the court hearing a restriction order application finds that the offender is a high risk serious offender, the court must — (a) make a continuing detention order in relation to the offender; or (b) except as provided in section 29, make a supervision order in relation to the offender. -- 3 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 4 (2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1)(a) or (b), the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. 7 Pursuant to s 48, if the court finds the offender is a high risk serious offender the court must make a continuing detention order or a supervision order. The ability to make a supervision order is subject to s 29, which provides that the offender must satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that they will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order. 8 Section 7(1) defines the phrase 'high risk serious offender' as follows: An offender is a high risk serious offender if the court dealing with an application under this Act finds that it is satisfied, by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. 9 The phrase 'high degree of probability' connotes a standard that is more than the civil standard of balance of probabilities but less than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.1 The State has the onus of satisfying the court to this standard that Mr Paraha is a high risk serious offender.2 10 In considering whether I am satisfied that Mr Paraha is a high risk serious offender, I must have regard to the matters that are set out at s 7(3)(a) - (j). Section 7(3)(j) is a 'catch all' type provision, which in effect provides that I must have regard to any other relevant matter in addition to those set out at s 7(3)(a) - (i). 11 In The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2],3 I analysed the application of the HRSO Act, in particular by reference to the joint judgment of Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ, and the separate judgment of Edelman J, in Garlett v Western Australia.4 12 I remain of the view that the assessment of whether a person is a high risk serious offender is undertaken as follows:5 1 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187 [28]. 2 HRSO Act, s 7(2). 3 The State of Western Australia v Williams [No 2] [2024] WASC 215 [13] - [37] . 4 Garlett v Western Australia [2022] HCA 30; Williams [22] - [37]. 5 Williams [39] - [40]. -- 4 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 5 Whether or not a risk that an offender will commit a 'serious offence' is 'unacceptable' is a question which requires the court's judgment as to the nature and extent of the possible harm. The assessment of the nature and extent of the possible harm directs attention to the possible serious offences that might be committed and the harm they may cause. It also directs attention to the likelihood that the offender might commit such offences (that is, the likelihood the risk might eventuate). The extent to which deterrent factors have operated to reduce risk in the past feeds into the assessment of current and future risk, as does the offender's historical and current response to rehabilitation. These are all factors that inform the assessment of whether the risk is 'unacceptable'. They are by no means exhaustive … If the risk is found to be 'unacceptable', the nature and extent of that unacceptable risk then informs the assessment of whether a restriction order is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community. And, as Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ explained, the assessment of whether the order is necessary requires recognition that an offender's entitlement to be at liberty is not lightly to be denied. Form of restriction order to be made 13 As I have set out, if I am satisfied that Mr Paraha is a high risk serious offender, then pursuant to s 48(1), I must make either a continuing detention order or a supervision order. 14 There is no predisposition to making a continuing detention order. That being said, s 48(2) of the HRSO Act provides that the paramount consideration in the choice of a restriction order is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. The word adequate conveys the minimum intrusion on an offender's liberty that is necessary to provide the requisite protection to the community.6 15 A court cannot make a supervision order unless it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions of it.7 The assessment of whether the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions takes account of the protective and supportive measures provided by the terms of the order.8 16 The nature, conditions and period of a supervision order are addressed by s 27 and s 30. Section 27(2) provides that a supervision order has effect from a date, and for a period, stated in the order. 6 See Williams [50] - [51]. 7 HRSO Act, s 29(1). 8 See Williams [49]. -- 5 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 6 17 Section 30(2) sets out the standard conditions of a supervision order. Broadly speaking, the conditions in s 30(2)(a) to (e) and (g) impose reporting and notification obligations on the offender and subject the offender to intensive supervision. The standard condition in s 30(2)(f) is that the offender not commit a serious offence during the period of the order. Evidence to be admitted on an application and the State's onus of proof 18 The requirement in s 7(1) that the court is satisfied to a 'high degree of probability' is directed to the ultimate question, namely whether: … it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence. 19 It is not necessary that the matters relied upon by the State in support of their application are proved to the standard of a high degree of probability. Rather, those matters must be proved by acceptable and cogent evidence. What is acceptable and cogent evidence depends on the particular circumstances. 20 The State sought to rely on a number of instances of alleged violent conduct by Mr Paraha that are not the subject of his criminal offending. In respect of the evidence relied upon to prove the conduct, the State placed particular emphasis on s 84, which addresses the evidence that can be adduced on an application for a person to be declared a high risk serious offender (amongst other applications). 21 Section 84 relevantly provides: (1) In this section — relevant proceeding means a judicial proceeding for — (a) a serious offence; or (b) another offence that the court considers relevant, having regard to the matter for decision before the court. (2) This section applies to — (a) a restriction order application; … -- 6 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 7 (3) Before the court makes a decision or order on the hearing of an application it must, if the evidence is admissible — (a) hear evidence called by the State; and (b) if the offender elects to give or call evidence, hear evidence given by or on behalf of the offender. (4) Except as modified by subsection (5), ordinary rules of evidence apply to evidence given or called under subsection (3). (5) In making its decision, the court may receive in evidence — (a) any document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the offender; or (b) anything relevant contained in the official transcript of any relevant proceeding against the offender; or (c) any relevant material that was tendered to the court, or that informed the court, in a relevant proceeding against the offender; or (d) any relevant material of the kind mentioned in section 7(3) relating to the offender. 22 The State principally relies on the reference in s 84(5)(a) to an offender's antecedents, a topic also picked up by a combination of s 84(5)(d) and s 7(3)(g). 23 It is important to identify the purpose to which s 84 is directed. Section 84 is directed to the admissibility of evidence, not to the question of proof. There is a significant difference between evidence being admissible on a particular issue, and it being acceptable and cogent evidence on that issue. 24 Section 84(4) and s 84(5) provide the court with the discretion to receive certain material in evidence that does not comply with the ordinary rules of evidence. In certain circumstances, the court may be required to receive the material irrespective of the operation of these provisions. For example, s 7(3)(a) requires the court to have regard to reports prepared under s 74. Thus, if the court is satisfied that the relevant report is prepared in accordance with s 74, the court is required to receive it. The court would not have a residual discretion under s 84 to refuse to do so. -- 7 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 8 25 This does not, however, mean that evidence received must be accepted as correct by the court hearing the application. The court needs to assess the extent to which it accepts that evidence, and what weight it gives to it.9 Further, s 85(a) provides that the court may give directions with respect to evidence received, or to be received, under s 84(5). An apparent purpose of s 85(a) is to permit the court to make directions that address the impact of material being received that does not comply with the ordinary rules of evidence. Thus, a court can direct that the material is to be used only for particular purposes. 26 The difference between evidence being admissible, and it being acceptable and cogent, is illustrated by the following observations of Allanson J in The State of Western Australia v Yorkshire [No 2]:10 The State relies on matters going back 34 years. A document or report may be admissible for the purposes of proceedings under the Act without being acceptable and cogent evidence for the purposes of s 7(1). Where opinions are expressed, the qualifications or expertise of the author cannot be assumed. Further, the question for the court is whether it is necessary to protect the community against a risk Mr Yorkshire now presents. Where a document or report was prepared many years ago, further evidence may be required to relate it to any present level of risk. 27 The State points to the decision of Vandongen J in The State of Western Australia v Coyne [No 2], in particular the following passage:11 … 84(5) of the HRSO Act justifies a court receiving certain documents as evidence without the need for the author of the document to be called to give evidence, notwithstanding the fact that its contents might otherwise be regarded as hearsay. 28 This passage is directed to admissibility. It is not directed to whether the material, once received, is acceptable and cogent evidence. 29 It also must be kept in mind that the factors which s 7 requires the court to take into account are predominantly directed to a risk that arises from offending behaviour. An application that a person be declared a high risk serious offender is predicated on the person having committed a serious offence. Section 7(3)(c) refers to a 9 See in respect of the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA), Attorney General v WAW [2025] WASC 324 [78]. 10 The State of Western Australia v Yorkshire [No 2] [2021] WASC 261 [38]. 11 The State of Western Australia v Coyne [No 2] [2023] WASC 280 [118]. -- 8 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 9 propensity to commit a serious offence, 7(3)(d) refers to a pattern of offending behaviour, s 7(3)(e) refers to efforts by the offender to address offending behaviour and s 7(3)(g) refers to an offender's criminal record. While other uncharged criminal conduct may be relevant to an assessment of risk, the predominant focus of the required risk assessment is on offences for which an offender has been convicted. 30 Likewise, s 84 places a particular emphasis on offences for which an offender has been convicted. This emphasis arises from the use of the phrase 'criminal record' in s 84(5)(a) and from the requirement in s 84(5)(b) and s 84(5)(c) that the material relied on is connected to judicial proceedings brought against an offender for an offence. 31 This is not to say that other criminal conduct is irrelevant. An example that often arises is where an offender admits to being a regular user of illicit drugs. The effect of that drug use on an offender, and the manner in which the offender obtains the drugs, are usually important to an overall risk assessment. However, where the offender disputes the other criminal conduct, the State should give careful consideration to whether, and how, the alleged conduct is relied on for the purposes of an application that a person be declared a high risk serious offender. If the State does seek to rely on unproved criminal conduct, the State should identify the alleged conduct in their written submissions together with the material relied on in proof of the alleged conduct. The State should also explain the use that is sought to be made of the alleged conduct. 32 Relevantly to the application before me, for the State to demonstrate that evidence of disputed, and otherwise unproved, violent conduct of an offender is acceptable and cogent, the evidence must positively satisfy the court that the conduct occurred. In assessing whether that degree of satisfaction is reached, the court should take into account: 1. The seriousness of the allegation. 2. Whether the evidence is direct evidence, or hearsay evidence. 3. The available details of the allegation, including whether it is in effect a conclusion. 4. If the allegation is contained in a report, the circumstances in which the report writer became aware of the allegation. -- 9 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 10 5. The opportunity that a respondent has had, or will have, to test the allegation. 33 These matters are not exhaustive. The final matter is likely to be of some significance in most cases. If an offender has not had a proper opportunity to test an allegation, this is likely to diminish the court's ability to be positively satisfied that the alleged conduct occurred. A court will be reluctant to find the alleged conduct occurred if the allegation is disputed, and the evidence relied on to support the allegation is not capable of being properly tested. Moreover, if the evidence is not capable of being properly tested, this is likely to be a factor that weighs against the court exercising its discretion to receive the evidence in the first place.12 Expert evidence 34 It is also necessary to make some observations regarding expert evidence received in respect of an application for a restriction order. 35 Section 3 of the HRSO Act defines a qualified expert to mean either a psychiatrist or a qualified psychologist. A qualified psychologist is a psychologist who holds a master's degree or higher in psychology. 36 If the court is satisfied of the criterion for a preliminary hearing, the court must:13 … order that the offender undergo examination by a psychiatrist and a qualified psychologist for the purpose of preparing reports in accordance with section 74 to be used on the hearing of the restriction order application … 37 Section 74 sets out the requirements of that report: 74. Preparation of report by qualified expert (1) A qualified expert providing a report in relation to a subject under this section must — (a) examine the subject; and (b) prepare an independent report. (2) The report must indicate — 12 See, for example, The State of Western Australia v Burt [No 2] [2026] WASC 295 [13] - [18]. 13 HRSO Act, s 46(2)(a). -- 10 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 11 (a) the reporter's assessment of the level of the risk that, without a restriction order, the subject will commit a serious offence; and (b) the reasons for the reporter's assessment. (3) The reporter must have regard to any report or information given under section 76(1). (4) The reporter must prepare the report even if the subject does not cooperate, or does not cooperate fully, in the examination. 38 The core purpose of the requisite reports is to indicate the expert's assessment of the level of risk that, without a restriction order, the offender will commit a serious offence, and the reasons for that assessment. The person is tasked with undertaking that assessment because they are a qualified expert. It follows that the assessment must be undertaken utilising their field of expertise. This observation is consistent with the ordinary principles that an expert opinion must relate to topics within the expert's field of expertise and the opinion must be wholly or substantially based on their expert knowledge.14 39 Information as to the prior conduct of an offender may be relevant to the expert's risk assessment for a number of reasons. I have already given the example of illicit drug use. As another example, an allegation that an offender has been violent to an intimate partner might reveal the fraught nature of their relationship, irrespective of the truth of the allegation. If the offender disputes the allegation, however, it is not the expert's role to determine the factual dispute. It is for the court to resolve the factual dispute. If there are factual disputes of importance, the expert can still express their opinion as to risk on the assumption the court will find that the disputed conduct occurred. However, if the court does not so find, the court will need to consider the extent to which, if at all, the weight of the expert's opinion is diminished.15 40 Also, if an expert considers it necessary to have regard to disputed conduct, irrespective of its truth, the expert should explain the intellectual basis for doing so, and the significance or weight they attach to the disputed conduct. This follows from the requirement in s 74(2)(b) that the report sets out the expert's reasons for their assessment. It also accords with the conventional requirement that an 14 Cross on Evidence (14th ed, 2024) 1157 - 1158 [29075] (Cross on Evidence). 15 Cross on Evidence 1150. -- 11 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 12 expert report reveals the intellectual basis upon which the opinion is reached.16 Otherwise, there may be limitations on the weight that a court can attach to the expert's opinion. It is also procedurally unfair to an offender if an expert risk assessment does not disclose the underlying intellectual analysis for the assessment. 41 The State submitted that without access to the information regarding disputed conduct:17 … experts appointed to assist the Court by producing a s 74 report would be unable to comply with the proper administration and scoring of the accepted, commonly used and widely researched actuarial risk assessment tools (such as the Static 99-R), which would affect their capacity to provide an accurate risk assessment as required by s 74(2) of the Act. 42 There are three difficulties with this submission. First, the use of actuarial tools does not make the evidence of the alleged conduct acceptable and cogent. Second, the expert needs to expose the intellectual analysis relied on for their risk assessment. The use of actuarial tools does not overcome the need to do so. To the contrary, it reinforces the need to expose the intellectual analysis. Otherwise, the use made of the alleged conduct in the risk assessment exercise is unclear. Third, Dr Wynn Owen's evidence was to the effect that the actuarial assessment could be undertaken without having regard to disputed conduct. 43 Further, the State's general submission regarding the actuarial risk assessment tools needs to be approached with caution. As Edelman J observed in Garlett:18 Great caution is required in the treatment of this evidence because risk prediction for serious violence, including sexual violence, has been said to be "plagued by high false-positive rates". (citation omitted) 44 The assessment tools have their own limitations and are not an end in themselves. They might assist the expert in assessing the requisite risk, but they are not a substitute for the expert's opinion as required by the HRSO Act. 16 Cross on Evidence 1131 - 1132, 1157. 17 State's written submissions dated 28 August 2025, par 26. 18 Garlett [223]. -- 12 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 13 45 Also, the extent to which the assessment tools might be of assistance needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, the tools, at least in so far as they have been used in this case, do not identify the gravity of violence that a person is at risk of committing. A prediction that a person is a risk of committing any level of violence is of limited assistance, by itself, to the court's assessment of whether the violence in prospect rises to the level of a serious offence. 46 The observations I have set out at [35] - [45] above are of importance to this matter for two reasons. 47 First, Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Yewers rejected Mr Paraha's denial of alleged other conduct, principally because he was not a reliable historian. It was not their role to do so. Moreover, it does not follow from a general distrust of Mr Paraha that the disputed conduct in fact occurred.19 48 Second, Dr Yewers insisted that in undertaking the requisite risk assessment she was required to take into account the disputed conduct. However, other than saying the assessment tools required her to do so, she did not explain why that was the case. Personal circumstances 49 Mr Paraha is now 60 years of age. 50 There are several reports in evidence that refer to Mr Paraha's childhood. I am satisfied that Mr Paraha had a difficult childhood which included significant violence being carried out against him. His childhood was also unstable, and he lived at various different homes, including at a home for boys.20 51 Mr Paraha completed year 10 at school, performing poorly in English and Mathematics.21 He later attended TAFE, at which point he was diagnosed with dyslexia.22 52 Mr Paraha started using cannabis at 14 years of age.23 19 See Tweed Shire Council v Hancomatic Music Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 350 [166]. 20 See for example, Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1038 - 1039. 21 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 722 [15]. 22 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1076. 23 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1082. -- 13 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 14 53 At around 34 years of age, Mr Paraha began using methylamphetamine, which he continued using up to the point in time that he committed the offence of manslaughter. 54 The sentencing remarks of Tottle J delivered on 13 January 2017 when sentencing Mr Paraha for the offence of manslaughter (one of the three serious offences he has committed) state that Mr Paraha used cannabis on a daily basis, and that Mr Paraha had told the psychologist who prepared a report for sentencing that he used methylamphetamine most days over the last 16 years.24 55 Mr Paraha has been employed in a number of different roles over his life, which include working in mines, driving a forklift, shearing and driving heavy machinery and gardening. He has also had multiple periods of unemployment.25 56 Mr Paraha has had several children with a number of different partners.26 He does not presently have a partner. Serious offences 57 The serious offences that Mr Paraha has committed, and the circumstances of that offending, is as follows. 58 On 4 July 1991, Mr Paraha committed an offence of indecent assault in circumstances of aggravation, which was then an offence under s 324C of the Criminal Code (WA). He pleaded guilty to this offence. 59 Mr Paraha was 25 years of age. The victim was 22 years of age and went for a walk along the beach near Esperance. Mr Paraha had been fishing off the beach. He saw the victim as she walked past him. About 20 minutes later, the victim returned and walked past Mr Paraha again. Mr Paraha ran after the victim and grabbed her around the shoulders. She struggled to break free and Mr Paraha punched her in the face. They both fell to the sand. The victim continued to struggle and was shouting for help. Mr Paraha put one hand over her mouth or her throat and punched her to the head with his other hand. The victim had hold of Mr Paraha's hair and kept pulling his head down. Mr Paraha reached down with one hand and grabbed her in the crotch area and pulled down her tracksuit pants and 24 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 645 [93]. 25 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1076 - 1077. 26 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1077 - 1078. -- 14 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 15 underpants as far as her thighs at least. At that stage, Mr Paraha stopped, apologised, ran off to his vehicle and drove away.27 60 This offending has a sexual component, it being an indecent assault. The sentencing judge said that at the time Mr Paraha was affected by alcohol and cannabis. His Honour also said that the pre-sentence report provided for sentencing showed Mr Paraha suffered from dyslexia, had learning difficulties at school, had a poor frustration tolerance, his personality was immature, and he had a tendency towards aggressive behaviour, which is exacerbated by overuse of alcohol and drugs. 61 Mr Paraha was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months and was made eligible for parole. 62 On 15 January 2010, Mr Paraha committed an offence of sexually penetrating a person whom he knew or ought to have known was an incapable person, which is an offence under s 330(2) of the Criminal Code. An incapable person is a person who is so mentally impaired as to be incapable of understanding the nature of the act the subject of the charge, or of guarding themself against sexual exploitation.28 63 Mr Paraha was 44 years of age at the time of the offence. He ultimately pleaded guilty. 64 The victim was a 39-year-old woman with Down's syndrome. She had an IQ in the extremely low range. Mr Paraha had met her about two weeks prior to the offence and had given her a false name. 65 In the evening of 15 January 2010, Mr Paraha spoke to the victim by telephone and then went to her residential unit. After a while, Mr Paraha went into the bedroom complaining he had a sore back and wanted to go to sleep. The victim came into the bedroom about half an hour later. Mr Paraha told her to take off her pants and get onto the bed, which she did. Mr Paraha fondled her breasts on the outside of her clothes and kissed her. He then removed his pants and inserted his penis into her vagina and had sex with her. The victim said she did not like it. Mr Paraha stopped, put his pants on and left.29 27 Book of Materials Vol 2, pages 593 - 594. 28 Criminal Code, s 330(1). 29 Book of Materials Vol 2, pages 611 - 612. -- 15 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 16 66 The sentencing judge found that Mr Paraha was aware of the victim's disability and knew or ought to have known that she was an incapable person within the meaning of s 330 of the Criminal Code. The sentencing judge also found that there was an element of planning and grooming in Mr Paraha being alone with the victim.30 67 The sentencing judge received a psychiatric and a psychologist report. His Honour accepted the opinion of the psychiatrist, Dr Febbo, that Mr Paraha's psychiatric condition and bipolar disorder contributed to his behaviour through mechanisms such as impaired impulse control, disinhibition, and impairment in judgment. His Honour also found that Mr Paraha's use of amphetamines at the time played a part in the offending.31 68 Mr Paraha was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years commencing on 23 November 2011 and made eligible for parole. Mr Paraha was released from custody on 22 November 2013.32 69 The third and final serious offence is the offence of manslaughter. This is an offence under s 280 of the Criminal Code. The offence was committed on 13 January 2016. Mr Paraha pleaded guilty. Given the circumstances of the third serious offence, it is apparent that it did not take long for Mr Paraha to return to drug use after being released from custody. 70 The circumstances of that offence involved the traumatic and tragic death of an eight-week-old baby girl, Narelle. She was the daughter of Mr Paraha and his then partner, who was a co-offender. 71 Narelle died from a traumatic brain injury. At the time of her death, she had sustained numerous injuries including multiple skull fractures. The sentencing judge, Tottle J, described these injuries as shocking and horrific in severity and extent. Mr Paraha was not sentenced on the basis that he had inflicted the injuries. He was sentenced on the basis that despite being aware of Narelle's physical state, he did not take any steps to ensure that the necessaries of life were provided to her, and he prevented her from having access to the necessary medical assistance to treat her injuries and manage her 30 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 618. 31 Book of Materials Vol 2, pages 613 - 614, 616. 32 Book of Materials Vol 1, page 132. -- 16 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 17 condition.33 Thus, Mr Paraha's criminal culpability was that of grave criminal neglect for his infant daughter. 72 His Honour found as aggravating features that Mr Paraha permitted his infant daughter to live in conditions which allowed her to suffer horrific injuries, and that he was aware his daughter was seriously unwell but did nothing to obtain help for her.34 His Honour also found the squalor in which Mr Paraha and his family were living at the time was an additional aggravating feature. 73 His Honour referred to Mr Paraha's account of the event as including that he was 'stoned' when he became aware of her injuries,35 which I take to mean that he was affected by cannabis. His Honour also referred to Mr Paraha's historical substance abuse. His Honour said that Mr Paraha commenced using cannabis in his early teens, and that substance abuse continued daily while not in custody and that Mr Paraha had used methylamphetamine most days over the previous 16 years.36 74 His Honour referred to the psychological report received for sentencing as assessing Mr Paraha as being at a high risk of future violent offending if he did not address his treatment needs, the most important of which, his Honour said, were overcoming substance abuse, obtaining treatment for mental health and obtaining therapy to address his psychological deficits.37 His Honour accepted that Mr Paraha had a lack of insight due to his intellectual limitations and that these limitations contributed to his failure to respond to the child's condition as he should have done.38 75 Mr Paraha was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years backdated to 27 January 2016. Features of the serious offences 76 The criminal conduct, the subject of the serious offences, is not similar in nature. The first serious offence involved a violent assault, which had a sexual component to it. The second serious offence involved taking advantage of a disabled victim to engage in sexual 33 Book of Materials Vol 2, pages 635 - 637. 34 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 637. 35 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 636. 36 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 645. 37 Book of Materials Vol 2, pages 645 - 646. 38 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 649. -- 17 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 18 intercourse with her. The third serious offence involved egregious criminal neglect. 77 There are significant time gaps between the offending. The first serious offence was committed on 4 July 1991, when Mr Paraha was 25 years of age, the second offence was committed on 15 January 2010, when he was 44 years of age, and the third serious offence was committed on 13 January 2016, when he was 50 years of age. 78 There are, however, similar features to the circumstances of the offending. In respect of all offences, Mr Paraha was affected by drugs. In respect of the first and second offences, the victim was isolated and vulnerable. Also, in respect of the first and second offences, Mr Paraha ceased the offending conduct of his own volition. I am satisfied he did so because he recognised that what he was doing was wrong. 79 The circumstances of the second and third offences were contributed to by grave errors in judgment. The sentencing judge in respect of the second offence found that the commission of the offence was contributed to by Mr Paraha's psychological and psychiatric conditions and drug use. The sentencing judge in respect of the third offence found that Mr Paraha's intellectual limitations contributed to his failure to respond appropriately to his daughter's condition. Other offences and relevant conduct 80 Mr Paraha otherwise has a relatively lengthy criminal record. His other offending is predominantly made up of driving related offences and drug possession related offences. His other offending does not have a theme of serious violence, or of sexual offending. 81 Mr Paraha has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for his other offending, whether suspended or to be served. The additional offence he has committed that appears most pertinent to the application before me is a breach of a violence restraining order. On 6 December 2002, he was sentenced for this offence to a 12-month community-based order. The circumstances of that offence are described at paragraphs [88] - [90] below. 82 In the personal history Mr Paraha gave to Dr van Hattem, a psychiatrist, for the purposes the consideration of Mr Paraha's application for parole, Mr Paraha described multiple assaults for -- 18 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 19 which he was never charged. These incidents included assaulting drug dealers who had sold heroin to his ex-partner or had sex with her, and assaulting a person who smoked cannabis in front of his children.39 Mr Paraha gave similar accounts to Dr Yewers and to Dr Wynn Owen. 83 The State also relies on a number of instances of other alleged conduct. Except for the offence of breaching the violence restraining order, Mr Paraha has not been convicted of, or charged with, any offence pertaining to the other alleged conduct. Specific additional matters relied on by the State 84 The State filed further written submissions annexing a table which set out the alleged conduct relied on. Mr Paraha's counsel did not object to the admission into evidence of the material relied on by the State, and made oral submissions addressing the force of that material. I have attached the table as Annexure A to these reasons, inserting on the left-hand side of each row a number. 85 The State's approach, at least initially, placed much weight on the admissibility of the material relied upon. The State submitted that:40 … each of the pieces of evidence referred to in 'Annexure A' forms acceptable and cogent evidence that the experts in the court can properly take into account in finding that violence has occurred in [Mr Paraha's] past intimate relationships, or against children who have been in [his] care… 86 It is necessary to assess the categories of alleged other conduct relied on by the State. I do so by reference to the numbers inserted on the left-hand side of the table annexed to these reasons. Categories 1 - 4 87 These categories all relate to the same conduct. 88 Mr Paraha's criminal record states that on 6 December 2002 he was convicted of an offence of breach of a violence restraining order. He was sentenced to a 12-month community-based order. The conduct constituting the offence was that Mr Paraha had been personally served with a violence restraining order and breached that order by entering the residence of the protected person. 39 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 726. 40 State's further submissions dated 28 August 2025, par 27. -- 19 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 20 89 The Statement of Material Facts (SOMF) corresponding to the charge number (02007436) includes the following matters: (a) that the complainant requested Mr Paraha to leave which he ignored; (b) she walked inside the loungeroom to call for the police, he followed her, continued to verbally abuse her, grabbed her hair and pulled her to the ground then let go; (c) she armed herself with a knife and chased him outside of the front door; and (d) Mr Paraha lifted open the loungeroom window and continued to yell and scream, including saying I am 'gonna smash your head in and [I'll] kill you, you slut'. 90 The SOMF also says that Mr Paraha participated in a record of interview and made full admissions to the offence, saying he forgot he had a restraining order against him. It is not clear from this whether Mr Paraha was admitting to the offence charged, or to all of the conduct described in the SOMF. However, in Ms Yewer's report, she put the SOMF to Mr Paraha and he said he could not recall the incident but said 'if the Statement of Material Facts says I did it, I did'.41 91 Further, Mr Paraha does not dispute the version of events in the SOMF. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the offence occurred in the circumstances outlined in the SOMF. Category 5 92 The conduct relied on by the State is contained in an incident report. It contains a narrative of allegations. It is not apparent that Mr Paraha was charged with an offence arising out of the incident report. I am not satisfied that the incident report, by itself, is acceptable and cogent evidence that the incident occurred as outlined in the report. Category 6 93 The State no longer relies on the conduct the subject of this category. 41 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1086. -- 20 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 21 Categories 7 - 8 94 These topics refer to admissions made by Mr Paraha to a psychologist, Ms Barbuzza, and a psychiatrist, Dr Febbo, concerning the first serious offence that he committed. The admissions concern Mr Paraha in effect stating that he assaulted the victim because he thought she was his former partner whom he was angry with. Mr Paraha does not dispute that he made the admissions. I accept that the contents of the reports are acceptable and cogent evidence of the admissions. Irrespective of whether Mr Paraha's explanation reflected his genuine mindset at the time, the explanations reflect his endorsement of retributive assault. Category 9 95 This topic concerns an interview of Mr Paraha by police officers on 8 June 2010. He was asked if there was any violence between himself and his partner. He said:42 Only whatever I ever did to her was like flicked her, go around wrapped her around and get on the ground just, 'Come on, mate.' I' be talking to her [indistinct], 'Calm down. But you're right, stop it. We're not stealing your kids. I love you, I want to be with you.' Blah, blah. And that's about as far as that went. (emphasis added) 96 The State relies on the underlined part of the answer as evidence that he was violent towards his then partner. However, that is only part of what Mr Paraha said. Shortly after giving this answer, Mr Paraha explained that the incident occurred in the context of what he described as a toxic relationship and that he thought his then partner had knocked him out. Having regard to Mr Paraha's answers as a whole, the preferred interpretation of what he said is that he had used a degree of force to calm his partner, who had also violently assaulted him. Mr Paraha's answers do, however, demonstrate their relationship was volatile, which is a matter I take into account. Category 10 97 This topic concerns an affidavit of a child protection worker filed in the Children's Court in support of a child protection order. 42 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 950. -- 21 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 22 98 The State relies on certain disclosures that one of Mr Paraha's children made to a carer which were then passed on to the child protection worker who made the affidavit.43 The manner in which this material has been presented does not provide Mr Paraha with a proper opportunity to test the allegations. 99 In any event, even if the statements were accepted, they do not demonstrate that Mr Paraha had physically assaulted the child. Rather, they indicate the child was fearful that would happen. Further, the statements are somewhat contradictory. The child says that his mother would get angry and hurt him and 'my Tony saved me' which is a reference to Mr Paraha. Overall, I do not think that the affidavit is of material weight. It is therefore not necessary for me to determine whether I can accept the statements in circumstances where Mr Paraha has not had a proper opportunity to test them. Category 11 100 This topic concerns a pre-sentence report in respect of Mr Paraha's sentencing for the offence of manslaughter. The State seeks to rely on Mr Paraha saying that he would have 'belted' his co-accused if he had seen how she treated the victim. However, in the following sentence Mr Paraha immediately refuted this and said that 'I can't have hatred in me for Mel'.44 Accordingly, this is a mixed statement that reflected initially a mindset that it was appropriate behaviour to assault his partner, which was then immediately retracted. I will have regard to it in that manner. Category 12 101 This topic concerns the sentencing remarks of Tottle J in respect of the manslaughter offence. The State seeks to rely on remarks made by his Honour sentencing Mr Paraha's co-offender. His Honour said that the co-offender had suffered physical abuse at Mr Paraha's hands. However, his Honour did not make a similar finding against Mr Paraha. His Honour's finding in respect of the co-offender is not binding on Mr Paraha, unless Mr Paraha's counsel made submission on that topic. The material before me does not include the transcript of the sentencing hearing, so I cannot assess whether Mr Paraha's counsel made any submissions on the topic. 43 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 757 - 758. 44 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 689. -- 22 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 23 102 I have considered the findings that his Honour made in sentencing Mr Paraha. His Honour's remarks reflect a toxic relationship between Mr Paraha and his co-offender, which is a factor that I take into account. Category 13 103 The State relies on a passage from a 'Non-Completion Report' in respect of Mr Paraha dated 1 February 2023 pertaining to the Stopping Family Violence Program. The relevant passage is as follows:45 … on one occasion, Mr Paraha spoke favourably about weapon use within a circumstance of confronting his partner due to alleged infidelity and expressed inappropriate commentary regarding similar violent conduct, emphasising entrenched pro-criminal attitudes regarding righteous anger. 104 This is a conclusion. The report does not identify what Mr Paraha actually said. The tenor of Mr Paraha's comments reflect an endorsement of retributive behaviour. I will have regard to the report in that manner. Categories 14(1) and (2) 105 This category concerns a psychiatric report of Dr van Hattem dated 10 May 2023 prepared for the Prisoners Review Board in considering whether to grant parole to Mr Paraha. The State seeks to rely on excerpts from that report as demonstrating that Mr Paraha had engaged in violent behaviour. 106 The first matter relied on is the extract in the report where Dr van Hattem stated that 'violence, alcohol and drug use have [featured] heavily' in Mr Paraha's intimate relationships.46 This is a conclusion and the basis for it is not identified by the State. Also, the extract does not make clear the extent to which it is said that Mr Paraha perpetrated violence against his intimate partners. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the extract is acceptable and cogent evidence that he had engaged in such violence. 107 The second matter concerns Mr Paraha's treatment of one of his daughters. Mr Paraha said that she had attempted to hang herself and threatened to jump off a bridge, and he had smacked her like a father would. The report does not identify anything more about the smack. 45 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 715. 46 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 722. -- 23 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 24 Mr Paraha does not dispute he smacked his daughter. I am satisfied the report is acceptable and cogent evidence that Mr Paraha he did so. However, I am not able to make any finding about the force used and therefore do not attach any material weight to this matter. Category 15 108 This category relates to a victim statement dated 17 December 2024 provided to the Prisoner Review Board on behalf of two of Mr Paraha's children then aged 10 and 13. Relevantly, the statement says that:47 [The children] were both significantly traumatised by their experiences prior to coming into care and continue to experience the effects of trauma. The family home was described as 'filthy' and 'unfit to live in' and the children were deprived of access to regular meals. The children witnessed frequent physical abuse/domestic violence between their parents. [The children] also witnessed the death of their baby sister … . 109 It seems that the State wants to rely on this as evidence that Mr Paraha had physically assaulted his partner. However, without further information as to what the children said, I am not satisfied that the statement is acceptable and cogent evidence that Mr Paraha had physically assaulted his partner to any significant degree. The statement does not identify the type of violence involved, nor does it identify the extent to which Mr Paraha perpetrated it. However, in my view the statement is acceptable and cogent evidence of Mr Paraha's significant neglect of the children and the trauma this caused them. Categories 16 and 17 110 This category concerns extracts from Dr Yewer's and Dr Wynn Owen's reports provided for the purpose of this application. The State relied on extracts to the effect that Mr Paraha had engaged in violence against any one or more of his partners. The State's proposition, at least initially, was that because the reports themselves were admissible, they can be used as proof of the factual matters set out in them, irrespective of whether they are accepted by Mr Paraha. 47 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 739. -- 24 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 25 111 A large number of the paragraphs set out in the reports are a repetition of matters set out in other reports or documents. Repetition does not add to the acceptability and cogency of matters set out in earlier reports and documents. 112 Unless admitted by Mr Paraha, I am not satisfied that the passages in Dr Yewer's and Dr Wynn Owen's report are acceptable and cogent evidence that Mr Paraha engaged in violence against any one or more of his partners. 113 Having regard to the particular aspects of the reports relied on by the State, I am satisfied of the following matters. 114 Mr Paraha has had a number of dysfunctional relationships. In respect of the relationship with the partner described as Ms TC, Mr Paraha regarded himself as the victim of violence from her and at times had to restrain her from seriously assaulting him. 115 In respect of the relationship between Mr Paraha and Ms MP, that relationship was dysfunctional and involved significant drug use. Further, Mr Paraha's conduct reflected an abject failure to appreciate the impact of his drug use on the family, in particular on his young children. Category 18 116 This category pertains to an Adult Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 14 August 2025. The report sets out that Mr Paraha said he was 'very violent' with the mother of his older children and that this behaviour ceased with the co-offender on the manslaughter charge.48 I accept that this is acceptable and cogent evidence that Mr Paraha was 'very violent' with the mother of his older children. The use of the phrase 'very violent' suggests that significant force was used. That finding is consistent with other statements made by Mr Paraha in respect of that relationship, in particular, comments he made during his participation in the Journey Ways program that he had not treated women well in the past. Summary of findings 117 Based on these findings, I am satisfied that Mr Paraha has committed acts of violence against previous partners to the extent I 48 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1120. -- 25 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 26 have described, and that his relationships have been unstable, affected by conflict, and involved the significant use of illegal drugs. Other mental health diagnoses in respect of Mr Paraha 118 In addition to the reports obtained for the purposes of Mr Paraha's sentencing, as I have said, Dr van Hattem, a psychiatrist, prepared a report dated 10 May 2023 for the purposes of the Prisoners Review Board considering whether to grant parole to Mr Paraha. 119 I consider Dr van Hattem's report to be of assistance, notwithstanding the observation I have made at [106] above. That is not a matter which materially affects Dr van Hattem's ultimate conclusion as to risk, which is predominantly based upon the conditions with which Mr Paraha presents. 120 Dr van Hattem diagnosed Mr Paraha with a Personality Disorder with mixed cluster B features, including narcissistic and dissocial features.49 121 Dr van Hattem said that Mr Paraha demonstrated many features of psychopathy, including glib and superficial charm, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, sexual promiscuity, diversity of offending, pathological lying and disinhibition. Further, he was predisposed to personality pathology by his chaotic and traumatic childhood.50 122 Dr van Hattem was of the opinion that Mr Paraha may have a relatively mild bipolar disorder which only requires hospitalisation after particularly extreme precipitating factors. 123 Mr Paraha has previously been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, for which he has been hospitalised. In 2011, Dr Febbo, a consultant psychiatrist reviewed Mr Paraha and stated that his history 'is in keeping with a bipolar disorder'.51 124 Dr van Hattem used an actuarial risk assessment tool called Violence Risk Appraisal Guide - Revised, which tool assesses the likelihood of violent or sexual offending among male offenders. That assessment was to the effect that Mr Paraha was at significantly higher risk of committing future violent or sexual offences than other men charged with at least one violent offence. 49 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 727 [46]. 50 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 727 [47] - [48]. 51 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 673. -- 26 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 27 125 Dr van Hattem explained that the recidivism rates using this tool are not modified based on time in prison. He also expressed caution about the recidivism rates, saying:52 It should not be assumed that people within the given risk category will reoffend at this rate on a random distribution. The result produced by the VRAG-R is based entirely on static risk factors. These statistics accurately reflect proportions within groups, but when and how an individual person reoffends is more strongly influenced by dynamic risk factors, which can potentially be ameliorated. 126 In addition, the statistical assessment does not identify the gravity of any violent behaviour that Mr Paraha might commit in the future. 127 In Dr van Hattem's conclusion he said that: 53 … Mr Paraha currently presents with some symptoms that mimic those of mild bipolar disorder, but are better explained by a severe mixed cluster B personality disorder… If Mr Paraha were to trial mood-stabilising medication and it produced a significant effect on his disinhibition and self-centred grandiosity, it may reduce his risk of future offending. In my opinion, there would still be a significant risk of reoffending even if that were to occur. In my opinion, the majority of risk associated with Mr Paraha is based on static and personality factors, and cannot be fully mitigated. … Drug and alcohol use have been exacerbating factors in Mr Paraha's offending, and complete abstinence from these substances would partially reduce his risk of reoffending. To his credit, he has engaged long-term with Narcotics Anonymous. I recommend his ongoing abstinence be confirmed through random urine drug screening. Stability in the community is protective against all forms of reoffending. In my opinion, Mr Paraha will require stable accommodation, access to adequate finances, and a clear and confirmed plan for social engagement and structuring his time in a pro-social manner. 52 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 729. 53 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 730. -- 27 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 28 Drug use while in prison 128 One of the matters emphasised by Mr Paraha's counsel was that Mr Paraha has not used illicit drugs for approximately the last 10 years while he has been in prison. 129 Mr Paraha tested positive to methylamphetamine and cannabis on 19 March 2016 when in prison.54 Since then, he has been subject to testing for illicit drugs and alcohol on a number of occasions. The results have all been negative.55 Courses undertaken while in prison 130 Mr Paraha attended 189 Narcotics Anonymous sessions while he has been in prison. He has consistently undertaken several courses directed to improving his level of education and prospects of obtaining employment.56 131 In terms of programs, most recently, he participated in the Journey Ways program, the Pathways Program, and the Stopping Family Violence Program. I address these programs in detail below. 132 I turn now to the expert evidence received on the application. As I have said, the State called Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Yewers. Expert evidence 133 In Dr Wynn Owen's report he diagnosed Mr Paraha with a substance use disorder, methylamphetamine and cannabis. He said this disorder was currently in remission. 134 He also diagnosed Mr Paraha with a cluster B personality disorder with predominantly antisocial and borderline features.57 Dr Wynn Owen considered there was a possibility that Mr Paraha may have Bipolar I Disorder, however, ultimately concluded that Mr Paraha's presentation is best explained as being the result of a substance use disorder and a personality disorder.58 54 Book of Materials Vol 1, page 475. 55 Book of Materials Vol 1, pages 133 - 135. 56 Exhibit 7. 57 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1056 [175]. 58 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1057 [179]. -- 28 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 29 135 Dr Wynn Owen undertook a standardised rating assessment of Mr Paraha for psychopathy. Mr Paraha scored 30, which indicates prototypical psychopathy.59 136 Dr Wynn Owen undertook a Static-99R assessment of Mr Paraha. He explained it is an actuarial tool that has moderate accuracy in ranking offenders according to their relevant risk for sexual recidivism.60 Mr Paraha's score was 5 which placed him in the above average risk range. Having regard to what Dr Wynn Owen considered to be Mr Paraha's outstanding treatment needs and his psychopathic personality disorder, he considered that Mr Paraha may be reasonably considered a high risk high needs offender, with the likelihood of such offender committing a new sexual offence within five years of release being 21.2%.61 137 Dr Wynn Owen undertook a Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol review of Mr Paraha. Having done so, Dr Wynn Owen identified the risk scenarios as follows:62 221. Risk Scenarios Mr Paraha has 2 convictions for serious sexual offences separated by 19 years, the most recent being 15 years ago. However I note that there are references to sexual violence within intimate relationships, most recently in the relationship with index co-offender Ms Pears, and although no charges or convictions are recorded this cannot be ignored in the context of considering and planning to mitigate future risk, particularly when there appears no doubt that intimate partner violence has occurred in all three of Mr Paraha's long term relationships. It is also clear that notwithstanding his denial of such behaviour Mr Paraha's self report has been demonstrated to be consistently unreliable. 222 As there are 2 past convictions for sexual offending this behaviour, having already recurred, is the most likely serious offence to recur. 223. Nature 224. Repeat: If there is a repeat of the pattern of past offending a future offence will occur in the context of temporary or permanent relationship breakdown resulting in absence of a 59 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1058 [183] - [184]. 60 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1058 [185]. 61 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1058 [188]. 62 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1064. -- 29 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 30 familiar sexual partner, and probably substance use to manage associated stress and negative affect. An opportunistic or briefly planned, from not more than hours to a couple of days, offence would occur against a stranger or recent acquaintance that involves a degree of physical coercion, may involve psychological coercion particularly if the victim is targeted for their vulnerability though disability or intoxication. This offence would be one of indecent assault or sexual penetration. 225. Changes: A sexual assault, probably sexual penetration, may occur in the context of an intimate relationship as a component of physical assault, to further exert dominance and control. 138 As can be seen from [221] of this extract, Dr Wynn Owen dismissed Mr Paraha's denial of violent behaviour against intimate partners because his 'self report has been demonstrated to be consistently unreliable'. 139 As to the imminence of Mr Paraha's offending, Dr Wynn Owen said:63 227. Imminence Based on Mr Paraha's past periods of desistance (from serious or sexual offending) when free to offend the imminence could be many years, based on his historical convictions for sexual offending. Noting that his offences have occurred during short periods when without a partner. As Mr Paraha is not currently in an intimate relationship this increases the imminence and likelihood of sexual offending. 140 I read this passage to convey that Mr Paraha did not have a partner at the time of the second offence. In oral evidence, Dr Wynn Owen clarified that he thought Mr Paraha had either temporarily separated, or his partner was absent at the time of the second offence.64 Ms Barbuzza's report dated 25 August 2011 prepared for the purposes of Mr Paraha's sentencing for the second serious offence states that Mr Paraha said that at the time his partner was not living with him as she was caring for her father.65 The report of Dr Febbo dated 27 August 2011 also prepared for the purposes of sentencing sets out that Mr Paraha's partner told Dr Febbo that for 63 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1064 [227]. 64 ts 106, 118. 65 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 661. -- 30 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 31 some time prior to the second offence he was becoming unwell and she 'should have probably got him to Bentley earlier'.66 141 I am satisfied from the reports of Ms Barbuzza and Dr Febbo that at the time of the second offence, Mr Paraha remained in a relationship, and that he and his partner did not live together while she was caring for her father. Ms Barbuzza in her report also noted:67 Mr Paraha and his partner both stated that they had a satisfying sexual relationship and that they typically had sexual intercourse on a regular basis however this became less in the lead up to the current offending as his partner was residing with her parents and caring for her father who was seriously ill and hospitalised at the time. 142 Ms Barbuzza also said in respect of the second serious offence that:68 As Mr Paraha denied committing the current offence, it was difficult to explore the factors that may have contributed to it. It is noted however that he offended at a time that he was not having his sexual needs met via his usual sexual outlet, namely his partner, who was not living with him at the time she was caring for her parents. 143 This observation is based on the earlier statement to the effect that the frequency of sexual intercourse had become less. This observation does not convey that there was no intimacy at all. Further, Ms Barbuzza raises this as a possible factor that contributed to the offending. 144 The State submitted that the effect of Dr Wynn Owen's report was that Mr Paraha was deprived of intimacy at the time of the second offence. However, that is not what Dr Wynn Owen said. Also, the effect of Ms Barbuzza's report is not that Mr Paraha was deprived of intimacy, but that intimacy was reduced. Thus, on the material before me, I am not satisfied of the risk factor identified at paragraph 227 of Dr Wynn Owen's report. 145 In the assessment of Mr Paraha's sexual offending, Dr Wynn Owen took into account the diversity of sexual violence. In doing so, he referred to, and appeared to accept as credible, an allegation that Mr Paraha had sexually assaulted his partner at the time of the conduct the subject of his manslaughter conviction.69 This 66 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 673. 67 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 661. 68 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 666. 69 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1059 [194]. -- 31 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 32 allegation was contained in a 'DCPFS Safety and Wellbeing Assessment', dated 25 January 2016. The State did not seek to establish that this sexual assault occurred. 146 Dr Wynn Owen also undertook an assessment of Mr Paraha using the 'HCR-20 V3' tool to assess risk of violence. In terms of the historical risk factors, Dr Wynn Owen said:70 230. History of problems with previous violence This risk is present. Mr Paraha has a history of violent behaviour, toward partners and strangers. He has used violence to problem solve and to achieve specific [ends] as well as to exert power and control within an intimate relationship. Victims have included males and females, the statements of his children to DCP suggest that [he] has also been violent towards young children, he acknowledges violence towards at least one of his adolescent children. 147 In respect of the reference to Mr Paraha acknowledging violence towards at least one of his adolescent children, that violence was limited to smacking the child and there is no detail as to the force used. 148 In terms of Mr Paraha's history of relationships, Dr Wynn Owen said:71 234. History of problems with relationships This risk is present. Mr Paraha's intimate relationships have been unstable and conflictual, associated with substance abuse, with intimate partner violence and abuse, with frequent breakups, and with infidelity. Mr Paraha also has problems with non-intimate relationships, a history of associating with antisocial peers perpetuating substance abuse and antisocial lifestyle and attitudes. 149 As to the formulation of Mr Paraha's violence risk as follows, Dr Wynn Owen said:72 257. Brief summary formulation of violence risk Mr Paraha's violence risk relates to psychopathic personality disorder with associated antisocial, anti-authoritarian and violence condoning attitudes in the context of a past history of violence. Violence risk will be increased in the presence of intoxication with stimulants. Risk of 70 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1065 [230]. 71 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1065 [234]. 72 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1068 [257] - [260]. -- 32 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 33 harm to others, including children, through neglect remains present and unaddressed. Mr Paraha currently regards his past parenting as good and caring and does not acknowledge it having had an adverse effect on any of his children. … Future violent behaviour is most likely to be associated with interpersonal conflict, within a relationship or friendship. High emotion coupled with stimulant use resulting in a physical assault, which in the context of an intimate relationship may include sexual assault. Harm through neglect is likely to occur if Mr Paraha is the main person responsible for the care of infants or children, particularly if he is regularly using cannabis and or methamphetamine. 150 Dr Wynn Owen said that Mr Paraha's pattern of violent behaviour is likely to continue while he maintains mobility, reasonable physical health and cognitive capacity, also noting that the risk of males engaging in violence tends to reduce after 60 years of age.73 151 Dr Wynn Owen said that Mr Paraha did not give any explanation for, or show understanding of, the underlying drivers to his lifelong substance abuse.74 152 Dr Wynn Owen expressed the view that there was a high likelihood of future violent behaviours.75 The type and degree of violence is not specified. 153 Ultimately, Dr Wynn Owen concluded that Mr Paraha has a high risk of committing a future serious violent or sexual offence if not subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act.76 154 Before turning to Dr Wynn Owen's oral evidence, there are two particular topics that I wish to comment on. 155 First, a constant theme of Dr Wynn Owen's report is that Mr Paraha has consistently perpetrated violence against intimate partners. The evidential basis for that theme was not clear from the report. Dr Wynn Owen rejected Mr Paraha's denial of such behaviour 73 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1068 [264]. 74 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1055 [171]. 75 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1068 - 1069 [265]. 76 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1069 [272]. -- 33 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 34 because his 'self report has been demonstrated to be consistently unreliable'. 156 Second, the type of violence that Dr Wynn Owen considered Mr Paraha to be at risk of committing was not clear from the report. The HRSO Act is concerned with the risk that a person engages in particular conduct of such gravity that it constitutes a serious offence. Violent offending per se does not meet that classification. 157 The State sought to address these matters (among others) in Dr Wynn Owen's oral evidence. Dr Wynn Owen's oral evidence 158 In examination-in-chief, Dr Wynn Owen was asked whether Mr Paraha's score of 30 on the psychopathy test was a high result. He said that it is the threshold for a diagnosis of psychopathic personality disorder.77 He explained the significance of this finding was that people who have psychopathy are significantly more likely to repeat prior offending behaviour compared to a person who does not meet the criteria for psychopathy.78 159 Dr Wynn Owen explained that the Static-99R score allows for rating (criminal) charges that do not proceed to convictions as well as convictions. However, he said that Mr Paraha's score was based on convictions, not on charges.79 160 Dr Wynn Owen explained that putting aside the reference in his report to Mr Paraha sexually assaulting an intimate partner ([194] of the report), his risk assessment did not change. He said this was because the diversity of the offending was very clearly present in terms of the ages and types of victims.80 Similarly, if Mr Paraha's prior history of offending against an intimate partner was limited to the breach of the violence restraining order of which he was convicted, Dr Wynn Owen again said it did not affect his assessment of risk.81 161 In giving this answer, Dr Wynn Owen referred to Mr Paraha's assault on his daughter. I asked Dr Wynn Owen what he understood that assault to be and he answered that he thought Mr Paraha said 'he 77 ts 107. 78 ts 107. 79 ts 109. 80 ts 110. 81 ts 110 - 111. -- 34 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 35 bashed her'.82 Mr Paraha had said he smacked the child and there is nothing which indicates the force used. This is not sufficient to sustain a conclusion that Mr Paraha bashed the child, which ordinarily conveys a forceful blow, or a number of blows. 162 Dr Wynn Owen explained that Mr Paraha's statements indicate a 'pervasive willingness to use violence as a means to an end, including violence against women'.83 163 Dr Wynn Owen was provided with a copy of the e-mail from Mr Becker that became exhibit 6. 164 Mr Becker is a psychologist who works with the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT), who has been providing one on one counselling to Mr Paraha. In Mr Becker's e-mail, he reported on the progress of that counselling. 165 Dr Wynn Owen read the e-mail and was asked to comment on the progress that it reflected. He said:84 … I think it's quite clear that the outstanding treatment needs are still there. They are still outstanding. That there has been a demonstrated effort to manage emotional responsiveness and reactivity that has been, at times, sustained for a short period. The mention of stepping away from individual therapy to go and do an alternative group course, group therapy having shown to be so far completely ineffectual, sounds like - I had to consider that as avoidance, and it may be that the individual therapy is working well such that Mr Paraha is looking for opportunities to leave it. 166 I asked Dr Wynn Owen to explain the aspect of this answer regarding avoidance. He said:85 I think it has to be considered that if the individual therapy is so uncomfortable, and knowing that it would not continue were he to enter a group program, that might be an option taken for that reason, to avoid individual therapy. Just, it's a consideration… In my opinion, based on the materials in my interview. 167 Dr Wynn Owen agreed with a proposition I put to him that avoidance could only be one of several different possibilities for Mr Paraha mentioning a return to group therapy.86 82 ts 111. 83 ts 112. 84 ts 114. 85 ts 115. -- 35 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 36 168 Dr Wynn Owen emphasised the importance of having regard to the material available in respect of a person to ascertain their behaviour over time. Dr Wynn Owen pointed out that it is difficult to make an assessment of a person based on interview only. I accept these observations. 169 Dr Wynn Owen considered that Mr Paraha would need more than 12 months to address his outstanding treatment needs with Mr Becker. He described the matters set out in Mr Becker's e-mail as establishing a trusting therapeutic relationship and in effect no more.87 170 Dr Wynn Owen was also taken to details of the Journey Ways program that Mr Paraha had completed, which became exhibits 8.1 and 8.2. Dr Wynn Owen said that he did not place a lot of weight on the Journey Ways materials, largely because he considered they did not provide sufficient information to enable him to make an informed assessment of any progress that Mr Paraha made in that program.88 171 Dr Wynn Owen was taken to Mr Paraha having attended 189 Narcotics Anonymous meetings. He said there was hope it would achieve something, however, Mr Paraha had previously been adamant he would not return to drug use, yet did so. Dr Wynn Owen expressed the opinion that it is highly likely Mr Paraha would return to drug use in the community. He said he based this opinion on Mr Paraha's previous lifelong substance use.89 172 Dr Wynn Owen was taken to the post-sentence supervision order (PSSO) imposed by the Prisoner's Review Board. 173 Dr Wynn Owen was of the view that the PSSO is not sufficient to manage Mr Paraha's risk to the community. This is predominantly for two reasons. First, he considers that the therapy required for Mr Paraha will take several years. Second, in his view, police are likely to respond more quickly to a breach of an HRSO supervision order compared to a PSSO. He said the PSSO relies on local police and the HRSO on specialised police. He also said that he considered GPS monitoring of Mr Paraha is important so there can be checks on where he has been and whether he has supervision of, or responsibility for, children. 86 ts 115. 87 ts 115 - 116. 88 ts 116. 89 ts 117. -- 36 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 37 174 He was of the opinion, however, that with stable accommodation, Mr Paraha's risk could be managed in the community on the terms of the proposed supervision order if Mr Paraha continues in therapy with Mr Becker and that therapy is shown to be making progress.90 He said he considered the appropriate length of the supervision order was five years.91 (He later said in cross-examination that he thinks five years is a conservative estimate).92 175 In cross-examination, Dr Wynn Owen was taken to Mr Paraha having not engaged in a negative way with family, members of the opposite sex or former partners while in prison. Dr Wynn Owen accepted this was a relevant consideration, however, said he would place significantly more weight on behaviour in the community as opposed to behaviour in prison with the consequences and structures that exist within the prison environment.93 176 Dr Wynn Owen accepted that it was positive that Mr Paraha had not tested positive for illicit drug use in the nine years he has been in prison, acknowledging that, on his understanding, Mr Paraha would have had the opportunity to use drugs in prison and had not done so.94 177 It was put to Dr Wynn Owen that it appears Mr Paraha is comfortable to work with Mr Becker. Dr Wynn Owen responded:95 Over a very short period of time, with lots and lots of ups and downs and it has taken surprisingly more time than most people would take, he has got to a point where Mr Becker suggests he's ready to start to engage around his criminogenic needs, yes. 178 In respect of the Journey Ways program, Dr Wynn Owen said he did not know what Dr Anderson had been told about Mr Paraha's history or what Mr Paraha had told her about his history. That being so, he said it is impossible to say that anything has been gained by Mr Paraha from the Journey Ways program.96 179 He was taken to anticipated evidence from Dr Anderson that Mr Paraha accepted he had not treated women well in the past, but that has changed. Dr Wynn Owen said there is no evidence of there 90 ts 119 - 120. 91 ts 120. 92 ts 133. 93 ts 122. 94 ts 122 - 123. 95 ts 129. 96 ts 131. -- 37 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 38 being any change.97 Dr Wynn Owen said it is difficult to say why Mr Paraha had engaged positively with Mr Becker.98 Dr Wynn Owen was also taken to anticipated evidence from Dr Anderson that she formed a positive impression of Mr Paraha and Dr Wynn Owen said that Mr Paraha engages in positive impression management.99 180 Dr Wynn Owen said to the effect that if Mr Paraha was genuinely motivated to deal with his criminogenic factors, it is highly likely to lower his risk of re-offending, but is not guaranteed.100 Dr Yewers 181 Dr Yewers' opinion is that Mr Paraha's offending appears primarily driven by a persistent prioritisation of his own needs and desires over the well-being and safety of others.101 182 She is of the opinion that his substance misuse has likely served as a disinhibiting factor further impairing his decision-making capacity and exacerbating his impulsivity and reactivity. She also said that it is more likely that substance use intensified underlying vulnerabilities rather than serving as the sole or primary cause.102 183 Dr Yewers undertook a psychopathy checklist in respect of Mr Paraha and he obtained a total score of 35 which she says falls in the high range for psychopathy.103 Dr Yewers said Mr Paraha's score demonstrated that he had a marked pattern of superficiality, deceit, manipulation and grandiosity.104 184 She undertook an assessment of his risk of violent recidivism, using the violence risk scale. Having done so, his score indicated that he was in the well above average risk for violent recidivism.105 185 Dr Yewers also undertook a Static-99R assessment which placed Mr Paraha in the above average risk for being charged and convicted of another sexual offence.106 97 ts 130. 98 ts 131. 99 ts 131. 100 ts 133. 101 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1098 [114]. 102 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1098 [115]. 103 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1099 - 1100. 104 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1101 [125]. 105 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1107 - 1108 [153]. 106 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1109 [157]. -- 38 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 39 186 She also assessed his sexual recidivism using the Violence Risk Scale - Sexual Offender Version.107 His risk of recidivism fell in the well above average risk category.108 187 Dr Yewers identified Mr Paraha's risk scenarios as follows:109 186. The risk of future violence for Mr Paraha arises from his longstanding pattern of prioritising his own needs over the safety and wellbeing of others, as well as a pervasive sense of entitlement and limited capacity for empathy. In this context, under conditions of emotional strain, such as relationship conflict, perceived injustice, or a sense of lost control, he is likely to become dysregulated. His coping strategies are notably maladaptive, characterised by reliance on substance use and the use of manipulation, coercion, threats, or violence to assert dominance, punish, or re-establish control. It would be expected that substance use would lower his inhibitions and further intensify his reactivity, aggression, and pursuit of his own needs. 187. Future sexual offending may occur in situations where Mr Paraha, experiencing elevated stress or emotional distress and under the influence of substances, engages in sexually violent behaviour as a form of dysregulated acting out - mirroring the dynamics underlying his violent offending. Alternatively, sexual violence may arise from his pursuit of sexual gratification with a disregard for the wishes, needs, or wellbeing of the other person, reflecting a sense of entitlement and a lack of empathy. 188. Based on Mr Paraha's history, potential victims may include both individuals who are known to him, as well as strangers. The nature of his violence could vary, ranging from lower-level behaviours, such as verbal abuse and threats, to more sever forms including physical and sexual assault. He is likely to show limited regard for the vulnerability of his victims, regardless of factors such as age, infirmity, or gender. The severity of the violence inflicted will be influenced by his level of emotional dysregulation, the vulnerability of the victim, and substance intoxication. 188 She said that if a supervision order was made, her view was that a period of five years would be sufficient.110 107 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1109 - 1114. 108 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1114 [179]. 109 Book of Materials Vol 3, pages 1115 - 1116. 110 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1116 [192]. -- 39 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 40 Dr Yewers' oral evidence 189 In examination-in-chief, Dr Yewers was asked what her opinion would be if she disregarded acts of violence that did not result in a conviction against Mr Paraha. She said if she did that, she would not be carrying out the risk assessment according to how the instruments she used were designed. 190 She also said that greater emphasis is put on convictions, however, removing information as to acts of violence that did not result in a conviction would make her assessment much less reliable.111 191 I asked Dr Yewers how she factored an unproved allegation into her assessments. She answered:112 So my assessments are an assessment of behaviour. Obviously they're not a legal outcome. So in doing that I would give weight to what people have said or what the information says and looking at which aligns and what diverges from the information. So in the case of Mr Paraha, he has a pattern of not fully disclosing, of minimising, of impression management, which ultimately means that the information that he provides cannot be given a lot of weight. The information, the other collateral information, is weighted against how it aligns, and it does align across different sources and across time. 192 I raised with Dr Yewers that she would know very little of the person who is making the allegation and she explained:113 …I don't know them personally or their credibility. However, it is not just from a single source, the information. The information from those collateral sources are from different sources and they align, which is why I have given them weight. 193 There seem to be two difficulties with this approach. First, if one person alleges that another person has been violent to them, then the primary source of the information is the complainant, absent any circumstantial matters that point towards the conduct having occurred. Secondly, it is not apparent from Dr Yewers' report how, or why, the risk assessment tools factor in unproved allegations, nor is it apparent from her evidence overall what weight she attributed to such allegations, other than to say it was less than that attributed to convictions. 111 ts 143. 112 ts 143. 113 ts 144. -- 40 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 41 194 Dr Yewers said there is no indication that Mr Paraha would sexually offend against a child.114 In terms of sexual offending, Dr Yewers said that people who are at risk are those who are vulnerable, whether that be by way of age, disability or isolation.115 195 Dr Yewers considered that the conditions of the proposed supervision order would enable a monitoring of Mr Paraha's social and intimate relationships and contact with children although she also noted that his self-report cannot necessarily be relied upon.116 196 She said that in terms of Mr Paraha's release to the community, important factors were stable accommodation, pro-social reports, something constructive and meaningful to do, and a self-management plan so he can manage risk factors as they arise. In respect of the proposed accommodation, she said that there were 'a number of the things that we would ideally like to see are not there'.117 197 She expressed the view that Mr Paraha has the capacity to comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order.118 198 In terms of Mr Becker's e-mail, Dr Yewers said that Mr Becker was very clear that they had not addressed any criminogenic needs in their therapy to date.119 199 In respect of Journey Ways, Dr Yewers said there is not enough information around what actually was addressed in the group, and if it was criminogenically relevant, to make any determination as to the progress it afforded.120 She said the information regarding Journey Ways and the sections completed with Mr Becker, did not alter her assessment of risk as set out in her report. 200 As to the period of five years for a supervision order, she said that was required to allow treatment to occur and ideally for Mr Paraha to be able to learn to apply the strategies that he learns, and to self-manage his risk, and for any issues to be responded to and for him to re-group from those issues.121 114 ts 146. 115 ts 147. 116 ts 147. 117 ts 148. 118 ts 148. 119 ts 150. 120 ts 150. 121 ts 151. -- 41 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 42 201 Dr Yewers said the PSSO would not be adequate because it is not long enough and does not provide the level of scrutiny required.122 202 In cross-examination, Dr Yewers was taken to Mr Becker's e-mail. She was also taken to a psychological treatment assessment report dated 19 August 2025.123 The report set out that Mr Paraha had agreed to participate in individualised FPIT psychotherapy to the 'best of his ability [and] is cognisant of his treatment requirements and has consented to both immediate and future intervention, including community based FPIT video link sessions ...'. 203 It was put to Dr Yewers that in light of this information, her risk assessment would need to be adjusted. She disagreed.124 She said this was because in the passages she was taken to, Mr Paraha had no plans of substance to manage his risk.125 She was then asked whether she accepted that Mr Paraha had accepted that he is a risk and she did not agree.126 204 With respect to Dr Yewers, in my view, the reference in the treatment assessment report that Mr Paraha is 'cognisant of his treatment requirements' can only convey an acceptance that he is a risk. 205 Mr Wilson continued to cross-examine Dr Yewers on the topic of the sessions with Mr Becker. Dr Yewers said that, because Mr Paraha had not made any substantive gains in his 14 sessions with Mr Becker, she did not accept that he had substantively engaged in criminogenic treatment.127 206 Dr Yewers accepted that if Mr Paraha had not engaged in illicit substance use while in prison, that was a positive factor relevant to his risk.128 Dr Yewers said that if Mr Paraha was genuinely motivated to engage in criminogenic programs, this indirectly affected his risk because of the relationship between motivation and managing risk.129 207 Mr Wilson took Dr Yewers to a document headed 'Description of Journey Ways', a letter from Dr Anderson of Journey Ways dated 122 ts 151 - 152. 123 Book of Materials Vol 4, pages 1140 - 1142; ts 157 - 158. 124 ts 158. 125 ts 158. 126 ts 158. 127 ts 158. 128 ts 160 - 161. 129 ts 161 - 162. -- 42 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 43 2 October 2025 to the Prison Review Board and Dr Anderson's separate observation that Mr Paraha had accepted he had not treated women well.130 Dr Yewers was asked whether this material was positive in terms of Mr Paraha's acceptance of his risk.131 She explained that insight is positive because it is the step from which risk management plans can be developed. Dr Yewers also said taking Mr Paraha's comment about not treating women well at face value, that is a good start. 208 In undertaking her risk assessment, Dr Yewers took into account that Mr Paraha had attended a substantial number of narcotics anonymous meetings.132 209 Dr Yewers said that a motivation by Mr Paraha to deal with his criminogenic factors did not change her view as to risk, and that, on its own, the motivation would make Mr Paraha more manageable.133 Dr Yewers accepted that if Mr Paraha engaged in risk management type activities, this will lower his risk.134 210 In re-examination, Dr Yewers said that from her discussions with Mr Paraha, his plans to avoid drug use in the community were rudimentary.135 Ms Applin 211 The State called Ms Applin. At the time she gave evidence, she was a supervising officer from Community Corrections.136 She explained that if Mr Paraha entered the community on a PSSO, his management would be undertaken by the local adult community corrections centre that deals with the area in which he is living.137 In contrast, if he was subject to a supervision order under the HRSO Act, it would be managed by the Community Offenders Management Unit.138 212 She said that in her experience, risk issues are dealt with by police really quickly under a supervision order. In contrast, she said that with a PSSO, the speed with which risk issues are dealt with by 130 Exhibits 8.1, 8.2. 131 ts 163 - 164. 132 ts 164. 133 ts 166. 134 ts 166 - 167. 135 ts 167. 136 ts 169. 137 ts 170. 138 ts 171. -- 43 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 44 police depend upon what else the police have to deal with at the time.139 She also said that Mr Becker's involvement would cease upon expiry of the PSSO because FPIT's involvement would end when the PSSO expires.140 Ms Cashmore 213 The State also called Ms Cashmore as a witness. She is a HRSO planning manager. She explained that if Mr Paraha was released into the community, Mr Becker would be able to continue his sessions with Mr Paraha via video link given Mr Becker is based in Bunbury.141 214 In respect of Journey Ways, she said that is not a departmental based criminogenic treatment program.142 Dr Anderson 215 Mr Paraha called Dr Anderson. 216 Dr Anderson was involved in the Journey Ways program that was conducted in Bunbury Regional Prison from July to October 2025.143 She said Mr Paraha participated in the program.144 217 Dr Anderson has a PhD in the field of social anthropology and is an academic at the University of Western Australia.145 218 She explained that Journey Ways explores a set of Aboriginal values in a restorative rehabilitation framework. Even though Mr Paraha is not himself Aboriginal, he came to be on the program because she was told that he had an Aboriginal child and some Aboriginal grandchildren.146 219 She said that by week 8 of the program, Mr Paraha was very much engaged as a senior man in the group and was also very deferential to a couple of other senior men.147 139 ts 172. 140 ts 172 - 173. 141 ts 176. 142 ts 176. 143 ts 179. 144 ts 179. 145 ts 180. 146 ts 182. 147 ts 186 - 187. -- 44 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 45 220 She was taken to a letter that she had written regarding Mr Paraha's engagement in the program, specifically where she had said that Mr Paraha contributed significantly.148 She was asked what she had in mind when she wrote that and answered:149 Mr Paraha was very engaged with the program. I think he came with a lot of curiosity, but he became deeply engaged in it, so that's why he contributed significantly. 221 In cross-examination, she explained the program was about building strengths, not addressing risks.150 She was also asked whether there was any follow-up treatment recommended and she said that the program was not a treatment program, but is a justice program.151 222 I asked Dr Anderson who gave her approval to do the program within the prison. She said initially it was the superintendent in 2017. The program was then cancelled in 2020 and reinstated in 2022 with the approval of the Department of Corrections.152 Mr Becker's e-mail 223 As I have said, Mr Becker is a forensic psychologist with FPIT. Mr Becker sent to Ms Cashmore a detailed e-mail sent 3 December 2025 that set out an update regarding his engagement with Mr Paraha.153 224 Mr Becker expressed the opinion that Mr Paraha exhibits an extremely complex co-morbid presentation, featuring various personality pathologies with accompanying maladaptive coping mechanisms. In addition, he displays language processing difficulties (reading and comprehension), and trauma based conditions featuring both attachment and adjustment issues. 225 At the time of the e-mail, Mr Paraha had engaged in a significant number of sessions with Mr Becker. 226 Mr Becker explained Mr Paraha's progress as follows: 148 ts 188. 149 ts 188. 150 ts 189. 151 ts 190. 152 ts 191. 153 Exhibit 6. -- 45 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 46 Overall, the last nine sessions are best described in terms of laying the foundation for a future offender treatment intervention. Despite Mr Paraha's complex presentation and psychopathology, various responsivity factors including defence mechanisms are being addressed and Mr Paraha appears to be more positively oriented to this process. At each stage of the intervention, whether it is the rapport, case formulation, implementation, or preventions stage, Mr Paraha requires a unique and individualised intervention plan. It is perhaps not surprising, that Mr Paraha has displayed indifferent or problematic responses to previous group-based offender programs. However, within the present FPIT intervention, Mr Paraha has demonstrated some capacity to regulate and alter behaviour and establish a therapeutic rapport. Whilst Mr Paraha has not directly addressed offending behaviour, he has made the groundwork for this to occur in the future. However, the present favourable response must be considered in the broader context of offender rehabilitation, and at this very early stage, Mr Paraha's identified treatment needs are outstanding. Findings in respect of the expert and rehabilitation evidence 227 I am satisfied that Mr Paraha has not previously made substantive gains in his rehabilitation. I am, however, satisfied that Mr Paraha is genuinely motivated to effect positive change in his life. In this respect, I have particular regard to his engagement with Mr Becker and with the Journey Ways program. 228 Mr Becker is a psychologist working within FPIT and thus has expertise in working to achieve rehabilitative gains. Mr Becker's e-mail sets out that Mr Paraha had engaged in a significant number of sessions, which established the foundations to move forward to address substantive rehabilitation for Mr Paraha. 229 I accept Mr Becker's observations in his e-mail that Mr Paraha requires a unique and individualised intervention plan, and that it is perhaps not surprising that Mr Paraha has displayed indifferent or problematic responses to previous group-based offender programs. 230 The Journey Ways program is not a treatment program. Nonetheless, Dr Anderson's evidence as to Mr Paraha's participation in that program reflects a genuine commitment by him to effect change. Furthermore, the Journey Ways program, while not a treatment program, is still of significance. It has a focus of people acknowledging their need to bring about positive change. Also, the program was approved to be conducted in the prison where Mr Paraha is held. I infer from this that the authorising authority considered the -- 46 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 47 program to be of assistance in progressing the rehabilitation of prisoners. 231 In addition to these matters, Mr Paraha has repeatedly said that the death of his daughter is a deterrent to him returning to drug use. I accept that his infant daughter's death, and its circumstances, is a deterrent. However, I do not place much weight on that factor alone. It informs the overall risk assessment, however, still needs to be viewed in the context of his history and the limited gains he has made so far with his rehabilitation. 232 I accept each of Dr Wynn Owen's and Dr Yewers' assessments as to the clinical conditions that Mr Paraha presents with, and how that interacts with his risk profile. 233 I have considered their respective opinions as to Mr Paraha's risk of re-offending. I appreciate their role is difficult and complex, however, with great respect to them, there are a number of factors that cause me to place less weight on their ultimate assessment of Mr Paraha's risk of committing a serious offence. 234 The principal factor is their willingness to disregard Mr Paraha's denial of uncharged criminal conduct because he has historically been unreliable in his recounting of events. It is not the expert's role to determine whether Mr Paraha engaged in other criminal conduct, which he disputes. Further, because Mr Paraha has previously been an unreliable historian does not mean his denial of other alleged conduct should be rejected out of hand. And, the rejection of his denial does not prove that the alleged conduct in fact occurred. 235 The State sought to remedy this in oral evidence. Dr Wynn Owen's evidence was to the effect that his opinion as to risk did not change, irrespective of whether the unproven conduct was taken into account. On the other hand, Dr Yewers said she was required to take the unproved conduct into account. While Dr Yewers indicated she gave greater weight to Mr Paraha's criminal convictions, in contrast to his unproven conduct, the extent to which the unproven conduct was taken into account, and the reasons for taking it into account, were not clearly elucidated. 236 However, this evidence does not overcome my concern. The fact that Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Yewers were prepared to readily accept that the other conduct occurred, contrary to Mr Paraha's denials, is not something that can easily be put to one side. Their readiness to do so -- 47 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 48 informs their approach overall to the assessment of Mr Paraha's risk profile. 237 The second factor arises from their assessment that Mr Paraha engaged in impression management. As I understand it, that means to falsely portray a positive position. Whether or not a person has done needs to be assessed having regard to all of the circumstances. 238 It is not surprising that a person would seek to present themselves favourably when addressing matters that affect whether they will be detained in prison indefinitely. Further, there is a difference between a person endeavouring to present positively in such circumstances, and a person deliberately presenting a false position. In the first scenario, the person is in effect an advocate for their own position. In the second scenario, the person is being deceitful. The line between the two scenarios is likely to be difficult to discern. 239 Also, Mr Paraha disclosed matters to Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Yewers that are unfavourable to him. For example, his extensive drug use, his statement to Dr Yewers that he worked as a driver for drug dealers, the conflict associated with his relationships and his preparedness to engage in violence against people where he disapproved of their behaviour. 240 Having regard to these matters, I am not satisfied that Mr Paraha engaged in impression management for the purposes of this application. 241 The third and final factor is that I sensed each expert was reluctant to accept that Mr Paraha was genuinely motivated to address his criminogenic needs. However, in my view, for the reasons I have set out, I am satisfied that Mr Paraha is genuinely motivated to do so. 242 Together, these factors cause me to place less weight on the respective expert's ultimate assessment as to Mr Paraha's risk of committing a serious offence. Mandatory factors in s 7(3) 243 I now turn to the assessment of the factors set out in s 7(3) of the HRSO Act. -- 48 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 49 Section 7(3)(a) 244 Section 7(3)(a) requires that I have regard to the reports prepared under s 74 and the extent to which Mr Paraha cooperated in the examinations required for the purposes of those reports. I have the addressed the reports and the oral evidence of the experts at [133] - [242]. Section 7(3)(b) 245 Section 7(3)(b) requires that I have regard to any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to Mr Paraha. 246 To the extent such reports are of assistance in making the requisite assessment under the HRSO Act, I have made reference to those reports earlier in these reasons. As I have said, I found the report of Dr van Hattem obtained for the purposes of the Prisoner's Review Board considering the grant of parole to be of assistance. This is predominantly because his assessment is informed, but not driven, by statistical assessment tools. Section 7(3)(c) and s 7(3)(d) 247 It is useful to address s 7(3)(c) and s 7(3)(d) together. 248 Section 7(3)(c) requires that I have regard to information indicating whether or not Mr Paraha has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future. Section 7(3)(d) requires that I have regard to whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour by Mr Paraha. 249 The requisite assessment as to propensity is directed to whether a person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future. This assessment thus encapsulates, at least, an assessment of whether the person has a current propensity and then endeavouring to predict the extent to which that propensity may change over time. Also, the propensity is directed to the commission of serious offences, not any offence. 250 The State's position on whether Mr Paraha has such a propensity has shifted as this matter has progressed. 251 At the preliminary hearing, the State submitted that while Mr Paraha's three serious offences demonstrate he is capable of committing serious offences, they do not demonstrate a clear tendency -- 49 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 50 to offend seriously in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. Further, the State's position was that Mr Paraha's serious offences occurred in the context of substance use and otherwise there did not appear to be a clear pattern of offending behaviour. I accepted these submissions in my reasons I delivered in respect of the preliminary hearing.154 252 In the State's written submissions in respect of the final hearing, the State submitted:155 Overall, having regard to [Mr Paraha's] past offending history including the diversity [and] escalation in his serious offending, together with the recent expert opinions regarding [Mr Paraha's] history of childhood trauma and clinical diagnoses including psychopathy, pattern of criminality, entrenched antisocial attitudes and poor coping mechanisms, it is submitted that he does demonstrate a propensity to commit serious sexual of violent offences against a range of victims. 253 The State did not press the submission with any real force during the oral submissions, albeit the submission was not abandoned.156 254 In my view, the submission conflates risk with propensity. Risk is addressed by s 7(3)(h). Broadly speaking, a propensity reflects a tendency to offend in a particular way, or against a particular type of victim. That is not present here. 255 I remain of the view that Mr Paraha's offending does not demonstrate a clear tendency to commit serious offences in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. 256 In respect of the pattern to his offending behaviour, I have set out at paragraphs [78] and [79] above, the similar features of his serious offending. Section 7(3)(e) and s 7(3)(f) 257 It is useful to address s 7(3)(e) and s 7(3)(f) together. 258 Section 7(3)(e) requires that I have regard to any efforts made by Mr Paraha to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including whether he has participated in any rehabilitation program. 154 The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20 [46]. 155 State’s outline of written submissions dated 15 August 2025, par 65. 156 ts 239 - 240. -- 50 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 51 Section 7(3)(f) requires that I have regard to whether Mr Paraha's participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect. 259 Until his engagement with Mr Becker, Mr Paraha had made little gains in his rehabilitation. 260 Two of the significant programs that Mr Paraha participated in during his most recent prison sentence were the Pathways Program for Substance Abuse and the Stopping Family Violence Program. 261 In respect of the Pathways Program, the completion report states that Mr Paraha attended 50 out of 50 sessions and was an engaged participant in the program and completed all required activities. The completion report also states:157 The program addressed Mr Paraha's identified treatment needs of; Problematic substance abuse, Relationship skills, Antisocial peers, Lifestyle imbalance, Emotional regulation difficulties, Problem solving, Victim empathy and Impulsivity. Mr Paraha made very few gains in the program, there are contributing factors to this such as his low literacy levels, struggling to understand concepts and his mental health issues. All these aspects impacted Mr Paraha's engagement, there were numerous indiscretions in his recount of events. As a result of this there are remaining concerns for all of his treatment need areas, Mr Paraha demonstrated a general lack of awareness into all of his key treatment areas regarding substance use and offending. He was unable to readily recall program concepts and was unable to generate realistic examples of instances in which programme skills were used or will be used. 262 The completion report for the Stopping Family Violence Program stated that he attended 27 out of a possible 31 sessions. He was removed from the programme due to 'interpersonal aggression and hostility directed towards a facilitator'.158 The report stated that prior to his removal he had written a risk management plan. In respect of that plan, the report stated:159 During the program Mr Paraha was provided an opportunity to develop a risk management plan to assist him to reduce risk of recidivism. He initially appeared motivated to complete this task recognising this as important for risk mitigation. Mr Paraha advised 157 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 703. 158 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 717. 159 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 716. -- 51 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 52 due to his deficits in education and literacy, he required additional support and attended the non-mandatory session to receive assistance and feedback on his risk management plan. Within this session he received feedback regarding his self-management plan and despite requesting this assistance, became hostile and offensive, citing he does not hold risk of violence nor requires considering potential high-risk situations within the family context. Overall, this demonstrated a maintained lack of insight into his use of abusive practises and maintenance of risk. Due to his behaviour within this session and removal from program, Mr Paraha was unable to complete his risk management plan and was unable to present this to the wider group. 263 Mr Paraha still did develop a written plan. In respect of that plan, the report stated that he:160 … demonstrated a superficial risk management plan with a predominant reliance on external agencies in the mitigation of his risk. He did not identify high-risk factors pertaining to the use of abusive practises within his intimate relationships. He identified avoidance of intimate relationships, antisocial peers, and substance use as his sole deterrent from recidivism, and as such, the capacity of his risk management plan remains limited. 264 It is difficult to determine the cause of Mr Paraha's lack of gains in these two programs. The possible explanations seem to be that he was reluctant to address his behaviour, or the programs were not suited to someone with Mr Paraha's level of education and literacy, and history of trauma, or a combination of such matters. 265 Mr Paraha attended a significant number of sessions. Both completion reports raise issues as to whether his education and literacy affected his ability to make gains. Mr Becker expressed the view that Mr Paraha requires a unique and individualised intervention plan and it 'is perhaps not surprising, that Mr Paraha has displayed indifferent or problematic responses to previous group-based offender programs.'161 266 In The State of Western Australia v Hood,162 I expressed a concern that if offenders are offered rehabilitation programs that are not suited to their intellectual capacity, understanding of the English language and/or cultural background, those offenders will struggle to achieve material gains in their rehabilitation, and are likely to become 160 Book of Materials Vol 2, page 718. 161 Exhibit 6, page 3. 162 The State of Western Australia v Hood [2025] WASC 379 [146]. -- 52 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 53 frustrated in their attempts to complete the programs and discouraged from continuing. 267 Given Mr Paraha's level of education and literacy, and Mr Becker's observations, I am not satisfied that Mr Paraha's lack of substantive gains from the Pathways Program and the Stopping Family Violence Program reflected an unwillingness on his part to address his criminogenic needs. 268 Even so, I still must take account of Mr Paraha's lack of substantive gains. He has a number of outstanding treatment needs. The absence of any substantial rehabilitative gains is an important factor to take into account in assessing his risk of committing serious offences if released into the community. 269 I also take account of Dr Anderson's observations that Mr Paraha engaged well with the Journey Ways program. While that program is not a treatment program, his positive engagement reflects a willingness to rehabilitate. Section 7(3)(g) 270 Section 7(3)(g) requires that I have regard to Mr Paraha's antecedents (personal background) and criminal record. 271 I have addressed these matters at [49] - [117] above. Section 7(3)(h) 272 Section 7(3)(h) requires that I have regard to the risk that if Mr Paraha were not subject to a restriction order, he would commit a serious offence. 273 It is necessary to address this factor in some detail. 274 The State in its written submissions identified the relevant risk of offending as follows:163 There is an unacceptable risk that, if not subject to a restriction order, [Mr Paraha] will commit a serious offence as defined in s 5 of the HRSO Act. The nature of this risk is that [Mr Paraha] will commit serious sexual or violent offending. This type of offending is more likely to be committed against a vulnerable victim, particularly a child under his care, someone he is in an intimate relationship with, or by 163 State's outline of submissions dated 15 August 2025, par 2. -- 53 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 54 way of an unplanned opportunistic sexual offence against a female stranger. 275 The State's formulation of this risk does not accord with Mr Paraha's criminal history, or with his antecedents as I have found them. I am not satisfied that Mr Paraha has committed a sexual offence against an intimate partner. The State does not allege that Mr Paraha has committed any sexual offence against a child. Mr Paraha has not been charged with any offence involving the physical assault of a child. The circumstances of the manslaughter offence, as egregious as they were, did not involve Mr Paraha physically assaulting his daughter. 276 In assessing Mr Paraha's risk, that offence needs to be viewed in the context of Mr Paraha's criminal responsibility for it. He was criminally responsible on the basis of his egregious criminal neglect for an infant in his care. Further, I cannot predict with any certainty whether Mr Paraha will have responsibility for the care of children if released into the community. There is no evidence that suggests he will. 277 It is not, however, necessary for an offender's criminal history to precisely accord with their risk of re-offending. Even so, a person's criminal history is still important in assessing that risk. It is a factor which the court must take into account under s 7(3)(g). 278 In assessing the nature of Mr Paraha's risk of re-offending, I consider the following matters are of particular importance: 1. He has been diagnosed with a substance use disorder, and with a cluster B personality disorder with predominantly antisocial and borderline features. 2. His substance use disorder is in remission. However, I assess this is predominantly because he has been in custody. Mr Paraha's capacity to remain drug-free has not been tested in the community. 3. Drug use has been a constant theme during his life in the community, including as part of the circumstances in which the serious offences were committed. 4. He has been assessed as having psychopathy. -- 54 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 55 5. He has accommodation available that is not unsuitable (I address the topic of accommodation further at [284] - [288] below). 6. He has committed two sexual offences that are serious offences under the HRSO Act. While there is no commonality in respect of the conduct or the type of victim, the victims were both isolated and vulnerable. 7. In respect of the first sexual offence, Mr Paraha explained that he assaulted the victim because he thought she was his former girlfriend. Whether or not he genuinely held that belief is not to the point. Such an explanation reflects an endorsement of retributive assault, as does Mr Paraha's behaviour the subject of the breach of the violence restraining order offence. 8. There is a significant period of time between the sexual offences. Further, Mr Paraha is now over 60, which is a factor that can reduce the risk of future violent offending. 9. The conduct the subject of the manslaughter offence reflects the grave effect that drug use can have on him and the grave errors in judgment he can make while affected by drugs. 10. The squalor in which Mr Paraha and his family were living at the time of the manslaughter offence also reflects the grave effect that drug use can have on Mr Paraha. 11. He has not been convicted of any other offences which involved physical harm being caused to the victim of the offence. However, in addition to his offending, he has presented a willingness to engage in significant violence against people whose behaviour he does not agree with. He also admitted being very violent with the mother of his older children. 12. Mr Paraha has not yet achieved significant gains in rehabilitation. 13. I am satisfied that Mr Paraha is genuinely motivated to effect positive change in his life. I am also satisfied that he has established the foundational framework in his sessions with Mr Becker to enable him to achieve progress with his rehabilitation. -- 55 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 56 279 Reflecting on the totality of these matters, I assess the relevant risk is that Mr Paraha will re-engage in drug use in the community to such an extent that it will exacerbate his personality disorder and he will engage in violent conduct of sufficient gravity to constitute a serious offence. I assess that risk, at present, is a material risk. There is a prospect the violent conduct may include non-consensual sexual conduct, although I assess that prospect is not significant given his limited history of sexual offences and his age. I am not satisfied I can identify the conduct he is at risk of committing with any greater specificity. Section 7(3)(i) 280 Section 7(3)(i) requires that I have regard to the need to protect members of the community from the risk that I have identified at [279] above. 281 I consider there is a need to protect the community from the risk. If Mr Paraha returns to significant drug use in the community, the type of behaviour he is at risk of committing while so affected is capable of causing significant harm. Section 7(3)(j) 282 Section 7(3)(j) requires that I have regard to any other relevant matters. 283 There are four other relevant matters that I take into account. The available accommodation, the operation of the PSSO, the operation of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) (CPOR), Mr Paraha's contact with his daughter and his future plans. Accommodation 284 Accommodation has many features that are relevant to risk assessment.164 The suitability of the accommodation is often an important part of the requisite risk assessment under the HRSO Act. 285 The proposed accommodation for Mr Paraha is through a private foundation called St ROB. The accommodation is different to the accommodation that was considered by Dr Wynn Owen and Dr Yewers in their evidence. Nonetheless, their concerns expressed 164 See The State of Western Australia v Paraha [2025] WASC 20 [57] - [58], The State of Western Australia v Narrier [No 8] [2025] WASC 528 [136]. -- 56 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 57 regarding the previous accommodation remain relevant. There were two particular concerns. First, it was not individual accommodation, that is, Mr Paraha will not be the sole occupant. Second, the possible presence of 'antisocial' residents. 286 The new accommodation is shared, and one of the residents has a criminal history for sexual offending against a child.165 That is a concern. While it does not rule out Mr Paraha being released to live at that property, it does point to a need for greater supervision if he is released into the community to live there. 287 The previous accommodation was also to be provided through St ROB. In respect of Mr Paraha's engagement with St ROB, the Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 6 March 2026 set out that the managing director of St ROB, Mr Alkins, had expressed a concern that Mr Paraha 'is not fully committed to integrating into [St ROB] and abiding fully with the expectations of being housed within [the] organisation.' However, subsequently, Mr Alkins has made accommodation available for Mr Paraha, from which I infer that he has assessed Mr Paraha is sufficiently committed to integrating into St ROB. Mr Alkins' concerns also reflect that St ROB maintains a standard for its participants that it expects them to comply with. This assists in providing a structured living environment for Mr Paraha. 288 The State's position on all of the evidence is that while the accommodation is not ideal, the proposed accommodation is not unsuitable. The State accepted that the effect of the expert evidence was that Mr Paraha was at least capable of complying with the standard conditions at the previous address.166 I think that is right. I also do not assess any significant differences between the two addresses. If anything, the new accommodation is more favourable given none of the residents who live there have a drug related criminal history. Accordingly, the expert evidence is relevant to the new proposed accommodation. PSSO and the application of the CPOR 289 The Prisoners Review Board imposed a PSSO in respect of Mr Paraha for the period starting 26 January 2025 and ending 25 January 2027. 290 Amongst other matters, the PSSO requires Mr Paraha: 165 See Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 31 July 2026. 166 ts 244. -- 57 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 58 1. not to use or be in possession of illicit drugs; 2. to attend for random urinalysis for illicit substances as directed by a community corrections officer and provide a valid sample; 3. to comply with mental health treatment as directed by a medical practitioner or a Community Mental Health team member; 4. to be subject to electronic monitoring. 291 A potentially significant limitation with the PSSO is that it expires on 25 January 2027 and is not able to be extended. 292 By reason of the second serious offence, Mr Paraha is subject to an order made under the CPOR. The order commenced on 22 November 2013 and is for a period of 15 years.167 There is limited material before me as to the scope of the order. For present purposes, it is sufficient to observe that the existence of the order did not deter Mr Paraha from engaging in significant drug use that culminated in the circumstances in which he committed the third serious offence. Contact with his daughter and future plans 293 While Mr Paraha has been in prison, he has had frequent telephone contact with his daughter.168 He also intends to spend time in the community fishing and gardening.169 These matters inform the risk assessment, however, they are not of any material weight given the limited gains Mr Paraha has made with his rehabilitation. Disposition 294 I must be satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Paraha presents an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence and it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community against that risk. 295 I do not need to be satisfied that Mr Paraha has a high risk of committing a serious offence. Rather, I need to assess the type of serious offences he is at risk of committing, the nature and extent of 167 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1128. 168 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1053 [144]. 169 Book of Materials Vol 3, page 1097 [111]. -- 58 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 59 the possible harm that might be caused if he commits such offences, and the likelihood that Mr Paraha might commit such offences. 296 Mr Paraha's counsel says that there is insufficient evidence to meet the standard of high degree of probability.170 He emphasised Mr Paraha's lengthy period of drug abstinence while in custody, and his motivation to remain drug free. He also points to the 189 Narcotics Anonymous sessions he has completed.171 I think Mr Paraha's extensive engagement with Narcotics Anonymous reflects a sustained commitment to change, and also that Mr Paraha has an awareness of the difficulties associated with remaining drug free. 297 Mr Paraha's counsel correctly points out that the classification of a high risk serious offender is not that of an offender who has unmet treatment needs.172 Nevertheless, the extent to which an offender has made rehabilitative gains is a required factor to take into account under s 7(3)(f). 298 The clinical assessments of Mr Paraha undertaken for this hearing reveal significant concerns regarding his risk of re-offending. In particular, a diagnosis of psychopathy, borderline personality disorder and a drug disorder, albeit that the drug disorder is now in remission. Further, Dr van Hattem's assessment also reveals significant concerns regarding risk. 299 It is worthwhile repeating my assessment of Mr Paraha's risk of committing serious offences. I assess there is, presently, a material risk that Mr Paraha will re-engage in drug use in the community to such an extent that the drug use will exacerbate his personality disorder and he will engage in violent conduct of sufficient gravity to constitute a serious offence. There is a prospect the violent conduct may include non-consensual sexual conduct, although I assess that prospect is not significant given his limited history of sexual offences and his age. 300 Mr Paraha has not yet made substantial gains with his rehabilitation. As a consequence, he does not have an established treatment plan for living in the community. I am satisfied he is genuinely motivated to continue with his rehabilitation. Motivation is important. It provides a guide to the likelihood of Mr Paraha 170 ts 295. 171 ts 252 - 253. 172 ts 252. -- 59 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 60 substantively engaging in rehabilitation. It also provides a foundation for him to develop sufficient resilience to overcome setbacks in his rehabilitation. Even so, the gains to date remain introductory. 301 I assess the timeframe for Mr Paraha to make consolidated gains in his rehabilitation is within the two to three-year range. That period allows sufficient time for Mr Paraha to complete treatment with Mr Becker. It also allows sufficient time for Mr Paraha's treatment gains to be sufficiently tested in the community and for a sustainable treatment plan to be developed. 302 The PSSO expires on 25 January 2027. I am not satisfied that period provides sufficient time for Mr Paraha to make sufficient treatment gains in the community. I therefore am not satisfied the PSSO provides adequate protection to the community against his risk of re-offending. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to express a view as to whether, as the State suggests, it is likely the police would respond more quickly to a breach of a supervision order under the HRSO Act, compared to a breach of a PSSO. 303 A concern with the proposed accommodation is that a resident who lives there has a criminal history for sexual offending against a child. However, Mr Paraha does not have a similar criminal history. Nonetheless, the fact that another resident living at the property has a criminal history does point towards a need for greater supervision of Mr Paraha while he adjusts to living in the community. 304 I cannot predict with any certainty whether Mr Paraha will have responsibility for the care of children if released into the community. The circumstances of the third serious offence arose from both Mr Paraha and his co-offender being significantly affected by drugs, and there being no other responsible carer for the children. While I cannot rule out such a scenario in the future, I cannot make any sensible prediction as to the prospect that it will occur. I take it into account, however, it has not had a material impact on my assessment of the risk. 305 Ultimately, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that there is an unacceptable risk Mr Paraha will commit a serious offence as I have identified at [299] above. His criminal history, psychological conditions, long term drug use while in the community and its effect on him, lack of substantive gains in rehabilitation, prior acts of violence and endorsement of retributive violence, are of particular -- 60 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 61 importance in coming to this view. I am also satisfied to the requisite standard that the risk is such that it is necessary to make a restriction order to ensure the adequate protection of the community. As I have said at [281] above, the type of behaviour that Mr Paraha is at risk of committing is capable of causing significant harm. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Paraha is a high risk serious offender. Restriction order 306 I need to decide whether to make a continuing detention order or a supervision order. As I have explained at the start, there is no predisposition to making a continuing detention order. That being said, s 48(2) of the HRSO Act provides that the paramount consideration in the choice of a restriction order is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community. 307 If I am to make a supervision order, pursuant to s 29(1), I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Paraha will substantially comply with the standard conditions of it. He bears the onus of proving this. The requisite assessment is undertaken on the basis that such an order is in place, having regard to the support and protection the order provides. The assessment therefore differs to the assessment under s 7(1) as to whether the respondent is a high risk serious offender. The latter assessment is undertaken on the basis that there is no supervision order in place. 308 The standard conditions of a supervision order subject offenders to electronic monitoring. The proposed supervision order contains several additional conditions. 309 Broadly speaking, the additional conditions: (a) address where Mr Paraha will live and who may attend at that residence; (b) address what other residences he may visit; (c) require him to report any new relationships to community corrections officers; (d) require him to engage in counselling; (e) restrict his contact with the victims of his offending; -- 61 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 62 (f) provide extensive conditions aimed at preventing him from being in situations that increase his risk of re-offending. 310 The additional conditions are relevant to assessing:173 First, whether additional conditions, taken together with the standard conditions, can ensure adequate protection of the community in the relevant circumstances. Second, if that is the case, what additional conditions are required to ensure adequate protection of the community, while imposing the minimum intrusion on an offender's liberty. Third, whether the additional conditions, taken together with the standard conditions and all of the relevant circumstances, satisfy the court that the offender will substantially comply with the standard conditions. 311 I do have concerns regarding the drafting of the additional conditions. In that respect, as I said in Williams:174 An order expressed in clear terms that an offender can readily understand provides greater protection to the community, as the offender has clarity around what they cannot do, and what they must do. It also assists the offender in being able to readily recall the conditions while they go about their day-to-day activities. In that respect, it is unrealistic to expect that an offender will always be able to revert to the written form of the order before engaging in such activities. And, the setting out of a clear framework designed to reduce the offender's risk of reoffending enhances their prospects of rehabilitation. 312 It also needs to be kept in mind that Mr Paraha does not have advanced education or literacy. 313 I appreciate much effort has gone into the drafting of the conditions. However, I am concerned that the proposed conditions are ambiguous, contradictory, and appear to misapprehend the role of a medical practitioner. Three examples from the proposed order will suffice to explain these concerns. 314 First, Mr Paraha is permitted to attend restaurants and sporting clubs. However, he is not permitted to be in the presence of anyone he knows or should know is affected by alcohol unless the identity of the person is approved in advance by a community corrections officer. Mr Paraha cannot possibly know who will be at a restaurant or 173 Williams [53]. 174 Williams [11]. -- 62 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 63 sporting club, and it would be almost inevitable that someone there will be affected by alcohol. 315 Second, the conditions prevent him having 'indirect' contact with certain people. That phrase is not defined and is capable of picking up an array of activities, including conduct that is unintentional. 316 Third, the conditions require him to follow the instructions of his treating psychiatrist regarding treatment and medication. However, Mr Paraha will need to give informed consent to taking the recommended medication, after first having been apprised of the risks associated with doing so. 317 While broadly speaking, I am satisfied that conditions falling withing the topics set out at [309] are appropriate, the proposed supervision order needs to be redrafted in certain respects. Accordingly, at the handing down of these reasons, I will raise with the parties my specific concerns with the proposed supervision order and a revised order can then be prepared. 318 I am satisfied that a supervision order that broadly addresses the topics at [309] provides for the adequate protection of the community against the risk that I have identified. A supervision order that addresses these topics enables Mr Paraha to be closely monitored in the community, requires him to engage in recommended counselling and aims to prevent him from being in situations that increase the risk of his return to illicit drug use, and his risk of re-offending. Taken as a whole, the topics set out at [309] above achieve an appropriate balance of monitoring, rehabilitation and risk reduction to satisfy me that the making of a supervision order provides for the adequate protection of the community. 319 I am also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Paraha will comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. In this respect, he is genuinely motivated to engage in rehabilitation, he has made some initial progress with Mr Becker, and he has accommodation available. These matters, taken together with the overall effect of the supervision order, satisfy me that he will comply with its standard conditions. -- 63 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 64 Duration of the supervision order 320 The period of the supervision order should reflect the minimum intrusion necessary to ensure adequate protection of the community.175 321 I adopt what I said in Williams regarding matters to take into account in assessing the period of a supervision order: 176 The HRSO Act does not provide for regular reviews of a supervision order, which are a feature of continuing detention orders. Further, the HRSO Act does not provide a mechanism by which the period of a supervision order can be shortened. Thus, even if a person subject to a supervision order has achieved satisfactory rehabilitation, they do not have the option of applying to shorten the order. They can apply to amend the conditions, however the standard conditions will remain. On the other hand, the State has the ability under the HRSO Act to apply for a further supervision order to commence at the expiry of the supervision order that I impose. Thus, if the court considers that a further supervision order should be made, there will be no gap between the expiry of the old order and the start of the new one. Further, the State's ability to apply for a new order is not conditioned upon [the offender] committing any further serious offence. (footnotes omitted) 322 An assessment as to when Mr Paraha might cease to be a high risk serious offender is quite difficult, as it depends on a number of factors, including the extent to which he remains drug free in the community. Also, what are appropriate conditions now, may cease to be appropriate if Mr Paraha makes substantive gains in his rehabilitation. Further, the mechanisms under the HRSO Act to amend the conditions to take into account positive progress are not straightforward.177 323 The period needs to be sufficient for Mr Paraha to finalise his treatment program with Mr Becker and for Mr Paraha to establish a stable and drug-free lifestyle in the community. I consider the appropriate period is 2 years and 6 months. This period ensures adequate protection of the community, while imposing the minimum intrusion on Mr Paraha's liberty. 175 Williams [51] - [52]. 176 Williams [197] - [198]. 177 See Williams [199]. -- 64 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 65 324 If prior to the expiry of the period of the supervision order, the State considers that Mr Paraha remains a high risk serious offender, the State can apply for a new supervision order. The conditions and period of any new order can be informed by Mr Paraha's performance on the supervision order that I impose. 325 Upon delivery of these reasons, I will discuss with counsel the appropriate start date for the supervision order. -- 65 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 66 ANNEXURE A ATTACHMENT A - TABLE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE Category Document relied upon by the State Page/Paragraph Reference Provision justifying admission into evidence Further Comments 1 Copy of the Respondent's Criminal Record BoM Vol 1, page 3 s 84(5)(a) of the Act - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent s 84(5)(d) and s 7(3)(g) of the Act - the Respondent's antecedents and criminal record On 6 December 2002, the Respondent was convicted for the offence of breaching a VRO and received a 12-month CBO. 2 Display Offence Report - Breach of Restraining Order dated 6 December 2002 BoM Vol 2, pages 653 - 656 relating to charge AR 7436/02 s 84(5)(a) of the Act - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent This document includes contemporaneous notes taken by Police at the time of the offence on 5 December 2002 3 Prosecution Notice/Complaint (AR 7436/02) dated 6 December 2002 Document filed with the Court on 27 August 2025 s 84(5)(a) of the Act - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent This document records the Respondent's plea of guilty to the offence of breach of a restraining order committed on 5 December 2002 (AR 7436/02). 4 Statement of Material Facts (charge No AR 7436/02) Document filed with the Court on 27 August 2025 s 84(5)(a) of the Act - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent This document sets out the Statement of Material Facts for charge No AR 7436 of 2002. The SMF relevantly states that the Accused "grabbed the complainant's hair and pulled her to the ground..." and continued to yell and scream threats including "I'm gonna to smash your head in and I'll kill you, you slut". The Respondent is alleged to have made full admissions to the offence. -- 66 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 67 Category Document relied upon by the State Page/Paragraph Reference Provision justifying admission into evidence Further Comments 5 WA Police Incident Report 090106 1745 11525 dated 9 January 2006 BOM Vol 3, page 774 s 84(5)(a) of the Act - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent The incident report records that the Police were called by the complainant to remove the Respondent and that he was "extremely upset and agitated. He would go from being very pleasant and apologetic to very verbally aggressive". 6 WA Police Incident Report 080811 1610 11564 dated 8 August 2011 BOM Vol 3, page 779 s 84(5)(a) of the Act - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent The incident report lists the Respondent as a person of interest and records that he packed a suitcase and allegedly threw it at the complainant his 16-year-old daughter. 7 Psychological Report of Dr Daniela Barbuzza dated 25 August 2011 BOM Vol 2, page 662 s 83(4)(a) - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent s 84(5)(d) and 7(3)(b) - any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the Respondent During interview the Respondent reported his prior sexual offence to have involved him attacking an unknown woman on the beach as he thought from her voice that she was his then partner. He denied any sexual component and rather stated he "started punching into her" when he spoke to him. Mr Parah reported to have been angry at his partner at the time for being unfaithful to him. 8 Psychiatric Report of Dr Sam Febbo dated 27 August 2011 BOM Vol 2, page s 83(4)(a) - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent s 84(5)(d) and 7(3)(b) - any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the Mr Paraha again stated in relation to the prior sexual offence (assault indecent aggravated) that he felt down and felt he had been "cheated" by his girlfriend…he stated there was a woman walking on the beach and cased her, -- 67 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 68 Category Document relied upon by the State Page/Paragraph Reference Provision justifying admission into evidence Further Comments Respondent thinking she was his previous girlfriend and had "hit the wrong person". 9 Transcript of Police Interview with Tony James Paraha dated 16 January 2016 BOM Vol 3, page 950 s 84(5)(a) - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent s 84(5)(d) and s 7(3)(g) of the Act - the Respondent's antecedents and criminal record The Respondent is asked if any violence occurred between himself and his partner (Mel) which he replies with "only whatever I did to her was like flicked her, go around wrapped her around and get on the ground….". 10 Affidavit of Child Protection Worker, Department of Child Protection and Family Support, dated 27 April 2016 BoM vol 3, 757, [16] s 84(5)(a) of the Act - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent s 84(5)(d) and 7(3)(j) - any other relevant matter The affidavit records comments by the Respondent's son Rafael (aged 3y 5m) alluding to acts of violence by the Respondent and making statements about fearing upsetting the Respondent. 11 ACC Pre-sentence report, dated 21 December 2016 BoM vol 2, p 689 s 84(5)(d) and 7(3)(b) - any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the Respondent Whilst not a direct admission of violence, in discussing the circumstances around the Index Offence, it is recorded that "Mr Paraha also stated that he would have belted his co- accused if he had seen how she treated the victim…" 12 Judicial Sentencing Remarks - The State of WA v Pears & Paraha [2017] WASCSR 9 640, [66] 644, [89] 647, [104] 650, [133] s 84 (5)(b) - anything relevant contained in the official transcript of any relevant proceeding against the Respondent In the sentencing remarks for the Index Offence, his Honour Tottle J states in relation to the Co- Offender, Ms Pears, that "(y)our relationship with Mr Paraha has been described as 'toxic' ... you have suffered physical abuse at his hands". -- 68 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 69 Category Document relied upon by the State Page/Paragraph Reference Provision justifying admission into evidence Further Comments 13 Stopping Family Violence Non- Completion Report, dated 1 February 2023 BoM Vol 2, page 715, second paragraph. s 83(4)(a) - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent s 84(5)(d) and 7(3)(b) - any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the Respondent It is stated that on one occasion during the SFV program the Respondent "spoke favorably about weapon use within a circumstance of confronting his partner due to alleged infidelity and expressed inappropriate conduct regarding similar violent conduct…". 14(1) 14(2) Dr Van Hattem psychiatric report for PRB dated 10 May 2023 Partners BoM Vol 2, p 722, [19] Children 726, [45]. s 84(5)(d) and 7(3)(b) - any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the Respondent [19] … (the Respondent) has been in multiple long-term relationships lasting over a decare, some of which overlapped. Violence, alcohol and drug use have featured heavily in these relationships. [45] Mr Paraha disclosed multiple assaults for which he was never charged … he said that when one of his daughters attempted to hang herself and then threatened to jump off a bridge, he "smacked her", like a father would". He seemed perplexed that she had never forgiven him for this incident…". 15 Victim Statement prepared by Senior Child Protection on behalf of Rafael and Henrietta to the Prisoners Review Board dated 17 December 2024 Partners BoM Vol 2, p 739 [4] Children 739-740 s 84(5)(a) - a document relevant to the antecedents or criminal record of the Respondent It is recorded that the children living with the Respondent and his co-offender at the time of the Index Offence "were both significantly traumatized by their experiences …the children witnessed frequent physical abuse/domestic -- 69 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 70 Category Document relied upon by the State Page/Paragraph Reference Provision justifying admission into evidence Further Comments violence between their parents…" and that both children have requested "they do not wish to have any contact with Tony. Rafael has expressed anxiety about the Respondent trying to find him and making contact. 16 Dr Tara Yewers' s74 expert psychological report, dated 7 July 2025 Partners Pg 1077, [23] Pg 1078, [27] - [28] Pg 1081, [40] - [45] Pg 1085, [60] - [63] Pg 1089, [75] Pg 1093, [94] Children 1081, [40] s 84(d) and 7(3)(a) - any report prepared under section 74 for the hearing of the application The paragraphs cited relate to evidence of Mr Paraha's history of dysfunctional and violent intimate partner relationships, as well as reports from children previously in his care, which are relevant to the expert's assessment of the Accused's antecedents and their application of the risk assessment instruments. 17 Dr Peter Wynn Owen s 74 expert Psychiatric report, dated 31 July 2025 Partners Vol 3, pg 1040, [25] Pg 1043 [57] 1046, [84] 1047, [93] Children Pg 1038, [11]; Pg 1048, [100]; Pg 1053, [135] and [140] s 84(d) and 7(3)(a) - any report prepared under section 74 for the hearing of the application The paragraphs cited relate to evidence of Mr Paraha's history of dysfunctional and violent intimate partner relationships, as well as reports from children previously in his care, which are relevant to the expert's assessment of the Accused's antecedents and their application of the risk assessment instruments. -- 70 of 71 -- [2026] WASC 354 LEMONIS J Page 71 Category Document relied upon by the State Page/Paragraph Reference Provision justifying admission into evidence Further Comments 18 ACC Community Supervision Assessment report prepared by Ms Applin, dated 14 August 2025 BoM Vol 3, pg 1120 - 1121 s 845(d) and 7(3)(b) - any other medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the Respondent Ms Applin states that the Respondent commented that he was "very violent" with the mother of his older children. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CP Associate to the Hon Justice Lemonis 24 AUGUST 2026 -- 71 of 71 --