AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Western Australia
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Western Australia >> 2023 >> [2023] WASC 421

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Context | No Context | Help

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HAJI-NOOR [No 2] [2023] WASC 421 (6 November 2023)

Last Updated: 8 November 2023


2023_42100.jpg

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HAJI-NOOR [No 2] [2023] WASC 421

CORAM : MCGRATH J

HEARD : 1 NOVEMBER 2023

DELIVERED : 6 NOVEMBER 2023

FILE NO/S : SO 4 of 2023

BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Applicant

AND

RAMLI ROBERT HAJI-NOOR

Respondent


2023_42101.jpg

Criminal law - High risk serious offender - Application for restriction order - Whether unacceptable risk that respondent will commit a serious offence if not subject to restriction order - Whether necessary to make a restriction order to ensure adequate protection of the community - Whether community can be adequately protected by supervision order - Turns on own facts


Legislation:

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

Result:

Restriction order made
Supervision order made

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant
:
Ms T-M Hollaway
Respondent
:
Mr S F Rafferty SC


Solicitors:

Applicant
:
State Solicitor's Office
Respondent
:
Legal Aid (WA)


Case(s) referred to in decision(s):


MCGRATH J:

Introduction
  1. On 19 April 2023, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of Mr Haji-Noor under s 48 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act).[1] The State contends by that application that Mr Haji-Noor is a high risk serious offender and that it is necessary that he be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment and, in the alternative, that should he be released, then he be subject to a supervision order under the HRSO Act.
  2. On 5 May 2023, the preliminary hearing was heard before Vandongen J who determined that there were reasonable grounds for believing the Court might, in accordance with s 7 of the HRSO Act, find that Mr Haji-Noor is a high risk serious offender.[2] Vandongen J ordered that Mr Haji-Noor be released pursuant to an interim supervision order pending the determination of this restriction order application.
  3. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that whilst Mr Haji-Noor should be subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act, a supervision order would adequately manage the risk of Mr Haji-Noor reoffending.[3] I accept that submission is properly made.
  4. I have determined that it is necessary that Mr Haji-Noor be subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act to ensure the adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. I have further determined that subjecting Mr Haji-Noor to a supervision order for a period of three years under s 27 of the HRSO Act will provide adequate protection to the community.
  5. In these reasons, I will consider the following:
    1. The relevant legal principles;
    2. The evidence received at the hearing;
    3. A consideration of the factors under s 7 of the HRSO Act; and
    4. Assessment and conclusion.
Legal principles

High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA)

  1. The State may make an application for a restriction order where a person is a serious offender under custodial sentence pursuant to s 35 of the HRSO Act. The term 'serious offender under custodial sentence' is defined in s 3:
serious offender under custodial sentence means a person -
(a) who is under a custodial sentence for a serious offence; or
(b) who -
(i) is under a custodial sentence for an offence or offences other than a serious offence; and
(ii) has been under that sentence at all times since being discharged from a custodial sentence for a serious offence;
  1. At the time this application was made, Mr Haji-Noor was serving a term of imprisonment for a 'serious offence' as defined by s 3 and s 5 of the HRSO Act.
  2. A 'serious offence' is defined by s 5 of the HRSO Act which relevantly provides:
    1. Term used: serious offence

(1) An offence is a serious offence if -

(a) it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 1; or
(b) it is specified in Schedule 1 Division 2, and is committed in the circumstances indicated in relation to that offence in that Division.

(2) An offence is a serious offence if -

(a) it was an offence under a written law that has been repealed; and
(b) the offender's acts or omissions that constituted the offence under the repealed provision would constitute a serious offence under subsection (1).

(3) An offence is a serious offence if it is an offence of conspiracy, attempt or incitement to commit an offence that is a serious offence under subsection (1) or (2).

9 Mr Haji-Noor has committed offences that come within this category. Mr Haji-Noor has also committed a number of offences that are not characterised as serious offences. Offences of other types may be relevant in assessing the risk of serious offences being committed in the future because other offences may be connected to behaviour which has the real potential to lead to serious offending.[4]

  1. Section 7(1) of the HRSO Act provides that an offender is a high risk serious offender if the Court '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'. The State has the onus of satisfying the Court that a person is a high risk serious offender. This is a greater standard than a finding on the balance of probabilities and less than a finding of beyond reasonable doubt, but is otherwise incapable of further definition.[5] This does not necessarily mean that the risk must be at some high percentage of probability; a risk may be less than 50% yet still be unacceptable.
  2. If the Court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk of the kind described in s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, it necessarily follows that the person concerned is a high risk serious offender.[6] However, the Court must identify what it is that constitutes the risk and what makes it unacceptable, and then consider whether or not those factors have been proved to the requisite standard, that being to a high degree of probability, furnished by acceptable and cogent evidence.[7]
  3. In The State of Western Australia v Garlett,[8] Corboy J identified that there is 'arguably a material difference between s 7(1) of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA) (DSO Act), read with s 17, and s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, read with s 48'.[9] His Honour observed that s 7(1) of the HRSO Act requires that the Court be satisfied that 'it is necessary to make a restriction order', stating:[10]
It is arguable that the words 'necessary to make a restriction order in relation to the offender to ensure adequate protection of the community' introduce a further evaluative element over and above an evaluation of whether the risk of an offender committing a serious offence is unacceptable.
  1. Corboy J recognised in The State of Western Australia v Garlett that the current form of s 7(1) requires that the need to ensure adequate protection for the community should form part of the Court's determination of whether the offender is a high risk serious offender (the first step in making a restriction order), and should not merely be the paramount consideration in deciding what form of order should be made in respect of an offender who has been found to be a high risk serious offender (the second step).[11]
  2. In The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario,[12] Quinlan CJ agreed with Corboy J's construction of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act.
  3. I also agree with Corboy J's construction of the HRSO Act. Therefore, the Court is required to make two evaluative judgments under s 7 of the HRSO Act being first, whether the risk of future offending is unacceptable and, second, whether it is necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community.
  4. The Court could find that it is not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community, despite the Court finding that the risk of future offending was unacceptable. As Quinlan CJ observed, it would be a rare situation that the Court would find that it was not necessary to make a restriction order to adequately protect the community notwithstanding that it has been found that the risk of future offending was unacceptable.[13] Quinlan CJ gave the example where 'other external restraints on an offender (such as a post-sentence supervision order under the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA)) may provide adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that the offender will commit a serious offence (such that a restriction order is not 'necessary')'.[14]
  5. A finding that there is an unacceptable risk involves a balancing exercise requiring the Court:[15]
[T]o have regard to, among other things, the nature of the risk (the commission of a serious sexual offence, with serious consequences for the victim) and the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition whilst having regard, on the other hand, to the serious consequences for the respondent if an order is made (either detention, without having committed an unpunished offence, or being required to undergo what might be an onerous supervision order).
  1. An unacceptable risk in the context of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act is therefore a risk which is unacceptable having regard to a variety of considerations. These may include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of serious offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted), and the consequences of finding that an unacceptable risk exists.
  2. I am required to consider whether, having regard to the likelihood of Mr Haji-Noor offending and the nature of the offence to be committed, the risk of that offending is so unacceptable that, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Haji-Noor has already been punished for the offences he has committed, it is necessary in the interests of the community to ensure that he is subject to further control or detention.[16]
  3. Section 7(3) of the HRSO Act sets out a number of matters that the Court must have regard to in considering whether a person is a serious danger to the community. Those matters are:
(3) In considering whether it is satisfied as required by subsection (1), the court must have regard to the following -
(a) any report prepared under section 74 for the hearing of the application and the extent to which the offender cooperated in the examination required by that section;
(b) any other medical, psychiatric, psychological, or other assessment relating to the offender;
(c) information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future;
(d) whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour by the offender;
(e) any efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offender's offending behaviour, including whether the offender has participated in any rehabilitation programme;
(f) whether or not the offender's participation in any rehabilitation programme has had a positive effect on the offender;

(g) the offender's antecedents and criminal record;

(h) the risk that, if the offender were not subject to a restriction order, the offender would commit a serious offence;
(i) the need to protect members of the community from that risk;

(j) any other relevant matter.

  1. I note that s 7(3)(j) of the HRSO Act provides that the list of matters to be considered by the Court is not limited by those otherwise delineated in s 7(3).
  2. While s 7(3)(g) of the HRSO Act provides that the Court must have regard to the offender's criminal record in deciding whether a person is a serious danger to the community, the mere fact that a person has committed previous offences does not necessarily mean that there is an unacceptable risk that the person would commit a serious offence in the future. The relevance of a prior criminal record would depend on the nature of the offences committed, the number of offences, and the period of time over which they occurred. However, past behaviour is often a good indicator of future conduct.
  3. If the Court determines that an offender is a high risk serious offender, then the Court is required to make a restriction order.[17]
  4. The term 'restriction order' is defined in s 3 of the HRSO Act to mean 'a continuing detention order' or 'a supervision order'. The terms 'continuing detention order' and 'supervision order' are defined in s 26 and s 27 respectively, in similar terms to those that were used in the DSO Act.[18]
  5. Section 26 of the HRSO Act provides:
(1) In this Act a continuing detention order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care, or treatment.
(2) A continuing detention order has effect in accordance with its terms from the time the order is made until rescinded by a further order of the court.
  1. Section 27 of the HRSO Act provides:
(1) In this Act a supervision order in relation to an offender is an order that the offender, when not in custody, is to be subject to stated conditions that the court considers appropriate, in accordance with section 30.
(2) A supervision order has effect in accordance with its terms -

(a) from a date stated in the order; and

(b) for a period stated in the order.

(3) The date from which a supervision order has effect must not be earlier than 21 days after the date the order is made unless the court is satisfied that the implementation of the order from an earlier date is practically feasible.
  1. In making a determination between those two alternatives, the paramount consideration is the need to ensure the adequate protection of the community.[19]
  2. However, other considerations do apply. The use of the word 'adequate' in the section indicates that a qualitative assessment is required. It cannot be assumed that the most preventative action is detention and that therefore, the protection of the community will always favour such an order.[20]
  3. Given the more onerous nature of a continuing detention order, the scheme of the HRSO Act requires that the Court do no more than is necessary for the continuing control, care or treatment of the offender to achieve an adequate degree of protection of the community.[21]
  4. Section 29 of the HRSO Act provides that the 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 the order. The onus of proof is on the respondent offender pursuant to s 29(2) of the HRSO Act.
  5. The words 'will substantially comply with' should be given their ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the general conditions of a supervision order, the overall object of which is to achieve the adequate protection of the community by appropriate management and mitigation of the unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious offence.[22]
  6. The term 'standard condition', in relation to a supervision order, is defined by s 3 of the HRSO Act as meaning a condition that under s 30(2) must be included in the order. Section 30(2) of the HRSO Act provides seven conditions that must be included in any court ordered supervision order. Therefore, the respondent must satisfy the Court that he will substantially comply with those standard conditions before the Court can make a supervision order. The seven standard conditions set out in s 30(2) of the HRSO Act require that the person:
(a) report to a community corrections officer at the place, and within the time, stated in the order and advise the officer of the offender's current name and address; and
(b) report to, and receive visits from, a community corrections officer as directed by the court; and
(c) notify a community corrections officer of every change of the offender's name, place of residence or place of employment at least 2 days before the change happens; and
(d) be under the supervision of a community corrections officer and comply with any reasonable direction of the officer (including a direction for the purposes of section 31 or 32); and
(e) not leave, or stay out of, the State of Western Australia without the permission of a community corrections officer; and
(f) not commit a serious offence during the period of the order; and
(g) be subject to electronic monitoring under section 31.
Evidence
  1. The State tendered a Book of Materials that comprised the relevant material pursuant to s 84(5) of the HRSO Act.[23] The State's evidence relied upon the oral testimony of three witnesses, namely Professor Pyszora, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist; Dr Riordan, Forensic Psychologist; and Ms Sullivan, Senior Community Corrections Officer at the Department of Justice.
  2. Mr Haji-Noor did not give evidence nor adduce any evidence.
  3. I now turn to the matters relevant to determining whether or not Mr Haji-Noor is a high risk serious offender pursuant to s 7 of the HRSO Act. I will do so by considering the evidence in the context of the HRSO Act.
Factors under s 7 of the HRSO Act History of offending and antecedents - s 7(3)(c), s 7(3)(d) and s (7)(g)
  1. In deciding whether a person is a high risk serious offender, the Court must have regard to the person's antecedents and criminal record. That requires that all prior offences be considered, to the extent that such offences are relevant to the question of whether the person is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of the HRSO Act (whether they are serious offences or not). It also requires consideration of the offender's antecedents, including the context in which the past offences were committed.
  2. The criminal record and antecedents are relevant in and of themselves, but are also relevant to whether the person has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future,[24] and as to whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour.[25]
Antecedents
  1. Mr Haji-Noor is a 48 year old Aboriginal man from Broome. Regrettably, his childhood and formative years were marked by adverse childhood experiences due to his parents' separation, physical abuse, exposure to alcohol abuse, and emotional neglect by both parents. Dr Riordan stated that Mr Haji-Noor's 'early growth and development is best characterised as one of cumulative disadvantage' having 'endured multiple adverse childhood experiences across critical periods of his growth and development'.[26] Professor Pyszora stated that it is likely that intergenerational trauma has impacted his early development.[27]
  2. Mr Haji-Noor reported that he commenced using cannabis and alcohol at 12 years of age. He also reported that he commenced using amphetamine at 24 years of age and that he has engaged in binge patterns of methamphetamine abuse.
  3. Mr Haji-Noor completed primary school and attended high school until year 9. Mr Haji-Noor's involvement in formal education was undermined by his residential transiency and behavioural difficulties. He reported that he does not have any issues concerning literacy and numeracy.
  4. Mr Haji-Noor commenced employment at 14 years of age and has worked in construction and the pearling industry. However, Mr Haji‑Noor has since been long-term unemployed and in receipt of Centrelink benefits.
  5. Regrettably, four of Mr Haji-Noor's brothers have died by suicide. His fourth brother died this year whilst Mr Haji-Noor was subject to the interim supervision order.
  6. On a positive note, Mr Haji-Noor described himself as being connected to country and culture 'by growing up in the bush with culture', and by participating in ceremonies and other cultural activities.[28]
  7. Mr Haji-Noor has had three intimate relationships and has four sons with whom he has regular contact. The relationships were marked by intimate partner violence offending by Mr Haji-Noor.
  8. Mr Haji-Noor suffers from a range of chronic health conditions that require medical intervention, including diabetes, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, and acute and recurrent pancreatitis. Further, Mr Haji-Noor deals with ongoing heart issues.[29]
  9. On 17 May 2023, Mr Haji-Noor was released into the community on an interim supervision order. Mr Haji-Noor remained mainly compliant with the conditions of the order and has engaged with his supervision sessions with his CCO. However, there has been a recent relapse in using illicit drugs following some difficult personal circumstances.
  10. I will outline Mr Haji-Noor's mental health issues when considering the reports of Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan.

Relevant criminal history

  1. Mr Haji-Noor has committed a significant number of offences in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.[30] Mr Haji-Noor's offending history is outlined in the criminal record which forms part of the material relied upon by the applicant.[31] The offending history is summarised, in part, in a chronology of offending which was received in evidence.[32] Mr Haji-Noor's criminal record relevantly includes convictions for offences of violence, particularly against his female partners. He has been convicted of other offences including possessing prohibited drugs, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and escaping from lawful custody.[33] I will outline the index offending and then turn to Mr Haji-Noor's other convictions, delineating the offences that may constitute serious offences under s 5 and sch 1 of the HRSO Act.

Serious offences

  1. Mr Haji-Noor's criminal record includes convictions for two 'serious offences' within the meaning of the HRSO Act, specifically grievous bodily harm offences.
  2. In 2019, Mr Haji-Noor committed the index offence, namely inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 297 of the Criminal Code (WA). The offending involved Mr Haji-Noor, during a drug induced psychosis, pursuing his 26-year-old nephew whilst brandishing two samurai swords. Mr Haji-Noor repeatedly struck the victim to his face, head and body. The victim suffered lacerations to several parts of his body, including tendon damage to a thumb and a skull fracture. A term of 3 years 10 months immediate imprisonment was imposed.
  3. In 2006, Mr Haji-Noor was convicted of one offence that, with intent, caused grievous bodily harm contrary to s 177(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (Northern Territory). The offending involved Mr Haji-Noor becoming jealous when he was informed that a previous partner was engaged to another man. Mr Haji-Noor stated that he was 'going to kill them'.
  4. In the early hours one morning, he unlawfully entered the victim's house and armed himself with a wooden baseball bat. He then went outside and waited for the victim to return. When the victim arrived home, he was violently assaulted by Mr Haji-Noor, who continually struck him to the head with the wooden baseball bat. Eventually, he struck the victim with all his force to the head region. The victim suffered extremely serious head injuries, resulting in him being placed on life support. The victim required ongoing speech therapy, occupational therapy and psychological intervention.
  5. During the assault on the victim, Mr Haji-Noor committed the further offence of aggravated unlawful assault against his former partner contrary to s 188(1) and s 188(2) of the Criminal Code (Northern Territory). The injuries sustained by his former partner included cuts, grazes and bruises to her body. This offence is not a serious offence under the HRSO Act. A term of 12 years 6 months immediate imprisonment was imposed for the two offences.

Other relevant offences

  1. In July 2005, Mr Haji-Noor committed two offences of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s 188(2) of the Criminal Code (Northern Territory). The offending involved Mr Haji-Noor threatening his partner, who was holding a child, with a loaded crossbow. Mr Haji‑Noor threatened his partner as she endeavoured to leave the premises. Mr Haji-Noor then pursued his partner whilst holding a knife and a hockey stick. He slashed the tyre of her vehicle with the knife. In respect to the second offence, Mr Haji-Noor went to his partner's residence and poured water into her TV receiver whilst holding a knife in one hand. He then punched his partner in the face five or six times and cut the victim's head using the knife. He then further punched her to the head with his fist four or five more times, causing her to lose consciousness.
  2. In 2004, Mr Haji-Noor was convicted of one offence of assaulting a person causing bodily harm contrary to s 188(2) of the Criminal Code (Northern Territory) by dragging his then partner by the hair along a cement path causing grazes to her body and multiple bruises.
  3. Further, in 2002, Mr Haji-Noor committed two further offences of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s 188(2) of the Criminal Code (Northern Territory), which involved picking up two samurai swords and striking his then partner across her calf with the blunt side of one of the swords leaving bruises. He then grabbed her by the hair and dragged her from the room. In respect to the second offence, in 2002, Mr Haji-Noor punched a security guard who had come to his partner's aid.

Prison Incident reports

  1. Mr Haji-Noor has been subject to adverse incident reports whilst incarcerated. The evidence in the Incidents and Occurrences report prepared by the Department of Justice demonstrates that he has incurred numerous adverse incident reports and prison charges, and has engaged in threatening and abusive behaviour to prison officers. On a positive note, Mr Haji-Noor's behaviour has improved during 2022 and 2023.
Propensity to commit serious offences in the future ‑ s 7(3)(c) & Whether or not there is any pattern of offending behaviour ‑ s 7(3)(d)
  1. The word 'propensity' is taken to have its ordinary meaning in the context of the criminal law. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR, Murray AJA stated that:[34]
[Propensity] means that the offender has an inclination or tendency, a disposition to commit serious sexual offences generally, in a particular way, or upon a particular type of victim. The word refers to some identifiable characteristic of the offender, something in his makeup or personality which may or may not be of a quality of a diagnosable mental illness or personality disorder.
  1. The State submits that Mr Haji-Noor's criminal record demonstrates a propensity or tendency to commit serious violent offences against persons using weapons to inflict injuries.[35] I am satisfied that Mr Haji-Noor has the propensity to commit serious offences of violence, particularly in the context of an intimate relationship. Further, Mr Haji-Noor has shown a pattern of behaviour of committing acts of violence against persons over an extended period, which on many occasions involved the use of weapons with the consequence of injuries to the victim.
Efforts to address offending behaviour and whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect ‑ s 7(3)(e) and s 7(3)(f)
  1. I must also consider if Mr Haji-Noor has made any efforts to address the cause or causes of his offending behaviour, including by participating in any rehabilitation programs. Further, I must consider whether or not the participation in any rehabilitation program has had a positive effect.
  2. Mr Haji-Noor has participated in three group programs to address his offending behaviour. In 2010, Mr Haji-Noor completed the Think First Program after attending all 28 sessions. The Think First Program Completion Report dated 13 August 2010 confirms that he demonstrated a very good understanding of recognising a range of personal problems, which included mood swings, distorted thoughts regarding others and his attitude to authority and social relationships. On occasions, Mr Haji-Noor was inattentive and refused to complete worksheets.
  3. The report confirmed that Mr Haji-Noor made significant gains in respect to his thinking, alternative strategies and cognitive styles. He showed greater insight into his offending behaviour and gained skills to deal with his anger and to communicate in a positive manner.
  4. In 2010, Mr Haji-Noor completed the Indigenous Family Violence Program, which is a medium intensity intervention designed to address violence within indigenous families. During the course, Mr Haji-Noor displayed a satisfactory level of participation and interest identifying his risk factors for reoffending, including alcohol use, feelings of anger, pride, and distrust in respect to women. Mr Haji-Noor was assessed as making some treatment gains, including developing his understanding regarding factors underlying his offending and accepting responsibility for his behaviour.
  5. In 2011, Mr Haji-Noor completed the Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Use program. Mr Haji-Noor attended 45 hours and was reported to have contributed positively, acknowledging his offending and demonstrating remorse. He was able to identify high risk situations and demonstrated his intention to work towards a process of change.
  6. Whilst Mr Haji-Noor positively engaged with the rehabilitation programs undertaken, he has not completed any courses since 2011. It is clear that Mr Haji-Noor has ongoing treatment needs, which I will outline below.
Any other reports or assessments relating to the respondent - s 7(3)(b)

Community Supervision Assessment Reports

  1. Ms Sullivan, Senior Community Corrections Officer and author of the Community Supervision Assessment Report dated 20 October 2023, outlines Mr Haji-Noor's behaviours to be managed and the strategies to be implemented by reference to the opinions of Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan.[36]
  2. Ms Sullivan confirms that 'overall, Mr Haji-Noor has demonstrated good compliance with the supervision requirements of the interim supervision order reporting on a weekly basis as directed'.[37] Ms Sullivan stated that Mr Haji-Noor has been 'open and forthright in supervision, acknowledging difficulties as they arise and being receptive to feedback and any additional directions given'.[38]
  3. In respect to urinalysis testing, Ms Sullivan in her report stated that Mr Haji-Noor has undertaken 17 tests with only one returning a positive result to a prohibited drug, namely amphetamine. I note that in respect to the positive result on 16 October 2023, Mr Haji-Noor freely acknowledged, prior to the test, that he would be testing positive. Whilst it is disappointing that he tested positive, Mr Haji-Noor is to be commended for his frank and honest self-reporting. During the hearing, it was confirmed that a further test was taken on 19 October 2023 and 23 October 2023 respectively, with both results being positive to amphetamine and methamphetamine.[39] Subsequently, on 20 October 2023 Mr Haji-Noor pleaded guilty to one charge of contravening a supervision order for returning the positive test on 16 October 2023, and one charge of using a prohibited drug.[40] The learned Magistrate imposed a $500 fine.[41]
  4. Ms Sullivan outlined that Mr Haji-Noor had been subject to significant stressors at the time that he returned positive urinalysis results.[42] Mr Haji-Noor's brother committed suicide, he was suffering from pancreatitis and was hospitalised for eight days and upon his release, issues arose with his father as a consequence of the personal challenges.
  5. Ms Sullivan confirms that Mr Haji-Noor resided with his father until accommodation ceased to be available in early October 2023. Mr Haji-Noor has been living in emergency accommodation awaiting the outcome of a Desktop Spatial Analysis in respect to his brother's residence. The report was received at the hearing and subject to oral testimony from Ms Sullivan. The residence is located approximately 600 metres from a police station and 8 kms from another police station that is open 24 hours a day.[43]
  6. During the hearing, Ms Sullivan expressed the opinion that the accommodation was suitable.[44] Ms Sullivan stated that when discussing the proposed accommodation with Mr Haji-Noor's brother, he stated that the offer of accommodation was dependent upon Mr Haji-Noor being abstinent from drugs.[45] Ms Sullivan stated that the brother was supportive and was a protective factor.
  7. I am satisfied that the proposed accommodation is suitable. Mr Haji-Noor will be supported by his brother in secure accommodation that is in very close proximity to police stations.
  8. Ms Sullivan proposes a supervision order, which contains 33 conditions, that provides comprehensive supervision and treatment. The proposed conditions were formulated after consulting the expert witnesses.

Treatment Options Report - Ms Cashmore

  1. Ms Cashmore, Community Corrections Officer, prepared a Treatment Options Report dated 5 October 2023.[46] The purpose of the report is to provide an overview of Mr Haji-Noor's intervention history and identify treatment options. The report makes recommendations for intervention treatment options, including undertaking family and violence programs.[47] Further, it is recommended that Mr Haji-Noor be assisted with individual intervention through the Forensic Psychological Intervention Team (FPIT). Regrettably, Mr Haji-Noor, whilst most willing to engage with FPIT, is on the waitlist.

Psychiatric report prepared under s 74 and extent to which the respondent cooperated with examination ‑ s 7(3)(a) - Professor Pyszora

  1. Professor Pyszora, Forensic Psychiatrist, produced one report dated 20 September 2023 and gave oral testimony at the hearing of the application.[48] Professor Pyszora stated that Mr Haji-Noor cooperated 'fully and openly in the three lengthy interviews' undertaken.[49]
  2. Professor Pyszora diagnosed Mr Haji-Noor with a depressive disorder, currently treated and in remission.[50] Further, she diagnosed Mr Haji-Noor with substance use disorder (methamphetamine, cannabis and alcohol) also in remission.
  3. Professor Pyszora undertook an assessment of Mr Haji-Noor's risk of future offending utilising the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 (SARA-V3), and the Historical, Clinical Risk Management 20, version 3 (HCR-20 V3) assessment tools.
  4. Professor Pyszora utilised the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), which assesses the extent to which an individual's personality structure conforms to the clinical construct of psychopathy. The PCL-R score is recognised as a useful indicator of likely future recidivism for general, violent offending. The score obtained from this test can be an important component of other risk assessment tools, including structured clinical guides. The PCL-R provides a dimensional score ranging from 0 to 40 that represents the extent to which an individual is judged to match the 'prototypical psychopath'. Mr Haji-Noor scored in the low range for psychopathy.[51]
  5. The SARA-V3 is a set of structured professional judgment guidelines for the assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence.[52] The factors considered in the SARA-V3 are divided into three domains, including risk factors as they relate to the nature of intimate partner violence, perpetrator risk factors and victim vulnerability factors.
  6. Utilising the SARA-V3, Professor Pyszora outlined Mr Haji-Noor's family and domestic violence history, which has been chronic since 1999 and continued escalating, resulting in multiple offences until his incarceration in 2006. Professor Pyszora identified risk factors present, including intimate relationship problems, substance use problems, non-intimate relationship problems, trauma, some general anti-social conduct, violent ideation, mental illness and personality disorder. Professor Pyszora also stated Mr Haji-Noor demonstrated distorted thinking about family and domestic violence.[53]
  7. The HCR-20 V3 provides a structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment. It measures both static and dynamic factors that are associated with violent recidivism. The historical scale focuses on historical risk factors that are generally static in nature. The clinical scale focuses on dynamic factors present that relate to mental status and attitudes in the past few weeks to months.[54] Professor Pyszora identified the presence of all of the historical risk factors in respect to Mr Haji-Noor (either present or partially present).
  8. Professor Pyszora found that Mr Haji-Noor had one partially present risk factor, being recent problems with insight. Further, she found that Mr Haji-Noor has limited insight into his domestic violence risks and previous behaviour, as well as outstanding treatment needs.[55] In terms of future risk management factors, Professor Pyszora found a mix of present, possibly present and future problems. Professor Pyszora also identified risk factors that are not present. Those that were present were problems with stress or coping, and those that were possibly present include future problems with his living situation, along with future problems with personal support.[56]
  9. Professor Pyszora stated that Mr Haji-Noor has developed a good trusting relationship with his Aboriginal counsellor. Further, that he has engaged with training and achieved a number of certificates of training tickets. Mr Haji-Noor is also positive in seeking employment.[57]
  10. Professor Pyszora formulated that Mr Haji-Noor's most likely risk scenario (if treatment needs remain unaddressed) is engaging in violence in the context of an intimate relationship where he feels angry and jealous, and uses threats or actual violence to intimidate and control his partner. In particular, he may be armed with an easily accessible weapon, such as a knife, and any violence could result in serious harm.[58]
  11. Further, Professor Pyszora outlined the risks should Mr Haji-Noor become psychotic and intoxicated with amphetamines. In such circumstances, he would present a higher risk of serious violence as he may act out delusional beliefs and be disinhibited through drug intoxication.[59]
  12. In Professor Pyszora's opinion, Mr Haji-Noor presents as a moderate risk of committing a serious offence in the future if he is not subject to a restriction order.[60] Accordingly, Professor Pyszora recommends that management plans for Mr Haji-Noor to prevent future violence need to be based on monitoring, treatment, supervision and victim safety planning. If the Court makes a supervision order, Professor Pyszora recommends that the period of that supervision order should be between two and three years, which would be sufficient to make the necessary changes to prevent future serious offending, which takes into account time already undertaken on the interim supervision order.[61]
  13. During the hearing, Professor Pyszora confirmed that the recent positive urinalysis tests and issues that arose with his father at the accommodation have not changed her opinion. Professor Pyszora stated that Mr Haji-Noor has had significant stressors recently, including the death of his brother by suicide, his own hospitalisation for pancreatitis and upon being released from hospital, issues arising with his father. As a consequence he entered emergency accommodation.[62] The consequence of the significant stressors was that the risk of Mr Haji-Noor consuming illicit substances was elevated.
  14. Professor Pyszora gave evidence that Mr Haji-Noor's self reporting regarding his use of illicit drugs, and that he presented to the CCO after the issue arose with his father, were positive factors.[63]
  15. During the hearing, Professor Pyszora expressed the opinion that the proposed accommodation at Mr Haji-Noor's brother's house was suitable.[64]
Psychological reports prepared under s 74 and extent to which the respondent cooperated with examination - s 7(3)(b) - Dr Riordan
  1. Dr Riordan produced a report dated 22 September 2023 and gave oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Haji-Noor engaged during the two consultations with Dr Riordan.[65]
  2. Dr Riordan undertook assessments of Mr Haji-Noor using the assessment instruments PCL-R, HCR-20 V3 structured professional guidelines, and SARA-V3.
  3. Dr Riordan stated that Mr Haji-Noor has a chronic history of perpetrating intimate partner violence.
  4. Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that Mr Haji-Noor's score on the PCL‑R did not meet the clinical cut‑off score for psychopathy, scoring in the moderate range. Using the MCMI-IV inventory, Dr Riordan found that Mr Haji-Noor's personality profile indicated elevations in avoidant personality type, paranoid personality style and schizoid personality style. However, his scores on each of these did not reach the threshold to be considered a disorder.[66]
  5. Dr Riordan determined that all ten historical risk factors under the HCR‑20 V3 were present. In relation to future risk management factors, Dr Riordan found each of the four factors to be present or partially present. Those future risk management factors included future problems with professional services and plans, living standards and personal support, treatment or supervision response, and with stress or coping.[67]
  6. Using the SARA-V3, Dr Riordan outlined Mr Haji-Noor's results in each of the three domains. Dr Riordan identified several risk factors in the intimate partner violence domain, but only one of these were identified as recently present. In the domain of perpetrator risk factors, Dr Riordan identified several factors that were present including three that were said to be recently present, being intimate relationship problems, personality disorder, and distortive thinking about intimate partner violence.
  7. In formulating risk scenarios, Dr Riordan stated that the most likely future offending would involve committing an assault on an intimate partner, which would result in the victim suffering injuries.[68] The second scenario would involve Mr Haji-Noor threatening, intimidating and acting violently towards an individual known to him that he perceives to have slighted him. A third scenario would involve perpetrating violence against a supervising officer, being an act of reactive aggression driven by difficulties with poor emotional and behavioural regulation.
  8. Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that Mr Haji-Noor poses a high risk of violent and general offending if not subject to a restriction order under the HRSO Act.[69] Dr Riordan stated that Mr Haji-Noor presents with a range of outstanding treatment needs that have been, so far, resistant to change despite prison-based treatment programs. The primary area of treatment is in respect to the domain of intimate partner violence. Dr Riordan said that it was critical that supervision, monitoring, regular random urinalysis, engagement in vocational training and psychological counselling continue as necessary components for managing Mr Haji-Noor's risk for the foreseeable future.[70]
  9. Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that any supervision order should be for a period of at least five years to provide an opportunity for Mr Haji-Noor to consolidate treatment gains and to demonstrate the capacity to self-manage his risk.
  10. Dr Riordan provided a further opinion, which was outlined in an email from a Department officer to counsel for the applicant dated 24 October 2023.[71] Dr Riordan stated that if Mr Haji-Noor remained residing with his father, he would be able secure stable employment and establish a pro‑social base of support, could sustain his desistance from substance abuse and engage with appropriate support services. These benefits would considerably reduce Mr Haji-Noor's risk for committing a serious offence to the moderate range. Further, Dr Riordan stated that with increased time residing offence free in the community, Mr Haji-Noor's risk for engaging in serious offences would be incrementally reduced.[72]
  11. During the hearing, Dr Riordan considered the recent breaches of the interim supervision order by consuming methamphetamine and the issue with his accommodation with his father. Dr Riordan stated Mr Haji-Noor has been managing some significant personal stresses with the death of his brother and issues with his father. Dr Riordan confirmed her opinion in her report has not changed.[73] Dr Riordan stated that from her consultations with Mr Haji-Noor, it was clear that he had responded very positively to the interim supervision order.[74]
The risk that a serious offence will be committed if a continuing detention or supervision order is not made ‑ s 7(3)(h)
  1. Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that Mr Haji-Noor is at a high risk of committing a serious offence if he is not subject to a restriction order.[75] Professor Pyszora stated that Mr Haji-Noor is at a moderate risk of committing a serious offence if not subject to a restriction order. I am satisfied that the evidence supports the finding that Mr Haji-Noor is at a high risk of committing further serious offences. The most likely risk scenario involves him committing a violent act against an intimate partner whilst armed with a weapon. If he was to relapse into methamphetamine use and become psychotic, he would present a high risk of serious violence as he may act on delusional beliefs and be disinhibited through drug intoxication.[76] Professor Pyszora stated that a relapse into methamphetamine and subsequent psychosis were unlikely unless he is left devoid of supports, or becomes unmotivated to change his behaviours so that he discontinues counselling and returns to drug use.
The need to protect members of the community from that risk ‑ s 7(3)(i)
  1. I find that there is a need to protect the community from the risk that Mr Haji-Noor will commit a serious violent offence if not subject to a restriction order. The expert evidence supports that finding.
Assessment and conclusion
  1. Counsel for Mr Haji-Noor submitted that I should be satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order and that the risk may be managed in the community with a supervision order. Counsel for the State agreed with that submission.
  2. After considering the evidence in respect to the factors under s 7(3) of the HRSO Act, and finding that evidence to be acceptable and cogent, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Haji-Noor currently presents an unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence.
  3. Further, I am satisfied that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to Mr Haji-Noor to ensure adequate protection of the community against the unacceptable risk that he will commit a serious offence. I have made this determination for the following reasons.
  4. First, both Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan gave cogent evidence that supports that finding.
  5. Second, Mr Haji-Noor has demonstrated that his intimate relationships have been marked by acts of violence perpetrated on his partner and other persons.
  6. Third, whilst Mr Haji-Noor is endeavouring to positively engage with his interim supervision order and is making advances with his rehabilitation, he has outstanding treatment needs concerning his violent offending and substance abuse.
  7. Fourth, Mr Haji-Noor's previous serious offending occurred whilst intoxicated. It is necessary that he be given assistance in the community to continue to address the issue of substance abuse.
  8. Fifth, whilst subject to the HRSO Act, Mr Haji-Noor has not engaged in any serious offending and has positively engaged with the requirements of the interim supervision order. However, he should be given the support of the professional services and the guidance of his CCO. If Mr Haji-Noor is released without being subject to the HRSO Act, he will have no support, supervision or treatment.
  9. Therefore, I am satisfied that a restriction order must be made under the HRSO Act.
Continuing detention order or supervision order
  1. I must now decide whether Mr Haji-Noor should be detained pursuant to a continuing detention order or be released into the community under a supervision order. The applicant accepts that a supervision order will adequately manage the risk that Mr Haji-Noor will commit a serious offence. I am of the view that the applicant's submission is properly made.
  2. The Court must choose the order that is the least invasive to Mr Haji-Noor's liberty, while ensuring an adequate degree of protection of the community.
  3. In considering whether a supervision order will adequately protect the community, it is necessary to take into account any conditions which can be placed on a supervision order so as to ensure adequate protection of the community, the rehabilitation of Mr Haji-Noor, his care and treatment, and to ensure adequate protection of victims of offences committed by the respondent.[77]
  4. I must also be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Haji-Noor has established that he will substantially comply with the standard conditions of the order under s 30 of the HRSO Act.
  5. I find that this is a case where the protection of the community may be properly and satisfactorily advanced by a supervision order, rather than a continuing detention order. Further, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Haji-Noor will substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order as set out under s 30 of the HRSO Act.
  6. In my view, there are conditions that may be imposed under a supervision order that will provide adequate protection of the community. I have made this finding for the following reasons.
  7. First, both Professor Pyszora and Dr Riordan expressed the opinion that the risk of reoffending can be managed in the community with appropriate monitoring and treatment under a supervision order.
  8. Second, Mr Haji-Noor continues to engage well with the supervision and reporting requirements of the interim supervision order, remaining respectful, and is forthcoming during discussions with his CCO.
  9. Third, Mr Haji-Noor has been in regular contact with an Aboriginal counselling service and has built a solid professional relationship with his counsellor.
  10. Fourth, whilst Mr Haji-Noor was convicted with one offence of using an illicit substance and he has failed the more recent urinalysis tests, he did so whilst he managed very stressful challenges. I am mindful that Mr Haji-Noor proactively informed his CCO that his urinalysis test will return positive because of his illicit use. By so doing, Mr Haji-Noor displayed his commitment to engaging with his CCO and that he his endeavouring to meet his obligations under the interim supervision order.
  11. Fifth, Mr Haji-Noor has some protective factors in place, including positive family support from his brother and engagement with counselling.
  12. The conditions that are to be imposed are outlined in the supervision order, which is attached as Annexure One. The conditions are extensive and serve to manage the risk in the community. The conditions include a requirement that Mr Haji-Noor reside with his brother in the accommodation, which has proven to be most suitable. Consideration may be given by the authorities to reducing the extent of the restrictions and directions during the period of the supervision order.
  13. In respect to the duration of the supervision order, there were differing opinions expressed by Dr Riordan and Professor Pyszora regarding the appropriate period. Professor Pyszora stated that a supervision order of two to three years would be sufficient for Mr Haji-Noor 'to make the necessary changes to prevent serious offending'.[78]
  14. Dr Riordan stated that the supervision order should be at least five years in duration. Dr Riordan stated that Mr Haji-Noor is likely to require considerable time to establish and consolidate the skills to self-manage the risk of violence, particularly in the context of intimate relationships.[79]
  15. I will impose a supervision order of 3 years duration. In imposing a supervision order of 3 years, I am mindful that Mr Haji-Noor has been subject to an interim supervision order since 17 May 2023. I am also mindful that Mr Haji-Noor is progressing positively in the community, being compliant and engaged. A supervision order of three years will provide Mr Haji-Noor with support and guidance for an appropriate period.
Conclusion
  1. For the above reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to Mr Haji-Noor. Further, I have determined that the risk of reoffending may be adequately managed in the community with the imposition of a supervision order for a period of three years.

ANNEXURE ONE

SUPERVISION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MCGRATH ON 6 NOVEMBER 2023

Pursuant to s 48(1)(b) of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), the Court, having found that the Respondent is a high risk serious offender within the meaning of s 7(1) of the HRSO Act, makes a supervision order (the Order) in relation to the Respondent, for a period of three years on the following conditions:

You, RAMLI ROBERT HAJI-NOOR must:

STANDARD CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE HRSO ACT

  1. Report to a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) at the East Perth Adult Community Corrections Centre, 30 Moore Street, East Perth, Western Australia, 6004 on the date of imposition of the Order and advise the CCO of your current name and address.

2. Report to and receive visits from, a CCO as directed by the Court.

  1. Notify a CCO of every change of your name, place of residence, or place of employment at least 2 business days before the change happens.

  1. Be under the supervision of a CCO, which includes, comply with any reasonable direction of the CCO (including a direction for the purposes of s 31 or s 32 of the HRSO Act).

  1. Not leave, or stay out of the State of Western Australia without the permission of a CCO.

6. Not commit a serious offence during the period of the Order.

7. Be subject to electronic monitoring under s 31 of the HRSO Act.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Residence

  1. To reside at [address redacted] and spend each night at that address or at a different address only if such different address is approved in advance by a CCO assigned to you.

Reporting to a CCO and supervision by a CCO

  1. Report to, and receive visits from, your CCO as per their direction, including at locations such as your home.

Attendance at programs or treatment

  1. Consult, engage and attend all appointments with, and receive visits from, any medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, support service and/or support person nominated by a CCO, as directed by a CCO.

  1. Comply with the requirements of all programs designed to address your offending behaviour and/or risk of serious re-offending, as directed by a CCO.

Reporting to WA Police

  1. Report to the Officer-in-Charge of the High Risk Serious Offender team at the Hatch Building, 144 Stirling Street, Perth WA 6000 within 48 hours of the imposition of the Order, and thereafter report to and receive visits from WA Police at times and at locations as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the High Risk Serious Offender team or his/her delegate.

  1. If requested, permit WA Police to enter and search your residence and/or vehicle, and/or search your person for the purpose of monitoring your compliance with your obligations under the Order and allow the seizure of any such items that WA Police believe to contravene the conditions of the Order.

  1. Remain at your premises and/or vehicle when WA Police conduct a search of your residence and/or vehicle under the provisions of the HRSO Act.

Disclosure/Exchange of Information

  1. Agree to the exchange of information between persons and agencies involved in the implementation and supervision of the Order, including confidential information.

Restrictions on contact with Victims

  1. Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victim and/or any victims of your violent offending, unless such contact is conducted in accordance with agreements made through, or approved by, the Victim-offender Mediation Unit of the Department of Justice.

  1. Unless contact with victims is permitted pursuant to condition 16, you must immediately physically withdraw from any situation or immediate location in which contact is made with any victim of your violent offending (including being in the immediate presence of any victim), without engaging in conversation with any victim whether by word or gesture.

  1. Report to the CCO and WA Police any direct or indirect contact with the victims of your violent offending within 48 hours of such contact occurring.

Criminal conduct

  1. Not possess, consume or use any prohibited drugs, plants or other substances to which the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) applies, including, but not limited to, cannabis, unless the drug has been prescribed for you by a person duly authorised under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA) and your use is in accordance with the instructions of the prescriber.

  1. Comply with the requirements of any current Violence Restraining Order under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA).

  1. Not commit any other criminal offence for which the maximum penalty includes imprisonment, and which involves either sexual offences, violence, threats of violence, or the possession of weapons or offensive instruments.

Prevention of high-risk situations

  1. Report at your next contact with your CCO, the new formation of any ongoing domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship by you with any person.

  1. As directed by your CCO, make full or part disclosure regarding your past offending and the current Order to anyone with whom you commence an ongoing domestic, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate relationship, which disclosure can be confirmed by a CCO or by WA Police.

  1. Attend for, and submit to, urinalysis or other testing for alcohol or prohibited drugs as directed by the CCO or by WA Police, including accompanying such persons to an appropriate location for such testing to take place.


25. Provide a valid sample pursuant to condition 24.

  1. Not purchase, possess, consume, or use alcohol without prior approval of a CCO.

  1. Not go or remain at any licensed premises unless permitted or required to do so for the following reasons:
    a) For the purpose of averting or minimising a serious risk of death or injury to yourself or another person.

b) For a purpose and duration approved in advance by a CCO.
c) On the direction of a CCO or by WA Police.

  1. Not remain in the presence of any person who is affected by prohibited substances, or you ought to know are affected by prohibited substances, unless the identity of such person is approved in advance by the CCO.

  1. Not remain in any place where prohibited drugs are being consumed or, if such a place is your approved address, withdraw from that part of the residence in which any such consumption is taking place, or remove the persons consuming prohibited drugs from your residence.

  1. Upon request, permit a CCO or WA Police at any location nominated by them, to access any computer, telecommunication and/or device capable of storing digital data, for the purpose of ascertaining your computer, telecommunication and/or electronic device related activities, and provide to the CCO or WA Police upon request any passwords or any other means used to unlock or access the device. This includes providing all screen name(s), user name(s), and email addresses. Should any other entity be required to access a device for instances such as technical advice, approval must be sought in advance from a CCO.

  1. Not be in possession of any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article and not to apply for, acquire or hold a licence to possess any firearm, any ammunition or any offensive or prohibited weapon, replica or dangerous article.

  1. Not be armed in any way that may cause fear when in public locations without a lawful reason/excuse.

  1. Not assault, threaten, insult or use abusive language to a member of the departmental staff or an agent providing a service on behalf of the Department of Justice.

______________________________

THE HON JUSTICE MCGRATH

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

NA
Associate to the Honourable Justice McGrath

6 NOVEMBER 2023

[1] Application for Restriction Order filed 19 April 2023.
[2]The State of Western Australia v Haji-Noor [2023] WASC 145.
[3] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 26 October 2023, [149].

[4] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Lyddieth [2012] WASC 246, [10].
[5] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [28] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
[6] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297, [66], [68] (Wheeler JA); Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [21] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
[7] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [34] (Steytler P & Buss JA).
[8] The State of Western Australia v Garlett  [2021] WASC 387. 
[9] The State of Western Australia v Garlett  [2021] WASC 387 , [133].
[10] The State of Western Australia v Garlett  [2021] WASC 387 , [135].
[11] The State of Western Australia v Garlett  [2021] WASC 387 , [139].
[12] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412.
[13] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412, [21].
[14] The State of Western Australia v D'Rozario [No 3] [2021] WASC 412, [21].
[15] Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 116, [46].
[16] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 35 WAR 297, [63] (Wheeler JA).

[17] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 48.
[18] Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), s 17.

[19] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 48(2).

[20] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312, [14].
[21] The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2006] WASC 235, [24]; Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Decke [2009] WASC 312, [15].
[22] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Hart [2019] WASC 4, [52].

[23] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials.
[24] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 7(3)(c).
[25] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 7(3)(d).
[26] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [14].
[27] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [246].
[28] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [19].
[29] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [52] - [53].

[30] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal record of Mr Haji-Noor, p 1 - 6; Exhibit 5, Updated Criminal record of Mr Haji-Noor.
[31] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal record of Mr Haji-Noor, p 1 - 6; Exhibit 5, Updated Criminal record of Mr Haji-Noor.
[32] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Chronology of Mr Haji-Noor's offending prepared by the Applicant, p 7 - 9.

[33] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Criminal record of Mr Haji-Noor, p 1 - 2.

[34] Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 38 WAR 307, [178] (Murray AJA).

[35] Applicant's outline of submissions dated 26 October 2023, [91].
[36] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, p 1020 - 1035.
[37] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, p 1024.
[38] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Community Supervision Assessment Report, p 1025.
[39] Exhibit 9, Email from Ms Goode to SSO on 31 October 2023.
[40] Exhibit 3, Prosecution notice for charges PE 52011/2023 - PE 52012/2023.
[41] Exhibit 9, Email from Ms Goode to SSO on 31 October 2023; Exhibit 3, Prosecution notice for charges PE 52011/2023 - PE 52012/2023.
[42] Exhibit 9, Email from Ms Goode to SSO on 31 October 2023.
[43] Exhibit 9, Email from Ms Goode to SSO on 31 October 2023.
[44] ts 42 (1/11/2023).
[45] ts 41 (1/11/2023).
[46] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Proposed Treatment Options Report.
[47] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Proposed Treatment Options Report, [18] - [23].
[48] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora.
[49] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [9].
[50] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [257].
[51] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [263] - [265].
[52] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [293].
[53] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [293] - [301].
[54] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [268].
[55] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [280].
[56] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [285] - [292].
[57] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [290] - [291].
[58] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [303].
[59] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [305].
[60] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [311].
[61] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [319].
[62] ts 29 (1/11/2023).
[63] ts 33 (1/11/2023).
[64] ts 30 (1/11/2023).
[65] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [11] - [13].
[66] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [124].
[67] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [145] - [152].
[68] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [178] - [181].
[69] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [188].
[70] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [185].
[71] Exhibit 2, Email from Ms Goode to SSO on 24 October 2023.
[72] Exhibit 2, Email from Ms Goode to SSO on 24 October 2023.
[73] ts 35 - 39 (1/11/2023).
[74] ts 38 (1/11/2023).
[75] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Dr Riordan, [188].
[76] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [303] - [305].
[77] High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA), s 30(5).
[78] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Pyszora, [319].
[79] Exhibit 1, Book of Materials, Report of Professor Dr Riordan, [192].

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2023/421.html