SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Wano [2022] QSC 172	
PARTIES:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
HOWARD BENJAMIN CHARLES WANO
(respondent)	
FILE NO/S:	BS 3708 of 2022	
DIVISION:	Trial Division	
PROCEEDING:	Application	
ORIGINATING COURT:	
Supreme Court at Brisbane 	
DELIVERED ON:	22 August 2022	
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	
HEARING DATE:	15 August 2022	
JUDGE:	Cooper J	
ORDER:	Order that the respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule until 31 August 2027	
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two counts of rape being domestic violence offences and one count of deprivation of liberty – where the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years – where the Attorney-General applies for orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where psychiatric evidence describes the respondent’s risk of further offending as ranging from high without a supervision order to low with a supervision order – whether there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody without a supervision order being made – whether a supervision order should be made

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), s 3, s 5, s 13, s 16, Schedule 1
Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)	
COUNSEL:	J Tate for the applicant
B Mumford for the respondent	
SOLICITORS:	Crown Solicitor for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent	
Application
[1]	The respondent is serving a sentence of imprisonment that will expire on 31 August 2022.  This is an application by the Attorney-General for an order under section 13(5) in Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”), such an order being referred to in the Act as a “division 3 order”.
[2]	Section 13 applies if the court is satisfied that “the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order”.  
[3]	A prisoner will be regarded as a serious danger to the community if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if released from custody or if released from custody without a supervision order being made. 
[4]	The term “prisoner” is defined to include a person serving a period of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence.
[5]	A “serious sexual offence” is defined to include an offence of a sexual nature involving violence.
[6]	In deciding whether a prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order the court must have regard to a number of matters prescribed by the Act, and it may reach that conclusion only if satisfied, by acceptable cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that the evidence is of sufficient weight to justify the decision.  The Attorney-General has the onus of proving that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community.
[7]	If the court is satisfied that a prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order, a discretion is enlivened under s 13(5) of the Act to order that the prisoner be:
(a)	detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment (“continuing detention order”); or
(b)	released from custody subject to the requirements the court considers appropriate (“supervision order”).
[8]	In deciding how to exercise the discretion conferred by s 13(5) the paramount consideration for the court is the need to ensure adequate protection of the community.  This reflects the objects of the Act.
History
[9]	The respondent was born on 25 September 1986.
[10]	In November 2000, when the respondent was 14 years old, he was issued with a certificate of caution by the Cairns Child Protection & Investigative Unit with respect to one offence of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 years.  The material tendered at the hearing of the application did not contain any information as to the nature of this offence.
[11]	In late 2011, the respondent was made subject to an order under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (“DFVP Act”).  The complainant under that order was the respondent’s partner.  The submissions for the Attorney-General describe the relationship between the respondent and the complainant as volatile.  They have one daughter together.  
[12]	From May 2012, the respondent was convicted of a number of contraventions of the orders made under the DFVP Act and other offences involving violence, all of which involved the same complainant:
(a)	on 25 May 2012, the respondent was sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Mackay for one count of contravention of the order made under the DFVP Act in late 2011;
(b)	on 2 January 2013, the respondent was sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Mackay for one count each of assault occasioning bodily harm, contravention of an order made under the DFVP Act and possession of a dangerous drug (cannabis);
(c)	on 28 January 2014, the respondent was sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Cairns for one count of wilful damage;
(d)	on 17 July 2014, the respondent was sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Townsville for one count of contravention of an order made under the DFVP Act;
(e)	on 11 September 2014, the respondent was sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Mackay for one count of contravention of an order made under the DFVP Act.
[13]	The offences for which the respondent is serving his current term of imprisonment occurred on 28 May 2015.  On that day, the complainant agreed to pick the respondent up and give him a lift in her car.  During that trip the respondent and the complainant got into an argument and the complainant told the respondent that if he could not be a good role model for their daughter then she would find someone who would.
[14]	Later that afternoon the respondent asked the complainant to pick him up from a shopping centre and she agreed.  As they were driving, the respondent grabbed the steering wheel and pulled it to the right. The complainant stopped the car and asked, “What are you doing?”  The respondent then produced a knife from the left front pocket of his shorts and said, “Keep going or I'll fucking stab you”. 
[15]	They drove to a point where the car became bogged.  There was then some time spent trying to extricate the vehicle.  The complainant sought the assistance of a young couple.  The respondent yelled at the complainant to get back into the car and forcefully put her into the car. She screamed at the couple, “He's got a knife”.  The situation was such that the couple notified the police about what they had seen, and they took down the registration plates.
[16]	After this, the respondent told the complainant to drive.  He took the knife back out of his pocket.  He said, “You're fucked now. I'm going to cut your guts open and stab you in the throat”, and directed the complainant to a lookout area at Slade Point.  He asked her if she was ready, told her it was going to be painful, but it's going to happen.  He asked her if she loved him. He threatened her that if she tried anything, he would stab her in the back and twist the blade.
[17]	They then drove to a Woolworths store.  The respondent told her to drive around the back of the shop and turn off the lights and engine. He asked her to touch the tip of the knife to see how sharp it was.  He pointed it at her chest and waved it after holding it over her legs.  She pleaded with him to stop. He then said, “I'm not going to kill you now; it's great having all the power and control over you because you don't have the cops on your side now”.  He then asked if she wanted sex.  The complainant sat there for a while. She said, “How about a head job instead”, feeling obliged to do so.
[18]	Ultimately, the complainant did perform oral sex on the respondent (the first count of rape).  At the time she was doing so, the complainant could feel the respondent tapping the knife on her back.  The respondent said, “Do you want some?”; the complainant said, “Yes”.  He asked if she had any condoms and she said “No”. The respondent then said, “When I kill you and the cops find you, they'll find my come inside you”.  He told her to take her pants off and gestured for the complainant to get on top of him. She did so. The respondent penetrated her vagina with his penis, for approximately 10 minutes (the second count of rape).
[19]	The complainant then drove the respondent to a tavern where he purchased some alcohol.  She assured him she would not tell anyone about the incident.  She eventually dropped the respondent at his residence and was able to return home.
[20]	On following up the earlier report from the young couple who assisted when the car was bogged, the police checked on the complainant at her residence.  She made a complaint to police at that time.  Police later located the respondent and arrested him.  They found a knife consistent with that described by the complainant.
[21]	On 22 June 2016, the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of rape and one count of deprivation of liberty.  The rape convictions were classified as domestic violence offences.  
[22]	On 8 December 2016, the respondent was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for seven years for the rape offences.
[23]	Accordingly, the respondent is currently serving a period of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence and is a prisoner for the purposes of s 13 of the Act.
Events in prison
[24]	While imprisoned for the rape offences, the respondent completed the “Resilience Program” (on 25 August 2016) and the “Positive Futures Program” (on 8 November 2019).
[25]	After declining an offer of place on the “Getting Started: Preparatory Program” (“GSPP”) on three occasions, the respondent completed the program between 17 May and 20 June 2019.
[26]	In the completion report detailing the respondent's participation in the GSPP, program facilitators reported he demonstrated limited insight into, and no responsibility for, his sexual offending behaviour.  He did not accept he raped the complainant and maintained it was consensual.  He blamed the complainant for “playing games” and using their daughter as a pawn.  Otherwise, he presented with levels of denial and minimisation.
[27]	The respondent’s account of the offending was described as apathetic and differed considerably from the official record.  He displayed no empathy for the complainant. The respondent’s level of engagement was considered to be limited.  It was further identified that the respondent had a history of factors common to general and sexual offending: drug abuse, social isolation, poor relationship skills and violence.
[28]	On 30 January 2020, the respondent declined an offer of place on the “Sexual Offenders Program for Indigenous Males” (“SOPIM”), preferring instead to complete his full sentence, and expressing his disinterest.
[29]	On 15 April 2021, the Respondent changed his mind, and accepted an offer of a place in the SOPIM. He commenced that program in July 2021.
Psychiatric evidence
[30]	Dr Eve Timmins diagnosed the respondent with Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Traits and a Substance Use Disorder (mainly cannabis and alcohol).
[31]	On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Timms reported as follows:
“With regards to future sexual offending, Mr Wano's victims are likely to be adult women who have been in a relationship with him. I do not know the details of the indecent treatment charge, but the age of the female could drop below 16 years old. I do not think he has a paedophilic sexual interest.
A potential female partner initially will be idealised but then will invariably do something that causes him problems. Given the nature of relationships with others the issues will be ongoing as he will not be able to control another person. He could become aggressive towards her and various items around the home. He may experience homicidal thinking in addition to thoughts of rape. His grievances and anger will gradually build up over a long time before he becomes so angry, that he commits sexual offences against her. This pattern is also evident in the custodial setting where he gradually builds up resentment and anger for several years before exploding with incidents of aggressive behaviour. He may or may not use substances and then go on to committing further sexual offending against women.
He is likely to commit penetrative offences against his victims and there is a risk of physical and psychological harm to the victim. He could potentially commit serious harm and harbour thoughts of homicide that will fuel his rage.
His behaviour in prison has been largely uneventful until July 2019 at which time he has regularly had a breach or incident for aggressive and threatening behaviour. He has consistently worked in custody but for two periods spanning some months in 2019 and 2020. He declined the GSPP program twice before accepting a place and completing the program in 2019. He has declined a further intensive sex offender program such as the SOPIM He is effectively a recidivist, untreated sex offender.
On a positive note, he has intentions to work and not to engage in an intimate relationship on release.
His personality structure and substance use may potentially indicate issues with future community orders.
In summary, I am of the opinion that Mr Wano will be at a HIGH risk of re-offending in a sexual manner if released into the community at this time without a supervision order.
I recommend he undergoes a period of treatment prior to release into the community. He has little to no understanding of his pathway to offending sexually. He has few plans or ideas as to how to manage himself, his substance use or his sexual offending if released. His idea to simply not have a relationship is not feasible for an extended period and he is likely to meet someone which will substantially increase his risk of violent and sexual offending. He does not necessarily require substances to offend sexually, but any intoxication will also increase his risk.
…
His risk may be modified by a community supervision order under [the Act].  He would most likely fall into a Moderate risk category.”
[32]	At the time Dr Timmins prepared her report, the respondent had not commenced the SOPIM.
[33]	Dr Michael Beech diagnosed the respondent with a Severe Personality Disorder (with narcissistic and anti-social traits) and a Substance Use Disorder (particularly cannabis and alcohol) in remission within a controlled environment.
[34]	On the question of the risk of further offending, Dr Beech reported as follows:
“In my opinion, the risk that Mr Wano will commit another sexual offence if released unsupervised into the community is in the above-average range but not in the much-above average range. In Australia, approximately 18% of sex offenders commit another sexual offence on release within five years.
It is important though to review the completion report of the SOPIM once Mr Wano has finished the program. His presentation in the preparatory program in 2019 is highly problematic. At interview with me, his hostile stance appears to have lessened, and appears to accept more responsibly for his behaviour, although not ultimate responsibly. He had continued to externalise blame and minimise the offending when he was seen by Dr Timmins in 2021. There are indications of continued problematic behaviours in prison at least up until the end of 2021. The risk therefore is that while he may have settled and improved, and gained insight, but his progress is still limited. My assessment of his risk may change on review of the SOPIM report.
If he were to commit another sexual offence, it will most likely involve an intimate partner. During his relationship, his entitlement would come to the fore. He would be persistent in his demands and his attitude and behaviour. particularly his hostility and his aggression, would create an atmosphere of intimidation so that his partner would feel necessary to comply. Should she resist or should she in some other way deeply offend him, he could resort to sexual violence. That violence could entail a serious risk of harm.
In my opinion, Mr Wano 's risk of re-offending would be reduced to below average if he were subject to a supervision order. That order would act to limit his substance use. It would act to monitor his relationships and intervene if necessary. In the community, he should have psychological therapy. I highly recommend his participation in a domestic violence course and participation in a sex offender maintenance program.
If he were to be subject to a supervision order, I recommend a period of five years.”
[35]	Associate Professor Scott Harden diagnosed the respondent with a Personality Disorder (with antisocial and avoidant features) and noted his problematic use of alcohol and cannabis in the past.
[36]	On the question of the risk of further offending, Associate Professor Harden reported as follows:
“The actuarial and structured professional judgement measures I administered would suggest that his future risk of sexual reoffence is moderate-high to high (above average to well above average) in the absence of a supervision order. My assessment of this risk is based on the combined clinical and actuarial assessment.
If he complies with a supervision order it is likely to reduce the risk to low to moderate.
In this matter I am clearly specifically referring to the risk of future sexual violence. This is most likely to be directed towards current or future romantic partners (adult females) if problems arise and he feels that his emotional attachments are threatened.
…
Any order should be for a minimum of 5 years.  This gives enough time to test him in the community and for him to reengage with employment and develop new romantic relationships in which he should learn how to deal with strong negative emotions without resorting to violence or sexual violence.”
Completion of SOPIM
[37]	On 2 August 2022, the respondent completed the SOPIM.
[38]	A SOPIM completion report was prepared by the program facilitators on 5 August 2022. It stated as follows in Section 5: 
“Prisoner Wano presented as motivated to live an offence free life and reintegrate into community.  He demonstrated awareness of the conditions he may be subject to under the DPSOA and had engaged in a video link up with a potential SCM to increase his understanding.  Alongside this prisoner Wano presented as willing to engage with a SCM as well as other relevant authorities that may be associated with re-establishing a relationship with his daughter, such as Child Safety.  He presented as very willing to engage with conditions having a strong recognition of the consequences of noncompliance.  At the time of writing prisoner Wano was unclear around whether he would be subject to a continuing order however had made a referral to Community Re-Entry Support Team (CREST) for accommodation support should he be Discharged to Liberty (DTL). 
Over the duration of his participation in the SOPIM prisoner Wano demonstrated solid insight into the background factors associated with his offence and made strong links to adverse childhood experiences and his ongoing experience of anger and isolation that had accumulated into emotional explosiveness due to the breakdown of his relationship and loss of his brother prior to the offence.  Gains were identified in General Social Rejection and Loneliness and Significant Social Influences through his increased recognition of the emotional barriers he had established in a bid to protect himself from vulnerability and let downs and how this had contributed to his sense of isolation.  He demonstrated capacity to form open, trusting relationships with facilitators and other group members and understood the development and maintenance of healthy familial, peer and partner relationships.  Prisoner Wano further demonstrated gains in Capacity for Relationship Stability and Hostility Towards Women through his increased understanding of developing and maintaining healthy relationships as well as his increased recognition, as noted above, of the experiences that have contributed to his emotional withdrawal in relationships.  Further, his capacity to work with female custodial and programs staff was appropriate.  Prisoner Wano’s recognition the impact of ongoing anger as well as his avoidance of problems contributed to his strong plans around addressing problems early to avoid the build-up of emotions that he had experienced at the time of his offence.  He further demonstrated the ability to implement coping strategies within the custodial environment and had plans for coping in the community.  Alongside this prisoner Wano showed a shift in attitudes around violence recognising the negative impact violence has had on his circumstances.  His work in this area supported gains in Negative Emotionality and Poor Problem Solving.  Sex as Coping was not supported within his offence pathway given the violence appeared linked to emotional coping.  Gains were made in Lack of Concern for Others due to his increased recognition of this disconnection to others as well as strong increase in his ability to perspective take both within and outside of intimate partner relationships.  Deviant Sexual Interests were explored and not supported as a need within his offence pathway given his explorations revealed the combination of emotional explosiveness and normalised views around violence had contributed to his use of violence at the offence, rather than the use of violence as sexual deviance.  It was suggested his explorations of his learnings about violence in combination with his shift in attitudes around violence as well as his increase in healthy coping supported gains in this area.  Gains were identified within Co-operation with Supervision via his increased ability to form professional relationships with program facilitators as well as openness to seeking support from officers within the custodial environment.  It was suggested his openness to be emotionally vulnerable with others would support further gains in this area.”
[39]	Crown Law provided a copy of the SOPIM completion report to each of Dr Timmins, Dr Beech and Associate Professor Harden and asked whether the content of that report altered the opinions they had expressed previously.
[40]	Dr Timmins acknowledged that the SOPIM completion report indicated the respondent had engaged well with the program and made gains in his knowledge as to how to manage his risk of sexual reoffending.  While she confirmed her opinion that the respondent’s risk of sexual reoffending without a division 3 order remains high, she stated that, under a supervision order, the risk of sexual reoffending may drop below a moderate level if the respondent can apply what he has learnt in the program.
[41]	Dr Beech described the report as a positive completion report and confirmed that it did not alter the views he expressed in his report.
[42]	Associate Professor Harden also confirmed that the SOPIM completion report did not alter his previous opinions.
The parties’ respective positions
[43]	In this case, the Attorney-General has applied in the alternative for a continuing detention order or a supervision order.  However, while the application in the alternative for a continuing detention order is maintained, Mr Tate, who appeared as counsel for the Attorney-General, acknowledged that the evidence supports a finding that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order.  It was submitted that the term of a supervision order should be for at least five years.
[44]	The respondent, by his counsel, Mr Mumford, expressly accepted that the court would find that he is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order, but contended that the risk of him committing a serious sexual offence upon release could be adequately managed by compliance with the terms of a supervision order.  The respondent contends that the appropriate duration of a supervision order is five years.
Whether the discretion to make a division 3 order is enlivened
[45]	The evidence before me, including the evidence of the psychiatrists on the question of risk of sexual reoffending, is acceptable and cogent.  On the basis of that evidence, and having regard to the matters set out in s 13(4) of the Act, I am satisfied that the concession made by Mr Mumford that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order was properly made.   
[46]	That finding engages the discretion to make a division 3 order under s 13(5) of the Act.
The appropriate order
[47]	I accept the submission made on behalf of the Attorney-General that there are no factors in this case which would cause the court to permit the unsupervised release of the respondent.  That is to say, adequate protection of the community would not be ensured by the exercise of the discretion to make no division 3 order.
[48]	I am, however, satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order.  The concession made by Mr Tate to that effect is supported by the evidence of the psychiatrists and, again, I consider that concession to have been properly made.  
[49]	I am satisfied that adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the making of a supervision order which is to operate for a period of five years from the end of the respondent’s period of imprisonment.
[50]	The Attorney-General also read an affidavit sworn by Marissa Piat, the Acting Manager of the High-Risk Offender Management Unit within Community Corrections, Queensland Corrective Services.  That affidavit addressed the practical arrangements available for the supervision of the respondent and his reintegration into the community, including accommodation, supervision, medical treatment and other community support services.  On the basis of that evidence I consider that the requirements of s 16 of the Act can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective services officers. 
[51]	The parties have agreed on the terms of the supervision order.  I am satisfied that those terms are appropriate.
Conclusion
[52]	I find that:
(a)	the respondent is a serious danger to the community if released from custody without a supervision order being made; and
(b)	adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order.
[53]	I order the respondent be released from custody subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule to these reasons until 31 August 2027.

SCHEDULE
The court is satisfied that Howard Benjamin Charles Wano, is a serious danger to the community. The rules in this order are made according to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld).
The court orders that Howard Benjamin Charles Wano be released from prison and must follow the rules in this supervision order for five years, until 31 August 2027.
To Howard Benjamin Charles Wano:
1.	You are being released from prison but only if you obey the rules in this supervision order.
2.	If you break any of the rules in this supervision order, the police or Queensland Corrective Services have the power to arrest you. Then the court might order that you go back to prison. 
3.	You must obey these rules for the next five years.
Reporting
4.	On the day you are released from prison, you must report before 4 pm to a corrective services officer at the Community Corrections office closest to where you will live. You must tell the corrective services officer your name and the address where you will live.
5.	A corrective services office will tell you the times and dates when you must report to them. You must report to them at the times they tell you to report. A corrective services officer might visit you at your home. You must let the corrective services officer come into your house.
To “report” means to visit a corrective services officer and talk to them face to face.
Supervision
6.	A corrective services officer will supervise you until this order is finished. This means you must obey any reasonable direction that a corrective services officer gives you about: 
(a)	Where you are allowed to live; and
(b)	Rehabilitation, care or treatment programs; and
(c)	Using drugs and alcohol; and
(d)	Who you may or may not have contact with; and
(e)	Anything else, except for instructions that mean you will break the rules in this supervision order.
A “reasonable direction” is an instruction about what you must do, or what you must not do, that is reasonable in that situation.
If you are not sure about a direction, you can ask a corrective services officer for more information, or talk to your lawyer about it.
7.	You must answer and tell the truth if a corrective services officer asks you about where you are, what you have been doing or what you are planning to do, and who you are spending time with.
8.	If you change your name, where you live or any employment, you must tell a corrective services officer at least two business days before the change will happen. 
A “business day” is a week day (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) that is not a public holiday. 
No [sexual] offences
9.	You must not break the law by committing an offence of a sexual nature. 
10.	You must not break the law by committing a domestic violence offence including breaching a domestic violence order by the court.
Where you must live
11.	You must live at a place approved by a corrective services officer. You must obey any rules that are made about people who live there.
12.	You must not live at another place. If you want to live at another place, you must tell a corrective services officer the address of the place you want to live. The corrective services officer will decide if you are allowed to live at that place. You are allowed to change the place you live only when you get written permission from a corrective services officer to live at another place.
This also means you must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to stay overnight, or for a few days, or for a few weeks, at another place.
13.	You must not leave Queensland. If you want to leave Queensland, you must ask for written permission from a corrective services officer. You are allowed to leave Queensland only after you get written permission from a corrective services officer.
Curfew direction
14.	A corrective services officer has power to tell you to stay at a place (for example, the place you live) at particular times. This is called a curfew direction. You must obey a curfew direction.
Monitoring direction
15.	A corrective services officer has power to tell you to:
(f)	Wear a device that tracks your location; and
(g)	Let them install a device or equipment at the place you live. This will monitor if you are there. 
This is called a monitoring direction. You must obey a monitoring direction.
Employment or study
16.	You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to start a job, start studying or start volunteer work.
17.	When you ask for permission, you must tell the corrective services officer these things: 
(a)	What the job is;
(b)	Who you will work for;
(c)	What hours you will work each day;
(d)	The place or places where you will work; and
(e)	(if it is study) where you want to study and what you want to study.
18.	If a corrective services officer tells you to stop working or studying you must obey what they tell you. 
Motor vehicles
19.	You must tell a corrective services officer the details (make, model, colour and registration number) about any vehicle you own, borrow or hire. You must tell the corrective services officer these details immediately (on the same day) you get the vehicle. 
A vehicle includes a car, motorbike, ute or truck. 
Mobile phone
20.	You are only allowed to own or have (even if you do not own it) one mobile phone. You must tell a corrective services officer the details (make, model, phone number and service provider) about any mobile phone you own or have within 24 hours of when you get the phone. 
21.	You must give a corrective services officer all passwords and passcodes for any mobile phones you own or have. You must let a corrective services officer look at the phone and everything on the phone.
Computers and internet
22.	You must get written permission from a corrective services officer before you are allowed to use a computer, phone or other device to access the internet.
23.	You must give a corrective services officer any password or other access code you know for the computer, phone or other device. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using the computer, phone or other device. You must let a corrective services officer look at the computer, phone or other device and everything on it. 
24.	You must give a corrective services officer details (including user names and passwords) about any email address, instant messaging service, chat rooms, or social networking sites that you use. You must do this within 24 hours of when you start using any of these things.
No contact within any victim
25.	You must not contact or try to contact any victim(s) of a sexual offence committed by you. You must not ask someone else to do this for you unless the contact is made by your legal representative, or other authorised representative approved by a corrective services officer, in relation to arrangements regarding contact with, or spending time with, your daughter.
You must tell a corrective services officer prior to making arrangements with your legal representative, or other authorised representative.
“Contact” means any type of communication, including things like talking, texting, sending letters or emails, posting pictures or chatting. You must not do any of these things in person, by telephone, computer, social media or in any other way.
Rules about alcohol and drugs
26.	You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, or sniff) any alcohol.  You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any alcohol.
27.	You are not allowed to take (for example, swallow, eat, inject, smoke or sniff) any illegal drugs. You are also not allowed to have with you or be in control of any illegal drugs.
28.	A corrective services officer has the power to tell you to take a drug test or alcohol test. You must take the drug test or alcohol test when they tell you to. You must give them some of your breath, or pee (urine) when they tell you to do this. 
29.	You are not allowed to go to pubs, clubs, hotels or nightclubs, or bottle shops which are licensed to supply or serve alcohol. If you want to go to one of these places, you must first get written permission from a corrective services officer. If you do not get written permission, you are not allowed to go.
Rules about medicine 
30.	You must tell a corrective services officer about any medicine that a doctor prescribes (tells you to buy). You must also tell a corrective services officer about any over the counter medicine that you buy or have with you. You must do this within 24 hours of seeing the doctor or buying the medicine.
31.	You must take prescribed medicine only as directed by a doctor. You must not take any medicine (other than over the counter medicine) which has not been prescribed for you by a doctor.
Rules about rehabilitation and counselling
32.	You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about seeing a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other counsellor. 
33.	You must obey any direction a corrective services officer gives you about participating in any treatment or rehabilitation program.
34.	You must let corrective services officers get information about you from any treatment or from any rehabilitation program.
Speaking to corrective services about what you plan to do
35.	You must talk to a corrective services officer about what you plan to do each week. A corrective services officer will tell you how to do this (for example, face to face or in writing).
36.	You must also tell a corrective services officer the name of new persons you have met.
This includes: spend time with, work with, make friends with, see or speak to (including by using social media or the internet) regularly.
37.	You may need to tell new contacts about your supervision order and offending history.  The corrective services officer will instruct you to tell those persons and the corrective services officer may speak to them to make sure you have given them all the information.
Other specific conditions
38.	You must disclose within 24 hours when you get or look at pornographic material of any type. A corrective services officer may tell you to stop looking at it. Your treating psychologist may provide advice regarding this.
This includes pictures on a computer, photographs, movies, or magazines.
39.	You must advise your case manager of any personal relationships you have started.
40.	You must not engage in acts which are intended to dominate or intimidate any person with whom you have a personal relationship.