The NDIS is funding hundreds of thousands of dollars in support for some of Western Australia’s most serious sexual offenders, with Supreme Court judgments revealing that access to disability funding has been a significant factor in decisions to release offenders back into the community.
The cases include serial rapists, paedophiles and violent sexual offenders, with court judgments repeatedly referring to NDIS-funded support, accommodation and 24-hour supervision when determining whether offenders could safely be released from prison.
In one case, a judge said the offender’s release would be “extremely difficult to justify” without his NDIS funding.
In another, the court said it would be unwilling to make a supervision order unless it had confidence that adequate NDIS support would be available.
The revelations come as many Australians with disability face increasing scrutiny of their own NDIS funding, raising difficult questions about how the scheme is being used and where responsibility for managing dangerous offenders should sit.
The most striking case is that of Stephen Neil White, a 60-year-old convicted serial rapist with a lengthy history of violent offending, including the rape and attempted murder of a five-year-old girl.
White received two NDIS packages worth more than $1.6 million over two years to support his transition into the community.
His first package, worth $807,189, was a critical factor in his release from prison in late 2023 under a post-sentence supervision order.
Justice Michael Lundberg noted that White had significant disability and said the NDIS was the only reasonably available source of funding for the level of supervision and support he required.
The arrangement lasted just over six months.
White breached his 7pm curfew in February 2024 and, several months later, armed himself with a knife, threatened his support worker and damaged his home. He was returned to custody and placed under a continuing detention order.
Yet he was released again in May 2025.
This time, his NDIS package was worth $860,054 over 12 months and included a support worker around the clock, seven days a week.
The court recommended that the support workers maintain direct communication with WA Police and the Community Offender Monitoring Unit and be appropriately trained to manage White.
Justice Fiona Seaward noted that if the NDIS funding was cancelled, the State could seek to have White returned to prison.
Court records show White is not an isolated example.
Anthony John Carlton, a violent sexual offender with a history including rape, indecent assault, aggravated assault and domestic violence offences, was released in 2024 with an NDIS package worth $675,995.79.
The package provided for a disability support worker 24 hours a day.
A forensic psychologist assessed Carlton as being at “well above average risk” of sexual reoffending and found he had no remorse or empathy for his victims.
Despite this, the Supreme Court found he could comply with a three-year supervision order, with his NDIS-funded support forming part of the arrangements intended to mitigate his risk of reoffending.
Justice Lundberg made continued access to the required level of NDIS support a condition of the order.
Another offender, Lawrence Henry Quartermaine, was released last month with an NDIS package worth $686,571.
Quartermaine has been convicted of multiple sexual and aggravated assault offences, including indecently assaulting a nurse in hospital.
In considering his release, Justice Lundberg said that without the NDIS funding, and the services and housing it supported, it would be extremely difficult to justify releasing him.
Other judgments reveal similar arrangements.
William Stanley Joseph Warmdean, a serial sexual offender with a history of using weapons during violent sexual assaults, was released with 24-hour NDIS support. The court noted that the availability of that support was the most important factor considered by a forensic psychiatrist when assessing the risk he posed in the community.
Robert Bruce Newland, a serial paedophile convicted of offences against multiple children, was released after the court considered NDIS funding to be the only possible source of funding for the supervision he required.
And in the case of John Terry Misko, a violent sexual offender who spent two decades in prison, the court said it would be unwilling to make a supervision order without confidence that adequate NDIS support would be available.
The cases highlight an uncomfortable distinction for the NDIS.
People with disability do not lose their entitlement to disability supports because they have committed a crime. A person’s disability-related needs do not disappear when they enter prison or leave it.
But the court records raise a different question: should NDIS funding be providing the level of supervision and support required to make the release of a high-risk sexual offender possible?
The WA Government insists the NDIS is not being used to manage high-risk offenders.
A government spokesperson said NDIS supports could assist eligible offenders with disability-related needs, but did not replace the supervision, monitoring and enforcement powers used by Corrective Services.
The Government said offender risk was managed through court-imposed conditions, Community Corrections Officers, ongoing risk assessments, case management and enforcement action when offenders failed to comply. It also pointed to the State’s High-Risk Serious Offenders program, which is designed to prevent dangerous offenders from simply walking free when they finish their sentences. But the court judgments tell a more complicated story.
Whatever the Government’s formal position, judges have repeatedly considered the availability of NDIS-funded support when deciding whether certain offenders can safely live in the community. In some cases, the funding appears to be more than incidental. It is explicitly identified as a reason release can be justified.
That distinction matters.
There is a legitimate role for the NDIS in supporting a person with disability, including someone who has a criminal history. But intensive supervision designed to mitigate the risk of serious sexual reoffending sits much closer to the traditional responsibilities of the justice system.
The question for governments is therefore not whether offenders with disability should receive disability support.
It is whether the NDIS should be funding the supports that make it possible for some of Australia’s most dangerous offenders to live in the community rather than remain in custody. And, given the sums involved, Australians are entitled to ask where that line is drawn.
The court records show that, in at least several WA cases, NDIS funding has been an important part of the equation. The next question is whether that is an appropriate use of the scheme.
