R v THOMPSON [2026] SASC 61

Applicant: GARRY STEPHEN THOMPSON In Person Counsel: MS C TASSONE - Solicitor: FRECH TASSONE PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS First Respondent: THE KING (SA) In Person Counsel: MS L LAKATOS - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Second Respondent: PAROLE BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA No Attendance Hearing Date/s: 02/02/2026, 16/03/2026, 14/04/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-26-003391 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal: Application) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. R v THOMPSON [2026] SASC 61 Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gray 5 May 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - LIFE SENTENCE - REDETERMINATION OR SETTING OF MINIMUM TERM OR NON-PAROLE PERIOD CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - GENERALLY CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - SENTENCE: PARTICULAR CASES - MINIMUM TERM, NON-PAROLE PERIOD The applicant was found guilty of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment on 26 March 2001. A non-parole period of 18 years was fixed in 2001, commencing on 20 October 1999. Since the applicant’s first release on parole on 6 January 2021, the applicant has been returned to custody on two occasions and dealt with twice by the Parole Board for breaches in relation to taking methamphetamine. The applicant was taken into custody on a further occasion on 19 September 2025. The Parole Board cancelled the applicant’s parole on 19 November 2025, consequent upon three further breaches on 9 January 2025, 6 March 2025, and 16 September 2025. The applicant seeks an order fixing a further non-parole period in respect of the sentence of life imprisonment. Held: (1) The Court fixes a non-parole period of 12 months, backdated to commence on 19 September 2025. (2) The applicant was afforded significant leniency by the Parole Board, and the applicant did not manage to respond appropriately to the leniency that was afforded to him. Whilst the applicant sought to provide explanations for his further drug taking, and those matters provide the -- 1 of 13 -- context in which he engaged in further drug taking, those matters do not excuse his conduct. [40] (3) In considering the prospects of rehabilitation on parole, the Court must have regard to the entirety of his conduct whilst on parole. The gravity of the breach of the designated condition is magnified by the fact that there are, in this case, repeated breaches which brought about the cancellation of the parole. [41] Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) ss 14(1), 47(3), 47(5), 47(5)(b), referred to. Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338; R v Bakewell [2022] SASC 39; R v Fricker [2017] SASC 107; R v Miller (2000) 76 SASR 151; R v Moyle [2020] SASC 93; R v P (1992) 64 A Crim R 381; R v Roberts [2016] 125 SASR 40; R v Webb [1971] VR 147; Sauth Thi v Police [2025] SASC 169, considered. -- 2 of 13 -- R v THOMPSON [2026] SASC 61 Criminal: Application GRAY J: 1 This is an application by Garry Stephen Thompson made on 27 January 2026 for an order fixing a non-parole period in respect of a sentence of life imprisonment,1 pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (‘Sentencing Act’). On 26 March 2001, following Mr Thompson’s conviction of the offence of murder, a life sentence of imprisonment was imposed by this Court. A non-parole period of 18 years was fixed in 2001, with the non-parole period commencing on 20 October 1999, being the date that Mr Thompson was taken into custody. 2 Mr Thompson was released on parole on 6 January 2021. Mr Thompson has a documented history of drug abuse. A couple of months after his release, Mr Thompson was returned to custody on a Parole Board warrant. This was a consequence of testing positive on 25 March 2021 to methamphetamine. The Parole Board considered, following Mr Thompson’s acknowledgment of the breach, that he was worthy of another chance. As such, he was released from the warrant on 9 August 2021. 3 On 25 October 2021, Mr Thompson again tested positive to methamphetamine. A warrant was issued on 28 October 2021, and Mr Thompson was returned to jail. He was brought before the Parole Board on 7 April 2022 to explain his breach. The Parole Board determined that Mr Thompson be given another chance to engage in appropriate intervention and on 11 April 2022, he was released from the warrant to reside at the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre. Mr Thompson transitioned out of the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre on 9 December 2022. He had secured employment as a boil maker/welder. He was, at that time, engaged with a psychologist and had been reporting reliably. 4 Mr Thompson returned to drug use and tested positive for drug use on 9 January 2025. Mr Thompson was summonsed to appear before the Parole Board on 19 March 2025, to explain the positive drug test. Advice was also received that, on 6 March 2025, he had returned a positive test for methamphetamine. Mr Thompson was given a stern warning at that stage. On 16 September 2025, there was a further positive test to methamphetamine and Mr Thompson was returned to jail on a Parole Board warrant on 19 September 2025. The Parole Board then cancelled his parole on 19 November 2025. 5 For the reasons below, I fix a non-parole period of 12 months, backdated to commence on 19 September 2025. 1 Garry Stephen Thompson, ‘Originating Application to Fix a Non-Parole Period’, Thompson v The King (SA), SCCRM-26-003391, 27 January 2026 (FDN 1). -- 3 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 2 The offending 6 Mr Thompson was found guilty by jury of the murder of Ms Jodie-Ann Trueman (‘Ms Trueman’). The offence took place at Marleston on 18 October 1999. 7 At the time of the offence, Mr Thompson had been living in a unit at Marleston with his de facto wife and his child. Both Mr Thompson’s de facto and child were away interstate when the offending occurred. 8 The victim of Mr Thompson’s offending, Ms Trueman, was 26 years of age at the time of her death. It was not disputed at Mr Thompson’s trial that Ms Trueman was a user of heroin and that she sold heroin from time to time. It was through that activity that Mr Thompson met Ms Trueman. Mr Thompson was also a user of heroin, and, on the day of the offence, it had been arranged that Ms Trueman would bring heroin to Mr Thompson’s unit so that he could purchase it. On the afternoon of the offending, Ms Trueman was in the course of delivering heroin to various customers. 9 There was evidence at Mr Thompson’s trial that Ms Trueman drove her car to the block of units in which Mr Thompson was living and parked it nearby.2 Ms Trueman was seen running in the direction of Mr Thompson’s unit. Evidence was given at the trial that screams were heard a short time after Ms Trueman entered Mr Thompson’s unit. Later that evening, Mr Thompson drove Ms Trueman’s body, in her vehicle, to a location not far away and left her there to be found by nearby residents.3 Mr Thompson was found to be in possession of some of Ms Trueman’s property when he was apprehended. The post-mortem examination of Ms Trueman’s body revealed signs of manual strangulation and a particularly high dose of heroin.4 10 Mr Thompson denied the offence at trial and gave a version of what transpired in the unit after Ms Trueman arrived. In sentencing, Duggan J held:5 I reject, as I am sure the jury rejected, your story that she had suffered certain injuries prior to arriving at your unit. What motivated you to commit this offence remains a mystery but it may well have had something to do with your craving for heroin. Whatever might have been your state of mind during the incident, your attitude in taking the young woman’s property after the incident displays an element of callousness. You are now almost 30 years of age. You have some minor convictions, none of which are particularly relevant to the present matter. Ms Nelson QC has said all that can be said for you, and I take her submissions into account. She referred to Dr Raeside’s report and drew attention to the fact that you first started taking amphetamines and heroin at the age of 20. 2 Sentencing Remarks in The Queen v Thompson (Supreme Court of South Australia, Duggan J, 26 March 2001). 3 Ibid 2. 4 Ibid 2. 5 Ibid at 2-3. -- 4 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 3 You have made attempts to overcome your drug habit and you were in employment at the time of the offence. I accept that you have a good work history. I take into account your youth and that there are prospects for rehabilitation. However, I must also take into account the seriousness of this crime. The victim impact statements provided by Ms Trueman’s mother, father, grandmother, sister and friends should have gone some way to bring home to you the dreadful consequences of your wanton conduct. The loss of a loved one, particularly a young person with her life before her, results in unbearable and lasting agony of mind which is felt by a large circle of people. In a sense, no punishment which I can impose can relieve that agony. However, I am required to take into account in sentencing you these consequences of your actions. 11 As I have indicated above, Mr Thompson was imprisoned for life, and a non-parole period of 18 years was imposed. Parole breaches and Parole Board report 12 Mr Thompson was first released onto parole on 6 January 2021. A couple of months after his release, he was returned to custody on a parole board warrant. This was a consequence of having tested positive on 25 March 2021 to methamphetamine. Mr Thompson is said to have acknowledged the breach and provided an explanation that he had been offered the drug by a friend whilst working on a car. The Parole Board report indicates that the Parole Board considered he was worthy of another chance and he was released from the warrant on 9 August 2021. 13 On 25 October 2021, Mr Thompson again tested positive to methamphetamine. The Parole Board report indicates that he asserted to his community corrections officer that this result was due to a spiked drink. He was returned to the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre. His vehicle was searched and a needle was located. He denied knowledge of the needle but when pressed by his community corrections officer he admitted to using the drug. It is said to have become evident that Mr Thompson would engage in dishonest explanations and denials when he was questioned about his drug use.6 At that time there was a question raised as to whether or not he had been taking his prescribed suboxone medication. A warrant was issued by the Parole Board on 28 October 2021, and Mr Thompson was returned to jail. 14 Mr Thompson was brought before the Parole Board on 7 April 2022 to explain his breach. Mr Thompson is said to have stated to the Parole Board to the effect that the drugs had been in his tool box from the time before and that he had a bad day and it was because of the presence of the drug and the fact that he had had a bad day that he engaged in the drug taking. The Parole Board determined that Mr Thompson be given another chance to engage in appropriate intervention and on 11 April 2022, Mr Thompson was released from the warrant to reside at the 6 Parole Board Report of W Boucaut KC, Thompson v The King (SA), SCCRM-26-003391, 13 February 2026, (FDN 5). -- 5 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 4 Adelaide Pre-Release Centre. Mr Thompson was warned by the Parole Board that further drug use may result in his parole being cancelled. 15 Mr Thompson transitioned out of the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre on 9 December 2022. He had secure employment as a boiler maker/welder. He had engaged with a psychologist and had been reporting reliably. His progress at that stage was considered by the Parole Board to be encouraging.7 There appears to have been a period of just over two years when no concerns are raised concerning Mr Thompson’s drug taking. However, on 9 January 2025, Mr Thompson again returned a positive result to drug testing. On that occasion, Mr Thompson explained to the Parole Board that he had used a pipe belonging to a partner who had previously smoked methamphetamine in the pipe. Mr Thompson had a prescription to smoke medicinal cannabis. He denied using methamphetamine. That drug taking coincided with a time that he had been laid off from his employment. 16 Mr Thompson was summonsed to appear before the Parole Board on 19 March 2025 to explain the positive result. Advice was then received by the Parole Board that the test taken on 6 March 2025 returned a positive result to methamphetamine. Mr Thompson adhered to his denial of deliberate use. The Parole Board determined to defer finalisation of the matter pending the receipt of two negative urine analysis tests in the hope that he could appropriately engage with counselling. Mr Thompson was given a very stern warning by the Parole Board and Mr Thompson was reported to have adopted a more pro-social mindset following his interview.8 On 16 September 2025, some six months later, there was a further positive test result to methamphetamine. Mr Thompson is said by the Parole Board to have come up with the excuse that he had taken some medication given to him by an associate whom he knew from prison to “calm his nerves.” Mr Thompson was returned to jail on a Parole Board warrant on 19 September 2025, the Parole Board cancelled his parole on 19 November 2025.9 17 The Parole Board report of 13 February 2026, prepared for the purposes of the imposition of the non-parole period, concludes as follows:10 Mr Thompson’s performance on parole can only be described as poor. He was superficial in his engagement with his Community Corrections Officer in discussing his criminogenic needs and strategies to address them. He ignored multiple warnings from the Parole Board as to the consequences of continued drug use. His explanations for his multiple breaches were disingenuous. He is reported to not currently have the capacity to authentically engage in the supervision process. 7 Parole Board Report of W Boucaut KC, Thompson v The King (SA), SCCRM-26-003391, 13 February 2026, at 2 (FDN 5). 8 Parole Board Report of W Boucaut KC, Thompson v The King (SA), SCCRM-26-003391, 13 February 2026, at 2 (FDN 5). 9 Parole Board Report of W Boucaut KC, Thompson v The King (SA), SCCRM-26-003391, 13 February 2026, at 2 (FDN 5). 10 Parole Board Report of W Boucaut KC, Thompson v The King (SA), SCCRM-26-003391, 13 February 2026, at 2 (FDN 5). -- 6 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 5 If Mr Thompson is to succeed in supervision in the community in the future it would be essential that he abstain from drugs, engage honestly in the process of supervision and work with Community Corrections with a view to addressing his problems. Mr Thompson’s personal circumstances and submissions 18 Mr Thompson is currently 54 years of age. He has one older sister who is supportive, she resides in Western Australia. He has a 25-year-old son who lives in New South Wales and has sustained recent online contact. Mr Thompson’s son was only six months old when Mr Thompson was remanded in custody. His son was 22 when he was released from custody. 19 Mr Thompson was born in England and raised in South Australia having arrived as a baby at one year of age. He was naturalised in 1977. His family left England for work related travel and better opportunities. Between the ages of one and six, the family lived in Whyalla as his father worked as a welder in the shipping yards. From around the age of six years old, Mr Thompson was raised in Seaford. His father passed away in 1997 when Mr Thompson was aged 26 years. 20 Mr Thompson, as I have indicated above, was remanded in custody at the age of 28. Mr Thompson’s mother remains alive; she is 78 years of age with early onset Alzheimer’s. Mr Thompson is however estranged from his mother, although, he has and continues to make attempts to contact her. Mr Thompson had planned with permission from the Parole Board to move to Western Australia to live with his sister as this is his only family contact left, other than the online contact with his son. 21 Mr Thompson attended Christies Beach Primary School and completed year 11 at Willunga High School. During his remand on custody, he completed his SACE year 12 whilst in custody and then went on to obtain Certificates 3 and 4 in Micro Business, Leadership and Business Management whilst also in custody. As indicated previously in these remarks, Mr Thompson was taken into custody in 1999, when he was aged 28 and first released onto parole on 6 January 2021. He was returned to custody on 25 March 2021, following the acknowledged use of illicit substances. He spent a further time in custody before being released by the Parole Board on 9 August 2021. There was a second breach on 25 October 2021, and again Mr Thompson was taken into custody,11 remaining in custody until 11 April 2022. He was then released from the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre on 9 December 2022. 22 I am asked by Mr Thompson’s counsel to consider that two breaches have been dealt with by the Parole Board and that what is before me is the breaches on 9 January 2025, 6 March 2025 and 16 September 2025. Those three breaches are the subject of the cancellation of the parole and the matters for which Mr Thompson has been detained in custody since 19 September 2025. I accept 11 On 28 October 2021. -- 7 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 6 that submission. I note, however, that the prior breaches of parole remain relevant in considering Mr Thompson’s prospects of rehabilitation. 23 It is submitted by Mr Thompson’s counsel that when he was released on 9 April 2022, Mr Thompson was granted freedom of movement with GPS restrictions until he found a stable residence, which took approximately eight months. On 9 December 2022, he secured a residence through housing SA and remained living at that residence for three years. During that period, he obtained employment as a boil maker/welder making fireplaces. He worked in that occupation for 18 months full time before sustaining carpal tunnel to both wrists, requiring surgery. Mr Thompson’s wrists are now held together by plates and screws. This left his without work for some six months. However, he did return to light duties and remained in the same employment until he was no longer able to be offered further work with respect to light duties. He had a further six months of employment as a meat delivery driver. However, this aggravated his work injury in 2024. It is submitted that during this time, Mr Thompson was self-medicating, and he was prescribed medicinal cannabis to assist and relieve pain at night for insomnia, and he was diagnosed with anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. He was prescribed Valium for insomnia and diagnosed anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. He was prescribed Valium for social anxiety to assist with his day to day living and difficulties with social re-engagement due to institutionalisation. 24 Mr Thompson by his counsel provided an explanation for the needle that was located when his vehicle was searched by the Community Corrections Officer on 25 October 2021. He also provided a response to the suggestion that there was a question as the whether or not he had been taking his prescribed suboxone medication. I take those matters into account. Mr Thomspon also explained that, in relation to the positive test of 16 September 2025, he made admissions to taking a dexamphetamine tablet from a friend. This was said to be self-medication following his self-diagnosis with ADHD around 2017 and 2018 and the difficulty with finding an available specialist through a GP who would also bulk bill him. Mr Thompson stated that he was seeking to try dexamphetamine to determine its effectiveness prior to outlaying funds for the medication to be properly prescribed. 25 It is submitted on behalf of Mr Thompson that he has remained abstinent throughout his time in custody despite the presence of drugs around him. Mr Thompson has been tested in custody and has returned negative test results. Mr Thompson is said to attend AA sessions on Tuesday nights, being group sessions of one hour and he has completed five of those sessions. Once completed, he will engage in one-to-one counselling, and it is said that such counselling can continue in the community. 26 Mr Thompson has also provided evidence of his participation in sessions conducted by the OARS community transition smart recovery group program. Mr Thompson also provided evidence of his completion of a Certificate 2 in workplace skills and a Certificate 3 in business. He is currently enrolled in the -- 8 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 7 business studies (computing) class and is said by an educator to be polite and respectful to staff and fellow students within the education centre. 27 Mr Thompson is said to pride himself on being punctual and to repeatedly have shown a great commitment towards his studies. Mr Thompson has also provided a letter concerning his attempts at rehabilitation and his avoidance of heroin since his offending in 1999. He expresses remorse for his offending and the implications of his offending for the family of the victim. Mr Thompson also refers to his plans if granted release and provides an explanation for his self-medication consistent with the submissions made by his counsel.12 I take these matters into account. Victim impact statements 28 Ms Deborah Smythe (‘Ms Smythe’) is the sister of Ms Trueman, who was murdered by Mr Thompson on 18 October 2019. Ms Smythe refers to the pain suffered by her children, her mother and her grandmother as a consequence of Ms Trueman’s death. Ms Smythe refers to all of the matters that Ms Trueman by reason of her death did not get to experience. Ms Smythe refers to her own mental and physical health being affected by Ms Trueman’s death and that she continues to experience nightmares and visions of her sister’s death and to the lasting impact of her sister’s death upon her family. 29 Ms Cheryl Langbine (‘Ms Langbine’) is the mother of Ms Trueman. Ms Langbine refers to the brutality of Ms Trueman’s murder having a deep and significant impact upon both her and Ms Trueman’s father, who is now deceased. Ms Langbine refers to how she used to be a very outgoing person who enjoyed company but has become reclusive. Ms Langbine refers to the entire family being affected by Ms Trueman’s death, and she refers to the lasting impact of the circumstances of that death. Ms Langbine also refers to Mr Thompson’s failure to rehabilitate whilst in prison. 30 Mr Jason Gordon (‘Mr Gordon’) is the older brother of Ms Trueman, and he refers to the significant and daily anger that he continues to feel over Ms Trueman’s death. Mr Gordon refers to the toll that Ms Trueman’s death took upon his entire family and to the impact that it has had upon his children and the manner in which he now feels very protective of his own children. 31 Mr Ben Hogan (‘Mr Hogan’) is the nephew of Ms Trueman. He refers in his victim impact statement to the pain and destruction caused to his family by the loss of Ms Trueman. He also refers to his concern regarding the lack of rehabilitation of Mr Thompson and the need of society to be protected from Mr Thompson. 12 Garry Stephen Thompson, ‘Further Sentencing Material of Applicant’, Submission in Thompson v The King (SA), SCCRM-26-003391, 27 April 2026, Letter of Garry Stephen Thompson dated 21 April 2026 at 2-3. -- 9 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 8 32 Justice Duggan said, in 2001, that no punishment that his Honour could impose could relieve the agony of mind felt by a large circle of people caused by Ms Trueman’s death. That remains true in respect of the task that I must undertake. 33 I have regard to the impact of the injury, loss and damage suffered by the family of the victim of Mr Thompson’s criminal conduct.13 Fixing a non-parole period 34 Section 47 of the Sentencing Act relevantly provides: (1) Subject to this section, when a court, on convicting a person of an offence, sentences the person to imprisonment, the court must – (a) If the person is not subject to an existing non-parole period – fix a non-parole period; or … (2) If the sentence of imprisonment is imposed for an offence committed during a period of release on parole or conditional release from a previous sentence of imprisonment or detention, the court, in fixing a non-parole period under subsection (1)(a), must have regard to the total period of imprisonment (or detention and imprisonment) that the person is, by virtue of the new sentence and the balance of the previous sentence, liable to serve. (3) If a prisoner is serving a sentence of imprisonment but is not subject to an existing non-parole period, the sentencing court may, subject to subsection (5), fix a non-parole period, on application by the prisoner or the presiding member of the Parole Board. (4) The fact that the prisoner has completed a non-parole period previously fixed in respect of the same sentence of imprisonment, or that a court has previously declined to fix a non-parole period in respect of that sentence, does not preclude an application under subsection (3). (5) The above provisions are subject to the following qualifications: … (b) if fixing a non-parole period in respect of a person sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence of murder, the mandatory minimum non-parole period prescribed in respect of the offence is 20 years; … 35 Mr Thompson brings this application pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act.14 The discretion to fix a non-parole period pursuant to s 47(3) is to be exercised judicially and is not confined by s 47(5)(b) of the Sentencing Act as this 13 See s 14(1) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA); R v Webb [1971] VR 147, 150-151 (Winneke CJ, Pape and Lush JJ); R v P (1992) 64 A Crim R 381, 384-385 (Burchett, Miles and O’Loughlin JJ); Sauth Thi v Police [2025] SASC 169, at [21]-[22] (Gray J). 14 R v Bakewell [2022] SASC 39, at [46] (Kourakis CJ); R v Brady [2011] SASCFC 79, 37 (Nyland J). -- 10 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 9 is the second time that a non-parole period is to be set by this Court for Mr Thompson, consequent on Mr Thompson being sentenced to life imprisonment.15 36 The relevant considerations which I take into account are:16 • The prospects of rehabilitation on parole. • The gravity of the offences on which the offender was imprisoned and then paroled. • The gravity of the breaching offences on which the offender was imprisoned or the breach of the designated condition. • The need to deter the offender and others from commission of offences of the type with respect to which he was on parole and offences of the type that breached that parole, or the need to deter the offender and others from breaching a designated condition. • The need to deter the offender and others from breaching parole. Consideration 37 It is clear from the sentencing remarks of Justice Duggan that Mr Thompson began taking amphetamines and heroin at the age of 20. Mr Thompson is now 54 years of age. Mr Thompson has spent the majority of his adult life since the age of 28 in custody. His initial offending was serious and has had a long-term impact on Ms Trueman’s family. The initial offending was drug related. 38 Even accepting the explanations provided by Mr Thompson both in his letter and via his counsel in respect of his conduct which is the subject of adverse comment in the Parole Board report of 13 February 2026, those matters may explain and provide context to Mr Thompson’s conduct. They do not however, in any way, in my view, excuse Mr Thompson’s continued drug use. Given the history of his parole, Mr Thompson can have had no doubt that in taking drugs, he was breaching the conditions of his parole. 39 I accept that two of the breaches, being the first breach on 25 March 2021, and the second breach on 25 October 2021, were dealt with by the Parole Board and that the matters before me are the three breaches which resulted in the cancellation of the parole being breaches on 9 January 2025, 6 March 2025 and 16 September 2025. However, there is a conduct of continuing behaviour that remains relevant in considering Mr Thompson’s prospects of rehabilitation. 40 Mr Thompson was afforded significant leniency by the Parole Board. Mr Thompson did not manage to respond appropriately to the leniency that was 15 R v Bakewell [2022] SASC 39, at [47] (Kourakis CJ). 16 R v Fricker [2017] SASC 107, at [20]. -- 11 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 10 afforded to him. He can have had no doubt about the consequences for him of further breaches. Whilst Mr Thompson has sought to provide explanations for his further drug taking and those matters provide the context in which he engaged in further drug taking, those matters do not excuse his conduct. 41 In considering the prospects of Mr Thompson’s rehabilitation on parole, I must have regard to the entirety of his conduct whilst on parole. The gravity of the breaches of the designated condition which I must consider, is magnified by the fact that there are, in this case, repeated breaches which brought about the cancellation of the parole being breaches on 9 January 2025, 6 March 2025 and 16 September 2025. 42 There is a need to deter Mr Thompson and others from breaching designated conditions. The leniency afforded to Mr Thompson by the Parole Board has not deterred Mr Thompson from further breaching his designated conditions. 43 Mr Thompson’s history particularly when he has managed to be gainfully employed and obtained secure accommodation indicates that there is some prospect of rehabilitation on parole. There is, however, nothing put to me in sentencing submissions which dissuades me from the view that the characterisation of Mr Thompson’s performance on parole as poor by the Parole Board is clearly correct. Whilst Mr Thompson has expressed good intentions towards his future rehabilitation and indicated the plans he has for his future, the weight to be given to these intentions needs to be considered on the context of his past actions. 44 I accept that there is a distinction between a lapse into isolated occurrences of drug taking and a relapse into drug taking associated with further offending. There have however been a significant number of lapses. Since Mr Thompson was released on parole on 6 January 2021, there have been five breaches, two which have been dealt with by the Parole Board and three with which I must deal. 45 Whilst Mr Thompson’s counsel submitted that this matter could be dealt with on the basis that the non-parole period could be set at the time that Mr Thompson had already served, I do not consider that that approach would adequately deter Mr Thompson from breaching parole, given that he has not responded to leniency extended in the past. I must impose a non-parole period which is of a sufficient duration to deter Mr Thompson, and others, from breaching parole. 17 46 In determining this application, I have considered the gravity of the offending underlying Mr Thompson’s life sentence. The conduct that has breached his parole conditions, the likelihood of his response to parole, and his prospects for rehabilitation. 17 See further Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338 at 22, 25; R v Roberts (2016) 125 SASR 40 at 27; R v Moyle [2020] SASC 93 at 30 (Bampton J); R v Bakewell [2022] SASC 39; R v McGuinness [2022] SASC 84; R v Weetra [2026] SASC 26; R v Escalante [2023] SASC 138; R v McKenzie [2023] SASC 27; R v O’Neill [2022] SASC 148; R v Inge [2022] SASC 122. -- 12 of 13 -- [2026] SASC 61 Gray J 11 47 Mr Thompson has not re-offended whilst on parole. It is however relevant that he committed the murder of Ms Trueman in context of drug related activity. Mr Thompson, should he continue to have lapses involving the taking of drugs presents some risk of re-offending. On Mr Thompson’s explanation for at least one of his lapses, it is clear that Mr Thompson has continued to associate with persons in the community who are involved in taking drugs. 48 It is also apparent that Mr Thompson has limited family support in the community and has spent a significant period of his life incarcerated. Mr Thompson, to his credit, has engaged in further education and has had a positive period of time of over two years in the community, during which he was employed and did not have a lapse into using drugs. Weighing all these matters together, Mr Thompson does remain, whilst he has not demonstrated the ability to abstain from drugs, at some risk of re-offending, and his prospects of rehabilitation must be considered guarded. It is undoubtedly in the best interest of Mr Thompson and that of the community, that he receives a proper diagnosis and treatment for his ADHD. 49 I fix a non-parole period of 12 months, backdated to 19 September 2025. I note that it is for the Parole Board to assess Mr Thompson’s suitability for release into the community once he is eligible to apply for parole.18 18 R v Miller (2000) 76 SASR 151, at 42. -- 13 of 13 --