THE KING v DANIEL PHARINDU WIGG [2026] SASCA 4

On Appeal from DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (HIS HONOUR JUDGE WHITE) DCCRM-24-039562 Appellant: THE KING Counsel: MS K DRAPER WITH MS B FERGUSON - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Respondent: DANIEL PHARINDU WIGG Counsel: MR B ANGEL - Solicitor: WEBSTERS LAWYERS Hearing Date/s: 04/02/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-25-030716 A SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Court of Appeal: Criminal) 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 WIGG [2026] SASCA 4 Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore) (The Honourable Justice S Doyle, the Honourable Justice Bleby and the Honourable Justice Stanley) 4 February 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEALS BY CROWN CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PARTICULAR CASES CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS Appeal against sentence. The appellant seeks that the non-parole period be adjusted to reflect the mandatory minimum in s 54(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA). Held, per the court, granting permission to appeal and allowing the appeal: 1. The sentence imposed at first instance is set aside and the respondent is resentenced pursuant to s 54(1)(b) to six years imprisonment, with an adjusted non-parole period of four years, nine months and 18 days. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 49(1), s 56(1), s 63(a); Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 52, s 53(1)(b), s 54(1)(b), referred to. Kidman (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 143, considered. -- 1 of 5 -- -- 2 of 5 -- R v WIGG [2026] SASCA 4 Court of Appeal – Criminal: S Doyle, Bleby and Stanley JJA 1 THE COURT (ex tempore): This is a prosecution appeal against sentence. The Director of Public Prosecutions seeks permission to appeal on the ground that the sentencing judge erred in failing to sentence the respondent as a serious repeat offender, and in particular failed to impose a non-parole period that was at least four-fifths of the length of the head sentence. 2 For the reasons which follow, it is appropriate that this Court intervene and impose a longer non-parole period. Background 3 The respondent pleaded guilty, and was sentenced, for the following offences: • two counts of producing child exploitation material, contrary to s 63(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLCA’) (Counts 1 and 3); • one count of unlawful sexual intercourse, contrary to s 49(1) of the CLCA (Count 2); and • one count of aggravated indecent assault, contrary to s 56(1) of the CLCA (Count 4). 4 In each case, the victim of the offending was a seven year old girl. The respondent was in a relationship with the victim’s mother. The offending involved the respondent sexually interfering with the victim on two separate occasions in January 2024 (Counts 2 and 4), and making a video recording of each of those instances of offending (Counts 1 and 3). 5 The sentencing judge fixed a sentence of five years imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2, and four years imprisonment for Counts 3 and 4. His Honour ordered that those sentences be made partially concurrent as to one year, resulting in an overall head sentence of eight years imprisonment. After appropriate reductions for the respondent’s guilty pleas, the judge imposed a head sentence of six years imprisonment. The judge fixed a non-parole period of four years. The sentence was backdated to commence from 28 February 2024, being the date the respondent was arrested and taken into custody. Consideration 6 Each of the four offences for which the respondent was convicted and sentenced was a serious sexual offence within the meaning of s 52 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA). As a result, the respondent fell to be sentenced as a serious repeat offender under s 53(1)(b) of that Act, and ought to have been -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] SASCA 4 The Court 2 subjected to a non-parole period which was not less than four-fifths of the length of his head sentence. 7 It was common ground before the sentencing judge that the respondent should be sentenced on this basis. However, it is apparent from the sentencing remarks that the judge overlooked the significance of the respondent’s status as a serious repeat offender when imposing sentence and, in particular, when fixing the respondent’s non-parole period. The judge has acknowledged this oversight in his letter of report to this Court. 8 As mentioned above, having imposed a head sentence of six years imprisonment, the judge fixed a non-parole period of four years. It is common ground that, applying the mandatory minimum under s 54(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act, his Honour should have imposed a non-parole period which was not less than four years, nine months and 18 days. 9 The Director requires permission to appeal. The respondent does not oppose a grant of permission to appeal. A grant of permission is appropriate in circumstances where there was a clear failure to comply with a legislative requirement, and where this Court’s intervention would result in an approach to sentence which would conform with the agreed position of the parties at first instance. 10 When this Court intervenes in a sentence appeal, it would ordinarily proceed to resentence through a fresh exercise of the sentencing discretion. However, as observed in Kidman (a pseudonym) v The King,1 this is not always necessary. 11 Here, both parties accept the appropriateness of the head sentence imposed by the judge, and are content for this Court to proceed by adjusting the non-parole period so that it complies with s 54(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act, without embarking upon a fresh exercise of the sentencing discretion. Whilst fixing a non-parole period is ordinarily an integral aspect of the sentencing discretion, slightly different considerations apply when the only issue is whether that period ought to have been the subject of a mandatory minimum. In circumstances where it was not suggested that there was any reason to fix a non-parole period greater than the mandatory minimum of four-fifths of the length of the head sentence, this issue is essentially an arithmetical exercise which can be separated from the sentencing discretion. 12 In these circumstances, and consistently with the reasoning of the Court in Kidman (a pseudonym) v The King, it is appropriate to proceed in the manner contended for by the parties. In so concluding, it is appropriate to observe that we have had the opportunity to review the sentence imposed by the judge, and are satisfied that it was an appropriate sentence to impose. 1 Kidman (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 143. -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] SASCA 4 The Court 3 13 We consider it appropriate to grant permission to appeal, and allow the appeal, but impose the same sentence, adjusted so as to ensure that the non-parole period is not less than four-fifths of the length of the head sentence. Orders 14 We grant permission to appeal, allow the appeal, and set aside the sentence imposed at first instance. We resentence the respondent to imprisonment for a period of six years, with a non-parole period of four years, nine months and 18 days. We backdate the sentence to commence from 28 February 2024. -- 5 of 5 --