THE KING v GARY WILLIAM CALLISS [2026] SASCA 25

On Appeal from DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (HER HONOUR JUDGE BARNETT) DCCRM-25-002938 Appellant: THE KING Counsel: MS T DIAMANDI WITH MS M ROCCA - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Respondent: GARY WILLIAM CALLISS Counsel: MRS M SHAW KC WITH MR B STURM - Solicitor: JOHNSTON WITHERS Hearing Date/s: 12/03/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-26-006906 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 CALLISS [2026] SASCA 25 Judgment of the Court of Appeal (The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice Bleby and the Honourable Justice B Doyle) 19 March 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - SENTENCE CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEALS BY CROWN This is an application by the prosecution for permission to appeal against sentence. Following a trial by jury, the respondent was convicted of one count of communicating with the intention of procuring a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to s 63B(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). After recording a conviction, the sentencing judge discharged the respondent on condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond for three years. The question arising on this appeal was whether the failure to order that the respondent serve an immediate term of imprisonment was so manifestly inadequate that the prosecution should be granted permission to appeal, the appeal should be allowed and the respondent re-sentenced. -- 1 of 12 -- Held (the Court) that permission to appeal should be refused: 1. The respondent’s offending was in part the product of his long-standing alcohol addiction, contributed to by his extensive history of childhood trauma and mental illness. 2. It was open to the sentencing judge to record a conviction and discharge the respondent on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond on strict terms, in order to ensure the long-term safety of the community. 3. The sentencing outcome was neither unreasonable nor unjust, and it promoted the positive and credible progress the respondent had made towards rehabilitation. 4. In circumstances where the respondent is continuing to rehabilitate himself, this is not a case where the principle against double jeopardy is overcome by any need for this Court’s principled intervention. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 63B(3)(a); Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 157(1)(a)(iii); Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) ss 10(2), 27, 28, 71(5)(a)(i), 96(9)(a)(ii)(E), 97, referred to. Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Glade v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 83; R v Butler (2022) 303 A Crim R 296; R v Williams [2018] SASCFC 14; Robertson v R [2024] NSWCCA 22, discussed. Bichar v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 1; Brooker v The King [2024] SASCA 135; Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) v Jones [2021] SASCA 114; Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; Hackett v The Queen [2021] SASCA 32; Mackenzie v The King [2026] SASCA 12; McManus v Police [2019] SASC 206; Munder v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; R v Ametovic [2024] SASCA 153; R v Beaumont (2023) 312 A Crim R 356; R v Harris (2023) 144 SASR 246; R v Henderson (2023) 142 SASR 507; R v Hicks (1987) 45 SASR 270; R v HM (2007) 168 A Crim R 557; R v Hronopoulos (2017) 269 A Crim R 551; R v Kelly [2023] SASCA 22; R v Kong (2013) 115 SASR 425; R v Lomas & Symmons [2005] SASC 435; R v McGaffin [2010] SASCFC 22; R v Nemer (2003) 87 SASR 168; R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212; R v Perry [2022] SASCA 127; R v Sadik & Anor [2025] SASCA 46; R v Singh [2024] SASCA 81; Rotherham v The King [2022] SASCA 99; Stocks v The King [2023] SASCA 48, considered. -- 2 of 12 -- R v CALLISS [2026] SASCA 25 Court of Appeal – Criminal: Livesey P, Bleby and B Doyle JJA THE COURT: Introduction 1 This is a prosecution appeal against sentence. Following a jury trial, the respondent was found guilty of one count of communicating with the intention of procuring a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to s 63B(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 12 years. 2 After recording a conviction, the sentencing judge discharged the respondent on condition that he enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for three years, with supervision, pursuant to s 97 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (the Sentencing Act). 3 The respondent had also been charged with a circumstance of aggravation, being that he knew that the complainant was under the age of 14 years. However, that circumstance of aggravation was found by the jury not to be proved. In addition, the respondent had been charged with another count of communicating with the intention of procuring a child for sexual activity, but the jury acquitted him of that charge. Disposition of the application for permission to appeal 4 The question arising on this appeal is whether the failure to order that the respondent serve an immediate term of imprisonment was so manifestly inadequate that the prosecution should be granted permission to appeal, the appeal should be allowed and the respondent re-sentenced. 5 For the following reasons, it was open to the sentencing judge to record a conviction and discharge the respondent on condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond on strict terms. In the particular circumstances of this offending and of this offender, that sentencing outcome was neither unreasonable nor unjust, and it promoted what appeared to be good prospects of rehabilitation. 6 In any event, in circumstances where the respondent is continuing to rehabilitate himself, this is not a case where the principle against double jeopardy is overcome by any need for this Court’s principled intervention. Accordingly, the prosecution should be refused permission to appeal. The circumstances of the offending 7 On 26 March 2024, the respondent was in his early 60s and he had been drinking alcohol throughout the day with his brother. The complainant was aged -- 3 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 2 13 and, with her mother, she had gone to the respondent’s home to clean it. The respondent had known the complainant’s mother for some years. 8 The finding made about the circumstance of aggravation demonstrated that the jury accepted that the respondent was neither aware of, nor reckless as to whether, the complainant was under the age of 14. The respondent’s evidence at the trial was that he understood the complainant had a boyfriend and he believed that she was much older. Whilst this was no defence, it was relevant to the respondent’s culpability.1 9 The charged offending comprised the following words being spoken to the complainant while she was in the bathroom: “Just think about it, nothing sexual, just touching and showing off yourself”. 10 There were a number of uncharged acts which put the offending into context. Before the charged conduct, the respondent approached the complainant in the hallway and said, “I have extra money in my wallet if you want to do something for me”, and he rubbed his crotch. After the charged conduct, the respondent returned with his wallet and opened it, showing the complainant a number of $10, $20 and $50 notes. Later, he said: “Just come knock on my window, you know I’m always there if you need extra money”. He later asked the complainant to keep what had been said between the two of them. 11 The complainant said that she could smell beer and Coca-Cola on the breath of the respondent. She then told her mother that she was leaving and she went to her friend’s home where she made an initial complaint. 12 The complainant’s victim impact statement was described by the prosecution as “insightful”. That was appropriate. The complainant described the offending as having rippled through many aspects of her life. After the offending she said she felt numb as well as anxious and depressed. She described her bright, bubbly and affable nature as having been dulled. The complainant also described having been filled with self-doubt, including as to whether she did the right thing. She was concerned about the perception that others would have about her. 13 The complainant said that her relationships with her family have been strained. She felt isolated and lonely in the country town in which she lived. Her grades had fallen and, at times, she held ideas of self-harm. The complainant described feeling guilty. She had required mental health assistance, which has caused substantial financial hardship. 14 The complainant found it necessary to relocate from the country town where she grew up, starting at a new school and leaving friends and her disabled mother behind. 1 Glade v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 83, [18] (Livesey J, with whom Kelly and Bleby JJ agreed). -- 4 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 3 The circumstances of the offender 15 The respondent has no criminal history and has never been imprisoned. He is a first offender. 16 At the time of sentence, the respondent was aged 65 years, having been born in Adelaide and living there until moving into the country around the age of 11. 17 After the respondent’s parents separated, the respondent’s father was largely absent. When he did interact with his family, this was as a violent alcoholic. He subjected the respondent and some of his siblings to violent abuse. The respondent recalled assaults on his mother and brother. One incident the respondent particularly recalled was when his father strangled his mother until she lost consciousness. At the time, the respondent believed that his mother was dead. This was a profoundly traumatic event. 18 The respondent’s father was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder following a psychiatric admission. With treatment and the cessation of alcohol use, the respondent’s father gradually improved. 19 The respondent’s mother was emotionally neglectful, with long-standing mental health difficulties. These were associated with numerous courses of electro-convulsive therapy for her depression. 20 The respondent’s mother entered into a relationship with a man who was also alcoholic and abusive. The respondent’s step-father verbally abused the respondent and was intimidating and volatile. The respondent was threatened by his step-father with a firearm as well as with expulsion from the home, which required that he seek refuge from family members from time to time. 21 The respondent’s step-father was involved in the sexual abuse of the respondent’s sister and, much later, the respondent learned that some years ago he had also been involved in a murder-suicide with a subsequent domestic partner. 22 Whilst the respondent’s relationships with his parents improved, they were never close before their deaths. The respondent has close relationships with most of his siblings, though one of his brothers sexually abused him between the ages of nine and 11. The respondent’s childhood was marked by anxiety and low self-esteem. He experienced frequent nightmares which, though they are now less frequent, continue. 23 The respondent left school at 14 years to commence working in various rural and agricultural jobs. These have included sheep shearing, farm-hand work and wool picking. The respondent left the family home at the age of 21 after marrying his first wife. In his 30s, they purchased the local post office in a country town and, for many years, they operated that and he undertook sheep and crop farming. After the respondent’s divorce in 2015, the post office was sold and the farm transferred to his son. His son is slowly repaying the respondent over time. -- 5 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 4 24 The respondent is now semi-retired, and he undertakes casual tractor driving for local farms. By the time of sentence, the respondent had resigned from several sporting committees as well as his position as president of a lawn bowls club. He has lost contact with his daughter and her two children. 25 The respondent has a very significant history of mental health difficulties. Until recently, the respondent had never engaged in any formal therapy. Around 20 years ago, he was admitted to Glenside Hospital for several weeks for chronic depression. On discharge, he was prescribed medication which he has taken ever since. 26 The respondent acknowledges a long-standing alcohol addiction. He described drinking very heavily in the decade before the offending, drinking around eight mid-strength beers and half a bottle of Ouzo with Coca-Cola each day. 27 The respondent told Dr Lim, a psychologist whose report was made available to the sentencing judge, that he used alcohol as a means of coping with his childhood trauma and he was reliant upon it for his daily functioning. The respondent also described becoming solitary and lonely, at times contemplating suicide. 28 At the time of giving evidence at the trial, the respondent was experiencing anxiety and stress. However, by the time of sentencing, the respondent had substantially reduced his alcohol consumption. He had been recording his consumption in a journal. The sentencing judge accepted that the respondent had made a considered effort to substantially reduce his alcohol consumption and she described this as “an incredibly important step for you in your rehabilitation”.2 29 By the time of sentencing, the respondent had commenced a new relationship. His domestic partner suffered from musculoskeletal difficulties and required the respondent’s ongoing care. 30 Dr Lim recorded that the respondent accepted the verdict of the jury and expressed some understanding of the effect of his conduct on the complainant. There was “an emerging degree of insight into both his alcoholism and the psychological underpinnings of his offending conduct”.3 According to Dr Lim:4 … [the respondent’s] willingness to attribute responsibility to his own poor judgment and impaired decision-making while intoxicated, reflects a meaningful shift from his earlier (pre-trial) position of denial and minimisation. 2 Sentencing remarks, AB 66. 3 Report of Dr Lim, p 13. 4 Report of Dr Lim, p 13. -- 6 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 5 I believe that this evolving self-awareness, combined with his expressed readiness to engage in treatment for his longstanding mood disturbance and substance misuse, represents a positive protective and prognostic indicator. 31 Dr Lim diagnosed the respondent with an alcohol use disorder, together with a persistent depressive disorder.5 Dr Lim also diagnosed a connection between the respondent’s childhood experiences and his long-standing alcohol addiction:6 … [his] developmental history of neglect, exposure to violence, and cumulative trauma appear to have fostered enduring dysphoria, emotional inhibition, and ruminative guilt. These features suggest a lifelong vulnerability to mood disturbance and anxiety, which he has attempted to self-manage through chronic alcohol use; an approach that has, in my opinion, exacerbated the persistence and depth of his emotional disorder. 32 Dr Lim explained how the respondent’s history of trauma and alcohol abuse gave rise to his offending:7 … [it] is my opinion that [the respondent’s] current offending towards the 13-year-old victim was impulsive and reckless in nature, occurring against the backdrop of long-standing alcohol dependence and emotional avoidance rather than predatory sexual intent. … The current offence appears to have occurred whilst he was in a state of significant alcohol intoxication, a circumstance which would have further impaired his judgement, lowered his inhibitions, and diminished his capacity for reflective reasoning. His behaviour, therefore, in my opinion, more aligned with an opportunistic and disinhibited act committed in the context of chronic substance abuse and entrenched maladaptive coping, rather than as evidence of a fixed paraphilic interest in minors. … His offending instead appears situational and alcohol-facilitated, reflecting impaired impulse control, and the cumulative effects of chronic alcohol misuse, rather than a sustained deviant sexual interest in children. 33 Dr Lim expressed the opinion that the respondent’s risk of recidivism remained directly tied to his alcohol consumption. She described this as the respondent’s “primary criminogenic risk factor”.8 34 Dr Lim recommended a risk management plan, focusing on ensuring sustained alcohol abstinence or strict moderation, as well as targeted trauma-informed psychological therapy to address to respondent’s chronic depressive and anxiety symptoms. Dr Lim pointed out that one-on-one psychological intervention was not available in custody and, as a result, “imprisonment could leave [the respondent] more psychosocially affected than 5 Report of Dr Lim, p 10. 6 Report of Dr Lim, p 11. 7 Report of Dr Lim, p 12. 8 Report of Dr Lim, p 12. -- 7 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 6 prior to incarceration and, upon release, vulnerable to a rapid and more severe relapse into alcohol use”.9 35 Dr Lim recommended a range of services which were available in the community but not in custody:10 … Community Corrections would provide [the respondent] with, structure, accountability, and incentive to continue reducing his alcohol consumption toward abstinence, supported by periodic alcohol breath-testing. A Community Corrections officer could also assist him in obtaining a referral to a psychologist under a GP Mental Health Care Plan to ensure continuity of his psychological treatment. It is therefore respectfully requested that the Court take all of the above into consideration when determining an appropriate penalty for [the respondent]. 36 None of these opinions were challenged at the time of sentence, or on this appeal. The approach of the sentencing judge 37 The sentencing judge commenced with the proposition that the Sentencing Act precluded the suspension of any term of imprisonment, and it precluded home detention unless “special reasons” existed.11 No submissions were put to the sentencing judge about the existence of special reasons. 38 The sentencing judge observed that the respondent had contended for a good behaviour bond, whereas the prosecution contended for an immediate custodial penalty, given the seriousness of the offending and the age of the complainant. The sentencing judge explained:12 Your counsel submitted to me that I should dispose of your sentence by way of a bond to be of good behaviour, that you are a man of good background and prospects, battling an addiction who made a sporadic and idiotic mistake whilst drunk. The director opposes a good behaviour bond, noting the type of offending you committed and the age of the victim. … The offending is serious against a child who was only 13-years-of-age. I accept the effect of your offending has been significant. I am however persuaded in this case that given the circumstances of the offending and your personal background including your childhood, your mental health conditions along with your willingness to engage in rehabilitation, that a term of imprisonment is not the only appropriate outcome for this matter. I consider that disposing of sentence by imposing a bond to be of good behaviour adequately serves the primary sentencing objective of the protection of the community as that course would promote your rehabilitation, in terms of your substance abuse and your insight into your offending, and I believe that this would ultimately support reintegration into the community. 9 Report of Dr Lim, p 14. 10 Report of Dr Lim, p 14. 11 Sentencing remarks, AB 68. 12 Sentencing remarks, AB 68. -- 8 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 7 39 The sentencing judge had regard to s 10(2) of the Sentencing Act, which prevented imposing a sentence of imprisonment unless the seriousness of the offence required it, or imprisonment was required to protect the community. 40 The sentencing judge recorded a conviction and discharged the respondent upon his entry into a bond to be of good behaviour for three years in the amount of $5,000. A condition was imposed that the respondent be supervised by a Community Corrections officer for two years, and that the respondent obey any reasonable direction to attend assessment or treatment as considered necessary, particularly in relation to alcohol use. 41 An intervention order pursuant to s 28 of the Sentencing Act was imposed with respect to the complainant. Prosecution appeals against sentence 42 This prosecution appeal was instituted pursuant to s 157(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA). That right of appeal is conditioned on the grant of permission. 43 In R v Henderson, the following observations were made about the need to observe and respect the exercise of discretion by sentencing judges:13 … prosecution appeals should not be allowed to unduly circumscribe the sentencing discretion of judges.14 An important feature of sentencing for criminal offending is the necessity to recognise and respect that sentencing entails individualised justice.15 It is fundamental to the administration of the criminal law that judges at first instance be allowed as much flexibility in sentencing as is consistent with the common law and statutory regime that applies. 44 It is well-recognised that the prosecution must do more than demonstrate that the sentence is affected by material error or that it is manifestly inadequate. In a case such as the present, the prosecution must demonstrate that the sentence is so low that allowing it to stand would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.16 The determination of the application for permission to appeal 45 This was a “serious sexual offence”.17 Nonetheless, the conferral of power to order a bond under s 97 of the Sentencing Act recognises that there may be 13 R v Henderson (2023) 142 SASR 507, [38] (Livesey P and David JA). 14 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212, 212 (King CJ). 15 Hackett v The Queen [2021] SASCA 32, [8] (Kelly P, Lovell and Livesey JJA), and the cases there cited. 16 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212, 213 (King CJ); R v Nemer (2003) 87 SASR 168, [24] (Doyle CJ); R v Singh [2024] SASCA 81, [30]-[33] (Livesey ACJ, S Doyle and David JJA); Brooker v The King [2024] SASCA 135, [79] (Livesey P, David JA and Bond AuxJ); R v Ametovic [2024] SASCA 153, [93] (S Doyle and Bleby JJA, B Doyle AJA); R v Sadik & Anor [2025] SASCA 46, [87]-[91] (Livesey P, S Doyle and David JJA). 17 Sentencing Act, ss 71(5)(a)(i) and 96(9)(a)(ii)(E), which include offences against s 63B. -- 9 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 8 circumstances where it remains appropriate to impose a bond to be of good behaviour for offending of this kind. 46 Accordingly, whilst in cases such as R v Butler,18 this Court observed that the discretion to impose a good behaviour bond for a serious sexual offence against a child had to be exercised having regard to the principles relevant to child sexual offending generally, and the need for strongly deterrent sentences, there remain cases where non-custodial dispositions have been thought appropriate.19 Indeed, there are a number of examples of judges imposing bonds for sexual offending. Obviously enough, a great deal inevitably depends on the particular charge and the circumstances of the offending and the offender. 47 Whilst the offending in this case was rightly described as serious, it was less serious than cases such as Glade v The Queen,20 and R v Butler,21 where the offending involved unlawful sexual intercourse where the ordinary sentence was said to be a term of imprisonment. 48 The offending in this case was aberrant, isolated and opportunistic. It appears not to have been planned. It was also ill-conceived, having been committed whilst the respondent was intoxicated and when his brother and the complainant’s mother remained in the house. 49 This offending was committed by a man who otherwise had no criminal antecedents and a long history of productive working and community service. 50 The respondent’s offending was, in part, the product of his long-standing alcohol addiction. That was contributed to by his history of childhood trauma and mental illness. 51 Although it was suggested on appeal that addiction is rarely mitigating, relying on R v Williams,22 that was a case which relied on certain observations made in Bichar v The Queen.23 Since that decision, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal has reviewed what was said in that case a number of times. The Court has accepted that an offender’s moral culpability may be mitigated by childhood deprivation, on an application of Bugmy principles,24 even where there 18 R v Butler (2022) 303 A Crim R 296, [70] (David JA and Mazza AJA). 19 See, for example, R v Lomas & Symmons [2005] SASC 435; R v McGaffin [2010] SASCFC 22; McManus v Police [2019] SASC 206; Stocks v The King [2023] SASCA 48; R v Harris (2023) 144 SASR 246; R v Beaumont (2023) 312 A Crim R 356. Whilst a bond was ordered in R v Beaumont, the prosecution had not opposed a good behaviour bond before the sentencing judge. 20 Glade v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 83, [60] (Livesey J, with whom Kelly and Bleby JJ agreed). 21 R v Butler (2022) 303 A Crim R 296, [70] (David JA and Mazza AJA). 22 R v Williams [2018] SASCFC 14, [58]-[59] (Hinton J, with whom Blue and Stanley JJ agreed). 23 Bichar v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 1, [25] (Howie J, with whom Basten JA and Hall J agreed). 24 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ) (Bugmy). -- 10 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 9 are features of addiction and pre-planning. For example, in Robertson v R, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal recently took this approach.25 52 That is consistent with the approach taken by this Court in cases of childhood deprivation involving either or both long-standing mental illness and addiction, where the principles described in Bugmy have been thought relevant.26 The effects of an offender’s profound childhood deprivation do not diminish with the passage of time or repeated offending, for they may impair an offender’s capacity to mature and learn from experience and reform. It is necessary to give full weight to these factors in every sentencing decision, even though they may point in different directions. Whilst they may diminish an offender’s moral culpability, they may also increase the importance of the need for community protection. 53 In this case, the consequences of the respondent’s childhood trauma and background do tend to explain the mental illness diagnosed by Dr Lim and, to a material extent, his alcohol addiction. Were it not for the largely successful attempts made by the respondent to address these problems, the mitigation of his moral culpability may well have been compromised by an ongoing need for community protection. 54 This is a case where, balancing the circumstances of the offending, the circumstances of the offender, the interests of the complainant and the need for community protection, it was necessary to denounce and deter. Having done that, it remained open to the sentencing judge to fashion a sentence which promoted rehabilitation in a structured way in order to ensure the long-term safety of the community.27 55 It is well-recognised that the principle of double jeopardy has particular significance where the original sentence does not involve an immediate term of imprisonment and the object of the prosecution appeal is to secure re-sentence and the incarceration of the respondent. To grant permission to appeal with a view to re-sentencing may, in that event, simply be productive of injustice.28 25 Robertson v R [2024] NSWCCA 22, [108]-[116] (Ierace J, with whom Harrison CJ at CL and Wilson J agreed). 26 Bugmy (2013) 249 CLR 571 (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); Munder v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600, [72]-[73] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ). See also, for example, R v Hronopoulos (2017) 269 A Crim R 551; R v Perry [2022] SASCA 127, [133]-[142] (Livesey P and David JA); Mackenzie v The King [2026] SASCA 12, [9]-[11] (S Doyle JA). In a number of these cases, particularly the last, Bugmy principles have been regarded as relevant not only to indigenous offenders but also to others within the community whose backgrounds reveal circumstances of deprivation, hardship or social disadvantage. 27 R v Beaumont (2023) 312 A Crim R 356, [52]-[53] (Livesey P, Lovell and Bleby JJA); Rotherham v The King [2022] SASCA 99, [48] (Livesey P, Bleby and David JJA); Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) v Jones [2021] SASCA 114, [12]-[13] (Livesey P, Doyle and Bleby JJA). 28 R v Hicks (1987) 45 SASR 270, 273 (King CJ); R v HM (2007) 168 A Crim R 557, [18] (Gray J, with whom Dugan and White JJ agreed); Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462, [2] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ); R v Kong (2013) 115 SASR 425, [102] (Kourakis CJ, Sulan and David JJ); R v Butler (2022) 303 A Crim R 296, [73] (David JA and Mazza AJA); R v Kelly [2023] SASCA 22, [48]-[49] (Lovell JA, albeit in dissent as to the outcome). -- 11 of 12 -- [2026] SASCA 25 The Court 10 56 That consideration is of importance here where the further affidavit evidence from the respondent demonstrates insight and that he has assiduously sought to address his mental illness and alcohol addiction with a range of treatments and therapies over the last few months. These would not be available to him in prison. 57 In all of these circumstances, whilst it was open to the sentencing judge to impose a bond, even if that were not so, where the respondent has made positive and credible progress towards rehabilitation, this is not a proper case in which to grant the prosecution permission to appeal against sentence. Conclusion 58 The application for permission to appeal against sentence should be refused. -- 12 of 12 --