DANIEL JOHN JAMES WEETRA v THE KING [2026] SASC 26

Applicant: DANIEL JOHN JAMES WEETRA Counsel: MR S TORPY - Solicitor: ABORIGINAL LEGAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT Respondent: THE KING Counsel: MS S AGNEW - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Hearing Date/s: 24/11/2025, 22/01/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-25-042370 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 WEETRA [2026] SASC 26 Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice Kimber 10 March 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - LIFE SENTENCE - REDETERMINATION OR SETTING OF MINIMUM TERM OR NON-PAROLE PERIOD This is an application to fix a non-parole period pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA). On 25 January 2002, having pleaded guilty to murder and having given evidence in the trial of a co-accused, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a non-parole period of 13 years. Having been released on parole, the applicant has been returned to custody several times after breaching his parole conditions. The breaches were commonly in relation to conditions of electronic monitoring and prohibitions on consumption of non-prescription drugs. On 10 July 2024 and while in custody, the applicant committed an offence of assaulting a prescribed emergency worker and was sentenced in the Magistrates Court to a period of imprisonment. Though the applicant is yet to demonstrate that he can lead a pro-social life for an extended period, the next substantial opportunity for the applicant to take steps towards rehabilitation will be upon release and when able to access supports in the community. Held: 1. The application to fix a non-parole period is granted. 2. A non-parole period of two years and three months is fixed, backdated to 13 June 2024. Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 47; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20AA, referred to. R v Bakewell [2022] SASC 39; R v Fricker [2017] SASC 107, applied. R v Roberts [2016] SASC 41; R v Marshal (Supreme Court of South Australia, David J, 07 November 2008); ; R v Early [2014] SASC 202; R v Brady [2015] SASC 115, considered. -- 1 of 9 -- -- 2 of 9 -- R v WEETRA [2026] SASC 26 Criminal: Application KIMBER J. 1 This is an application by Mr Daniel Weetra pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) to fix a non-parole period. 2 On 25 January 2002, having pleaded guilty to murder and having given evidence in the trial of a co-accused, Mr Weetra was sentenced to a head sentence of life imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2002. At the time of sentence, Mr Weetra was subject to an existing non-parole period of 14 months which was due to expire on 18 February 2002. The existing non-parole period was extended by 13 years. 3 On 10 July 2024, Mr Weetra committed an offence of assaulting a prescribed emergency worker contrary to s 20AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1929 (SA). Having pleaded guilty, Mr Weetra was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months. That sentence commenced on 15 October 2025. 4 I grant the application by Mr Weetra and I fix a non-parole period of two years and three months to commence on 13 June 2024. My reasons follow. The Murder 5 On 29 September 2000, Mr Weetra and two other men, Mr Gregory Burgoyne and Mr William Hunt, murdered Mr Frank Webster. 6 That offence occurred during a home invasion and robbery. The murder was committed against the background of an earlier home invasion the same night. That home invasion was for the purpose of stealing cannabis and, to assist in accomplishing this purpose, a rifle and ammunition was obtained. No cannabis was obtained. The sentencing Judge found that Mr Weetra had accompanied two others to the first home invasion but could not make a finding as to the role that he played. Later the same night, Mr Weetra and the two other men went to the home of Mr Webster at Elizabeth in the belief that there was money hidden there. There may also have been a belief about the presence of cannabis there. Mr Webster lived at the house with at least his wife and son. 7 Mr Weetra and the two other men took the rifle and ammunition. On arrival at the house, Mr Hunt stayed with the car ready to drive away. Mr Weetra and Mr Burgoyne entered the house through a window. In a bedroom, Mr Weetra subdued Mr Webster’s wife with the rifle. Mr Burgoyne was confronted in the hallway by Mr Webster’s son. The son struck Mr Burgoyne with a rod and Mr Burgoyne wrestled the rod from the son and struck him with it. Mr Webster came to help his son. Mr Weetra fired two shots, one of which struck Mr Webster in the groin. Mr Webster was killed by that shot. -- 3 of 9 -- [2026] SASC 26 Kimber J 2 8 The son assisted Mr Weetra and Mr Burgoyne, who took $3,000, a wallet and handbag. Mr Weetra and Mr Burgoyne returned to the car and Mr Hunt drove the three of them away. Mr Hunt received about $500 and the balance of what had been stolen was divided between Mr Weetra and Mr Burgoyne. Other history 9 Mr Weetra is now 46 years of age. When he committed the murder, he was 21 years of age. Before committing the murder, he had been convicted of offences committed while a youth and an adult. The relevant offences committed as an adult included assault; break and enter and a trespass offence; damaging property; larceny and failing to comply with bail. 10 Mr Weetra was released on parole on 3 April 2018. He has breached parole several times, but until the offence on 10 July 2024, he had not committed any further offences. 11 Mr Weetra’s behaviour on parole is set out in a detailed letter from the Parole Board. It is not necessary to set out everything. 12 On or about 6 May 2018, Mr Weetra breached his electronic monitoring condition and his curfew. Mr Weetra attended the emergency department at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Mr Weetra threw his electronic monitoring bracelet away, spent the night at the Adelaide Railway Station and handed himself in to the police the next day. 13 On 28 September 2018, Mr Weetra tampered with his electronic monitoring device and breached his curfew. A warrant was issued the next day. After a series of interviews by the Parole Board, Mr Weetra was released on 14 October 2021. On 17 November 2021 and 20 November 2021, Mr Weetra failed to comply with the rules of the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre. Mr Weetra was returned to custody and released on 29 April 2022. 14 In February 2023, the Parole Board found that Mr Weetra was making reasonable progress and approved the removal of electronic monitoring. On 27 June 2023, the Parole Board found that Mr Weetra had used illegal drugs and reinstated electronic monitoring with freedom of movement. That monitoring was breached on or about 3 August 2023. A warrant was issued. Mr Weetra was interviewed on 4 October 2023 as he had not been charging his electronic monitoring device and had changed his residence without permission. Mr Weetra advised the Parole Board that he had not changed his residence but had been staying at his aunt’s home due to a death in the family and to avoid being tempted by drugs and alcohol. Mr Weetra was released on 27 December 2023 into temporary accommodation. On 2 March 2024, his SOLO device was not charged, and a warrant was issued that day. It appears that Mr Weetra claimed that his device had been stolen. It appears that claim was false as the device was in his possession when the warrant was executed. Mr Weetra was released on 21 March 2024. -- 4 of 9 -- [2026] SASC 26 Kimber J 3 15 On 9 May 2024, Mr Weetra tested positive to amphetamine and methamphetamine. Mr Weetra was interviewed on 4 June 2024 and given a warning and released with an additional curfew condition. On 7 June 2024, Mr Weetra attended the West Thebarton Hotel. He initially said he was only outside waiting for a bus but later admitted he entered the premises, albeit he said he was only using the toilet. At about the same time, Mr Weetra had failed to maintain a working mobile phone and had failed to comply with a direction to do so. On 12 June 2024, a warrant was issued, and Mr Weetra was returned to custody on 13 June 2024 where he has been since. 16 The presiding member of the Parole Board opines in her letter:1 Mr Weetra remains an immature man. He lives a chaotic existence and he is susceptible to substance abuse. His recent behaviour demonstrated some level of escalation. He struggles to cope in the community. His family are not good influences; most of them use illegal drugs and alcohol. The fact that he has been unable to establish stable accommodation does not assist him. Public housing is in very short supply and it is even more difficult for someone in Mr Weetra’s situation to access public housing. If he could achieve stable accommodation and if he could acquire a structured day, it would give some level of stability and assist him to cope in the community. Ideally, he would benefit from a mentor. Finding employment would be helpful for him but he has no employment record and no real skills. He will not be placed into any rehabilitation program in prison. Any program for which he has been deemed suitable he has undertaken in the past. It would assist him to work with a psychologist but that would be long-term therapy and he would not be able to access that in prison. There are supports available to him and agencies which will assist Mr Weetra but unless he makes a commitment and a concerted effort to change, no amount of intervention will be helpful. The assault on 10 July 2024 17 On 10 July 2024, Mr Weetra was located away from his cell within the Remand Centre and was directed to return. Mr Weetra responded by throwing a plastic chair and a metal table at a correctional services officer (the victim). Both items struck the victim, with the table hitting them in the head. The victim sustained bruising to multiple areas, but the physical injuries were transient. The victim suffered long-term adverse emotional effects. 18 As mentioned, Mr Weetra is currently serving the eight-month sentence that was imposed and ordered to commence on 15 October 2025. The position of the parties 19 Mr Weetra submits that a non-parole period should be imposed. He contends that it should be of a duration that might see him eligible for parole at the end of the sentence imposed on 15 October 2025 (i.e. – in June 2026). Mr Weetra emphasises that the offence on 10 July 2024 is the only offence he has committed 1 Parole Board Report (filed on 15 December, FDN 8), 4–5. -- 5 of 9 -- [2026] SASC 26 Kimber J 4 since he was sentenced for murder. Mr Weetra accepts that there had been occasions when he has breached parole but submits that there have been periods of compliance particularly between April 2022 and May 2023. Mr Weetra submits that there is evidence that during that period he engaged in rehabilitation through the Flinders Wellbeing Centre and by attending the Tiraapendi Wodli Justice Rehabilitation Aboriginal community. The engagement of Mr Weetra with the centre and community are set out in letters from both. Mr Weetra submits that more recent breaches have occurred in the context of housing instability and periods of grief occasioned by the passing of family. Mr Weetra emphasises that the Parole Board has confirmed that no further rehabilitation programs will be made available to him in custody. 20 The Director of Public Prosecutions (the Director) does not oppose a non-parole period being set. The Director emphasises the importance of deterrence in cases of assaults of prescribed workers and the importance of deterring those subject to parole from breaching parole, including by committing offences of violence. The Director submitted that the history of Mr Weetra demonstrated that his prospects of rehabilitation were poor. The Act 21 Section 47 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) relevantly provides: 47—Duty of court to fix or extend non-parole periods … (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. … (5) The above provisions are subject to the following qualifications: (a) a non-parole period may not be fixed— (i) in respect of a person who is liable to serve a total period of imprisonment (or detention and imprisonment) of less than 12 months; or (ii) in respect of a person who is liable to serve a sentence in the community while subject to an intensive correction order; (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; (c) if a person who is subject to a sentence of life imprisonment is further sentenced to imprisonment by the Magistrates Court or the Youth Court, the -- 6 of 9 -- [2026] SASC 26 Kimber J 5 question of whether a non-parole period should be fixed or extended must be referred to the court by which the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed; (d) if fixing a non-parole period in respect of a person sentenced to imprisonment for a serious offence against the person, the mandatory minimum non-parole period prescribed in respect of the offence is four-fifths the length of the sentence; (e) a court may, by order, decline to fix a non-parole period in respect of a person sentenced to imprisonment if the court is of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to fix such a period because of— (i) the gravity of the offence or the circumstances surrounding the offence; or (ii) the criminal record of the person; or (iii) the behaviour of the person during any previous period of release on parole or conditional release; or (iv) any other circumstance. The principles 22 The principles governing the exercise of discretion to fix a non-parole period where a person is serving a sentence of imprisonment but is not subject to a non-parole period are settled. Considerations relevant to determining an application for the fixing of a non-parole period were set out by Peek J in the case of R v Fricker.2 These include: • 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; • The need to deter the offender and others from breaching parole.3 23 I note different approaches have been taken to the application of sub-s (5)(b) by this Court in applications under s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017.4 I 2 [2017] SASC 107. 3 Ibid at [20] quoting R v Roberts [2016] SASCFC 41 and applied in R v Bakewell [2022] SASC 39, [48]. 4 See, eg, R v Marshal (Supreme Court of South Australia, David J, 07 November 2008); R v Early [2014] SASC 202, [17]–[20], [39]; R v Brady [2015] SASC 115, [7]–[9]; R v Fricker [2017] SASC 107, [21]– [23]; R v Bakewell [2022] SASC 39, [46]–[48]. -- 7 of 9 -- [2026] SASC 26 Kimber J 6 respectfully agree with the approach of Kourakis CJ in R v Bakewell5 where his Honour read down that subsection finding that it was only intended to apply when the Court is fixing a non-parole period for the first time. Consideration 24 As mentioned, the Director submitted that the fixing of a non-parole period was appropriate. I agree that the discretion to fix a non-parole period should be exercised. 25 I will only refer to the key considerations which inform the identification of the appropriate period for Mr Weetra. Rehabilitation 26 While Mr Weetra had not committed an offence for a significant period after he was sentenced for murder; did not offend while in the community on parole; and has shown some ability to engage with supports in the community, due to several breaches of parole, Mr Weetra has not been in the community for a lengthy period of time without breaching parole. The longest period without breach appears to have been about 12 months between April 2022 and May 2023. In that period, Mr Weetra appears to have engaged with supports in the community and to have shown some ability to commit to rehabilitation. The assault committed on 10 July 2024 was a serious offence committed without provocation and occurred against the background of the murder and other assaults committed, albeit more than two decades ago. While on parole, Mr Weetra has used drugs on more than one occasion. The link that can exist between the consumption of drugs and the commission of more serious offending is well known. 27 Once released on parole, whether Mr Weetra demonstrates a sustained commitment to rehabilitation will depend upon his ability to avoid drug use; to access stable accommodation; and to engage with the agencies and supports that the Parole Board says will be available to him. 28 In the circumstances, I am guarded, but not pessimistic, about Mr Weetra’s prospects of rehabilitation. The gravity of the offence for which Mr Weetra was paroled 29 Obviously enough, murder is an inherently serious offence. Further, there is no reason to doubt the conclusion of the sentencing Judge that, given that the murder was committed when a home was invaded at night while in possession of a loaded rifle ready for use, the murder was in one of the more serious categories of murder despite it not involving an intention to kill. 5 [2022] SASC 39, [46]–[48]. -- 8 of 9 -- [2026] SASC 26 Kimber J 7 The breaching offence 30 The assault was not a breach of parole as it was committed when parole had been cancelled and Mr Weetra was in custody. Nevertheless, it plainly remains relevant to the identification of the appropriate non-parole period. The assault was an attack upon a person in their workplace and using a makeshift weapon. The assault had a significant emotional impact upon the victim. In addition, it is relevant that the assault occurred against the background of Mr Weetra having breached parole on several occasions, albeit not by committing offences. The need for deterrence 31 General deterrence is important. Deterrence is obviously important with respect to the offence of murder but also with respect to assaults of prescribed workers. Persons on parole or in custody must obey the directions of such persons and offenders must understand that conduct which interferes with the safety of such persons will be taken seriously. This Court has an obligation to continually reinforce such things. Personal deterrence also has importance. Mr Weetra has a history of committing offences of violence. He will be under supervision in the community. It must be brought home to him that if he continues to breach parole and resort to violence, it will be taken seriously. Conclusion 32 While there have been glimpses of steps towards rehabilitation, Mr Weetra is yet to demonstrate that he can lead a pro-social life for an extended period. The assault demonstrates that there remains a need for the protection of the community. The breaches of parole by taking drugs and avoiding other directions demonstrate that Mr Weetra is at risk of placing himself in a position where the risk of him offending might increase. There is often a link between drug use and more serious offending. I do not doubt the observation of the presiding member of the Parole Board that Mr Weetra must make a commitment and concerted effort to change. He is yet to demonstrate that for any lengthy period while in the community. 33 At the same time, there are no programmes which will be made available to Mr Weetra in custody. The next substantial opportunity for Mr Weetra to take steps towards rehabilitation will be upon release and when able to access supports. On balance, there is something to be said for Mr Weetra having the opportunity to apply for parole in the not-too-distant future. 34 In the circumstances, I grant the application by Mr Weetra and I fix a non-parole period of two years and three months to commence on 13 June 2024. -- 9 of 9 --