CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER INGE v R [2025] SASC 12

Applicant: CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER INGE Counsel: MS C TASSONE - Solicitor: FRECH TASSONE PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS First Respondent: R Counsel: MS E NOONE - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Second Respondent: PAROLE BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA No Attendance Hearing Date/s: 28/01/2025 File No/s: SCCRM-24-047936 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 INGE [2025] SASC 12 Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice Kimber 20 February 2025 CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM - SOUTH AUSTRALIA 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). The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and is not subject to an existing non-parole period. The applicant’s parole was cancelled on 23 July 2024 following several breaches of the conditions of his parole, namely the ‘no drug’ condition; the ‘no alcohol’ condition; the condition that he not attend a licenced premise; the curfew condition; and the condition that he obey instructions. The applicant seeks the fixing of a non-parole period which permits him to apply for parole immediately. Held: 1. A non-parole period of 20 months is to be fixed, backdated to commence from 13 May 2024. Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 47(3), referred to. Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338; R v Earley [2014] SASC 202; R v Inge [2022] SASC 122, applied. R v Schultz (1997) 68 SASR 377; Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295; R v Inge (2000) 76 SASR 118, considered. -- 1 of 9 -- -- 2 of 9 -- R v INGE [2025] SASC 12 Criminal: Application to fix a non-parole period KIMBER J: 1 This is an application to fix a non-parole period pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (the Act). Christopher Alexander Inge (the applicant) is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder but is not subject to an existing non-parole period. On 23 July 2024, the parole of the applicant was cancelled after breaching the conditions of his parole, namely the ‘no drug’ condition; the ‘no alcohol’ condition; the condition that he not attend a licenced premise; the curfew condition; and the condition that he obey instructions. 2 For the reasons below, I fix a non-parole period of 20 months to commence on 13 May 2024. Background1 The offence and sentence 3 After entering a guilty plea to murder, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. That sentence commenced on 12 December 1995. The facts upon which the applicant was sentenced were summarised in the sentencing remarks of Millhouse J and subsequent appeal judgments.2 4 The applicant, his sister, and his sister’s boyfriend had been drinking together on the evening of 4 December 1995. The applicant’s sister became upset and disclosed to her boyfriend that she, the applicant, and another sister had been sexually abused by the victim. This had occurred when the applicant’s family and the victim were neighbours. Following this disclosure, the applicant and the boyfriend of the applicant’s sister (the other man) went to the home of the victim. 5 In the early hours of 5 December 1995, the applicant and the other man broke into the home of the victim. The victim was 68 years of age and living alone. The applicant took hold of a piece of wood that the victim was attempting to use to defend himself. The applicant struck the victim with the piece of wood and a hammer. The victim was struck at least 12 times and ultimately died from traumatic brain damage. Before the applicant and the other man left the home, the body of the victim was ignited using petrol. The applicant was sentenced on the basis that he formed an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm. The other man 1 Significant aspects of the background to this application are taken from R v Inge [2022] SASC 122, a judgment of Stanley J dealing with an earlier application by Mr Inge to fix a non-parole period. 2 R v Schultz (1997) 68 SASR 377; Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295; R v Inge (2000) 76 SASR 118. -- 3 of 9 -- [2025] SASC 12 Kimber J 2 entered pleas of guilty to burglary and assisting the applicant to escape apprehension and prosecution. 6 The sentencing Judge accepted that the applicant and his sisters had been sexually abused by the victim. It was accepted that the sexual abuse of the applicant had been a continuous course of conduct over some years which had ended about 10 years before the offending. The sentencing Judge observed that the conduct of the victim did not justify or excuse the offending but went some way to explaining his motives. 7 The applicant was born on 26 November 1972 and was 23 years of age at the time of the offence. The material available to the sentencing Judge indicated that the applicant was of borderline intelligence and had a history of head injury and probable seizures. It was accepted that he had been sexually abused by the victim when he was a child which had then led to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition, the applicant had a deprived and socially disadvantaged background, including that his parents had abused alcohol. The sentencing Judge found that the applicant was dependant on alcohol, cannabis, and other substances. It was accepted that he was remorseful. Events in custody and on parole 8 While serving his sentence, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for one month for the offence of aiding and abetting the delivery of a prohibited item to another prisoner. That sentence commenced on 19 January 2009 and was ordered to be concurrent with the sentence of life imprisonment. The applicant has said that he was caught attempting to bring cannabis into prison. 9 The applicant undertook the violence prevention program in 2013. The post-treatment report said that his participation and engagement had been of good standard and that he had developed insight into his treatment targets. Following that program, the risk of the applicant partaking in violent reoffending was reduced to moderate risk. A risk factor remained, namely that a relapse into drug use could lead to reoffending. 10 The first release on parole was on 15 October 2018. The applicant was 45 years of age and had spent almost 23 years in custody. Having been released, the applicant used cannabis, apparently more than once. On 3 December 2018, the Parole Board issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant and he was returned to custody. On 5 February 2019, the applicant was interviewed by the Parole Board. The applicant said that he had experienced panic attacks in shops and had struggled with reintegration into the community.3 The applicant admitted that he was using cannabis heavily.4 The Parole Board deferred its decision, and among 3 Parole Board Report pursuant to s 47(11) of the Act dated 22 January 2025, p 3. 4 Ibid. -- 4 of 9 -- [2025] SASC 12 Kimber J 3 other things, an outpatient follow up was arranged at James Nash House. The diagnosis of PTSD was subsequently confirmed. 11 On 9 December 2019, the applicant returned a positive test to buprenorphine, a drug that was not prescribed to him. In January 2020, the Parole Board found that the applicant had breached his parole. Nevertheless, the Parole Board resolved to give the applicant another opportunity and he was given a warning letter. 12 The applicant continued to use cannabis in January and February 2020. On 25 February 2020, the Parole Board issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant resulting in him being returned to custody. 13 On 30 November 2020, the Parole Board found that the applicant had breached his parole on 11 occasions by using drugs; that he had had returned a dilute sample; and that he had not pursued his mental health care plan. Nevertheless, the Parole Board resolved to give him a further opportunity and ordered that he be released to the Adelaide Pre-release Centre on 10 December 2020. 14 The applicant again used cannabis in (at least) January 2021 but had also obtained an updated mental health care plan; referred himself to PsychMed at the request of his case manager; and had consulted with a psychologist. In addition, other supports were provided to the applicant. However, on or about 26 February 2021, the applicant again used cannabis. A warrant was again issued, and the applicant was returned to custody on 1 March 2021. On 22 June 2022, parole was cancelled by the Parole Board. 15 On 28 October 2022, Stanley J fixed a non-parole period of two years which was backdated to 1 March 2021. The applicant reapplied for parole and was interviewed by the Parole Board on 21 March 2023. The Parole Board also obtained a neuropsychological assessment. Dr O’Connell, a psychologist, opined that there was ‘possible moderate evidence of brain injury affecting the frontal lobe’ of the applicant but that the testing was far from conclusive.5 Dr O’Connell confirmed the major issues experienced by the applicant related to anxiety which the appellant appeared to deal with by self-medicating with alcohol and cannabis.6 Dr O’Connell opined that the applicant was institutionalised; easily influenced and led; and highly vulnerable to negative influences and exploitation.7 16 On 5 July 2023, the Parole Board ordered that the applicant be released on parole on 12 July 2023. 17 Between February 2022 and October 2024, the applicant engaged in one-on-one support with a psychologist at the Borderline Personality Disorder Collaborative. Ms Gilson, a forensic psychologist, reported that the applicant’s 5 Parole Board Report pursuant to s 47(11) of the Act dated 22 January 2025, p 6. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. -- 5 of 9 -- [2025] SASC 12 Kimber J 4 attendance for therapy has been excellent and opined that the applicant has developed skills in distress tolerance; interpersonal effectiveness; emotional regulation and mindfulness.8 To Ms Gilson, the applicant reported improvements in relation to borderline personality disorder symptom severity; overall level of personality functioning; and reduced use of substances.9 The applicant also reported continuing difficulties with emotion management; interpersonal and self-dysfunction; difficulties with distress relating to anxiety; and struggles with independence.10 18 Between March and August 2023, the applicant attended 12 appointments with Ms Giorginis, a social worker. Ms Giorginis has described the applicant as ‘very motivated to develop coping strategies to overcome… psychological barriers that were impacting upon his daily functioning’.11 Ms Giorginis believes that, if released, the applicant will need to pursue a NDIS plan and obtain a disability support pension.12 19 The applicant continued to use drugs after his release on 12 July 2023. The applicant tested positive to buprenorphine on 16 August 2023 and 25 September 2023. He also failed to provide a saliva sample on 15 September 2023. 20 The applicant was interviewed by the Parole Board on 31 October 2023 and acknowledged that he was addicted to buprenorphine.13 The Parole Board found the applicant had breached his parole; ordered that he perform 200 hours of community service within six months; and imposed no other penalty. In the view of the Parole Board, the applicant appeared to be making reasonable progress. 21 On 10 May 2024, the case manager of the applicant reported that he had been maintaining a relationship with a person on home detention with whom he had been forbidden to see and that the applicant had been staying at her home.14 It is that conduct which is the breach of the instruction that the applicant does not see a person on home detention bail. In addition, the applicant had attended a licenced premise on 11 April 2024. 22 On 11 May 2024, the Parole Board resolved to issue a warrant. The applicant was returned to custody and interviewed by the Parole Board on 23 July 2024. The Parole Board concluded that the applicant had consumed alcohol on 15 May 2024 at a licenced venue. The Parole Board cancelled his parole on 23 July 2024. In the view of the Parole Board, the applicant had continued to be deceitful; had breached his curfew more than once; and had been smoking buprenorphine. 8 Supporting Affidavit of Carolina Alba Tassone made on 9 January 2025, CAT 2. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid, CAT 3. 12 Ibid. 13 Parole Board Report pursuant to s 47(11) of the Act dated 22 January 2025, p 6. 14 Ibid. -- 6 of 9 -- [2025] SASC 12 Kimber J 5 23 The Presiding Member of the Parole Board accepts that the applicant has complex needs; says that the applicant has had considerable support; and believes that the applicant lacks motivation to change.15 The Presiding Member opines that, until the applicant makes a commitment to remain drug free and comply with parole, no amount of counselling or intervention will assist.16 The submissions of the parties 24 The applicant submitted that I should fix a non-parole period that would permit him to apply for parole immediately. 25 The applicant submitted that he completed the community service that he was ordered to undertake and that he has engaged with supports. The applicant submits that he is motivated to rehabilitate. The applicant submits that his attendance at a hotel was due to threats and that he consumed a non-alcoholic drink. The applicant submits that the breaches of curfew and the instruction not to spend time with the person on home detention occurred in the context of the applicant developing a romantic relationship with a person on home detention. The applicant made no submission about whether he remained addicted to buprenorphine. Nevertheless, when interviewed by the Parole Board on 23 July 2024, the applicant admitted that he had been smoking that drug.17 26 The Director of Public Prosecutions did not oppose the setting of a non-parole period and took no position with respect to the submission of the applicant that the non-parole period fixed should be one which would make the applicant eligible to apply for release immediately. Nevertheless, the Director submitted that I should bear in mind the need for rehabilitation and the opinion of the Presiding Member of the Parole Board. Discussion 27 The relevant considerations in fixing a non-parole period are:18 • The prospects of rehabilitation on parole. • The circumstances and gravity of the offence for which the offender was imprisoned and granted parole. • The circumstances and gravity of the breaches of parole. • The need to deter the offender and others from committing the type of offence or offences for which the offender was imprisoned and granted parole. 15 Parole Board Report pursuant to s 47(11) of the Act dated 22 January 2025, p 7. 16 Ibid. 17 Transcript of the Parole Board Interview dated 23 July 2024, page 3 and 4. 18 Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338, [25]; R v Earley [2014] SASC 202, [23]; R v Inge [2022] SASC 122, [15]. -- 7 of 9 -- [2025] SASC 12 Kimber J 6 • The need to deter the offender from breaching parole. 28 As was the position at the time of the grant of the non-parole period by Stanley J in 2022, the most important considerations in the circumstances of this application are the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation on parole and the need to deter the applicant and others from breaching parole, including by using alcohol and other drugs and by refusing to comply with curfews and the instructions of those supervising parole. 29 Given the period of time which has passed since the offending and the absence of any violent offending in custody or during periods of release in the community, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to view the applicant’s risk of violent offending as being towards the lower range. That said, the murder offence was committed after consuming alcohol and the applicant has breached the condition that he not attend a licenced premise, a condition designed to minimise the risk of alcohol consumption. There is nothing before me to suggest that buprenorphine might increase the risk of the applicant becoming violent. Nevertheless, it is well known that persons with a drug habit can commit crimes to support the use of drugs. 30 The applicant has made some efforts to engage with services designed to assist him. In particular, the Borderline Personality Disorder Collaborative and Ms Gilson in more recent times. Further, the needs of the applicant are complex. He has been imprisoned for most of his adult life. That he has found reintegration into the community difficult is unsurprising. That difficulty is likely exacerbated by his PTSD, anxiety, and, perhaps also, his personality disorder. Nevertheless, this tends to reinforce the importance of the applicant ceasing to use illicit and/or unprescribed drugs, something the applicant has not yet been able to do. To the contrary, the applicant has used drugs repeatedly. The applicant did not dispute that he told the Parole Board in October 2023 that he was addicted to buprenorphine, nor did he dispute findings that he had used drugs in more recent times.19 In addition, the applicant has disobeyed his curfew and the instructions of his case manager. 31 The conditions that he has breached are designed to promote his rehabilitation and minimise his risk of re-offending, including by providing an environment that might make it less likely that he will consume alcohol and other drugs and by limiting contact with persons not approved of by those supervising the applicant. 32 It is necessary to fix a non-parole period which might promote not only rehabilitation, but which might bring home to the applicant and others the importance of complying with the conditions of his parole. Since the order of the Parole Board made on 23 October 2023, the applicant has breached parole in more than one way. Those breaches must be viewed in the context of several breaches 19 Parole Board Report pursuant to s 47(11) of the Act dated 22 January 2025, p 6. -- 8 of 9 -- [2025] SASC 12 Kimber J 7 before that order. The applicant has been given many opportunities to demonstrate that he is committed to observing the parole conditions. Given the approach of the applicant to date, the need to deter the applicant has particular importance. 33 In the circumstances, and notwithstanding the position of the Director, I reject the submission of the applicant that it is appropriate to fix a non-parole period that would mean the applicant could apply for parole immediately. Given the history of drug use and other breaches, that approach would be unlikely to sufficiently impress upon the applicant the importance of complying with his parole. 34 In the circumstances, I fix a non-parole period of 20 months before the applicant can apply to the Parole Board for release on parole. Conclusion 35 I fix a non-parole period of 20 months backdated to the date the applicant was last returned to custody, namely 13 May 2024. -- 9 of 9 --