R v MOYLE [2026] SASC 102

Applicant: PHILLIP MOYLE Counsel: MR G TRUSCOTT - Solicitor: ABORIGINAL LEGAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT Respondent: THE KING Counsel: MR J KHOR - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Hearing Date/s: 13/04/2026, 18/06/2026, 30/06/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-26-012445 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 MOYLE [2026] SASC 102 Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice Handshin 30 June 2026 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). In 1996, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence of murder committed on 24 December 1994. A non-parole period of 19 years was originally fixed (reduced to 17 years following referral to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of a petition to exercise the prerogative of mercy). The applicant was first granted parole in January 2019. That grant of parole was cancelled in February 2020 on account of illicit drug use and breach of a curfew condition. The applicant was again granted parole in December 2022. In July 2024, that grant of parole was cancelled due to illicit drug use, failing to attend for supervision and further offending. The applicant now applies for a new non-parole period to be fixed. Held: 1. A non-parole period of 20 months is fixed, backdated to commence on 18 July 2024. Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 47(3), (2); Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) s 74; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 369, referred to. Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338; R v Earley [2014] SASC 202; R v Roberts (2016) 125 SASR 40; R v Weetra [2026] SASC 26, applied. R v Moyle (2007) 96 SASR 287; R v Moyle [2020] SASC 93; R v Williams [2021] SASC 70, considered. -- 1 of 12 -- -- 2 of 12 -- R v MOYLE [2026] SASC 102 Criminal: Application 1 HANDSHIN J: This is an application to fix a non-parole period pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA). 2 On 1 March 1996, Phillip Moyle (the applicant), was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years, for an offence of murder committed on 24 December 1994. 3 The applicant was first released on parole in January 2019. That grant of parole was cancelled in February 2020 after the applicant breached his curfew conditions and used illicit drugs, resulting in his arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by the Parole Board. 4 The applicant was subsequently granted parole again on 14 December 2022. After returning positive drug tests in July and August 2023, he was arrested on a Parole Board warrant and remanded in custody. Following further investigations by the Parole Board, the applicant was released from the warrant and, in February 2024, he resumed living in the community. 5 On 4 July 2024, the Parole Board issued a further warrant on the basis of ongoing illicit drug use and the applicant’s failure to attend for supervision, as required by his conditions of parole. The warrant was not immediately executed because the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown. The applicant remained in the community until 18 July 2024, when he was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of providing false personal details and two counts of assaulting a prescribed emergency worker. Pursuant to s 74 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA), the applicant’s parole was cancelled on 8 October 2024. 6 The applicant has remained in custody since 18 July 2024 and now applies for a further non-parole period to be fixed. 7 The Director of Public Prosecutions does not oppose the fixing of a further non-parole period. However, the Director submits that the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation, and his capacity to comply with the conditions of parole in the future, should be assessed with caution given his history of compliance issues, which in turn highlight the importance of imposing a new non-parole period that will give effect to the continuing role that deterrence – both general and specific – needs to play in this context. The Director submits that the applicant’s non-parole period should be backdated to commence on 18 July 2024. 8 For reasons that follow, I would fix a non-parole period of 20 months, backdated to commence on 18 July 2024. -- 3 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 2 Background1 9 Before addressing the applicant’s parole history and the merits of the present application, it is necessary to say something about the circumstances of the index offending. 10 In the early hours of 24 December 1994, the applicant, then aged 24 years, travelled to the Rosewater area with a group of associates. He had been consuming alcohol and using heroin over the preceding three days. Several female members of the group with whom the applicant was in company obtained permission from the occupant of a nearby house to enter and change their clothing. While they did so, the applicant and two male associates remained in the street. 11 The victim of the applicant’s offending was asleep in his vehicle at this time. 12 The applicant approached the vehicle, but the victim did not rouse. The applicant rifled through the victim’s pockets and took a little under $4. Petrol was siphoned from the victim’s car into a two-litre container. The applicant then poured some of the contents of the container over the still sleeping victim. A few minutes later, the applicant returned to the vehicle and set fire to the victim using a cigarette lighter. The victim died in what can only be described as unimaginable circumstances. 13 The sentencing Judge accepted that the applicant had almost immediately shown remorse for his offending, which was described as completely without reason or justification. 14 On the applicant’s plea of guilty to murder, the sentencing Judge imposed the mandatory head sentence of life imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of 19 years. 15 The applicant unsuccessfully appealed his sentence but, on 31 October 2006, on a petition to the Governor to exercise the prerogative of mercy, the Attorney-General, acting under s 369 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), referred the matter to the Full Court. Pursuant to s 369(a), the case was heard and determined by the Full Court,2 and on 6 February 2007, the original non-parole period was set aside and substituted with a non-parole period of 17 years, backdated to commence on 24 December 1994. The first grant of parole 16 The applicant’s non-parole period expired on 24 December 2011. His first application for parole was refused on 31 January 2012. 1 The background to this application is partly derived from R v Moyle [2020] SASC 93, in which Bampton J considered an earlier application by the applicant to fix a non-parole period. 2 R v Moyle (2007) 96 SASR 287. -- 4 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 3 17 On 16 January 2019, the applicant was released on parole for the first time, having served 24 years in prison. 18 The applicant’s compliance and, as it turned out, non-compliance with this grant of parole is surveyed by Bampton J in R v Moyle3 and it is not necessary for me to repeat the detail of those matters of history. 19 It is sufficient for present purposes to observe that the applicant breached the conditions of parole by consuming illicit drugs in contravention of a condition that he abstain from drug use. A Parole Board warrant was issued and executed on 18 June 2019. 20 During a subsequent interview with the Parole Board, the applicant explained that he was having difficulty adjusting to community life after such a lengthy period on remand and was struggling with the aftermath of his mother’s death in 2018, whilst he was in custody. 21 The Parole Board deferred a decision on whether to cancel the applicant’s parole at that time. However, in response to evidence that the applicant was positively engaging with a psychologist and social worker to address his substance abuse issues, the applicant was released from the warrant on 25 September 2019. 22 Following his re-release on parole, the applicant again fell into breach, contravening his curfew and ‘no drugs’ conditions on at least five occasions. 23 On 1 November 2019, a further Parole Board warrant was issued and executed. The Parole Board ultimately found breaches of parole proved and, on 4 February 2020, the applicant’s parole was cancelled pursuant to s 74 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) and his life sentence reinstated. 24 On 3 June 2020, upon his first application to this Court pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act, Bampton J fixed a non-parole period of eight months backdated to 4 February 2020.4 The second grant of parole 25 On 23 September 2020, the applicant made a further application for release on parole in respect of which he was interviewed on 30 March 2021. The Parole Board resolved to grant the applicant parole, subject to his continued good behaviour. 26 On 25 June 2021, the applicant was transferred to the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre to facilitate his resocialisation. While housed in that facility, the applicant came under scrutiny in response to a suspicious urine sample and for allegedly attempting to introduce contraband. On the hearing of this application, the 3 [2020] SASC 93, [8]-[19]. 4 R v Moyle [2020] SASC 93. -- 5 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 4 applicant maintained that he had not committed any such wrong-doing and was exonerated of misconduct following an investigation. 27 After further consideration by the Parole Board, the applicant’s release was approved on 8 March 2022, subject to continued good behaviour. 28 On 14 December 2022, the applicant was released into the community with parole conditions requiring weekly reporting and abstinence from alcohol and drugs. Thereafter, the applicant’s performance on parole was inconsistent. He appears to have enjoyed periods of relative stability and compliance and was gainfully employed for a number of months. However, his problems with substance abuse persisted. 29 On 15 February 2023, the applicant failed to provide a urine sample for drug testing and subsequently admitted to his Corrections Officer that he had used methamphetamine in the preceding week.5 30 Other information suggesting the applicant had been dishonest with his Case Manager (which he denies) in respect of his participation with Workskill prompted the Parole Board to re-interview him on 26 April 2023, at which time he was afforded a further opportunity to comply with the conditions of his parole. 31 On 26 July and 2 August 2023, the applicant returned drug tests positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. A further field test conducted on 3 August 2023 also returned a positive result for methamphetamine.6 Although initially denying any drug use when challenged with these test results, the applicant later admitted he had used ‘once or twice’ on account of stress.7 32 The Parole Board issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest and he was again returned to custody.8 33 In response to these further missteps, the applicant wrote to the Parole Board acknowledging his positive drug tests and describing a pattern of self-sabotage when released into the community, which he insightfully said he found daunting and overwhelming. 34 On 30 January 2024, the applicant was interviewed by the Parole Board. In addition to apologising for some previous behavioural problems, the applicant reported that he tended to relapse into drug use during periods of stress and advised that he had recently come to participate in the Redress Scheme, which he found to be a psychological pressure point. The Parole Board resolved to again release the applicant on parole, subject to the availability of suitable accommodation.9 5 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 2. 6 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 2. 7 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 3. 8 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 3. 9 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 3. -- 6 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 5 35 On 21 February 2024, the applicant was again released into the community after a short transitional period at the Adelaide Pre-Release Centre. His initial responsiveness to parole this time around was considered to be positive, reflecting a marked improvement in behaviour and a commitment to addressing childhood trauma with the support of his sister.10 The applicant also enrolled in the Work Ready – Release Ready, Road to Redemption program but was unable to complete it owing to tension with a trainer that he felt demonstrated a lack of cultural respect. 36 As had been the case previously, despite a promising start, the applicant’s compliance with parole soon deteriorated. 37 On 12 June 2024, the applicant admitted to his Corrections Officer that he had used methamphetamine, and on 27 June 2024, he returned a drug test positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. The applicant’s behaviour was observed to be ‘quite erratic’ throughout this period11 and on 3 July 2024, he failed to attend for supervision with his Corrections Officer. 38 The following day, the Parole Board issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest. 39 As the applicant’s whereabouts was then unknown, the warrant was not immediately executed. However, on 18 July 2024, the applicant came to the attention of police for riding a bicycle without a helmet. A somewhat volatile interaction followed in which the applicant provided false personal details. A subsequent search of the applicant uncovered two zip-lock bags containing methamphetamine. The applicant’s paranoid and un-cooperative behaviour led to an ambulance being called. After he was medically cleared, the applicant was conveyed to Port Adelaide police station where he assaulted two police officers, headbutting and kicking one and biting another, as a result of which OC spray was used to restrain him.12 40 On 8 October 2024, the applicant was interviewed by the Parole Board. He claimed that an unknown person had sent child exploitation material to his phone, which he reported to police. The applicant said the receipt of this material precipitated significant psychological dysregulation in light of his childhood experiences. He explained further that he had withdrawn from the Road to Redemption program due to what he considered to be offensive conduct by facilitators and that he had been homeless for approximately two weeks before his remand, following a disagreement with his sister, with whom he had been residing.13 41 The Parole Board resolved to cancel the applicant’s parole. 10 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 3. 11 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 4. 12 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 4. 13 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 4. The applicant's sister separately confirmed, however, that he remained welcome to reside with her. -- 7 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 6 Events post-cancellation of parole 42 After the cancellation of his parole, the applicant voluntarily participated in the Mirnu Unit program, having been referred for intervention to address impulse control, problem-solving and substance abuse issues. However, he was removed from the program on 21 December 2024 after engaging in verbally aggressive and intimidating conduct towards a rehabilitation clinician, against a background of escalating disruption, including offensive and threatening behaviour directed at both staff and other participants.14 The applicant has a different perspective on the sequence of events that led to his exclusion from the program, explaining that he had been encouraged to engage openly with his emotions while participating and felt that he had been making progress which was disrupted by his removal.15 The applicant was also experiencing a significant grief response on account of the loss of two of his sisters. 43 Despite these issues, the applicant's behaviour in custody since early 2025 appears to have been stable, with no further behavioural concerns recorded.16 Sentence for 18 July 2024 offending 44 On 29 April 2025, the applicant was sentenced for providing false personal details and two counts of assaulting a prescribed emergency worker, arising out of his arrest on 18 July 2024. After a reduction for pleas of guilty and allowing for concurrency, the sentencing Magistrate indicated a notional sentence of 8 months and 16 days for both counts of assault. However, as the applicant had spent over nine months in custody, the Magistrate determined to discharge him without any further penalty. 45 Her Honour recorded a conviction and imposed a nominal fine for the offence of providing false personal details. Submissions of the parties 46 I turn then to the applicant’s personal history. 47 The applicant, who is now 55 years old, is an Aboriginal man of Ngarrindjeri and Narrungga heritage. He grew up in a large family in a single-parent household, supported by extended relatives, but with limited financial means. The applicant experienced a challenging and culturally isolated upbringing, comprehensively explained in the materials I have received.17 He had difficulties at school and began committing offences at the age of 13. He spent significant portions of his youth in custody. 48 The applicant has had longstanding issues with drug abuse and has been diagnosed with substance use disorder, bipolar disorder and grief-related 14 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 5. 15 Department for Correctional Services Progress Report, 22 May 2026, p 4. 16 Parole Board Report, 22 May 2026, p 5. 17 Affidavit of Garen Truscott, 23 March 2026. -- 8 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 7 post-traumatic stress disorder. He has a significant history of trauma originating in his childhood and has more recently experienced further losses while in custody, including the passing of his mother and two sisters. 49 In addition to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, I have received a detailed and helpful letter of support from the applicant’s sister which addresses various aspects of his personal history and the challenges he has confronted during periods on parole. 50 The applicant submitted that the circumstances leading to his most recent cancellation of parole were highly unusual and contextualised by his childhood experiences. I was informed that the applicant sought out assistance in the aftermath of receiving the material on his mobile phone but was unable to access counselling at short notice through Flinders Wellbeing and his Corrections Officer. 51 I am told that the applicant now has dedicated support from the Flinders Wellbeing Centre, with a psychologist, Dr Reilly, having seen him monthly since his referral to the service in November 2024.18 Dr Reilly records that the applicant has developed strategies to manage his traumatic memories and associated distress, which he had previously addressed through maladaptive drug and alcohol abuse, and is expressing a commitment to maintaining abstinence through therapeutic support. The applicant is also now prescribed Suboxone, which Dr Reilly reports to be effective in managing his urges to use drugs. Whether this is effective in mitigating the risk of further relapses and breaches of parole when the applicant is in the community remains to be seen. 52 The applicant further emphasised that, although his most recent breaches of parole involved the commission of further offences, including offences of violence, he had not previously shown himself to present with a significant risk of re-offending, despite extended periods of time in the community since January 2019. 53 The applicant accepted that he has experienced, and is likely to continue to experience, difficulties with drug use, but pointed to a period of ongoing compliance with parole between 2022 and 2024 as exemplifying his capacity to adhere to strict conditions. I do not overlook that although the applicant’s parole was not cancelled during this period, he admitted to using methamphetamine in February 2023 and returned positive drug tests in both July and August 2023. 54 Exhibiting considerable insight, the applicant explained to me that it is not his intention to apply for parole immediately upon becoming eligible, observing that he appreciates the need for a lengthy period of adjustment and support to make a transition to the community viable on account of his institutionalisation. The applicant expressed a desire to work with the Parole Board to develop a release plan that will maximise his prospects of reintegration. 18 Letter from Dr Reilly, 25 February 2026. -- 9 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 8 55 The applicant submitted that, in light of these matters, a short non-parole period would be appropriate. 56 The Director agreed that a non-parole period should be fixed and backdated to commence from 18 July 2024. The Director submitted that the length of the non-parole period must reflect the ongoing risk the applicant poses to the community, particularly in light of his maladaptive reliance on illicit substances when under pressure or stress, and his poor compliance with parole historically. The Director further emphasised the importance of deterrence in the present context – both personal and general – and the need to deal with the application in a way that protects the parole system from being constructively frustrated or undermined. Discussion 57 The considerations relevant to fixing a non-parole period under s 47(3) are well-known. They include the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation on parole, the circumstances and gravity of the offence for which the offender was imprisoned and granted parole, and the nature and seriousness of any breaches of parole. Considerations of deterrence, both in respect of the index offending and the breaching conduct, also have an important role to play.19 58 The applicant has a long history of offending and substance abuse problems. His past responses to parole suggest substance abuse remains his most prominent criminogenic risk factor. Notwithstanding he has had the benefit of some relapse prevention intervention whilst in custody, the applicant candidly acknowledges that he has found it difficult to implement his learnings in an unregulated, community environment.20 Whilst it is true that his previous breaches of parole have not generally involved further offending (save, of course, for the events of 18 July 2024), that remains an appreciable risk if the applicant is unable to change the pattern that he falls into within a short period of being released into the community. 59 The challenges of reintegration presented by the applicant’s maladaptive reliance on drugs are compounded, and doubtless linked to, his institutionalisation as a result of having spent more than half of his life in custody. The applicant is largely unaccustomed to the pressures of life in the community. He acknowledges that during his most recent period on parole, he experienced feelings of paranoia, tended to isolate and struggled with everyday tasks such as operating a mobile phone due to his unfamiliarity with technology,21 with such stressors leading him to resort to drug use. 60 The applicant’s difficulties in this respect are likely further shaped by his diagnoses of bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, and the limited 19 Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338, [25]; R v Earley [2014] SASC 202, [23]; R v Roberts (2016) 125 SASR 40, [27]; R v Weetra [2026] SASC 26, [22]. 20 Department for Correctional Services Progress Report, 22 May 2026, p 5. 21 Department for Correctional Services Progress Report, 22 May 2026, p 5. -- 10 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 9 social supports he has available to him, particularly in light of the personal losses he has experienced in recent years. The applicant’s psychological vulnerability for these, and other reasons, tends to underscore the importance of ongoing and close engagement with community support services available to him whilst on parole. 61 In this respect, it is encouraging that, since his remand, the applicant has had an extended period of psychological therapy with the Flinders Wellbeing Centre and Warntapinthi Wellbeing to address his underlying trauma and risk factors and has indicated an eagerness to persist with therapy upon any future release. This stabilisation in the applicant’s presentation is consistent with the absence of any adverse behavioural reports in custody since early 2025. It is also encouraging that, according to Dr Reilly, the applicant is professing a commitment to remaining alcohol and drug free in the event he is released on parole, but, as I have said, the real challenge will be whether the applicant can effectively carry that mindset into the less closely regulated environment of community living. 62 All of this is to say that the applicant’s prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community present as complex and somewhat fragile which is unsurprising given the length of time he has spent in prison from a young age. Appropriate support networks and ongoing engagement with drug and alcohol relapse prevention counselling will be critical to the likelihood of the applicant successfully complying with any future grant of parole. 63 Drawing these matters together, a non-parole period must be fixed that serves to enhance the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation whilst reinforcing the importance of adherence to parole conditions. Those who are, or may be, granted parole, particularly in respect of offences of murder, must appreciate the depth of the obligation and expectation that accompanies it. Parole breaches caused by the contravention of conditions designed to promote a parolee’s rehabilitation, or by further offending, must sound in an approach to the fixing of a new non-parole period that maintains the integrity of the parole system and gives effect to considerations of deterrence. In the applicant’s case, specific deterrence has particular importance given his history of breaches. 64 Of course, the gravity of the of the index offending is also a highly material consideration and, in this case, speaks for itself. The applicant’s unjustified and unexplained acts took the life of an innocent member of the community and have caused untold pain and suffering for the victim’s family for decades. In his powerful victim impact statement presented on the hearing of this application, the victim’s brother eloquently explained the enduring devastation, loss and anguish the victim’s family continue to be undeservedly burdened with. These features of the applicant’s offending must not be forgotten. 65 Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that the applicant has, in the past, been afforded considerable latitude to demonstrate his capacity for compliance with parole, with generally imperfect results, although there have been intervals of positive progress. That the applicant’s most recent remand in custody arose from -- 11 of 12 -- [2026] SASC 102 Handshin J 10 further offending (albeit of a vastly different order of magnitude to the index offending) whilst on parole is also much to his discredit, irrespective of the circumstances in which that offending occurred. 66 Nonetheless, it may be hoped that the applicant’s appreciation of the need for a careful and graduated reintegration into the community, and the importance of maintaining prosocial supports and psychological assistance, will improve his prospects of compliance in the future. Conclusion 67 Relying on R v Williams [2021] SASC 70 (Williams), the Director submitted that any non-parole period I fix should be backdated to commence on 18 July 2024, and that when identifying an appropriate non-parole period, I should take into account the Magistrate’s treatment of time in custody when sentencing the applicant for the offences of assaulting prescribed emergency workers. Williams was a case that involved different issues arising from the operation of s 47(2) of the Sentencing Act and the interrelationship between a sentence imposed in respect of an offence committed during a period of release on parole and the balance of a ‘previous sentence’ a prisoner is liable to serve. The same considerations would not appear to apply in the applicant’s case because of the sentencing order made by the Magistrate. 68 Nonetheless, I will adopt the approach suggested by the Director. I have, however, factored into my assessment of the appropriate length of the non-parole period that the applicant has had the advantage of time spent in custody since 18 July 2024 being taken into account upon being sentenced for the breaching offences. I also bear in mind the length of time the applicant has spent in prison generally and following the cancellation of his parole (which will have served as a reminder of the importance of compliance with parole conditions). 69 I fix a non-parole period of 20 months, backdated to commence on 18 July 2024. -- 12 of 12 --