R v Inge - [2025] SASC 12

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

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.

R v INGE
[2025] SASC 12
Criminal: Application to fix a non‑parole period
KIMBER J:

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.
For the reasons below, I fix a non‑parole period of 20 months to commence on 13 May 2024.
Background[1]
The offence and sentence
[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.
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]
[2] R v Schultz (1997) 68 SASR 377; Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295; R v Inge (2000) 76 SASR 118.
The applicant, his sister, and his sister’s boyfriend had been drinking together on the evening of 4…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Inge

Details

AGLC: R v Inge [2025] SASC 12
Case: [2025] SASC 12
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Inge involved the applicant, who had previously been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of an elderly man. The matter before the court was the redetermination of the non-parole period associated with the applicant's life sentence. The applicant had already served a significant portion of his original 18-year non-parole period and was now seeking a reduction in this term. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the appropriate length of the non-parole period, taking into account the applicant's conduct in custody, his remorse, and the circumstances of the original offence. The court also had to consider the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court considered various factors in determining the non-parole period, including the nature and circumstances of the crime, the applicant's background and personal circumstances, and his conduct while in custody. The court acknowledged the applicant's remorse and his positive behaviour in prison, which were mitigating factors. However, it also emphasised the gravity of the crime, noting that the victim was defenceless and the attack was particularly brutal. The court found that the original non-parole period of 18 years was excessive given the applicant's conduct in prison and his remorse. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court decided to reduce the non-parole period to 20 months.

The court's decision was based on a careful balance of the mitigating and aggravating factors. The applicant's remorse and good conduct in custody were significant mitigating factors, but the court also had to consider the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court concluded that a non-parole period of 20 months was appropriate, reflecting both the seriousness of the crime and the applicant's behaviour since his imprisonment. The court set this period to commence on 13 May 2024, the date the applicant was last returned to custody.

The final orders of the court were that the non-parole period for the applicant's life sentence be fixed at 20 months, with this term to commence on 13 May 2024. This decision means that the applicant will be eligible to apply for parole after serving an additional 20 months from that date.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons below, I fix a non‑parole period of 20 months to commence on 13 May 2024. Background[1] The offence and sentence [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. 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] [2] R v Schultz (1997) 68 SASR 377; Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295; R v Inge (2000) 76 SASR 118. 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. 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 entered pleas of guilty to burglary and assisting the applicant to escape apprehension and prosecution. 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. 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

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

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 I fix a non‑parole period of 20 months backdated to the date the applicant was last returned to custody, namely 13 May 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.