Reoffending on parole: why s 58 doesn't shield offenders from a fresh custodial sentence

When a client reoffends while on parole, can s 58 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ('the CSP Act') stop the Local Court imposing a fresh custodial sentence? In Khouri v DPP (NSW), the Court of Criminal Appeal said no. Read on to find out why this matters to practitioners.

Relevant documents: Khouri v DPP [2026] NSWCCA 68 | Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - Section 58

Disclaimer: The information provided in the articles in this section are of a general nature and should not be construed as specific advice or relied upon in lieu of appropriate professional advice. Whilst LEAP uses commercially reasonable efforts to ensure the information in these articles are up to date at the time of publication, LEAP does not warrant their accuracy, currency or completeness and excludes all loss or damage howsoever arising (including through negligence) in connection with the information contained in these articles.

Quick takeaways

• Section 58 does not stop the Local Court imposing a custodial sentence for offences committed on parole, where the new sentence runs wholly concurrently with the existing sentence.

• The five-year limit is engaged only where the new sentence is consecutive, or partly consecutive, on the non-parole period, not where it runs alongside the parole period.

• A sentence that begins during the parole period is concurrent, not consecutive. A consecutive sentence starts immediately after the previous one ends.

Why this decision matters

Section 58 limits the Local Court from imposing a new sentence that is consecutive, or partly consecutive, on an existing sentence where the new sentence would end more than five years after the existing sentence began.

On the appellant's argument, an offender serving a long sentence with a lengthy parole period could receive no custodial sentence in the Local Court for fresh offending during that parole. The Court declined to read s 58 that way.

The background

On 29 May 2026 the Court of Criminal Appeal answered a stated case referred by the District Court, on appeal from the Local Court.

Elias Khouri (the appellant) was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months, commencing 31 August 2018 and expiring 29 February 2028, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 8 months, making him eligible for parole on 30 April 2024.

While on parole the appellant committed a number of offences and was sentenced in the Local Court to a further term of 18 months commencing 27 November 2025, which fell wholly within the parole period of the existing sentence.

On appeal to the District Court the appellant argued that s 58(1) prevented the Local Court from imposing that sentence, on the basis that the new sentence was to be served consecutively with an existing sentence of imprisonment and would end more than 5 years after the existing sentence began. The District Court referred the following question to the Court of Criminal Appeal:

“Excluding the circumstances arising under s 58(3), (3A) and (3B) of the CSP Act, does s 58 of the CSP Act apply to restrict the power of the Local Court, and the District Court in its appellate jurisdiction, to impose a new sentence of imprisonment where the new sentence of imprisonment (including any parole period) is to be wholly subsumed within the parole period of the existing sentence of imprisonment, in circumstances where the new sentence of imprisonment would end 5 years after the date on which the existing sentence began[?]”

What the Court decided: concurrent vs consecutive

The Court answered "No." Everything turns on what "consecutive" means: a sentence is only consecutive if it begins immediately after the previous one ends. Khouri's new sentence began during the parole period, well after his non-parole period had expired, so it ran concurrently.

That distinction is decisive. Section 58 only limits consecutive or partly consecutive sentences, so a wholly concurrent sentence does not engage it. The same held even on the appellant's own argument that his existing sentence ended at the close of its non-parole period, because the new sentence still began after that point.

The Court illustrated the point with an offender sentenced for murder to 22 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 15 years and 6 months, who would then have effective immunity from any custodial sentence for summary offending across the rest of the parole period. The legislature is unlikely to have intended that.

When does s 58 apply?

The length of the new sentence isn't the point. What counts is whether it's consecutive, or partly consecutive, on the non-parole period of the existing sentence:

• Runs alongside the parole period: wholly concurrent, s 58 not engaged, even if it ends more than five years after the existing sentence began.

• Stacked on the non-parole period: consecutive or partly consecutive, and the five-year limit may apply, subject to the exceptions in s 58(3), (3A) and (3B).

Staying current as the law moves

Sentencing law rarely stands still, and s 58 is a live example. That is where working in a system built for criminal practice really helps:

• Up-to-date forms and precedents: LEAP’s legal content team maintains court forms, precedents and commentary in line with new legislation and landmark judgments, so your criminal matters keep pace with changes like the s 58 review.

• One matter, end to end: pre-configured criminal law matter types keep charges, briefs, correspondence, court dates, time recording and trust accounting in a single cloud file, accessible from court or on the go.

• Research you can rely on with a human-in-the-loop: inside a matter, ask LawY for citation-backed answers on NSW criminal law and legislation, with the option to have it verified by qualified Australian lawyers.

Practical takeaways for practitioners

In practice this comes down to a few things:

• A sentence served wholly concurrently with an existing sentence does not engage s 58, even where it ends more than five years after the existing sentence began.

• Keep the s 58(3), (3A) and (3B) exceptions in view whenever the section is engaged.

Frequently asked questions

Does s 58 apply to concurrent sentences?

No. Section 58 limits only consecutive, or partly consecutive sentences. A sentence served wholly concurrently with an existing sentence including one that runs within the offender's parole period, does not engage s 58.

Can the Local Court sentence someone who reoffends while on parole?

Yes, Khouri confirms that s 58 does not prevent the Local Court from sentencing an offender to imprisonment for offences committed whilst on parole where the new sentence is served wholly concurrently with the existing sentence.

When does the s 58 five-year limit actually bite?

When the new sentence is consecutive or partly consecutive on the non-parole period and would end more than five years after the existing sentence began. The exceptions in s 58(3), (3A) and (3B) still apply.