Two teenage twins who carried out a prolonged and violent assault on a complete stranger in Adelaide have been sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment after a South Australian court considered both the extraordinary seriousness of the attack and the significant personal disadvantages experienced by the offenders.

The sentencing has attracted widespread public attention after the District Court imposed identical non-parole periods of two years and six months on the brothers, who were 17 when the offence occurred but were sentenced as adults because of the gravity of their offending.

The twins, who cannot be identified because they were minors at the time of the attack, pleaded guilty to aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment under South Australian law.

The attack occurred outside the Salvation Army Sobering Centre at Whitmore Square in Adelaide on 24 April 2025.

According to evidence presented to the court, CCTV footage showed the brothers following an unknown man down an alley before launching an unprovoked assault. The victim was repeatedly punched, kicked and stomped while lying defenceless on the ground, with Judge Nick Alexandrides describing the attack as involving more than 60 blows.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries.

Medical evidence before the court established that he sustained a very severe traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic amnesia and an ear that was almost completely severed during the assault. The long-term consequences have been devastating.

A victim impact statement prepared by the man’s mother revealed that her son’s life had been permanently altered.

She told the court he was forced to relearn how to walk and speak following the assault and is now unable to live independently because of his ongoing cognitive impairment. The injuries have left him with permanent disabilities that will affect every aspect of his future life.

During sentencing, Judge Alexandrides described the assault as a sustained group attack on a vulnerable individual who had no realistic opportunity to escape.

He concluded that the seriousness of the offending required the brothers to be sentenced as adults despite their age at the time of the crime.

The court also examined the personal backgrounds of both offenders in considerable detail before determining an appropriate sentence.

Evidence presented during sentencing indicated one twin had experienced significant neurodevelopmental impairment, including prenatal alcohol exposure, extremely poor language functioning and very low overall intellectual functioning. He had also been referred for disability support services.

The other brother was found to have experienced severe childhood adversity, including domestic violence, homelessness, parental substance abuse and neglect. Psychological assessments concluded he also suffered from an intellectual disability and had long struggled with emotional regulation.

Both offenders told the court they had been grieving the recent death of their grandmother at the time of the assault and had consumed alcohol before the incident. They expressed remorse during sentencing and acknowledged that they had taken out their anger on a person they did not know.

One aspect of the sentencing that generated particular public discussion was the judge’s consideration of the twins’ Aboriginal heritage.

In his sentencing remarks, Judge Alexandrides noted that the offenders were young Aboriginal Australians whose lives reflected recognised forms of social disadvantage. However, their Aboriginality was considered alongside numerous other mitigating factors, including documented intellectual impairment, childhood trauma, neurodevelopmental disorders and their prospects for rehabilitation.

The judge stated that these factors affected the assessment of the offenders’ moral culpability but emphasised they provided only limited mitigation when balanced against the exceptional seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.

He ultimately rejected any suggestion that the prison sentences should be suspended, concluding that doing so would fail to provide adequate deterrence or community protection.

The decision has nevertheless sparked intense debate on social media.

Some commentators argued the sentence appeared too lenient given the lifelong injuries suffered by the victim and the maximum penalty available for the offence. Others pointed out that Australian sentencing law requires courts to consider an offender’s personal circumstances—including youth, mental impairment, cognitive disability and social disadvantage—when determining an appropriate sentence.

Australian courts have long recognised that sentencing involves balancing multiple objectives rather than simply imposing the harshest available punishment. Those objectives include punishment, deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation and protection of the community.

Judges are also required to individualise sentences by considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Factors such as an early guilty plea, youth, intellectual disability, demonstrated remorse and prospects of rehabilitation can reduce a sentence, while extreme violence, lasting injury to victims and premeditation generally increase it.

In this case, the court concluded that the brutality of the assault strongly favoured a substantial custodial sentence, but that the offenders’ cognitive impairments and disadvantaged backgrounds remained legally relevant considerations that could not be ignored.

The sentencing also reflects principles established by Australian appellate courts recognising that profound social disadvantage and neurodevelopmental impairment may influence an offender’s level of moral culpability, particularly where those factors contribute to impaired judgment or emotional regulation.

Legal experts frequently note, however, that such considerations do not excuse criminal behaviour or guarantee reduced sentences. Instead, they form part of a broader assessment undertaken by judges in every individual case.

For the victim and his family, the legal arguments provide little comfort.

The permanent injuries sustained during the attack mean he will continue living with severe cognitive impairment and reduced independence long after the offenders have completed their sentences.

Judge Alexandrides acknowledged this reality during sentencing, describing the consequences for the victim as profound and lifelong.

While the case has become a focal point for broader public debate about sentencing policy and judicial discretion, it also serves as a reminder of the devastating human cost of serious violent crime.

The twins’ sentences were backdated to the date they entered custody following the April 2025 attack, meaning their eligibility for parole will be determined after serving the court-imposed non-parole period. Any release at that point would remain subject to South Australia’s parole process rather than occurring automatically.