‘Is dad around?’ Chilling three words said by Australia’s youngest convicted killer as new parole breach claim heads to court

WARNING: Distressing content. Australia’s youngest convicted killer has claimed a judge was wrong in finding that he breached the terms of his supervision order after he was released from prison following more than 20 years behind bars. The man, who can only be known as SLD, murdered three-year-old Courtney Morley-Clarke when he was just 13 in January 2001. He stabbed the young girl through the heart after he pulled her from her bed on the NSW Central Coast, leaving her body in long grass nearby and leading police on a wild-goose chase as they frantically searched for Courtney. The man spent more than 20 years in jail for Courtney’s murder but was released on an extended supervision order in 2023. He was arrested just a month after his release and jailed for 13 months for breaching the order by speaking to a woman who was with her child at Bulli Beach near Wollongong. SLD had approached the woman from behind as she dressed her child near the showers, asking her if she knew how to work the foot bath before turning the conversation to her child. He asked if her child had chickenpox before asking “Is dad around?” “Oh that’s good I guess” he replied and walked off when the woman said that he was. SLD is now arguing that the judge made a mistake in finding he breached his supervision order preventing him from associating with children, launching an appeal against his conviction in the Supreme Court of NSW. His appeal hinges on claims the judge wrongly believed he was chatting with the mother in order to communicate with her child, and was therefore in breach of his order. SLD tried to capture the attention of the court multiple times as he was beamed into the courtroom from Long Bay Jail on Wednesday, at one point appearing to mouth “stop” and making a phone gesture with his hand. His lawyer Nicholas Broadbent SC argued during the hearing that there was no evidence of any physical or verbal interaction between his client and the child, ultimately submitting that SLD was not associating or in company with the child. “The subject of the conversation with the mother … was at no stage directed to the child,” Mr Broadbent said. “The definition of associate is a more onerous aspect than simply being in company with, and our submission is fundamentally that neither occurred in this case.” Written submissions tendered to the court on behalf of SLD point to the definition of “associate” that was upheld by the trial judge. It requires “some form of connection between two people”, and merely being in the presence of a child is insufficient. SLD’s conduct does not establish any “connection of substance” with the child, the documents argue. Mr Broadbent also submitted SLD could have been speaking with the woman for the purpose of asking her on a date, with the documents claiming his questions about the child were likely an attempt to keep the woman engaged so he could pursue a romantic connection with her. The Crown argued while SLD would of course have situations where he may unintentionally come across children in public places, intentionally walking up to a child does fit the definition of “being in company”. “Intentionally coming up to a child, whether they’re alone or in company … falls within the definition of being in company and that definition,” she said. She also maintained that it was open for the trial judge to find SLD was in the immediate proximity of the child, after Mr Broadbent argued the evidence on proximity was unclear, and therefore “does not arise to the sort of closeness that is the subject of the finding of the trial judge”. Justices Kristina Stern, Sarah Huggett and Phillip Boulten SC reserved their decision, which will be handed down at a later date. SLD is currently behind bars awaiting sentencing for a separate matter, having admitted to possessing child abuse material and breaching his supervision order less than a month after he was released from prison over his 2023 breach.