CHILD SEX OFFENDER JAILED AFTER WA’S HIGHEST COURT OVERTURNS SUSPENDED SENTENCE

A 25 year old man who repeatedly sexually penetrated a 14 year old girl has been ordered to serve an immediate prison sentence after Western Australia’s highest court overturned a decision that had allowed him to walk free under a suspended term.

Adrean Solomon Matanga pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16 after beginning a sexual relationship with the girl despite knowing her age.

Court material shows Matanga met the teenager at a birthday party in early December 2024 before the pair began communicating through Snapchat.

The offending continued over several months and was ultimately uncovered after Matanga and the girl fell asleep in a vehicle in a public car park and were discovered by a friend of the girl’s mother.

SUSPENDED SENTENCE

Matanga was originally sentenced in the WA District Court to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, but Judge Linda Black ordered the term be conditionally suspended.

During sentencing, Judge Black raised serious concerns about conditions across WA’s prison system, including staffing shortages, lockdowns and access to rehabilitation programs.

She described Hakea Prison as the “worst of the prisons in this state” and accepted that Matanga had experienced particularly difficult conditions while on remand.

However, the factual basis for that conclusion later became a central issue in the State’s appeal.

Matanga had spent 137 days in custody before sentencing, but the Court of Appeal found only 91 of those days had been spent at Hakea, with part of his remand served at Albany Regional Prison.

STATE APPEALS

The State challenged the sentence in “The State of Western Australia v Matanga [2026] WASCA 121”.

On 31 August 2026, the Court of Appeal overturned the suspended disposition and ordered Matanga to serve the same 3 year and 6 month term as immediate imprisonment.

Legal reporting of the decision summarises the Court’s position as confirming that general harsh prison conditions are not, without evidence of a particular impact on the offender, ordinarily a mitigating sentencing factor.

The appeal court found there was no proper basis for concluding Matanga had experienced imprisonment more harshly than other prisoners.

It said the seriousness of his offending, even when considered alongside his personal circumstances and mitigating factors, meant immediate imprisonment was the only appropriate sentencing outcome.

COURT ACKNOWLEDGES CONDITIONS AT HAKEA

The Court of Appeal did not dismiss concerns about conditions inside Hakea Prison.

It acknowledged reports of extensive lockdowns, overcrowded cells, prisoners sleeping on mattresses on floors, and associated hygiene and pest problems.

The court said those conditions were concerning and required urgent attention by prison authorities.

But it drew an important line between recognising systemic problems inside prisons and allowing those general conditions to reduce an individual offender’s sentence.

The decision has since been noted in legal commentary as authority for the proposition that harsh conditions require evidence of a particular impact on the individual prisoner, rather than being treated as an automatic sentencing discount.

IMMEDIATE IMPRISONMENT

Matanga’s 3 year and 6 month sentence was backdated to October 2025 to recognise time already served.