The youngest of the three infamous Snowtown killers has been pictured for the first time.

The Court of Appeal on Tuesday lifted a gag order on James Spyridon Vlassakis’ image, which has been in place for more than 25 years.

Vlassakis pleaded guilty to four murders in the infamous ‘body in the barrels’ case and gave evidence against two other men – John Bunting and Robert Wagner.

The group were involved in the murder of 11 people between 1992 and 1999 in several locations around South Australia, including Snowtown.

Police found eight bodies in barrels in the vault of a disused bank in Snowtown in May 1999.

Another four bodies have been linked to the serial killers but murder convictions were only recorded for three.

A fourth man, Mark Haydon, was not convicted of murder but spent 25 years behind bars for helping cover up seven of the killings. He was released into the community in 2024.

Vlassakis was briefly granted parole in August last year but the decision was overturned following a review by Parole Administrative Review Commissioner Michael David KC.

+5
View gallery

The Court of Appeal lifted the ban on publishing James Spyridon Vlassakis’ (above) image on Tuesday

+5
View gallery

Vlassakis (above) fronted a parole appeal hearing on Tuesday

+5
View gallery

Vlassakis was convicted for four of the ‘Snowtown murders’, which infamously uncovered the bodies of eight people hidden in barrels in the old Snowtown bank (above)

He can apply for parole again in August 2026.

Commissioner David’s decision to reject the parole is currently before the Court of Appeal, following a request by the Parole Board for a judicial review.

Vlassakis appeared via video-link wearing a prison-issued short-sleeve shirt for a hearing regarding the matter on Tuesday.

During that hearing, the court agreed with submissions from South Australian media outlets that suppression orders on Vlassakis’ image should be overturned.

The order had banned the publication of Vlassakis’ likeness ‘in any form, including photographs, sketches and illustrations’ as well as ‘any description which would have the capacity to lead to identification of him’.

The suppression order was originally granted to protect Vlassakis’ identity as he gave evidence against his co-accused.

His lawyer, Lindy Powell KC, argued Vlassakis’ life could be put at risk behind bars if he were pictured in the media.

‘We say that, as this court well knows, this man spent some five years in solitary confinement as a result of his co-operation,’ she said, Adelaide Now reported.

+5
View gallery

Vlassakis was briefly granted and then denied parole in August 2025 (pictured is Vlassakis at that time)

‘Indeed, the suppression order has preserved him from being capable of being identified by any person who considers his level of co-operation to be offensive.

‘Nobody knows what he looks like, and the proper administration of justice would be his ability to reabsorb into the community without his image being projected to all and sundry.’

As for Vlassakis’ parole, the government pushed for the killer to remain behind bars.

Mike Wait KC argued Commissioner David had correctly ruled the Parole Board ‘underestimated’ the impact of Vlassakis’ crimes.

‘(It wrote) ‘the offences committed by Vlassakis were undoubtedly very serious’ … that half a sentence is the sum total of the Board’s discussion about gravity,’ he said.

‘All we see are references to mitigating factors in the sentencing remarks (and) mitigating or supportive factors (about release).

‘It’s almost as if the Parole Board has reached a conclusion about release, then gone back and laid out its reasoning.’

Dick Whitington KC, for the Parole Board, argued Commissioner David gave ‘no cogent reasons’ for overturning Vlassakis’ parole.

+5
View gallery

Eight of the victims’ bodies were found barrels. Another four were linked to the serial killings but only three murder convictions were recorded

He argued the commissioner’s ‘colourful’ and ‘florid’ language was equivalent to re-sentencing Vlassakis, rather than working to ‘identify present risk’ to the community of the killer was released.

‘He comes along, does not point to any relevant changes in circumstances and simply says, in broad and bare fashion, “I think this is too early”,’ Whitington said.

‘One must find powerful reasons to depart from the Board’s decision – what are those powerful reasons? You cannot just have a doubling-up on parole decisions.’

The Court of Appeal has not reached a verdict on Vlassakis’ parole.