AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 11 September 2025

R v Robert Karl Huber

[2025] NSWSC 1039

Assault & violenceHomicideDomestic & family violence

Citation: R v Robert Karl Huber [2025] NSWSC 1039
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 September 2025
Judge(s): Rothman J

Background

The offender was sentenced following a judge-alone trial in which he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of the manslaughter of Lindy Lucena, his partner of approximately six years. The killing occurred on 3 January 2023 at Ballina, New South Wales. The offender and the deceased had been living in a motorhome at a caravan park after floods displaced them from Lismore.

The relationship was found to have been volatile, often violent, and characterised by the offender's controlling behaviour. The deceased had previously suffered a stroke and had cognitive and physical impairments. The offender was aware she relied on him for aspects of daily care. He was also described as a probable alcoholic.

The verdict judgment (R v Robert Karl Huber [2025] NSWSC 714) determined that the offender beat the deceased, inflicting serious injuries to her face, head, and neck. The cause of death was found to be a combination of the beating, the deceased's underlying coronary heart disease, and the possible contribution of a small amount of methadone detected at autopsy. The Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender intended to cause grievous bodily harm, which is why he was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.

  • What sentences were appropriate for each of the five offences before the Court, including manslaughter, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, breach of a provisional apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO), trespass, and common assault?
  • How should the objective seriousness of the manslaughter be assessed within the range of conduct covered by that offence?
  • How should the sentences be structured and accumulated to reflect totality and the overall criminality of the offender's conduct?
  • What subjective factors, including the offender's background, personal circumstances, and the absence of remorse, were relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion?

Decision

Rothman J approached sentencing by assessing the objective seriousness of each offence within its own statutory range. The Court noted that manslaughter covers an exceptionally wide range of conduct, which is one reason the legislature did not prescribe a standard non-parole period for that offence. The maximum penalty for manslaughter under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) served as a guidepost, alongside the general principles in ss 3A and 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

The manslaughter was treated as a serious instance of the offence. The beating was sustained, caused multiple injuries, and occurred in a domestic context where the deceased was a vulnerable person with pre-existing health conditions. The offender's controlling and violent conduct throughout the relationship, including his breach of a provisional ADVO on the very day of the killing, were significant aggravating factors.

The Court considered subjective factors including the offender's personal history, consistent with principles discussed in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, but found these did not substantially reduce the sentence warranted by the gravity of the offending. No significant discount was available for a plea of guilty on the manslaughter charge, as that offence was contested at trial. A modest reduction of just over five per cent was applied to the assault occasioning actual bodily harm sentence to account for the guilty plea on that count.

The sentences were structured to achieve a just and proportionate overall result, with partial accumulation across the offences. The Court imposed no further sentence for the trespass and common assault charges, treating the other sentences as sufficient to reflect the totality of the offending.

Orders Made

  • Breach of provisional ADVO (3 January 2023, s 14 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007): fixed term of 12 months' imprisonment, commencing 4 January 2023 and concluding 3 January 2024.
  • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (26 December 2022, s 59 Crimes Act 1900): fixed term of 17 months' imprisonment, commencing 4 April 2023 and concluding 3 September 2024.
  • Manslaughter (3 January 2023, s 24 Crimes Act 1900): non-parole period of 8 years and 9 months commencing 4 October 2023, concluding 3 July 2032; remainder of term of 3 years and 3 months, concluding 3 October 2035.
  • Trespass and common assault: no further sentence imposed.
  • Overall effective sentence: 12 years and 9 months' imprisonment with an overall non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months; first eligible for parole on 3 July 2032.
  • The offender was advised of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C(1), and his legal team was directed to explain the significance of that statute to him.

Key Takeaways

  • Manslaughter carries no standard non-parole period under New South Wales law because the offence encompasses such a wide range of conduct; the maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 nonetheless operates as an important guidepost in setting an appropriate sentence.
  • A finding that the offender did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm does not prevent the killing from being treated as a serious instance of manslaughter where the assault was sustained, the victim was vulnerable, and the conduct occurred in a context of prolonged domestic violence and control.
  • Breach of an apprehended domestic violence order on the same occasion as a fatal assault is a significant aggravating circumstance in the overall sentencing exercise.
  • Where multiple offences arise from a connected course of conduct, the totality principle requires the court to structure accumulation of sentences so that the overall term is just and proportionate, rather than simply adding each sentence end to end.
  • The Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) was flagged as potentially applicable, reflecting the Court's obligation under s 25C(1) of that Act to notify offenders sentenced for serious violence offences of its possible operation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 24, 59, 61
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 25D(2)(c)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW), s 4

Cases
- R v Robert Karl Huber [2025] NSWSC 714 (verdict judgment)
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37