AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 16 September 2025

R v Evans; R v Evans (No 6)

[2025] NSWSC 1053

Assault & violenceHomicideFirearms & weapons
SENTENCING MURDER APPLICATION OF THE CEILING PRINCIPLE OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENDING

Citation: R v Evans; R v Evans (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 1053
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 September 2025
Judge(s): Weinstein J

Background

Keith Evans (born 1993) and John Evans (born 1967), father and son, were convicted of murder following a retrial by jury in July 2025. The conviction related to the fatal shooting of Jesse Thompson, a 19-year-old, on 3 July 2017 at Wyong on the NSW Central Coast. Keith Evans was also convicted at the original 2021 trial of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to a separate victim, Jayke Rodgers, and that conviction was not disturbed on appeal.

The offending arose from a planned act of revenge. Keith Evans had lured Jayke Rodgers to the family home under false pretences and inflicted serious head wounds on him. The following day, after associates of Rodgers confronted the household, the Evans family armed themselves with a shotgun and drove to a nearby street, where they encountered Jesse Thompson and others. Thompson, who had no direct connection to the earlier assault, was shot and killed.

Both offenders had originally been convicted and sentenced in 2021, receiving terms of 32 years (Keith) and 31 years (John) imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed those convictions in December 2024 and ordered a new trial. Following the retrial verdict, Weinstein J resentenced both offenders.

  • What sentence is appropriate following a second conviction for murder, taking into account the sentences originally imposed (the "ceiling principle")?
  • How should the court weigh the objective seriousness of the offending, including the use of a firearm and the killing of an uninvolved bystander?
  • To what extent do Keith Evans's youth and background of disadvantage reduce his moral culpability?
  • What weight should be given to the progress each offender has made toward rehabilitation during custody?
  • How should the court structure an aggregate sentence for Keith Evans, who fell to be sentenced for both the murder (second jury verdict) and the wounding offence (first jury verdict)?

Decision

Weinstein J characterised the murder as serious, involving the use of a loaded shotgun that was brought deliberately to intimidate those who had confronted the household, and resulting in the death of a young man who had no involvement in the prior altercation. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that both offenders knew the firearm and ammunition were in the vehicle and agreed the weapon would be used to intimidate.

On the ceiling principle, the court noted that where an offender has successfully appealed and is resentenced after a second conviction, the sentence imposed must not exceed the sentence originally imposed. This principle operates as a practical limit, and the court applied it to ensure the new sentences did not surpass the original terms imposed by Ierace J, which had been quashed with the convictions.

With respect to Keith Evans, the court took into account his relative youth at the time of the offending (24 years), his background of disadvantage, and the principle in Bugmy v The Queen that the effects of a deprived upbringing on moral culpability do not diminish with the passage of time. The court also acknowledged evidence of genuine rehabilitation, including educational achievements and changed conduct in custody. These factors reduced his moral culpability and informed the sentence below the ceiling.

For John Evans, aged 49 at the time of the offending, similar considerations of rehabilitation were acknowledged, though his background circumstances differed from his son's. The court applied the ceiling principle and imposed a sentence that reflected both the gravity of the offending and his personal circumstances.

Orders Made

Keith Evans (aggregate sentence for murder and wounding with intent):
- Aggregate sentence of 27 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years and 4 months
- Indicative sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm: 5 years and 6 months, non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months
- Indicative sentence for murder: 26 years, non-parole period of 17 years and 4 months
- Sentence backdated to 4 July 2017; head sentence expires 3 January 2045; eligible for parole 3 November 2035
- Notified of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and its application to his murder conviction

John Evans (murder):
- Sentence of 26 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years and 8 months
- Sentence backdated to 4 July 2017; head sentence expires 3 January 2044; eligible for parole 3 March 2035
- Notified of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and its application to his murder conviction

Key Takeaways

  • The ceiling principle applies where an offender successfully appeals a conviction and is resentenced after a second guilty verdict: the resentence must not exceed the sentence originally imposed, placing a practical upper limit on the court's discretion.

  • Under the authority of Bugmy v The Queen, the moral culpability-reducing effect of a background of deprivation and disadvantage does not diminish over time and must be given weight at sentencing, even where the offender is an adult.

  • A standard non-parole period for murder of 20 years operates as a statutory guidepost rather than a fixed starting point, consistent with the High Court's approach in Muldrock v The Queen, and the court must weigh all relevant factors holistically.

  • Genuine rehabilitation in custody, including evidence of educational progress and behavioural change, can reduce the sentence that would otherwise be appropriate, particularly when balanced against objective seriousness.

  • Where an offender is sentenced for multiple offences after a retrial on one count while a prior-trial conviction on another count remains undisturbed, the aggregate sentencing regime under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 operates to produce a single combined term, with indicative sentences stated for each count.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 33
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5, 21A, 30E, 61
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 294
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Evans v R; Evans v R [2024] NSWCCA 245
- XE v R (No 2) [2025] NSWCCA 90
- R v XE [2025] NSWSC 877
- R v Evans; R v Evans; R v Evans [2021] NSWSC 885
- DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
- Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
- R v Lane (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1898
- R v White [2023] NSWSC 611
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
- R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416