AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 3 October 2025

R v Hanson

[2025] NSWSC 1147

Assault & violenceHomicideDomestic & family violence
SENTENCING MURDER JURY TRIAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MURDER ABOVE THE MID LIMITED FACTUAL DISPUTE

Citation: R v Hanson [2025] NSWSC 1147
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 October 2025
Judge: Harrison CJ at CL

Background

The offender, a man in his late thirties, stood trial for the murder of his long-term partner, who was 34 years old at the time of her death. The two had been in a relationship since approximately 2017. The offender had a history of assaulting the deceased, including a prior conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and an active Apprehended Domestic Violence Order at the time of the killing.

In September 2021, the couple travelled to a remote logger's hut in Bulga State Forest for a camping trip. At some point on the evening of 17 September or the morning of 18 September 2021, the offender engaged in a serious and sustained assault of the deceased inside the hut. She suffered catastrophic injuries across 67 locations on her body, and died from blunt force head trauma.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder. The Crown rejected the manslaughter plea. After a jury trial concluding in July 2025, the offender was found guilty of murder. The court then proceeded to sentence him, requiring a determination of the facts consistent with the verdict.

  • What facts, consistent with the jury's verdict of murder, were established beyond reasonable doubt for the purposes of sentencing?
  • Whether the offender used a ligature (specifically, a chainsaw pull-cord) to attempt to strangle the deceased during the assault.
  • Whether the offender acted with an intention to kill.
  • What level of objective seriousness attached to the offending?
  • Whether the offender's disadvantaged background and personality disorder reduced his moral culpability, and if so, to what extent.
  • Whether the related charges (contravening an ADVO and driving while disqualified) should be dealt with on the indictment.

Decision

Agreed facts and the ligature dispute. The parties agreed on the bulk of the facts consistent with the murder verdict, with one exception: whether the offender used a ligature to attempt to strangle the deceased. The deceased bore a distinctive patterned neck injury that the forensic pathologist attributed to a "rope-like object" placed around the neck in an attempt to strangle. A chainsaw pull-cord found at the hut carried the deceased's DNA. However, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender deliberately used the pull-cord as a ligature, as it remained unclear precisely how the marks were caused. The court declined to make a finding adverse to the offender on that specific point.

Objective seriousness. The court found the murder was above the mid-range of objective seriousness. The assault was serious and sustained, inflicting catastrophic injuries including a fatal subdural haematoma, skull fracture, fractured jaw and ribs, and extensive bruising across 67 locations. The killing occurred in a remote location, compounding its gravity. The offender then concealed his conduct: he disposed of a blood-stained mattress, cleaned blood from the hut, fabricated a story attributing the deceased's injuries to a car accident, and gave multiple inconsistent accounts to police.

Intention to kill. Despite the ligature issue remaining unresolved in the offender's favour, the court was satisfied that the totality of the violence inflicted and the nature of the injuries supported a finding of intent to kill. The sustained and ferocious nature of the assault pointed firmly toward that conclusion.

Subjective matters and moral culpability. The offender had a deeply disadvantaged early life, marked by family violence and alcohol abuse, a difficult schooling experience, a history of substance abuse, and a diagnosed personality disorder. Applying principles from Bugmy v The Queen and DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa, the court accepted that his moral culpability was reduced to some extent. However, the court found that any reduction was modest, given the prolonged nature of the violence, the severity of the injuries, and the offender's conduct in attempting to conceal the killing. The court also noted the need to recognise the human dignity of the deceased as a victim of domestic violence and the community's legitimate interest in denunciation and punishment of domestic homicide. The court noted that general deterrence carries particular weight in the context of domestic violence murders.

Related offences. Two related charges were before the court under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986: contravening an ADVO and driving while disqualified. The court declined to deal with either, satisfied that doing so would not be in the interests of justice under s 167(1)(b).

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 years, commencing 19 September 2021 and expiring 18 September 2042, with a balance of term of 7 years expiring 18 September 2049.
  • The earliest date for release on parole is 19 September 2042.
  • The court declined to deal with the two related offences (contravening an ADVO; driving while disqualified) on the basis that doing so would not be in the interests of justice under s 167(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
  • The court noted that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 has potential application to the offender, in compliance with s 25C of that Act.

Key Takeaways

  • Where sentencing facts are substantially agreed following a jury verdict, a court will still resolve any remaining factual dispute applying the criminal standard, declining to find an aggravating circumstance not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  • A sustained and ferocious assault causing catastrophic injuries across 67 locations, committed in a remote location against a domestic partner subject to an active ADVO, placed the objective seriousness of this murder above the mid-range.
  • Under the principles in Bugmy v The Queen and DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa, a disadvantaged background and personality disorder may moderate moral culpability, but the reduction will be modest where the violence was prolonged and severe and the offender took deliberate steps to conceal the killing.
  • General deterrence occupies a significant role in the sentencing of domestic violence murders, alongside denunciation and recognition of the victim's human dignity.
  • Under s 167(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, a court may decline to deal with related offences on an indictment where to do so would not be in the interests of justice.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 22A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 167
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14(1)
- Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 54(1)(a)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2