AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 18 December 2025

R v Eriksen (Sentence)

[2025] NSWSC 1474

HomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIME SENTENCE MURDER OFFENDER FOUND GUILTY BY JURY AT TRIAL MURDER OF FORMER FEMALE PARTNER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Citation: R v Eriksen (Sentence) [2025] NSWSC 1474
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 December 2025
Judge: Coleman J

Background

The offender was convicted by jury on 24 June 2025 of the murder of his former partner, with whom he had been in a domestic relationship since approximately 2010. The two lived together in a Mascot unit. By the time of the killing, the relationship had deteriorated significantly: the victim wanted the offender to leave the shared home, and had told friends she lived in fear of him.

The victim was made redundant in December 2022, placing additional financial pressure on the relationship as the offender had been unemployed for several years and was financially dependent on her. In the months before her death, she attended counselling and exchanged messages with friends expressing fear for her safety.

On 9 April 2023, the offender stabbed the victim at least 18 times during an argument at their unit. He called emergency services himself and told police he had "put a knife into her." She was pronounced dead at the scene.

  • What sentence is appropriate for murder in a domestic violence context where the offending is objectively serious?
  • How should a court proceed at sentencing when no subjective case or mitigating material has been placed before it by a self-represented offender?
  • What weight should be given to specific and general deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community in a domestic violence murder?
  • What factual findings can be made consistently with the jury verdict and applicable evidentiary standards?

Decision

Coleman J sentenced the offender for murder following his jury conviction. The offender had dismissed his legal representatives on the morning of the sentencing hearing and appeared self-represented, as he had at trial. As a result, the Court had before it no subjective case, no mitigating material, and no information that might explain or contextualise the offending. The Court noted this was the offender's right but observed that it left his background and prospects of rehabilitation indeterminable.

The Court made factual findings consistent with the jury verdict and applicable evidentiary standards. The killing involved at least 18 stab wounds, with at least 11 penetrating the chest and abdominal cavities and causing damage to multiple vital organs. Coleman J found the offending was objectively serious and was committed in a domestic violence context, with the victim having expressed fear of the offender in the period leading to her death.

The Court found no mitigating factors. The offender expressed no remorse. His post-arrest statements focused on his own financial stress and unemployment rather than the victim. Coleman J applied the principles of instinctive synthesis in arriving at the sentence, emphasising the need for specific and general deterrence in the context of domestic violence homicide, as well as denunciation and the protection of the community.

The sentence included a direction that the conviction be recorded as a domestic violence offence, and the offender was formally warned that the High Risk Offenders regime may apply to him at the end of his sentence.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to a non-parole period of 20 years, with a balance of term of 6 years and 8 months, giving a total sentence of 26 years and 8 months.
  • The sentence was backdated to commence on 9 April 2023 (the date of arrest) and expires on 8 December 2049.
  • The earliest eligible parole date is 8 April 2043.
  • The offender was warned that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) may apply to him.
  • Pursuant to s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), the conviction was directed to be recorded on the offender's criminal record as a domestic violence offence.

Key Takeaways

  • Where a self-represented offender places no subjective material before the sentencing court, the court must sentence on the material available and cannot speculate in the offender's favour; mitigating factors that are not established on the balance of probabilities cannot be taken into account.
  • Factual findings made at sentence must be consistent with the jury verdict; findings adverse to the offender require proof beyond reasonable doubt, while facts in the offender's favour need only be established on the balance of probabilities (applying Cheung v The Queen and The Queen v Olbrich).
  • In a domestic violence murder involving multiple stab wounds and evidence that the victim had expressed fear for her safety, the Supreme Court treated both specific and general deterrence as prominent sentencing considerations.
  • Absence of remorse, combined with the absence of any explanation for or mitigation of the offending, left no basis for a finding of rehabilitation prospects or reduced moral culpability.
  • A conviction for murder in a domestic relationship attracts a mandatory direction under s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) that the offence be recorded as a domestic violence offence, and the High Risk Offenders regime may apply at the end of the sentence where the offence is a serious violence offence under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences) Act 2025 (NSW)

Cases:
- Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
- R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
- Munda v State of Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
- Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
- Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
- Haak v R [2022] NSWCCA 28
- Hraichie v R [2022] NSWCCA 155
- Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77
- Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76
- R v Baleinapuka [2022] NSWSC 485
- R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
- R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133