AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
2
Supreme Court 19 December 2025

R v KL

[2025] NSWSC 1574

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER SINGLE COUNT OF MURDER TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE VERDICT

Citation: [2025] NSWSC 1574
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 December 2025
Judge(s): Garling J

Background

The offender, referred to by the pseudonym KL, was charged with the murder of a 17-year-old who was working as a ride attendant at the 2022 Sydney Royal Easter Show. KL was 14 years and six months old at the time of the stabbing. Both the deceased and the offender were associated with rival youth gangs (the deceased with "67," linked to Doonside, and the offender with "Ready for Anything" or "RFA," linked to Mt Druitt) that had a history of violent antagonism.

On the evening of 11 April 2022, the deceased was on an evening break from work when a confrontation occurred. The night before, the deceased had been involved in a violent altercation at Olympic Park Train Station with males he identified as members of the RFA gang, and he was alert to the possibility of a further encounter at the Easter Show. The offender arrived at the showground with his brother, cousin, and friends.

KL pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. After a jury trial was discharged (unable to reach a verdict), a judge-alone trial was conducted. On 27 November 2025, Garling J returned a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. This judgment deals with sentencing.

  • What is the objective seriousness of the manslaughter, assessed against the maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment?
  • How should the principles governing sentencing of juveniles under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) be applied, including the reduced weight given to general deterrence and retribution, and the emphasis on rehabilitation?
  • What aggravating factors under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) apply (actual use of violence, use of a weapon, offence committed in a public place, offence committed in the presence of juveniles, prior convictions, and conditional liberty at the time)?
  • What mitigating factors apply, including the offender's youth and psycho-social immaturity, his plea of guilty to manslaughter, and his prospects of rehabilitation?
  • What discount, if any, should be applied for the guilty plea to manslaughter, and how should it be calculated given the plea was entered before trial but only to the alternative offence?
  • What is the appropriate balance between the head sentence and the non-parole period, having regard to s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the offender's rehabilitative needs?

Decision

Garling J applied the well-established framework from Muldrock v R, emphasising that the purposes of sentencing overlap and are often in tension, and that the sentencing exercise requires an "instinctive synthesis" of all relevant factors. His Honour noted the starting point articulated in R v Blacklidge: that the felonious taking of a human life is a most serious crime, and the protection of human life is a primary objective of criminal justice.

In assessing objective seriousness, the Court made factual findings (beyond reasonable doubt where adverse to the offender, and on the balance of probabilities where favourable) including as to the circumstances of the stabbing, the gang context, and the public setting. His Honour found multiple statutory aggravating factors established: the offence involved actual violence, the use of a weapon, was committed in a public place and in the presence of juveniles, the offender had prior convictions, and was on conditional liberty at the time. Nevertheless, taking into account the offender's youth and psycho-social immaturity, the objective seriousness was assessed as below the mid-range of manslaughter.

On the juvenile sentencing principles, Garling J recognised that general deterrence and retribution carry less weight when sentencing a young person, and that considerable emphasis must be placed on rehabilitation. However, His Honour noted that these concessions are moderated where the young person has committed a crime of considerable gravity and has acted in a way an adult might. The Court accepted the offender had good prospects of rehabilitation.

His Honour considered the offender's plea of guilty to manslaughter. While the plea was not to the offence originally charged (murder), it was the offence of which KL was ultimately convicted, and the Court determined that the offender was entitled to a discount reflecting the utilitarian value of the plea, including savings to the court system. Applying the Muldrock approach, the Court synthesised all statutory and common law considerations to arrive at the sentence.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of manslaughter.
  • The specific sentence imposed (including the head sentence and non-parole period) is set out in the full judgment. (Note: the truncated text provided does not include the final sentencing figures. Practitioners should consult the full decision for the precise orders.)

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court provided a thorough application of the sentencing principles under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, confirming that general deterrence and retribution carry reduced, but not zero, weight in sentencing juvenile offenders for serious violence offences. The moderation of those concessions was warranted where the offending was grave and "adult-like" in nature.

  • A guilty plea discount for the offence of manslaughter was available to KL, who had pleaded guilty to that offence from the outset, even though he was originally charged with murder. The Court confirmed that the interaction between a plea to an alternative offence and the guilty plea discount permitted a meaningful reduction where the plea to the lesser offence was offered early.

  • Under the principle established in R v Blacklidge, the objective seriousness of manslaughter must always be assessed against the starting point that it involves the felonious taking of a human life. Even where a juvenile offender's culpability was reduced by immaturity, the gravity of the result anchored the sentencing exercise.

  • Several statutory aggravating factors under s 21A were found to be established separately, including that the offence was committed in a public place, in the presence of children, and while the offender was on conditional liberty. In the context of a gang-related stabbing at a major public event, the accumulation of aggravating features significantly increased the assessed seriousness, though the overall assessment remained below mid-range due to the offender's youth.

  • Consistent with the emphasis on rehabilitation in juvenile sentencing, considerable weight was placed on the offender's prospects of rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence. Detailed evidence, including psychological and developmental assessments, educational progress, and family support, informed the Court's assessment of those prospects.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 6, 19(1), 33(1)(b)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 44(2)

Cases:
- Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Philippou v R [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47
- The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
- R v Blacklidge (NSWCCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- R v AJC [2010] NSWCCA 168; (2010) 207 A Crim R 307
- APT v R [2009] NSWCCA 230
- R v Carroll [2008] NSWCCA 218; (2008) 188 A Crim R 253
- KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; (2008) 182 A Crim R 571
- R v Adamson [2002] NSWCCA 349; (2002) 132 A Crim R 511
- R v Pham and Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
- R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
- R v Salieb [2005]