AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 19 December 2025

R v TH; R v KT; R v LT; R v DR

[2025] NSWSC 1578

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIME S ENTENCE MANSLAUGHTER JUVENILE OFFENDERS ONE STABS DECEASED ACTING IN SELF DEFENCE WITH EXCESSIVE FORCE

Citation: R v TH; R v KT; R v LT; R v DR [2025] NSWSC 1578
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 December 2025
Judge: Cavanagh J

Background

In November 2023, two groups of teenage girls arranged a fight via social media in Warrawong, near Wollongong. When one group arrived at the other group's home in Wegit Way, a confrontation broke out on the street. During that incident, a 39-year-old woman, Kristy McBride, was stabbed. She died on 1 December 2023.

The four young persons sentenced (TH, KT, LT and DR) were members of one group. All were under 18 at the time: TH and KT were 15; LT and DR were 14. It was TH who inflicted the stab wounds, using a knife that LT had provided to her shortly before the confrontation. The other three did not stab anyone, but each carried knives and participated in the planned affray.

All four were originally charged with murder. During trial proceedings, the Crown accepted pleas of guilty to manslaughter from each of them. TH pleaded on the basis of self-defence with excessive force under s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). KT, LT and DR pleaded on the basis of joint criminal enterprise: TH's conduct was attributed to them because they participated in a planned affray knowing that knives were present and foreseeing the possibility of serious harm, even though they did not agree to the actual use of a knife.

  • What is the correct approach to sentencing manslaughter based on self-defence with excessive force, particularly regarding TH's subjective perception of threat?
  • How should the joint criminal enterprise basis of liability affect the sentencing of KT, LT and DR, who neither stabbed the deceased nor intended her death?
  • How should the principles governing the sentencing of juvenile offenders under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) apply, including the heavy weight given to rehabilitation and the diminished role of general deterrence?
  • How should parity be maintained between the four young persons, and between them and other persons present at the scene who were not charged or were dealt with differently?

Decision

Cavanagh J applied the principles from Newburn v R [2022] NSWCCA 13 in sentencing TH, directing attention to her subjective perception of the threat she faced and what she believed was necessary to defend herself or another person. The Crown accepted that TH genuinely believed defensive force was necessary, but that the use of a knife was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as she perceived them. Her prior conduct in attending the scene, though relevant background, did not directly aggravate the gravity of the offence itself under those principles.

For KT, LT and DR, the court found that their culpability, while real, was meaningfully lower than TH's. They participated in the enterprise aware that knives were being carried and foresaw the possibility of serious harm, but did not agree to any stabbing and did not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. That distinction bore directly on the sentences imposed.

The youth of all four offenders was central to the sentencing exercise. Cavanagh J applied the established principle that, for juvenile offenders, general deterrence and retribution carry reduced weight, while rehabilitation and reintegration carry greater weight. Each of the four had significant subjective circumstances, including traumatic backgrounds, disadvantage, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 regarding the ongoing relevance of childhood deprivation and disadvantage.

Parity between the four young persons was carefully considered, as was parity with other individuals present at the scene who faced different or lesser consequences. The sentences imposed reflect the graduated culpability among the four, with DR, who had the strongest rehabilitation prospects and subjective case, receiving a community corrections order rather than imprisonment.

Orders Made

  • TH: Sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period; sentence expires 22 February 2028; first eligible for parole 22 February 2026; ordered to serve the balance in a juvenile facility under s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).
  • KT: Sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months, commencing 13 December 2023 and expiring 12 December 2026; non-parole period expired 12 October 2025 (eligible for parole); ordered to serve the balance in a juvenile facility.
  • LT: Sentenced to 2 years and 10 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, commencing 26 October 2024 and expiring 25 August 2027; first eligible for parole 25 June 2026; ordered to serve the balance in a juvenile facility.
  • DR: Community corrections order for 2 years commencing 19 December 2025, with standard conditions plus supervision by Juvenile Justice, abstinence from alcohol and non-prescribed drugs, attendance upon a general practitioner for mental health treatment, and engagement with the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District youth team for drug and alcohol support.

Key Takeaways

  • Under Newburn v R, sentencing for manslaughter based on excessive self-defence centres on the offender's subjective perception of the threat and what they believed was necessary to defend themselves, not on an objective assessment of the circumstances; prior conduct in attending the scene does not directly aggravate the gravity of the offence.
  • Where joint criminal enterprise liability underlies a manslaughter conviction, a participant who neither inflicted harm nor agreed to the use of a weapon may nonetheless be criminally responsible, but their sentence will reflect the reduced level of personal culpability compared to the principal offender.
  • For juvenile offenders sentenced under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), the Supreme Court applied the well-established principle that general deterrence and retributive considerations yield to rehabilitation and community reintegration as primary sentencing objectives.
  • A community corrections order, rather than imprisonment, remained available and was imposed on the least culpable of the four offenders (DR), reflecting both her subjective circumstances and strong rehabilitation prospects.
  • Parity between co-offenders requires close attention to gradations in culpability; the court's sentencing of four young persons for the same death produced four materially different outcomes, illustrating how individual circumstances and roles within a joint enterprise can significantly alter the result.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 3, 6, 16, 17, 19(1)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(b), 421
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3, 8, 21A(2)

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
- Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 64
- Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
- KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32
- KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
- LK v R [2025] NSWCCA 143
- Newburn v R [2022] NSWCCA 13
- NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
- R v Diallo & Ors (No 17) (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1650
- R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1; [2005] NSWCCA 377
- R v Hoerler [2004] NSWCCA 184; (2004) 147 A Crim R 520
- R v JM (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1345
- R v MR, JB and CS (young persons) (No 5) [2024]