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

R v Thompson

[2025] NSWSC 419

HomicideDomestic & family violencePublic order & justice offences
SENTENCING MURDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTENT TO KILL OBJECTIVELY SERIOUS OFFENDING SIGNIFICANT MENTAL ILLNESS

Citation: R v Thompson [2025] NSWSC 419
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 2 May 2025
Judge: Weinstein J

Background

The offender, born in 1999, pleaded guilty on 1 April 2025 to the murder of his former domestic partner, committed on 25 March 2022 in the Newcastle area. The deceased, born in 2000, was a young mother whose son was almost two years old at the time. An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) was in place prohibiting the offender from any contact with the deceased or attendance at her home.

The offender had been released to parole on 9 March 2022, having previously been sentenced for assaulting and intimidating the deceased. Within hours of his release, he began contacting her in breach of the ADVO. Over the following weeks, the pair resumed intermittent contact and, shortly before the offence, had been socialising together at the deceased's apartment.

On the night of 25 March 2022, a dispute arose at the apartment. The court found that the deceased had hold of a knife during the argument, that the offender attempted to disarm her and cut his own hand in doing so, and that after disarming her he stabbed her at least 78 times with two kitchen knives over a period of approximately three minutes. The court found the offender had an intent to kill from the first stab.

  • What sentence is appropriate for the murder, having regard to objective seriousness, subjective circumstances, and the standard non-parole period of 20 years?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's youth, significant mental illness, and background of severe deprivation, childhood exposure to domestic violence, and sexual abuse?
  • What discount applies for the early plea of guilty?
  • What, if any, penalty should be imposed for the ADVO contravention?

Decision

Weinstein J characterised the offending as objectively very serious. The stabbing was described as brutal and frenzied, occurring in a domestic violence context, and was preceded by the offender's deliberate breach of the ADVO. The court found an intent to kill from the outset, and noted the profound and lasting impact on the deceased's family and her young child.

On the subjective side, the court accepted significant mitigating features. The offender grew up in circumstances of serious deprivation and disadvantage, with childhood exposure to domestic violence and sexual abuse. He suffered from significant mental illness. His youth at the time of the offence reduced his moral culpability, and the court applied the principle, confirmed in cases including the two Bugmy decisions, that such a background diminishes the weight that might otherwise be given to general deterrence.

The court applied a 10% discount for the early guilty plea, reducing the notional sentence of 25 years to 22 years and 6 months. The non-parole period was set at 15 years and 6 months. In sentencing, Weinstein J applied the guideposts of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of 20 years, consistent with the approach mandated by Muldrock v The Queen and Markarian v The Queen.

For the ADVO contravention, the court recorded a conviction but imposed no further penalty, reflecting that the circumstances were comprehensively addressed by the murder sentence.

Orders Made

  • Convicted of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years and 6 months (reflecting a 10% discount for the guilty plea; the undiscounted sentence would have been 25 years).
  • Non-parole period of 15 years and 6 months imposed.
  • Sentence backdated to commence 23 September 2022; head sentence expires 22 March 2045; eligible for parole from 22 March 2038.
  • Convicted of contravening a prohibition in an ADVO contrary to s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW); no further penalty imposed (s 10A of the Sentencing Procedure Act).
  • Offender advised of the existence and application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) pursuant to s 25C(1) of that Act.
  • Publication of the name or identifying information of the deceased's child (OE) and the child AB prohibited pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).

Key Takeaways

  • A background of severe childhood deprivation, exposure to domestic violence, and sexual abuse does not excuse serious offending but does diminish the offender's moral culpability and reduces the weight properly given to general and specific deterrence in sentencing.
  • Where an offender is young at the time of a very serious offence, youth operates as a genuine mitigating factor, and the sentencing court must engage with that consideration even in cases of exceptional objective gravity.
  • The Supreme Court treated the breach of an ADVO, and the offender's conduct in contacting the deceased almost immediately upon release from custody, as relevant to the overall picture of criminality, while absorbing the ADVO offence within the murder sentence through a nominal penalty.
  • Under s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), a court sentencing for murder must advise the offender of that Act's existence and application, and direct legal representatives to explain its implications.
  • In applying the two legislative guideposts of the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period, the sentencing court set the non-parole period at 15 years and 6 months against a head sentence of 22 years and 6 months, reflecting the interaction between objective seriousness and significant subjective mitigation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 10A, 21A, 25D, 30E, 54B
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C(1)
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A

Cases
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 303
- Byrne & Cahill v R [2021] NSWCCA 185
- Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
- Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
- DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
- Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
- Ith v R [2013] NSWCCA 280
- KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
- Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
- Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 86
- Nasrallah v R (2021) 105 NSWLR 451; [2021] NSWCCA 207
- Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
- Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297