Citation: [2026] NSWCCA 56
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal (New South Wales)
Date: 15 May 2026
Judge(s): Harrison AJA, Sweeney J, Muston J
Background
The appellant was sentenced in March 2023 for the murder of a 17-year-old girl and the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm of another 17-year-old girl, his then-intimate partner. He had pleaded guilty to both offences in the Local Court. The sentencing judge, Rothman J, imposed a total effective sentence of 36 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 26 years, comprising 34 years (with a 24-year non-parole period) for murder and six years and nine months (with a four-year-and-nine-month non-parole period) for the wounding offence.
The offending was extensively premeditated. Over the month preceding the stabbings on 18 December 2020, the appellant purchased weapons and equipment, researched tools online, and planned to kill both victims at a hotel room booked by one of them for her upcoming 18th birthday. He stabbed the deceased multiple times in the bathroom and bedroom of the room, then stabbed his partner once in the stomach as she tried to guard the bedroom door. He delayed calling emergency services for approximately two hours, during which time the deceased died from her injuries.
The appellant sought leave to appeal out of time, attributing the delay to misunderstandings with his former solicitor. He raised four grounds: that the sentencing judge erred in applying a 15% utilitarian discount instead of the statutory 25% discount for his early guilty plea (Ground 1), two specific grounds about findings concerning youth and special circumstances (Grounds 2 and 3, relied upon as supporting Ground 4), and that the sentence was manifestly excessive (Ground 4).
Legal Issues
- Whether the sentencing judge erred by applying a 15% utilitarian discount under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) instead of the 25% discount prescribed by s 25F(2) for a guilty plea entered at the earliest available opportunity in the Local Court.
- Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, having regard to findings about the appellant's youth, limited intellect, and the finding of special circumstances.
Decision
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Sweeney J, with Harrison AJA agreeing. Muston J also delivered a concurring judgment. The Court's analysis turned significantly on the operation of the discount provisions in Division 1A of Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
On Ground 1, the critical question was whether the sentencing judge was entitled to depart from the statutory 25% discount that ordinarily applies when a guilty plea is entered at the earliest available opportunity. Section 25F(2) of the Act provides for a 25% discount where a plea of guilty is entered in committal proceedings. The sentencing judge had reduced this to 15%, reasoning that the utilitarian value of the plea was diminished because of the strength of the Crown case. The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the legislative scheme and relevant authorities, including R v Thomson; R v Houlton and Kentwell v The Queen, which addressed the principles governing the utilitarian discount.
The text of the judgment as provided is truncated, and the full reasoning on both grounds is not available. However, based on the structure of the appeal and the grounds raised, the Court was required to assess whether the sentencing judge's departure from the prescribed discount constituted appellable error within the House v The King framework for discretionary sentencing decisions.
The facts before the sentencing judge disclosed an exceptionally serious instance of murder involving extensive premeditation, the youth of the victims, the appellant's prior expressions of a desire to kill, detailed preparation including the purchase of disposal equipment, and a protracted delay in seeking medical attention for the surviving victim while the deceased lay dying.
Orders Made
- The full orders made by the Court are not available from the truncated text provided.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 25F(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a guilty plea entered at the earliest available opportunity in committal proceedings ordinarily attracts a 25% utilitarian discount, and any departure from this figure by a sentencing court requires proper justification.
- The strength of the Crown case and its impact on the utilitarian value of a guilty plea remains a live issue in determining whether a sentencing judge may reduce the statutory discount prescribed by Division 1A of Part 3 of the Act.
- In assessing appeals against sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal applies the House v The King principles, requiring the appellant to demonstrate specific error or that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.
- Where an appellant pleads guilty in the Local Court to indictable offences including murder, the proper characterisation of the timing of that plea for the purpose of the discount provisions is a question of statutory construction.
- The complete resolution of the grounds of appeal, including the manifest excess ground supported by arguments about youth and limited intellect, is not discernible from the truncated text provided.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 25D, 25F(2), 61(1)
Cases:
- BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
- CC v R; R v CC [2021] NSWCCA 71
- DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156
- Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- R v Harris [2000] NSWSC 285
- R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469
- R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
- R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
- Rogerson v R; McNamara v R [2021] NSWCCA 160