Citation: KL v R [2026] NSWCCA 87
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 22 June 2026
Judge(s): Ward P, Cavanagh J, Weinstein J
Background
The applicant, a 14-year-old member of a youth gang called Ready for Anything, stabbed a 17-year-old member of a rival gang at the Sydney Royal Easter Show in April 2022. The two groups encountered each other by chance in the Showground and stood facing one another for approximately 10 seconds, with no physical altercation occurring before the applicant reached through a gap between people and stabbed the deceased once in the chest with a knife. The single wound pierced the deceased's heart and caused his death at hospital that evening.
The applicant was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on the basis of an unlawful and dangerous act, following a judge-alone trial before Garling J in the Supreme Court. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and three months, after a 25% discount for his early guilty plea to manslaughter. The sentencing judge ordered that he serve the entire term as a juvenile offender.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Legal Issues
- Whether the sentence of seven years' imprisonment (with a non-parole period of four years and three months) was manifestly excessive for manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act committed by a 14-year-old offender.
- Whether the sentencing judge properly weighed the applicant's reduced moral culpability (arising from his youth and PTSD diagnosis) against the aggravating features of the offence.
- Whether comparative sentencing cases advanced by the applicant demonstrated that the sentence fell outside the legitimate range available to the sentencing judge.
Decision
Ground 1: Manifest Excess
The Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court reaffirmed that appellate intervention on this ground requires more than mere disagreement with the sentence imposed; the sentence must fall outside the range of sentences reasonably available to the sentencing judge in the exercise of his discretion.
The sentencing judge had identified several aggravating factors under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): the use of a knife, the commission of the offence in a public place in the presence of other juveniles, the applicant's prior record of violence (including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and reckless wounding in company), and the fact that the applicant was on conditional liberty at the time. Against these, his Honour found mitigating factors including the applicant's youth, his PTSD diagnosis (which reduced his awareness of consequences), and some realistic prospects of rehabilitation. The Court found that the sentencing judge appropriately weighed these competing considerations.
Comparative Cases
The Court found that the comparative cases relied upon by the applicant were distinguishable in important respects. The gang-related nature of the offending and the applicant's conduct after the stabbing, including recording a video boasting about it and composing rap lyrics described as disrespectful to the deceased and his family, meant that positive findings about remorse and reoffending risk could not be made. These features set the present case apart from the cases cited in the applicant's favour.
The Court also noted that the applicant's deliberate decision to carry a knife to a public event, and his immediate flight from the scene, were features that weighed against treating the case as comparable to offences where a weapon was used spontaneously or in response to an immediate threat. In all the circumstances, the sentence was stern but within the legitimate range available to the sentencing judge.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal granted.
- The appeal is dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that manifest excess requires more than appellate disagreement with the sentence; the sentence must fall outside the range of acceptably available discretionary outcomes.
- A sentencing judge's inability to make positive findings on remorse or risk of reoffending, due to post-offence conduct such as boasting and the creation of disrespectful material, can meaningfully limit the mitigating weight given to an offender's youth and mental health condition.
- Gang-related context and a deliberate decision to carry a knife into a public space are factors that distinguish a case from comparative manslaughter sentences involving more spontaneous or reactive use of weapons.
- Under s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), a court may order that an offender serve the entirety of a term of imprisonment as a juvenile offender, even where the sentence is substantial.
- Comparative sentencing cases advanced on a manifest excess appeal must correspond closely to the facts in issue; differences in post-offence conduct, gang affiliation, and rehabilitation prospects can render apparently similar cases distinguishable.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 19(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 30E
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(c), 6(3)
Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- LK v R [2025] NSWCCA 143
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- R v Diallo & Ors (No 17) (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1650
- R v Elemes [2000] NSWCCA 235
- R v JM (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1345
- R v KL [2025] NSWSC 1414
- R v KL [2025] NSWSC 1574
- R v MR, JB and CS (young persons) (No 5) [2024] NSWSC 912
- R v TH; R v KT; R v LT; R v DR [2025] NSWSC 1578
- R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133
- Shalida v R [2024] NSWCCA 55
- TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121