R v Evans [2026] NSWDC 71

Citation: R v Evans [2026] NSWDC 71
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 27 March 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 42-year-old Wiradjuri man, was sentenced for six offences arising from three separate incidents in October 2024. The offences included intimidation of members of the public (involving the display of a knife in a Woolworths store), carrying a knife visibly in a public place and using an offensive weapon to intimidate a 14-year-old schoolgirl, and three charges of intimidating and assaulting police officers while in custody.

The offender had an extensive criminal history, including violent offences, and had spent the vast majority of his adult life — since age 18 — in custody. The longest continuous period of liberty he had experienced in 24 years was approximately ten months, which ended with his arrest for the present offences. At the time of arrest, he was on parole for earlier serious offences, and that parole was subsequently revoked. He had been in custody for approximately 16 months at the time of sentencing, though the entirety of that period was also being served on the balance of the earlier sentence, which was not due to expire until 17 December 2026.

The court accepted that the offender had endured a profoundly deprived upbringing involving physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and suffered significant mental health issues. These factors, combined with entrenched methamphetamine use, were found to be causally connected to his offending. He was heavily affected by methamphetamine at the time of the offences. The offender expressed remorse, attributing his conduct to the difficulty of life outside prison and his drug use.

Legal Issues

Contested facts on sentence: Whether the offender had a knife in his pocket during the Woolworths incident, and whether the weapon used to intimidate the schoolgirl on 27 October was an axe/hatchet or a table leg with a metal component.
Application of the Bugmy principles: The weight to be given to the offender's deprived background as a Wiradjuri man in determining the appropriate sentence.
Role of mental health and drug use in sentencing: The extent to which the offender's mental health issues and methamphetamine dependency reduced his moral culpability.
General deterrence: Whether, given the offender's circumstances, general deterrence should carry reduced weight.
Protection of the community: The appropriate weight to be given to community protection, having regard to the offender's high risk of reoffending and entrenched pattern of violent offending.
Prospects of rehabilitation: Assessment of the offender's rehabilitative prospects in the context of institutionalisation, limited access to appropriate mental health treatment, and heavy drug use.
Appropriate sentence structure: Whether sentences should be served concurrently or partly cumulatively, and the appropriate balance between the head sentence and non-parole period.

Decision

Contested Facts

On the first contested issue — whether the offender had a knife during the Woolworths incident — the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did. His Honour found the security guard to be an honest and credible witness who saw the handle of a knife in the offender's hoodie pocket, and noted that the reactions of the security guard and store manager (immediately stepping back in apparent fear) were entirely consistent with this account. The offender's alternative explanation — that he was referring to a mobile phone or clenched fist — was found to be implausible. The court observed that the offender's threatening words ("I will use this if youse come any closer") made no sense if all he had was a phone.

On the second issue — the nature of the weapon used to intimidate the schoolgirl — the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was an axe or hatchet. While the schoolgirl and an independent witness both honestly perceived the object to be an axe, the court accepted the possibility that a table leg with a metal component at one end could have been mistaken for an axe in the stressful circumstances. Importantly, however, the court rejected the offender's evidence that he had not crossed the road and followed the schoolgirl down the street, accepting the evidence of the schoolgirl and the independent neighbour on that point beyond reasonable doubt.

Sentencing Considerations

His Honour applied the Bugmy principles, accepting that the offender's deprived upbringing as a Wiradjuri man, his significant mental health issues, and the causal connection between those factors and his offending all operated to reduce his moral culpability. The court also found that these same factors — together with his entrenched methamphetamine use — made him a poor vehicle for general deterrence, significantly reducing the weight given to that sentencing purpose.

However, the court gave significant weight to the protection of the community. The offender's long criminal history, his pattern of violent conduct, and his high risk of reoffending meant that community safety was a dominant consideration. The court noted that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation were tied to his prospects of becoming drug-free, which at present were poor given his long and entrenched substance use. While his Honour did not give up on the possibility of rehabilitation, it was described in guarded terms.

The judgment also contained candid observations about the limitations of the criminal justice system in dealing appropriately with offenders suffering from mental health issues. The court acknowledged that the offender had become institutionalised, that life outside prison was genuinely difficult for him, and that the system was not well-equipped to provide the treatment he needed.

Orders Made

The full orders are not available from the truncated text. However, based on the judgment's discussion, the offender was sentenced on all six charges across the three incidents.
Any sentence imposed would commence after the expiry of the existing sentence (the balance of the revoked parole), which was due to expire on 17 December 2026.
The court took into account the 16 months and 25 days already spent in custody, noting that this period was entirely absorbed by the service of the earlier sentence and therefore could not be credited as pre-sentence custody for the present offences.

Note: Because the judgment text was truncated, the precise terms of the sentences imposed — including head sentences, non-parole periods, and the structure of cumulation or concurrency — cannot be confirmed from the available material.

Key Takeaways

The District Court gave meaningful recognition to the offender's deprived upbringing and its causal connection to offending, consistent with the Bugmy principles established by the High Court, though this did not preclude the imposition of a significant sentence where community protection demanded it.
Where an offender presented a high risk profile and an entrenched pattern of offending, community protection could serve as the dominant sentencing consideration despite strong subjective circumstances (including mental health issues, deprivation, and drug dependency) that significantly reduced moral culpability and diminished the role of general deterrence.
Contested facts adverse to the offender were assessed on their own merits under the beyond reasonable doubt standard, with the Court rejecting the Crown's case on the nature of the weapon (axe versus table leg) while accepting its case on the knife in the Woolworths incident.
A frank acknowledgment was made that the criminal justice system is often poorly equipped to address the needs of offenders with significant mental health issues, and that incarceration may entrench rather than resolve the cycle of offending.
Pre-sentence custody credit was unavailable where the period in custody was already being served on another sentence, as time spent in custody on a revoked parole sentence could not be double-counted as pre-sentence custody for new offences, even where the offender had been continuously detained.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33B(1)(a), 60(1), 93IC(1)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 21A

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Ingrey v R [2016] NSWCCA 31
- Millwood v R [2012] NSWCCA 2
- *