AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 11 September 2026

R v Billings

[2026] NSWSC 1088

Sexual offencesHomicideDomestic & family violence

Citation: R v Billings [2026] NSWSC 1088
Court: Supreme Court of NSW
Date: 11 September 2026
Judge(s): N Adams CJ at CL

Background

The offender and the victim had been in an on-and-off relationship from early 2022. The relationship ended permanently in December 2023, though the parties continued to see each other after that date. On 5 April 2024, the victim attended Forbes Police Station and reported two counts of sexual intercourse without consent, two counts of property damage, and the killing of a co-owned puppy. Police granted a provisional apprehended domestic violence order (AVO) that day, and the offender was arrested, charged, and released on bail the following day. Conditions of both bail and the AVO prohibited him from approaching the victim or coming within 10 kilometres of her Forbes home.

Sixteen days later, on 21 April 2024, the offender drove from Parkes to Forbes in breach of those conditions. Late at night, he smashed through the victim's bedroom window carrying a hunting knife and stabbed her multiple times to the face and neck, causing her near-immediate death. He was arrested that night and made full admissions to police.

The offender was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence after pleading guilty to murder in the Local Court. A forensic psychiatrist had previously opined that the severity of the offender's depressive illness at the time of the killing gave rise to the partial defence of substantial impairment, but the offender nonetheless entered a plea of guilty to murder. The court sentenced him on agreed facts, with certain additional disputed matters resolved by the judge.

Legal Issues

  • What was the appropriate assessment of the objective seriousness of the murder, having regard to planning, the motive of retribution for the victim's police report, and the element of interference with the administration of public justice?
  • To what extent did the offender's depressive illness and adverse childhood experiences reduce his moral culpability and thus mitigate sentence?
  • Whether the 25% discount for the early guilty plea should be withheld or reduced under s 25F(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) because of the level of the offender's culpability?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a variation from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and head sentence?
  • How should comparative cases inform the appropriate sentence?

Decision

Objective seriousness: The court assessed the murder as falling at the high end of the range for domestic violence homicides. Several factors elevated objective seriousness: the offender drove to Forbes deliberately in breach of bail and the AVO; he armed himself with a hunting knife and broke into the victim's home through her bedroom window at night; and his motive was retribution for the victim having reported him to police for sexual assault and domestic violence. The court noted that neither party could identify a comparable case in which an estranged partner killed a witness specifically because she had made sexual assault allegations against him. That feature introduced a public justice dimension, as the murder directly targeted a person who had exercised her right to report criminal conduct to police. The court found no callousness in the offender's conduct after the murder, which was considered in his favour, but this did not significantly reduce the overall gravity.

Subjective case and moral culpability: The court accepted that the offender suffered from a depressive illness at the time of the offending, and that this illness, together with adverse childhood experiences, reduced his moral culpability to a meaningful degree. The court applied established principles confirming that mental illness can mitigate a sentence even where it does not negate criminal responsibility or provide a complete defence. The offender's prospects of rehabilitation were considered reasonable, and the court accepted he had expressed genuine remorse.

Guilty plea discount: The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was therefore entitled to a 25% discount. The Crown, having given notice, applied under s 25F(2) for the discount to be withheld or reduced on the basis that his culpability was so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence required it. The court declined to withhold the discount altogether, given its finding that his moral culpability was reduced. Having considered the earlier murder cases in which the discount had been cut, it reduced the discount from 25% to 20% because this was a revenge killing of a woman who had complained of domestic violence. A starting point of 35 years was reduced by 20% to 28 years.

Special circumstances and sentence structure: The court found special circumstances, over the Crown's opposition and despite the usual view that a murder sentence already carries a long parole period, principally because of the offender's mental health issues. The non-parole period was set at about 71% of the head sentence rather than the statutory 75%, allowing a longer period of supervised parole. Four additional offences (animal cruelty, two counts of property damage, and contravening an AVO) were taken into account on a Form 1.

Orders Made

  • For murder, taking into account four further offences on a Form 1 (an act of animal cruelty, two counts of damaging property and one count of contravening an AVO), the offender was sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment commencing on 20 April 2024 and expiring on 19 April 2052.
  • Non-parole period of 20 years, expiring on 19 April 2044, the date on which he is first eligible for release to parole.
  • The court noted that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) potentially applies and directed that his legal representatives advise him of it (s 25C).

Key Takeaways

  • A domestic violence murder motivated by retribution against a victim for reporting criminal conduct to police carries a significant aggravating dimension, including an element of interference with the administration of public justice, that can place the offending at the high end of the objective seriousness range.

  • Depressive illness that materially contributed to the offending can reduce an offender's moral culpability and mitigate sentence even where the offender pleaded guilty to murder rather than pursuing the partial defence of substantial impairment.

  • Under s 25F(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the 25% discount for a plea entered in the Local Court may be withheld or reduced where the offender's culpability is so extreme that the community interest requires it. The Supreme Court refused to withhold the discount entirely, given the offender's reduced moral culpability, but reduced it to 20% for the revenge killing of a woman who had reported him to police.

  • Genuine remorse and reasonable prospects of rehabilitation remain relevant mitigating factors in domestic violence murder cases and are assessed alongside the gravity of the offence through the instinctive synthesis required of sentencing courts.

  • Special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio may be found where an offender's mental health history and rehabilitation needs call for a longer period of supervised post-release supervision.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23A
- Crimes ( Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Pt 4, Div 1A, ss 3A, 21A, 22, 25F, 30E, 33, 35(4), 44, 61(1)

Cases
- Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
- CC v R; R v CC [2021] NSWCCA 71; (2021) 289 A Crim R 453
- Christopher Ross v R [2019] NSWCCA 314
- Colak v R [2026] NSWCCA 108
- Daher v R [2026] NSWCCA 26
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Dorsett v R [2024] NSWCCA 192
- DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
- Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
- Evatt (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 130
- Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Hilier v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2009] NSWCCA 312; (2009) 198 A Crim R 565
- Kovaleff v R [2026] NSWCCA 56
- Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
- Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
- Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
- Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
- Morris v R [2026] NSWCCA 119
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
- Oliver v R [2025] NSWCCA 227
- R v Cherry [2017] NSWCCA 150
- R v Gina Kennedy (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWSC 1499
- R v Hachem [2023] NSWSC 535
- R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
- R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
- R v He [2024] NSWSC 417
- R v King [2025] NSWSC 1572
- R v Kovaleff [2023] NSWSC 302
- R v Ney [2021] NSWSC 529
- R v Simon [2025] NSWSC 309
- R v Sultana (No.8) [2025] NSWSC 1573
- R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
- R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133
- R v Thompson [2025] NSWSC 419
- R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335
- R v Zafar [2024] NSWSC 1639
- RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
- TL v R [2017] NSWCCA 308
- Towers v R [2025] NSWCCA 142
- Wood v R [2019] NSWCCA 309
- Evans v R [2017] NSWCCA 281