AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 27 October 2026

R v Schade

[2026] NSWSC 1345

Homicide
CRIME SENTENCE MURDER INTENT TO KILL PLEA OF GUILTY ELLIS

Citation: R v Schade [2026] NSWSC 1345
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 October 2026
Judge(s): Rigg J

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to the murder of a man known to him as a friend, committed on 22 May 2024 at the deceased's residential unit. The two men had previously been patients at a mental health facility and had been sexually intimate on occasion. On the day of the offending, they were drinking together when the deceased sent offensive messages to the offender's friends, giving rise to conflict between them.

The violence that followed involved several distinct acts: the offender punched the deceased repeatedly in the head, inflicted a knife wound to the lower abdomen, and then applied a pillow and cling wrap over the deceased's face. Postmortem examination confirmed death resulted from blunt force injury to the head and compression of the neck. Shortly after the offending, the offender telephoned triple 0, identified himself, said he had killed someone, and made extensive admissions to arresting police.

The sentencing proceedings required the court to assess the proper sentence having regard to the offender's mental illness, his prior criminal history, his assistance to authorities, and the interplay of various sentencing purposes including rehabilitation, deterrence, and community protection.

Legal Issues

  • What was the objective seriousness of the murder, and did the offender's mental illness bear upon that assessment?
  • To what extent did the offender's mental illness (type 1 bipolar disorder) reduce his moral culpability?
  • Whether custody would be more onerous for the offender by reason of his mental illness, and the significance of that finding for sentencing
  • What discount, if any, was warranted under the Ellis principle and section 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for the offender's voluntary surrender and admissions to police?
  • What combined discount applied for the guilty plea and assistance to authorities?
  • Whether the offender had good prospects of rehabilitation and whether community protection or specific deterrence required an amplified role in sentencing

Decision

Objective seriousness and mental illness: The court found the offence involved several violent acts of different kinds committed within a short period in the deceased's home using ordinary household items, was unplanned, and that the offender ultimately intended to kill but did not have that intention at the outset (at [48]). The court declined to treat the offender's mental illness or background as bearing on the objective seriousness of the crime, finding that the evidence was not sufficiently clear-cut to establish that his bipolar disorder significantly distorted his perception of threat in a way that connected meaningfully with that assessment (at [51]).

Moral culpability: Rigg J was comfortably satisfied that the offender's moral culpability was reduced, principally because of his bipolar affective disorder, which left his capacity for self-control deficient at the time of the offending, and to a lesser extent because of the disruption and disadvantage in his background (at [52]). The court accepted psychiatric evidence from Dr Furst that the offender's loss of control while angry, and any overreaction to perceived threat, was materially contributed to by his bipolar disorder while unmedicated (at [50]). The reduction in moral culpability was meaningful but not as significant as in cases involving more severe mental illness or a clearer connection with the offending (at [52]).

Onerousness of custody: The court was satisfied that custody would be more onerous for the offender than for those without his mental illness, given his increased vulnerability to stress and intimidation in the custodial environment, and treated this as relevant to the adequacy of his punishment (at [37], [55]).

Ellis-style assistance and section 23 discount: The court reviewed the applicable principles, including CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales, Panetta v R, R v SS, R v Hasan, and Raad v R, confirming that where a sentencing judge reduces a sentence on account of an offender disclosing otherwise unknown guilt, the level of discount must be specified in accordance with section 23(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (at [56]-[57]). The court allowed only a 5% discount for the offender's assistance to authorities (at [63]). It was not satisfied that the offender's admissions were as significant as contended, noting that police may well have soon discovered the body, examined phone records, and traced a link to the offender's associates (at [63]).

Combined discount and sentence: The court applied a combined discount of approximately 30% for the guilty plea and assistance to authorities (at [63]). The starting point before discounts was 19 years imprisonment (at [64]). The offender's demonstrated remorse, admirable conduct in custody, and compliance with medication in custody were treated as significant mitigating features (at [41], [53]). The court declined to find good prospects of rehabilitation on balance, but equally declined to treat the offender's mental illness as warranting an amplified role for community protection or specific deterrence, instead treating rehabilitation as an important sentencing purpose and the most effective means of protecting the community (at [53]-[54]).

Orders Made

  • The offender is sentenced to 13 years and 4 months imprisonment, commencing 22 November 2024 and concluding 21 March 2038.
  • A non-parole period of 10 years is imposed, commencing 22 November 2024 and concluding 21 November 2034, on which date the offender is first eligible for release on parole.
  • The offender is advised of the existence of section 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), which applies to him, and his legal representatives are directed to explain the significance of that provision to him.

Key Takeaways

  • Mental illness that reduces an offender's moral culpability does not automatically bear on the objective seriousness of a murder; Rigg J declined to take that step where the evidence did not clearly establish that bipolar disorder distorted the offender's threat perception in a way meaningfully connected to the offending (at [51]).

  • Under section 23(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), as confirmed in CMB and Panetta, a sentencing court must specify the quantified discount where it reduces a sentence on account of Ellis-style assistance, namely voluntary disclosure of otherwise unknown guilt to law enforcement (at [56]-[57]).

  • The level of Ellis-style discount is calibrated to the likelihood that the offending and the offender's involvement would otherwise have been discovered; a 5% discount was appropriate here because the court was not satisfied that police would have been unable to identify the offender through ordinary investigative steps (at [63]).

  • Where an offender's mental illness makes custody more onerous than it would be for other inmates, that fact is relevant to the adequacy of punishment and is a recognised consideration in the sentencing calculus (at [37], [55]).

  • Reduced moral culpability arising from mental illness does not inevitably generate a counterweighted need for heightened community protection or specific deterrence; the Supreme Court found those purposes had a role to play without amplification, and treated the promotion of long-term rehabilitation as the most effective means of protecting the community (at [53]-[54]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases
- Ahmad v R [2021] NSWCCA 30
- CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
- DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
- Lewins v R [2007] NSWCCA 189; (2007) 175 A Crim R 40
- Panetta v R [2016] NSWCCA 85
- Raad v R [2011] NSWCCA 138; (2011) 220 A Crim R 471
- R v AA [2017] NSWCCA 84
- R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
- R v Hasan [2005] NSWCCA 21
- R v SS (2021) 104 NSWLR 454; [2021] NSWCCA 56
- R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
- Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
- S v R [2008] NSWCCA 186; (2008) 186 A Crim R 505
- Turnbull v R [2019] NSWCCA 97