AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 20 March 2026

R v Tuwai

[2026] NSWSC 237

HomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIME SENTENCE MURDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHERE PRE MEDITATED INTENTION TO KILL

Citation: [2026] NSWSC 237
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 March 2026
Judge(s): Campbell J

Background

The offender was sentenced for the murder of his former intimate partner, Ms Nunia Wasakitoga Kurualeba, on 8 July 2024. Both the offender and the deceased were Fijian nationals who had come to Australia on student visas. They formed a relationship after the deceased's arrival in Australia in August 2023 and lived together in shared accommodation in Kingswood, western Sydney.

The relationship was characterised by escalating intimate partner violence perpetrated by the offender in the six months prior to the murder. This included physical assaults and coercive control through surveillance of the deceased's phone and social media accounts, motivated by sexual jealousy. The deceased had complained of the offender's violence to family members but had not reported the matter to police. In the week before the murder, the deceased told her younger sister that the offender had threatened to kill her.

The murder occurred in the immediate aftermath of the relationship's final breakdown. On 6–7 July 2024, after a physical altercation witnessed by a housemate, the deceased expelled the offender from the shared apartment and packed his belongings. On 8 July 2024, the deceased returned to the apartment to collect her own belongings, intending to fly back to Fiji. The offender, who had returned to the apartment that morning and concealed a large kitchen knife under a pillow, lay in wait. When the deceased arrived and attempted to flee upon discovering his presence, the offender chased her, caught her, and stabbed her once in the chest and once in the abdomen. The chest wound proved fatal. The offender admitted responsibility from the day of the crime and entered a guilty plea at what the Crown accepted was the first available opportunity.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for a charge of murder under s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), given the circumstances of the offending?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's early guilty plea as a mitigating factor under s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)?
  • What was the significance of the aggravating factors identified under s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including premeditation, the domestic violence context, and the use of a weapon?
  • What relevance, if any, did the offender's background — including any history of deprivation — have on sentencing, applying the principles in Bugmy v the Queen?
  • Whether the offender's mental health and fitness to plead (which had been investigated during the Local Court proceedings) gave rise to any mitigating considerations.

Decision

Campbell J found the offending to be extremely serious. His Honour was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was premeditated: the offender returned to the apartment solely for the purpose of lying in wait for the deceased, having armed himself with a knife concealed under a pillow. His Honour found the offender had been developing this plan from the time he left his uncle's home the evening before. The motive was sexual jealousy about another man who was romantically interested in the deceased, and an unwillingness to allow her to live independently.

The Court identified significant aggravating features. These included the premeditated nature of the killing, the context of an escalating pattern of domestic violence and coercive control, the offender lying in wait for the deceased, the use of a weapon, prior threats to kill, and the fact that the deceased was attempting to leave the relationship and had been planning to return to Fiji. The offending occurred despite efforts by the deceased's housemates and family to protect her.

In terms of mitigation, the Court took into account the offender's early guilty plea at the first available opportunity, and his immediate admissions of responsibility to police on the day of the murder. The Court also considered the forensic psychological evidence, including the assessment by Ms Sarah Brann, and any relevant background factors. However, his Honour characterised the mitigating circumstances as limited.

Campbell J's sentencing remarks reflect the principles from Munda v Western Australia — that sentencing in domestic violence cases must reflect the objective gravity of the offence and vindicate the dignity of the victim — and from Bugmy v the Queen regarding the relevance of background deprivation. The judgment also applied the instinctive synthesis approach endorsed in Muldrock v The Queen, and considered the standard non-parole period provisions under s 54B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of murder.
  • A sentence was imposed (note: the full text of the judgment was truncated and the specific term of imprisonment and non-parole period are not available from the extract provided).

Note: As the full sentencing orders were not included in the available extract of the judgment, practitioners should consult the complete decision for the precise terms of the sentence imposed.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court placed significant weight on premeditation and lying in wait as powerful aggravating factors, finding that the offender's conduct in arming himself, concealing the weapon, and waiting for the deceased demonstrated a settled intention to kill that had been formed the previous evening.

  • An escalating pattern of intimate partner violence and coercive control (including physical assaults, surveillance, and prior death threats) was treated as forming part of the context of the offending rather than merely as background facts, with this history regarded as highly relevant to sentencing.

  • In recognising the early guilty plea as a meaningful mitigating factor, the Court noted the Crown's acceptance that it was entered at the first available opportunity after necessary investigations into fitness and mental health defences, though the plea did not substantially reduce the gravity of the offence given the limited other mitigation available.

  • Applying Munda principles in NSW, the Supreme Court ensured that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of domestic violence offending and was not diminished by a misplaced emphasis on the offender's personal circumstances at the expense of the victim's rights.

  • Delays caused by investigations into the offender's fitness to stand trial and potential mental health defences did not count against the offender in the Court's assessment of the timeliness of his guilty plea.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21, 21A(2), 25D, 54B, 61
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases:
- Bugmy v the Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Maxwell v R [2020] NSWCCA 94
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
- R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363