Citation: R v Vikatos [2026] NSWSC 243
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales — Common Law Division
Date: 20 March 2026
Judge(s): McGuire J
Background
The offender, a 48-year-old man, pleaded guilty to the murder of his three-year-old son, Alexi, on 31 May 2023. Alexi's mother had died of natural causes in April 2021, leaving the offender as Alexi's surviving parent. The child had been born prematurely and, from early in his life, child protection authorities had flagged concerns about the parents' capacity to care for him, including issues around parental drug and alcohol use.
In the period leading up to the murder, the offender had recommenced a relationship with a former partner, Ms Melek, and had also relapsed into methylamphetamine use. Over the days immediately preceding 31 May 2023, the offender exhibited escalating paranoid and erratic behaviour — including beliefs that he was being surveilled by police, that people were conspiring against him, and that "bikies" were coming to harm him. He was verbally and physically violent towards Ms Melek, including slapping her and making threats. The offender, Ms Melek, and Alexi eventually travelled from the Blue Mountains to the Sydney home of the offender's aunt, where the offender's disturbed behaviour continued.
The agreed facts disclose that the offender murdered Alexi in the aunt's home on 31 May 2023. The offender was arrested on the same day. He entered a guilty plea to murder at the Local Court on 14 November 2025 and adhered to that plea on arraignment in the Supreme Court on 12 December 2025. The parties agreed the offender was entitled to a 25% discount on sentence for the utilitarian value of his early plea pursuant to s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
Legal Issues
- Objective seriousness of the offence: Where did this murder sit on the spectrum of objective seriousness, given the offender's intention to kill and the extreme vulnerability of the three-year-old victim?
- Aggravating factors: What weight should be given to the egregious breach of parental trust, the young age of the victim, and the fact the offence was committed in a relative's home?
- Mental health and moral culpability: To what extent did the offender's mental health — including apparent drug-induced psychotic symptoms (paranoia and disordered thinking) — reduce his moral culpability?
- Background of deprivation: Whether the offender's claimed background of deprivation was established on the evidence and, if so, what weight it attracted under Bugmy v The Queen principles.
- Mitigating factors: Whether the offender's expressions of remorse were genuine and sufficient to constitute a mitigating factor, and the weight to be given to the guilty plea.
- Prospects of rehabilitation: What were the offender's prospects of rehabilitation, having regard to his history of drug use, violence, and mental health difficulties?
- Appropriate sentence: Determination of the head sentence and non-parole period, applying the 25% plea discount.
Decision
McGuire J assessed the offence as sitting above the mid-range of objective seriousness for murder. Central to this assessment was the fact that the offender had formed an intention to kill, that the victim was an extremely young and defenceless child, and that the offender — as Alexi's father and sole surviving parent — occupied a position of the highest trust and responsibility toward the child. His Honour described the breach of that parental duty as "monstrous." The fact that the offence was committed in the home of the offender's aunt was treated as an aggravating factor, though of limited weight.
On the question of mental health, McGuire J accepted that the offender was experiencing significant mental disturbance in the days and hours leading up to the offence. The agreed facts and expert evidence pointed to paranoid ideation, likely linked to methylamphetamine use, including beliefs about police surveillance and conspiracies. His Honour found that the offender's mental health at the time of the offence did operate to reduce his moral culpability, though this was moderated by the fact that his drug-induced psychotic state was a consequence of his voluntary consumption of illicit drugs. The Court applied the principles discussed in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa regarding the relevance of self-induced intoxication to sentencing.
As to the offender's background, McGuire J noted that the evidence of a background of deprivation — which might attract weight under Bugmy v The Queen — was contested. His Honour was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimed background was established to the degree contended by the defence, and accordingly gave it limited weight. The offender's expressions of remorse were found to be insufficient, in the circumstances, to amount to a mitigating factor. The Court assessed the offender's prospects of rehabilitation as "guarded," given his longstanding drug use, history of violence, and the seriousness of the offending.
His Honour gave careful attention to the victim impact statements tendered by the Crown, acknowledging the devastating and lasting impact of Alexi's death on the extended family. The Court emphasised that no sentence could measure the value of Alexi's life, and that the sentence must reflect proper legal principle — including adequate punishment, deterrence, denunciation, community protection, and rehabilitation. The 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the early guilty plea was applied.
McGuire J noted, in passing, the potential application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and the offender's obligations under the Child Protection (Offender's Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) following conviction.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to a significant term of full-time imprisonment for the offence of murder (the precise head sentence and non-parole period are not available from the truncated text, but were determined after application of the 25% plea discount).
- Orders were made in connection with the offender's reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender's Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).
Note: Because the judgment text was truncated, the precise sentence and non-parole period could not be confirmed from the material provided. Practitioners should consult the full judgment for the specific orders.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court treated the offender's role as the victim's sole surviving parent as a powerful aggravating factor, reflecting the extreme vulnerability of the child and the gravity of the breach of parental duty.
- Where drug-induced psychotic symptoms contributed to the commission of a serious offence, the Court accepted a degree of reduced moral culpability but tempered that finding by reference to the voluntary nature of the drug use, consistent with the line of authority including De La Rosa.
- Contested or inadequately supported claims of background deprivation received limited weight, as the offender's reliance on Bugmy principles was undermined by the absence of clear and persuasive evidence.
- Expressions of remorse were found insufficient to constitute a mitigating factor, with McGuire J requiring evidence of genuine insight and acceptance of responsibility beyond bare assertions.
- Rehabilitation prospects were characterised as merely "guarded" due to a combination of entrenched substance abuse, a history of domestic violence, and the seriousness of the offence, which limited the weight given to this factor on sentence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25D(2)(a)
- Child Protection (Offender's Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), ss 3C, 21A, 30E, 44, 61
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 12
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- R v Chamma; R v Hicks (No 3) [2023] NSW