AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 15 May 2026

R v Dates

[2026] NSWSC 508

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIME SENTENCE MURDER UN PLANNED IMPULSIVE CONDUCT YOUNG A BORIGINAL OFFENDER

Citation: R v Dates [2026] NSWSC 508
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 May 2026
Judge(s): Yehia J

Background

The offender, a 21-year-old Aboriginal man, was sentenced for two offences arising from events on 1 October 2023, when he was 18 years old. During a social gathering at a friend's unit in Miller, where a group of young men had assembled to watch the NRL grand final, the offender stabbed 18-year-old George Woods, causing his death. During the same incident, the offender also wounded Joshua Ratu with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The offender faced two trials. The first, in May 2025 (where he was tried alongside his brother Peter Dates on separate charges), ended in a hung jury after approximately two weeks of deliberation. At the retrial in February 2026, the offender pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown did not accept the manslaughter plea, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder. Peter Dates was acquitted of wounding Mr Ratu with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The offender had separately pleaded guilty to the wounding charge (against Mr Ratu) in December 2024 before Hamill J, entitling him to a 10 per cent sentencing discount on that count. The sentence proceedings for both offences were conducted by Yehia J on 1 May 2026.

  • What factual findings should be made for sentencing purposes, given several disputed matters between the Crown and the offender (including whether the offender gestured towards the knife during an earlier argument, the nature of the weapon, and whether the violence was entirely one-sided)?
  • What was the objective seriousness of the murder and the wounding offence?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including his youth, his Aboriginality and background of disadvantage (under Bugmy v The Queen principles), and his moral culpability?
  • What discount, if any, should apply for the offender's facilitation of the administration of justice, including the rejected plea of guilty to manslaughter?
  • What were the appropriate sentences, including non-parole periods, for each offence?

Decision

Yehia J acknowledged that the offender's actions were "catastrophic and tragic," resulting in the death of a young man who had done nothing to provoke the violence. The court received and acknowledged the victim impact statement of George Woods Snr, who described profound grief and ongoing harm to his family. Her Honour emphasised that no sentence can measure the value of a life lost, and that the penalty must instead reflect proper sentencing principles.

The court applied the well-established Isaacs principles for fact-finding after a jury verdict: the sentencing judge's view of the facts must be consistent with the jury's verdict, and adverse findings against the offender must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where the evidence was absent or unreliable on certain contested matters, the court proceeded on the basis of what was proved and set aside what was not, consistent with Filippou v The Queen.

Yehia J identified the offending as unplanned and impulsive conduct involving a knife, with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm (rather than an intention to kill). The court found a significant reduction in the offender's moral culpability was warranted, taking into account his youth at the time of the offence, his status as a young Aboriginal person, and the impulsive nature of the conduct. Although the Crown rejected the manslaughter plea, the court recognised the offender's willingness to plead guilty to manslaughter as a factor facilitating the administration of justice.

The sentencing discretion was exercised with reference to all purposes under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, including punishment, deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The offender's entitlement to a 10 per cent discount on the wounding count (pursuant to s 25D(2)(b) of the CSPA) was confirmed. The catchwords indicate that the offender's youth, Aboriginality, and reduced moral culpability were treated as significant mitigating considerations.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced for the offence of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). (The specific term imposed was not included in the truncated text available.)
  • The offender was sentenced for the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), with a 10 per cent discount applied for the early guilty plea.
  • (Note: the precise terms, non-parole periods, and commencement dates were not available in the portion of the judgment provided.)

Key Takeaways

  • Unplanned, impulsive knife violence resulting in death, where the offender intended grievous bodily harm rather than death, was treated as reducing the objective seriousness of the murder below the mid-range, though it remained a very serious offence.
  • Under the Bugmy principles, the offender's background of Aboriginal disadvantage, combined with his youth (18 at the time of offending), warranted a significant reduction in moral culpability for sentencing purposes.
  • A rejected plea of guilty to manslaughter (where the Crown insisted on proceeding with the murder charge) was still recognised as facilitating the administration of justice, though the precise discount or weight attached was distinct from a plea to the offence of conviction.
  • The Supreme Court applied the Isaacs framework for post-verdict fact-finding, declining to make adverse findings where the evidence was absent or unreliable, consistent with the requirement that facts adverse to the offender be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Section 25D(2)(b) of the CSPA entitled the offender to a fixed 10 per cent discount on the wounding charge, reflecting the timing of his guilty plea before a different judge prior to trial.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:

  • Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A(1)(b)
  • Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 33(1)(a)
  • Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
  • Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(1)(c), 21A(2)(c), 21A(2)(e), 21A(2)(ea), 21A(2)(i), 21A(3)(i), 22A, 25D(2)(b), 53A, 54D

Key Cases: