AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 26 June 2026

R v Hooker (No 4) - Sentence

[2026] NSWSC 723

Assault & violenceHomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIME MANSLAUGHTER WHERE OFFENDER STRUCK DECEASED WITH CAR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT EXTREME PROVOCATION INCIDENT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT EXCLUDED

Citation: R v Hooker (No 4) [2026] NSWSC 723
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 June 2026
Judge: Dhanji J

Background

The offender, Samantha Hooker, was the estranged wife of the deceased, Peter Hooker. The couple had been together for approximately 18 years before separating in late 2022. At the time of the offence, an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) was in place protecting the offender from the deceased.

On 8 August 2023, the deceased attended the offender's home in breach of the ADVO and removed a television. The offender abandoned her work shift and drove to the deceased's home. A series of four physical altercations followed, with the offender acting as the primary aggressor in all of them. During a fourth altercation, the offender drove her employer's car directly at the deceased, striking him against a house wall. The deceased died on 31 August 2023 from his injuries.

The offender was charged with murder. She pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter, a plea the Crown did not accept. After a trial commencing 2 March 2026, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on 19 March 2026. The jury's verdict confirmed that at least one of the two partial defences relied upon, extreme provocation or substantial impairment due to mental health impairment, had been established.

The sentencing hearing required the court to resolve the following questions:

  • Whether the offender acted with intent to kill or intent to inflict grievous bodily harm at the time of the offence
  • The weight to be given to evidence of extreme provocation under s 23 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), including the history of the relationship, alleged coercive control, and an alleged incident of sexual assault
  • The extent to which substantial mental health impairment reduced the offender's moral culpability
  • The significance of the offender's prior good character, genuine remorse, and the impact of custody on her and her children
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio
  • How to account for a period of quasi-custody (time on restrictive bail conditions) served before the formal sentence commenced

Decision

Issue 1: Objective gravity and intent

Dhanji J found that the offender drove at the deceased with an intention, at minimum, to inflict grievous bodily harm. This placed the offending at a high level of objective gravity for manslaughter. The court noted that, absent partial defences, conduct of this kind would ordinarily support a conviction for murder. The risk created to others in the vicinity, including residents of the house struck and bystanders, further elevated the seriousness of the act.

Issue 2: Extreme provocation

The court accepted that the history of the relationship, which included evidence of coercive control and an alleged incident of sexual assault, was relevant to assessing the offender's state of mind and the provocative conduct preceding the killing. Dhanji J noted that evidence of this background could not simply be excluded from the sentencing assessment. The ADVO in place at the time, protecting the offender from the deceased, was part of the factual matrix informing how the relationship had affected the offender over many years.

Issue 3: Substantial mental health impairment

Expert evidence was received about the offender's mental health history and the significant trauma she had endured from a young age. The court treated mental impairment as a mitigating factor relevant to moral culpability, consistent with established principles. The jury's verdict left open that this partial defence may have been the operative basis for the manslaughter finding, and the sentencing exercise proceeded accordingly.

Issue 4: Personal circumstances, remorse, and character

Dhanji J found that the offender had, prior to 8 August 2023, led an effectively blameless life. Character references and other evidence described her as caring and pro-social. The court accepted that her remorse was genuine. The impact of custody on the offender, a primary carer of children, was taken into account, as was the broader impact the offending had on her own efforts to rebuild her life after separation.

Issue 5: Quasi-custody and special circumstances

The court recognised that the offender had spent a period on bail conditions sufficiently restrictive to be treated as quasi-custody, and this was reflected in the commencement date of the sentence (23 November 2024) rather than the sentencing date. Special circumstances were found to exist, justifying a non-parole period shorter than the standard ratio, given the offender's rehabilitation needs and the circumstances of the case.

Orders Made

  • The offender is convicted of the manslaughter of Peter Hooker.
  • Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months, commencing 23 November 2024.
  • Non-parole period of 2 years, expiring 22 November 2026.
  • Balance of term of 1 year and 9 months, expiring 22 August 2028.
  • The court noted the application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and directed the offender's legal team to explain its significance to her.

Key Takeaways

  • Where a jury returns a manslaughter verdict on a murder charge after contested partial defences of extreme provocation and substantial impairment, the sentencing court must assess both which partial defence may have applied and the degree to which underlying circumstances reduce moral culpability, even if those circumstances cannot be determined with certainty.
  • Evidence of a relationship characterised by coercive control and alleged sexual assault remained relevant to the sentencing exercise, even absent a definitive factual finding in the offender's favour on every contested aspect of the relationship history.
  • A prior blameless life, genuine remorse, and significant personal trauma can each carry mitigating weight in a manslaughter sentence, particularly where expert evidence supports a history of mental health impairment affecting the offender's conduct.
  • The Supreme Court applied the principle that time spent on highly restrictive bail conditions may be characterised as quasi-custody and reflected in the commencement date of a custodial sentence.
  • Special circumstances justifying a reduced non-parole period ratio are available in manslaughter sentencing where the individual circumstances of the offender warrant a longer period of supervised release.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23 (extreme provocation)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 25E, 30E
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C(1)

Cases:
- Bolt v R [2001] NSWCCA 487; 126 A Crim R 284
- DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
- Fuller v R [2022] NSWCCA 203
- Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
- Testici v R [2025] NSWCCA 88
- R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141
- R v Gabriel [2010] NSWSC 13
- R v Ko [2000] NSWSC 1130
- R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8
- R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284; 293 A Crim R 253
- R v Scurr [2001] NSWSC 727