AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 8 July 2026

R v GH (No 2)

[2026] NSWSC 787

Homicide
CRIME JUDGE ALONE TRIAL MURDER MANSLAUGHTER NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ENTERED

Citation: R v GH (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 787
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 July 2026
Judge(s): Rigg J

Background

The accused, a child at the time of the alleged offence, was charged with the murder of a 32-year-old man at a residential property in Tregear on 10 June 2023, and in the alternative with his unlawful killing. The deceased was physically vulnerable, suffering from Marfan syndrome, and had previously experienced strokes due to non-compliance with blood-thinning medication, leaving him with a limp, impaired speech, and significant left-sided weakness. Two other residents of the house, referred to as DA and DT, have separately pleaded guilty to the deceased's murder, though those pleas were not in evidence before the trial court.

The Crown alleged that the deceased was repeatedly and seriously assaulted over four days from 7 to 10 June 2023 by four people living at or associated with the house: the accused, DA, DT, and a fourth person referred to as SB. Death was caused by blunt force head injury resulting in a subdural haematoma and its consequences. The trial proceeded before Rigg J sitting without a jury.

The Crown pursued liability against the accused on three alternative bases: her own acts causing death; participation in a joint criminal enterprise to intentionally kill or cause grievous bodily harm; and participation in an extended joint criminal enterprise, under which the accused foresaw but did not agree to another party's intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The manslaughter alternative rested on a joint criminal enterprise to commit an unlawful and dangerous assault.

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused participated in a joint criminal enterprise, being at minimum an ongoing agreement to assault the deceased over the four-day period.
  • Whether the Crown proved the relevant scope of any such agreement, or the accused's foresight of conduct by others outside the scope of that agreement, sufficient to establish liability for murder.
  • Whether the accused's own physical acts substantially contributed to the deceased's death (direct causation basis).
  • Whether the evidence established the accused's guilt of manslaughter on the basis of a joint criminal enterprise to commit an unlawful and dangerous assault.

Decision

Issue 1: Direct causation by the accused's own acts

The Crown's own expert forensic pathologist and the expert neuropathologist gave no evidence that any act physically perpetrated by the accused substantially contributed to the deceased's death. During the course of expert testimony, the Crown Prosecutor acknowledged this and formally abandoned the direct causation basis of liability. The case thereafter turned entirely on principles of complicity.

Issue 2: Joint criminal enterprise and extended joint criminal enterprise (murder)

The critical question was whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt both the existence of a joint criminal enterprise to which the accused was a party, and her participation in it. The court received evidence from two witnesses who visited the house during the relevant period and described serious assaults on the deceased by DA, DT, and SB, with the accused present and, to a lesser extent, directly involved in assaults. Three videos recorded by SB also depicted the accused assaulting the deceased. However, the court also received expert neuropsychological evidence concerning the accused's background and characteristics, which the judgment indicates was necessary to contextualise her apparent inaction and conduct.

The catchwords record that the court was not satisfied the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to, and participated in, a joint criminal enterprise to at least assault the deceased over the four-day period. Accordingly, not guilty verdicts were entered on both the murder charge and the manslaughter alternative.

Issue 3: Causation and the expert evidence

Neuropathological findings established that death resulted from a subdural haematoma caused by blunt force head injury. The expert evidence could not identify which specific blow or blows caused the fatal injury, and did not prove that all blows to the deceased's head substantially contributed to his death. The haematoma was unlikely to have been caused before 7 June 2023, and was unlikely to have occurred less than 12 hours before death, but beyond those parameters the evidence could not be more precise.

Orders Made

No orders were made in this decision.

Key Takeaways

  • Not guilty verdicts were entered on both murder and the alternative charge of manslaughter after the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to, and participated in, a joint criminal enterprise to assault the deceased over the relevant four-day period.
  • A joint criminal enterprise requires proof of both the existence of an agreement among two or more people to commit a crime and the accused's participation in that agreement; mere presence at the scene of crimes committed by others is not, by itself, sufficient to establish participation.
  • Where expert evidence cannot establish that all blows to a deceased substantially contributed to death, and cannot identify which specific blow or blows were causative, that evidentiary gap bears directly on whether complicity-based liability for murder or manslaughter can be proved to the requisite standard.
  • The Crown abandoned its direct causation basis of liability mid-trial after its own experts gave no evidence that any act physically perpetrated by the accused substantially contributed to the deceased's death, leaving the prosecution to rely solely on complicity principles.
  • Expert neuropsychological evidence about an accused's background and cognitive characteristics may be relevant in a judge-alone trial to contextualise conduct, including apparent inaction in the face of violence by others, when assessing whether participation in a joint criminal enterprise has been proved.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases
No cases were cited in the material provided.