AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 4 August 2026

R v DT; R v DA

[2026] NSWSC 930

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIME SENTENCE ASSAULT OF DECEASED OVER FOUR DAYS PLEAS OF GUILTY FINDING OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Citation: R v DT; R v DA [2026] NSWSC 930
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 4 August 2026
Judge(s): Rigg J

Background

Two young offenders, identified only as DT and DA, were sentenced for the murder of a vulnerable 32-year-old man at a residential premises in Tregear, New South Wales, in June 2023. The deceased, who lived with Marfan syndrome and had suffered a stroke in 2021 leaving him with partial paralysis and mobility difficulties, was subjected to repeated, sustained assaults over four days by the offenders, a third co-accused (a 16-year-old, GH), and an adult woman known to the offenders as their "Aunty." The cause of death was blunt force head injury.

Both offenders pleaded guilty in the Local Court. Their liability for murder was established on the basis of joint criminal enterprise: each had intended to cause the deceased grievous bodily harm, and the Crown was unable to identify who struck the fatal blow or blows. At the time of the offence, DA was 18 years and 3 months old and DT was 19 years and 1 month old.

DA was also sentenced for a separate offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to an inmate at Goulburn Correctional Centre in November 2023. Suppression orders prohibiting publication of the names of the offenders, the deceased, and GH remain in place, reflecting the sensitive nature of the background material before the court, including childhood sexual abuse suffered by both offenders and allegations of sexual misconduct by the deceased.

  • What sentences were appropriate for murder convictions arising from a joint criminal enterprise involving sustained, prolonged violence against a vulnerable victim?
  • To what extent did the offenders' youth, deprived backgrounds, and mental health impairments reduce their moral culpability and the weight to be given to punitive, denunciatory, and general deterrent purposes of sentencing?
  • Did special circumstances exist justifying a departure from the standard ratio between head sentence and non-parole period?
  • How should the separate sentence for DA's custodial assault be structured, including its relationship to the murder sentence?

Decision

Issue 1: Objective seriousness of the offending

Rigg J found the circumstances of the offending to be extremely serious. The deceased was a physically vulnerable person who did not defend himself and was subjected to repeated, escalating violence over four days, including punching, kicking, choking, and degrading treatment. The number of participants in the joint enterprise, and the sustained nature of the attack, increased the objective gravity of the offending.

Issue 2: Moral culpability and subjective factors

The court found that both offenders' moral culpability was meaningfully reduced by their youth, significantly deprived backgrounds, and mental health impairments. Both had suffered serious childhood trauma, including sexual abuse. These factors bore directly on their capacity for judgment and self-regulation at the time of the offending. As a consequence, the weight ordinarily given to punitive, denunciatory, and general deterrent sentencing purposes was reduced, though the court did not eliminate those considerations entirely.

Issue 3: Pleas of guilty

Each offender received a 25% discount on their sentence for pleading guilty in the Local Court. The court calculated the sentences that would otherwise have been imposed: 17 years and 4 months for DT, and 18 years for DA (for murder), before applying the discount. DA's separate grievous bodily harm offence also attracted a 25% discount, reducing the otherwise applicable term of 3 years and 4 months.

Issue 4: Special circumstances

Rigg J found special circumstances existed in the cases of both offenders, justifying a non-parole period that represents a greater proportion of the head sentence available for parole supervision than would ordinarily apply. The court noted the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) has potential application to both offenders and directed their legal representatives to advise them accordingly.

Issue 5: DA's sentence structure

DA's sentence for the custodial grievous bodily harm offence was ordered to run prior to, and partially concurrently with, the murder sentence, with the murder sentence commencing on 10 December 2024 to reflect the period of accumulation.

Orders Made

DT (murder):
- Sentenced to 13 years imprisonment, commencing 14 June 2023 and concluding 13 June 2036
- Non-parole period of 8 years and 8 months, concluding 13 February 2032 (first eligible for parole)
- Legal representative directed to advise DT of the potential application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

DA (recklessly causing grievous bodily harm):
- Sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, commencing 10 June 2023 and concluding 9 December 2025
- Non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, concluding 9 February 2025

DA (murder):
- Sentenced to 13 years and 6 months imprisonment, commencing 10 December 2024 and concluding 9 June 2038
- Non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months commencing 10 December 2024, concluding 9 June 2033 (first eligible for parole)
- Legal representative directed to advise DA of the potential application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Key Takeaways

  • Youth, childhood trauma, and mental health impairments can significantly reduce moral culpability in murder sentencing, even where the underlying offending is objectively grave, and the Supreme Court here gave those factors meaningful weight in fixing sentences below what the objective circumstances alone might otherwise indicate.
  • A joint criminal enterprise murder, where the fatal blow cannot be attributed to any individual participant, does not necessarily produce identical sentences across co-offenders; individual subjective circumstances produce differentiation even within a shared enterprise.
  • The sustained and degrading nature of the four-day assault, combined with the physical vulnerability of the deceased and the number of participants, were treated as objective aggravating features that set a high starting point for sentencing.
  • Special circumstances findings were made for both offenders, reflecting their youth and the importance of adequate post-release supervision given their backgrounds and mental health needs.
  • Suppression orders were maintained throughout, recognising that candid disclosure of the offenders' traumatic histories, particularly childhood sexual abuse, would identify them as victims of that abuse if their names were published.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases
- BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
- R v GH (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 787
- R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241