Citation: R v Lui [2026] NSWSC 965
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 August 2026
Judge(s): McNaughton J
Background
In December 2022, an international student died following a prolonged assault in a CBD stairwell. The victim had come to Australia from China to study at UNSW. The assault lasted up to two hours and was carried out by the offender, referred to here as Mr Lui, with another person, referred to as Mr Henry, also present.
Mr Henry had previously faced a murder trial that ended in a hung jury. He later pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced in December 2025 to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and three months. His sentence reflected both a plea discount and a discount for assistance to authorities, including agreeing to give evidence against Mr Lui. Mr Henry's liability was framed as manslaughter arising from an extended joint criminal enterprise to steal.
Mr Lui stood trial before a jury in May and June 2026. The jury acquitted him of murder but convicted him of manslaughter. McNaughton J then conducted a sentence hearing on 7 August 2026.
Legal Issues
- What findings of fact could be made consistently with the jury's verdict, applying the applicable standards of proof for adverse and favourable findings
- What the objective seriousness of the manslaughter was, given its particular circumstances
- Whether, and to what extent, the so-called Bugmy factors (disadvantaged background and its effect on moral culpability) reduced Mr Lui's blameworthiness
- What discount, if any, applied for an early offer to plead guilty
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the standard ratio between non-parole period and head sentence
- How to treat pre-sentence custody, including periods spent bail-refused on charges subsequently withdrawn
Decision
Objective seriousness: McNaughton J found the assault on the victim to be serious in its nature and duration, lasting up to two hours in an enclosed stairwell. The court noted that manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and no standard non-parole period, and that the profound value the community places on human life must be reflected in any sentence. Consistent with established authority, the court declined to place the offence on a notional scale of manslaughters, while still conducting a careful assessment of objective gravity.
Moral culpability and Bugmy factors: The court accepted that certain personal background factors reduced Mr Lui's moral culpability. Under the principles from Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, evidence of severe disadvantage in an offender's background is always relevant to moral blameworthiness, even if it does not excuse the conduct. McNaughton J accepted these factors as mitigating, though they were balanced against the serious nature of the offending.
Plea of guilty: The court applied a 25 per cent discount to reflect an early offer to plead guilty. The starting point before the discount was 14 years imprisonment, which reduced to a head sentence of 10 years and 6 months.
Special circumstances and pre-sentence custody: The court found special circumstances existed, justifying a non-parole period proportionally lower than the statutory default. McNaughton J also addressed the commencement date of the sentence, noting that Mr Lui had spent approximately 210 days bail-refused on matters later withdrawn, and a further three months serving a fixed term for a separate offence. The sentence was backdated to commence on 1 February 2023, approximately six weeks after arrest on the current matter.
Orders Made
- Mr Lui sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and 6 months for the manslaughter of the victim
- Non-parole period of 7 years commencing 1 February 2023
- Additional term of 3 years and 6 months commencing 1 February 2030 and ending 31 July 2033
Key Takeaways
- Manslaughter remains highly variable in its sentencing range. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that placing a particular manslaughter on a notional spectrum of such offences is unlikely to be useful and is best avoided, following Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273.
- Bugmy factors were accepted as reducing moral culpability here, consistent with the High Court's confirmation in Bugmy v The Queen that background disadvantage is always relevant to blameworthiness regardless of the seriousness of the offence.
- A 25 per cent plea discount was applied, reflecting an early offer to plead guilty, with the starting point set at 14 years before reduction.
- Pre-sentence custody on charges subsequently withdrawn remained a relevant factor. The court adjusted the sentence commencement date to account for time served on withdrawn matters, rather than crediting the full period from arrest.
- Where an offender's co-participant was sentenced on a different basis (joint criminal enterprise), the court conducted an independent assessment of the offender's own culpability rather than treating the co-participant's sentence as a benchmark.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Chapman v R [2026] NSWCCA 113
- Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
- Dennis v The King [2024] NSWCCA 137
- DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
- Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 27 3
- R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377 ; (2005) 160 A Crim R 1
- R v Henry (Sentence Judgment) [2025] NSWSC 1523
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
- R v MJ [2023] NSWCCA 306
- R v Youseff (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 125
- Tapueluelu v The King [2006] NSWCCA 113
- Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; (2018) 275 A Crim R 233
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
- Tukuafu v The King [2024] NSWCCA 84
Cases
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 25E, 44
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 24