Legal Research
Cases
LK v The King

LK v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 143 12 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LK v R [2025] NSWCCA 143
Hearing dates: 13 August 2025
Date of orders: 12 September 2025
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Before: Stern JA at [1];
Cavanagh J at [3];
Yehia J at [94]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – manslaughter – fight between two young persons where applicant brought a knife – unlawful and dangerous act – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 6, 19
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(b)
Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 3A(g)

Cases Cited:
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Markarian v the Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Elemes [2000] NSWCCA 235
R v HT [2010] NSWSC 324
R v JM (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1345
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v MR, JB and CS (young persons)(No 5) [2024] NSWSC 912
R v Saliba (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 659
R v SMP [1999] NSWCCA 318
R v TM [1999] NSWSC 504
R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: LK (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr K Averre (Applicant)
Ms T Epstein (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/258142
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

17 December 2024

Before:

McHugh SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2023/258142

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

LK (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by his Honour Judge McHugh SC in the District Court on 17 December 2024.

The applicant was sentenced following his plea of guilty to the offence of manslaughter pursuant to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, 4 months and 15 days with a non-parole period of 3 years, 10 months and 16 days.

At the time of the offending, the applicant was 17 years and 4 months and the deceased, Trey Johnson, was 16 years and 8 months. The applicant and Mr Johnson knew each other, Mr Johnson having entered into a relationship with HS, who the applicant had previously been in a relationship with. On 13 August 2023, the applicant approached Mr Johnson’s group of friends, and a fight ensued.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading LK v The King

Details

AGLC: LK v The King [2025] NSWCCA 143
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 143
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of LK v The King was heard by the High Court of Australia. The applicant, LK, was convicted of manslaughter following a fight between two young individuals, during which LK brought a knife. LK appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The central issue before the Court was whether the sentence was so disproportionate to the crime as to shock the conscience of the Court.

The Court considered the principles governing sentencing in cases of manslaughter, particularly where an unlawful and dangerous act was involved. The Court had to assess whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the circumstances, including the nature of the act and the culpability of the offender. The Court also examined whether the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the act and the principles of sentencing.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court found that the sentence was proportionate to the crime. The Court noted that the act was unlawful and dangerous, and that the sentence reflected the need to uphold the deterrent effect of the law. The Court was satisfied that the sentence was not so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The original sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld.

Orders