R v Evans; R v Evans (No 6) - [2025] NSWSC 1053

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Evans; R v Evans (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 1053
Hearing dates: 25 August, 2 September 2025
Date of orders: 16 September 2025
Decision date: 16 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:
Proceedings 2017/00202678
(1) I convict you of the offences of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act and murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act and impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 27 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 18 years and 4 months. The indicative sentences I would have imposed are as follows:
(i)   For the count of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, I would have imposed a sentence of 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months; and
(ii)   For the count of murder, I would have imposed a sentence of 26 years with a non-parole period of 17 years and 4 months.
(2)   I have backdated your aggregate sentence to commence on 4 July 2017. Your head sentence will expire on 3 January 2045. You will be eligible for release to parole on 3 November 2035.
(3) Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), you are advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offence of murder for which you have been convicted. Your legal representatives are directed to advise you of the implications of that matter to you.
Proceedings 2017/00202629
(1) I convict you of the offence of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act and impose a sentence of imprisonment of 26 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 17 years and 8 months.
(2)   I have backdated your sentence for murder to commence on 4 July 2017. Your head sentence will expire on 3 January 2044. You will be eligible for release to parole on 3 March 2035.
(3) Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), you are advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offence of murder for which you have been convicted. Your legal representatives are directed to advise you of the implications of that matter to you.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – murder – where offenders previously found guilty by a jury and sentenced for murder – where offender successfully appealed against the conviction – where offenders to be sentenced after second finding of guilt by jury – application of the ceiling principle – objective seriousness of offending – where moral culpability reduced by reason of youth and background of disadvantage – where offender has made progress toward rehabilitation in custody

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) s 15A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 33
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5, 21A,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Evans; R v Evans (No 6) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 1053
Decision Date: 16 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Evans and his co-offender, were previously found guilty by a jury and sentenced for murder. Evans successfully appealed against his conviction, resulting in a retrial. The case proceeded to a second trial where both defendants were found guilty again. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for the defendants, taking into account the ceiling principle and the objective seriousness of the offending, while also considering the moral culpability of the offenders and their respective backgrounds.

The court acknowledged the objective seriousness of the crime, noting the brutality of the murder and the significant impact on the victim's family. However, the court also considered the reduced moral culpability of the offenders due to their youth and disadvantaged backgrounds. The court recognised that Evans had made progress toward rehabilitation during his time in custody, which was a mitigating factor in determining his sentence.

In applying the ceiling principle, the court considered the maximum penalties for the offences and the need to ensure that the sentences reflected the gravity of the crimes. The court also weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offenders' backgrounds, their respective roles in the crime, and their prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentences would reflect the seriousness of the offences while also taking into account the reduced moral culpability of the offenders and their potential for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Evans and his co-offender be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years, reflecting the objective seriousness of the crime, the reduced moral culpability of the offenders, and their prospects for rehabilitation. The sentences were to be served concurrently with any other sentences the offenders were currently serving.

Orders