R v XE

Case [2025] NSWSC 877 6 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v XE [2025] NSWSC 877
Hearing dates: 31 July 2025
Date of orders: 6 August 2025
Decision date: 06 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 years and 10 months. The Court imposes a non-parole period of 9 years and 3 months.
The sentence is to be backdated to commence on 4 July 2017. The head sentence will expire on 3 May 2032. The offender will be eligible for release to parole on 3 October 2026.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – murder – where offender previously found guilty by a jury and sentenced for murder – where offender successfully appealed against the conviction – where offender pleaded guilty to murder before retrial – application of the ceiling principle – discount to reflect utilitarian value of plea – 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’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) s 15A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18(1)(a)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 25C(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5, 21A, 54D

Cases Cited:
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25.
Muldrock vThe Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
R v Lane (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1898
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v White [2023] NSWSC 611

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
XE (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Hannan (Crown)
D Carroll (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/202637
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) there is to be no publication of the name of the offender or any material that tends to identify her.

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The offender XE, born in 1999, is before the court to be sentenced for the murder of Jesse Thompson (“the deceased”) on 3 July 2017 at Wyong, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period, as XE was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offending: s 54D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Act”).

Procedural history

The deceased died on 3 July 2017. The offender was originally tried for the deceased’s murder in a joint trial with her father and her older brother before Ierace J and a jury in the Supreme Court commencing on 13 November 2020.
The offender and her co-offenders were found guilty of murder on 19…

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 R v XE

Details

AGLC: R v XE [2025] NSWSC 877
Case: [2025] NSWSC 877
Decision Date: 06 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus XE, the offender was previously found guilty of murder by a jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The offender successfully appealed against the conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in law, leading to a retrial. Before the retrial, the offender pleaded guilty to the murder charge. The case involved the application of the ceiling principle to determine an appropriate sentence for the offender. The court also considered the objective seriousness of the offending, as well as the offender's reduced moral culpability due to their youth and background of disadvantage. Additionally, the court took into account the offender's progress toward rehabilitation while in custody.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate application of the ceiling principle and the extent of any discount to reflect the utilitarian value of the offender's plea. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender's moral culpability, and their progress towards rehabilitation. The court also had to determine the appropriate sentence within the constraints of the ceiling principle, which imposes a maximum penalty for a particular offence.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court first considered the objective seriousness of the offending. The court found that the murder was a serious offence, but recognised that the offender's youth and background of disadvantage reduced their moral culpability. The court also took into account the offender's progress towards rehabilitation while in custody, which was deemed significant. The court then applied the ceiling principle, which limited the maximum penalty for the offence of murder. The court also considered the discount to reflect the utilitarian value of the offender's plea, which led to a reduced sentence. Ultimately, the court found that an appropriate sentence was one that reflected the objective seriousness of the offending, the offender's reduced moral culpability, and their progress towards rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period set at a certain number of years. The court also ordered that the offender be eligible for parole after serving a certain number of years. The court's decision recognised the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the offender's youth, background of disadvantage, and progress towards rehabilitation. The sentence imposed was within the constraints of the ceiling principle and reflected the appropriate discount for the offender's plea.

Orders