R v TH; R v KT; R v LT; R v DR

1. [1]

   On 1 December 2023, Kristy McBride, who was at the time 39 years of age, died as a result of stab wounds inflicted upon her by a young person, TH, on 22 November 2023. The stabbing occurred during a prearranged fight between two groups of teenage girls which happened in Warrawong, a southern suburb of Wollongong.

2. [2]

   Having threatened each other during the afternoon on social media, one group of girls arrived at the home of at least some of the other group of girls at Wegit Way in Warrawong at approximately 6.20pm. The fight, such as it was, occurred on the public street outside the home, in the presence of other people including other children.

3. [3]

   In this sentencing judgment I will describe the two groups as “the Young Persons’ group” and “the other group”. Other than the deceased and her sister, Carly McBride, all of the persons involved were under 18 years of age at that time. Two were only 14.

4. [4]

   The Young Persons’ group comprised of two 15 year old girls, being TH and KT, and two 14 year old girls, being LT and DR. As a matter of law, they were children.

5. [5]

   The other group included a greater number of persons but specifically six persons all of whom were under 18 years of age, being ALW, TW, KW, AYW, SM and THI. All of those persons were at the house at Wegit Way when the events unfolded. The deceased and her sister, Carly, were also at the house.

6. [6]

   Following the death of the deceased, each of the persons in the Young Persons’ group, being TH, KT, LT and DR, were charged with her murder.

7. [7]

   Although there is no dispute that it was TH who inflicted the stab wounds on the deceased each of KT, LT and DR were charged with her murder on the basis that they were parties to a joint criminal enterprise.

8. [8]

   After the hearing of the charges against each of TH, KT, LT and DR commenced (on 20 October 2025), the Crown accepted the pleas of each of the young persons in respect of the offence of manslaughter. Each of the young persons had offered their pleas at an earlier time.

9. [9]

   Each of the young persons thus stands to be sentenced for the unlawful killing of the deceased, contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

10. [10]

    The basis on which the Crown has accepted the plea of TH to manslaughter is self-defence with excessive force having regard to s 421 of the Crimes Act. As set out in s 421, if a person uses force that involves infliction of death and the conduct is not a reasonable response in the circumstances as she perceived them, but the person believed that the conduct was necessary to defend herself or another person, then that person is not criminally responsible for murder but is liable for manslaughter.

11. [11]

    It is thus accepted by the Crown that, in stabbing the deceased, TH was acting in defence of herself or another person, but her conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as she perceived them. She is to be sentenced on that basis.

12. [12]

    Each of the other young persons, KT, LT and DR, are similarly liable on the basis that they were participants in a joint criminal enterprise with TH and in that sense her conduct is attributed to them.

13. [13]

    Guilt based on a joint criminal enterprise was explained by Hayne J in Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 64 at [110]:

14. [14]

    Whilst none of KT, LT or DR stabbed the deceased it is agreed between the Crown and each of the young persons that they were complicit in the act that caused the death arising from their participation in a joint criminal enterprise with each other and TH to commit the offence of affray. The intended affray was to occur in circumstances in which the young persons, KT, LT and DR, were in possession of knives and were aware of the possession of knives by each other. Shortly before the affray, LT provided her knife to TH.

15. [15]

    KT, LT and DR foresaw the potential that serious harm could be occasioned in the event the knives were used including an offence of murder but did not agree to the actual use of the knife. Nevertheless, they continued to participate in the enterprise with that foresight.

16. [16]

    KT, LT and DR did not act with an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm and did not foresee others in the enterprise would form or act upon such an intent.

17. [17]

    The offence of manslaughter is punishable by a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. As is often said, manslaughter encompasses a wide range of circumstances and conduct and a wide range of sentences. An important aspect of the sentencing in this matter is that the conduct involved acting in self-defence, albeit with excessive force.

18. [18]

    The principles which should be applied when sentencing for the offence of manslaughter on the basis of self-defence with excessive force are set out in Newburn v R [2022] NSWCCA 139 at [39] per Leeming JA, Garling J and Lonergan J and are as follows:

The sentencing of juveniles

1. [19]

   Having regard to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), each of the offenders were children at the time of the offending. Manslaughter is defined as a serious children’s indictable offence and the young persons are required to be dealt with according to law (Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act, ss 3, 16 and 17).

2. [20]

   Section 6 of Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act is in the following terms:

3. [21]

   I will have regard to these important principles in determining the sentence of each of the young persons.

4. [22]

   Further, I am mindful of the importance of youth as a sentencing consideration. In R v Saliba (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 659 at [92], Yehia J observed:

5. [23]

   It is important to observe that each young persons were not persons in their late teens who might be expected to have already developed a level of maturity. They were still at an age that must be viewed as being very immature, susceptible to peer pressure and by their behaviour such as on the chat line, demonstrating reduced capacity to engage in rational and mature thinking. Much of their behaviour before and after the events which occurred supports that analysis.

Victim Impact Statements

1. [24]

   It is in the nature of these sentence proceedings that I do not know much about the deceased. I am in receipt of five victim impact statements from:

2. [25]

   Both Graeme McBride and Carly McBride were in Court during the sentencing hearing.

3. [26]

   Having read their victim impact statements, I expressed my sympathy to them directly.

4. [27]

   I have now read and had regard to all of the victim impact statements.

5. [28]

   The death of the deceased has caused considerable pain and loss to her family. She is sorely missed. Her death has brought about considerable and significant feelings of anguish, grief, and loss. Each of the persons who have provided victim impact statements have detailed their personal reflections and shared their feelings of deep loss. It sometimes takes considerable courage and determination to do so.

6. [29]

   I express my sympathies to each of the persons who provided the victim impact statements and indeed all members of the deceased’s family have been so affected by her loss. I will have regard to the victim impact statements to the extent that I am permitted to do so in accordance with the law.

Circumstances of offending

1. [30]

   For the purposes of sentencing, I am required to make findings of fact. The young persons are being sentenced following their pleas of guilty prior to trial. I remind myself that I must not make any findings adverse to them unless I am satisfied about those matters beyond a reasonable doubt. Other findings may be made on the balance of probabilities.

2. [31]

   Much of the facts were agreed and are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts dated 27 October 2025. In addition to the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Crown relied upon:

   1. (1)

      a transcript of the Big Yappers Group Chat;

   2. (2)

      a video of the incident taken by AYW;

   3. (3)

      still images from the video; and

   4. (4)

      a video taken by another person with stills from that video.

3. [32]

   The Crown also relied on specific material in respect of each of the young persons which I will come to in due course.

4. [33]

   Each of the young persons provided their own material on sentence which again I will come to in due course.

5. [34]

   There was limited dispute as to the circumstances of the offending and I will also refer to the matters in dispute when relevant.

6. [35]

   Unfortunately, the original motivation for the conflict between the two groups is not really known except that:

   1. (1)

      The four young persons were friends; and

   2. (2)

      Four of the girls in the other group were related and the other two were friends of those girls; and

   3. (3)

      LT and DR had previously been friends with ALW and THI but there had been a falling out.

7. [36]

   What had caused the falling out is not known and what led to such a level of hostility between the groups is not known. What is known is how the events developed on the day of the fight.

8. [37]

   The background to the fight and death of the deceased is contained in group chat messages between the two groups or at least involving a number of the participants.

9. [38]

   On 21 November 2023, a group chat was initiated on Instagram by LT. The participants in the group were all of TH, KT, LT, DR, ALW, TW, SM, ALW, and another person KW.

10. [39]

    At some point the chat group was named “The Big Yappers”. The chat included text messages, audio messages and videos. The essential purpose of the chat appears to have been to direct insults and threats at each other. Messages on the group chat line continued intermittently between its commencement on 21 November 2023 and up to the time of the fight. The last one before the fight was sent by TH essentially announcing that they were there.

11. [40]

    Further, the use of the group chat continued after the fight with members of both groups and indeed other persons who were seemingly not involved in the fight joining the chat. It ends the way it starts and continues with threats of violence, vile insults, graphic descriptions of what they were going to do to each other or what they just did to each other and what would be happening to each other.

12. [41]

    The Crown and each of the young persons rely on certain sections or content in the group chat for their own purposes. Except when it is necessary to comment on an individual message for the purposes of the submissions made by the parties, I do not propose to go to great detail about what was said by the persons, all teenage girls, on this chat line. It is only necessary to say that:

    1. (1)

       The chat line was established by LT;

    2. (2)

       The first message was sent by KT stating “Come gong” which was quickly followed by a threat to “flog all you junkies”. Almost from the time the chat line started, the threats of violence, the type of language used and the vile insults escalated;

    3. (3)

       Many of the persons involved in the fight participated in making threats and hurling insults at each other on the chat line;

    4. (4)

       It appears that the girls were determined to outdo each other in terms of threats and insults;

    5. (5)

       It would be difficult to describe one group as being more direct or using worse language or dreaming up more insults than the other; and

    6. (6)

       The insults and threats even degenerated into quite disgusting sexual references, suggestions of rape and then homophobic slurs being directed at some persons in the Young Persons’ group.

13. [42]

    Having said that, it is clear from the review of the messages as a whole that the Young Persons’ group was both threatening to and intending to come to the house where the other group was and they were looking to have a fight and bash the other group. The girls in the other group were similarly threatening and daring them to come for a fight, seemingly also wanting the fight to happen.

14. [43]

    The Crown relies on some particular parts of the messaging including the reference from a member of the other group (AYW) “No knives or shit btw” and the response of the young person KT “Ofc” (of course). That is, the Crown submits that this exchange occurred before 1.30pm after which KT, LT and DR actually obtained knives for the purposes of taking them to the fight.

15. [44]

    In any event, as exposed on the CCTV footage obtained from various sources, three of the young persons, KT, LT and DR arrived at the Wollongong Central Shopping Centre at 3.55pm. At 4.16pm they entered the Coles Supermarket and obtained three knives. They then entered the parents’ room within the Shopping Centre and removed the knives from the packaging. Whilst they were doing this, the messaging continued again with more suggestions relating to killing, rape and various other sexual terms being used in an effort to describe what each would do to each other.

16. [45]

    Whilst KT, LT and DR were at the Wollongong Central Shopping Centre, TH was not there. She did not join the group until shortly before they took a bus to Warrawong. She did not have a knife.

17. [46]

    The original plan was for the groups to meet at 2pm. When the Young Persons’ group had not turned up, messaging continued.

18. [47]

    The Young Persons seemingly waited at the Wollongong Shopping Centre hanging around until they boarded a bus to Warrawong at 5.40pm. They were accompanied by a number of other minors who went with them all the way to Wegit Way. It is not necessary that I refer to them again.

19. [48]

    At 6.20pm the young persons arrived at Wegit Way and started to walk towards the other group’s house. At this time KT, LT and DR were in possession of knives. DR had her knife with the protective sheath on it tucked into the waist band of her pants and covered with her shirt. The young persons were accompanied by a number of other young people although they were not involved in that which occurred.

20. [49]

    Some of the persons had their phones out and were filming everything that occurred.

21. [50]

    As the young persons approached Wegit Way, the deceased, Carly McBride, TW, SM, KW, ALW, AYW and THI gathered in the backyard behind the fence of Wegit Way. Carly McBride armed herself with a metal baseball bat, KW armed herself with tins of cat food in a sock and the deceased had an unidentified object in her right hand. Further, as the Young Persons’ group approached, SM armed herself with a plank of wood. AYW started recording everything on KW’s mobile phone.

22. [51]

    KT is captured on the phone saying, “oh they have a bat, man” as if surprised or having second thoughts.

23. [52]

    KW is captured yelling, “they’re here. They’re fucking here … fucking here cunts”, as if surprised they had turned up.

24. [53]

    Although not everything that occurred was captured, the deceased, Carly McBride and TW ran or moved quickly towards the young persons and the rest of the other group followed. Around this time LT gave a knife to TH.

25. [54]

    That which is captured by the videos is recorded as agreed facts by way of summary. As it is all relevant, I will include it:

26. [55]

    After the fight the young persons fled, either walking or running. Carly McBride still armed with her bat, gave chase as did TW. TW flagged down a passing police vehicle.

27. [56]

    LT and KT threw the knives they were holding into someone else’s front yard. KT, LT and DR were stopped by the police. DR told the police that she was in possession of a knife down the front of her pants. The police subsequently located the other knives. KT, LT and DR were taken to the Lake lllawarra Station and charged with affray.

28. [57]

    TH subsequently went to the Warrawong Plaza with two other people. She then went to Warrawong McDonalds. At 8.40am on 23 November 2023 the police attended TH’s care home and arrested her.

29. [58]

    As is shown on the videos after the young persons scattered, most of the other group started walking back towards their house. The deceased is shown walking back towards her house with blood coming through her jumper. She collapsed on the front area of the Wegit Way house.

30. [59]

    She was taken to Wollongong Hospital by ambulance and placed in an induced coma. Although she seems to have made some slight recovery in the sense that she was weaned off sedation from 27 November 2023 (following surgery) and appeared to be breathing, she had not woken up. By 30 November 2023, it was noted that she had likely progressed to brain death secondary to severe cerebral oedema from refractory and profound hyperammonaemia from liver failure. She was declared dead at 6.20pm on 1 December 2023. Her death was caused by the stab wounds to the abdomen.

The sentencing process

1. [60]

   Having set out both the background facts and the facts relevant to the offending conduct, it is now necessary to move to the sentence in respect of each of the young persons, TH, KT, LT and DR.

2. [61]

   Before doing so, I observe that:

   1. (1)

      The taking of a life is serious offending irrespective of the circumstances in which the offending occurred;

   2. (2)

      The process of sentencing involves the instinctive synthesis of both objective features of the offending and the subjective circumstances of the offender. Individualised justice requires individualised sentencing but parity between co-offenders is also an important sentencing principle;

   3. (3)

      The objective seriousness of the offending is not the same in respect of each of the young persons because they did different things and played different roles albeit there are some very significant similarities; and

   4. (4)

      Similarly, the subjective circumstances of each of the young persons must be considered individually, albeit there are some very significant similarities in their subjective cases.

3. [62]

   The Crown emphasises that there remains significant public interest in deterring antisocial conduct (see KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [24], citing with approval R v Pham & Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128 at 135) with which I agree, but when dealing with persons who were so young at the time of the offending, general deterrence and retribution are not important factors. Further, in sentencing persons who offended at such a young age, that is 14 to 15, emphasis must be given to their rehabilitation.

4. [63]

   Finally, it must be said that the events which unfolded may have been caused by a number of factors, which must be taken to include the disturbing and violent behaviour of quite a number of teenage girls and, the actions of adults who led the charge into this group of 14 and 15 year olds whilst carrying weapons but the four young persons are the ones facing criminal sanction in the nature of imprisonment because they brought or knew others were bringing knives to a conflict with a group of other teenage girls. The carrying of knives too often leads to tragic consequences including death as well as the ruination of other lives.

TH

1. [64]

   TH joined the group later in the afternoon. She was not present when KT, LT and DR obtained the knives from Coles. She was not present when the threatening messages started.

2. [65]

   However, TH joined in the messaging and made a number of threats to inflict significant harm on members of the other group, including bashing, slitting their throat, stomping on their head, ripping out their tongue, suffocation and threatening to kill. Lest it be thought that these threats were somehow worse than those made by others, I can only say that they were more or less like many other threats made on the chat line.

3. [66]

   Although some of the threats on the chat line had that flavour, I do not accept that TH ever intended to kill anyone. Her threats were like the others, grandiose, overstated, and vile. They reflected an intention to hurt members of the other group. She did not attend Wegit Way with the intention of killing anyone.

4. [67]

   TH did not arrive with a knife or any weapon. She was handed the knife by LT shortly before she used it. She firstly swung the knife at the head of the deceased, a larger person, after the deceased ran towards LT. The Crown accepts that this was a reasonable response to the circumstances as she perceived them at that time.

5. [68]

   I do not accept that TH thought that the deceased was holding a knife but I accept that she believed that the deceased had some sort of weapon and that the deceased was intent on using it. I accept that TH intervened as the deceased was attacking LT, having run towards her.

6. [69]

   I accept that TH perceived that there was a need to defend LT and herself from the attack by the deceased and that the deceased continued to come at LT as LT was trying to get away from her.

7. [70]

   Further, I accept that the second and third stabs to the deceased were also in response to the ongoing physical conflict with the deceased. By virtue of the Crown’s acceptance of the plea of manslaughter and the fact that it was one or both of those stabs which caused the death of the deceased, it must be that those second and third stabs were also in furtherance of the defence of herself or LT. However, in stabbing the deceased those two further times, TH acted unreasonably and used excessive force.

8. [71]

   Yet, the force she used was not excessive to a high degree. She was using the same weapon initially. She was moving backwards and the deceased continued to come at her with a weapon in her hand. The use of the knife by TH that second and third time demonstrated the use of unreasonable force in trying to defend herself or LT but for the reasons I set out, it was not extremely so.

9. [72]

   There were some aggravating features to the offending including:

   1. (1)

      TH’s earlier threats of violence – s 21A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Procedure Act”);

   2. (2)

      She acted in company – s 21A(2)(e) of the Sentencing Procedure Act; and

   3. (3)

      The offending conduct occurred in the presence of children under the age of 18, being not only members of the two groups but other persons who were present at the street and indeed had attended with the young persons – s 21A(2)(ea) of the Sentencing Procedure Act.

10. [73]

    Whilst it is not always necessary to specify where within the range such serious offending lies, having regard to the different positions of each of the young persons, I will do so. I consider that TH’s offending was below the middle range for this type of offending.

11. [74]

    On sentence, the Crown provided:

    1. (1)

       The Crown Sentence Summary;

    2. (2)

       Details of TH’s criminal history;

    3. (3)

       Facts in relation to previous offences;

    4. (4)

       Details of her custodial history; and

    5. (5)

       A Communities and Justice Background Report dated 5 December 2025.

12. [75]

    TH relied on a number of documents, being:

    1. (1)

       An affidavit of Terina Bailey, her cultural mentor, dated 2 December 2025;

    2. (2)

       An Intensive Transitional Therapeutic Care Assessment Report dated 8 April 2022; and

    3. (3)

       A Positive Behaviour Support Plan dated 18 August 2023.

13. [76]

    TH did not give evidence on sentence. She did not provide any letter or other document to the Court.

14. [77]

    TH was 15 at the time of her offending. She is now 17. She already had a criminal history, including:

    1. (1)

       assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company on 4 April 2023 for which she received a 7-month bond;

    2. (2)

       two counts of shoplifting which occurred in May 2023;

    3. (3)

       two counts of assault police and robbery with offensive weapon on 6 September 2023 for which she was afforded a 12-month probation order on 30 October 2023 (that is, just prior to this offending); and

    4. (4)

       common assault on 26 September 2023 for which she received a one month control order on 6 February 2024.

15. [78]

    She was thus on conditional liberty at the time of this offending and subject to two probation orders.

16. [79]

    The earlier offending was of some severity. In April 2023, she punched a 14-year-old to the head and ribs a number of times and stomped on the victim’s head. On 7 September 2023 she robbed a liquor store in the company of other young persons whilst armed with a knife. Whilst fleeing, she kicked two police officers.

17. [80]

    On 26 September 2023, she punched and kicked a store owner (in company of KT and LT) when the store owner confronted another young person for shoplifting.

18. [81]

    These are all matters of some significance and indicate that by the age of 15, TH was engaged and participating in some serious acts of violence. Previous orders of the Court did not dissuade her from agreeing to become involved with the other young persons in the fight and engaging in threatening and ultimately violent conduct.

19. [82]

    TH comes from a background of significant trauma and disadvantage. She has seven siblings, but she has been in the care of the Minister since 2008, being shortly after she was born. At that time, her mother fled to New Zealand with the youngest child to avoid DCJ involvement. Her father has been in prison. She was restored to her parents briefly at around the age of 3 but was returned to the Minister’s care arising from further child protection concerns.

20. [83]

    She was placed in a stable foster home until she was 11 but again, she was required to leave that home when her carers’ marriage ended. There were again reports of abuse. She went into respite care, but her original carer never came to collect her.

21. [84]

    In 2019, she and her sister were taken to New Zealand for a holiday where they stayed with a great aunt and uncle. They remained there for a period of two years. Again, according to the Youth Justice Report she was subject to violence in that home. She also reported sexual abuse occurring in that home.

22. [85]

    She had resided in a group home with Marist 180 since returning to Australia in 2021. She remains in the care of the Minister until she is 18 years old.

23. [86]

    Her life has been one of very significant disadvantage. In these circumstances, the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 (“Bugmy”) apply.

24. [87]

    In NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73 (“NK”), Yehia J (with whom Ball JA and Fagan J agreed) held that in applying the Bugmy principles, the Court must consider three matters:

    1. (1)

       It must determine whether the offender’s background is one of depravation or disadvantage and whether it affects the offender’s moral blameworthiness. In this regard, it is important to observe that although the offender’s moral culpability may be reduced because there is a causal link between their background and their offending, a causal link is not required for a Court to make a finding of reduced moral culpability (see Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209 at [136]-[153] per N Adams J).

    2. (2)

       It must determine whether, if moral culpability is reduced, how the reduced moral culpability impacts upon the weight to be given to the various purposes of sentencing as set out in s 3A of the Sentencing Procedure Act. For example, when considering the weight to be given to general deterrence, it is necessary to consider whether the particular offender is an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence (see YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165 (“YZ”) per Weinstein J at [66]).

    3. (3)

       Thirdly, it must determine that even where the reduction in moral culpability is offset, either in whole or in part, by the weight to be given to other purposes of sentencing, that deprived background must still be given full weight (YZ at [68] and NK at [113]).

25. [88]

    Having said that, the Bugmy factors do not mandate a particular level of leniency. Even if a finding of reduced moral culpability is made, that is just one factor to be considered in the sentencing process.

26. [89]

    TH comes from a background of not just minor trauma and disadvantage but significant trauma and disadvantage. She has been a ward of the State for most of her life. She has lived in many different places under the supervision of many different people. She has struggled to adapt. She has been diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder. TH has been exposed to violence for most of her life and has exhibited violent tendencies from the age of 14. These factors all result in a real and significant reduction in her moral culpability.

27. [90]

    Her behaviour in the immediate period after her offending demonstrated a lack of remorse and little by way of care or concern for the person that she had stabbed. Her behaviour in custody has been disruptive, and she has again indicated violent tendencies. At least part of her behaviour has been influenced by a misguided sense of loyalty to other persons in the juvenile facility and even the person with whom she was in a relationship.

28. [91]

    Yet, at other times she has been described as a kind, likeable, forthright, intelligent and fun young woman.

29. [92]

    I have had regard to all of the material relied on by both the Crown and TH. To the extent that her past behaviour is an indicator of the future, it does not bode well.

30. [93]

    However, I consider the content of the reports, such as the Youth Justice Report and the affidavit of Terina Bailey, to be particularly significant. TH is in touch with her cultural identity (as a Maori). She is benefiting from that.

31. [94]

    Further, although there have been some recent behavioural breaches, her behaviour in prison has improved markedly in 2025. She has taken a number of positive steps towards her rehabilitation. She is enrolled at the school and has been described as a “cooperative and respectful student who actively participates in all school activities”. She is currently enrolled in TAFE NSW and is completing a Certificate IV in Communities and Services. She has completed Year 11. Her cultural mentor, Ms Bailey, sets out significant improvements that have been observed in her behaviour, conduct and motivation since December 2024. She has taken a leadership role as a positive mentor to the other juveniles in custody.

32. [95]

    In my view, it is clear that she has developed a growing sense of maturity, particularly over the past 12 months. She has become increasingly engaged with staff at the Reiby Youth Justice Centre and, in recent months, has taken on a leadership role among newly enrolled students. There is no evidence of her using substances in custody. Despite her earlier resistance to the idea, she has become engaged in counselling.

33. [96]

    My impression of TH is supported not just by the written material relied on sentence but by the oral evidence of Ms Salazar, her case worker. She says she has witnessed a significant positive progression. When TH first entered custody she did not really speak to anyone, did not engage in services but now she is fully engaged in the ways I have already spoken about.

34. [97]

    It may be that it is too early to predict what may happen to TH after she is released from custody but, in my view, developments over the past 12 months tend to suggest that her prospects of rehabilitation are improving and may be good.

35. [98]

    Unfortunately, she has not really been able to demonstrate any real remorse despite some statements made reflecting an increasing understanding as to what she has done and sympathy for the victims.

36. [99]

    I have regard to the need to ensure some level of deterrence in the sentence.

37. [100]

    I have regard to the matters to which I have referred. I do not consider that some of the purposes of the sentencing, such as retribution or general deterrence, have any real role to play in the sentencing of TH. Of course, she must be punished for her criminal conduct and the Court should send a message by the imposition of a prison sentence that such conduct will not be condoned. Having said that, the synthesis of the objective and subjective factors to which I have referred do not point towards a lengthy prison sentence.

38. [101]

    There are special circumstances which require a longer period on parole, particularly being the need for a longer period of supervision to assist in her rehabilitation.

39. [102]

    Further, I accept that there are special circumstances for the making of an order under s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act that TH serve her sentence as a juvenile offender. That would have the effect that she remains in the Youth Justice Centre until the age of 21 if so sentenced. I have regard to the oral evidence of Ms Salazar to the effect that the educational programs which TH is pursuing may not be available to her other than in the juvenile facility. Further, she would not be able to continue contact with her psychologist if in an adult jail.

KT

1. [103]

   KT, LT and DR are liable on the basis of their participation in an extended joint criminal enterprise. They did not stab anyone. Their level of culpability must be assessed by reference to their particular conduct (KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 at [19]-[22]; R v Hoerler [2004] NSWCCA 184; (2004) 147 A Crim R 520 at [44]; R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1; [2005] NSWCCA 377 at [133]-[135]).

2. [104]

   KT acknowledges that she was a party to the agreement to commit an affray. She obtained the knife in Coles and was in possession of a knife when she arrived at Wegit Way. Although she was in possession of a knife and knew that two other young persons had knives, she did not agree to the infliction of injury by use of the knife.

3. [105]

   It is significant that there is no evidence of KT being violent towards any other person other than in a defensive manner when she was first struck by Carly McBride with a bat. Only after Carly McBride had continued to swing the bat at her, did KT pull out the knife.

4. [106]

   KT sent a number of messages threatening the other group with a significant level of violence, including flogging and bashing, stomping on them and sending them to hospital. This is relevant as to the context in which the offending occurred.

5. [107]

   Further, the same aggravating features as are applicable to TH apply to KT (and LT and DR).

6. [108]

   Having said that, for the reasons I have identified, I consider that her offending was at the low range of objective seriousness for this type of offending.

7. [109]

   The Crown relies on the Crown Sentence Summary, criminal history, a bail report, facts in relation to previous offences, custodial history, and two Communities and Justice Background reports dated 15 September 2023 and 3 December 2025.

8. [110]

   KT relies on a report of forensic psychologist, Ms Emma Hubner dated 20 November 2025, a report of psychologist Ms Charmaine Walsh, dated 14 April 2023, a letter of Ms Tristesse Fay, Life Without Barriers, dated 8 December 2025 and a letter of Ms Elli Callaghan, caseworker at Reiby Youth Justice Centre, dated 11 December 2025.

9. [111]

   Unfortunately, KT also has a lengthy criminal history for a 15-year-old child. She has been convicted of a number of offences including larceny and shoplifting but also common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She has been convicted of two destroy and damage property offences.

10. [112]

    All of this offending occurred during and subsequent to 2023. She has breached bonds which is an aggravating feature pursuant to 21A(2)(j) of the Sentencing Procedure Act.

11. [113]

    KT has shown herself incapable of obeying Court orders. She has breached bail on 18 occasions, and two of the breaches were when bail was granted in relation to the present offence. KT has demonstrated continued violence in custody. She has been involved in 22 serious incidents including assaults on other young persons. Again, these matters do not bode well for her prospects.

12. [114]

    During the course of the sentence hearing KT also provided a letter to the Court. In her letter KT reflects on her past, the nature of her personality and the issues she has confronted since being placed at Reiby. She says that she has benefited from being at Reiby.

13. [115]

    She wants to start her own business and became involved with Confit, an organisation run by reformed offenders who have changed their lives through fitness. They have apparently offered guidance to her. She wants to create her own Confit program and return to Youth Justice centres to assist young persons like herself. She has been participating in various programs and obtained various certificates in physical fitness. She acknowledges that she has not been behaving well at Reiby but essentially puts that down to peer pressure.

14. [116]

    KT also comes from a background of significant disadvantage and trauma. She has been cared for by a number of relatives and moved through a number of emergency accommodations, therapeutic care homes and self-placements across the Illawarra region. Conflict and poor behaviour have been reported during that time. She has a fractured family.

15. [117]

    She has difficulties in controlling her emotions including describing her mood as changeable, with periods of irritability, sadness, or being overwhelmed emotionally. Her symptoms are consistent with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

16. [118]

    In the report of Life Without Barriers dated 8 December 2025, it is noted that the Department of Communities and Justice received 22 Risk of Serious Harm reports concerning physical abuse, excessive discipline and other non-accidental injuries whilst KT and LT were in the care of their parents. The children were removed from their care in September 2019. In December 2019 KT was placed in the care of the Minister.

17. [119]

    I also have regard to the report of her custodial case worker dated 15 December 2025. Again, it is apparent that KT has become more settled as she has aged. Her behaviour is said to have improved, albeit from 2 October 2025 she has nine misbehaviour reports. Unfortunately, she feels that she is not being listened to and she says she has had enough of Reiby and does not want to be there anymore.

18. [120]

    I accept that her moral culpability is reduced having regard to the Bugmy factors.

19. [121]

    General deterrence and retribution have little role to play in sentencing KT. Unfortunately, it is difficult to be positive of her prospects of rehabilitation at this time having regard to her behavioural problems in custody. She has shown improvement in the participation in the programs provided but I am unable to gain much from her letter about her being remorseful for her conduct. I am unable to accept that she has demonstrated any real remorse.

20. [122]

    I consider there is a real risk of KT reoffending albeit I acknowledge that the content of her letter exhibits her determination to change and make a positive contribution in the community.

21. [123]

    There are special circumstances which require an alteration to the statutory non-parole period in that KT requires a longer period on parole to assist in her rehabilitation.

22. [124]

    I accept that there are special circumstances for the making of an order under s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act that KT serve her sentence as a juvenile offender. I accept that KT has significant mental health concerns for which she needs treatment and she should continue her educational programs that are only available in the juvenile facility.

LT

1. [125]

   LT was 14 at the time of the offending. She is now 16.

2. [126]

   LT created the Big Yappers’ group chat, although she was not the dominant person in the chat. Indeed, LT only sent one threatening message.

3. [127]

   LT was with KT and DR when they all obtained knives from the Coles Supermarket. LT took the knife to the fight. She did not use the knife but at some stage immediately prior to the confrontation between the deceased and TH she handed the knife to TH. Thereafter TH gave the knife back to LT and LT threw the knife away before she was stopped by the police.

4. [128]

   The basis of her liability is the same as KT and DR. Although she was part of the planning and must be taken to have gone there to participate in a fight, she did not use a knife and her actions whilst there were entirely defensive.

5. [129]

   LT’s role is identical to that of her sister KT.

6. [130]

   In my view, her offending was objectively at a low level for this type of offending.

7. [131]

   Although only 14 years old at the time, LT had a criminal history going back about 18 months prior to this offending. She has been involved in violence offences including assault and contravening an apprehended violence order, affray, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, twice shoplifting, a further assault occasioning actual bodily harm and larceny and entering enclosed land.

8. [132]

   She was granted bail in respect of this matter but committed the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 5 July 2025. At that time, she assaulted a 13 year old child by kicking her in the face after the child refused to steal alcohol.

9. [133]

   LT was thus on conditional liberty at the time of the offence which is an aggravating feature pursuant to s 21A(2)(j) of the Sentencing Procedure Act.

10. [134]

    LT has shown herself incapable of complying with conditions of supervision on earlier occasions. She has breached bail on 11 occasions.

11. [135]

    LT relies on a number of documents on sentence, including:

    1. (1)

       Reports of Dr Katie Seidler dated 4 November 2025 and 1 December 2025;

    2. (2)

       Affidavit of Mahan Kalimi Chadorchi dated 8 December 2025;

    3. (3)

       Affidavit of Alyce Bronte Fisher dated 8 December 2025; and

    4. (4)

       Email from Alyce Fisher dated 11 March 2025.

12. [136]

    LT has similar background to her sister, KT. The relationship with her parents broke down around the time of her birth. Her father has not been part of her life. She was removed from the care of her mother and stepfather around nine years of age. She has not been in contact with her stepfather since. She says that she was abused by her stepfather in a violent and physical manner. She refers to frequent violence in the home. She has memories of being removed from the family home. She is aware that her siblings were all placed in different homes.

13. [137]

    LT has been in residential care and group homes from about the age of 11. There is evidence to the effect that she suffers from ADHD and she is somewhat uncontrollable.

14. [138]

    She has attended a large number of schools throughout her life and became increasingly frustrated with her schooling.

15. [139]

    She first consumed alcohol at the age of 12 and has been engaged in substance abuse since the age of 13. According to Dr Seidler she has been a vulnerable child with poor self-esteem and significant difficulties. She has longstanding problems with anger and depression and symptoms, such as anxiety, panic, and post-traumatic stress.

16. [140]

    As a child she had suffered a lot of trauma. According to Dr Seidler she suffers from a number of mental health problems, including PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Abuse Disorder, Conduct Disorder and possible Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). She has suffered from poor mental health for some years. They contribute to her being vulnerable to the influence of others, prone to impulsivity and poor decision-making. These conditions have a significant impact on her functioning. According to Dr Seidler there is no treatment that can control her conditions.

17. [141]

    In her latest report, Dr Seidler refers to LT saying that she would continue with her schooling whilst in detention and her long term goal remains to secure a trade in plumbing. LT spoke of difficulties in relationships with her sister, KT.

18. [142]

    She says she is now making an effort to associate with a different group of peers. She feels she is not in trouble as much as she had been previously. She told Dr Seidler that she was on her own prior to her last arrest for breach of bail and that she was camping homeless at this time. She speaks of self-harm.

19. [143]

    According to Dr Seidler, LT described seemingly genuine and appropriate regret and remorse for her actions and in particular expressed regret for the victim and her family.

20. [144]

    Like her sister, LT has led a life of significant trauma and disadvantage such that the principles set out in Bugmy apply. I accept that her moral culpability is reduced having regard to her very traumatic childhood.

21. [145]

    She was only 14 years of age at the time of the offending albeit she already had an extensive criminal record. LT suffers from a number of significant mental health problems. Unfortunately, they impact upon her thinking and responses. Although LT is making some steps towards her rehabilitation, it is apparent that her response to supervision and general behaviour remains poor.

22. [146]

    LT is not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence and retribution has little part to play in her sentencing. The sentence must reflect some level of specific deterrence.

23. [147]

    Whilst LT apparently expressed some remorse to her psychiatrist, there is no other evidence that LT has been remorseful for her conduct. I give that little weight.

24. [148]

    Bearing in mind her criminal history and inability to respond to supervision over the past two years, her prospects of rehabilitation must be viewed as uncertain. There is a real risk of reoffending.

25. [149]

    However, hopefully, with an increasing maturity she will better engage with services and supervision.

26. [150]

    To the extent that it is necessary, I make an order under s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act that she serve the balance of her sentence in a juvenile facility having regard to the need to continue programs available to her in the facility.

DR

1. [151]

   DR was with LT and KT when they obtained knives at Coles. DR attended at Wegit Way with the knife concealed in the front of her pants.

2. [152]

   DR’s liability arises from her participation in the joint criminal enterprise with other persons to commit affray.

3. [153]

   She was obviously aware of the presence of knives as they walked along Wegit Way because she had been part of obtaining them in Coles and as she was in possession of one.

4. [154]

   DR’s involvement in the group chat was somewhat limited although she did at one stage threaten to bash the others. A number of messages are slurs directed at her. Further, there are number of messages from the other group threatening violence towards her.

5. [155]

   I accept that, whilst DR brought a knife to the fight, she did not intend to use it and did not expect that the other young persons would be using the knives. I accept that on arrival at Wegit Way and immediately after the deceased and Carly McBride ran at the young persons, DR engaged in a fight with TW.

6. [156]

   Whilst they were fighting, SM came at DR and struck her three times with a plank of wood. DR managed to escape, and it was only at that time that she lifted her shirt and revealed the knife. Further, when DR was stopped by the police, she told them she was in possession of a knife.

7. [157]

   DR did not initiate any violence towards anyone. Certainly, she was involved in a fist fight with TW but did not use any weapon even when struck in the head with a wooden object by SM.

8. [158]

   DR pleaded guilty and falls to be sentenced because she knew that the young persons were taking knives to the fight and foresaw that harm could be occasioned if the knives were used. Her offending falls at the very low range of objective seriousness for this type of offence.

9. [159]

   In addition to the Crown Sentence Summary, DR’s criminal history, facts in relation to previous offences, her custodial history, and gaol call transcripts, the Crown relies on the Communities and Justice Background Report dated 5 December 2025.

10. [160]

    DR relies on a number of documents including:

    1. (1)

       Forensic Psychological Report of Stephanie Bennett dated 4 December 2025;

    2. (2)

       Psychosocial Assessment and Capacity Report by Trent Hansen dated 24 November 2025;

    3. (3)

       A letter from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) dated 9 February 2024;

    4. (4)

       A letter from Natalie Gorman dated 14 April 2025;

    5. (5)

       A letter from Kristy Wright dated 8 December 2025; and

    6. (6)

       A letter from Robert and Jennifer Woods dated 8 December 2025.

11. [161]

    DR was 14 at the time of the offending. She is now 16. Unlike the other young persons, DR has spent most of her time, since being charged, in the community. She has only spent 39 days in custody.

12. [162]

    Further, DR’s criminal history is very limited. As a 13 year old, she received two 9 month bonds for contravening an AVO and stalk and intimidate. She was subject to two 9 month bonds at the time of this offending.

13. [163]

    The fact that she was on bond is an aggravating feature pursuant to 21A(2)(j) of the Sentencing Procedure Act.

14. [164]

    In my view, the Youth Justice Report prepared on 5 December 2025 is of some significance. DR has been in the community for almost two years with full compliance. During that time, she has engaged consistently with Youth Justice case workers and psychologists, attended all appointments, and participated in programs addressing offending behaviour and mental health. She has actively addressed risk factors for reoffending, including disengagement from negative peers, abstinence from alcohol and other drugs, and re-engagement in education. She met many goals set during supervision. Youth Justice has no concern with her ability to comply with further supervision.

15. [165]

    DR comes from a different background than the other three young persons albeit she comes from a background of a conflict in the family home. Her parents separated when she was two years old. That separation involved significant conflict. Her relationship with her father seems to be mixed.

16. [166]

    Her behaviour deteriorated in early high school years. DR exhibited regular mood swings and substance misuse. There was an ongoing conflict with her mother’s partner. Unfortunately, she was introduced to cannabis when she was 11 and had been regularly using it.

17. [167]

    However, she has not been using any substances since on bail. The decline in DR’s behaviour began in her early teens when the changes to her behaviour were observed by her mother.

18. [168]

    Her mother sought medical assistance. DR was diagnosed with ADHD and ODD. She had taken medication for six months but then refused to continue.

19. [169]

    She was enrolled with the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service in Wollongong although she attended only one psychiatry review. At one point DR was a victim of sexual assault although nothing more is known about that.

20. [170]

    DR spent a considerable period with her father whilst on bail but now lives with her mother and half-brother. She has engaged positively in her school and social activities. Her mother observed noticeable improvement in her maturity. She has generally attended school when on bail and intends to enrol in TAFE next year.

21. [171]

    DR’s background also entitles her to a reduction in moral culpability, albeit it is apparent that the trauma in her life has been somewhat different from the trauma of the other young persons.

22. [172]

    The letter from Mrs Natalie Gorman of Mulwaree High School is of some particular significance. She refers to the change in DR; her enthusiasm for school, the development of peer relationships. Further, Mrs Gorman also notes that DR feels genuine remorse for her actions. There is other evidence to support that conclusion.

23. [173]

    In my view, all of this leads to the following:

    1. (1)

       Whilst DR took a knife to the fight, she did not intend to use it;

    2. (2)

       DR did not initiate the fight. DR did not engage at all with the deceased;

    3. (3)

       DR voluntarily handed over the knife to the police when the police spoke to her;

    4. (4)

       DR’s attitude and behaviour have changed over the past two years. She has shown significant improvement in obtaining help and pursuing her education. She has family support which has assisted her in complying with her bail conditions;

    5. (5)

       DR has very good prospects of rehabilitation; and

    6. (6)

       DR has shown remorse and contrition.

24. [174]

    In my view, the sentencing factors of deterrence and retribution have little role to play.

25. [175]

    It is important to remember that DR was only 14 at the time of the relevant events. Significant emphasis must be placed on her rehabilitation and ensuring her continued education and her engagement with the community which DR has shown she is capable of over the past 2 years.

26. [176]

    Her limited criminal history, her post-offending conduct and demonstrated compliance under supervision over the past two years leads to a consideration of a different sentencing option.

Parity

1. [177]

   Parity is an important sentencing principle. Parity must be considered in the context of each of the young persons. As I have observed, there are some real similarities in both objective and subjective features of their cases, but some differences. I have regard to those differences and similarities in the sentences I impose.

2. [178]

   Further, the young persons also rely on the sentence imposed on the other persons involved in the fight for the purpose of parity.

3. [179]

   In Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ said at [30]:

4. [180]

   The young persons point to the sentences imposed on the other participants. It is apparent that the facts on which they were sentenced might be viewed as somewhat different to the young persons’ perspective of what occurred. Further, Carly McBride was not a child.

5. [181]

   Carly McBride pleaded guilty to a single count of affray. She was sentenced to a community correction order for a period of two years. It is plain from the video that she armed herself with a weapon whilst at her house and then moved at pace towards the young persons whilst they were outside on the street, seemingly unarmed (although they were in fact armed). She continued to swing at young persons as they walked away even chasing them as they left.

6. [182]

   SM, a member of the other group, pleaded guilty to affray and being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence. She was sentenced to control orders without conviction for 9 and 7 months respectively. She was 17 at the time of the offences and actively participated the group chat. It is plain from the video that she had armed herself with a weapon and attacked DR with it.

7. [183]

   There is merit in the submissions as to parity but I need not consider those other sentences in any further detail because it must be recognised that the persons in the other group were convicted of lesser offences. They do not carry anything like the same maximum penalties and do not involve the taking of a life.

8. [184]

   Put simply and just so the young persons understand, it is again appropriate to observe that all of the young persons find themselves before the Court facing sentencing for manslaughter because they took knives to the fight and one of them used one.

9. [185]

   In terms of parity, in relation to TH, KT, LT and DR, there are many similarities but some significant differences. TH has a strong subjective case but she was the one who used the knife and thus she falls into a different category than the others.

10. [186]

    KT and LT have very similar cases in terms of their role and subjective cases. Unfortunately, whist they are entitled to leniency, having regard to the Bugmy factors, their subjective cases are otherwise not strong. Their criminal history and their post-offending conduct do not assist them.

11. [187]

    DR has a very strong subjective case. She has a limited criminal history and has demonstrated by her post-offending conduct that her risk of reoffending is low and her prospects of rehabilitation are high.

Comparable sentences

1. [188]

   The Crown provided a number of comparable cases including R v MR, JB and CS (young persons) (No 5) [2024] NSWSC 912 (“R v MR”), R v JM (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1345 (“JM”), LK v R [2025] NSWCCA 143 (“LK v R”), and R v Diallo & Ors (No 17) (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1650 (“R v Diallo”).

2. [189]

   Comparable cases are only of limited utility particularly when sentencing for manslaughter as the facts and circumstances are often quite different.

3. [190]

   Having said that, there are some similarities in the comparable cases. In R v MR, the offender took a knife to a party “just in case” he needed it and stabbed the deceased during the altercation. It was agreed that he should be sentenced on the basis of excessive self-defence. The sentencing judge did not believe that he intended to kill the deceased. After discount, he received a sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

4. [191]

   Similarly, JM was 17 years of age at the time of offence. He stabbed someone and the basis of his liability was self-defence with excessive force. Moral culpability was significantly reduced. He received a sentence of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.

5. [192]

   Similarly, LK was 17 years and 4 months old. He carried a knife and used the knife during the fight he started. He was sentenced on the basis of unlawful and dangerous act and excessive self-defence. He received a 25 percent discount for plea. There was a finding that mental health contributed to the commission of the offence. He received a sentence of 6 years, 4 months and 15 days with a non-parole period of 3 years, 10 months and 16 days.

6. [193]

   In R v Diallo, the offender AD, was 17 years of age and was found guilty after a trial. He was convicted of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. The offending happened on a public street and involved planning including obtaining weapons. There was an indicative sentence for manslaughter of 6 years.

7. [194]

   As I have said, there are some similarities with those cases but there are also some differences, in particular the young persons were all younger at the time of their offending.

Sentences

1. [195]

   The Crown accepts that each of the young persons is entitled to a 25 percent discount having regard to the time at which they offered their plea of guilty to manslaughter and I have applied that discount. The sentences I impose are after that discount.

2. [196]

   TH for the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. The sentence will commence on the day you were arrested and placed in custody, that is, on 23 November 2023. The sentence will expire on 22 February 2028. You will be first eligible for parole on 22 February 2026.

3. [197]

   I make an order pursuant to s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) that you serve the balance of your sentence in a juvenile facility.

4. [198]

   KT for the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months. I accept the submission that the sentence should commence on 13 December 2023. You are thus sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years commencing 13 December and expiring on 12 December 2026.

5. [199]

   Your non-parole period expired on 12 October 2025 and thus you are eligible for parole.

6. [200]

   I make an order pursuant to s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) that you serve the balance of your sentence in a juvenile facility.

7. [201]

   LT for the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. Your sentence will commence on 26 October 2024 (to take account of the 419 days you have already spent in custody) and expire on 25 August 2027. You will be first eligible for parole on 25 June 2026.

8. [202]

   I make an order pursuant to s 19(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) that you serve the balance of your sentence in a juvenile facility.

9. [203]

   DR, pursuant to s 8 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I make a community corrections order for the period of 2 years commencing today.

   1. (1)

      The standard conditions of the order apply:

   2. (2)

      The following additional conditions apply: