R v Zayat

1. [1]

   Danny Zayat was tried by jury on a charge that on 26 May 2023 at Liverpool he did murder Tatiana Dokhotaru. The trial commenced on 13 October 2025 and on 11 November 2025 the jury returned a verdict of guilty, by majority. The offender now stands for sentence.

2. [2]

   Tatiana was 34 years old when she died as a result of a brain haemorrhage caused by blunt force injuries to her head, inflicted by the offender. He was aged 28 at the time and had been in a relationship with Tatiana for five years, from 2017, until she left him in early November 2022. At the time of her death Tatiana was living apart from the offender, with their nearly 4 -year-old son, Z, in an apartment at Liverpool. It was there that the offender inflicted the fatal injuries upon her late on the evening of Friday, 26 May 2023.

Maximum penalty; standard non-parole period; standard of proof

1. [3]

   The maximum penalty for murder prescribed by s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is life imprisonment. In the present case, the level of the offender’s culpability in the commission of the offence is not so extreme as to attract life imprisonment: see s 61 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Rather, the case calls for the Court to determine under s 21 of that Act a finite term of imprisonment, proportionate to the gravity of the crime, with due allowance for the offender’s subjective circumstances and any mitigating features.

2. [4]

   Under s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act as in force in May 2023 a standard non-parole period of 20 years was specified for murder in the circumstances of this case. The Court is not bound to impose a non-parole period of that length if there are sound reasons for not doing so. I will fix a sentence with a non-parole period shorter than 20 years. A significant reason for departing from the standard in this case is that I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender intended to kill Tatiana. The evidence heard by the jury does not establish that his intent went beyond causing grievous bodily harm to her.

3. [5]

   My findings recorded in these remarks are made on the basis of the evidence the jury heard in the trial, consistently with the case that was put to them and with their verdict. Those of my findings that tend to increase the gravity of the offending have been arrived at by applying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. I have applied the balance of probabilities in ascertaining facts that reduce the objective seriousness of the murder or that otherwise mitigate penalty.

Impact of Tatiana’s death upon her parents

1. [6]

   Tatiana was born in Izhevsk in Russia in May 1989. Her mother, Mrs Olya Dokhotaru, separated from Tatiana’s father during her first year and raised Tatiana alone in Russia to the age of 11. In 2000 Tatiana’s mother met Mr Dennis Thievin, a Canadian citizen whom she married in December 2001. Shortly thereafter Tatiana and her mother moved to the Vancouver area to live with Mr Thievin. He adopted Tatiana, who was then 12. In about 2004 the family relocated to a coastal town 240 km north-west of Vancouver. Tatiana completed her schooling there in about 2007, aged 18. In 2011 she moved to Australia.

2. [7]

   Mr Dennis Thievin read to the Court, on behalf of himself and Tatiana’s mother, a victim impact statement. He spoke of Tatiana’s strong bond with her mother and himself, of the pride they took in her and the happiness she brought to their lives. Mr Thievin described the depth of grief and pain that has been suffered and continues to be suffered, by his wife particularly, as a result of Tatiana’s death. Mr Thievin spoke also on behalf Z, now 6 years old, who is in the care of Mrs Dokhotaru and himself in Canada. Understandably and realistically, they fear for the scarring he will suffer from having witnessed the offender’s rages and violence towards Tatiana, on numerous occasions prior to the night she died. They are concerned for the effect upon Z of living with the knowledge that the offender took his mother’s life.

3. [8]

   Mr Thievin’s statement is to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for the murder, on the basis that the harmful impact of Tatiana’s death on members of her immediate family is an aspect of harm done to the community.

The immediate circumstances of death

1. [9]

   Tatiana’s unit, where she lived with Z, was No 2203 on the 22nd floor of a building at 10 Norfolk Street, Liverpool. She had leased and occupied the unit since 8 November 2022. Her relationship with the offender had ended because he was violently ill tempered and habitually abused Tatiana in foul language and hit her and pushed her. After she left him he became depressed, pathologically jealous and fixated upon preventing her from forming any new relationship.

2. [10]

   The offender’s behaviour followed a repetitive cycle from the date of separation. He threatened her with violence, even death, if she showed interest in any other man. He spied on her by going through her phone during his visits to her apartment and by making enquiries amongst his associates to ascertain whether she was seeing anyone. In April and May 2023, on multiple occasions when the offender found phone records of Tatiana communicating with other males, he beat her, spat on her, choked her and called her a slut. Soon after each such event he proclaimed enduring love, pleaded for Tatiana to love him in return and demanded her fidelity. I will make further reference to some of those cyclical events later in these remarks, when considering the full context in which the murder was committed.

3. [11]

   On the evening of 26 May 2023, from about 6:00 pm, the offender was at a social gathering. Tatiana was at her unit with Z. Two friends visited her, one of whom departed at 8:50 pm. The other, Ms Kminiak, shared a takeaway meal and some wine with Tatiana. When Ms Kminiak departed at 10:00 pm, Tatiana and Z accompanied her to the main exit of the building. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) captured Tatiana jogging along the ground floor corridor, together with Ms Kminiak, hurrying to ensure that her guest would not miss her Uber ride. Tatiana appeared coordinated and alert. She showed no sign of being physically impaired by alcohol or by side effects of medication.

4. [12]

   The offender came to the unit half an hour later at 10:35 pm. He remained for approximately 65 minutes. Consistently with the jury’s verdict, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at some time after 11:00 pm he deliberately inflicted three significant blunt force injuries to Tatiana’s head, either by striking her with his hand or fist or with some object, or by thrusting her head against a hard surface such as a wall or bench, or by pushing her and causing her to fall against a hard surface. The impacts caused relatively minor surface injuries but they were a substantial cause of a brain haemorrhage, which resulted in Tatiana’s death.

5. [13]

   There was no eyewitness to the physical conflict. For 15-20 minutes from about 11:05 pm, the two occupants of an adjoining unit, No 2202, heard sounds of a disturbance in No 2203. There were 10 or 15 minutes of banging and very loud, argumentative but muffled voices, followed by five minutes of shouting including very loud obscene abuse in a guttural tone. I am satisfied that was the offender shouting at Tatiana at the top of his voice, in a rage. One of the witnesses heard an exchange as follows:

6. [14]

   The two neighbours were in their bedroom. It had a common wall with Tatiana’s main bedroom. After about 11:24 pm they heard no more. The argument and physical conflict may not have ended at that time but may simply have moved away from the common wall, into Tatiana’s lounge room, beyond the hearing of the occupants of Unit 2202.

7. [15]

   By 26 May 2023 Tatiana had saved some tens of thousands of dollars from her online business of selling imitation designer fashion accessories and from hiring out the use of a tanning bed in her unit. Her savings were in cash, stored in a shoebox on the top shelf of her bedroom cupboard. There were several bundles of $50 and $100 notes. Tatiana had told the offender that she had this box of cash in her unit. She sent him a photograph of it on 29 April 2023, when she was telling him about her business success and her plans for the future. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that during the fight in her unit on 26 May 2023 the offender took the cash from the box and it became apparent to Tatiana that he was going to steal it.

8. [16]

   At 11:36 pm Tatiana made a phone call to the emergency number. In a distressed tone she told the operator the following:

9. [17]

   The emergency call lasted nearly 1½ minutes. During most of that time Tatiana was speaking to the offender rather than to the operator. She said repeatedly:

10. [18]

    I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Tatiana made it apparent to the offender that she was on a call to the police emergency number. She only commenced to give her street address when he denied that he had the money and she saw that he would not give it back. The call was terminated abruptly by the offender just as Tatiana gave the street address and before she could provide the unit number.

11. [19]

    About 30 seconds after the emergency call ended the offender threw Tatiana’s phone off the balcony. He left the unit at approximately 11:40 pm, took the lift to the ground floor and ran from the building. There is no reasonable doubt that he stole the money. The CCTV on the ground floor showed him carrying something wrapped up in a garment. The distinctive shoebox was later found empty in the unit. After the offender departed, Tatiana was not seen alive, or heard from, again.

12. [20]

    Police who had been dispatched in response to Tatiana’s emergency call did not arrive until three hours later. They had the street address but did not know what apartment the call had come from. They left without having gained access to any part of the building or having acquired any further information about the location of the person who had made the call, or the circumstances.

13. [21]

    After leaving Tatiana’s unit with her money the offender returned to his parents’ home in Colyton. He came back to the apartment building at about 2:20 am and appeared to try the intercom at the front entrance. He returned to his parents’ home, slept the night there and then worked during Saturday.

14. [22]

    The offender came back to the ground floor entrance of 10 Norfolk Street shortly after 6:05 pm on Saturday 27 May 2023 with his mother, who was concerned because she had not heard from Tatiana during the day despite a prior arrangement to meet. They did not gain entry to the building. Forty five minutes later two constables attended because the police response to the emergency call of the previous evening had not been concluded. By that stage police had Tatiana’s unit number as well as her mobile number. The constables could not raise her by phoning or by calling her unit on the ground floor intercom.

15. [23]

    The offender again returned to 10 Norfolk Street shortly before 8:00 pm on Saturday, 27 May 2023. He got to the 22nd floor with the assistance of another resident. Z was at the entry door of Unit 2203, alone. The offender found Tatiana’s body on a couch in her lounge room. That was 20 hours after he had left the previous night.

16. [24]

    The defence case was that it was reasonably possible the deceased’s head injuries may have been caused accidentally by her falling against a hard surface. Toxicological analysis of a post-mortem blood sample showed that she had a moderate blood alcohol reading of .06 g/100ml; a low level of Delta-9-THC (cannabis); therapeutic levels of opioid pain relief medication (Codeine, which was prescribed for her, Tapentadol and Tramadol) as well as another analgesic (Paracetamol) and therapeutic levels of both benzodiazepine (consistent with her anxiolytic medication, Alprazolam) and sedative antihistamene (consistent with Aller-Ben).

17. [25]

    It was argued on behalf of the accused that additive or symbiotic effects of the medications and alcohol may have made Tatiana unsteady and caused her to fall and injure herself. The jury clearly did not regard that as a reasonable possibility in all the circumstances. Tatiana was a young woman in good health. As earlier mentioned, half an hour before the offender arrived, when she was showing Ms Kminiak to the front door, there was no indication of compromise to her physical coordination or her alertess. On the other hand, there was strong evidence that the offender was in a rage and that he had a tendency to assault her, at times severely. There was no evidence before the jury that the deceased had ever previously hurt herself by falling about in her apartment.

18. [26]

    I infer that at the time of her death Tatiana was using anxiolytic medication for mental stress caused by the offender’s behaviour towards her over many months. She was treating herself with strong analgesics to relieve pain caused by a beating she had received from the offender six days earlier.

19. [27]

    The forensic pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination, Dr Pokorny, identified three locations on Tatiana’s head where surface injuries indicated that blunt force trauma had been sustained, close to the time of death. Doctor Pokorny gave evidence about the possible delay between the time of the blunt force impacts and the time when the ensuing brain haemorrhage would have caused loss of consciousness. The doctor’s evidence was that Tatiana could have remained conscious for up to several hours after the blows were struck. Accordingly, she may have suffered those blows at any time during the offender’s presence in the unit and she may have lost consciousness at any time between when her emergency call ended at approximately 11:38 pm and a point some hours after the offender had departed.

20. [28]

    Although the time of death could not be scientifically determined, it necessarily occurred between the end of the call and early the next morning. Z was in his room in the apartment when the conflict between his parents took place. He was interviewed by police on 28 May 2023 and again closer to the trial. Recordings of the interviews were played back to the jury. Z also gave oral evidence. He was aged 6 years at the date of the trial. Understandably, he was not able to give a clear account of anything he had witnessed two years earlier. His evidence is sufficient to establish that he slept through the night, woke early on the morning of 27 May 2023 in daylight and was unable to rouse his mother. She was deceased by that time. A disturbing circumstance of the case is that this four year old boy remained in the unit for approximately 12 hours on Saturday 27 May, alone with the lifeless body of his mother, until 8:00 pm when the offender came back.

Early background of the deceased and her relationship with the offender

1. [29]

   Tatiana met the offender in Sydney in 2017. She was then 28 and he was 5½ years younger, born in October 1994. According to Tatiana’s closest friends, she was initially very much in love with the offender. They commenced to live together at his parents’ home in Colyton, in Western Sydney, not long after they met. By August 2018 Tatiana was pregnant. Z was born in May 2019. From shortly before his birth the couple occupied their own townhouse in nearby St Marys. From 2020 to November 2022 they lived together in a house at Silverdale, at the foot of the Blue Mountains.

Legal principles upon which prior uncharged conduct is relevant to sentence

1. [30]

   In the trial, evidence of the offender’s physical and verbal abuse of Tatiana prior to the murder was adduced for the purpose of establishing tendency. The offender’s tendency to abuse Tatiana was part of the Crown’s circumstantial case that the blunt force head trauma that caused her fatal brain haemorrhage was deliberately inflicted by him and was not, as a matter of reasonable possibility, attributable to her having accidentally fallen onto a hard surface. On sentence, as explained in LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131, such previous conduct may reveal motive and/or may provide context that renders the objective seriousness of the offending greater than would otherwise have appeared and/or may increase the moral culpability of the offender.

2. [31]

   In LN v R the applicant had murdered her infant son after several weeks of violent and brutal treatment immediately prior to his death. The sentencing judge took into account the prior, uncharged criminal conduct in determining the appropriate sentence. Basten JA (RA Hulme J agreeing) explained why that approach was justified, in the following passages:

3. [32]

   In LN v R, Hamill J dissented with respect to the appeal ground in question. However, after an extensive review of the authorities his Honour expressed the relevant principles in terms that do not differ significantly from the holding of Basten JA – as follows (some citations omitted):

4. [33]

   The above principles were applied in Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150 and in Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81, to mention but two of a number of cases in which LN v R has been cited.

5. [34]

   In the present case much of the evidence of prior physical and verbal abuse was hearsay from friends of the deceased, including screenshots of electronic communications they had received from Tatiana, through which the Crown proved representations by her about her treatment at the hands of the offender. The hearsay was admitted by way of exception to the usual exclusion of such material, applying par (b) and/or (c) of s 65(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Verbal abuse and threats in April 2022

1. [35]

   The earliest proved assault of Tatiana by the offender occurred in May 2021, which was an instance of him punching her and pushing her to the ground, witnessed by her friend Ms Green. There is no reliable evidence of specific assaults that may have occurred over the next 11 months but by April 2022 the offender had adopted a highly aggressive attitude to Tatiana. He was volatile and gave angry verbal abuse without cause. Tatiana’s messages to Ms Green on 7, 8 and 17 April 2022 reflected the chronic and repetitive occurrence of the offender’s verbal abuse, as follows:

2. [36]

   On 17 April 2022 Tatiana reported the offender’s abusive conduct to a senior constable at Mascot police station. A provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) was made that day. It contained only the standard minimum prohibitions provided for in s 36 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), as follows:

3. [37]

   Notably, the provisional ADVO did not prohibit the offender from being in the presence of or approaching or making contact with Tatiana. Other evidence in the case satisfies me that Tatiana did not at that time seek an order prohibiting contact, for at least two reasons. First, she was endeavouring to manage the offender’s verbal and physical abuse and their deteriorating relationship without taking the large step of separation. Secondly, she was the primary carer for Z and she thought the child needed the involvement of his father in the household.

Threats to Tatiana during her visit to Canada in May-June 2022

1. [38]

   Police attempted to serve the provisional ADVO on the offender at his parents’ house on 23 April 2022 but he was not present. In May 2022 Tatiana booked air tickets for herself and Z to visit Canada. The offender had possession of Z’s passport and initially refused to hand it over. After argument back and forth Tatiana eventually obtained the passport. She and Z departed Australia for Canada on 20 May 2022. Mrs Olya Dokhotaru said that her daughter arrived in Canada very sad and stressed, saying that she was afraid of the offender.

2. [39]

   While Tatiana was staying with her mother and Mr Thievin over the next six weeks they overheard her phone conversations. Mrs Olya Dokhotaru described as follows the substance of conversations that took place “almost every single day”:

3. [40]

   Mr Thievin said that on many occasions during this visit he heard Tatiana and the offender screaming at each other over the phone. He said that it was “very typical” that these conversations would include the following:

4. [41]

   Ms Amber Haleta was a close friend of Tatiana from their late teens, when both were living in the Vancouver area. They had stayed in touch after Tatiana moved to Australia. When Tatiana visited Canada in 2022, they took a road trip together at about the beginning of June, to Kelowna, 3½ hours drive east of Vancouver. The provisional ADVO was served on the offender by police in Sydney on 26 May 2022. During the drive to Kelowna Tatiana received a call from the offender. Ms Haleta recounted what she heard of the conversation as follows:

5. [42]

   Ms Haleta said that Tatiana responded on the phone call by “just saying she was sorry”. When they arrived at their hotel in Kelowna and dressed to go out, Tatiana took a photograph of herself and posted it on Instagram. Ms Haleta described the offender’s response to that post, as follows:

6. [43]

   Ms Haleta said that what Tatiana was wearing was “nothing out of the ordinary” but she changed her clothes and then did not want to go out and did not eat for the remainder of their stay in Kelowna. Tatiana remained upset and they cut their trip short from three days to two. She returned to her mother and stepfather and subsequently flew back to Sydney on 2 July 2022.

Separation from 8 November 2022

1. [44]

   After Tatiana arrived back in Australia she told Ms Haleta, in the frequent messages they exchanged, that she was being “thrown down the stairs and beat every day”. I do not accept those hearsay representations in their literal sense as an accurate description of the extent of physical abuse. However, I find no reason to doubt that during the last months of her cohabitation with the offender in the Silverdale house in the second half of 2022, Tatiana was frequently assaulted by him, that she was afraid of him and that she was chronically harrowed by his foul-mouthed verbal abuse and frequent violence. The offender is over 180 cm tall (6’), strongly built and muscular. At the time his weight was between 95 and 100 kg. He regularly worked out at a gym. Tatiana was 159 cm tall (5’2”) and weighed 65 kg. She was vulnerable to the offender’s assaults.

2. [45]

   From early 2023, by which time Tatiana and Z were living in the unit at Liverpool, the offender moved from the Silverdale property back to his parents’ home at Colyton. The offender spent time with Z every second weekend. On occasions he came to Tatiana’s unit to collect or return the child. Tatiana sometimes accompanied them for an outing as a family but those events ended with arguments. Tatiana described all this to her mother, with whom she remained in daily contact.

8 November 2022 - 9 May 2023: the offender’s violent jealousy

1. [46]

   In late 2022 or early 2023 Tatiana told an older female friend, Ms Monchizada, that she was seeing a man named Gee. Later, Tatiana told Ms Monchizada that the offender had confronted her about this relationship, that he “went crazy, that he spat on her and strangled her and that he also confronted Gee”. Tatiana said she was frightened by this and, as far as Ms Monchizada was aware, Tatiana did not see Gee again. There is no reason to doubt the reliability of those hearsay representations by the deceased and I accept that the events occurred as described to Ms Monchizada.

2. [47]

   By the time of the separation the offender’s abuse had caused Tatiana to lose all respect for him. From then until her death she tried to work around his continuing intrusions into her life and his controlling behaviour. Tatiana still did not try to cut off all communication with the offender and did not seek non-contact conditions for the ADVO. When that order was served in May 2022, notwithstanding its minimal restrictions, the offender’s reaction was extreme and threatening. I infer that Tatiana by 2023 was afraid of a violent response if she made any further report or approach to police. Additional reasons for her not seeking a non-contact order and police enforcement were the interests of Z to remain in touch with his father and her good relations with the offender’s mother, who took care of Z at times.

3. [48]

   A series of events in April and May 2023 demonstrated the dangerous connection between the offender’s emotional insecurity and his tendency to violence. On 13 April 2023 Tatiana informed Ms Green that he had attacked her the previous day in a jealous rage. Tatiana’s messages, which I accept as reliable evidence of what occurred, were as follows:

4. [49]

   Tatiana sent a message about this event to the offender during the evening of 13 April 2023, which included the following:

5. [50]

   The offender remained fixated on Tatiana. His detachment from the reality that their relationship was irretrievable is evident in his replies, as follows:

6. [51]

   Tatiana responded:

7. [52]

   The whole sequence around 13 April 2023 illustrates the cycle referred to earlier: threats of violence if Tatiana should communicate with any other man, searching her phone to find out if she had done so, carrying out the threat with an assault, then expressing enduring love and trying to extract a promise of fidelity.

8. [53]

   In late April 2023 Tatiana attended a social venue or event in Melbourne. On 1 May 2023 she sent a message to Ms Monchizada stating that the offender had come to her unit the preceding day and showed her a “bikies profile in melb”. She said that the offender claimed “my mate seen you in his dms”. The acronym stands for direct messages sent on an Instagram account. Tatiana’s message to Ms Monchizada continued as follows:

9. [54]

   I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, again on 30 April 2023, the offender suspected her of some communication or contact with a member of the opposite sex and assaulted her because of it. Attached to Tatiana’s message to Ms Monchizada was a photo of herself showing red marks to one side of her neck, consistent with having been manually choked. She sent the same image to the offender, who replied on 2 May 2023 “What’s the photos I can’t see anything”. He subsequently deleted Tatiana’s messages to him concerning the choking incident on 30 April 2023, then denied that he had done so.

10. [55]

    By 3 May 2023 the offender had moved on to the next stage of his accustomed cycle of control and manipulation. The following messages are some of those that were exchanged concerning Tatiana’s forthcoming birthday on 6 May:

11. [56]

    Continuing in the same vein, on 5 May 2023 at 9:14 pm the offender sent Tatiana a long message about how much he loved her and wanted her to be happy and “wouldn’t be able to live with self if something was to happen to you”. Tatiana had booked a holiday in Thailand for herself, Z and the offender’s mother, departing on 10 May 2023 for 9 days. Some of the further messages exchanged were in these terms:

12. [57]

    The offender and Tatiana went out on her birthday, 6 May, and spent that night and the next together at her unit. During the evening of 8 May 2023 Tatiana learned from one of her female clients that the offender had been messaging the client over recent days, apparently seeking intimacy with her. Tatiana sent the offender screenshots of messages on the client’s phone. The following ensued:

10-19 May 2023: Tatiana’s holiday in Thailand

1. [58]

   While travelling to Thailand and while on holiday there Tatiana continued to recriminate for the offender’s hypocrisy:

2. [59]

   The offender’s messages were to the effect that he had not been able to trust Tatiana, that he wanted to “move forward” and “start over”, that he was serious about changing himself. He sent this message on 11 May 2023:

3. [60]

   Tatiana’s replies included the following:

4. [61]

   On 17 May 2023, while still in Thailand, Tatiana had her midriff tattooed. She posted on social media some images of herself posing in a bikini with one of the handbags she offered for sale. The offender sent a series of messages complaining that she had time for social media but not for him. When she said that her social media advertising was paying her bills, the accused wrote “go fuck yourself”. Their exchange that day concluded with the offender writing the following:

5. [62]

   Tatiana complied but the next day she sent the this message:

6. [63]

   Tatiana, Z and the offender’s mother arrived back in Sydney on Friday, 19 May 2023 and were at the Liverpool unit by late morning. The offender went there with them and left after a short time to drive his mother and Z to his parents’ house at Colyton. Tatiana did not see him again that day. She went out in the evening with a male companion, who later stayed the night with her at the unit.

20-26 May 2023

1. [64]

   During the next day, Saturday, 20 May 2023, the offender’s mother phoned Tatiana and told her that the offender had not left his room. When Tatiana called and urged him to spend time with Z, whom he had not seen over the previous 10 days, the offender said words to the effect, “I don’t want him anymore. Come and get him”. The offender’s mother gave evidence in the trial to the contrary of some aspects of this episode but she was not credible. The offender sent a message to a friend confirming that he had been in his room all day.

2. [65]

   Tatiana drove to Colyton late on the afternoon 20 May 2023 and found that the offender had packed the child’s possessions to be taken with him. He told Tatiana not to come near his parents’ house ever again. All this was reported contemporaneously by Tatiana in a phone message to one of her friends. CCTV from the offender’s parents’ house showed that, as Tatiana collected Z and his things and loaded them into her car, the offender stood on the front lawn with the hood of a sweater drawn over his head, looking deeply depressed.

3. [66]

   Shortly after 10:00 pm on 20 May 2023 the offender arrived at Tatiana’s unit. In the early hours of the following morning he severely assaulted her, striking her to the right orbital region of her face, causing a laceration over her right eye and dark red swelling of the eyelid. He also hit her around the rib cage resulting in such pain that she thought her ribs had been fractured. It is likely he had learned that Tatiana spent the previous night with another man. It is not important whether in fact he became aware of that or whether something else set him off.

4. [67]

   At the conclusion of that severe attack, the offender used his phone shortly after 2:00 am on Sunday, 21 May 2023 to make video recordings of Tatiana lying on the floor of her unit, wearing only her underpants, incapacitated and distressed. Her words were slurred, possibly because she had taken some form of medication or alcohol or both. There is no evidence that she was a user of illicit drugs other than cannabis. The assault she had just suffered was certainly a contributory cause of her being dazed and confused at 2:00 am on 21 May 2023. While standing over her the offender repeatedly said, “Get up. Get up”. He made no gesture to assist or console Tatiana. The scene captured on these video clips is disturbing. The offender himself is not depicted, apart from his lower legs. This large muscular male is standing over a defenceless, diminutive woman, having asserted dominance with his fists. It is a picture of cowardice and cruelty.

5. [68]

   The few words Tatiana was able to utter as she lay helpless on the floor were of despair, defeat and suicide. By that date, six days before she was killed, it is clear that she was worn down and defeated by the offender’s unshakeable clinging; by his inability to make a life for himself and let her get on with hers. Tatiana was by that time constantly anxious and fearful. The offender’s fixation, his stalking and his intimidation shadowed her life.

6. [69]

   It is not clear what purpose the offender had in mind when he made the video recordings of the state to which he had beaten Tatiana on 21 May 2023. At that time he took photos of a container of Alprazolam that was in her handbag. Alprazolam, also known as Xanax, is a benzodiazepine medication used in the treatment of anxiety. He also photographed a container of Aller-Ben antihistamine medication, for the relief of allergy symptoms. After Tatiana’s death the offender was very keen for investigating police to look at his video clips, perhaps to persuade them that she had been misusing prescribed medication and had likely died of an overdose. That was a possibility he propounded during the investigation but it was excluded by the post-mortem examination and toxicological report.

7. [70]

   By 21 May 2023 Tatiana evidently felt humiliated by the offender’s violent control over her life. Over the days following the beating in the early hours of that Sunday morning, she lied to her friends in Sydney that she had been in a motor accident. She avoided contact by pretending she was in hospital. Tatiana stayed at home most of the next three days to recuperate and to hide the disfiguring injury to her face. She told her mother and the offender’s mother that she had injured herself by tripping and falling while walking through her unit at night.

8. [71]

   The offender stayed in the unit during the days following that assault and slept there each night. On Monday 22 May and Wednesday 24 May he made various excuses to his work mates for being absent. He claimed he had been at a hospital since Saturday because Tatiana had injured herself by falling down some stairs. During that week the offender assumed the role of carer, fetching groceries and medication and taking care of Z, whom Tatiana could not look after in her injured state. I have no doubt that the offender’s purpose in staying at the unit during that time was predominantly to intimidate Tatiana against telling anyone how she had really sustained her injuries and to prevent her making further contact with any other male. In effect he stood guard over her until the following Friday night, when he killed her.

Objective gravity of the murder

1. [72]

   The offender’s repeated violence towards Tatiana after the separation, particularly during April and May 2023, is contextually important to the murder. The sequential events have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. His motive for the series of assaults has likewise been proved, namely, to subjugate Tatiana and intimidate her from having any new relationship with a member of the opposite sex. That motive carried forward to the fatal assault on 26 May 2023. In circumstances where the evidence does not support a finding of intent to kill, I am satisfied that his intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on the evening on 26 May 2023 was the next event on a continuum of control and intimidation.

2. [73]

   The cycle of prior assaults also has a bearing upon the degree of the offender’s moral culpability. The lethal attack on 26 May 2023 was not a result of the offender being overwhelmed by sudden, unexpected despair, anger or other emotion. He had had six months’ notice that Tatiana could no longer live with his abuse. Over seven weeks from the beginning of April up to 21 May 2023 his violence continued, with regularity. There was ample time for him to get a grip, to recognise that he was routinely assaulting, injuring and frightening a defenceless woman and that his actions were wrong by any human standard. Instead, he pressed on with the final, lethal assault on 26 May.

3. [74]

   The offender is charged only with the murder and not with the prior assaults, or the stalking, intimidation or verbal abuse. He is to be punished only for the murder. Although the prior criminal conduct is proved beyond reasonable doubt it does not of itself attract additional penalty. It informs the Court’s conclusions about the offender’s motive, his moral culpability and the objective gravity of the crime of which he has been found guilty by the jury.

The offender’s subjective case

1. [75]

   The offender was 28 at the date of the murder and is now 31. As described in the history given to his psychologist for the purposes of a report tendered in the sentence proceedings, the offender’s family background is unremarkable. His parents have remained together in an apparently stable relationship over many years. They have never been well off and the offender’s material circumstances while growing up were modest. His two older brothers were physically aggressive when he was a child and he considers that their conduct reduced his self-confidence.

2. [76]

   At primary school the offender felt socially isolated. He alleges an incident of sexual abuse by a teacher that compounded his isolation and engendered a sense of insecurity. The offender behaved disruptively in class during primary school and he performed poorly. Poor academic performance continued in high school with only modest improvement. He was at times suspended from high school for disruption and fighting.

3. [77]

   On leaving school the offender has been employed most of the time, in semi-skilled work. From when he met Tatiana in 2017 he was self-employed in a concreting business. He continued to conduct that business until he was arrested. The offender has no record of conviction for any significant criminal offence committed prior to 26 May 2023 and he is therefore not disentitled from any leniency that he could otherwise be allowed. There has been tendered on his behalf a reference from Mr Hussain Abdulrahman, the public officer of The Australian Arabic Association of Western Sydney, who attests to the offender’s involvement with his religious community and contribution to charitable work.

4. [78]

   The offender used alcohol to excess from his mid to late teens but that diminished during his early twenties. He used cannabis from his late teens until he was arrested. He claims that medicinal cannabis was prescribed for him, to manage anxiety and poor sleep, from the age of 26 (around 2021). The offender’s most significant misuse of substances is recorded in the psychologist’s report as follows:

5. [79]

   The sexual assault by a teacher in primary school was not the subject of a contemporaneous report to police or any other action. The psychologist is of the opinion that this “was a factor in the complex PTSD he experienced, including his protracted difficulties with depression, anxiety, fractured identity and low self esteem”. Without hearing evidence from the offender I am not able to accept on the balance of probabilities that he has exhibited symptoms of complex PTSD or any other diagnosable mental disorder. The psychologist is of the opinion that his presentation:

6. [80]

   That description accords with a layman’s assessment of the offender’s personality as manifested through his conduct towards Tatiana. The collection of those personality traits is not a mental illness. There is nothing in the psychologist’s analysis of the offender’s presentation that should mitigate the sentence to be imposed.

7. [81]

   The offender told the psychologist that he was finding “interpersonal difficulties” with Tatiana difficult because they were “resulting in a pattern of arguments regarding her ability to care for their son”. The aspect of their relationship that had the potential to interfere with Tatiana’s care for Z was that the applicant was threatening her, spying on her and beating her, on suspicion of interest in other men, in circumstances where their relationship was over. The offender told his psychologist that Tatiana was “abusing prescription medication and this was impacting her ability to provide appropriate care”. There is no evidence that Tatiana was abusing prescription medication. She was undoubtedly taking medicine to address anxiety and physical pain, both caused by the offender’s conduct.

8. [82]

   This erroneous information provided by the offender to his psychologist goes hand-in-hand with his maintenance of innocence. He has shown no remorse. When police attended Tatiana’s unit shortly after the offender had found her deceased, he expressed extreme grief and loss. His behaviour was recorded on the police body worn video devices. I am satisfied that his demonstrations at that time were performative. I am not persuaded that he felt genuine regret at her death.

9. [83]

   The sentence for this murder must necessarily incorporate a non-parole period of such duration that the offender’s return to the community will be far in the future. At such a distance in time it would be unreasonable to dismiss altogether his prospects of rehabilitation or to rate too highly the risk of him reoffending. The nature and circumstances of the murder nevertheless gives the Court concerns about the risk that he will offend again and to factor specific deterrence into the sentence to a degree. I am cautious about his prospects of rehabilitation.

10. [84]

    I find no special circumstances that would warrant departure from the default ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence, as provided for in s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

General deterrence and denunciation

1. [85]

   The purposes for which a court may sentence an offender are prescribed by s 3A the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act as follows:

2. [86]

   Section 3A reflects purposes of sentencing that the courts have recognised from long before the section was enacted. General deterrence, as referred to in par (b), and denunciation (par (f)) have frequently been emphasised by sentencing judges and by the Court of Criminal Appeal in relation to intimate partner homicides such as the present.

3. [87]

   Statistics for such homicides in Australia, whether resulting in conviction for murder or for manslaughter, are reported annually by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The most recent report is Miles, H & Bricknell, S (2025), Homicide in Australia 2023–24 - Statistical Report No 52. The authors state the following

4. [88]

   The absolute figures are given in Table 7 of the report: 46 female intimate partner homicides Australia-wide in the year from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, nine of them in New South Wales. Other statistical analyses give similar figures, varying marginally according to the period over which the statistics are collected and, possibly, according to the criteria of classification. The declining long-term trend observed by Miles and Bricknell is no reason for complacency and will not allay the community’s frequently expressed concern about this category of crime.

5. [89]

   In the Court of Criminal Appeal’s recent decision R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133, the Chief Justice referred to the persistence of intimate partner homicide and acknowledged society’s abhorrence of it. His Honour cited judicial decisions of the highest authority affirming the obligation of the courts in any case of murder of an intimate partner to impose a sentence that will vindicate the dignity of the victim, express the community’s strong disapprobation of the crime and attempt to deter repetition by others.

6. [90]

   The sentence now to be imposed will reflect the Court’s endeavour to deter other potential offenders. Fixation is a phenomenon of interpersonal conflict that is seen often in the Court’s lists, both civil and criminal. It is dangerous in a man whose female partner has rejected him and is trying to break free from him. Society’s moral and legal condemnation of murder and the long terms of imprisonment that the crime attracts are universally known. The threat of a heavy penalty does not seem to penetrate the thoughts and actions of fixated, controlling males.

7. [91]

   Increasing public discussion, or direct education, may in time help women to recognise, early in a deteriorating relationship, whether they may be facing grave danger from an obsessed violent partner and whether they should decisively seek law enforcement intervention, for example by obtaining an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order that prohibits any contact and by calling police at any breach. I have referred to reasons why Tatiana refrained from taking that step. The mechanism is not fool proof but one or two successive arrests for contravention of such an order may bring a potential murderer to his senses.

8. [92]

   In May 2017, sitting at Dubbo, I sentenced Darryl Biles for the murder of his young female partner at Brewarrina. He had previously beaten her many times. I made the following observation (R v Biles (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 525 at [52]):

9. [93]

   Mrs Olya Dokhotaru put the matter more succinctly. On 7 May 2023 she responded to an image sent by Tatiana of her bruised neck, where the offender had most recently choked her. Mrs Dokhotaru urged her daughter to report the assault to police. She added the following message:

Commencement of sentence and related charges

1. [94]

   Before he was charged with the murder, the offender was initially arrested on 28 May 2023 on 17 charges of stalking and intimidating, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, intentionally choking and contravening the ADVO that was in place for Tatiana’s protection. Those charges arose out of his several attacks on Tatiana in April and May 2023, including 26 May. The offender was released on bail for those matters on 7 July 2023, having spent 41 days in custody on remand. The 17 matters are now before the Court as related charges, on a certificate dated 8 October 2024 pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). They are “related” to the murder charge because they arise “from substantially the same circumstances as those from which the [murder] has arisen”, as defined in s 165(1).

2. [95]

   In the circumstances that have now occurred, s 167(1)(b of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that the Court should determine the related charges, without a jury, on the basis of the evidence given during the trial of the murder charge, “unless to do so would not be in the interests of justice”. The Crown invites the court to dismiss 12 of the related charges and to determine the remaining five. The five counts are common assault on 12 April 2023, stalk/intimidate on 12 April and 30 April 2023 and contravene ADVO on 12 April and 30 April 2023. I do not consider that it would be in the interests of justice to determine those charges. For the purpose of determining contextual circumstances relevant to sentencing the offender to the murder, I have made findings of fact according to the criminal standard of proof regarding the events of 12 and 30 April 2023. It would serve no practical purpose to proceed with a determination of whether all elements of the related charges are established to that standard. If that should be found, in view of the substantial sentence that must necessarily be imposed for the murder, any penalty for related matters will be my judgment be ordered to be served concurrently, applying the principle of totality. Accordingly, all 17 related charges will be dismissed.

3. [96]

   The offenders original remand of 41 days was at least in part referable to the first four charges on the certificate, sequences 1-4 under Police Reference Number H77426303, which concern his actions on the evening of 26 May 2023. As that conduct forms part of the circumstances of the murder for which he is now to be sentenced, the 41 days should count as time served. The commencement of his sentence for murder will be backdated accordingly, relative to the date on which it would otherwise commence.

4. [97]

   The offender was re-arrested and charged with the murder on 28 August 2023. He has been remanded in custody since. Up to 19 November 2023 he had been on remand for 84 days, solely referable to the murder charge. That period should also count as time served under the sentence now to be imposed, with a corresponding back date of commencement.

5. [98]

   On 19 November 2023, while housed at Clarence Correctional Centre, the offender, in company with three other inmates, carried out a reckless wounding of another prisoner, contrary to s 35(3) of the Crimes Act. The four of them set upon the victim, punching, kicking and kneeing him. After he broke free, one of the assailants continued the attack and rendered him unconscious. The victim was hospitalised with concussion. He had a 10-12 cm wound to one side of his head and a 2-4 cm wound to the other side, both requiring sutures. In the District Court in Coffs Harbour, Judge McHugh SC sentenced the offender to 2 years and 7 months imprisonment, commencing on the date of the offence, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. The non-parole period was completed on 18 July 2025.

6. [99]

   Counsel for the offender submitted that, on the principle of totality, his sentence for the murder should be made at least partly concurrent with the non-parole period fixed by Judge McHugh SC for the wounding in company. I have given full consideration to the principle of totality as it may apply in the present case but I do not consider that any degree of concurrence is warranted. The violent offence committed in the prison is entirely discrete from the murder of Tatiana Dokhotaru. It is subject to very different sentencing considerations, notably those referred to by Barr J in R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751 at [33]:

7. [100]

   Judge McHugh SC’s carefully measured and moderate sentence for the wounding offence would be inappropriately modified and its important deterrent effect would be undermined if the sentence now to be fixed for murder should be permitted to be served with partial concurrence with the non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months set by his Honour. See R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241; Tohifolau v R [2018] NSWCCA 283 at [31]-[35].

8. [101]

   But for the total of 125 days on remand (41 days + 84 days), which I treat as referable to the murder charge, I would commence the offender’s sentence on 19 July 2025, immediately upon expiry of the non-parole period for the wounding. Allowing the 125 days, the commencement date will be 18 March 2025.

Overall assessment

1. [102]

   In R v Thompson at [47]-[48] the Chief Justice cited a number of examples of sentences passed for murders of intimate female partners. In all of them, and in R v Thompson itself, death was caused by means that were significantly more brutal than in the case now before me. In R v Thompson and in five of the putative comparable cases considered by the Chief Justice, the perpetrator had intended to cause death. The gravity of the crime is less where, as here, the lethal acts are accompanied by an intent no higher than to cause grievous bodily harm: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290 at [5] (Hunt AJA) and [87] (Simpson J). I have considered the range of sentences imposed in the cases cited by the Chief Justice and in a number of other instances.

2. [103]

   Although the level of intent and the manner of causing death are features that moderate the objective gravity of this murder, they are counterbalanced by the long lead time over which the offender had ample opportunity to recognise the gross wrongfulness of his violence towards Tatiana and to stop. The moral culpability of a large powerful man who beats to death a small vulnerable woman is extreme. The offender’s subjective crcumstances do not mitigate the penalty significantly.

Sentence

1. [104]

   The sentence and consequential orders are as follows: