• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

File Number(s): 2023/00261108

Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), a statutory prohibition on the publication of the names of the witnesses who were children when the offence was committed and any material that might identify them

JUDGMENT

1. The offender, Shaun King, is to be sentenced for the murder of Drew Douglas, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), committed on the morning of 16 August 2023 at St Marys, in the State of New South Wales.

2. The offender pleaded guilty to the offence of murder in the Local Court and is entitled to a 25% discount because of the plea.

3. The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years.

4. This maximum penalty and standard non-parole period are reflective of the gravity of the crime. All murders are tragic, but the murder of Ms Douglas, for which Mr King is to be sentenced, is particularly so.

5. It is tragic because of the loss of Ms Douglas’ life, and the impact of this on her family and those who loved her. It is particularly terrible to understand the consequences that will result for the daughters of Mr King and Ms Douglas, having lost their mother in such brutal circumstances.

6. As well as being a devoted mother, she was a loving sister and daughter. I thank Drew’s sister Jade Douglas for sharing with the Court the beauty of her sister, and the impact of her death on her. Drew’s father Greg Douglas also described Drew as a wonderful mother, sister, aunty and granddaughter, as well as his precious daughter. He misses her laughter and beautiful smile. The impact of Mr King’s actions on her family has been profound.

7. It may in these circumstances come to seem strange to these people, who have lost so much, that I will be speaking a lot today about Mr King. That is because it is an individual person who has committed this crime, and is to be sentenced. Part of the tragedy of this case is the background that contributed to his actions, and the consequences of them upon him as well.

The circumstances of the offending

8. The circumstances of the offending are before the Court by way of agreed facts. This document also touches upon a number of matters that will come to be referred to more closely in considering Mr King’s subjective case.

Background

9. Shaun King (“the offender”) was born on 30 July 1988, and was 35 years old at the time of the murder. Drew Douglas (“the deceased”) was born on 23 May 1992. She was 31 years old at the time of her murder.

10. The deceased and the offender had been in a de facto relationship from about 2009, as a result of which they had four children. At the time of the murder the oldest child was 12 years old, the second was 10 years old, the third was one year old and the youngest child was 10 weeks old.

Prior relationship

11. Prior to 20 July 2017, the offender, the deceased and their children lived with Maureen King, the offender’s mother, at her house in Hoxton Park.

12. On 20 July 2017, a fire broke out at the house rendering it uninhabitable and destroying most of the family’s possessions. The offender, the deceased and their children moved in with the deceased’s father, Gregory Douglas, at an address in Holsworthy. The deceased’s sister, Jade Douglas, also lived at the house.

13. Around this time both the deceased and the offender reported that they suffered from mental health issues. Both the offender and the deceased used cannabis and their relationship was often volatile. For example, on 13 August 2017, the offender and the deceased had an argument at the deceased’s father’s house during which the deceased locked herself in the bathroom. The offender then banged on the bathroom door and shouted at the deceased and the police were called by the deceased’s sister. As a result of this incident the deceased’s father told them to move out of the house.

14. On 29 January 2018, the offender and the deceased had an argument at their home. During the argument the deceased picked up a pair of scissors and threatened to strike the offender, before using both hands to push the offender. The offender threw the deceased to the ground, punched her to the right side of her face and then kneed the deceased in the stomach twice. The deceased went to the kitchen and picked up a wooden horse with the intention of striking the offender with it. The offender threw the deceased to the floor and kneed her again. The deceased stood up and pushed the offender away, before the offender pushed her out of the door and prevented from re-entering the house.

15. By mid-2022, the offender, the deceased, their children and the offender’s mother were living at an address in St Marys. In 2022, there was a verbal argument between the offender and the deceased during which the offender threw clothing around, yelled at the deceased, and stomped on the floor, causing damage to the floorboards.

16. At the St Marys home, the oldest two girls shared a bedroom, whilst the youngest two each had a cot in the bedroom shared by the offender and the deceased. The offender’s mother had a separate bedroom to herself.

The workplace accident

17. In 2018, the offender had a workplace accident resulting in significant injuries. Following the accident the offender received workers’ compensation payments. In January 2023, the workers’ compensation payments stopped, and the offender received Centrelink payments on the basis that he was medically unfit to work.

Events leading up to the murder

18. On Sunday 13 August 2023, the offender complained to his mother about his mental health, telling her that he was hearing voices in his head. The offender’s mother encouraged him to attend a mental health facility at Campbelltown Hospital. The offender had been complaining to his mother about his mental health in the two weeks prior to this, telling her that he had stopped taking his antidepressant medication as it was not working.

19. On Monday 14 August 2023, Elizabeth Haim, a community nurse employed by Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, attended the St Marys address. Ms Haim’s role was to provide maternal and family support to the families of children aged between zero and five years of age. The purpose of the visit was to check on the newborn baby who had been born premature and who had been in neonatal intensive care for six weeks after birth.

20. Whilst at the home, Ms Haim spoke to the offender’s mother, the offender and the deceased. Ms Haim found the offender to be agitated and pacing around. Ms Haim concluded that there was a “heightened state” in the house and as a result she terminated the visit early and left. Before she left Ms Haim asked the deceased if she was safe. The deceased said “No I need to get out of here. I have had enough. I need to leave with the kids”.

21. As a result of what she had seen Ms Haim dialled 000 and said to the operator “and, like, I, I’ve got no idea who to believe in there. It’s very toxic”.

22. Police officers attended the house and spoke to Ms Haim who was still outside. The officers then spoke with the deceased, the offender’s mother and the offender. No further action was taken by the police.

23. On Tuesday 15 August 2023, the offender, the deceased and the children drove to Macquarie Square in Campbelltown as the deceased wanted to go to the shops. The offender and the deceased had been arguing.

24. The deceased parked the car and went to the shops, leaving the children and the offender in the car. Whilst in the car the offender said to his 12 year old daughter “Mum doesn’t love me, I think she’s going to leave me.” The offender also asked her why they were being so secretive and said that they were keeping secrets from him.

25. On the evening of 15 August 2023, the deceased had a conversation with her 12 year old daughter, telling her to pack some things as they were going to leave. She did this whilst the offender was outside as he said he needed a “breather”. The deceased spoke to her daughter again and told her that they were not going to leave that night but would instead leave the next day.

26. At 8:41 pm on 15 August 2023, the offender dialled 000 and spoke to the police emergency operator for 6 minutes and 40 seconds. The offender asked the police to attend the premises. The offender told the operator that his second oldest daughter had a mark on her face and that when he confronted his girlfriend (the deceased) and his daughter they looked at each other like they were hiding something. The offender went on to say, “it’s just, Drew’s, er, like, they don’t talk. They sort of look at each other and… Like… Say that, um, say, say that I’m crazy… You know, they, they, I dunno, somethings not right”.

27. During the telephone call the offender could be heard speaking to someone in the background saying that he did not understand what was happening. When asked about mental health or general health difficulties the offender told the operator that he had post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and that the deceased had anxiety and depression.

28. Towards the end of the conversation the offender could be heard speaking to someone in the background and saying, “well, I dunno what’s going on, go and look for your… ‘cause I don’t know what happened sweetheart and I got no idea what you’re doin”.

29. At about 9:30 pm on 15 August 2023, the offender’s mother returned home from work and spoke to the offender. The offender told his mother that he was fine, but she had concerns about his mental health. The offender’s mother had had these concerns for about a week. The offender had called his mother earlier in the night, when she was at work, during the call he was crying and telling her he was suicidal.

30. The offender’s daughter told the offender’s mother about the call the offender had made to the police. The offender’s mother spoke to the deceased and raised her concerns about the offender. The deceased said, “I don’t know he’s really lost the plot”.

The murder

31. On the evening of 15 August 2023, everyone went to bed. The offender’s mother went to bed at about 10:30 pm. The offender and the deceased slept in the same bedroom together, along with the youngest two girls who had their own cots in the room. The second oldest girl went to sleep in the offender’s mother’s room.

32. At about 3 am, the offender’s mother used the bathroom, and as she did she noticed that the deceased was sitting on her bed feeding the baby. The offender was lying on the bed next to her, awake. The offender appeared to be watching television. At this stage the offender did not appear to his mother to be upset. After going to the toilet the offender’s mother returned to her bedroom.

33. At approximately 6:45 am, whilst they were still in their bedroom, the offender repeatedly stabbed the deceased to the torso and neck with a kitchen knife that was normally stored in a knife block in the kitchen.

34. The offender’s mother woke up when she heard the deceased screaming “Maureen help me, he’s stabbing me.” The deceased screamed this a few times. The offender’s mother made her way from her room to the deceased’s bedroom. The oldest two girls also made their way to the deceased’s bedroom.

35. When the offender’s mother got to the deceased’s bedroom the offender was kneeling on the bed over the deceased. There was a significant amount of blood. At this stage the deceased was still alive and said, “I’m dying, I’m dying,” several times. The offender’s mother said, “Hang in there sweetheart”.

36. The offender’s mother said to the offender, “What have you done?” The offender did not acknowledge his mother but left the bedroom with the knife still in his hand. The offender went to the dining room and collected his car keys before getting into his car and driving away from the house.

37. The offender’s mother began shaking the deceased and calling out her name. The 12 year old daughter, who was by this point also in the bedroom, put her finger under the deceased’s nose to see if she was still breathing. She also checked the deceased for a pulse but could not find one. She attempted to put pressure on the wound in the deceased’s chest and also performed mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on the deceased.

38. The offender’s mother dialled 000. The offender’s mother told the operator that her daughter-in-law had been stabbed and asked for an ambulance. Paramedics arrived and unsuccessfully attempted to revive the deceased.

Post-mortem examination

39. The direct cause of the deceased’s death was a stab wound to the chest.

40. The following injuries were identified on the deceased and are attributed to the offender’s actions on the morning of 16 August 2023:

(a) A stab wound to the left anterior superior chest, perforating the upper lobe of the left lung and the upper left side of the pericardium, transecting the course of the mid left descending artery and penetrating the heart; (b) Stab wound to the left supero-medial aspect of the chest wall, anteriorly. The track of the stab wound was superficial through soft tissues; (c) Incised wound to the left anterior superior shoulder. The track of the stab wound was superficial through soft tissues; (d) Stab wound to the right superior anterior chest; (e) Deep stab wound from distal posterior left arm to axilla; and (f) Deep perforating stab wound from mid posterior left arm to medial aspect of the upper left arm.

Arrest of the offender

41. After leaving the St Marys home, the offender drove to Campbelltown police station, a distance of approximately 42 km, arriving at about 7:30 am.

42. The offender walked into the foyer of the police station and said to a police officer, “I’ve done something bad.” As he said this, he extended his hands towards the officer. The police officer asked the offender what had happened and he said, “I stabbed my missus”. The offender was visibly shaking and was not wearing any shoes.

43. The officer asked the offender where he stabbed her and he responded, ‘I don’t know what I’ve done, but I’ve stabbed her, I blacked out and stabbed her.” The offender was crying and shaking. He put his hands out in front of him and said “Arrest me”. The offender was arrested for murder.

44. The offender was placed in a dock in the custody area of the police station. The offender said at points:

“‘I have PTSD, my partner has been arguing the last week, 8 days, 9 days.’

‘I just lost it, I can’t remember much. I just remember going to stab her. Then walking outside and driving all the way here.’

‘I haven’t slept for like five days. I haven’t eaten nothing.’ and

‘My partner’s been threatening me that she’s leaving me. She’s, people have told me, I’ve been with my partner 12 years, no, 13, 14 years and every baby we had, someone’s told me, every friend I’ve had told me she’s slept with them. Every person that I know. My nephew, my nephew’s got two kids to my girlfriend and then stuff happened. My missus, my partner doesn’t care for the kids because they’re all hated childs, the anger she has on them because she’s cheated on me, they’re not mine. You can blood test me. They’re not my children…I only just found out that she’s been planning to leave me, she bought a new mobile and all this kind of stuff, I just blanked out.’”

The offender

45. A very substantial subjective case has been presented on behalf of the offender. To some extent it is connected with and related to parts of the agreed facts I have already set out.

46. To cut to the central issue of this subjective case, the opinion of Dr Richard Furst, forensic psychiatrist, set out in his 29 October 2025 report and oral evidence, is that Mr King meets the DSM-5 TR criteria for the diagnosis of the following mental disorders which were present at the time of offending:

47. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;

48. Major Depressive Disorder;

49. Chronic Pain Disorder;

50. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; and

51. Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder.

52. Dr Furst was asked to explain if, how and to what extent any mental illness, condition, or disability from which the offender may have been suffering at the time of the offences contributed to his offending behaviour. He referred to having already outlined the details of Mr King’s history and diagnoses. I will come to set out more detail of that background and those diagnoses in something of a chronological order.

53. Dr Furst then said specifically that the available history and medical material indicates that Mr King was suffering from a depressive disorder (recurrent major depressive disorder), PTSD and a substance-induced psychotic disorder at the time of his offending on the morning of 16 August 2023.

54. In Dr Furst’s opinion the offender showed signs of an acute deterioration in his mood in 2023 after his insurance payments for his back injury and related disability were discontinued early that year, as evident from his medical file and the statement of his mother. His mood deteriorated even further in the two week period preceding his offence, Mr King having stopped his antidepressant medication. There was evidence of psychomotor agitation, illogical thinking about his partner and perceptions of infidelity, insomnia, and suicidal ideation. His abnormal mental state was evident to a childhood nurse who visited the house two days before the murder, and she was so concerned that she called her boss and then called 000. Mr King’s acute depression, anxiety and emotional distress were evident in a 000 call he made on the evening of 15 August 2023, seeking help from police, and when he presented to Campbelltown Police Station within 60 minutes of the offence.

55. Dr Furst was of the view that the offender was probably psychotic at the time of his offending, this being a drug-induced psychosis. Mr King reported the behaviour of his wife and his daughter/s as being suspicious in the 000 call he made the night prior to his offending, this recognised by Dr Furst as evidence of his drug-induced psychosis. Mr King also reported concerns about his wife’s infidelity and his four children not being his children to police at Campbelltown Police Station on the morning of 16 August 2023, which, combined with severe agitation and insomnia in the week leading up to the offending, was suggestive of an agitated melancholic depression and psychosis brought on by the use of “ice”. He referred to a number of the offender’s statements to police after he handed himself in, including those referred to already in recounting the agreed facts, and also:

“…anger problems…sad problems, then these normal problems…me and my partner had an argument…and she was screaming. And the next minute I know I had blood over me, and my mum screaming…I just went and got in the car and came where I know.”

51. Dr Furst’s opinion is that “Mr King had an impairment in his capacity to control himself because of his disturbed mental state at the time, namely his severe depressive illness, with melancholic features and high levels of agitation, acute psychosis from his use of drugs and the ongoing effects of his PTSD and pain disorder.”

52. It is the combination of these factors that resulted in Dr Furst’s evidence that Mr King’s presentation is complex, because there are multiple relevant issues and diagnoses to consider, instead of one particular diagnosis.

53. I propose to provide some further information about each of these issues, in something of a chronological order.

ADHD

54. The offender has faced difficulties with his attention, concentration, emotions and behaviour from an early age during his school years. As evidenced in the offender’s mother’s letter to the Court and background information contained in Dr Furst’s report, Mr King was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) when he was about 8 years old because of his poor concentration, restlessness and difficulty listening. Mr King was treated with the stimulant medication Dexamphetamine from the age of 8 until he was 13 or 14 years by a local paediatrician.

55. Dr Furst’s evidence is that a core feature of ADHD is impulsivity, with mood-swings, anger issues and impulsivity contributing to the offender’s grossly excessive and fatal actions when stabbing and killing his de facto partner.

Trauma in childhood

56. Clinically significant trauma in the offender’s childhood is documented in Dr Furst’s report, with supporting evidence of this in the tendered letter from the offender’s mother. The evidence of Dr Furst, and the Bugmy Bar Book material tendered on Mr King’s behalf, support a link between such trauma and some of the difficulties Mr King came to develop, including substance abuse problems, depression and anxiety. Mr King additionally had a genetic predisposition towards developing substance abuse problems, as set out in Dr Furst’s report. Dr Furst’s evidence is that the offender’s substance use disorder was largely the product of these two causes.

Substance abuse

57. The offender smoked cannabis from the age of 16, which became a daily habit in his teens. It was used regularly in the period leading up to his offending in August 2023. He said he used amphetamines, which became a weekend habit in his late teens and early 20s. He described this as making him feel good or happy. He told Dr Furst that after the accident in 2018 he would purchase about 1 gram of ‘ice’ every week or two and also described his use of this drug as not frequent. There is nothing indicating any adverse effect from this prior to August 2023. To Dr Adam Martin, forensic psychiatrist, aspects of whose report in this matter are set out in Dr Furst’s, the offender had described drug use after the January 2018 as an attempt to feel better.

Anxiety and depression prior to 2018

58. The offender has a history of mood and anxiety issues which were prevalent long before his offending and prior to the industrial accident in 2018.

59. Dr Furst’s review of medical records resulted in him noting that there were a number of entries that predate the offender’s workplace injury in January 2018, that are indicative of Mr King having long-standing mental health problems.

60. The records referred to included entries on 21 August 2014 where Mr King presented with high levels of distress, being emotionally upset in the context of workplace stress and demands from his employer. He was very anxious, had insomnia and had negative ruminations about his boss. His sister was noted to have a history of depression. On 21 May 2015 he attended a doctor feeling depressed, with low energy levels, lack of enjoyment from things, poor concentration, insomnia, decreased appetite, and low self-esteem. He was prescribed Pristiq (Desvenlafaxine) for depression. On 6 April 2017 he presented for assessment/treatment as he was feeling down, lacked motivation and was not sleeping well. It was noted that he would get paranoid, would “over-think”, had mood-swings, felt hopeless, and would get angry easily. It was also noted that the previous treatment with Pristiq, which had been prescribed two years earlier, was ineffective. Mr King was referred for counselling in relation to his depression and anxiety pursuant to a mental health care plan. A subsequent consultation indicated Mr King remained depressed in mood with poor sleep, panic attacks and suicidal thoughts.

The industrial accident

61. On 23 January 2018 a 900 kg pallet landed on the offender at work and he fell onto the ground in a warehouse. He suffered damage to the nerves in his lower back from his injuries and internal bleeding. He also had swelling in the back of his head from where he was hit with the beam. Dr Furst examined extensive medical documentation in relation to his injuries, and mental health symptoms after his workplace injury in 2018, details of some of which are outlined in his report. He suffered from pain, restriction in his physical capacity and disability, being unable to work after that accident.

62. Mr King was required to undergo a spinal fusion in February 2021 but this was not effective in alleviating his pain or disability. He experiences back pain in custody, with the mattresses not sufficiently supporting this problem, and experiences numbness in his legs and arms. He receives some medical treatment for these physical conditions in custody which has assisted.

63. The offender’s anxiety and depression in the years prior to his workplace accident increased after it, and he had re-experiencing phenomena after the workplace accident, being assessed as having PTSD by his treating doctors and psychologists between 2018 and 2022.

64. Symptoms included being easily startled, panic attacks, “flashbacks” of the accident and nightmares of being “trapped” at his workplace, such nightmares and flashbacks occurring up to daily in frequency. He avoided people, isolating himself socially. He felt depressed and despondent. He had excessive anxiety and worry. These symptoms were indicative of PTSD that developed after his workplace accident in January 2018 on the background of a depressive disorder that dates back to his early 20s.

65. Dr Furst’s opinion is that the accident left Mr King “scarred with chronic pain, depressed mood, anxiety and disability. That injury also triggered post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition that continued over the following several years, and was made worse by the offending in question. His PTSD and associated depression and anxiety contributed to his offending in a number of ways.”

Further evidence regarding the relationship between the deceased and the offender

66. Maureen King had significant direct experience of the relationship between Drew Douglas and the offender. The relationship commenced in about 2009, and they lived with her at Hoxton Park prior to July 2017. Of course they also lived with her from mid-2022 until the murder in August 2023. As the offender does, she describes Drew as the love of Mr King’s life. She describes their relationship as very strong. She did not see violence, just arguments like couples normally have.

67. To Dr Furst Mr King stated their relationship was “normal” prior to his injury. He said there were some arguments and “a bit of violence” after the accident in 2018. This is consistent with part of the agreed facts recited earlier, and the offender’s criminal history. The offender’s assault of the deceased on 29 January 2018 occurred six days after his workplace accident. Dr Furst’s evidence is that PTSD, which uncontroversially did develop from that accident, usually emerges within the first month of the traumatic incident. Amongst the other symptoms of PTSD described by him, he refers to negative changes in thinking and mood, and changes in emotional reactions (including irritability, angry outbursts or aggressive behaviour).

68. The first medical record in time after the accident of those noted in Dr Furst’s report, which suggests recognition of such mood disturbance, was on 22 February 2018 when the offender’s general practitioner noted, in addition to the physical consequences of the accident, an acute stress disorder with: trouble sleeping, flashbacks, and being irritable, stressed, and anxious, with low mood. A report of such symptoms was repeated in June 2018. The first recorded diagnosis of PTSD in time, and thus likely the earliest time at which the offender was treated, seems to have been in July 2018, and there were thereafter ongoing confirmations of diagnosis of the same, and ongoing treatment for this and depression.

69. This incident of domestic violence in January 2018 resulted in a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which the offender was convicted in the Camden Local Court and sentenced to a 12 month bond, requiring his attendance for counselling, educational development, and drug or alcohol rehabilitation. The offender’s criminal history is otherwise very limited, and this is a mitigating factor in his case. He came to the attention of the Children’s Court for two offences in 2005 which may be put aside. Otherwise he has only ever been before the Court in October 2022, when he was fined for domestic related stalking or intimidation and common assault, which occurred on 1 September 2022.

Further evidence regarding the lead up to offending – major depressive disorder and drug induced psychosis

70. In early 2023, the offender’s insurance payments for his workplace injury and related disability were discontinued and this caused Mr King to show signs of an acute deterioration in his mood. Upon reviewing Mr King’s medical records after these payments stopped (such as those from March, April, July and August 2023), observations made by the offender’s mother as to his mental state in August 2023, and the offender’s results of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression from April 2023, Dr Furst diagnosed Mr King with major depressive disorder existing at the time of offending, due to his symptoms of depression being severe and recurrent. Mrs King’s description of the deterioration of the offender during 2023 is, from the perspective of a lay person well familiar with the offender, consistent with this diagnosis.

71. Major depressive disorder is a mental health impairment that tends to cause significant distress and impairment in a person’s daily functioning. Dr Furst described typical symptoms.

72. Two weeks prior to the murder, Mr King had ceased taking his antidepressant medication. Dr Furst referred to the offender displaying psychomotor agitation, illogical thinking about the deceased and perceptions of infidelity, insomnia and suicidal ideation.

73. Aspects of Maureen King’s observations during this time were recounted in the agreed facts. Her letter to the Court describes her observation of him in the two weeks before the murder as being in a very dark place, not sleeping, and having depression, anxiety and paranoia.

74. To Dr Furst the offender said that the couple had financial difficulties and that “times were hard,” including struggling to pay their bills with a newborn baby who had been born premature. He explained feeling paranoid in the period leading up to him fatally stabbing Ms Douglas. He said that he believed people were “doing things” and were “saying things about him.” He said he felt like a “failure.” He believed his partner was “hurting his children behind his back” and did not love him.

75. The offender reportedly attempted to hang himself 3 days prior to the murder, tying up electrical cord in the garage, but desisted when he thought of his children.

76. Mr King’s history to Dr Furst includes obtaining 1 gram of ice and smoking it (not all by himself) over the 2-3 days before the murder.

77. Dr Furst cited and endorsed findings of Dr Martin regarding the observations of Mr King made by the early childhood nurse visiting the home in the days preceding the offending, as consistent with the effects of methylamphetamines in the offender; and his phone call to the police the night prior to his offending as also consistent with hyperarousal and paranoia, plausibly related to methylamphetamine.

78. Of his 000 call on the evening of 15 August 2023, the offender said that the police said they would send someone out. He said to Dr Furst:

“No one came. A lot of things were happening. I didn’t know what to do or who to talk to. I told the police I believed my partner was hurting my children. I wanted them to do a welfare check. They said to wait out the front and send people around, that the police would assess the situation. I waited. No one came. I felt worse, like the conversation never happened. I didn’t sleep that night. I didn’t sleep for four nights because of the speed or ice [amphetamines] and cannabis.”

79. He told Dr Furst that he had those beliefs about his partner hurting their children for three or four days and remembered thinking that people did not care what he was thinking. He said, “no matter what, I couldn’t get help.”

80. He explained further to Dr Furst his belief that “things were happening” and that “she [Drew] was doing weird stuff to his children”. He said he would walk into the bedroom and they were talking [Drew and his mother], but then they would stop talking when he entered. He said he thought they were planning to do something or to leave. He was suspicious and did not trust his partner. He additionally told Dr Furst he was very restless leading up to the offending in question, describing himself as “doing laps around the house and out the back,” suggestive of psychomotor agitation. Dr Furst notes the observation of the same by the childhood community nurse who attended the home to check on the progress/welfare of their infant daughter on 14 August 2023. Maureen King’s letter, tendered on the applicant’s behalf, supports the same.

81. As to his explanation for the fatal stabbing, the offender told Dr Furst:

“I don’t know. I just snapped. I just clicked. I thought she [Drew] wasn’t being honest with me. I thought my partner and my children were hiding a secret from me. Like something was going on…I was in a bad way. In a bad spot at that time. To do what I’ve done. It can’t be normal. It’s not normal to take someone’s life…I never planned to hurt her…I wish I got in the car and drove away [becoming tearful]…I wish I woke mum up. I wish I’d gone to my brothers or sisters. It destroyed me. I lost my kids. Lost my partner. Lost my life.”

82. He also said he was very upset about his children seeing Drew with her injuries after she had been stabbed and trying to resuscitate her when she was bleeding. This is a repeated theme in the evidence, and I will return to it when I address the issue of remorse.

83. Dr Furst agreed with Dr Martin’s opinion that it was likely that Mr King was experiencing transient drug-induced paranoia and mood disturbance (an exacerbation of his enduring depression and anxiety due to the effects of methylamphetamine or a direct drug-induced effect that made him agitated and paranoid about Drew leaving him and/or paranoid about her intentions if she did indeed want to leave him). He further agreed with Dr Martin’s view, regarding the offender’s clear loss of control on the morning of his offending, that it was likely that his behavioural control was overwhelmed while enraged, on a background of anxiety about his partner leaving him, exacerbated significantly by methamphetamine use. His behaviour described by the community nurse suggests that he was hyper-aroused, on edge and agitated, which was significantly related to his complex presentation, but also significantly associated with methamphetamine use, which would have had a highly detrimental effect on his capacity to regulate his emotions and exercise sound judgment, making him prone to loss of control under circumstances where he felt provoked.

84. The two psychiatrists were similarly in agreement regarding the likelihood that Mr King’s use of methylamphetamine in the two to three day period leading up to his offending likely destabilised his mood, and may well have precipitated a drug-induced psychosis. The effects of that drug use and/or drug-induced psychosis on Mr King was to make him more erratic in his mood, deprive him of sleep and to make him paranoid about Drew and her intentions; although Dr Furst noted that it would not have been surprising if Drew wanted to get away from him given the state he was in.

85. Dr Furst further explained this aspect of his diagnosis:

“He likely also developed a substance-induced psychotic disorder [drug-induced psychosis] in the context of his use of ‘ice’ [methylamphetamines] in the 2-3 days preceding his offending.

Substance-induced psychotic disorder (drug-induced psychosis) is a transient psychotic disorder typically characterised by paranoid delusions, hallucinations, acute anxiety and/or disturbed thought form that develops as a result of substance use or withdrawal.”

86. Asked in Court to explain further the interrelationship between the drug use and mental disorders, he said:

“You can look at each one individually and look at them in combination, I guess, might be the easiest way of trying to answer that. It’s worth noting that people who have severe depressive illness as major depression or severe melancholic quite typically have high levels of agitation, irritability, like what we call motor restlessness and difficulty sitting still, for example. They might get up and start pacing around, for example, or might be easily provoked into anger by small comments or things they perceive as negative. That’s the first thing that I think of, irritability and being more easily provoked or sensitive. In layman’s terms, I guess, would be the way to look at that. That’s what I have commented in terms of high levels of agitation.

And then with acute psychosis the issue with people who are psychotic is loss of touch with reality, perceptions are clouded by false beliefs typically, delusional beliefs, paranoid beliefs or in this case it might be about Drew and her mother or other people in the house or other things that are outside the house causing someone to be acting irrationally and not thinking calmly or rationally. And then having consideration of that, where you have got essentially someone who is losing touch with reality and prone to agitation then the effects of drugs on top would be to make it even more volatile, if you like. That’s how I would conceptualise that.”

Mental state in custody

87. Mr King has received significant pharmaceutical treatment since in custody. This has included medication for people who have excessive nightmares; however he continues to experience vivid nightmares, sometimes waking up screaming. As at Dr Furst’s July 2025 assessment (he having assessed him three times) the offender stated he was having flashbacks of the killing almost every night and nightmares almost every night.

88. The offender’s report on these issues to Dr Furst is consistent with custodial and Justice Health records reviewed by Dr Furst.

89. Dr Furst expressed the view that the offender’s history of PTSD, chronic pain and depressive illness places him at increased vulnerability compared to other inmates and would likely make a custodial sentence more onerous for him. Specifically, he would be more vulnerable to the effects of stress in the gaol environment and/or the effects of being “stood over”, intimidated, threatened and/or assaulted by other more mentally robust inmates in custody. The stress of being incarcerated would probably make the risk of him relapsing into more acute phases of depression and anxiety higher.

90. Custodial records attached to the affidavit of the offender’s solicitor support these expectations of Dr Furst.

Remorse, insight and rehabilitation

91. The offender has written a letter to the Court. He describes himself as a man broken by the sorrow of the result of his actions towards the love of his life. He expresses his sorrow for his daughters for taking their mother’s life, and to his victim’s family. He apologises to first responders, and his own birth family for what he has put them through.

92. To Dr Furst Mr King stated that he misses Drew and their children, and wishes he had sought more help. In 2024 he said to Dr Furst “I never planned for this to happen. No one deserves to die. I’ve taken the person I spent 15 years of my life with. She was my best friend. I loved her. We had so many plans.”

93. Dr Furst described the offender in July 2025 as having reflected on his actions, regretted his actions and feeling bad about what he had done and the impact of his offending on his children. He described feeling upset and distressed when he thinks about those events, and when he sees images of it. The offender said to him:

“No one deserves to die. I’m sorry for what I’ve done. I know I’ve done wrong. I wish things didn’t go that way. She was my everything. I pleaded guilty because I feel guilty. I’m sorry to everyone who has seen anything or have anything to do with it.”

94. Dr Furst’s opinion is that Mr King is remorseful, and that he genuinely seemed sad and upset when speaking with him. The report of Dr Martin, as incorporated in Dr Furst’s report, similarly refers to Mr King’s expressions of remorse to him, and his tearfulness and upset when discussing what he had done.

95. Maureen King’s letter describes the offender, with whom she is in regular phone and in-person contact, as full of remorse and regret for what has happened. He has her ongoing full support.

96. I will refer further to this evidence of remorse and insight when addressing prospects of rehabilitation. The only other evidence directly relevant to that issue is Dr Furst’s reference to a large Western Australian study of recidivism by domestic violence homicide offenders. He regarded the offender’s presentation as similar to average, by reference to that study.

97. He expects Mr King to remain symptomatic in terms of pain, depression and anxiety, but to gain some relief and amelioration in the years ahead with ongoing psychological and psychiatric treatment and pain medication.

98. Dr Furst regarded the offender’s history of being “plugged in” to medical services as very positive. He has not been someone historically who has tried to deal in isolation with his problems.

The parties’ submissions

99. There is no issue between the parties as to the significant objective seriousness in this crime, particularly because of Drew Douglas being killed so brutally in her own home, by the person she was entitled to trust to love and protect her; and the horrendous aspect of the presence of the four daughters of the deceased and offender either at the time of the murder or in its immediate aftermath. There was no dispute that the offender must have acted with intent to kill.

100. On behalf of the offender Ms Talbert advanced thorough submissions as to the role of this offender’s complex mental health issues on the sentencing process.

101. The Crown does not dispute that the evidence regarding the offender’s mental health at the time is something the Court may take into account in relation to his moral culpability. However it was submitted that this also indicated that the need for specific deterrence and protection of the community was greater in this case.

102. In part the Crown framed its submissions on the premise that the real issue was that the offender was just a man who was angry that his partner was going to leave him, and that this anger, exacerbated by the drug-induced psychosis, was the primary motivating and causal factor for the murder. His actions were submitted to show a complete disregard for the rights of the victim to make choices about her own life, and his extreme violence in response to that would result in great weight being required for general and specific deterrence and protection of the community.

103. Whereas it was submitted for the offender that remorse should be found in mitigation and was important, the Crown accepted that a finding of remorse could probably be made - but it was submitted to be almost inevitable in a case like this, and did little by way of mitigation.

104. The parties made competing submissions regarding whether custody will be more harsh for Mr King because of his mental health impairments.

Determination

105. The offence before the Court is a very serious instance of homicide, particularly because of the vulnerability of the deceased to the brutality of the person she should have been entitled to expect to love and protect her the most. The commission of this offence in her own home, and the presence of the four children at the time of the offending and in its immediate and inevitable aftermath, significantly escalates the seriousness of this offending.

106. The offence was not a planned one. The evidence clearly establishes the offender’s loss of control, because of his impaired state. The offender’s suggestion to police of an argument (as quoted above at [50]) is plausible. I do not take Mr King’s reference to the deceased screaming as a cogent assertion that she was screaming in the course of the argument, as opposed to screaming when he obtained the knife or started stabbing her.

107. I am satisfied that the offender’s mental health conditions contributed in a material way to his offending. I accept the evidence of Dr Furst that the offender’s ADHD, PTSD and major depressive disorder were causally related to his offending. As a result of this, Mr King’s moral culpability for his offending is reduced. This in turn has an ameliorating impact on the need for denunciation and punishment, and the suitability of Mr King as a vehicle for general deterrence. As I will indicate further, however, general deterrence still has a very important role to play.

108. This is not of course to ignore the drug-induced psychosis. Care is required as to how this is taken into account. Section 21A(5AA) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Act”) provides that in determining the appropriate sentence for an offence, the self-induced intoxication of the offender at the time the offence was committed is not to be taken into account as a mitigating factor.

109. I have certainly not taken the effects of the drug-induced psychosis into account as bearing upon the objective seriousness of the offence. Further, had it been only a drug-induced psychosis that caused Mr King’s loss of control on the morning he killed Ms Douglas, then the issue of his reduced moral culpability may not have been so clear.

110. This is not a case where the offender had any warning that his use of ice might lead to an act of violence. He had no reason to anticipate that. He was unwell mentally for a number of reasons in the weeks leading up to his crime, and did not understand that his mental impairment was the cause of his disturbed mood and perception of events. I also acknowledge the causes of Mr King’s development of a drug abuse problem, as set out in the evidence of Dr Furst.

111. Despite the terms of s 21A(5AA) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, Johnson J took the drug-induced psychosis of Mr Fang into account in R v Fang (No 4*)* [2017] NSWSC 323 at [70]-[81] as part of understanding his subjective case in mitigation.

112. Here, it explains to some extent why Mr King acted in a way that was so out of character, and that has caused so much destruction – most importantly to Drew Douglas, but also to their daughters, Ms Douglas’ family, and to himself.

113. The horrific consequences of taking the drug indicates the importance of general deterrence in this sentencing exercise. It is important that the community is aware of the consequences that may flow from the consumption of this harmful illicit drug. General deterrence is important in this sentencing exercise otherwise, because of the scourge of domestic violence on our community. As I said, this purpose of sentencing remains important despite the offender’s contributing mental health impairments. Of this, and the other important sentencing purposes in this case of denunciation and recognition of the harm done to the victim, the judgment of French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ in the High Court in Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 at [54]-[55] is apposite:

“It may be argued that general deterrence has little rational claim upon the sentencing discretion in relation to crimes which are not premeditated. That argument has special force where prolonged and widespread social disadvantage has produced communities so demoralised or alienated that it is unreasonable to expect the conduct of individuals within those communities to be controlled by rational calculation of the consequences of misconduct. In such cases it may be said that heavy sentences are likely to be of little utility in reducing the general incidence of crimes, especially crimes of passion. That having been said, there are three points to be made in response. First, the proper role of the criminal law is not limited to the utilitarian value of general deterrence. The criminal law is more than a mode of social engineering which operates by providing disincentives directed to reducing unacceptably deviant behaviour within the community. To view the criminal law exclusively, or even principally, as a mechanism for the regulation of the risks of deviant behaviour is to fail to recognise the long-standing obligation of the state to vindicate the dignity of each victim of violence, to express the community’s disapproval of that offending, and to afford such protection as can be afforded by the state to the vulnerable against repetition of violence. Further, one of the historical functions of the criminal law has been to discourage victims and their friends and families from resorting to self-help, and the consequent escalation of violent vendettas between members of the community.

A consideration with a very powerful claim on the sentencing discretion in this case is the need to recognise that the appellant, by his violent conduct, took a human life, and, indeed, the life of his de facto spouse. A just sentence must accord due recognition to the human dignity of the victim of domestic violence and the legitimate interest of the general community in the denunciation and punishment of a brutal, alcohol-fuelled destruction of a woman by her partner. A failure on the part of the state to mete out a just punishment of violent offending may be seen as a failure by the state to vindicate the human dignity of the victim; and to impose a lesser punishment by reason of the identity of the victim is to create a group of second-class citizens, a state of affairs entirely at odds with the fundamental idea of equality before the law.”

114. I do not regard the Crown contention that this was a case of an angry man who did not respect the wishes of his wife to leave him as providing the correct perspective on the evidence. There is no suggestion whatsoever that Ms Douglas was going to leave, apart from her response to his grossly destabilised mental state in the days leading up to her murder. There is no more evidence of this being real, than there is of her being unfaithful, or hurting her and the offender’s children. In the days that led to her death, she complained that the offender had “lost the plot”, that she was not safe, and needed to get out with the kids and had had enough. The offender’s dire mental state was apparent to his mother. It would obviously have been apparent to Ms Douglas as well. As Dr Furst said, it is not surprising that she felt a wish to leave him when he was presenting in that way, with the need to look after the children. The evidence does not suggest any other problem with their relationship or dissatisfaction with it from her perspective. It was a strong relationship.

115. The evidence of remorse and acceptance of responsibility is compelling, and not the inevitable result of a domestic violence homicide. I regard it as an important aspect of this case, and one which reduces the need for specific deterrence. I do not accept the Crown submission that to the extent that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced because of his mental health impairments, the need for the sentence to protect the community from him and to specifically deter him is raised. Often such countervailing considerations will arise. I am not of the view that they do in this case. Mr King’s criminal history does not suggest this. Mr King’s insight into and sorrow for his offending support positive prospects of rehabilitation. Dr Furst’s evidence did not indicate any issue of dangerousness. Mr King has a history of seeking and receiving assistance for medical problems and I expect he will continue to do so, and that he has comprehensively learned of the consequences of the use of illicit drugs.

116. I accept the evidence of Dr Furst , and the support from the documents attached to Mr King’s solicitor’s affidavit, that custody will have a more harsh impact on the offender than would be the case without his mental health impairments. His physical impairments will also make his time in custody more onerous.

117. I was a member of the bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal which earlier this year considered the Crown inadequacy appeal in the matter of R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133 which concerned a homicide committed in circumstances of domestic violence. A significant number of sentencing decisions of this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal were reviewed for the purposes of deciding that case, and I have reviewed them again for the purposes of endeavouring to promote consistency in sentencing.

118. Remorse was present in some of those cases but in many not. Reduction of moral culpability for mental illness was not often present to the extent that is the case in this matter.

119. I accept the submission advanced for the offender that a finding of special circumstances to vary the ratio between total sentence and non-parole period is warranted because of Mr King’s mental health disorders, and the need to provide significant treatment for these, and to avoid relapse into drug usage, for his best reintegration into the community. Given the length of the parole period that would result from the usual ratio applied to a lengthy sentence, the variation does not need to be significant.

120. But for guilty plea I would have imposed in this matter a sentence of 22 years imprisonment. Applying the 25% discount that is required because of the offender’s guilty plea, the sentence to be imposed will be imprisonment for 16 years and 6 months. The non-parole period will be for 11 years and 6 months. The sentence will commence on the date of the offender’s arrest.

Orders

121. For the above reasons, I make the following orders:

122. For the murder of Drew Douglas, I sentence you to 16 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing on 16 August 2023 and concluding on 15 February 2040. I impose a non-parole period of 11 years and 6 months commencing on 16 August 2023 and concluding on 15 February 2035, on which date you will be first eligible for release on parole.

123. In compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to the offender. I direct that his legal representative advise him of the existence of the Act and its application to this offence.

**********