//
[2026] NSWSC 68
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-02-13
Hamill J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Repin [2026] NSWSC 68
Hearing dates: 9 February 2026
Date of orders: 13 February 2026
Decision date: 13 February 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision: The offender is convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of 14 years commencing on 30 September 2023 and expiring on 29 September 2037. There will be a balance of term of 4 years and 9 months expiring on 29 June 2042.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – relevant considerations – no intention to kill – vulnerable victim because of advanced age – extensive criminal history – complex psychiatric, neurological and cognitive difficulties – difficulty in isolating from long term drug problem – where primary cause of offending self-induced intoxication from drugs and alcohol – drug and alcohol consumption not a mitigating factor – whether moral culpability reduced – family and childhood dysfunction insufficient to establish reduction in culpability – complex mental health issues justify modest reduction in same – impact of homicide on family and community – application of sentencing principles – sanctity of human life
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 21A(2)(eb), 21A(2)(j), 21A(2)(l), 21A(3)(i), 21A(5AA), 25D(2)(a), 28(2), 44(2), 54A, 55
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2013) 231 A Crim R 413
Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Diallo & Ors (No 17) (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1650
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81; (2023) 307 A Crim R 149
Ghamraoui v R [2009] NSWCCA 111
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Sumpton v R [2016] NSWCCA 162
TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185
Texts Cited: N/A
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Prosecution)
Alexander Repin (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
B G Campbell SC (Rex)
J Watts (Repin)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Rex)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Repin)
File Number(s): 2023/00310819
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), there is to be no publication of the name of the deceased’s granddaughter or any material that tends to identify her.
Since Mr Repin’s sentencing hearing on Monday, I have tried to imagine Jane [REDACTED]’s experience in New York City in early October 2023. I am unable to do so. I can, however, recount it for posterity and for the Court’s record.
Ms [REDACTED]’s father, Rex Graham Upton, was exactly one month away from his 90th birthday. Ms [REDACTED] was in New York holidaying with [REDACTED]. They were three days into their two-week vacation with plans to return home to celebrate her father’s birthday with family and friends. She received a ‘phone call from her brother Charles which changed the way she looks at life. Charles had to tell her that her father had been brutally assaulted at a house he owned in Lismore. He was in a coma in hospital. Not long afterwards, she received an even more devastating call. It was her father’s doctor with news that Mr Upton would never come out of the coma. Jane realised she would never hear her father’s voice again. She and [REDACTED] spent days in anguish trying to get on a ‘plane to fly back to Australia so they could see their father and grandfather before he died. It was a busy time but fortunately they were able to make those arrangements and Jane held her father’s hand as he took his final breaths.
Along with her two brothers, Jane’s emotional well-being has been severely affected. She is hypersensitive to news reports about crime and violence and has become incredibly protective of her daughter, worrying whenever she goes out that something terrible might happen to her. She tries not to pass on her fears to her daughter, she tries to escape, but she knows she will never forget.
As Charles Upton told the Court on Monday, grief like this does not fade; it changes but it never goes away. There is no closure, just the ongoing task of managing how to live with the loss. I will return to speak more about Rex Upton and his family’s profound grief, but, as I said on Monday, I accept the Prosecutor’s submission that the pain and suffering this offence has caused is heartfelt and long lasting and is a substantial aspect of the harm done to the community by the crime committed by the offender, Alexander Repin. In determining the appropriate punishment, which I am sure will not seem enough from the point of view of the victim’s family, I have taken into account the suffering of Mr Upton’s loved ones. [1] Mr Watts, who appears for the offender, agreed that this was the proper approach.
The circumstances in which the offender murdered Mr Upton were agreed between the prosecuting authority and the offender.
The deceased owned a two-storey house located in Keen Street, Lismore. Following the Lismore floods in early 2022, the house was declared uninhabitable. Mr Repin was released from custody on 26 September 2023 and made his way to Lismore. He was homeless and began squatting in Mr Upton’s condemned premises in Keen Street.
Michael Woods undertook lawn and garden maintenance on some of Mr Upton’s properties. He attended the Keen Street house on 30 September 2023. Mr Upton arrived at about 12:30pm and the two men sat down at the rear of the property and were chatting for about 30 minutes. Mr Woods heard a “grunting” noise that went on for approximately five minutes and then saw movement on the rear balcony. He thought he saw a person wearing a white t-shirt and asked Mr Upton if anyone was meant to be inside. Mr Upton said, “No” and then walked towards the stairs and said words like, “What are you doing? This house is condemned”. Mr Woods heard a male voice reply, but he could not understand what was said and did not see anyone. Mr Woods lost sight of Mr Upton but heard him say, “Help”.
Mr Woods rushed to the bottom of the stairs. He saw Mr Upton lying on his back at the top of the stairs with his torso on the landing and feet down on the steps. Mr Woods observed the offender at the top of the stairs and described him as being a white male in his mid-thirties with dark medium length scruffy hair, a beard and a stocky build. He was wearing a white shirt. Mr Woods saw the offender kick the deceased in the head. Mr Woods started going up the stairs and the offender backed away. Mr Upton had blood coming out of his mouth and a large cut to his right eye.
Mr Woods reached the top of the stairs and moved onto the balcony. By then the offender was holding a large silver chef’s knife in his right hand. He walked towards Mr Woods who retreated down the stairs. The offender was yelling but Mr Woods could not understand what he was saying. Mr Woods got his mobile telephone out of his pocket and said, “I am just going to call 000 to get an ambulance here”. The offender replied, “I am homeless, and I have been looking after this place”. A small verbal dispute ensued before Mr Woods walked across the road and called 000 at 12:46pm.
While Mr Woods was on the ‘phone, he saw the offender leave the premises and walk towards Ballina Road and then Parkes Street. Mr Woods directed a police car towards the offender and police arrested Mr Repin on the corner of Parkes and Keen Street. Mr Woods ran back to the property to assist Mr Upton.
The offender was arrested for assault. Constable Denison lifted the offender’s jumper and found a large stainless steel kitchen knife tucked into his pants. While searching Mr Repin, police observed blood on his hands and shoes. He was taken to Lismore Police Station.
“(1) Right subdural haematoma 7 to 8 mm depth.
(2) Left subdural haematoma 9 mm depth.
(3) Right periorbital haematoma with medial orbital wall fracture, fat herniation and possible entrapment of medial rectus muscle.
(4) Complex laceration of upper lateral eyelid.
(5) Undisplaced right L4 transverse process fracture.
Further ED observation of injuries: Head injury:
(1) Right lateral eye laceration (approx. 3xm [sic] x 1 cm L shaped flap) with likely globe injury
(2) Right upper lip lateral laceration / approx. 4cm / horizontal, does cross vermillion border
(3) Left ear cartilage laceration / approx. 2 cm into cartilage at 3 o’clock position on earlobe
(4) Inner upper lip laceration / just anterior to top teeth 1-2, 1-3.”
A crime scene was established at the Keen Street premises and a forensic examination was conducted. Samples from blood staining from the offender’s jeans and shoes, as well as from the area around the top of the stairs, matched the DNA of Mr Upton.
Mr Upton was on life support for some days and was extubated at 12:37pm on 7 October 2023 and pronounced dead at 3:20pm that same day. A post-mortem examination was conducted on 13 October 2023. The direct cause of death was blunt force head injuries, but the precise nature of the assault could not be determined with precision.
It appears the offender punched Mr Upton with some force at least once and kicked him in the head while he was helpless on the ground. The kicking was observed by Mr Woods. One or more of the injuries may have been sustained when Mr Upton fell after the initial confrontation.
Because there is a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and a standard non-parole period of 20 years, it is appropriate to attempt to place this murder on a putative scale of objective seriousness. I accept Mr Watts’ submission that the crime falls below the mid-range of objective seriousness although I do not accept it is “well below” that range.
The reasons for those findings include that the offender did not plan the attack and did not intend to kill Mr Upton. The assault was a violent but spontaneous response to what he perceived to be some kind of threat. He did not use the weapon, a large kitchen knife that he later brandished when Mr Woods went up to see what had happened. The injuries to Mr Upton occurred as a result of a blow or blows with fists and what must be seen as a cowardly kick when Mr Upton was on the ground. The offence occurred over a very short period of time.
On the other hand, Mr Upton was almost 90 years of age and, while he was a healthy, active and courageous man, he was vulnerable because of his age. [2] He was killed in a place where, as his children said, he was entitled to feel, and to be, safe. The aggravating feature identified in s 21A(2)(eb) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Act”) does not apply because Mr Upton was not living at the house which had been deemed to be uninhabitable following the Lismore floods. This simply emphasises the lack of utility in checking off boxes in provisions such as s 21A when assessing the objective seriousness of such an offence. [3] The fact is the murder took place in a property Mr Upton owned, where he was entitled to investigate who was inside, and to do so without fear of being subjected to a violent assault.
It should be remembered though that when one is attempting to place a case like this on some kind of scale of seriousness, it is to be considered alongside, and relative to, cases where the offence is planned or pre-meditated and those where the offender forms a specific intention to kill. It must also be compared to cases at the extreme end of the scale, such as those involving torture, gratuitous violence and extended suffering, or those categorised as contract killings or which occur during organised criminal or gangland activity.
It is a regrettable fact that the crime of murder is committed in a vast array of circumstances. Placing an offence on a relative scale of seriousness is difficult. As I said, my evaluation is that this case falls below the mid-range of objective seriousness as that expression is used in the provision ascribing a 20-year standard non-parole period to the offence. [4] However, because of Mr Upton’s vulnerability and the brutality and senselessness of the killing, I am unable to conclude that it falls at the bottom of the range or can properly be described as well below the mid-range.
Another matter that does not increase the seriousness of the murder, but which is extremely relevant to the appropriate sentence, is Mr Repin’s antecedent criminal record. It is an appalling record of convictions.
The form of the criminal history tendered on sentence was chaotic. For example, it proceeded in roughly chronological order for 21 pages and then jumped backwards in time from 2022 to 2000. The Prosecutor provided a very helpful summary of the convictions in his written submissions and assured me that the record as tendered did not include any duplicated charges. Mr Watts agreed that the Prosecutor’s summary accurately reflected the criminal history.
I have considered all of Mr Repin’s past offending, but will not recount all of it now. He commenced offending in 1990 when he was a child of about 15 or 16 years and continued until 2022 when he was placed on a series of Community Correction Orders (“CCOs”) for offences of intimidation and carrying out a sexual act. He also received a short term of imprisonment in September 2022 for assault and hindering a police officer. Then, in June 2023, he received a three-month sentence for failing to comply with reporting obligations. He was released from that sentence on 26 September 2023 and committed the present offences just days later. The CCOs were current at the time of the present offences and this breach of conditional liberty is an aggravating factor on sentence (although, again, it does not elevate the objective seriousness of the murder). [6] Further, Mr Repin had only been released from custody a few days before he murdered Mr Upton. His record is littered with offences of dishonesty and violence and he has been sentenced to gaol something like 12 or 13 times over the years. Many of those sentences were imposed for offences of violence. For example, in 2010 he was sentenced to seven months gaol for common assault and affray and in 2017 he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for stalking, destroying property and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. There are some instances of sexual offending and a series of failing to comply with reporting obligations (under the Child Protection Register).
This history of past offending, especially the convictions and gaol sentences for offences of violence, means that the offender is disentitled to the leniency that would be afforded to somebody with a limited or no criminal history.
Further, it means that I have inevitably formed a negative view of his prospects of rehabilitation. Based on his history, I cannot find that Mr Repin is unlikely to offend again and am quite pessimistic about his prospects of rehabilitation. The protection of the community is an important aspect of any sentencing exercise, and it is a very significant matter in this case given the seriousness of this offence and the history of violent offending. That is not to say Mr Repin is to be punished for his criminal record or that the sentence will be longer than that which reflects the objective gravity of the offence and an application of all relevant sentencing principles.
Mr Repin’s personal circumstances were put before the Court in the form of two reports of Dr Olav Nielssen, a psychiatrist. I understand that Dr Nielssen has had several dealings with him over the years, but the reports were based on consultations on 18 March 2025 and 24 November 2025. Mr Repin gave evidence at the sentencing hearing and confirmed that he tried to provide Dr Nielssen with an accurate account of his personal and mental health history. I generally accept that history.
Mr Repin was born in Sydney and has one half-brother who is seven years younger than him. His parents separated when he was young and he has had no contact with his biological father since.
Mr Repin was often in trouble at school for fighting and other misconduct and was expelled from several schools, both private and public. He repeated year 9 after changing schools but then left school altogether. He says he is literate and numerate and wrote letters from prison. He has never undertaken tertiary education, or vocational training in gaol, and has only been employed in the community as a kitchen hand and on several construction jobs for short periods of time. He reported that his longest period of employment was four months. Mr Repin has received the Disability Support Pension since the late 1990s.
He says he has had several relationships over the years and he is the father to two children. His son died of a heart malformation and his daughter is now aged 12 and is in foster care.
Mr Repin said he did not have many hobbies or interests because of his drug use but had some training in martial arts when he was younger. He said, “I don’t do much on the outside … I always have to look for a home”.
Mr Repin was being held in the protection area of the Metropolitan Special Programs Centre at the time of the first interview and when asked why, he said “I don’t want to go into it”. However, Mr Repin was sexually assaulted the first time he went into custody in 1994 and was kidnapped and threatened around that time. He subsequently reported the rape and this probably explains his status as a protection inmate. He gave evidence that he has served all of his sentences in protection, remained in protection at the time of sentence, and expects to serve the whole of today’s sentence in this more restricted form of incarceration. I do not have the precise details of those restrictions.
Mr Repin was not aware of any family history of psychiatric disorder or treatment. However, he has been diagnosed with Agoraphobia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). He said he was diagnosed with ADHD at 16 years of age and prescribed the psychostimulant dexamphetamine. He took that medication for several years but stopped due to the side effects. He said that he had contact with psychiatrists in the community over the years including many admissions to the mental health unit of Lismore Base Hospital.
“A. Currently, I’m taking Olanzapine for my schizophrenia. I’m also on Avanza or mirtazapine as the doctors call it. I’m on a ten-milligram tablet of Olanzapine and a 30 milligram tablet for – onrizapine (as said), which is like an anxiety – anxiety sort of drug.
Q. Are you on any sort of opiate or drug replacement program? A. Yes, yes. I currently am on Buvidal injections cause in my younger years, I used to – I used to take a bit of heroin. I’ve taken heroin too in the past before I went to custody also.”
Mr Repin has experienced auditory hallucinations which continue despite the medication and his abstinence from illegal drugs since his arrest.
Dr Nielssen reviewed past reports and discharge summaries. These disclosed a number of admissions to Lismore Hospital largely resulting from the offender’s erratic behaviour while intoxicated, threats to take his own life, or when he has been referred for treatment by the Local Court. There have been diagnoses of polysubstance abuse, personality disorder, and possible schizophrenia. After a two-week admission in May 2017, his underlying condition was not confirmed, but the diagnoses considered were PTSD, depression, antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia and probable intellectual impairment. Mr Repin was discharged on a combination of medications including antipsychotic and antidepressant medication.
Dr Nielssen also referred to the reports of a psychologist, Dr Christopher Lennings, and a psychiatrist, Dr Jonathan Carne. Dr Lennings found that Mr Repin performed in the bottom 1% of the population in terms of his intellectual functioning, although there was a question over whether the offender was applying himself to the tests. Dr Lennings also noted a history of an acquired brain injury at the age of 18 years. Dr Carne noted Mr Repin had been admitted to hospital for paranoid psychosis and polysubstance abuse. Dr Carne concluded that Mr Repin had a recurrent delusional disorder, either drug induced or arising from schizophrenia.
Dr Nielssen is of the opinion that Mr Repin has a severe substance use disorder, in partial remission, and there is a probable underlying psychotic illness. The latter diagnosis was based on the history of persistent auditory hallucinations and episodes of psychosis triggered by substance use, as well as the delusional belief that he was being set up. Dr Nielssen noted that Mr Repin was:
“restricted in his emotional range and impoverished in his speech in a way that suggested a chronic form of psychosis, and he expressed persecutory beliefs that could also be due to a chronic form of psychotic illness.”
That observation was consistent with Mr Repin’s presentation in Court, both sitting in the dock and when he gave evidence. I accept Mr Watts’ submission that his presentation is “odd”. As is often the case, it is difficult to isolate the psychiatric illnesses and neurological difficulties from the chronic drug use.
Mr Repin has a long history of drug use. He began using cannabis at around the age of 13 or 14 years, and was a daily user by his mid-teens. When he stopped using cannabis, he began abusing sedatives when he was about 16. He also began using amphetamines and then methamphetamine, which has been his drug of choice for more than 20 years. He commenced using when he was 18 years and was also injecting the dexamphetamine tablets which were prescribed for his ADHD. He said he injected up to half a gram of methamphetamine at a time in binges which continued over several days or weeks. Mr Repin has also tried hallucinogens over the years and reported one “bad trip” during which he attempted suicide. Mr Repin also used heroin in the late 1990s and had three or four overdoes for which he required resuscitation.
Mr Repin has completed substance use programs in custody and was enrolled in the Equips Addiction Course at the time of the first psychiatric report. Mr Repin previously admitted himself to Gorman House and Basement 82, and was also briefly admitted to William Booth Institute Drug Rehabilitation Programme but left before receiving any benefit. Mr Repin has also been enrolled in several methadone programs in the community. He testified that he has had periods of one or two years drug free, but that evidence was unpersuasive. It is fair to say that his past attempts to get off drugs have failed.
Mr Repin reported being a longstanding user of alcohol, mainly spirits, when no other substances were available.
He acknowledged that most of his offences were drug related.
On the day of the murder, the offender said he consumed a litre of spirits over several hours, half a gram of methamphetamine, both injected and smoked, and some tablets of diazepam. He had some memory of the events and did not report symptoms of psychosis that day or offer an account of events that suggested he was acting in response to delusional beliefs. Dr Nielssen was of the opinion that:
“Mr Repin[’s] underlying propensity to psychosis, and accumulated acquired brain injuries, may have contributed to impairment in his perception of the events and his ability to control his actions. However, the main factor contributing to the loss of self control evident in severely assaulting an elderly man is likely to have been the effect of intoxication with a combination of disinhibiting substances.”
(5AA) Special rule for self-induced intoxication 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.
See also the discussion of the issue in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 and contrast the approaches taken by members of the majority (Spigelman CJ at [174]-[208] with Newman J agreeing at [278]) with that of Wood CJ at CL at [214]-[277] and Simpson J at [335]-[356]. Hulme J at [331] agreed with the reasons of both Spigelman CJ and Wood CJ at CL on this issue. This approach taken by the majority subsequently found voice in s 21A(5AA).
Mr Watts acknowledged the provision in s 21A(5AA) and did not seek to rely on Mr Repin’s longstanding drug addiction and the role it played in the murder as a factor in mitigation. However, he argued that there were complexities in the present case that meant that Mr Repin’s moral culpability – but not the objective gravity of the offending – was reduced to a certain extent because of the role his mental health and dysfunctional childhood played in his commission of the offence. [7] Reliance was placed both on the dysfunctional personal history and the complex mental health issues which the offender has dealt with since his teenage years.
As I have said, it is difficult to isolate the offender’s complex mental health issues from his drug abuse and attribute one or other or both as the cause of the offending conduct. Mr Watts relied on his disrupted early family life (essentially comprised of the separation of his parents), his difficulty at school caused by his odd demeanour and intellectual difficulties as leading to early drug use and a life of crime, chaos, homelessness and incarceration. [8]
The Prosecutor acknowledged the complexities of the case but relied on s 21A(5AA) and Dr Nielssen’s opinion that “the main factor contributing to the loss of self control evident in severely assaulting an elderly man is likely to have been the effect of intoxication with a combination of disinhibiting substances”. However, acknowledging Dr Nielssen’s opinion that the offender’s “propensity to psychosis, and accumulated acquired brain injuries, may have contributed to impairment in his perception of the events and his ability to control his actions”, the Prosecutor submitted:
“The effect of any De La Rosa-type factors therefore must be limited. There remains a need to strongly deter drug-fuelled violence that results in death.” [9]
I am not satisfied that any dysfunction in Mr Repin’s childhood was such that, standing alone, it diminishes his moral culpability. Dr Nielssen described his early life in the eastern suburbs of Sydney as “relatively privileged”. Having parents who separate is not unusual. He did not endure the kind of “deprivation” discussed in cases such as Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.
However, I am satisfied that the offender has suffered his entire life from a complex combination of cognitive, neurological and psychiatric disabilities or illnesses that have led to his current situation and played a role in the commission of this terrible offence. His moral culpability is slightly reduced but the sentence will not be tempered to any great degree given the role that drugs played and the need to deter such violent offending.
The psychiatric evidence does little to reduce the need for general and personal deterrence in view of Dr Nielssen’s opinion as to the major contributing factor to the commission of the offence. [10] However, the combination of his psychiatric and neurological issues, along with the likelihood that he will spend most of the sentence in protective custody, satisfies me that custody will be somewhat more onerous for Mr Repin. I have taken that into account in the complex mix of factors relevant to the total sentence. [11]
“Q. You’ve heard some quite harrowing victim impact statements read today. Is there anything that you would say to the Court or to the family of Mr Upton about how you feel now about your offending? A. Yes. I’m sorry that what I did – what I did. I should have – I should’ve thought about my actions before – before I acted upon – acted upon them.”
While a plea of guilty is often “equivocal” or neutral as to the question of remorse, [12] the plea of guilty to murder (as distinct from manslaughter) in this case adds some force to the suggestion that Mr Repin is genuinely remorseful. This was a very strong case of homicide, but the issue of specific intention, and what might be thought to be a very weak case of excessive self-defence, could have been litigated at a trial. The early plea of guilty spared Mr Upton’s family from the anguish inherent in a further delay that would have inevitably resulted if the case had gone to trial.
Even so, the offender said other things to Dr Nielssen that demonstrate a lack of insight and a failure to take responsibility for Mr Upton’s death. For example, he said, “I am pleading guilty but it just went down wrong” and “I was just defending myself”. When asked about Mr Woods’ account of him kicking Mr Upton, he said “as far as I can remember I just punched him”. I can accept that Mr Repin’s memory is patchy, but those statements do not suggest that he truly takes responsibility.
Against that, I have considered Mr Repin’s odd manner of communicating which was patent when he gave evidence and was referred to by Dr Nielssen. I am satisfied that he does have some remorse but that he cannot comprehend, let alone communicate, the magnitude of his crime or appreciate the impact that it has had, and continues to have, on Mr Upton’s family and friends and the wider community.
The provision in s 21A(3)(i) requires an offender to demonstrate that he has accepted responsibility and acknowledged the damage he has caused (or made reparation for that damage). I have taken into account the evidence of remorse and the findings I have made, but I am not satisfied that the evidence reaches the level required by s 21A to establish a statutory factor in mitigation.
Having addressed at a little length Mr Repin’s sad personal circumstances, it is appropriate that I return to where I began and speak of Mr Rex Upton himself and to his family and other loved ones. I trust that Mr Upton’s adult children do not mind me referring to each by their first name. I mean no disrespect or inappropriate familiarity.
I explained at the outset the awful circumstances in which Jane and [REDACTED] found out that Mr Upton was in a coma. Jason had a similar experience of being overseas when he received a call from Charles, and having to make arrangements to come to Australia to sit by his father’s bedside in his final hours. The family then had to make the decision to cut off his life support. The trauma of this, and the life altering impact of being a secondary victim of a murder, is stark in the statements I received on Monday. Each of Mr Upton’s children have been severely traumatised by the experience. I hope that their grief diminishes in time but I fear that it won’t.
Jane remains extremely sensitive to hearing about crime, violence and death. Many everyday things trigger her memory and her trauma. She fears for her daughter’s safety. She is intensely sad that her father did not see [REDACTED] complete high school and get accepted into university. Mr Upton was proud of all of his children, but he was especially proud of [REDACTED], who was his only grandchild. Jane often goes to call her father with family news, but she can no longer share these things with him.
Jason said that seeing his father “brutalised by an assault, the head injuries still visible, supported to breathe by a machine, is a situation no child should ever have to endure”. Similarly, the responsibility cast on the children to turn off life support was harrowing and almost too much. Jason feels like something fundamental in him has changed. In the period after the murder, he felt a profound sense of shock and disbelief, felt “numb to [his] emotions … hollowed out and mechanical”. To this day he fears for people he loves, and life now has a pervasive “atmosphere of precarity and vulnerability that did not exist before”. The impact of this crime is “ongoing and irreversible”.
Charles is the youngest of Mr Upton’s children. The burden and responsibility of notifying his brother and sister of the tragedy fell upon him. He told the Court:
“When a life is taken through selfish and senseless actions, it creates a world for those left behind that is full of sadness, confusion, and disbelief. It leaves an irreparable void that changes the meaning of everything you have ever known”.
He has been profoundly altered by his father’s murder and is left with “a permanent scar” that he will never truly understand. He feels disconnected from his past, from others, and from himself. He feels fearful and empty in a way he never has before.
As to Mr Rex Upton himself, I know very little of course, but he was clearly a person of integrity and character; a man of enormous energy and courage. He was musical and played in a band in the 1960s. He passed that musical gift on to his granddaughter. He was always busy, socialising and working. He remained engaged with life and family after his wife’s death in 2021 and the devastation of the Lismore floods in 2022. He loved his local community and showed resilience and strength after the floods. He was a craftsman, a friend, and an orator who carried and shared generations of stories. He was an encouraging presence and an endless source of energy. His final act – as he was about to turn 90 – was to charge courageously into the house to confront an intruder.
All of this is lost to his children, to his extended family, to his friends and to the Lismore community.
That inadequate summary is an attempt to describe the profound impact that this murder has had on those who knew and loved Rex Upton.
In sentencing for crimes which cause a person’s death, especially in murder cases, the Court must recall the law’s insistence on protecting the sanctity of all human life. The maximum penalty (life imprisonment) and standard non-parole period (20 years) must be at the forefront of the sentencing judge’s thinking from beginning to end.
The sentence I impose must recognise the harm done to Mr Upton, his family and the community. It must ensure that Mr Repin is adequately punished and is held accountable for his actions. It must denounce in the clearest way the offender’s conduct and protect the community from the offender. It must send a clear message that such violence will be met with severe sentences in the hope that other like-minded offenders are deterred. If possible, it must also promote the offender’s rehabilitation.
Those purposes of punishment are to be achieved by a synthesis of all relevant evidence and by instinctively settling upon an appropriate sentence.
In reaching my decision, I have considered what I know of patterns of sentences in other similar cases. A sentencing judge must strive to impose a penalty that is consistent with generally comparable cases. One matter of significance is that murder cases involving an intention to kill usually (but not always) result in heavier sentences than those where an offender intends to inflict grievous bodily harm. On the other hand, the criminal record in this case, particularly the history of violence, disentitles Mr Repin from leniency. While consistency is important, no two cases are exactly the same and justice in sentencing must remain individualised.
Mr Repin pleaded guilty in the Local Court and is entitled to a 25% reduction in his sentence. [14]
The parties agree that the sentence should commence on the date the offender was arrested, that is on 30 September 2023. I have taken into account the fact that the offender was then on the CCOs and that, if those orders had been called up and he had received a sentence, they are offences entirely unrelated to the current offence.
Apart from a very small rounding down of the sentence, I am unable to find special circumstances that would justify an extended period on parole. [15] In reaching that conclusion, I am conscious of the fact that the offender is in protective custody and have factored that into the total sentence. I have also considered his need for a structured re-entry into the community after such a long time in gaol. Even so, the length of the sentence is such that there will be sufficient time on parole to foster Mr Repin’s rehabilitation and to protect the community.
Alexander Repin, for the murder of Rex Graham Upton, you are convicted and, taking into account the offence of armed with intent, you are sentenced to a non-parole period of 14 years commencing on 30 September 2023 and expiring on 29 September 2037. There will be a balance of term of 4 years and 9 months expiring on 29 June 2042.
I am required to tell you that the provisions of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) apply to you and to the offence for which you are now sentenced. That Act allows for certain orders for the continued detention or extended supervision of violent offenders at the conclusion of the sentence. I invite your lawyers to provide you with advice as to the practical and possible consequences of that fact.
**********
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Act”), s 28(2) and Sumpton v R [2016] NSWCCA 162 at [153]-[155].
Sentencing Act, s 21A(2)(l).
Cf Ghamraoui v R [2009] NSWCCA 111 at [23].
Sentencing Act, ss 54A, 55 and the table in Pt 4, Div 1A.
See generally Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2013) 231 A Crim R 413, Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518 and Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81 at [23]-[24]; (2023) 307 A Crim R 149.
Sentencing Act, s 21A(2)(j).
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 at [42]-[44], Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 at [57] (Brereton JA), TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185 at [65] (Yehia J) and Diallo & Ors (No 17) (Sentence) [2024] NSWSC 1650 at [218]. See also Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177] (“De La Rosa”).
Mr Watts put this eloquently at Tcpt (9/2/26) pp 19-20.
Tcpt (9/2/26) p 17.
See above at [45].
See generally cases such as De La Rosa at [177].
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 at [117].
Sentencing Act, s 3A.
Sentencing Act, s 25D(2)(a).
Sentencing Act, s 44(2).
R
Repin [2026] NSWSC 68
(2002) 56 NSWLR 146
(2013) 249 CLR 571
(2010) 79 NSWLR 1
(1999) 46 NSWLR 346
(2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Paramedics and other police officers found Mr Upton unconscious laying at the top of the stairs. He was “crumpled on himself”, had significant injuries and was having difficulty breathing. He was taken to Lismore Base Hospital where his injuries were recorded as follows:
Because the penalty I must impose will inevitably involve a very long gaol sentence, it is difficult to predict Mr Repin’s progress towards rehabilitation over the length of the custodial portion of the sentence.
Mr Repin has attempted to commit suicide twice in gaol. While living in the community he was admitted to Lismore Hospital in 2017 following an overdose of diazepam. Mr Repin also reported a number of opioid overdoses requiring resuscitation. He has been under the care of the mental health team during the period of remand but his usual medication is no longer available and he is currently prescribed with a different antipsychotic medication. He said in evidence: