//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 872
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-07-23
Harrison AJ
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Willcockson [2026] NSWSC 872
Hearing dates: 20 July 2026
Date of orders: 23 July 2026
Decision date: 23 July 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison AJ
Decision: (1) For doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 2) sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment commencing on 26 November 2023 and expiring on 25 November 2024.
(2) For doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 3) sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment commencing on 26 February 2024 and expiring on 25 February 2025.
(3) For the murder of Paul Davy at Kendall in the State of New South Wales on 22 November 2023 (Count 1) sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years commencing on 26 May 2024 and expiring on 25 May 2046 with a non-parole period of 16 years and 6 months expiring on 25 November 2040.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – murder – jury trial – where offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder – where the jury found the offender guilty of murder – where the offender fired a single shot at close range through a locked flyscreen door SENTENCING – relevant factors – where the offender has expressed remorse for his actions notwithstanding that his evidence at trial was that the gun discharged accidentally – where the offender has a stoma and needs to wear a colostomy bag and there is little evidence as to the treatment that he has received for his condition – whether the deceased’s conduct immediately before his death amounted to extreme provocation SENTENCING – pervert the course of justice – where offender pleaded guilty to two counts of an act intending to pervert the course of justice – where the offender made a series of phone calls to associates from gaol to co-opt them to provide a false alibi for murder
Original judgment source is linked above.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A(2)(j), 21A(3)(i), 25D(2)(b)(ii)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Luke Willcockson (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
C Young with C Nash (Solicitor Advocate) (Crown)
D Stewart (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s): 2023/427883 and 2024/5009
Publication restriction: Nil
The following facts are those which in my opinion are consistent with the jury verdict. Any conclusions at which I arrive in finding facts adverse to Mr Willcockson must be established by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt. Findings that are favourable to him need only be established on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Willcockson and Mr Davy knew each other prior to the commission of these offences. In November 2023, Mr Willcockson had been in a relationship with Ashley Shields. Mr Willcockson was friends with Michael Hatzigeorgiou and Julia Jeffrey. Ms Jeffrey lived at Batar Creek Road, Kendall. There was a motion activated CCTV camera near the front door.
In 2023, Mr Hatzigeorgiou commenced a relationship with Danielle Austin and moved into her home at Coolongolook. Mr Davy had previously been in a relationship with Ms Austin and they remained friendly.
Mr Hatzigeorgiou and Ms Austin ended their relationship on or about 20 November 2023. Following this, Mr Hatzigeorgiou moved into Batar Creek Road with Ms Jeffrey.
On 22 November 2023, Ms Austin was at her home in Coolongolook with Mr Davy. At 12.54pm, Mr Hatzigeorgiou, Ms Jeffrey and Mr Willcockson arrived at Batar Creek Road. Ms Shields arrived there a short time later. At 2.54pm Mr Willcockson, Ms Jeffrey, Ms Shields and Mr Hatzigeorgiou left Batar Creek Road and drove a Hyundai Sante Fe which was towing a hired trailer to Ms Austin’s house in Coolongolook. This had been arranged with Ms Austin so that Mr Hatzigeorgiou could collect his belongings, including a Ford Falcon utility. This was then loaded onto the trailer.
Mr Hatzigeorgiou also took possession of a dog while at Ms Austin’s house. He did this without telling her, in circumstances where ownership of the dog was in dispute. After Mr Hatzigeorgiou left, Ms Austin told Mr Davy that the dog had been taken. He agreed to go and retrieve it.
At 6.05pm that evening, Mr Willcockson, Mr Hatzigeorgiou, Ms Jeffrey and Ms Shields returned to Batar Creek Road with the dog. They went to the loungeroom. Mr Davy arrived 30 minutes later and approached the front door. There was then an argument about the dog.
Mr Davy was unarmed and remained on the porch. The flyscreen door was locked. Mr Davy then said, “get the fuck out here Mick or I’ll burn your car in the street” and “a child’s dog mate, it’s not his dog”. Ms Jeffrey is heard to respond from inside the house, “Mick paid for it”.
Mr Willcockson was in the loungeroom as this was taking place. He retrieved a rifle from his bag and walked to the front door with it. Mr Willcockson joined Mr Hatzigeorgiou who was standing in the hall near the front door.
Ms Jeffrey gave evidence that Mr Davy and Mr Willcockson were speaking to each other. She said, “They were just sort of egging each other on like I think Luke told him basically to piss off”. Mr Davy said something like, “make me go”.
Mr Hatzigeorgiou said Mr Willcockson produced the rifle. Mr Davy said, “you won’t do it – you won’t shoot me” or “you don’t have the balls to do it”. Mr Willcockson then raised the gun and discharged it. He returned to the loungeroom and said to Ms Shields, “I’ve just shot him. We’ve got to go”. She replied, “no you didn’t” and Mr Willcockson responded, “yes I did”. At 6.40pm, Mr Hatzigeorgiou, Ms Shields and Mr Willcockson then left. Ms Jeffrey called 000 at 6.42pm. Mr Davy was pronounced dead at 7.25pm.
Mr Willcockson later said to Partick Craft, “I shot him. Pauly has gone… Pauly was going off and he said to me, ‘You won’t shoot me. Go on shoot me then’ so I did”. Mr Craft said, “I don’t want to know. Shut the fuck up”.
Mr Willcockson subsequently went to a farm and spoke to Michael Coulter. Mr Coulter said to Mr Willcockson, “Did you hear what happened at Julia’s? Apparently a body was found there last night.” Mr Willcockson responded, “No, I don’t know anything, that’s the first I’ve heard of it”.
The next day, Mr Hatzigeorgiou and Ms Austin met up with Lechelle Manson. She said to Mr Hatzigeorgiou, “So what the fuck actually happened Mick?”. Mr Hatzigeorgiou said, “Luke shot Paul. He just shot him. Pauly said, ‘You won’t shoot me’. Luke lifted up the gun and shot him. He just shot him right there beside me. It was that quick”. Ms Manson responded, “You need to go and sort this”. Mr Hatzigeorgiou replied, “Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I will”.
Mr Willcockson was arrested on 26 November 2023. When questioned by police he said, “I don’t know anything about a firearm”. He told the police he thought Mr Davy had died of a heart attack. Mr Davy died from a single gunshot to the chest fired from Mr Willcockson’s Sportco rifle.
Mr Willcockson gave evidence that the firearm accidentally discharged and that he did not know it was loaded. The jury rejected this account. The verdict of the jury is consistent with Mr Willcockson deliberately firing the rifle at Mr Davy with an intention either to cause grievous bodily harm or to kill.
While in custody between 30 November 2023 and 16 December 2023, Mr Willcockson had several conversations with Simone Kohelmainin (Count 2) and Nevielle Shever (Count 3).
On 1 December 2023, Mr Willcockson said to Ms Kohelmainin:
“… remember how the afternoon that all this happened? … I was at the farm with Chook; Wayne was there, you were there, Chook was there, Ned was there, Paul was there but it wasn’t even where they’re saying it was … the thing is … I wasn’t there when they’re saying it was. I was with you guys when they were saying I was there. So it’s … almost you, youse guys can tell them the truth, well, fuck. The, the, we’ve got nothing. Like I’ve done nothing wrong … Yeah. I’m pretty sure Ned picked me up from the fucking um, John’s River turnoff and went, took me home to, I didn’t even go back into Kendall with him. … ‘Cause they, they reckon I murdered fucking someone. I thought it was a heart attack”.
Kohelmainin: No, I need to know what happened or do I just tell the detectives what I’ve heard what’s happened?
Willcockson: Well, you just tell the detective what you … know happened, I’ll … everything else from fucking John’s River turnoff.
Kohelmainin: Yeah.
Willcockson: And I went out the farm, that’s where you were and everyone … Well, what? What did I just say?
Kohelmainin: Well, pretty much you didn’t go out that night and someone picked you up from, ‘cause you’re working on a car down Harrington and then you got picked up---
Willcockson: No, I was working on a car down at Nabiac. I was working on fucking Paul’s car at fucking Nabiac.
Kohelmainin: Yeah. Well, I wasn’t with you, so I can’t actually tell you what I was doing.
Shever: … we got interviewed that night man, on camera.
Willcockson: Yeah.
Shever: Remember I told you I went past?
Willcockson: Yeah … You guys picked me up before that anyway.
Shever: Yeah. Like, yeah, well---
Willcockson: At John’s River and that---
Shever: … he’s asked them where we were all the next, this is the day before but.
Willcockson: Yeah, but you were … at home weren’t you? … Yeah, that’s fine, that’s where I was too.
Shever: Yeah. Well---
Willcockson: I’m just saying like, you picked me up at John’s River---
“Nev has to call Danielle on this number I give you. Okay? Or you can call Danielle, I don’t give a fuck. Someone’s gotta call Danielle and get the detective’s number. You listening? You following? … To take to Nev to tell Nev to call them to tell them that he picked me up from John’s River after I got back from Nabiac … Once they have that information, there’s a good chance I’ll be released.”
Willcockson: All right. So if you call these detectives, which is what Danielle said, and let her know that you picked me up at 5.00 at the John’s River turnoff there, and we went to, ah, like, ah, I went out to the farm, then they would probably release me.
Shever: Really?
Willcockson: Yeah.
Shever: Wow. … Yeah, fuckin’ I just don’t know about that fuckin’, and you’ve always seen him, ah, later on.
Willcockson: Yeah, that’s later on bro, that the, they can see you later on all they want. But I think that, they, ‘cause they seen you bro, was the next day anyway.
Shever: Yeah, yeah, eh.
Willcockson: That was the whole day after, the whole day after that’s when they seen you.
Shever: No, that was, um, that night.
Willcockson: Yeah, well that night’s fine, this is at 5 o’clock bro, oh, like I’m saying, I have told them you picked me up at 5 o’clock at John’s River and we went home, like the back way.
Shever: That, that arvo, eh.
Willcockson: Yeah, at Helendale, yeah.
Shever: Yeah.
Willcockson: That’s the Helendale way.
Shever: Yeah, right. So what, what’s happenin’, the detective who---
Willcockson: Well … hey?
Shever: What’s the detectives are going to come and talk to us or somethin’?
Willcockson: No the detectives just want, like, they want you to give them a call … if you go there and talk to Jenny, she will, she will tell you, but she has got a number there for detectives to ring, just to verify that you picked me up and took me out to the farm and that just gets, that takes me out of the whole equation, like the, they have only got me in here ‘cause Mick, Mick’s trying to fuckin’ like, stitch me up so I go to gaol for somethin’ he’s done obviously.
Shever: Yeah Luke, it was just that we told them we didn’t see you at fuckin’ 12.30. They asked what we were---
Willcockson: And ‘cause you wouldn’t have seen me.
Shever: They asked, and they asked if we’d seen you.
Willcockson: Yeah, but you hadn’t seen me. You picked me up and dropped me off at home.
Shever: Yeah, and as, as I said, I fuckin’, I said, ‘Oh, he comes and goes, that’s all, all I know’.
Willcockson: I got a hold of Nev, all right, and I don’t think Nev’s going to admit to it because he’s scared, because he told the police he hadn’t seen me.
Kohelmainin: Oh, O.K.
Willcockson: So I’m trying to work out whether it’s the day that I drove the black car home and you and Suzanne were there, or is it the day that you and Suzanne picked me up from John’s River and took me home.
Kohelmainin: Huh? Yeah, like I said, that day we picked you up.
Willcockson: Yeah. Well that was at 5.00, 5 o’clock you picked me, well 5 o’clock yous picked me up then, at the John’s River roundabout there, then we went home didn’t we, straight home.
Kohelmainin: And yeah.
Willcockson: All right. Well I need you, I’ll give you two numbers, you need a pen and paper for the two detectives you’ve got to call. … See, ‘cause that, that was the day that you and Suzanne picked me up there, there is my alibi, and if it’s the day I drove the black car, then I’ve got no-one … I’m pretty sure you and Suzanne picked me up anyway.
Mr Willcockson’s offending was relatively spontaneous and unplanned. It is accepted that he did not know that Mr Davy would be coming to the house to retrieve the dog. However, Mr Willcockson took his firearm with him from the loungeroom to the front door where the shooting occurred.
Mr Davy was unarmed. There was a degree of shouting between Mr Willcockson and Mr Davy but I do not accept that Mr Davy posed a threat to Mr Willcockson or that Mr Willcockson could reasonably have thought that he did. While I accept that, in the words of one witness, each man was “egging the other on”, I do not accept that anything said or done by Mr Davy could have amounted, or did amount, to a significant provocation.
The offence involved the use of a weapon. Mr Willcockson fired a single shot at close range.
I do not accept that Mr Willcockson intended to kill Mr Davy. It is to my mind entirely unlikely that Mr Willcockson could have formed, or did form, any such lethal intention in his drug affected and soporific state in the course of the very few seconds that it took him to retrieve the weapon from his backpack and walk the short distance to the front door. The jury’s verdict is consistent with a conclusion that Mr Willcockson intended to fire the weapon, and forecloses Mr Willcockson’s version that the gun discharged accidentally. The verdict does not similarly rule out a conclusion that Mr Willcockson intended only to injure Mr Davy. There was no anterior history of disharmony or animosity between them and I am not satisfied that Mr Davy’s aggressive shouting and cajoling led Mr Willcockson to shoot him intending that he should die.
The Crown uncontroversially concedes, and I accept, that the offence is below the mid-range of objective seriousness for offences of this kind. I do not accept, as Mr Stewart submits, that it falls at the very low end of the range of seriousness.
It is clear that Mr Willcockson’s several conversations with Ms Kohelmainin and Mr Shever demonstrate an unsuccessful attempt to co-opt them to provide a false alibi for the murder. The fact that the attempts failed does not reduce the objective seriousness of the offences. The fact that these conversations were made in circumstances where Mr Willcockson must have been aware they were being recorded is inexplicably stupid. Mr Willcockson can be heard going to some length to ensure that his suggested version of where he was and what occurred was clearly understood by the people to whom he spoke.
These offences amount in my view to serious examples of doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice.
Mr Willcockson first confirmed his intention to plead guilty to these offences on 1 December 2025. They were entered on the first day of the trial. Mr Willcockson is therefore entitled to a 10% discount on his sentence for these counts in accordance with s 25D(2)(b)(ii) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
I consider that the sentences for these counts should be partially accumulated on the sentence for murder to reflect the additional criminality and the seriousness of the offending. Having regard to the fact that the sentence for the murder count must be significant, the amount of the accumulation should not be substantial.
At the time of the commission of these offences, Mr Willcockson was recovering from abdominal surgery that resulted from a serious motor vehicle accident. That left him with a stoma and the associated need to wear a colostomy bag. He remains in that condition. The evidence before me suggests that some consideration has been given to a surgical resection of this intestinal pathology but the details are scant. Mr Willcockson has given evidence of the difficulties experienced by him in the custodial setting dealing with this serious condition. For example, during lockdowns and at other times, Mr Willcockson has been left in need of medical assistance that was not provided. Correctly fitting colostomy bags have at times also not been provided to him. His status has left him vulnerable to victimisation from other prisoners.
I inquired of counsel for the parties about whether a surgical correction is planned or imminent. As far as I am able to determine, Mr Willcockson is not even on a waiting list for an operation for the reversal of his Hartmann’s procedure. Having regard to the likelihood that his prospects of a successful and satisfactory recovery may well be reduced by delay, this is a most regrettable state of affairs. For as long as it persists it is inevitable that Mr Willcockson’s time in custody will be disproportionately more onerous.
Mr Willcockson was raised in extremely difficult circumstances. His mother was a heroin addict. He was sexually abused by a teacher and a priest when young. He had difficulties with school and left after Year 8. He acquired no vocational qualifications and struggled financially as a result. He resorted to illicit drugs in his teens and has effectively never been drug free at any time since. His psychiatric and psychological conditions have produced emotional and behavioural symptoms which in turn have caused him substantive distress and an impairment in his social and other important areas of functioning.
I am satisfied that the social, emotional, economic and educational disadvantage to which Mr Willcockson was subject are relevant matters to be taken into account on sentence. Indeed, the Crown quite properly accepts that Mr Willcockson’s disadvantaged background led him to drug use, in circumstances where drugs had some role to play in his offending. His moral culpability is accordingly reduced.
I have always found the issue of assessing the genuineness of an offender’s expressions of remorse to be a most difficult task. Almost without exception, crimes of the kind involved here are committed against a background of social and intellectual disadvantage that have led to poor decisions and even poorer outcomes. The ability to express remorse and my ability to judge it are inevitably affected by the limitations upon an offender’s familiarity with the courtroom processes and communication skills. There is also the difficulty that arises when attention is drawn to the tension between things understandably said or done in defence of the case at trial and a verdict that has completely rejected them.
Mr Willcockson has expressed remorse for the death of Mr Davy in literally clear terms. That must be compared to his sworn evidence at trial that his weapon discharged accidentally. The Crown urges upon me that Mr Willcockson has not accepted that he intended seriously to injure Mr Davy even though that is at the very least an obvious result of his conviction.
I do not consider that an offender must necessarily be foist ineluctably or permanently with the consequences of a not guilty plea or an associated exculpatory version that is not ultimately accepted by the jury to the lingering detriment of any subsequent, and arguably genuine or authentic, retraction. Mr Willcockson’s letter read aloud in Court is difficult to reject on any principled basis having regard to the standard of proof he must meet, even if many members of the community in general or Mr Davy’s family in particular, who are not required to assess the issue in accordance with the strict rules that bind me, might not have the same difficulty.
It is also important to appreciate that, on any view of the matter, Mr Willcockson has expressed unqualified remorse upon the basis that his actions were the direct and sole cause of Mr Davy’s tragic and senseless death. It can sometimes become somewhat artificial to assess the question of remorse solely through the prism of strict criminal culpability. Section 21A(3)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act makes a finding of remorse dependent upon an offender’s acceptance of responsibility for his or her actions. I am satisfied that Mr Willcockson has done that.
Mr Davy’s death was senseless, unprovoked and tragic. He was shot by Mr Willcockson for reasons that are difficult to discern or explain if not in fact simply because Mr Willcockson lost control of his emotions. Mr Davy posed no risk to anyone. I reject entirely the suggestion that Mr Davy’s alleged threat to burn the house down or to torch a car in the street had anything to do with the reason he was killed. The events that give rise to these proceedings are yet another example of total and unqualified stupidity that regularly sees expression in criminal cases in this Court. The consequences are no less tragic for that. It is extremely unfortunate that the insight into these events which Mr Willcockson now appears to possess could not have informed his actions when he approached the front door to confront Mr Davy.
Luke Willcockson:
For doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 2) you are sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment commencing on 26 November 2023 and expiring on 25 November 2024.
For doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 3) you are sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment commencing on 26 February 2024 and expiring on 25 February 2025.
For the murder of Paul Davy at Kendall in the State of New South Wales on 22 November 2023 (Count 1) you are sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years commencing on 26 May 2024 and expiring on 25 May 2046 with a non-parole period of 16 years and 6 months expiring on 25 November 2040.
The earliest date upon which you will become entitled to release on parole is 26 November 2040.
It remains for me to warn you, in compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders*)* Act 2006, that the provisions of that Act have potential application to you. Your solicitor Mr Hill may be expected to provide you with further information about that.
Finally, I note that these sentence proceedings have been awaiting finalisation in Port Macquarie for some five months since Mr Willcockson’s trial concluded in February this year. That delay was the result of the parties’ request for time to prepare for the sentence hearing. Whilst there is a perfectly reasonable community expectation that a convicted offender’s sentence will be delivered as soon as possible following a trial, it is also important that the Court is given appropriate assistance and that the Crown and the offender are best placed to provide it. Moreover, an offender’s legal representatives are entitled to receive an appropriate opportunity to marshal such material on the offender’s behalf as they wish to rely upon. None of this is unusual. However, I also wish to make it clear that in such circumstances the Supreme Court cannot and should not be thought to be responsible for the delay.
**********
R
Willcockson
[2013] HCA 37
(2013) 249 CLR 571