THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SEKKOUAH [2026] WASC 60 (6 March 2026)

1. In the evening of 24 April 2024 and throughout the early hours of 25 April 2024 the deceased and the accused exchanged text messages in which they argued about drugs, money and another woman, whom the deceased appeared to be jealous of. In the early morning of 25 April 2024 at about 5.15 am or 5.30 am, a neighbour heard the deceased yelling and swearing from one of the front rooms of the house. The deceased yelled, 'It's about time you started treating me like your girlfriend'.
2. At some point on 25 April 2024 the argument between the accused and the deceased escalated into physical violence. The accused forcefully stabbed the deceased several times to the head, neck and body with an unknown object. During the attack, the deceased suffered numerous lacerations and sharp force penetrating injuries, including to her heart, liver and lung. The deceased died as a result of the multiple penetrating sharp‑force injuries inflicted by the accused.
3. At 11.16 am on 25 April 2024 the accused left the Warnbro address. He purchased a sixpack of beer at Liquorland in Port Kennedy at 12.11 pm. At 12.15 pm the accused was at the IGA in Port Kennedy and stole a bottle of turpentine from the shelf with the methylated spirits/turpentine section. He returned to the Warnbro address at 12.28 pm.
4. In the early evening of 25 April 2024 Pastor Liersch from Rockingham Mandurah Lutheran Church attended at the Warnbro address to deliver a bread hamper for the deceased, which he did once a week or fortnight. The accused opened the door. Liersch could neither hear the deceased nor her children, which was unusual. The curtain on the front window was pressing up against the glass and there was a towel or blanket tucked between the curtain and the sill. The accused took the delivery, thanked Liersch and closed the door.

1. In the early morning of 26 April 2024, the accused poured turpentine on the deceased's body and set it alight. He also poured turpentine on furniture and other property in the house and set it on fire.
2. At 00.50.07 am on 26 April 2024 the accused exited the Warnbro address from the side gate carrying the deceased's daughter. He went to the neighbour's house and asked her to ring 000 because there was a fire at his house. The accused claimed he could not find his phone. He was carrying HF in his arms and seemed 'spaced out'. He kept saying that he did not know where the deceased was. The neighbour passed her phone to the accused as she was unable to describe the layout to the house to the 000 operator.
3. WAPOL officers Crossland, Hopkins, Barrett and Wilma were the first officers to attend and enter the burning property through the glass sliding door, which leads into the kitchen. There was an empty Black and Gold Mineral Turpentine bottle on the grass next to the rear left sliding door. There was water on the floor in the hallway, due to a burst water pipe. This may have stopped the spread of the fire to other parts of the house. The deceased was lying on the floor in the doorway from the loungeroom to the hallway. A large part of her body was charred, and covered in ash and soot. There was extensive fire damage to the house.
4. Firefighters arrived at 1.10 am. They retrieved the deceased's body from the address and placed it on the concrete slab behind the fence just outside the rear sliding door. The body was severely burned and disfigured and there were no signs of life, hence no attempt was made to provide medical assistance. The accused was standing in front of the neighbour's property with HF. When a firefighter asked him if he knew where the owner of the property was, he responded that he didn't know and was only a lodger.
5. Sergeant Dyson spoke to the accused, who stated that he had been inside sleeping when he was woken up by the smoke, he grabbed HF and ran out. The accused was coughing and Dyson asked him if he was suffering from smoke inhalation, to which he replied 'yes'.
6. St John's Ambulance (SJA) officers attended to the accused and HF. SJA officer Breuer noticed that neither HF nor the accused smelled of smoke or had soot on their hands or feet. The accused was calm and told Breuer that he was sleeping on the couch in the loungeroom when he woke up to the house full of smoke. He grabbed HF straight from her bedroom and went outside. Breuer asked him why he did not go back into the house to get the deceased. The accused said that he did not know if she was in the house, and thought she had gone out. He denied being in a relationship with the deceased and claimed they were only acquaintances. He also made disparaging comments about the deceased neglecting HF. All the accused's health checks were within normal range, including his oxygen saturation and respiratory rate.
7. The accused and HF were taken to the Rockingham General Hospital (RGH). Police became suspicious of him when it became apparent that the deceased had suffered serious penetrating sharp force injuries, and the accused did not seem to suffer from smoke inhalation, notwithstanding the fact that he claimed to have woken up inside the burning house. The accused was arrested and charged with the murder of the deceased and criminal damage by fire.
8. In a bedside interview at RGH conducted on 26 April 2024 and recorded on body worn camera, the accused repeated his previous statement that he had woken up in the loungeroom and that the house was full of smoke. He said he took HF from her cot, which was in the bedroom in the middle of the hallway. He left the house not knowing where the deceased was. The accused stated that his relationship with the deceased started out as a romantic relationship, but later he was just a boarder.
9. In two further electronically recorded interviews on 27 April 2024 at Perth Watch House the accused claimed that he did not see the accused on the floor when he left the house. When asked why he went to his neighbour's place as opposed to ringing 000 himself, the accused first claimed he did not have a mobile telephone, but then stated that he used the deceased's mobile telephone. He said that he would not yell, but the deceased would yell all sorts of crazy stuff.

1. The deceased died from multiple sharp force injuries to the neck and trunk, with injuries to the left tissues of the neck, left lung, heart, liver and small intestine with associated blood loss (left haemothorax). There was no evident sooting in the airway. There was also a possible blunt force injury to the head.

1. The accused inflicted penetrating injuries to the deceased's neck and trunk, with an intent to kill the deceased, or alternatively with an intent to cause life threatening injuries to the deceased.
2. The deceased died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the accused.
3. The deceased and the accused had been arguing and the accused killed the deceased in anger.
4. The killing was unlawful.
5. The accused poured accelerant (turpentine) on the deceased's dead body and on items inside the house. He set the deceased's body and the house on fire to conceal that he had killed the deceased.
6. The accused subsequently left the house with HF.
7. The house was extensively damaged by the fire.

1. The offender admits the facts as outlined in the Statement of Facts, save that the offender makes the following contentions:

(1) the unlawful killing was with an intent to cause life‑threatening injuries to the deceased;

(2) in relation to Statement of Facts [7]:

(a) the 'argument' was one‑sided, in that it was pursued by the deceased and involved aggression from the deceased;

(b) the escalation in physical violence initially contained elements of self‑defence in that the offender armed himself with a knife because he was being attacked by the deceased who was holding a knife, a bottle of turpentine and a lighter;

(3) there were elements of provocation relevant to the nature of the offending; and

(4) the offender did not pour turpentine onto the body of the deceased.

1. The offender, while not seeking to justify the offending, submits that the deceased initiated the physical aggression between her and the offender, and that the offender's intent arose in those circumstances and not as a result of the offender's anger arising from a verbal argument. The defence submits that these facts inform the court's consideration of the objective seriousness of the offence for the purposes of sentencing as they are relevant to the nature and timing of the offender's intent.
2. The State does not accept these facts contended for by the offender.

1. Section 15 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) provides that, to decide on the proper sentence to be imposed, a court sentencing an offender may inform itself in any way it thinks fit. The sentencing judge may make findings of fact for the purposes of sentencing based on material received during the sentencing process.
2. Given the offender has pleaded guilty to the offence of murder, the facts that I find must be consistent with his plea of guilty. However, if facts are contested, as they are on the count of murder in this case, the contested facts, those being facts that are not the essential facts necessary to constitute the offence, must be proved by the calling of evidence.[2] This is referred to as a trial of issues.
3. Where the contested fact is aggravating, the prosecution bears the onus of proving that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the contested fact is mitigating, the offender bears the onus of proving that fact on the balance of probabilities.[3]
4. The intention of the offender in relation to the unlawful killing is a significantly relevant fact and circumstance to be considered, together with all of the other relevant sentencing considerations, in determining the appropriate non‑parole period.[4]

1. The trial of issues took place over three days: 5 December 2025, 11 December 2025 and 26 February 2026.
2. The prosecution tendered a file of exhibits (exhibits 1.1 ‑ 1.15), an updated sentencing brief (exhibit 2), and the statement of Jamie Whitford (exhibit 6).
3. The defence adduced the following evidence:

(1) evidence of the offender on 5 December 2025;

(2) evidence of Dr Byron Collins on 11 December 2025;

(3) evidence of Dr Dylan Galloghly on 26 February 2026;

(4) floorplan of the residence of [redacted], Warnbro, containing handwritten annotations by the offender (exhibit 3);

(5) bundle of sentence materials filed on 4 December 2025 (exhibits 4.2 - 4.14);

(6) defence sentencing materials filed 11 December 2025 (exhibits 5.1 - 5.4); and

(7) forensic psychological report of Dr Dylan Galloghly dated 20 February 2026 and his curriculum vitae (exhibit 7.1 - 7.2).

1. The offender gave evidence in examination‑in‑chief that:

(1) on 24 April 2024, the deceased had been using meth (methylamphetamine) heavily, had not had any sleep for up to two weeks and that this made her paranoia about him hooking up with other women worse;

(2) throughout the evening and night of 24 April 2024 and into the morning of 25 April 2024, the deceased continued to smoke methylamphetamine in her daughter's (HF's) bedroom and text message the offender;

(3) on 25 April 2024, at around 11.16 am, he went to go to the shop to buy a beer. Before he left, he asked the deceased if she wanted anything from the shop and she said that she wanted some 'turps' (turpentine) to clean her meth pipe. After he bought six beers, he went to the IGA to buy turps, but his phone died so he was not sure if he had enough money to buy it. So he made the decision to steal the turps to avoid any headache or argument when he got home;

(4) when he got home, the deceased was locked away in the bedroom towards the front of the house, smoking meth. He told the deceased that he had the turps for her and she told him to leave it the loungeroom which he did;

(5) he put the beers in the fridge and went back to bed. He went back and forth to the kitchen to grab beers - he consumed probably three or four beers throughout the day;

(6) he went to sleep on the bed in the main bedroom. At about 6.00 pm, the deceased woke him up and asked him to answer the door because there was a man at the door who regularly brought bread to the house. He answered the door and took the bread, put the bread in the kitchen, went back to bed and went back to sleep;

(7) the next thing that happened was that he woke up and the deceased was standing over him in the main bedroom. The deceased was pouring turps over the top of him and standing over him with a knife in her hand. The deceased said that 'you burned me and I'm going to burn you', that he was a 'cheating dog', 'a cheating slut' and that it is what he deserved;

(8) he tried to grab the deceased's arm that she had the knife in, but he did not succeed in getting the knife out of her hand because she was stronger than he thought. He said to the deceased 'what the fuck are you doing?' As he was holding her arm, the deceased was trying to push the knife into his leg. The knife came down a few times which is when he felt like the deceased had stabbed him in the leg. He said to the deceased 'you just fucking stabbed me'. He said this seemed to motivate the deceased more. She said she was going to kill him. After he felt like the deceased had stabbed him in the leg, he jumped to the far side of the bed and grabbed a knife that he knew the deceased had under her side of the bed;

(9) he managed to get out of the bedroom and halfway up the hallway towards the front door. As he got out of the bedroom, the deceased was throwing turps around and it went flying onto the floor. She dropped the bottle somewhere near the entrance to the loungeroom. When he was in the hallway, he turned around and the deceased was running at him with the knife;

(10) that is when he 'snapped' and he stabbed the deceased about four to five times. The deceased said:[5]

... obviously I was in fear for my life, but then it turned into anger at the fact that I felt like she was trying to kill me and that made me really angry. And then it kind of just ‑ my anger kind of just took over from there.

When the anger took over, that was it, really. There was ‑ I was in a completely different frame of mind and I was just angry that she was trying to kill me and then, in my head, I was probably, at that point, thinking, 'Well, if you're going to try kill me, then I'll kill you first,' pretty much.

(11) as the deceased came towards him with the knife, he kept backing up. Even though he had stabbed the deceased four to five times, she kept coming towards him. He kept stabbing the deceased. He went through the corridor and past the front door and into the loungeroom, where the deceased was still coming towards him, and he kept stabbing her as she came towards him. The deceased then fell to the ground and hit her head. He said he thinks he was in a rage and thinks he even stabbed the deceased a few more times;

(12) after he realised she was dead, he grabbed the knives and put them in the kitchen sink. He panicked and attempted to clean up some of the blood. He gave up on that and used some of the turps that was left in the bottle. He poured it on some of the clothes in the loungeroom and started the fire out of panic;

(13) he went back to HF's room and exited through the back door to the neighbour's house and got the neighbour to call the fire brigade; and

(14) he lied to the police and his neighbour when he told them that he did not know where the deceased was and that the fire had started for some reason he did not know - he lied out of panic.

1. In cross‑examination, the offender gave evidence that:

(1) he set the clothes in the loungeroom on fire to try and destroy evidence;

(2) the deceased had the lighter and turps in one hand and the knife in her right hand. When she woke him in the bedroom by pouring turps on him he was only wearing his underpants;

(3) he lied to police at the Rockingham hospital the next day, when he told them that he was asleep in the loungeroom and that he woke up to smoke in the loungeroom;

(4) the knife the deceased was holding was serrated and about 30 cm long;

(5) he stabbed the deceased right in front of HF's bedroom, where HF was asleep in her cot. He stabbed the deceased four to five times to the front of her body in quick succession, at the same time as she was trying to stab him with a knife. The deceased did not succeed in making any contact with the knife;

(6) after he stabbed her four to five times, he walked backwards towards the loungeroom. The deceased was still coming towards him with a knife. While he was walking backwards, he stabbed her a few more times near the bookshelf in the entry area. He said that the deceased was standing when he stabbed her. He denied that the deceased was lying or sitting on the floor when he stabbed her at this point;

(7) the deceased finally collapsed in the loungeroom near the gas bayonet. She hit her head on the gas bayonet. The deceased was unconscious at this time. He then stabbed her a few more times because he was angry, he was in a rage and had no control. He thinks the last stab he gave her was in the neck;

(8) he was still only wearing his underpants while he stabbed the deceased, while he tried to clean up the blood, and while he lit the pile of clothes in the loungeroom on fire. He said he tried to clean up blood for about five minutes and that he could not really recall where he tried to clean it up but he thinks it was in the loungeroom area. He said the clothes in the loungeroom pretty much lit up straight away. He said he was not really thinking about whether he might set himself on fire given the deceased had poured turps on him in the bedroom. He said he may also have put some turps on one of the armchairs near the sofa;

(9) after he lit the fire, he grabbed HF and headed towards the back door. He stopped to grab some clothes from a chair that was near the kitchen out the back of the house and put the clothes on before he left the house. While he put the clothes on, he put HF down out the back;

(10) it was probably about 10 to 15 minutes between him killing the deceased and leaving the house with HF;

(11) he said that he did not at any point in time after he stabbed the deceased drag her into the shower or go into the shower to clean himself or his clothes;

(12) a Champion hoodie found in a bucket in the kitchen that tested positive for blood and a single source DNA profile that matched the deceased was his, but he did know how the blood got on it;

(13) he said he stole the turps because his phone ran out of battery as he was walking to IGA, so he could not transfer any more money from his ANZ Progress Account (his savings account) into his ANZ Access Advantage Account (his everyday spending account). He said he thinks he transferred money from his savings account to his spending account to purchase the beers before he left the house. When asked why he did not also transfer money to pay for the turps, he said he did not really think about it at the time, but that he thought he had transferred enough;

(14) he said that he went to an ATM after he bought the beer. When his ANZ statement, which showed that he had made a cash withdrawal at a non‑ANZ ATM on 25 April 2024, was put to him in cross-examination, he accepted that it looked like he paid for the beer with cash, not with his ANZ card, so he must have gone to the ATM before he bought the beer; and

(15) he said that the injury to his left knee was a puncture wound.

1. Dr Collins gave evidence in relation to the following two issues:

(1) the injury to the offender's knee as shown in photographs taken after he was arrested;[6] and

(2) the likelihood of the deceased being able to continue to move with purpose after she had been stabbed in the torso four to five times by the offender.

1. In relation to the offender's knee injury, Dr Collins gave evidence that, in his opinion, the injury was a relatively fresh or recent injury, and that it was less than or about 24 hours old. Dr Collins said this was a general estimate.
2. Dr Collins described the injury as an abrasion and of a superficial nature. In cross‑examination, when asked if a person attacked another person not with a stabbing motion, but with a scraping motion along the skin, whether that would be able to cause a superficial abrasion, Dr Collins said:[7]

Yes, yes, it would. As I said to you, it's a superficial injury. It's got to scrape along the skin surface rather than penetrate to any depth, and that scraping motion may be generated in three ways. One is by the assailant, one is by the victim, or one is by a combination of both, such as during a struggle. And it's really difficult - you can't pinpoint on most injuries the exact mechanism of causation, or the exact position of the object. But just to finish that, despite the fact that you might be using a sharp instrument such as a knife doesn't preclude the fact that it could cause an abrasion ...

... - if it scraped across the ...

skin surface, and it's - it's not uncommon to see stab wounds on a deceased body where there is a combination of even an - an incised wound or a proper stab wound, the margins of which may have some degree of abrasion on them, and then that just depends on the relative position between the knife and the victim.

1. In relation to whether the deceased was capable of purposeful physical activity after being stabbed in the torso and sustaining injuries to her heart and lungs, Dr Collins gave evidence that, in his opinion, the deceased would be capable of purposeful physical activity after sustaining her heart and lung injuries prior to the onset of severe hypovolemic shock, that is loss of blood, for a short period of time, that is for seconds rather than minutes.[8]

1. Dr Galloghly gave evidence on 26 February 2026. His report is exhibit 7.1. Dr Galloghly was provided with a copy of the indictment, Statement of Facts, criminal history for the offender and a transcript of the evidence of the offender in the trial of issue proceedings conducted on 5 December 2025.
2. Dr Galloghly interviewed the offender in person on 22 January 2026, and by video link on 12 February 2026 and 17 February 2026 for a total of three and a half hours. Dr Galloghly also spoke to the offender's ex‑partner by telephone for 10 minutes on 20 February 2026.
3. Dr Galloghly's report sets out a history of the offender's childhood and family, his education and employment, substance use, relationships, and children. Each of these matters was based on information provided by the offender. The offender reported to Dr Galloghly that he had an unstable, violent and abusive mother, who physically and sexually abused him, and he spent his childhood being petrified of his mother.
4. It is Dr Galloghly's opinion, based upon administering several diagnostic tests, that the offender was experiencing significant symptoms consistent with Post‑Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the possible presence of dissociative issues. Dr Galloghly states that the results of these tests did not indicate exaggeration or feigning of symptoms by the offender. In Dr Galloghly's opinion:[9]

... [the offender's] prominent mental disorders pertain to:

1. Complex Post‑Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD).
2. Substance Use Disorder (cannabis, alcohol and methamphetamines).
3. Personality Dysfunction (borderline, dependent, and avoidant personality traits).
4. In considering the offender's psychological formulation of offending, Dr Galloghly reported:[10]

He is a psychologically limited individual who lacked the skills to assertively manage conflict with the victim and extricate himself from the relationship in a mature manner.

...

Substance abuse seems to have been a significant contributing factor, as Mr Sekkouah contended that the victim was severely abusing methamphetamines, whereas his own use was less severe. Nonetheless, he acknowledged using methamphetamines approximately three days prior to the incident, along with daily cannabis and alcohol consumption. Consequently, he may have experienced increased irritability, anxiety, and sleep deprivation from prior methamphetamine use, with the effects of alcohol and cannabis further impairing his capacity to manage the situation.

...

While Mr Sekkouah reported that he stabbed the victim numerous times as she kept attacking him, his offending behaviour is consistent with rage. His behaviour suggests repressed trauma and rage stemming from childhood abuse that has never been processed or worked through therapeutically. People with complex PTSD can exhibit intense emotional and sometimes violent reactions to certain triggers. These reactions often have a significant dissociative component, with people becoming momentarily detached from their bodies and losing self‑regulation capacity. This may explain why Mr Sekkouah's memory of the offence was reportedly blurry.

...

If the victim initially used a knife against Mr Sekkouah, it might have triggered unresolved trauma related to his past abuse, primal fear, and repressed anger. He was likely in a dissociated mental state while continuing to stab the victim, projecting his repressed rage onto the victim, which was unconsciously directed at his mother. Additionally, Mr Sekkouah claimed the victim neglected her daughter, who lived with her. This issue could have fuelled his anger further, perceiving poor parenting as echoing his own parenting struggles. His decision to set fire to the property was probably impulsive and poorly considered, made during a moment of panic.

There was little evidence of planning or ulterior motive. People who have experienced prolonged child abuse, like Mr Sekkouah, are typically at greater risk of experiencing psychological dysfunction and perpetrating violence, including homicide. (footnotes omitted).

1. Dr Galloghly reported that the offender's ex‑partner (T), whom he spoke to for 10 minutes, reported that she had been in an unstable relationship with the offender that was marred by mutual substance abuse. T confirmed that the offender had spoken to her about his mother being abusive and an alcoholic. T said that the offender was violent at times in their relationship but did not elaborate.[11]
2. Dr Galloghly reported that the offender described his personality as caring and soft and that he seems to attract a lot of dominant women and is very submissive when it comes to women.[12]
3. Dr Galloghly's opinion as to the psychological formulation of the offending assumes the offender's version of events (consistent with the evidence given by the offender on 4 December 2025) that he was woken up by the deceased pouring turpentine on him, that the deceased was holding a knife, a bottle of turpentine, and a lighter, and that she was yelling at him that she was going to kill him and burn him, is true. Dr Galloghly confirmed the diagnostic tests that he administered do not detect whether the offender is telling the truth about his version of events, only whether he may be feigning symptoms associated with PTSD.[13]
4. If I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender's evidence is true, then Dr Galloghly's opinion supports a finding the offender was in a dissociative state as he continued to stab the deceased.

Findings of fact contended for by the offender - determination

1. The defence submits that I should find the following mitigating facts for the purposes of sentencing the offender:

(1) the 'argument' was one‑sided, in that it was pursued by the deceased and involved aggression from the deceased towards the offender;

(2) the escalation in physical violence initially contained elements of self‑defence in that the offender armed himself with a knife because he was being attacked by the deceased who was holding a knife, a bottle of turpentine, and a lighter;

(3) there were elements of provocation relevant to the nature of the offending; and

(4) the offender did not pour turpentine onto the body of the deceased.

1. The offender bears the onus of proving these facts on the balance of probabilities. The defence says that I can be satisfied based on the evidence of the offender, when considering all of the evidence, that he killed the deceased after she initiated physical aggression towards him and that he did not pour turpentine on her body.
2. I did not find the offender to be a credible witness. That is for the following reasons.
3. Firstly, the offender accepted, in cross‑examination,[14] that he lied to several people after the event. Those lies were:

(1) the offender told his neighbour Rae Witham,[15] the 000 operator he spoke to on the phone,[16] his neighbour over the road Sharona Shanawaz,[17] a St John Ambulance officer,[18] and police officer Quinn,[19] that he did not know where the deceased was when he left the burning house with HF;

(2) the offender asked police officer Dyson 'is she alright'[20] referring to the deceased when he knew that the deceased was dead inside the house;

(3) at Rockingham hospital, where the offender was taken on 26 April 2024, he told police officer Quinn that he had passed out on the couch in the loungeroom and woke to smoke in the loungeroom;[21] and

(4) in his electronically recorded interview conducted in the morning of 27 April 2024, the offender told police that he had smoke inhalation and that he would not have a clue if anyone, other than him, the deceased and HF, were staying at the house at the time.[22]

1. While I accept that these lies may have been told out of panic and not out of a consciousness of guilt, the fact that the offender told multiple and persistent lies is a factor in my assessment of the offender's credibility.
2. Secondly, the offender's evidence was inconsistent with other evidence which I do accept.
3. Police Sargeant and Senior Forensic Officer Neil Blaver, an expert in blood pattern analysis, prepared a report assessing the scene with specific reference to bloodstains and blood patterns.[23] Sergeant Blaver's conclusions included:

(1) there was at least one impact to the deceased as she was positioned near the entry door in the entry hall and the body part subject to the impact was less than 95 cm above floor level;

(2) there was an application of force to the deceased's blood near floor level in the entry, with the source of the deceased's blood being no higher than 35 cm from the floor; and

(3) there was a cleaning effort within the entry hall.

1. Sergeant Blaver's conclusions are consistent with the deceased being stabbed in the entry hall while she was sitting or laying down, and are inconsistent with the offender's evidence that the deceased was standing and continuing to come at him with the knife when he stabbed her in the entry hall near the front door and bookcase.
2. Sergeant Blaver also located clotted blood on the shower floor. DNA analysis confirmed the single source DNA profile of that blood matched the profile of the deceased. This is inconsistent with the offender's evidence that he did not stab the deceased in the shower, did not drag the deceased into the shower after he stabbed her, or did not go into the shower to clean anything after he had stabbed the deceased.[24]
3. The police located a black and grey Champion hoodie in a bucket in the kitchen of the house.[25] A swab taken from a stain on the hoodie tested positive for blood and the single source DNA profile from that stain matched the profile of the deceased.[26] This is inconsistent with the offender's evidence that he was only wearing his underwear when the deceased threw turpentine on him, when he stabbed her, cleaned up the blood and set fire to the clothes in the loungeroom, and that he only got dressed before he left the house with HF. In any event, the offender was not wearing this hoodie when he left the house. The offender accepted that the hoodie was his and said that he did not know how the blood got there.[27] The only reasonable inference available is that the offender was wearing the hoodie, or had it with him, at some point when he either stabbed the deceased or cleaned up the blood.
4. Thirdly, I find that the offender's injury to his knee is inconsistent with his evidence that he felt as if the deceased stabbed him in the knee with a knife, and that it was a puncture wound to his knee.[28] While the offender's evidence is consistent with the timing of when the injury could have occurred, and according to Dr Collins it was a fresh or recent injury that could have been sustained within the previous 24 hours, the offender's evidence is inconsistent with Dr Collins' evidence that the injury was a superficial wound or abrasion.
5. Fourthly, I find that the offender's evidence is implausible in the following respects:

(1) he was unable to describe the knife that he says he knew was under the deceased's side of the bed, despite his evidence that he had seen it before this occasion and knew that it was there;

(2) that there was a knife readily available under the deceased's side of the bed at the time that the offender needed it and that he knew it was there in that moment;

(3) that the deceased was able to hold a knife in one hand, and a bottle of turpentine and a lighter in the other hand, while pouring turpentine on him and then trying to stab him while the offender was grabbing her arm;

(4) the offender's explanation for stealing the turpentine being that he did not know if he had enough money to buy it, given he had withdrawn $20 from an ATM before going into the IGA; and

(5) that the offender was covered in turpentine from the deceased pouring it over him on the bed, yet he was not concerned about setting the clothes on fire.

1. For all of these reasons, I do not accept the offender's evidence that the deceased awoke him by pouring turpentine on him on the bed or that she was holding a knife and tried to attack him.
2. Given I do not accept the offender's evidence, Dr Galloghly's evidence, so far as he provides an opinion as to how the offender may have responded to the attack by the deceased, does not assist me. That evidence assumes that the offender's account of the events leading up to him stabbing the deceased is true. Therefore, there is no evidentiary foundation for Dr Galloghly's opinion in this respect. However, I accept that Dr Galloghly's report may be relied upon by the offender to the extent that his personal circumstances are a relevant sentencing consideration.
3. It is also necessary to make some observations about the defence submissions that:

(1) the deceased had issues with alcohol and drug addiction and had shown aggression to her ex‑partner previously;

(2) the offender was a positive addition to the deceased's life based on what the neighbours observed and text messages that the deceased had sent to the offender's ex‑partner;

(3) the text messages from the offender to the deceased in the days leading up the incident were not threatening or aggressive;

(4) the deceased had extreme levels of methylamphetamine in her system which is consistent with her being the aggressor; and

(5) the evidence of the turpentine on the bed in which the offender says he was sleeping is only consistent with the offender's version of events.

1. It is important to premise my observations that follow with some general observations. Domestic violence is not limited to physical abuse. It is recognised by the courts, and by the community, that domestic violence may include a complex range of behaviours that include controlling, coercing, intimidating, frightening or humiliating a person. It is not uncommon for a person to stay with an abusive partner, and it is not uncommon for a person not to tell anyone of the abuse. It is also not uncommon for others, including friends, family, colleagues and neighbours not to be aware that a person is in an abusive relationship. It is also not uncommon for the person themselves to tell others that the relationship is a good one or to say positive things about an abusive partner.
2. The deceased and the offender are the only two people who can speak to what occurred on 25 April 2024 and the deceased no longer has a voice. What the neighbours thought or observed of the relationship between the deceased and the offender has no relevance to the issues I must determine. They were not in a position to observe the nature of the relationship between the offender and the deceased.
3. The fact the deceased sent a message to the offender's ex‑partner (P) saying that 'he's been paying he's (sic) way just fine'[29] and 'around my house and my kids he's been just fine'[30] must be read in the context of all of the text messages that were exchanged between the deceased and P. As an example, P sent a message to the deceased saying 'I know him inside out he's just using you for somewhere to live coz he needed to get out of kal'. It is not surprising given this message that the deceased may have wanted to tell P that everything was fine in her relationship with the offender, even if it was not.
4. The defence submits that the text messages between the deceased and the offender leading up to the incident show a level of aggression by the deceased towards the offender and the offender not responding with any abusive or aggressive text messages. It is evident from the text messages that the deceased believed that the offender had been cheating on her and was very upset. The defence says that the offender was encouraging the deceased to spend her money on something useful like 'a car or a new place' instead of on drugs,[31] and was a positive and calm responder to the deceased's aggression. In my view, this characterisation of the text message exchange is completely distorted and self‑serving to the offender. There is no doubt that the text messages reveal the deceased was very distressed because she thought that the offender was cheating on her. However, the offender told Dr Galloghly that he had been sending intimate messages to another woman. In the text messages, it is my view that the offender seeks to gaslight the deceased and deflect from his own behaviour by blaming the deceased for their relationship difficulties.
5. I also do not place any weight on the evidence of the deceased's former partner to the effect that the deceased had used knives to self‑harm in the past.[32] Her former partner also said that the deceased was physically aggressive towards him on three occasions. One time she hit him in the face and he hit her back, but no weapons were used in any of these incidents. This evidence does not support the drawing of any inference that the deceased used a knife to attack the offender on this occasion.
6. There is no evidence to support any suggestion the offender was a positive addition to the deceased's life. Given the offender violently murdered the deceased only six weeks after he started living with her, any such suggestion leaves me incredulous.
7. I also do not believe the offender's evidence that the deceased asked him to buy turpentine to clean her meth pipe or that he stole the turpentine because he was not sure whether he had enough money to buy it. Given that the turpentine is later used as an accelerant to destroy evidence implicating the offender in murder, I find that the deceased stole the turpentine for exactly that purpose. That leads me to find that the offender killed the deceased before he stole the turpentine and, therefore, that the turpentine could not have been poured on the bed by the deceased. However, I do not consider the timing of the death of the deceased to be an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing the offender, rather it is one piece of circumstantial evidence from which I draw the inference that the deceased did not attack the deceased holding a knife and a bottle of turpentine.
8. Having regard to all these matters, I find that the offender has not proved on the balance of probabilities that he armed himself with a knife because the deceased physically attacked him with a knife and poured turpentine on him. I therefore find that the offender has not established elements of self‑defence or provocation for the purposes of sentencing.
9. Further, I do not accept the offender's evidence that he did not pour turpentine on the deceased's body. He accepted that he started the fire because he wanted to destroy evidence. The overwhelming evidence implicating him in the murder of the deceased was the deceased's body. Medium petroleum distillate residues, that is an accelerant, were detected on tissue of the right thigh of the deceased.[33] Further, the deceased's body showed the effects of fire, with sooting and significant charring.[34]
10. In any event, it would not be a factor in mitigation, in my view, if I were to find that the offender poured turpentine onto a pile of clothes next to the deceased and set them on fire instead of on the deceased's body. In either scenario, the only reasonable inference is that the offender intended to burn the deceased's body to destroy evidence.
11. I will sentence the offender on the basis that his intent arose in circumstances, as accepted by the State, that in the lead‑up to the events the deceased had consumed a large amount of methylamphetamine, and that she had expressed anger/frustration to the offender about their relationship. I will also sentence him on the basis that he poured turpentine on the deceased's body, or in any event on a pile of clothes next to the deceased's body, to destroy evidence of what he had done.

1. I turn now to the aggravating fact which the State submits I should find for the purposes of sentencing the offender - that is, he intended to kill the deceased.
2. The State bears the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the offender intended to kill the deceased.
3. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time he inflicted the penetrating injuries to the deceased's neck and torso, the offender did intend to kill the deceased for the following reasons.
4. Firstly, the extent of the injuries of the deceased is consistent with an intention to kill. The injuries to the deceased are set out in the amended report from Dr White dated 30 January 2025[35] in the document entitled 'Questions for Dr White'.[36] Dr White identified multiple penetrating sharp force injuries to the deceased's torso, face, head, neck and limbs. There was also possible blunt force injury to the deceased's head. A number of those injuries were fatal or potentially fatal by themselves. Injury 17 damaged the heart and left lung; injury 18 breached the chest and abdominal cavity and caused injury to the liver; injury 19 breached the chest cavity and injured the lung; and injury 20 breached the abdominal cavity and bowel. Dr White also reported that the injuries to the deceased's head and face are potentially significant in terms of blood loss.
5. Secondly, the offender's own evidence is consistent with an intention to kill. The offender said:[37]

When the anger took over, that was it, really. There was - I was in a completely different frame of mind and I was just angry that she was trying to kill me and then, in my head, I was probably, at that point, thinking, 'Well, if you're going to try kill me, then I'll kill you first,' pretty much.'

1. The offender also gave evidence that he continued to stab the deceased in the loungeroom after she was unconscious. He said that he was unable to explain his relevant intent at the time, that he was in a rage and had no control. The only reasonable inference is that he continued to stab her intending to kill her.
2. Thirdly, the evidence of the charred body of the deceased and the stealing of the turpentine is consistent with the offender either setting fire to the deceased's body or, at the very least, items of clothing very nearby to the deceased. He did not attempt to render her any medical assistance. The only reasonable inference available on the evidence is that the offender intended to kill the deceased and then attempted to destroy the evidence so that he could conceal the fact that he had killed the deceased.
3. I therefore sentence the offender on the basis that he intended to kill the deceased.
4. These reasons are provided to the parties to enable submissions to be made for the sentencing of the offender.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] 5 December 2025, 11 December 2025 and 26 February 2026 - the trial of issues was adjourned to the last hearing date to allow the offender to obtain a forensic psychological report.

[2] Medan v The Queen [2011] WASCA 142 (Buss JA).

[3] Law v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193.

[4] The State of Western Australia v Stoeski [2016] WASCA 16 [43].

[10] Exhibit 7.1, pages 11 - 12 [57] ‑ [61].

[25] Exhibit 1.12 (photograph of hoodie).

[26] Exhibit 2, page 533 (Pathwest report).

[34] Exhibit 2, pages 117 ‑ 120 (Pathwest report).