Donato: Victims don't get a second chance

MATTERS OF STATE BY STATE MP PHILIP DONATO When a court order is made to protect someone from violence, that order must mean something. An apprehended violence order or bail condition is intended to provide a shield between a victim and the person who poses a threat to them. When an offender knowingly breaches those protections and goes on to murder the very person the order was designed to protect, the community is entitled to ask whether the law is strong enough. That is the basis for my Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill 2026, a Private Members' Bill I have proposed to amend the Crimes Act 1900. The Bill would introduce mandatory life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, for the most serious category of domestic violence murders. Under the proposed amendment, an adult convicted of murder would face imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life where they had been, at the time of the murder or previously, in a domestic relationship with the victim and were, at the time of the killing, subject to an apprehended violence order or bail condition specifically intended to protect that victim. In other words, this proposal is directed at circumstances where the justice system has already identified a risk, protective measures have been put in place, and the offender has nevertheless deliberately disregarded those protections and murdered the person they were intended to protect. The tragic death of Forbes mother and preschool teacher Molly Ticehurst brought this issue into sharp focus. Molly's murder was one of a number of domestic violence-related homicides reported across NSW within a relatively short period and prompted widespread community grief and anger. Her death also contributed to subsequent reforms by the NSW Government, including the introduction of a minimum 25-year non-parole period for certain domestic violence-related murders. Daniel Billings was convicted of Molly's murder and sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The sentencing judge found the offence to be within the most serious category of murder. However, the sentence was reduced to reflect a guilty plea and psychological evidence accepted by the court concerning Billings' mental health at the time of the murder. Having already spent time in custody on remand, he is expected to become eligible to apply for parole after serving approximately 18 years in custody. For many people, that sentence raised a difficult question: does the punishment adequately reflect the gravity of murdering a person who was supposedly protected by the very orders and conditions the offender was bound to obey? Shortly after the sentence was handed down, another four people died in three separate domestic violence-related homicide incidents across NSW over a single weekend. These tragedies demonstrate that domestic and family violence remains one of the most confronting challenges facing our community. No single law will prevent every murder. Strong sentencing laws must therefore form part of a much broader response, including prevention, early intervention, policing, victim support, housing, education and rehabilitation. But deterrence and accountability matter too. The proposed Bill would send an unequivocal message: if an adult offender has been placed under an enforceable protection order or bail condition designed to protect their domestic partner or former partner, and they subsequently murder that person, the consequences should be the most severe available under the law. The proposal is not intended to diminish the important role of judicial consideration in the criminal justice system. Rather, it recognises that some offences are so grave, and involve such a fundamental betrayal of a court-ordered protection, that Parliament should establish a mandatory penalty. There are also important safeguards. The proposed mandatory life sentence would not apply where the offender was under 18 at the time of the murder. Nor would it apply where the offender had a significant cognitive impairment at the time of the murder, other than a temporary impairment that was self-inflicted. The Bill would also retain the Royal prerogative of mercy, consistent with existing provisions of the Crimes Act concerning mandatory life sentences. There is an important distinction between a person who commits a murder and an offender who murders someone despite already being subject to a legal order specifically designed to protect that victim from them. In the latter circumstances, the system has already intervened. A warning has been issued. A legal boundary has been established. The offender has been placed on notice. If that person then deliberately crosses that boundary and takes the protected person's life, the law should recognise the extraordinary seriousness of that conduct. The community expects domestic violence victims to be protected. It expects court orders to be obeyed. When those protections are deliberately ignored with fatal consequences, it expects the justice system to respond accordingly. My Bill seeks to make that response clear: for the most serious domestic violence murders, where an offender has disregarded an existing legal protection, life should mean life. Victims don’t get a second chance, so neither should their killers.