NSW Coroner's Report - Domestic Violence Death Review Team

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
DEATH REVIEW TEAM
REPORT
20212023
01
The Team acknowledges that each figure reflected

in this report represents a life lost and enduring
devastation for those left behind. In undertaking
this work, the Team aims to honour the lives of
those killed and share learnings from these tragic
deaths to improve the response to domestic
violence and thereby prevent future loss of life.
II NSW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW TEAM

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
DEATH REVIEW TEAM
REPORT
20212023
REPORT 2021 2023 III

A report of the Domestic Violence Death Review Team
A report of the Domestic Violence Death Review Team pursuant to section 101J(1) of the Coroners Act 2009 (NSW).
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the private or professional views of individual Team members
or the views of their individual organisations. A decision of the majority is a decision of the Domestic Violence Death
Review Team – Schedule 3, clause 11 Coroners Act 2009 (NSW).
Published in Sydney by the

Domestic Violence Death Review Team
1A Main Ave
LIDCOMBE NSW 2141
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au
© Domestic Violence Death Review Team, Sydney, 2141
Copyright permissions
This publication may be copied, distributed, displayed, downloaded and otherwise freely dealt with for any personal or non-
commercial purpose, on the condition that proper acknowledgement is included on all uses.
Disclaimer
While this publication has been formulated with due care, the Domestic Violence Death Review Team does not warrant or
represent that it is free from errors or omissions, or that it is exhaustive.
Readers are responsible for making their own assessment of this publication and should verify all relevant representations,
statements and information with their own professional advisers.
ISSN 1839-8073 (Print)

ISSN 1839-8219 (Online)
IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY
The Domestic Violence Death Review Team acknowledges all
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traditional Custodians of
Country and recognise their continuing connection to land, sea,
culture and community.
We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and

recognise the strength, resilience and diversity of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this land.
CONTENT WARNING AND SUPPORT
This report contains information that may be distressing to readers. It includes
accounts of violence and abuse and references to suicide and self-harming
behaviour.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers should be aware that this report
contains information about Aboriginal people who have passed away.
If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence, there are a range of
services that can provide assistance and support. In an emergency, always call 000.
Service Location Phone Website
1800RESPECT Nationwide 1800 737 732 www.1800respect.org.au
24/7 helpline that provides counselling, information and support for sexual assault, domestic and family
violence.
Domestic Violence Line NSW State-wide 1800 656 463 www.dcj.nsw.gov.au
24/7 helpline that provides information, support and assistance about domestic violence.
Women’s Legal Service NSW State-wide 1800 801 501 www.wlsnsw.org.au
A community legal centre that provides free specialised legal services for women, including domestic violence,
sexual assault, family law, victims support and child protection, operating Mon-Fri 9am-1pm and 2pm-4:30pm.
See website for legal advice line times.
Men’s Referral Service Nationwide 1300 766 491 www.ntv.org.au/mrs
24/7 men’s telephone counselling, information and referral service for men who use violence and are seeking to
change their behaviour.
Immigration Advice and

State-wide 02 8234 0700 www.iarc.org.au
Rights Centre
Provides free legal information, advice and casework services to refugees and financially disadvantaged
migrants in NSW, operating Mon-Fri, 9am-4pm.
VI
Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal
State-wide 1800 686 587 www.wirringabaiya.org.au
Women’s Legal Centre
Community legal centre for Aboriginal women, children and youth with a focus on issues relating to violence,
operating Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm (closed Wed). Legal advice line 10am-4pm.
Women’s Domestic Violence

State-wide 1800 938 227 www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au
Court Advocacy Services
Provides free information, advocacy and support to women experiencing domestic and family violence, including
in relation to the court process. WDVCASs operate in every town and suburb, and at every local court, across
the state during business hours, Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
NSW Ageing and Disability

State-wide 1800 628 221 www.ageingdisabilitycommission.nsw.gov.au
Abuse Helpline
Provides information, support and referrals for older people and people with disability in NSW, operating
Mon-Fri, 9am-4pm.
Kids Helpline Nationwide 1800 551 800 www.kidshelpline.com.au
24/7 counselling service for young people aged 5-25 years.
Link2Home State-wide 1800 152 152 www.dcj.nsw.gov.au
24/7 information and referral service for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
Beyond Blue Nationwide 1300 224 636 www.beyondblue.org.au
24/7 counselling, information and referral service for people experiencing anxiety and depression.
VII
CONVENOR’S MESSAGE
This is the eighth report of the Domestic Violence Death Review
Team, and its publication comes at a pivotal juncture, as the
national conversation coalesces on the pervasive issue of
domestic violence homicide and gender-based violence more
broadly.
Since the Team’s establishment in 2010 there has been a gradual decline in domestic
violence homicides in NSW. More recently, however, this downward trend has stalled,
and a number of recent cases have drawn into sharp focus the unacceptably high rates
of domestic violence homicide, and in particular the deaths of women, that persist
nationwide. The sharp rise in the number of women killed across Australia has seen a
groundswell of community-led advocacy demanding urgent action to prevent men’s
violence against women. This has prompted a renewed commitment from governments
to do more to respond to domestic, family and sexual violence, with domestic violence
death reviews being recognised as an important part of this response.
In May this year, national crisis talks convened by the Domestic, Family and Sexual
The sharp rise Violence Commissioner, Micaela Cronin, highlighted the depth of analysis undertaken
in the number by domestic violence death reviews and emphasised their crucial role in building the
of women killed evidence base to guide intervention and prevention efforts. As a result, the Commission
across Australia has committed to working with all governments to strengthen and expand state and
territory domestic violence death review processes.
has seen a
groundswell The critical work of the Team is similarly reflected in the NSW Government’s recent
of community- announcement of a $230 million emergency package to enhance support for domestic,
led advocacy family and sexual violence victim-survivors and expand programs that reduce the rate
of violence against women and children.1 As part of that package, and as a result of
demanding urgent
advocacy from Team members, government and sector leaders, the Team has been
action to prevent granted $2 million over four years to support its work. This much needed funding
men’s violence will hopefully address the resourcing challenges the Team has faced over time as its
against women. work has evolved, significantly expanding the role and workload of the Team’s two-
person Secretariat. As a result of this progressive expansion, it has been increasingly
challenging for the Secretariat to support the Team to fulfil its legislative function in
relation to both its quantitative and qualitative review processes.
These challenges are reflected in the Team’s decision to prioritise publishing its data
findings for this report, as resourcing constraints have limited the Team’s capacity to
develop its quantitative review processes while simultaneously undertaking in-depth
case review analyses. The examination of qualitative case reviews is, however, a critical
component of the death review process, allowing the Team to leverage its extensive
policy and practice expertise to openly and honestly discuss cases and collectively
develop targeted intervention and prevention strategies. With the announcement of
additional funding, moving forward I am hopeful that the Team will be able to advance
both components of its essential research function without compromise.
1 NSW Government, ‘$230 million to improve NSW domestic violence prevention and support’ (Media Release,
6 May 2024) https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/230-million-to-improve-nsw-domestic-violence-
prevention-and-support (accessed 31 May 2024).
VIII
The importance of accurate and timely data has emerged as a key issue in the
current national dialogue, and this report is the most comprehensive data analyses
the Team has undertaken to date, presenting detailed findings from over two
decades of domestic violence homicides in NSW.
The importance
of accurate and The Team’s dataset has continued to grow year-on-year, not only in terms of the
timely data has number of cases—which now includes over 1,800 homicides—but also in relation
emerged as a to the breadth and complexity of the data captured. Initially examining only basic
demographic and case characteristics, the dataset has developed significantly over
key issue in the time. As a result, the Team now produces the most detailed and nuanced data
current national findings of any domestic violence death review mechanism operating within Australia
dialogue, and this or worldwide. And this is work that is continuing to evolve.
report is the most
In its 2019-21 Report, the Team committed to undertaking an in-depth examination
comprehensive of relative/kin domestic violence homicides, having identified this as an under-
data analyses researched and poorly understood phenomenon. Accordingly, this report presents
the Team has the Team’s first detailed analysis of this cohort of domestic violence homicides,
undertaken to making an important contribution to an otherwise limited evidence base.
date, presenting The intimate partner and filicide datasets have been further developed with new
detailed findings variables added, including a longitudinal prevalence analysis and an examination of
from over two the co-occurrence of mental health and alcohol or other drug (AOD) issues.
decades of
The work of the Team, in examining ‘other’ domestic violence homicides, highlights
domestic violence that the fatal impact of domestic violence can extend beyond intimate and familiar
homicides in relationships. Outside the work of the Team, cases involving, for example, the
NSW. homicides of bystanders and new partners, are not reflected in domestic violence
homicide data and this analysis is critical in revealing the true prevalence of domestic
violence fatalities in NSW.
Importantly, the analysis in this report identifies a range of key findings and themes to
direct the Team’s work as it recommences its in-depth case review analyses over the
next reporting period.
This report provides crucial insights to guide policymakers, service providers and
advocates in preventing, responding to, and aiding recovery from domestic violence.
It cannot, however, truly convey the profound loss it represents. The courage,
resilience and diversity of the individuals whose lives are considered cannot be
reflected in numbers, nor can the grief and trauma for those that loved them.
We can, and must, do better and the Team remains steadfastly committed to
contributing to positive change. Only through collective action and unwavering
commitment can we hope to prevent further tragedies and support those affected on
their journey to healing.
Magistrate Teresa O’Sullivan

Convenor, Domestic Violence Death Review Team
State Coroner
IX
TEAM MEMBERS
Convenor Deputy Convenor
Magistrate Teresa O’Sullivan Magistrate Erin Kennedy
NSW State Coroner NSW Deputy State Coroner
Statutory members
Christine Robinson Paul O’Reilly*
Coordinator Executive Director
Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Service Youth Justice NSW
Department of Communities and Justice
An Le Lorna McNamara
Manager Director, Prevention & Response to Violence
Bonnie Support Services Ltd Abuse and Neglect
NSW Ministry of Health
Honorary Associate Professor Lesley Laing Dr Murray Wright PSM
Sydney School of Education and Social Work Chief Psychiatrist
University of Sydney NSW Ministry of Health
Associate Professor Jane Wangmann Debbie Kaplan
Faculty of Law Director, Strategic Programs
University of Technology, Sydney Centre for Alcohol and Other Drugs
Assistant Commissioner Stuart Smith Alice Stiles
Commander, South-West Metropolitan Region Manager, Women’s Domestic Violence Court
NSW Police Force Advocacy Program Unit
Legal Aid NSW
Trisha Ladogna Annette Farrell
Director, Behaviour and Student Participation Acting Commissioner of Victims Rights
Inclusion and Wellbeing Directorate Department of Communities and Justice
NSW Department of Education
Dr Hannah Tonkin Deputy Chief Magistrate Sharon Freund
Women’s Safety Commissioner Local Court of NSW
Assistant Commissioner Jennifer Galouzis*
Strategy and Policy
Corrective Services NSW
Kate Alexander
Senior Practitioner
Office of the Senior Practitioner
*At the time of writing this member was not active as they were no longer engaged in their listed position.
X
Deputy members
Detective Inspector Jane Prior Alison Horsley
Manager, Domestic & Family Violence Registry Manager, Domestic and Family Violence Team,
Capability, Performance & Youth Command Prevention & Response to Violence Abuse
NSW Police and Neglect
Krista Sanders Dr Suzie Hudson
CEO Child Wellbeing Unit, Child Wellbeing & Mental Clinical Advisor
Health Services Centre for Alcohol and Other Drugs
NSW Department of Education NSW Ministry of Health
Jennifer Quincey Katrina Hasleton
Executive Director, Women Family and Community Principal Policy Officer
Safety Chief Psychiatrist’s Team
Department of Communities and Justice NSW Ministry of Health
Michelle Micallef* Anna Baltins
Director Acting Director, Domestic and Family Violence
Corrective Services NSW Academy Legal Aid NSW
Amber French Sophie Burkett*
Manager, Practice Strategy and Design Principal Policy Officer
Office of the Senior Practitioner Social and Cultural Policy
Department of Communities and Justice Aboriginal Affairs NSW
Natalie David Deputy Chief Magistrate Theo Tsavdarisis
Senior Policy & Project Officer, Local Court of NSW
Strategic Projects Unit
Youth Justice NSW
Secretariat
Anna Butler Marisa Wrightsmith
Manager Research Analyst
* Appointment pending at time of writing.
XI
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 3: Intimate partner violence homicide
Table 3 1: IPV homicide offender predominant abuser/victim classification (n=308)
Table 3.2: DV behaviours of predominant male abusers in IPV homicide (n=286)
Table 3.3: Number of DV behaviours used by male predominant abuser (n=286)
Table 3.4: Current ADVOs between predominant abuser/victim (n=286)
Table 3.5: Duration of current ADVOs between predominant abuser/victim (n=64)
Table 3.6: Historical ADVOs between predominant abuser/victim (n=286)
Table 3.7: Male predominant abuser – prior intimate partners (n=286)
Table 3.8: Male predominant abuser – repeat domestic violence perpetration (n=217)
Table 3.9: Male predominant abuser – ADVOs with prior intimate partners (n=217)
Table 3.10: Male predominant abuser – custodial sentence for DV offending (n=286)
Table 3.11: Female predominant victim – prior intimate partners (n=286)
Table 3.12: Female predominant victim – repeat domestic violence victimisation (n=192)
Table 3.13: Female predominant victim – ADVOs with prior intimate partners (n=192)
Table 3.14: Female predominant victim – custodial sentence for DV offending (n=286)
Table 3.15: Male predominant abuser – known trauma history (n=286)
Table 3.16: Female predominant victim – known trauma history (n=286)
Table 3.17: Deceased country of birth and visa status (n=300)
Table 3.18: Deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=300)
Table 3.19: Deceased disability (n=300)
Table 3.20: Deceased residence remoteness (n=300)
Table 3.21: Deceased residence socio-economic status (n=300)
Table 3.22: Deceased employment status (n=300)
Table 3.23: Deceased mental health (n=300)
Table 3.24: Deceased AOD use (n=300)
Table 3.25: IPV homicide offender country of birth and visa status (n=300)
Table 3.26: IPV homicide offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=300)
Table 3.27: IPV homicide offender disability (n=300)
Table 3.28: IPV homicide offender employment status (n=300)
Table 3.29: IPV homicide offender mental health (n=300)
Table 3.30: IPV homicide offender AOD use (n=300)
Table 3.31: IPV homicide offender criminal justice outcomes (n=237)
Table 3.32: Method of homicide (n=300)
Table 3.33: Location of homicide (n=300)
Table 3.34: Relationship of male IPV homicide offender to female deceased (n=244)
XII
Table 3.35: Relationship of female IPV homicide offender to male deceased (n=56)
Table 3.36: Age disparity between deceased and offender (n=300)
Chapter 4: Domestic violence-context filicide

Table 4.1: DV-context filicide events by offender gender (n=80)
Table 4.2: Child country of birth (n=96)
Table 4.3: Child Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=96)
Table 4.4: Child disability (n=96)
Table 4.5: Child remoteness (n=96)
Table 4.6: Child socio-economic status (n=96)
Table 4.7: Relationship of filicide offender to child (n=90)
Table 4.8: Filicide offender history of IPV perpetration/victimisation (n=90)
Table 4.9: Violence behaviours of male filicide offenders towards deceased child (n=44)
Table 4.10: Violence behaviours of female filicide offenders towards deceased child (n=18)
Table 4.11: Filicide offender country of birth (n=90)
Table 4.12: Filicide offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=90)
Table 4.13: Filicide offender mental health (n=90)
Table 4.14: Filicide offender AOD use (n=90)
Table 4.15: Filicide offender – known trauma history (n=90)
Table 4.16: Filicide offender criminal justice outcomes (n=68)
Table 4.17: Location of filicide (n=96)
Table 4.18: Method of filicide (n=96)
Table 4.19: Separation by filicide event (n=80)
Table 4.20: Offender gender in filicide events where separation was a feature (n=28)
Table 4.21: Offender gender in multiple filicide events (n=12)
Table 4.22: Offender gender in familicide events (n=9)
XIII
Chapter 5: Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide
Table 5.1: Relative/kin homicide – domestic violence context
Table 5.2: Relationship of relative/kin DV-context homicide offender to deceased (n=94)
Table 5.3: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased gender (n=94)
Table 5.4: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased country of birth and visa status (n=94)
Table 5.5: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=94)
Table 5.6: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased disability (n=94)
Table 5.7: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased residence remoteness (n=94)
Table 5.8: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased socio-economic status (n=94)
Table 5.9: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased employment status (adults) (n=88)
Table 5.10: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased mental health (adults) (n=88)
Table 5.11: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased AOD use (adults) (n=88)
Table 5.12: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender gender (n=90)
Table 5.13: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender country of birth and visa status (n=90)
Table 5.14: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=90)
Table 5.15: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender employment status (n=90)
Table 5.16: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender mental health status (n=90)
Table 5.17: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender AOD use (n=90)
Table 5.18: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender criminal justice outcomes (n=85)
Table 5.19: Deceased relative – history of violence perpetration/victimisation with homicide offender (n=94)
Table 5.20: Deceased relative – police recorded history of violence (n=81)
Table 5.21: Deceased relative – current ADVOs with homicide offender (n=81)
Table 5.22: Deceased relative – historical ADVOs with homicide offender (n=81)
Table 5.23: Deceased relative – history of domestic violence with other relatives (n=94)
Table 5.24: Deceased relative – history of IPV (adults) (n=88)
Table 5.25: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender history of domestic violence with other relatives (n=90)
Table 5.26: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender history of IPV (n=90)
Table 5.27: Method of relative/kin DV-context homicide (n=94)
Table 5.28: Location of relative/kin DV-context homicide (n=94)
Table 5.29: Relative/kin DV-context homicides – multiple fatality events by offender gender (n=12)
XIV
Chapter 6: ‘Other’ domestic violence-context homicide
Table 6.1: ‘Other’ homicide domestic violence context (n=1,168)
Table 6.2: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – relationship of homicide offender to deceased (n=55)
Table 6.3: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased and offender gender (n=107)
Table 6.4: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – predominant abuser status (n=107)
Table 6.5: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – multiple fatalities and attempted homicide by offender (n=52)
Table 6.6: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased country of birth and visa status (n=55)
Table 6.7: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=55)
Table 6.8: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased residence remoteness (n=55)
Table 6.9: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased socio-economic status (n=55)
Table 6.10: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – offender country of birth and visa status (n=52)
Table 6.11: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=52)
Table 6.12: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – offender criminal justice outcomes (n=49)
Table 6.13: Method of ‘other’ DV-context homicide (n=55)
Table 6.14: Location of ‘other’ DV-context homicide (n=55)
REPORT 2021 2023 XV

LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 2: Homicide in NSW
Figure 2.1: Homicide overview by DV-context and gender of deceased (n=1,832)
Figure 2.2: Homicide overview by DV-context and case type (n=1,832)
Figure 2.3: DV-context homicide in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=550)
Chapter 3: Intimate partner violence homicide

Figure 3.1: IPV homicide in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=308)
Figure 3.2: IPV homicide by gender (n=308)
Figure 3.3: IPV homicide offender predominant abuser/victim classification (n=308)
Figure 3.4: DV behaviours of predominant male abuser in IPV homicide (n=286)
Figure 3.5: Police recorded history of DV in IPV homicide with predominant abuser/victim (n=286)
Figure 3.6: Male predominant abuser – custodial sentence for DV offending (n=286)
Figure 3.7: Male predominant abuser – known trauma history (n=286)
Figure 3.8: Female predominant victim – known trauma history (n=286)
Figure 3.9: Deceased age (n=300)
Figure 3.10: Deceased residence remoteness (n=300)
Figure 3.11: Deceased socio-economic status (n=300)
Figure 3.12: Deceased women AOD use (n=244)
Figure 3.13: Deceased men AOD use (n=56)
Figure 3.14: Age of IPV homicide offender (n=300)
Figure 3.15: Male IPV homicide offender AOD use (n=244)
Figure 3.16: Female IPV homicide offender AOD use (n=56)
Figure 3.17: IPV homicide offender criminal justice outcomes (n=237)
Figure 3.18: Relationship of male IPV homicide offender to female deceased (n=244)
Figure 3.19: IPV homicide proximal to separation – male homicide offender/female deceased (n=90)
Figure 3.20: Intention to separate – male IPV homicide offender/female deceased (n=70)
Figure 3.21: Separation – male IPV homicide offender/female deceased (n=244)
Figure 3.22: Relationship of female IPV homicide offender to male deceased (n=56)
Figure 3.23: Intention to separate – female IPV homicide offender/male deceased (n=10)
Figure 3.24: Separation – female IPV homicide offender/male deceased (n=56)
Figure 3.25: IPV homicide relationship length (n=300)
Figure 3.26: IPV homicide relationship <1 year (n=29)
Figure 3.27: IPV homicide relationship >20 years (n=51)
Figure 3.28: IPV homicide and children’s experiences of domestic violence (n=192)
XVI
Chapter 4: Domestic violence-context filicide
Figure 4.1: DV-context filicide in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=96)
Figure 4.2: DV-context filicide event by offender gender (n=80)
Figure 4.3: Age of deceased child (n=96)
Figure 4.4: Child remoteness (n=96)
Figure 4.5: Child socio-economic status (n=96)
Figure 4.6: Filicide offender gender (n=90)
Figure 4.7: Relationship of filicide offender to child (n=90)
Figure 4.8: Male filicide offender – history of IPV (n=56)
Figure 4.9: Female filicide offender – history of IPV (n=34)
Figure 4.10: Male filicide offender – history of violence towards deceased child (n=56)
Figure 4.11: Violence behaviours of male filicide offender towards deceased child (n=44)
Figure 4.12: Male filicide offender – reported history of violence against deceased child (n=44)
Figure 4.13: Female filicide offender – history of violence towards deceased child (n=34)
Figure 4.14: Violence behaviours of female filicide offender towards deceased child (n=18)
Figure 4.15: Female filicide offender – reported history of violence against deceased child (n=18)
Figure 4.16: Age of filicide offender (n=90)
Figure 4.17: Male filicide offender AOD use (n=56)
Figure 4.18: Female filicide offender AOD use (n=34)
Figure 4.19: Male filicide offender – known trauma history (n=56)
Figure 4.20: Female filicide offender – known trauma history (n=34)
Figure 4.21: Evidence of planning by filicide offender (n=80)
Figure 4.22: Proximal separation as a feature of the filicide event (n=80)
Figure 4.23: Family law proceedings in filicide events where separation was a feature (n=28)
XVII
Chapter 5: Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide
Figure 5.1: Relative/kin DV-context homicide in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=94)
Figure 5.2: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased age (n=94)
Figure 5.3: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased residence remoteness (n=94)
Figure 5.4: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased socio-economic status (n=94)
Figure 5.5: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased employment status (adults) (n=88)
Figure 5.6: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – deceased AOD use (adults) (n=88)
Figure 5.7: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender age (n=90)
Figure 5.8: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender employment status (n=90)
Figure 5.9: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender AOD use (n=90)
Figure 5.10: Evidence of planning in relative/kin DV-context homicide (n=88)
Chapter 6: Other domestic violence-context homicide

Figure 6.1: Nature of DV-context (n=55)
Figure 6.2: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased age (n=55)
Figure 6.3: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased residence remoteness (n=55)
Figure 6.4: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased socio-economic status (n=55)
Figure 6.5: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – offender age (n=52)
Figure 6.6: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – offender criminal justice outcomes (n=49)
Figure 6.7: Evidence of planning in ‘other’ DV-context homicide (n=52)
XVIII
KEY FINDINGS
Set out below are key findings from the Team’s analysis of all domestic violence-context homicides in NSW
between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022. The analysis in the report is, however, both comprehensive and
complex, and each of these key findings should be considered and understood in the context of the full report.
Domestic violence-context homicide in NSW

Almost one-third of all homicides in NSW occurred in a context of domestic violence
Between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022 in NSW, 1,832 adults and children were killed in homicides, involving
590 females and 1,242 males. Having examined the nature and circumstances of each of these deaths, the Team
has identified that 30 per cent (n=550) occurred in a context of domestic violence, meaning that there was an
identifiable history of domestic violence prior to the homicide.
While most homicides overall involved the deaths of males, females were far more likely
to be killed in a domestic violence-context homicide
The 550 domestic violence-context homicides included the deaths of 331 females (56.1% of all 590 female
deceased) and 219 males (17.6% of all 1,242 male deceased).
Over 40% of people killed in a context of domestic violence lived in the most
disadvantaged areas of NSW
Of the 550 people killed in a context of domestic violence, over 40 per cent were living in the most
disadvantaged areas of NSW (n=230, 41.8%).
Approximately one-third of people killed in a context of domestic violence lived outside a

major city
Approximately one-third of the 550 people killed in domestic violence-context homicides were living outside a
major city, residing in inner/outer regional, remote and very remote areas of NSW (n=185, 33.6%).
Over 25% of people killed in a context of domestic violence were born outside of
Australia
Over one-quarter of the 550 people killed in domestic violence-context homicides were born outside of Australia
(n=149, 27.1%). Of the 149 people born outside of Australia, 19 (12.8%) were on a temporary visa at the time they
were killed.
Almost 19% of people killed in the context of domestic violence identified as Aboriginal
and/or Torres Strait Islander
Of the 550 domestic violence-context homicides, the person killed identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
Islander in almost 19 per cent of cases (n=102, 18.6%), including 55 females and 47 males.
While acknowledging these high rates, it is important to recognise that domestic violence is not a part of Aborig-
inal and Torres Strait Islander culture, and there is a complex range of interrelated factors associated with the
disproportionate incidence and severity of family violence in Community (see Key Themes for further discussion).
XIX
Intimate partner violence homicide
Over half of all domestic violence-context homicides were within intimate partner
relationships
Over half of the 550 domestic violence-context homicides in NSW involved a person killing their current or former
intimate partner (n=308, 56%).
Approximately 80% of intimate partner violence homicides involved men killing women
Almost 80 per cent of the 308 intimate partner violence homicides involved a man killing his current or former
female intimate partner (n=244, 79.2%), with a smaller proportion of cases involving a woman killing her male
intimate partner (n=56, 18.2%). Eight cases involved domestic violence homicides in same-sex relationships.2
Almost two-thirds of women were killed by either their ex-partner or at the point of
separating from their male partner
Approximately two-thirds of the 244 domestic violence-context homicides that involved a man killing his female
intimate partner occurred in the context of separation, with the relationship having either recently ended or one
or both parties indicating the intention to separate (n=160, 65.6%). In 11 cases where a woman was killed by her
former male partner, the couple were still residing in the same house, living ‘separated under one roof.’
When there were children in the family, almost 90% of those children also experienced
domestic violence before the homicide
In approximately two-thirds of the 300 intimate partner violence homicides involving male-female relationships
there were children in the family (n=192, 64%). In almost 90 per cent of these cases, the children experienced
domestic violence prior to the homicide, either by being directly abused (including physical and non-physical
abuse), and/or experiencing the domestic violence between their parents (n=170 out of 192 relationships with
children, 88.5%).
The homicide offenders and persons killed were parents (either together or separately) to at least 370 surviving
children who were under the age of 18 at the time of the homicide.
Over 25% of men who killed their female partner were experiencing a co-occurrence of
mental health and AOD issues
Approximately half of the 244 men who killed a female intimate partner had a history of alcohol and drug (AOD)
issues (n=123, 50.4%), and just over half had a history of experiencing mental health issues3 (n=132, 54.1%).
When considered together the Team’s analysis reveals that over 25 per cent of men who killed a female intimate
partner had a co-occurrence of both mental health and AOD issues (n=68, 27.9%).
Men who killed their female intimate partner were almost always the domestic violence
abuser in the relationship, while women who killed men were almost always the victim of
their partner’s violence
2 This included seven cases where a man killed his male intimate partner, and one case where a woman killed her female intimate partner.
3 Across the Team’s datasets, ‘mental health issues’ includes diagnosed mental illnesses and anecdotal accounts from witness statements detailing concerns about a
person’s mental well-being and/or behaviours consistent with psychological distress. See Limitations section for further discussion.
XX
The Team examined the history of domestic violence in the relationship prior to the homicide and found that all
but four of the 244 men who killed a female intimate partner were the predominant domestic violence abuser in
the relationship (n=240, 98.4%). For the comparatively small number of cases that involved a woman killing her
male intimate partner (n=56), most women were the predominant domestic violence victim in the relationship,
and the case involved the woman killing her abuser (n=46, 82.1%).4
To better understand the nature of the violence prior to the homicide, the Team has undertaken a focused
analysis of the 286 cases involving a male predominant abuser and female predominant victim.
Almost 75% of men had used at least three types of domestic violence against their
female partner during the relationship
The Team examined the various types of violence used by the 286 male predominant abusers against their
female partner prior to the homicide, including: emotional/psychological violence; physical violence; sexual
violence; economic violence; and stalking. Almost three-quarters of these men used three or more types of
abusive behaviour against their female intimate partner prior to the homicide (n=206, 72%).
In approximately 25% of intimate partner violence homicides there was no history of the
man using physical violence prior to the homicide
In approximately 75 per cent of the 286 cases involving a male predominant abuser and female predominant
victim, there was a history of recorded or anecdotal physical violence by the man against the woman prior to
the homicide (n=209, 73.1%). Accordingly, in approximately 25 percent of cases the man’s history of abusive
behaviour against his female partner involved non-physical violence only (n=77, 26.9%).
Almost 75% of men stalked their former partner after the relationship had ended
In almost 75 per cent of the intimate partner violence homicides that occurred after the relationship had ended,
the male predominant abuser had stalked their former female partner prior to the homicide (n=73 out of 98 cases
where the relationship had ended, 74.5%).
In almost 50% of cases, the man’s history of violence against his partner had not been
reported to police
In almost half of the 286 cases involving a male predominant abuser and a female predominant victim, the man’s
history of violent behaviour had never been reported to police prior to the homicide (n=133, 46.5%).
Of the men who had prior relationships, over half were repeat domestic violence abusers
Over half of the male predominant abusers who had prior intimate partners were known to have perpetrated
domestic violence against at least one other female partner (n=121 out of the 217 men who had prior partners,
55.8%).
Approximately 40% of male abusers experienced trauma or adversity in their childhood

Approximately 40 per cent of the 286 male predominant abusers were known to have experienced significant
trauma and/or adversity in their upbringing, including having experienced domestic and family violence as
a child, and/or other trauma or adversity (for example, non-familial sexual abuse, poverty and neglect, or
experiencing the trauma of war) (n=117, 40.9%).
4 There were a small number of cases (n=13) where only limited information was available to the Team and a determination could not be made as to who was the
predominant abuser/victim in the relationship (including four cases where a man killed his female intimate partner, and nine cases where a woman killed her male
intimate partner). In one case where a woman killed her male intimate partner, the woman was identified as the predominant abuser.
XXI
Domestic violence-context filicide
Approximately 18% of all domestic violence-context homicides involved parents killing
children
Of the 550 domestic violence-context homicides that occurred in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June
2022, approximately 18 per cent involved a parent killing a child or children under 18 years of age (n=96, 17.5%),
resulting in the deaths of 52 boys and 44 girls. For all 96 children killed, there was evidence of a history of
domestic violence either directed against the child and/or the child had experienced intimate partner violence
between their parents.
Almost 40% of children killed in domestic violence-context filicides were aged one year
or less
The 96 children killed by a parent in a context of domestic violence ranged from four weeks to 15 years of age,
with almost 40 per cent being aged one year or less (n=38, 39.6%).
Approximately 60% of domestic violence-context filicides were perpetrated by a male

parent
The 96 children were killed by 90 offenders, meaning that in some cases a parent killed more than one child.
Just over 60 percent of domestic violence-context filicides were perpetrated by a male parent (n=56, 62.2%),
including biological fathers (n=33) and non-biological fathers (n=23). Accordingly, just under 40 per cent of
filicides were perpetrated by a female parent (n=34, 37.8%) and all but three of these women were the biological
mother of the child or children they killed (n=31).
For 90% of children killed there was a history of intimate partner violence between their
parents
In 90 per cent of domestic violence-context filicides there was a history of intimate partner violence between the
parents of the child that was killed (n=81 out of 90 filicide offenders, including 48 male offenders and 33 female
offenders).5 The vast majority of these 48 male filicide offenders were the predominant domestic violence abuser
against the mother of the child that was killed (n=47, 97.9%). Conversely, the vast majority of these 33 female
filicide offenders were the predominant domestic violence victim in their intimate relationship with the child’s
father (n=32, 97%).
In approximately 50% of cases where there was a history of direct violence against the
child that was killed, the violence had been reported to police and/or child protection
services
In approximately two-thirds of cases, there was a history of the filicide offender perpetrating domestic violence
directly against the child prior to their death (n=62 out of 90 filicide offenders, including 44 male offenders and 18
female offenders, 68.9%). In approximately 50 per cent of these cases, the history of violence against the child
had been reported to police and/or child protection services (n=33, 53.2%).
5 For the remaining 9 filicide offenders, there was no history of intimate partner violence, and the domestic violence context of the case relates only to the parent’s history
of abuse towards the child.
XXII
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide
Approximately 17% of all domestic violence-context homicides were relative/kin
homicides
Approximately 17 per cent of the 550 domestic violence-context homicides that occurred in NSW between 1 July
2000 and 30 June 2022, involved a person killing a family member, excluding intimate partner and filicide cases
(n=94, 17.1%). The 94 relative/kin homicides resulted in the deaths of 40 females and 54 males.
The 94 relative/kin homicides were perpetrated by 90 offenders, meaning that in some cases more than one
family member was killed. The vast majority of relative/kin homicide offenders were male (n=74, 82.2%), with a
comparatively small number of cases being perpetrated by a female (n=16, 17.8%).
Almost 50% of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicides involved a son killing a

parent or parents
Almost half of the 94 victims of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicides were parents killed by their son
(n=44, 46.8%), including the deaths of 25 males and 19 females.
Approximately two-thirds of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders

had AOD issues
Of the 90 relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders, almost two-thirds had a history of AOD
issues (n=59, 65.6%).
Over 80% of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders had a history of

experiencing mental health issues
Of the 74 male offenders of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicides, 83.8% were identified as having a
history of mental health issues.6 Of the 16 female offenders, 68.8% had mental health issues. Accordingly, just
over 80 per cent of offenders had a history of experiencing mental health issues (n=73, 81.1%).
Almost one-third of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders were

found to not be criminally responsible for the homicide due to mental health impairment
At trial, almost one-third of the 90 relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders were found by a
judge or jury to not be criminally responsible for the homicide due to mental health impairment (n=28, 31.1%),
including 25 male offenders and 3 female offenders.
6 See n 3.
XXIII
‘Other’ domestic violence-context homicides
10% of all people killed in a context of domestic violence were not an intimate partner or
relative of the person who killed them
Of the 550 domestic violence-context homicides that occurred in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022,
10 per cent were ‘other’ domestic violence-context homicides (n=55), meaning that while the person killed had
no intimate or familial relationship with the homicide offender, the death nonetheless occurred in a context of
domestic violence. The 55 ‘other’ domestic violence-context homicides resulted in the deaths of 52 males and
three females.
Almost 90% of ‘other’ domestic violence-context homicides were related to intimate

partner violence, and most often involved a women’s ex-partner killing her new intimate
partner
The vast majority of the ‘other’ domestic violence-context homicides were related to intimate partner violence
(n=49, 89.1%) and most often involved men killing their former female partner’s new (or perceived new) male
intimate partner (n=23, 41.8%).
XXIV
KEY THEMES
This section discusses a number of key themes arising from the data findings presented in this report. Each of
the themes raise highly complex and often interconnected issues, many of which have been reflected across the
Team’s body of work. While this section does not examine these themes in detail, it demonstrates the insights
that can be drawn from the Team’s specialised data analyses and the important contribution of this work in
continuing to build the evidence base and guide meaningful system reform.
Gendered nature of violence

While each of the four types of domestic violence-context homicides examined in this report demonstrate
distinct characteristics and dynamics, the gendered nature of violence emerges as a common thread running
through the datasets.
Men were significantly overrepresented as domestic violence homicide offenders, and for most of these men the
homicide represented the fatal end point of their long-standing violence behaviours. While this aligns with well
understood dynamics of domestic violence in intimate relationships, the Team’s findings demonstrate the extent
to which this gendered violence extends beyond the intimate partner framework into other family relationship
contexts, with men also being overrepresented as the perpetrators of fatal violence against their children, their
relatives, and others within the orbit of their intimate and familial relationships.
The Team’s findings further demonstrate the complex ways that men’s violence against their female partners
intersects with their violence in other relationship contexts. This was starkly demonstrated in the ‘other’ domestic
violence homicides, the majority of which involved an abusive man killing his former partner’s new male partner.
In a number of these cases the woman was also killed, but for the most part the man’s history of intimate partner
violence culminated in him specifically targeting the new partner, often in circumstances where the woman was
present but physically unharmed. These cases are overlooked in other domestic violence homicide counts and
the Team’s work in framing them as an extension of men’s violence against women is important in revealing the
true prevalence of homicides that occur in a context of domestic violence.
The extended and fatal impact of intimate partner violence was also evident in the male perpetrated filicide
cases, with 20 per cent of men having no history of violence against the child they killed, and the domestic
violence context of the death therefore relating only to the man’s history of violence against his female partner,
the child’s mother. It is critical, therefore, that men’s violence against women be appropriately recognised as a
risk indicator for children.
The gendered nature of violence is clearly demonstrated by the high proportion of women and girls killed
in a context of domestic violence. This is drawn into sharp focus in the intimate partner violence cases with
women of all ages dying at the hands of their abusive partner, sometimes in the context of short relationships,
but more often after experiencing years or even decades of that man’s violence. The Team’s findings provide
critical insights into the types of violence these women experienced and emphasise that any relationship that is
characterised by domestic violence, be it physical or non-physical violence, is embedded with a risk of lethality.
The Team’s data findings also demonstrate the complex intersection of intimate partner violence with female
perpetrated homicide. In the intimate partner violence cases over 80 per cent of women who killed their male
partner were the predominant victim of that man’s violence in the relationship. In the filicide cases, approximately
half of the women had no prior history of abusing the child they killed, but almost all of these women were the
victim of intimate partner violence from their male partner. Women who killed a family member were observed to
have experienced much higher rates of domestic violence victimisation (including both intimate partner violence
and other domestic violence) compared to men who killed a relative.
XXV
These patterns of violence victimisation and perpetration demonstrate that women who kill their partner, child, or
relative, most often do so in circumstances where they are in fact the victim of violence from a male abuser. This
raises questions around the adequacy of supports available to these women to escape the violence they were
experiencing, prior to the homicide.
It is important, therefore, when examining the gendered drivers of violence against women, that the focus is
not only on the circumstances in which men kill women, but also the context in which women may become
homicide offenders.
Separation and stalking

The Team has consistently highlighted that the period leading up to and immediately following separation is
particularly dangerous for women with abusive partners and has emphasised the need for systems and services
to be cognisant of and responsive to this heightened risk.7
The evidentiary basis underpinning separation as a time of high and escalating risk is evident across the Team’s
intimate partner, filicide and ‘other’ domestic violence-context homicide datasets. In the intimate partner violence
cases, just over a third of women were killed by their male partner after leaving the relationship, and for another
third of the women killed, the relationship was breaking down and the woman had indicated an intention to
separate. These findings are supported by Australian and international studies on IPV homicide that have
similarly identified actual or intended separation as one of the key lethality/high-risk indicators for domestic and
family violence homicide.8
Importantly, however, the Team’s work demonstrates that separation is a risk indicator that extends beyond the
intimate partner homicide context. Just over one-third of filicides occurred in the context of parental separation
(35%), and the majority of these cases were perpetrated by a male parent. Separation was also identified as a
key characteristic in the ‘other’ domestic violence homicides, with a high proportion of these cases involving
a man killing a women’s new (or perceived new) partner. Again, this demonstrates the complex ways that
men’s violence against women can manifest as lethal violence against others and highlights the importance of
recognising separation as a risk of harm not only to women, but also to their children and others close to them.
A related finding revealed in the Team’s analysis - and one that has markedly increased in prevalence since the
Team last reported - is the intersection of separation and stalking in IPV homicides. In almost three-quarters of
the cases where the relationship had ended, the male abuser had stalked the female victim prior to the homicide.
In the Team’s 2019-21 Report, stalking post-separation was evident in half of the cases where the relationship
had ended.9 The significant increase in the prevalence of post-separation stalking may reflect the greater
availability of surveillance tactics and new technologies that are readily accessible by abusers to extend their
power and control and deprive victims of privacy, autonomy and a sense of safety. It may also reflect the general
increase in police pursuing charges in relation to domestic violence-context stalking and intimidation offences.10
These findings reinforce the need to strengthen support and protection for women who intend to separate or
7 NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team (2022), Report 2019-21, pp.135-6; NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team (2020), Report 2017-19, pp.9, 67 and
76; NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team (2017), Report 2015-17, pp.9 and 133.
8 Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network and Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (2022), Data Report: Intimate
partner violence homicides 2010–2018’, 2nd ed., Research report 03/2022, ANROWS, p. 14 https://www.anrows.org.au/project/australian-domestic-and-family-
violence-death-review-network-national-data-update/ (accessed 31 May 2024); New Zealand Family Violence Death Review Committee (2017) ,‘Fifth Report Data:
January 2009 to December 2015’, Wellington: Health Quality & Safety Commission, p. 10, https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/resources/resource-library/family-violence-
death-review-committee-fifth-report-data/ (accessed 31 May 2024); See Toivonen, C., and Backhouse, C. (2018) ‘National Risk Assessment Principles for domestic
and family violence’, ANROWS Insights 07/2018, p.5, https://20ian81kynqg38bl3l3eh8bf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ANROWS_NRAP_
National-Risk-Assessment-Principles.1.pdf (accessed 16 May 2024).
9 DVDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7), p.31.
10 Ramsey, S. et al (2022). Trends in domestic violence-related stalking and intimidation offences in the criminal justice system: 2021 to 2021 (Bureau Brief No. 159).
Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_publication/Pub_Summary/BB/BB159-DV-related-stalking.
aspx (accessed 31 May 2024).
XXVI
have recently separated from their abusive partner. It also highlights the importance of ensuring consistent
approaches to risk assessment which adequately recognise the heightened risk around separation and stalking
and supporting services to work with women in relation to the ever-evolving forms of technology-facilitated
abuse.
The co-occurrence of domestic violence, AOD, and mental

health issues
Across the homicide datasets considered in this report, a significant proportion of both victims and abusers had
mental health and/or alcohol and drug (AOD) issues. This ranged from one-quarter for some cohorts, to over
three-quarters for other cohorts, with the highest rates identified for the homicide offenders who killed a relative/
kin.
For the first time the Team has also presented data findings on the co-occurrence of mental health and AOD
issues, which provides an evidentiary basis to support holistic and integrated responses for people at the
complex intersection of mental health, AOD use, and domestic violence.
While the Team recognises that mental health and AOD issues do not cause domestic violence, these issues
may create particular barriers to accessing services and impact victims’ experiences of violence and risk. In the
absence of qualitative case reviews, the data findings presented in this report do not allow further examination
of the nature and quality of service engagement and the unique challenges that may present for victims and
abusers with a co-occurrence of mental health and AOD issues. This is, however, an issue that has been
explored in the Team’s previous reports.
The Team has highlighted, for instance, the cumulative impact of victimisation which can erode a domestic
violence victim’s self-esteem and mental well-being, as well as giving rise to trauma-coping responses such as
AOD use. The Team’s in-depth case reviews have also revealed the way abusers can weaponise the victim’s
mental health and AOD use, exploiting the systemic discrimination and stigma associated with these issues to
undermine or manipulate a victim’s access to supports and services.
As the Team recommences its in-depth case review analysis over the next reporting period, it will continue
to interrogate this issue, including to work with health practitioners to revise its quantitative and qualitative
processes to build in greater nuance around the complex intersection of mental health, AOD use, and domestic
violence.
Overrepresentation of Aboriginal people

Since the Team began its homicide surveillance function in 2011, it has consistently identified the
overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in domestic violence homicides.
While acknowledging these high rates, the Team has always sought to emphasise that domestic violence is not
an inherent part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and practice. Prior to colonialisation, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples successfully managed interpersonal, family and community relationships for
over 60,000 years and many aspects of traditional culture and customary law were respectful and protective of
women.11 There is a highly complex range of interrelated factors associated with the disproportionate incidence
and severity of domestic violence in these communities today, including:
• the cumulative impact of colonisation,

• dispossession of tribal lands,
11 O
ur Watch (2018) Changing the picture: Background paper – Understanding violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, p.21 https://mediacdn.
ourwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/09/20231756/Changing-the-picture-Part1-AA.pdf (accessed 31 May 2024).
XXVII
• loss of cultural identity and connections,
• economic and social disenfranchisement,
• loss of traditional protective roles and support within families and communities,
• historical and current child removal practices,
• institutional and structural racism, and
• limited access to culturally safe services.
For many First Nations communities, in Australia and abroad, these multiple and intersecting harms and
injustices, both contemporary and historical, continue to contribute to experiences of domestic violence evident
today.
While the past decade has seen a gradual decline in the rate of domestic violence homicides generally in NSW,
the proportion of people killed who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander has steadily increased across
the Team’s datasets. It is noted, however, the proportion of homicide offenders who identify as First Nations
peoples has not increased at the same rate, which suggests that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
are increasingly being killed by non-Indigenous homicide offenders. This is particularly evident in the intimate
partner violence cases involving the homicide of Aboriginal women, a finding that rejects the myth that First
Nations women are always killed by First Nations men.12
Across numerous reports, the Team has sought to highlight the range of complex issues that impede the
effective intervention and prevention of violence in First Nations families and communities, including:
• poor or discriminatory practices by frontline responders resulting in distrust in and/or disengagement with
support services;13
• barriers to accessing appropriate and culturally safe support services, particularly in regional and remote
areas;14
• misidentification of Aboriginal women as domestic violence abusers and problematic racist attitudes by
responders regarding how ‘real’ victims should behave;15
• failure to recognise or respond to the profound intergenerational and personal trauma for First Nations
peoples who use or experience violence;16 and
• the devastating, radiating and long-lasting impact that domestic violence homicides have on First Nations
communities.
Undertaking this work has also caused the Team to critically reflect on its own review processes for cases
involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including to consider how to embed greater cultural safety
in its work and issues around data sovereignty. The Team is also considering the potential to engage directly
with family, friends and community, to counteract the underlying bias and privilege of agency perspectives in the
12 Ibid p.20.
13 DVDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7), p.44; SNAICC National Voice for Our Children, National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum, & National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (2017) Strong families, safe kids: Family violence response and prevention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
families, https://www.snaicc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Strong_Families_Safe_Kids-Sep_2017.pdf (accessed 31 May 2024)
14 DVDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7), p.44; Langton, M. et al (2020) ‘Improving family violence legal and support services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women’,
ANROWS, https://www.anrows.org.au/project/improving-family-violence-legal-andsupport-services-for-indigenous-women/ (accessed 31 May 2024)
15 DVDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7), pp.37 and 57-58; Douglas, H. and Fitzgerald, R. (2018) ‘The Domestic Violence Protection Order system as entry to the criminal justice
system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’ International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, vol. 7(3) pp.41-57, https://doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.
v7i3.499 (accessed 5 May 2024); Nancarrow, H. et al (2020), ‘Accurately identifying the “person most in need of protection” in domestic and family violence law’,
ANROWS Research report 23/2020, https://20ian81kynqg38bl3l3eh8bf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Nancarrow-PMINOP-RR.3.pdf
(accessed 4 May 2024).
16 DVDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7), p.XXV; Dudgeon, P. et al (2017), ‘Trauma in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population’, Australian Clinical Psychologist,
vol.3(1), pp. 19-30.
XXVIII
service records relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (see Limitations: Incorporating the voices
of family, friends and community for further discussion).
Having regard to these highly complex issues and recognising the urgent need to better understand and
respond to the increasing overrepresentation evident in the data findings, the Team has committed to prioritising
focused research on homicides involving First Nations peoples. Over the next reporting period, a co-led, co-
designed research project will be scoped in partnership with the Office of the Women’s Safety Commissioner
and the outcomes of this important work will be reflected in the Team’s future reports.
In its 2019-21 Report, the Team also signalled its concern in relation to the disproportionate impact the
new offence of coercive control may have on Aboriginal communities and (having regard to the issue of
misidentification) in particular for Aboriginal women.17 It is noted that the statutory review of the coercive control
legislation will specifically consider the impact of the new offence on Aboriginal people18 as well as the issue
of misidentification more broadly.19 The first review is to be undertaken two years after the commencement of
the new offence20 and the report tabled in the NSW Parliament within three years of commencement (i.e., July
2027).21 Again, the outcomes of this critical review will be reflected in the Team’s future work.
Domestic violence in regional or remote communities

The proportion of people from regional or remote areas who were killed in domestic violence homicides is
reasonably consistent across the datasets (approximately one-third), and reveals a slight overrepresentation,
noting that around 28 per cent of the general population in Australia live in rural areas.22 This finding is consistent
with a number of studies which suggest that living in regional and remote areas can heighten the frequency and
severity of domestic violence more generally.23
The highest cohort of domestic violence homicides occurring outside a major city were those perpetrated
by a woman killing her male intimate partner (approximately 40%), and these women were almost always the
domestic violence victim in the relationship. This provides an important evidentiary basis for the widely accepted
notion that there are greater barriers to help-seeking for women living in regional and remote areas, than women
in urban communities.24
The vastness of Australia’s landscape and the physical distance that often separates neighbours, communities,
and towns, creates geographical isolation - which can in turn lead to social isolation, particularly for victims of
domestic violence.25 Geographical distance also impacts the availability and accessibility of services. There are
fewer (if any) specialised support services, meaning that victims may have to join a waitlist or travel to another
area to access support.
17 D VDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7), pp.229-230; Nancarrow, H. et al (2020), ‘Accurately identifying the “person most in need of protection” in domestic and family violence
law’, ANROWS Research report, 23/2020, https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/accurately-identifying-the-person-most-in-need-of-protection-in-domestic-and-
family-violence-law/ (accessed 4 March 2024).
18 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 (NSW) s54J(2)(c).
19 Ibid s 54J(2)(d).
20 Ibid s 54J(4)(a).
21 Ibid s 54J(5)(a).
22 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023) in Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024), Rural and remote health, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/rural-remote-
australians/rural-and-remote-health (accessed 4 May 2024).
23 Campo, M. and Tayton, S. (2015) ‘Domestic and family violence in regional, rural and remote communities: An overview of key issues’, Child Family Community
Australia Practitioner Resource, https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/domestic-and-family-violence-regional-rural-and-remote-communities (accessed 23 May 2024);
George, A., & Harris, B. (2014), ‘Landscapes of violence: Women surviving family violence in regional and rural Victoria’, Deakin University, https://eprints.qut.edu.
au/104420/ (accessed 23 May 2024); Strand, S. and Storey, J. (2019), ‘Intimate partner violence in urban, rural, and remote areas: An investigation of offense
severity and risk factors’, Violence Against Women, 25(2), pp.188–207, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218766611 (accessed 23 May 2024); Mishara, G. et al.
(2014), Health and wellbeing of women aged 18-23 in 2013 and 1996: Findings from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, Report prepared for the
Australian Government Department of Health, https://alswh.org.au/post-outcomes/2014-major-report-health-and-wellbeing-of-womenaged-18-to-23-in-2013-and-
1996-findings-from-the-australian-longitudinal-study-on-womens-health/ (accessed 23 May 2024).
24 Campo and Tayton (2015) (n 23).
25 McLachlan, F. (2024). The Rurality of Intimate Partner Femicide: Examining Risk Factors in Queensland. Violence Against Women, 30(6-7), pp.1683-1707. https://doi.
org/10.1177/10778012231158105 (accessed 23 May 2024).
XXIX
Other challenges may arise in relation to privacy and a lack of anonymity in close-knit regional communities
whereby many residents know each other, and this can compromise discreet contact with service providers.
Beyond these barriers, other issues that the Team and other researchers have previously identified include
complex financial arrangements (for example in farming communities); high rates of gun ownership; and
particular attitudes around masculinity and more narrowly defined traditional gender norms.26 Each town, like
each person, is unique in the challenges that may be relevant, and rural communities should not be considered
as a homogenous group. Instead, tailored service responses should be informed and led by those within the
community, who are best positioned to understand and overcome those distinct challenges.
The intersection of domestic violence and socio-economic

disadvantage
The findings presented in this report demonstrate that domestic violence homicides occur across all socio-
economic areas in NSW, and this similarly supports an understanding that domestic violence itself occurs across
all demographic groups, regardless of socio-economic status. It would appear, however, that people living in the
most disadvantaged areas of NSW are overrepresented as victims of domestic violence homicide, with 40 per
cent of people killed living in the lowest quintile of socio-economic advantage.27 This finding aligns with results
from the ABS Personal Safety Survey which revealed that women living in the lowest quintile of socio-economic
advantage were most likely to have experienced intimate partner violence in the last two years, and those in the
highest quintile were the least likely.28
The financial impact of domestic violence can disrupt all aspects of a victim’s life, including their ability to leave
the abuser. Concerns over their ability to provide financially for themselves and their children is recognised as a
key reason victims are unable to leave abusers or may return to the relationship after leaving.29 There are direct
costs associated with separation such as moving and legal fees, as well as healthcare costs to restore the
victim’s physical and mental wellbeing.30 There are also indirect costs which are far-reaching, longer-lasting, and
much more difficult to quantify.31 Recent Australian studies revealed that children who experienced domestic
violence reported poorer educational, economic, and employment outcomes.32 In 2015-16 the total cost of
violence against women and their children in Australia was estimated to be $22 billion, with victims bearing $11.3
billion (52%) of that total cost themselves.33
The prevalence of economic abuse in the IPV Homicide Dataset adds further insight into the economic
challenges that victims of domestic violence may face, with over one-third of female victims experiencing
economic abuse prior to the homicide.
26 DVDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7); Campo and Tayton (2015) (n 24).

27 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) ‘Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD) Interactive Map’, Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic
Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016, https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~2016~Main%20Features~IRSD%20
Interactive%20Map~15 (accessed 21 October 2023).
28 Commonwealth of Australia Department of Social Services (2018), ‘PSS Analytical Paper #3 – Demographics of partner violence’, paper analysing data from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey, https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/pss-analytical-paper-3-demographics-
partner-violence.pdf (accessed 23 May 2024).
29 Junseok, K. and Gray, K. (2008) ‘Leave or Stay? Battered Women’s Decision after Intimate Partner Violence’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 23(10) pp.1465-
1482, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314307 (accessed 3 June 2024).
30 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024), Family, domestic and sexual violence: Economic and financial Impacts, https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-
and-sexual-violence/responses-and-outcomes/economic-financial-impacts (accessed 3 June 2024).
31 Summers, A. (2022), ‘The choice: Violence or poverty’, University of Technology Sydney, https://assets.website-files.com/62b998c0c9af9f65bba26051/63228540ce7
4a60866ee4e98_TheChoice-violence-or-poverty-web.pdf (accessed 3 June 2024).
32 Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (2018), ‘Research summary: The impacts of domestic and family violence on children’, 2nd ed.,
ANROWS Insights 11/2018, https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/research-summary-the-impacts-of-domestic-and-family-violence-on-children/ (accessed 3 June
2024).
33 KPMG (2016), ‘The cost of violence against women and their children in Australia: Final Report’, prepared for the Department of Social Services, https://www.dss.
gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/08_2016/the_cost_of_violence_against_women_and_their_children_in_australia_-_summary_report_may_2016.pdf (accessed 3
June 2024).
XXX
Culturally and linguistically diverse communities
Approximately 27 per cent of people killed in a domestic violence homicide were born outside Australia which
would appear to approximately accord with general population statistics, with 30.7 per cent of Australia’s popu-
lation being born overseas.34 However, in an increasingly multicultural world, the place where an individual is born
isn’t necessarily indicative of whether they share that country’s dominant culture, religion, language, or ancestry.35
Accordingly, this finding does not reflect the extent to which a person’s cultural and linguistic identity may have
effected their experience of domestic violence.
There is no single definition of ‘cultural and linguistic diversity’ in Australia, which creates challenges around
consistently and accurately capturing the diverse experiences of people who use, or experience, domestic
violence. There are clear limitations on the Team’s current reliance on ‘country of birth’ and ‘visa status’ as
the only means for signalling the prevalence of culturally and linguistically diverse communities in the Team’s
domestic violence homicide datasets.
The Team acknowledges these limitations and intends to re-examine how its quantitative and qualitative method-
ology can more accurately reflect the experiences and diversity of culturally and linguistically diverse communities
as part of its future work agenda (see also Limitations).
Children’s experiences of domestic violence

The experiences of children living with domestic violence are commonly rendered invisible by systems and
services, and therefore the Team has endeavoured to continually emphasise the distinct and unique experiences
of children, to ensure that they are better recognised, and responded to, in their own right.
The IPV Homicide Dataset reveals that in almost two-thirds of the homicides, children were living with the
homicide offender, or the partner they killed, during the course of the relationship and there were at least 370
surviving children (aged less than 18 years) at the time of the homicide.
The filicide dataset highlights histories of direct violence (physical, sexual and emotional) towards children by one
or both parents, coupled with low rates of reporting and intervention.
Known childhood trauma history (most commonly experiencing domestic violence as a child) was a feature for a
large proportion of abusers and victims of violence across the homicide datasets.
Children living in a household with domestic violence is itself a form of victimisation that can have profound
negative impacts on children, even where they are not direct victims of the violence and abuse.36 However,
it is also important to recognise that children are not passive and helpless victims, and can demonstrate an
incredible capacity to cope, maintain a sense of agency, be resilient, and find ways of resisting violence.37
These data findings reinforce the critical need for effective and timely specialised trauma-informed interventions
for children, that maximise the child’s safety and reduce ongoing harms to the child (and their family). This should
also extend to providing early tailored support and therapeutic spaces for young people (and their families) who
are coming into contact with the criminal justice system as a consequence of using violence.
34 A ustralian Bureau of Statistics (2024), ‘Australia’s Population by Country of Birth’, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/australias-population-country-

birth/latest-release (accessed 23 May 2024).
35 Mitra-Kahn, T. et al (2016), ‘Invisible women, invisible violence: Understanding and improving data on the experiences of domestic and family violence and
sexual assault for diverse groups of women: State of knowledge paper’, ANROWS Landscapes, DD01/2016, https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/
bitstream/1/19833/1/DiversityData_UPDATED191216.pdf (accessed 23 May 2024).
36 Humphreys, C. et al (2020) ‘Safe & Together Addressing ComplexitY for Children (STACY for Children)’ ANROWS Research report, https://20ian81kynqg38bl3l3eh8bf-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RP.19.01_RR_Humphreys_STACY-for-children.pdf (accessed 27 May 2024).
37 Callaghan, J. and Alexander, J. (2015), Understanding agency and resistance strategies (UNARS): children’s experiences of domestic violence, https://doi:10.13140/
rg.2.1.2509.2324 (accessed 27 May 2024).
XXXI
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY V
CONTENT WARNING AND SUPPORT VI
CONVENOR’S MESSAGE VIII
TEAM MEMBERS X
LIST OF TABLES XII
LIST OF FIGURES XVI
KEY FINDINGS XIX
KEY THEMES XXV
CHAPTER 1: The work of the Team 3

What is domestic violence? 4
Why review domestic violence-context deaths? 5
The NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team 6
Background and establishment 6
The Team’s understanding of a ‘domestic violence death 6
Review and recommendation: Understanding the function of the Team 7
Methodology 7
Tier 1 Methodology 7
Limitations and challenges in the Team’s work 10
Identifying homicides and homicide offenders 10
Identifying histories of domestic violence 10
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status 11
Culturally and linguistically diverse communities 11
People with disability 11
Mental Health 12
LGBTIQ+ communities 12
Incorporating the voices of family, friends and community 13
CHAPTER 2: Domestic violence-context homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 14

Homicide Overview 15
Domestic violence-context homicides 15
DV-context homicide trends over time 16
CHAPTER 3: Intimate partner violence homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 18

Introduction 19
Inclusion criteria 19
Data findings 19
Overview 19
IPV homicide trends over time 20
IPV homicide and gender 20
Predominant abuser/victim classification 21
Male predominant abusers/female predominant victims 23
Domestic violence behaviours and histories of violence 23
IPV homicide – deceased characteristics 36
1
IPV homicide – offender characteristics 44
IPV homicide – case characteristics 51
IPV homicide – relationship characteristics 53
Multiple homicide events 62
CHAPTER 4: Domestic violence-context filicide in NSW, 2000-2022 63

Introduction 64
Data findings 65
Overview 65
Domestic violence-context filicide trends over time 65
Domestic violence-context filicide and gender 66
Domestic violence-context filicide – child characteristics 66
Domestic violence-context filicide – offender characteristics and histories of violence 70
Domestic violence-context filicide – case characteristics 86
CHAPTER 5: Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 92

Introduction 93
Data findings 94
Overview 94
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide trends over time 94
Relationship of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offender to deceased 95
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide – deceased characteristics 96
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide – offender characteristics 102
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide – history of violence 107
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide – case characteristics 112
CHAPTER 6: ‘Other’ domestic violence-context homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 116

Introduction 117
Data findings 118
Overview 118
Domestic violence context 118
‘Other’ domestic violence-context homicide – deceased characteristics 122
‘Other’ domestic violence-context homicide – offender characteristics 125
‘Other’ domestic violence-context homicide – case characteristics 128
ANNEXURES: 130
Secretariat Activities Report 130
2
01
The work of
the team
This chapter provides an overview of the
underlying principles which guide the
operation of domestic violence death
review mechanisms and describes the
background, establishment, function
and methodology of the NSW Domestic
Violence Death Review Team.
What is domestic violence?
Domestic violence occurs when one person (the abuser) intentionally and systematically tries to dominate
and control another person (the victim) in an intimate, familial, or family-like relationship. Domestic violence is
characterised by the abuser’s use of behaviours designed to incite fear and maintain control over the victim.
Domestic violence behaviours can include:
• psychological and emotional abuse;

• physical abuse;
• sexual abuse;
• verbal abuse;
• social abuse;
• economic abuse;
• abuse of systems;
• technological abuse;
• stalking;
• spiritual or cultural abuse;
• reproductive coercion;
• forced marriage; and/or
• any other behaviours used by the abuser to control and subjugate the victim.
In Australia, there is no nationally consistent definition of ‘domestic violence’, and it is often used interchangeably
with other terms including ‘domestic abuse’, ‘family violence’, ‘intimate partner violence’ and ‘coercive control’.
Some jurisdictions (for example Victoria and the federal legislation governing Family Law38) have adopted the
term ‘family violence’ and this language is also preferred by many First Nations people because it is considered
to better reflect the broader and intergenerational issues of violence within extended families, kinship networks
and community relationships.39
The Team has adopted the language of ‘domestic violence’ as to-date this has best reflected the terminology
in criminal and civil legislation in NSW.40 It is noted, however, that recent legislative reform in NSW, including in
relation to the introduction of the new offence of coercive control (which came into force on 1 July 2024) will
introduce a layer of definitional complexity in NSW.41
This somewhat fraught definitional landscape can create further barriers for victims both in terms of
understanding their experiences of violence and providing equal access to support and justice. Accordingly,
the Team reiterates the calls for a nationally consistent definition of domestic violence to support a shared
understanding of, and consistent response for victims of violence in Australia.42
38 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

39 Olsen, A. and Lovett, R. (2016) ‘Existing knowledge, practice and responses to violence against women in Australian Indigenous communities: State of knowledge
paper’, ANROWS Landscapes, 02/2016, https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/existing-knowledge-practice-and-responses-to-violence-against-women-in
australian-indigenous-communities-state-of-knowledge-paper/ (accessed 3 June 2024).
40 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 5.
41 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 No 65 (NSW).
42 Commonwealth of Australia Department of Social Services (2022), ‘The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032’, https://www.dss.
gov.au/ending-violence (accessed 14 February 2024).
REPORT 2021 2023 4

While men can be victims of domestic violence, the vast majority of this violence is perpetrated by men against
women and children.43 This has led to an understanding of domestic violence as a gendered harm, with male
abusers motivated by gendered drivers of violence against women.44 These drivers of violence are underpinned
by entrenched patriarchal social conditions that ignore, excuse, justify, or even promote violence against women,
as well as gender inequality more broadly. While these conditions are complex and entrenched, they are
alterable – and therefore domestic violence is seen as a preventable social harm.45
Despite changing community attitudes regarding the criminality of these behaviours, and decades of policy
intervention, domestic violence remains one of the most serious social issues confronting NSW as a state, and
Australia as a nation.
Why review domestic violence-context deaths?

Research has highlighted that a high proportion of homicides occur in a context of domestic violence. This is
particularly true for women, who are far more likely to be killed by an intimate partner or family member following
a history of domestic violence.46
Domestic violence-context homicides (DV-context homicides) are considered to ‘exhibit predictable patterns
and aetiologies’ and are therefore regarded as preventable.47 When a homicide occurs in a context of domestic
violence it can be characterised by a history of abusive behaviours that may have been known to service
providers, friends and family prior to the homicide. Accordingly, these deaths warrant particular attention and
analysis. This has been the impetus for the establishment of domestic violence death review teams worldwide.48
Domestic violence death review teams are varied in nature but generally operate as collaborative multi-agency
committees which conduct in-depth analyses of DV-context homicides. Such teams undertake a careful
examination of the circumstances surrounding these homicides with a view to providing a better understanding
of agencies’ roles and constraints in responding to domestic violence, as well as other barriers and limitations
(qualitative analysis). Teams can also undertake data collection and analysis with a view to mapping trends and
dynamics across domestic violence homicide cases (quantitative analysis).
Examining homicides that occur in a context of domestic violence enables review teams to identify where
systems could be improved to better respond to domestic violence victims and abusers, and promote greater
awareness and understanding of the broader dynamics and issues around domestic violence more generally.
43 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016), Personal Safety Survey, Australia, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/2016

(accessed 7 February 2024); Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, & Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety,
(2022), ‘Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network Data Report: Intimate partner violence homicides 2010–2018’, 2nd ed., Research report
03/2022, https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/australian-domestic-and-family-violence-death-review-network-data-report-intimate-partner-violence-homicides-
2010-2018/#:~:text=In%20Australia%20in%202018%E2%80%9319,the%20Australian%20Institute%20of%20Criminology (accessed 3 June 2024);
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research ( 2024), ‘Domestic & Family Violence in NSW 2019-2023’ https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Landing_
Pages/DV%20assault%20infographic%20Police%20actions%202023.pdf (accessed 3 June 2024).
44 Commonwealth of Australia Department of Social Services (2022) (n 44).
45 Our Watch (2021) Change the Story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women in Australia (second edition) https://media-cdn.
ourwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/23131846/Change-the-story-Our-Watch-AA.pdf (accessed 16 March 2024).
46 Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network (2022) (n 45); Toivonen and Backhouse (2018) (n 8); United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime
(2023), ‘Gender-related killings of women and girls (femicide/feminicide): Global estimates of female intimate partner/family-related homicides in 2022’, https://www.
unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/gender-related-killings-of-women-and-girls-femicide-feminicide-global-estimates-2022-en.pdf (accessed 3 June 2024).
47 Websdale, N. et al (1999) ‘Domestic Violence Fatality Reviews: From a culture of Blame to a culture of safety’, Juvenile and Family Court Journal (Spring), p.61.
48 Dawson, M. (2017) (ed.), Domestic Homicides and Death Reviews: An International Perspective, (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2017).
5 NSW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW TEAM

The NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team
Background and establishment
Recognising the history of death review processes operating internationally,49 from the early 2000s, feminist
advocates and other service responders began campaigning for a domestic violence death review process to be
established in NSW.50
In December 2008, following the murder of Melissa Cook, who was shot and killed at work by her abusive
former partner, the NSW Government convened the Domestic Violence Homicide Advisory Panel to consider
the establishment of an ongoing domestic violence death review mechanism for NSW. In June 2009 the Panel
handed down its report, unanimously recommending that a permanent review mechanism be established and
setting out the key features of such a review.
The Team was established in 2010 under Chapter 9A of the Coroners Act 2009, the object of which is to provide
for the investigation of the causes of domestic violence deaths in NSW, so as to facilitate improvements in
systems and services and, thereby, reduce the incidence of such deaths.51
The Act provides that the functions of the Team are to:
• review closed cases of domestic violence deaths;
• establish and maintain a database so as to identify patterns and trends relating to such deaths;
• develop recommendations from qualitative and quantitative data; and
• undertake research that aims to help prevent or reduce the likelihood of such deaths.52
The Team’s understanding of a ‘domestic violence death’

As defined in the Team’s legislation, a ‘domestic violence death’ occurs when one person directly or indirectly
causes the death of another person, and the death occurs in a context of domestic violence.53 The Act does not
prescribe what a ‘context of domestic violence’ means however the Team considers this to include cases where
there is an identifiable history of domestic violence between the deceased person and the person that caused
the death, or the death is otherwise inextricably linked to the domestic violence behaviours of one of the parties
(for example, a bystander who is killed intervening in an episode of domestic violence).
The Team’s legislative definition of domestic violence death therefore allows for the examination of homicides,
suicides and accidents that occur in a context of domestic violence. To date however, excluding a pilot study
into domestic violence and suicide undertaken in 2017, the work of the Team has focused on domestic violence
context ‘homicides.’
The Team’s use of the term ‘homicide’ is broader than the legal definition and includes all cases where an
individual’s intentional act, or failure to act, resulted in the death of another person, regardless of whether the
49 F or example, in the United States and Canada such processes have existed since the 1990s, see David, N. (2007) ‘Exploring the Use of Domestic Violence Fatality
Review Teams’ Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse Issues Paper.
50 NSW Ombudsman (2006), ‘Domestic Violence: Improving Police Practice’, A special report to Parliament under s31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974, pp.81-82, https://
www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/125696/Domestic-violence-improving-police-practice-Special-Report-to-Parliament-December-2006-.pdf
(accessed 3 June 2024).
51 Coroners Act 2009 (NSW) s 101A.
52 Ibid s 101F(1).
53 Ibid s 101B.
REPORT 2021 2023 6

circumstances were such as to contravene provisions of the criminal law. The Team adopts this approach to
ensure there is sufficient scope to examine a broad range of domestic violence related deaths that may extend
beyond the criminal justice system’s conceptualisation of homicide, including people who have had their
homicide charges withdrawn, or are acquitted following a trial.
Review and Recommendation: Understanding the function of the

Team
The functions of the Team closely parallel the function of other investigative bodies and/or persons, including
the recommendation function of Coroners, the investigative and reporting function of the Ombudsman, and the
function of other death review bodies in Australian states and territories.
The purpose of these reviews is to investigate individual cases or groups of cases to identify issues within
systems, including deficiencies in the way systems operate, omissions or oversights, and to consider how
systems and approaches may benefit from change. Much like coronial inquests, the operation of the Team is
premised on the understanding that the issues arising within individual, or groups of cases can reveal challenges
across the system and provide insights into the ways in which systems do, or do not, work.
The domestic violence ‘system’ in NSW is complex, dynamic and multi-stratum. When a homicide occurs, the
Team is afforded a unique opportunity to identify issues that might otherwise be obscured within this complex
system. The Team’s review process, therefore, acts as a lens into systems and affords a critical analysis of the
effectiveness of those systems, where improvements have been made, or where systems and services do not,
but should, reach.
Methodology
The Team adopts a three-tier approach to investigating and reporting on domestic violence homicides:
Tier 1: Quantitative analysis of a DV-context homicide dataset.

Tier 2: Critical analysis of in-depth case reviews.
Tier 3: From a synthesis of information derived from Tier 1 and Tier 2, development of findings and
recommendations for the biennial reports.
Tier 1 Methodology
To develop and maintain the Team’s homicide dataset the Team’s Secretariat identifies and examines every
homicide, suspected homicide, and suspicious death that occurs in NSW, capturing demographic information
and case characteristics for each death. This is achieved through media monitoring, JusticeLink54 homicide law
part code audits, and JusticeLink reportable death audits.
Once identified, each open case receives a preliminary coding based on the relationship between the deceased
person and the alleged homicide offender (where known), and whether the death occurred in a domestic
violence context. To determine if a homicide occurred in a domestic violence context, case material is examined
to identify any evidence (reported or anecdotal) of domestic violence prior to the fatal episode.
The DV-context homicide dataset is then divided into four categories based on the relationship between the
deceased and the homicide offender:
54 JusticeLink is the integrated, multi-jurisdictional case management system used by all civil and criminal courts operating in NSW.

Intimate partner violence homicide: where a person is killed by a current or former intimate partner in
•
a context of domestic violence;
Domestic violence filicide: where a parent kills a child under the age of 18 years in a context of do-
•
mestic violence;
Relative/kin domestic violence homicide: where a person is killed by a non-intimate family member
•
in a context of domestic violence;
‘Other’ domestic violence homicide: where there is no intimate or familial relationship between the
•
homicide offender and deceased, but the homicide nonetheless occurs in a context of domestic violence
(for example, cases where a bystander is killed intervening in an episode of domestic violence).
The complete homicide dataset is subject to ongoing monitoring to track cases as criminal/coronial proceedings
progress and coding revised where necessary, as further information about a case becomes available.
Once the criminal/coronial proceedings are finalised, the Secretariat prepares an in-depth case review for each
DV-context homicide (See Tier 2). Data input is then completed for each case based on information revealed
through the qualitative Tier 2 review process.
Year-on-year the Team’s dataset has continued to expand, not only in terms of the number of cases, but also
in terms of the nuance and complexity of variables captured. For each of the categories of domestic violence
homicides the Team considers, a distinct (but ever evolving) set of data variables have been developed to
examine the unique characteristics of each death type, and thereby more effectively guide intervention and
prevention efforts.
Tier 2 Methodology
Each in-depth case review is prepared by the Secretariat and is then subject to critical analysis by the Team.
To prepare the reviews, the Secretariat undertakes a comprehensive examination and analysis of all available
material, including:
• police reports to the Coroner;
• the brief of evidence (prosecutorial or coronial) including witness statements;
• information on the NSW Police Force Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS);
• post-mortem and toxicology reports;
• remarks on sentence;
• coronial findings;
• media reports; and
• any additional information called for by the Team such as: health, child protection, education, corrective
services, housing, specialist domestic violence or other service provider records.55
The Secretariat then prepares a case review report which sets out, in as much detail as possible, information
including:
55 Coroners Act 2009 (NSW) s 101L.
REPORT 2021 2023 8

• deceased/homicide offender profiles – including demographic information (such as age, sex, ethnicity,
family history, education, relationship status, housing status, employment history, and criminal history);
• chronology of events – including any relevant events, both proximal and distal, to the death;
• domestic violence ‘status’ of the deceased/homicide offender – i.e. whether they were the predominant
domestic violence victim or abuser in the relationship;
• relationship history – including the nature, duration and history of the relationship between the deceased
and homicide offender, and any former intimate relationships;
• details of the death;
• criminal justice outcome; and
• service contact and response history – including the availability and effectiveness of any services and
systems, and any failures that may have contributed to, or failed to prevent, the death.
In preparing the case review, the Secretariat also articulates relevant issues for discussion, and any reoccurring
themes that are apparent across the Team’s body of work.
The Secretariat approaches each in-depth qualitative case review through a domestic violence lens and with
a victim-focused orientation. This method is adopted to counterbalance the dominant narratives of domestic
violence abusers, who may have successfully concealed their violence and avoided responsibility until the
homicide. Post-homicide the abuser frequently continues to dominate the narrative through court processes and
the media, with the victim’s experiences often rendered invisible.
With much of the violence obscured from service providers, responders and social networks, it is only through
a holistic examination of patterns of behaviour over the life course of the victim and abuser that the complex
dynamics of domestic violence become apparent. The Secretariat endeavours to uncover these patterns to
ensure the victim’s experience of violence is represented in the case reviews in its most complete and contextual
form, while also acknowledging that the true extent of violence may never be known. This work also seeks to
highlight that victims may conceal or minimise the violence they experience in an effort to increase their safety
and maintain maximum control of their circumstances.
Each case review report is then examined by the Team in a series of workshops to discuss the issues
and themes arising from the case, highlight areas where policy or law has shifted, and develop areas for
recommendation.
The development and analyses of these cases is what lies at the heart of the death review function – bringing
together a multidisciplinary Team with a breadth of policy and practice expertise to openly discuss cases, and
develop targeted, meaningful and workable intervention and prevention strategies. As described in the previous
section, the process of undertaking in-depth reviews also provides the richness and depth of the Team’s
quantitative research.

Tier 3 Methodology
To develop the Team’s reports the Secretariat synthesises the Team’s discussions from the case review
workshops to develop the key themes and issues for commentary, as well as scoping potential areas for
recommendation. The Team’s DV-context homicide dataset then provides a further layer of insights into the
trends and dynamics across the cases, which also inform the Team’s findings and recommendations.
The Team makes recommendations across multiple areas including changes to legislation, policies,
practices and services for implementation by government and non-government organisations which aim
to facilitate improvements in systems and services and promote better outcomes for victims more broadly.
Recommendations are developed by Team members in consultation with agencies to ensure that any proposed
reform is informed by current practice and policies.
Once the report is finalised, it is tabled in Parliament and published online on the Coroner’s Court website.
Limitations and challenges in the Team’s work

The development of the datasets in this report have been informed by the expertise of the Team, drawing from
a diverse and comprehensive range of primary source material. The findings reveal important understandings in
relation to the prevalence and case characteristics of DV-context homicides, as well as unique insights into the
nature of violence preceding the homicide.
While these critical understandings and insights set the findings in this report apart from many other studies
exploring homicide, the Team acknowledges that there are a number of limitations and challenges that may
impact the accuracy of the data presented.
Identifying homicides and homicide offenders

The Team’s homicide dataset includes the deaths of over 150 men, women and children where the homicide
offender has not been identified. This includes unsolved homicides, missing person cases that have been ruled
a homicide, and suspected homicides that are still under investigation. With no identifiable homicide offender,
these cases have been excluded from the DV-context homicide dataset, even though a history of domestic
violence may have been evident prior to the person’s disappearance or death. Accordingly, the Team’s findings
likely represent an undercount of the true prevalence of DV-context homicides in NSW.
Identifying histories of domestic violence

Despite the comprehensive primary source material analysed in the development of the Team’s datasets, it is
acknowledged that in some cases the history of domestic violence preceding a homicide may never have been
disclosed and was not otherwise observed (or recognised) by bystanders. Similarly, it is acknowledged that
while a history of domestic violence may be identified in a case, the complete nature of that abuse may not be
evident from the material reviewed. For example, the Team has recognised that intimate partner sexual violence
is likely to be underrepresented in this dataset due to the many barriers victims may experience in disclosing
and reporting this form of violence. Again, therefore, the findings presented in this report may represent an
undercount of the true prevalence of DV-context homicides and may not fully reflect the prevalence or nature of
domestic violence that preceded the homicide.
REPORT 2021 2023 10

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status
This report draws on service data, such as government records, health records, police reports and support
services records, to identify Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this dataset. The consistency and
quality of this administrative data as a means of identifying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status can be
compromised by structural issues – such as services not explicitly asking the client or making assumptions
about their identity – and by a client’s choice not to self-identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.56
Accordingly, there is the potential for underreporting of DV-context homicides involving Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples.
Culturally and linguistically diverse communities

There is no single definition of ‘cultural and linguistic diversity’ in Australia, which creates challenges around
consistently and accurately capturing the diverse experiences of people who use, or experience, domestic
violence. There are clear limitations on the Team’s current reliance on ‘country of birth’ and ‘visa status’ as the
only means for signalling the prevalence of culturally and linguistically diverse communities in the Team’s DV-
context homicide datasets.
In an increasingly multicultural world, the place where an individual is born isn’t necessarily indicative of whether
they share that country’s dominant culture, religion, language, or ancestry.57 The Team acknowledges these
limitations, and intends to re-examine how its quantitative and qualitative methodology can more accurately
reflect the experiences and diversity of culturally and linguistically diverse communities as part of its future work
agenda.
People with disability

It is widely acknowledged that there are gaps and inconsistencies in data collection around disability in
Australia.58 Many service providers do not identify disability, and for those that do, there are stark variations in the
definitions of disability. These issues are inevitably reflected in the service data examined by the Team and has
likely resulted in an underreporting of people with disability in the Team’s DV-context homicide datasets.
It is recognised that people with disability are more likely to be victims of domestic and sexual violence than
people without disability and may experience additional barriers to seeking help and support.59 Both the
Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and
Exploitation of People with Disability identified the need to improve data collection in relation to disability so
that governments can better understand and respond to violence and abuse against people with disability.60
Accordingly, the Team is committed to re-thinking its approach and analysis around disability data capture as
part of its future work agenda.
56 L imitations in the data capture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity, as well as barriers to Aboriginal identification are discussed in DVDRT Report 2017-19
(n 7), p.94; See also NSW Aboriginal Affairs (2015), Aboriginal identification in NSW: the way forward, An Aboriginal peoples’ perspective, https://apo.org.au/sites/
default/files/resource-files/2015-10/apo-nid308575.pdf (accessed 19 January 2024).
57 Mitra-Kahn et al (2016) (n 35).
58 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024), ‘Family, domestic and sexual violence: People with disability’, https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-
violence/population-groups/people-with-disability#:~:text=Key%20findings,-About%201%20in&text=People%20with%20disability%20are%20more,additional%20
barriers%20to%20getting%20help. (accessed 3 June 2024).
59 People with Disability Australia and Domestic Violence NSW (2021), ‘Women with Disability and Domestic and Family Violence: A Guide for Policy and Practice’,
https://pwd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Women-with-Disability-and-Domestic-and-Family-Violence-A-Guide-for-Policy-and-Practice.pdf (accessed 3 June
2024); Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021), ‘Disability and Violence – in Focus: Crime and Justice Statistics, Australian Bureau of Statistics’, https://www.abs.gov.au/
statistics/people/crime-and-justice/focus-crime-and-justicestatistics/april-2021. (accessed 3 June 2024).
60 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2021) ‘Research Report: Nature and extent of violence, abuse, neglect
and exploitation against people with disability in Australia’, Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health (CRE-DH). https://disability.royalcommission.gov.
au/system/files/2021-11/Research%20Report%20-%20Nature%20and%20extent%20of%20violence%2C%20abuse%2C%20neglect%20and%20exploitation%20
against%20people%20with%20disability%20in%20Australia.pdf (accessed 19 January 2024); Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (2016), Vol V: Report and
Recommendations, p.67, http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Reports/Final/RCFV-Vol-V.pdf (accessed 19 January 2024).

Mental health
Like many of the variables in the Team’s DV-context homicide datasets, information regarding mental health
status is drawn from both official service records (such as medical records) as well as witness statements
and other anecdotal evidence. Accordingly, the findings in relation to mental health reflect a broad range of
circumstances, ranging from a person having been diagnosed by a health professional as having a mental
illness, to friends and family reporting concerns about a person’s mental well-being and/or behaviours consistent
with psychological distress.
This approach is consistent with the Team’s methodology which recognises that in addition to information
drawn from formal service engagement, friends and family provide critical insights into the lives of victims and
abusers prior to the homicide. This approach also recognises that there can be many complex barriers to
accessing mental health services, including: stigma, shame, the availability or cost of services, concerns about
confidentiality or the impact that a diagnosis may have on parental or other legal rights, as well as difficulties in
identifying and communicating distress.61 These known barriers are further compounded for victims of domestic
violence who may be actively prevented by the abuser from seeking help and accessing services.
The Team acknowledges, however, that there are limitations and risks in adopting this approach in relation to
mental health, including that the findings may be misinterpreted as an overrepresentation of the proportion of
people with mental illness being involved in a domestic violence homicide, thereby adding to the stigma of an
already highly vulnerable and stigmatised population. Accordingly, the Team intends to work with mental health
practitioners to revise its data capture to build in greater nuance around the complex intersection of mental
health and domestic violence.
LGBTIQ+ communities
While understanding the gendered nature of domestic violence, the Team also recognises that domestic violence
includes violence perpetrated by both heterosexual and LGBTIQ+ intimate partners. It is recognised that there
is an overlap between the drivers of domestic violence and violence in LGBTIQ+ communities which reflect rigid
gender roles, homophobia, heteronormativity and cisnormativity – attitudes, norms and behaviours that value
heterosexuality as the ideal sexual orientation, and cisgender as the ideal gender identity.62 Moreover, traditional
notions of ‘family’ for LGBTIQ+ people may be redefined as the ‘chosen family’ sometimes created in the context
of rejection by biological families.63
As described above, the work of the Team draws on service data from police, judicial and coronial systems to
identify DV-context homicides. It is possible that cases where the relationship between the homicide offender
and the deceased person was not disclosed or was otherwise not evident to those external to the relationship
are misclassified as other forms of homicide. For example, a couple may be identified as housemates rather
than intimate partners and absent other information (for example, from family or friends) the relationship is not
acknowledged or recognised in system data. Accordingly, the figures represented in this report may represent
an undercount of DV-context homicides in LGBTIQ+ relationships.
61 S alaheddin, K., and Mason, B. (2016) ‘Identifying barriers to mental health help-seeking among young adults in the UK: a cross-sectional survey’ The British journal
of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, vol. 66(651) pp.686–692. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X687313 (accessed 13 March
2024).
62 Our Watch (2021) (n 45).
63 Rainbow Health Victoria (2020) Pride in Prevention Evidence Guide, https://rainbowhealthaustralia.org.au/news/launch-pride-in-prevention-evidence-guide (accessed
27 May 2024).
REPORT 2021 2023 12

Incorporating the voices of family, friends and community
The Team’s review methodology (as described above) relies on government service records and data which
detail the interactions of the victim and the abuser with a range of services (e.g., police, health professionals,
teachers, case workers etc) from the perspective of the service provider. The Team also draws on witness
statements from family, friends, colleagues and community to better understand the victim’s context (i.e.,
decision-making, help-seeking, coping strategies and resistance) and to counteract the underlying bias and
privilege of agency perspectives in the service records. The number of witness statements included on the brief
of evidence does, however, vary significantly between cases. Further, these witness statements are prepared
for the specific purpose of the criminal/coronial investigation and are often limited to the period immediately
preceding the homicide, and do not provide the more longitudinal and in-depth insights the Team seeks to
uncover.
Recognising the inherent limitations of a desktop review, the Team is considering the potential to engage directly
with family, friends and community as part of the in-depth case review process. This kind of engagement,
which is routine in many overseas death reviews,64 is understood to significantly enhance the review process
with nuanced contextual information and insights beyond that found in system data.65 Moreover, it can be of
therapeutic benefit to friends, family and community as it provides the opportunity for people to tell their story,
contribute to a process that aims to prevent future homicides, and may counterbalance negative experiences
of the formal processes that follow a homicide.66 It is important to acknowledge that there are potential risks
inherent in such engagement, most notably the potential for re-traumatisation through the review process,67
however much has been learned in other jurisdictions about best practice engagement.68
As the Team’s work continues to evolve and become more nuanced (and as lived experience becomes more
authentically embedded in government systems) it is anticipated that engagement with families will become
a central feature of the Team’s death review process. This evolution is particularly critical for rebalancing the
dominant perspective in reviews involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the voice of the
statutory authority has been privileged and unchallenged for generations.
64 F or example: Domestic Homicide Reviews in England and Wales; Montana Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission; New Zealand Family Violence Death
Review Committee; and Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
65 Rowlands, J. and Cook, E. (2022) ‘Navigating Family Involvement in Domestic Violence Fatality Review: Conceptualising Prospects for Systems and Relational
Repair’, J Fam Viol 37, pp.559–572, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00309-x (accessed 7 June 2024).
66 Ibid.
67 Jaffe, P. et al (2013) ‘Developing a national collaborative approach to prevent domestic homicides: Domestic homicide review committees,’ Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55(1), pp.137–155, https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.53 (accessed 7 June 2024).
68 Roguski, M. et al (2024) ‘Te Pou: An Indigenous Framework to Evaluate the Inclusion of Family Voice in Family Violence Homicide Reviews’ J Fam Viol 39, pp.325–
337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00459-6 (accessed 7 June 2024).

02
Domestic violence-
context homicide
in NSW, 2000-2022
This chapter provides an overview of all
homicides occurring in NSW between 1 July
2000 and 30 June 2022, and examines the
proportion of homicides that occurred in a
context of domestic violence. This section
also considers the overall trend for DV-context
homicides across the 22-year reporting period.
Homicide overview
Between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022 in NSW a total of 1,832 people were killed in a homicide. This included
the deaths of 1,242 males and 590 females.
The terms ‘male’ and ‘female’ are used in this report to indicate a person’s gender identity notwithstanding their
biological sex classification. The Team acknowledges that a person’s biological sex may differ from their gender
identity.
Domestic violence-context homicides

Of the 1,832 individuals who died as a result of homicide, almost one-third were killed in a context of domes-
tic violence (n=550, 30%), including 331 females (56% of all female deceased) and 219 males (18% of all male
deceased). Accordingly, this data demonstrates that while most homicides involve the death of a male (81%),
females are far more likely to be killed in a DV-context homicide (Fig. 2.1).
These figures include the deaths of both domestic violence victims and abusers (for example, cases where a
domestic violence victim kills their abuser) and also includes both adult and child deceased persons.
Figure 2.1: Homicide overview by DV-context and gender of deceased (n=1,832)
Female deceased 259 331

(n=590) DV-context
No DV-context
Male deceased 1,023 219

(n=1,242)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Every homicide occurring in a DV-context in the 22-year reporting period has been examined, and the data
is considered below in four distinct groups: intimate partner homicides; filicides; relative/kin homicides; and
’other’ domestic violence homicides (for example, where a person is killed intervening in an episode of domestic
violence) (Fig. 2.2).

Figure 2.2: Homicide overview by DV-context and case type (n=1,832)
Homicides in NSW (n=1,832) DV-context homicides in NSW (n=550)
DV-context (n=550)
No DV-context (n=1,282)
10%
Intimate partner
(n=308)
16.5% Filicide
(n=96)
70% 30% 56% Relative/kin
(n=91)
17.5% Other DV homicide
(n=55)
DV-context homicide trends over time

This is the first time the Team has presented data on DV-context homicides over time. The significant variances
year-on-year can be partly explained by the statistically small number of cases, however it appears that there is
a general downward trend. It should be noted that several more recent DV-context homicides (from 2021 and
2022 in particular) are still under investigation or awaiting formal judicial ruling and are therefore not yet included
in this dataset (Fig. 2.3).
While a general downward trend appears evident from this data, the Team is acutely aware of the recent
increase in the numbers of DV-context homicides in NSW, particularly those involving the deaths of women.
Accordingly, the Team remains cautious in drawing any conclusions as to what may be driving this apparent
downward trend and, indeed, the longevity of this trending.
REPORT 2021 2023 16

17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
20
00
-01
20
01
-02
20
02
-03
20
03
-04
20
04
-05
20
05
-06
20
06
-07
20
0 7-0
8
20
08
-09
20
09
-10
20
10
-11
20
11
-12
20
12
-13
20
13
-14
20
14
-15
Figure 2.3: DV-context homicides in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=550)
20
15
-16
20
16
-17
20
17
-18
20
18
-19
20
19
-20
20
20
-21
20
21
-22
NSW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW TEAM

03
Intimate partner
violence homicide
in NSW, 2000-2022
This chapter presents a comprehensive
analysis of the 308 intimate partner violence
homicides that occurred in NSW between
1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
Introduction
Intimate partner violence describes a spectrum of physical and non-physical abusive behaviours used by one
person to frighten, dominate and control a person they are in, or have been in, an intimate relationship with.
Research demonstrates that the vast majority of intimate partner violence is perpetrated by men against
women.69 This has led to an understanding that intimate partner violence is a gendered harm. Research into
intimate partner violence homicide (IPV homicide) plays a vital role in better understanding the gendered nature
of intimate partner violence more broadly and accordingly, the Team has continued to expand its dataset which
now spans over two decades of IPV homicides.
This chapter provides in-depth analyses of the 308 IPV homicides that occurred in NSW between 1 July
2000 and 30 June 2022. This data draws on a rich repository of primary source material that offers detailed
information about the life course and relationship histories of the homicide offender and the deceased person,
as well as the nature of the violence they used or experienced. It presents data findings relating to a range of
factors, including: IPV homicide characteristics, types of violence, Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders
(ADVOs), criminal history, trauma history, separation or intention to separate, service contact, family law
proceedings and reported and anecdotal issues around mental health and drug and alcohol use.
Importantly, some of the data is framed in terms of the predominant domestic violence abuser/victim
relationship (rather than only focusing on the homicide offender/deceased). This enables a more accurate
framing of the gendered patterns of these behaviours, highlighting that most men who killed an intimate partner,
and most men who were killed by an intimate partner, were the predominant domestic violence abuser in the
relationship.
Inclusion criteria
For this analysis, IPV homicides are those in which a person is killed:
• by their current or former intimate partner;
• in a DV-context – there was evidence (reported or anecdotal) of a history of domestic violence between
the homicide offender and the deceased person prior to the homicide;
• within the data reporting period – 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022; and
• the deceased person was ordinarily a resident in NSW – the deceased person permanently resided
in NSW, notwithstanding that they may have been killed in another state or territory.
Data findings
Overview
Between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022 there were 356 intimate partner homicides in NSW. Of these 356
intimate partner homicides, 308 (86.5%) were identified as having occurred in a context of domestic violence
and included the deaths of 245 women and 63 men.
69 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023), ‘Personal Safety, Australia’, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/2021-22

(accessed 19 January 2024).

The 48 intimate partner homicides that did not occur in a context of domestic violence (and were therefore
not included in the IPV homicide data analysis below) occurred in a range of non-domestic violence related
circumstances, including: suicide pacts where, by agreement, one person kills their intimate partner and then
suicides; accidents; financially motivated homicides; or mental health episodes (absent any identifiable history of
domestic violence).
The findings presented in this chapter relate to the 308 IPV homicides only.
IPV homicide trends over time

This is the first time the Team has presented data on IPV homicides over time. As with the DV-context homicide
overview described in the previous chapter, the variances year-on-year can be attributed to the statistically small
number of homicides. It should also be noted that more recent IPV homicides (from 2021 and 2022) are still
under investigation/awaiting judgement and are therefore not yet reflected in the dataset (Fig. 3.1).
Again, while a general downward trend appears evident from this data, the Team remains cautious in drawing
any conclusions as to what may be driving this apparent downward trend and the longevity of this trending.
Figure 3.1: IPV homicides in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=308)
25
20
15
10
0
1
-03
-04
-06
-07
-09
-12
-14
-15
-17
-18
-19
-20
-22
-0
-0
-0
7-0
-1
-1
-1
-1
0-2
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
0
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
IPV homicide and gender

As described in the previous chapter, the term gender is used in this report to indicate a person’s gender identity
notwithstanding their biological sex classification. The Team acknowledges that a person’s biological sex may
differ from their gender identity.
Of the 308 IPV homicides in the dataset:
• 244 involved a man killing a female intimate partner (79.2%);
• 56 involved a woman killing a male intimate partner (18.2%);
REPORT 2021 2023 20

• 7 cases involved a man killing a male intimate partner (2.3%); and
• 1 case involved a woman killing a female intimate partner (0.3%) (Fig.3.2).
Figure 3.2: IPV homicides by gender (n=308)
2.3% 0.3%
18.2% Male homicide offenders who killed a female IP (n=244)
Female homicide offenders who killed a male IP (n=56)
Male homicide offenders who killed a male IP (n=7)
79.2%
Female homicide offenders who killed a female IP (n=1)
Predominant abuser/victim classification

The Team’s IPV Homicide Dataset individually codes the homicide offender and the person they killed by their
role in the history of domestic violence in the relationship, namely the predominant domestic violence abuser or
the predominant domestic violence victim. The predominant abuser refers to the partner who is the main user of
domestic violence towards the other person, and the predominant victim is the partner who has experienced the
greatest harm from these behaviours.70 This distinction acknowledges that victims of domestic violence are rarely
passive and may resist abuse in many different ways. This may include using retaliatory violence as a defence
mechanism to protect themselves, their children, their dignity, or as a consequence of their victimisation and
trauma.71
In a small number of cases the Team has not been able to identify (based on the available evidence) who was
the predominant abuser and who was the predominant victim and there were indicators that both parties used
abusive behaviours against the other. However, this does not mean that both parties engaged in mutual violence
against each other in equal measure, but rather these cases lacked the sufficient contextual information required
to make a definitive assessment about predominant abuser/victim status.
The Team considers that the existence of genuine mutual violence between men and women is extremely rare,
if it exists at all, noting that some experts regard the concept of mutual violence to be a ‘myth’.72 Women’s use
of violence in intimate relationships is not symmetrical with men’s and must be understood through the lens
70 N o to Violence (2019), ‘Discussion Paper: Predominant Aggressor Identification and Victim Misidentification’ https://ntv.org.au/wp-content/
uploads/2020/06/20191121-NTV-Discussion-Paper-Predominant-Aggressor-FINAL.pdf (accessed 1 June 2024).
71 Swan, S. and Sullivan, T. (2009) ‘The Resource Utilization of Women Who Use Violence in Intimate Relationships’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 24(6),
pp.940-958. https://doi:10.1177/0886260508319365 (accessed 19 January 2024); Johnson, M. (2008), ‘A Typology of Domestic Violence Intimate Terrorism, Violent
Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence’, Northeastern University Press, Boston.
72 Ulbrick, M. (2020), ‘Officer she’s psychotic and I need protection’: Police misidentification of the ‘primary aggressor’ in family violence incidents in Victoria’, Women’s
Legal Service Victoria, Policy Brief, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340646781_Officer_she’s_psychotic_and_I_need_protection_Police_misidentification_of_
the_’primary_aggressor’_in_family_violence_incidents_in_Victoria_-_Women’s_Legal_Service_Victoria_Policy_Brief (accessed 19 January 2024).

of their own victimisation.73 The Team acknowledges that widespread misunderstanding of the ways in which
women use violence against their abusive intimate partners has contributed to the misidentification of women as
predominant abusers.74
Almost all of the 244 male homicide offenders who killed a female intimate partner were identified as the
predominant abuser against the female partner they killed (n=240, 98.4%).
Of the 56 women who killed a male intimate partner, the majority were identified as the predominant victim of
violence from the male partner they killed (n=46, 82.1%).
Of the seven cases where a male homicide offender killed a male intimate partner most involved the predominant
abuser in the relationship killing the predominant victim (n=5, 71.4%).
In the single case involving a female homicide offender who killed a female intimate partner, the homicide
offender was the predominant abuser in the relationship (Table 3.1, Fig. 3.3).
Table 3.1: IPV homicide offender predominant abuser/victim classification (n=308)

Homicide Homicide Predominant
offender was offender was abuser/victim
Predominant abuser/ predominant predominant not able to be
victim classification abuser victim determined TOTAL
Male homicide offenders
who killed a female 240 0 4 244
intimate partner
Female homicide
offenders who killed a 1 46 9 56
male intimate partner
who killed a male intimate 5 0 2 7
partner
Female homicide
offenders who killed a 1 0 0 1
female intimate partner
TOTAL 247 46 15 308
73 W angmann, J. (2009), ‘“She said...” “He said...”: Cross applications in NSW apprehended domestic violence order proceedings’, The University of Sydney, p.229
http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5819 (accessed 19 January 2024); Warren, A., et al (2020) ‘Women who use force: Final Report Volume 2’, International Literature Review,
University of Melbourne, https://vawc.com.au/women-who-use-force-evaluation-of-positive-shift/ (accessed 19 January 2024).
74 Reeves, E. (2021), ‘I’m Not at All Protected and I Think Other Women Should Know That, That They’re Not Protected Either’: Victim–Survivors’ Experiences of
‘Misidentification’ in Victoria’s Family Violence System,’ International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, vol. 10(4), pp. 39-51. https://doi.org/10.5204/
ijcjsd.1992 (accessed 19 January 2024).
REPORT 2021 2023 22

Figure 3.3: IPV homicide offender predominant abuser/victim classification (n=308)
Male offender killed

female partner
1 10
Female offender killed
male partner
Male offender killed

male partner
52 4
Female offender killed
female partner
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Homicide offender predominant abuser Homicide offender predominant victim Not able to be determined
Domestic violence behaviours and histories of violence: Male

predominant abusers/female predominant victims
Domestic violence death review teams are uniquely positioned to conduct in-depth analyses that identify discrete
characteristics present within a relationship prior to an IPV homicide. This section explores the range of different
abusive behaviours used by the predominant abuser that preceded the IPV homicide, including reported and
unreported histories of violence.
The Team’s findings in relation to the history of violence are oriented in terms of the predominant abuser/
predominant victim in the relationship (as opposed to the homicide offender/deceased person) as this enables a
more accurate framing of the gendered patterns of domestic violence behaviours preceding the homicide.
Accordingly, the analysis that follows focuses on the 286 homicides where the male partner was the
predominant abuser, and the female partner was the predominant victim in the relationship (i.e., 240 cases where
a man killed his female intimate partner and 46 where a female killed her male intimate partner). The remaining
22 outlier homicides are excluded on the basis that the sample sizes are too small to conduct meaningful
analysis.75
Domestic violence behaviours

The data presented in this section draws on both reported and anecdotal accounts of domestic violence in the
relationship prior to the homicide, deriving such accounts from the broad range of sources described earlier in
the Team’s methodology.
Types of violence considered included: emotional/psychological, physical, sexual, social, and economic violence;
stalking during the relationship; and, where the relationship was not ongoing, stalking after the relationship ended
(Table 3.2, Fig. 3.4).
75 T
his includes: 13 cases where it was not possible to identify a predominant abuser or predominant victim; seven cases where a man killed a male intimate partner;
one case where a woman killed her female intimate partner; and one case involving a predominant female abuser killing a male victim.

Table 3.2: DV behaviours of predominant male abuser in IPV homicide (n=286)
IPV homicide with

predominant abuser/
Domestic violence behaviours victim %
Emotional/psychological violence 279 97.6%
Physical violence 209 73.1%
Sexual violence 54 18.9%
Social violence 184 64.3%
Economic violence 98 34.3%
Stalking during relationship 97 33.9%
Figure 3.4: DV behaviours of predominant male abuser in IPV homicide (n=286)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Domestic violence behaviours
Emotional/psychological violence Physical violence
Sexual violence Social violence
Economic violence Stalking during relationship
Emotional violence
Almost all of the men used emotional/psychological violence against the woman prior to the homicide (n=279,
97.6%).
Emotional and psychological abuse refers to a broad spectrum of non-physical behaviours used by abusers to
frighten, belittle, humiliate or undermine the victim’s sense of self-worth. This type of violence is used by abusers
to erode the emotional and psychological well-being of the victim.76
76 K
arakurt, G. & Silver, K. (2013). ‘Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: the role of gender and age’ Violence and victims, vol. 28(5), pp.804–821, https://doi.
org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00041 (accessed 19 January 2024).
REPORT 2021 2023 24

In the Team’s cases this included the male abusers:
• verbally denigrating the woman;
• making threats regarding custody of children;
• criticising the woman’s parenting abilities;
• blaming the woman for all adverse events;
• gaslighting the woman, making her doubt her memories, perceptions and experiences;
• making unfounded accusations of infidelity; and
• making threats of self-harm or suicide if the woman attempted to leave, or to otherwise control her.
Physical violence
Over one-quarter of the men did not use any physical violence against the woman prior to the homicide (n=77,
26.9%).
In the Team’s cases where the male abuser used physical violence (n=209, 73.1%) this included:
• physically assaulting the woman without a weapon (e.g., punching, slapping, shoving, kicking, biting);
• suffocating or strangling the woman prior to the homicide;
• assaulting the woman with weapons (e.g., household objects, tools, boiling water);
• physically assaulting the woman’s children, family, friends or pets;
• making threats of physical violence towards the woman, her children, family, friends or pets; and
• damaging the woman’s property (e.g., breaking her phone, cutting up her clothes, smashing furniture/
windows and punching walls).
Sexual violence
Sexual violence was used by approximately 19 per cent of men against the woman prior to the homicide (n=54,
18.9%). This is a significantly lower figure than other total population estimates which suggest that between
40-45 per cent of women who are physically abused are also sexually abused by their intimate partner.77 The
Team has highlighted in previous reports that particular barriers exist for victims in disclosing and reporting
sexual violence and that there is a need for sustained efforts to support disclosure and better understand the
perpetration of sexual violence as part of intimate partner violence. It is therefore strongly suspected that the
findings here do not reflect the true prevalence of sexual violence in these relationships.
Sexual violence refers to any unwanted, painful or humiliating sexual act obtained through physical force or
psychological/emotional coercion.
In the Team’s cases this presented as male abusers:
• forcing the woman to engage in sexual acts against her will using actual or threatened violence;
• forcing the woman to watch pornography;
77 W
all, L. (2012) ‘Asking women about intimate partner sexual violence’, Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault: Australian Institute of Family Studies, https://
apo.org.au/node/29710?utm_source=APO-view&utm_medium=more-like-this&utm_campaign=resource-mlt (accessed 30 September 2023).

• recording sexual acts without the woman’s consent;
• sharing recordings of sexual acts without her consent, or threatening to do so; and
• engaging in reproductive coercion (e.g., pressuring the woman into pregnancy; controlling the woman’s
access to and use of contraception; forcing her into undergoing an abortion or forcing her to continue with
a pregnancy).
Social violence
Almost two-thirds of the men used social violence against the woman prior to the homicide (n=184, 64.3%).
Social violence refers to a range of abusive behaviours designed to limit or prevent a victim from engaging with
family and friends and participating in social activities. Socially violent behaviours isolate victims and limit their
ability to build connections.
In the Team’s cases, this included the male abuser:
• controlling the extent to which the woman could see family or friends;
• being abusive, threatening or rude to the woman’s friends or family;
• intentionally relocating the woman away from family, friends and other support networks;
• restricting the woman’s access to transport; and
• controlling the woman’s appearance (e.g., only allowing her to wear certain clothes or hair styles).
These behaviours were used by the male abuser to erode the woman’s sense of autonomy and break down her
support networks, making it more difficult to seek help.
Economic violence
Approximately one-third of the men were identified as using economic violence prior to the homicide (n=98,
34.3%).
Economic violence involves an abuser interfering with a victim’s ability to acquire, use or maintain economic
resources in a way that undermines the victim’s potential for economic security and self-sufficiency.78
In the Team’s cases this included the male abuser:
• withholding and controlling the woman’s access to bank cards, cash and other forms of money;
• scrutinising the woman’s spending and setting unrealistic expectations/budgets for day-to-day living and
other necessary household expenditure;
• preventing the woman from working or disrupting her employment;

• taking control of the woman’s wages; and
• forcing the woman to borrow money from third parties (also referred to as ‘coerced debt’).
This form of abuse can result in a range of poor economic circumstances for women, including compounding
debt, bad credit, and poor tenancy records. Women’s concerns over their ability to provide financially for
78 A
dam, A. (2008) in Centre for Women’s Economic Safety, What is Economic Abuse? (undated) https://cwes.org.au/what-is-economic-abuse/ (accessed 7 September
2023).
REPORT 2021 2023 26

themselves and their children is recognised as a key reason victims are unable to leave an abuser or may return
to the relationship after leaving.79
Stalking during the relationship

One-third of the men stalked their female partner during the relationship (n=97, 33.9%).
Stalking involves a diverse range of tactics whereby an abuser frightens, intimidates or otherwise controls a
victim through intentionally and persistently pursuing them or by monitoring their activities. Abusers use stalking
to extend their reach of power and control and deprive victims of privacy, autonomy and a sense of safety.80
In the Team’s cases this included the male abuser:
• physically following the woman;
• hiring a private investigator to surveil the woman;

• loitering around or breaking into the woman’s home or work; and
• reading the woman’s diary.
Stalking also includes an abuser using technology to harass or monitor the victim (also known as technology-
facilitated abuse) and in the Team’s cases this included the male abuser:
• using a GPS or other device to track the woman’s location;
• persistently messaging the woman’s phone or social media accounts;
• maintaining surveillance over the woman’s phone, email or other online accounts;
• covertly recording the woman’s activities; and
• engaging with the woman on social media/dating sites under a false identity.
Stalking after the relationship had ended

In over one-third of the homicides, the woman was killed after the relationship had ended (n=98, 34.3%).
In almost three-quarters of the 98 cases where the relationship had ended, the man’s ongoing abuse included
stalking his former partner after the relationship had ended (n=73, 74.5%).
Multiple abuse behaviours

Of the six types of domestic violence behaviours, the man was most likely to have used at least three different
abusive behaviours against his partner (Table 3.3).
79 Junseok and Gray (2008) (n 30).

80 Douglas, H. et al (2021) National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, Brisbane: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, at 3.1.6, https://dfvbenchbook.
aija.org.au/ (accessed 4 February 2024).

Table 3.3: Number of DV behaviours used by male predominant abuser (n=286)
No. of DV behaviours used Male predominant abusers %

1 13 4.5%
2 67 23.4%
3 78 27.3%
4 61 21.3%
5 42 14.7%
6 25 8.7%
These findings demonstrate that most abusers used a diverse range of abuse tactics against their victims. This
reinforces the understanding of domestic violence as a pattern of behaviours that are used intentionally and
systematically by an abuser to gain and maintain power and dominance over their intimate partner.
Police recorded history of domestic violence

In just over half of the 286 IPV homicides there was a police-recorded history of domestic violence between the
intimate partners prior to the homicide (n=153, 53.5%) (Fig. 3.5).
This included cases where domestic violence was reported to police regardless of whether police took action
in response to that report (for instance, charging the alleged offender, or applying for an ADVO to protect the
victim).
Accordingly, in just under half of the cases, the history of domestic violence had never been reported to police
(n=133, 46.5%).
Figure 3.5: Police recorded history of DV in IPV homicide with predominant abuser/victim (n=286)
Never Never reported to police

reported to Violence
police 47% reported to Violence reported to police
police 53%
REPORT 2021 2023 28

Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs)
Current ADVO between predominant abuser and victim
In almost one-quarter of the 286 IPV homicides involving a predominant abuser and predominant victim
there was a current ADVO in place at the time of the homicide (n=64, 22.4%), and in most cases the female
predominant victim was named as the person in need of protection from the male abuser (n=60).
For the remaining ADVOs, in three cases there were cross-ADVOs protecting the female victim and the male
abuser from each other at the time of the homicide and in one case, the male abuser had been misidentified as
the domestic violence victim in the ADVO (Table 3.4).
Table 3.4: Current ADVOs between predominant abuser/victim (n=286)
IPV homicide with

predominant abuser/
Current ADVO at time of homicide victim %
No ADVO at time of homicide 222 77.6%
ADVO at time of homicide 64 22.4%
Female predominant victim protected (60)81 (21%)
Male predominant abuser protected (1) (0.3%)
Cross-ADVO (3) (1%)
TOTAL 286 100%
Over 40 per cent of the current ADVOs in place at the time of the homicide involved interim/provisional orders
(n=27 of 64, 42.2%) (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5: Duration of current ADVOs between predominant abuser/victim (n=64)

Type/Duration of current ADVO No. %
Interim/Provisional 27 42.2%
Final Orders – 6 months 1 1.6%
Final Orders – 2 years 14 21.9%
TOTAL 64 -100%
Note: figures may not add to 100 due to rounding
81 Including 55 cases where the female predominant victim was killed by the male abuser, and five cases where the female predominant victim killed her abusive male
partner.

Historical ADVO between predominant abuser and victim
In almost 16 per cent of the 286 IPV homicides there had been a prior ADVO/s between the couple that had
expired at the time of the homicide (n=45, 15.7%).
In the vast majority of these cases the female victim had been named as the person in need of protection from
the male abuser (n=40) (Table 3.6).
Table 3.6: Historical ADVOs between predominant abuser/victim (n=286)
Historical ADVOs No. %

No historical ADVO between predominant
241 84.3%
abuser/victim
Historical ADVO between predominant abuser/victim 45 15.7%
Female predominant victim protected (40) (14%)
Male predominant abuser protected (0) (0%)
Cross-ADVO (5) (1.7%)
TOTAL 286 100%
Criminal history – domestic violence-related

Male predominant abuser DV criminal history
Approximately 20 per cent of the 286 male abusers had been convicted of a domestic violence offence against
the female victim prior to the homicide (n=55, 19.2%).
Female predominant victim DV criminal history

Three of the 286 female victims had been convicted of a domestic violence offence against the male abuser prior
to the homicide (1%).
Repeat domestic violence perpetration

Male predominant abuser - prior partners
Almost one-quarter of the 286 male abusers had no prior intimate partners, i.e., the man’s relationship with the
female victim was his first and only intimate relationship (n=69, 24.1%) (Table 3.7).
Table 3.7: Male predominant abuser – prior intimate partners (n=286)
Relationship history Male predominant abuser %

No prior intimate partner 69 24.1%
Prior intimate partner 217 75.9%
TOTAL 286 100%
Male predominant abuser - repeat domestic violence perpetration

Of the 217 male abusers who had prior intimate partners, over half were identified as having also perpetrated
domestic violence against a prior partner (n=121, 55.8%) (Table 3.8).
REPORT 2021 2023 30

Table 3.8: Male predominant abuser – repeat domestic violence perpetration (n=217)
Male predominant abuser
Repeat domestic violence perpetration with prior partner %
Identified history of DV perpetration 121 55.8%
No identified history of DV perpetration 96 44.2%
TOTAL 217 100%
Male predominant abuser - ADVOs with prior partners

Of the 217 men who had prior intimate partners, almost one-third had an ADVO/s with a prior partner (n=70,
32.3%). In almost all of these cases, the male abuser was named as the defendant in the ADVO protecting their
prior partner (n=67) (Table 3.9).
Table 3.9: Male predominant abuser – ADVOs with prior intimate partners (n=217)
Male predominant abuser

ADVO with prior partner with prior partner %
No ADVO with prior partner 147 67.7%
ADVO with prior partner 70 32.3%
Male predominant abuser protected (1) (0.5%)
Prior partner protected (67) (30.9%)
TOTAL 217 100%
Male predominant abuser - DV criminal history with prior partners

Of the 217 men who had prior intimate partners, almost 30 per cent had been convicted of a domestic violence
offence against a prior partner (n=64, 29.5%).
Custodial sentences – male predominant abusers

Male predominant abuser - custodial sentence for DV offending
As detailed above, there were 101 male abusers who had been convicted of a domestic violence offence, either
against the female victim, a prior partner, or both (35.3%).
In 49 of these 101 cases, the male abuser had served a custodial sentence in relation to their domestic violence
offending (48.5% of men who had been convicted of a domestic violence offence and 17.1% of all male abusers)
(Table 3.10, Fig. 3.6).

Table 3.10: Male predominant abuser – custodial sentence for DV offending (n=286)
Custodial sentence for DV offending Male predominant abuser %

Never convicted of DV offence 185 64.7%
Convicted of DV offence 101 35.3%
No custodial sentence (52) (18.2%)
Custodial sentence (49) (17.1%)
TOTAL 286 100%
Figure 3.6: Male predominant abuser – custodial sentence for DV offending (n=286)
No custodial
sentence 18.2%
Never
convicted of Convicted of
DV offence DV Offence
65% 35%
Custodial
sentence 17.1%
Repeat domestic violence victimisation

Female predominant victim – prior partners
Almost one-third of the 286 female victims had no prior intimate partners, i.e., the woman’s relationship with the
male abuser was her first and only intimate relationship (n=94, 32.9%) (Table 3.11).
Table 3.11: Female predominant victim – prior intimate partners (n=286)
Relationship history Female predominant victim %

No prior intimate partner 94 32.9%
Prior intimate partner 192 67.1%
TOTAL 286 100%
Female predominant victim – repeat domestic violence victimisation

Of the 192 female victims who had prior intimate partners, 90 were known to have experienced domestic
violence from a prior partner (46.9%) (Table 3.12).
REPORT 2021 2023 32

Table 3.12: Female predominant victim – repeat domestic violence victimisation (n=192)
Female predominant
Repeat domestic violence victimisation victim with prior partner %
Known history of DV victimisation 90 46.9%
No known history of DV victimisation 102 53.1%
TOTAL 192 100%
Female predominant victim – ADVOs with prior partners

Of the 192 women who had prior intimate partners, almost 30 per cent had an ADVO/s with the prior partner
(n=55, 28.6%).
In most of these 55 cases, the female victim was named as the person in need of protection in the ADVO against
their former partner (n=51) (Table 3.13).
Table 3.13: Female predominant victim – ADVOs with prior intimate partners (n=192)
Female predominant
ADVO with prior partner victim %
No ADVO with prior partner 137 71.4%
ADVO with prior partner 55 28.6%
Female predominant victim protected (51) (26.6%)
Prior partner protected (0) (0%)
TOTAL 192 -100%
Female predominant victim – DV criminal history with prior partners

Of the 192 women who had prior intimate partners, three female victims had been convicted of a domestic
violence offence against a prior intimate partner (1.6%).
Custodial Sentences – female predominant victims

Female predominant victim – custodial sentence for DV offending
As described above, there were five female victims who had been convicted of a domestic violence offence,
either against the male abuser, a prior partner, or both (1.7%). One of these women had served a custodial
sentence in relation to a domestic violence offence (Table 3.14).

Table 3.14: Female predominant victim – custodial sentence for DV offending (n=286)
Custodial sentence for DV offending Female predominant victim %

Never convicted of DV offence 281 98.3%
Convicted of DV offence 5 1.7%
No custodial sentence (4) (1.4%)
Custodial sentence (1) (0.3%)
TOTAL 286 100%
Known trauma history

The Team’s review process traces the life course of victims and abusers and highlights that in many cases as
people age, they transition from being known to police, child protection and other services as child victims of
domestic violence, to becoming known as abusers – often in the context of them using violence against their
parents or other family members. A trauma-informed response is now widely recognised as best practice across
the NSW service system and is being incorporated into many new programs and interventions.
Male predominant abusers

Approximately 40 per cent of the male abusers were known to have experienced trauma and/or adversity in
their upbringing (n=117, 40.9%). Most of these 117 men experienced domestic violence as a child (n=79, 67.5%),
and the remainder experienced another form of trauma or adversity in their upbringing, for example, non-familial
sexual abuse, the death of a parent or sibling, or experiencing the trauma of war (Table 3.15, Fig. 3.7).
Table 3.15: Male predominant abuser – known trauma history (n=286)
Known Trauma History Male predominant abuser %

No known childhood trauma 169 59.1%
Known childhood trauma/adversity 117 40.9%
Childhood experiences of DV (47) (16.4%)
Other childhood trauma/adversity (38) (13.3%)
Both DV and other trauma/adversity (32) (11.2%)
TOTAL 286 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 34

Figure 3.7: Male predominant abuser – known trauma history (n=286)
Childhood
experiences
of DV 16%
No known Known
childhood childhood
trauma trauma/ Other childhood
59% adversity trauma/
41% adversity 13%
Both DV and
other trauma/
adversity 11%
Female predominant victims

Almost one-quarter of the 286 female victims were known to have experienced trauma and/or adversity in their
childhood (n=71, 24.8%). Over half of these 71 women experienced domestic violence as a child (n=41, 57.7%),
and the remainder experienced another form of trauma or adversity in their upbringing (Table 3.16, Fig. 3.8).
Table 3.16: Female predominant victim – known trauma history (n=286)
Female predominant
Known Trauma History victim %
No known childhood trauma 215 75.2%
Known childhood trauma/adversity 71 24.8%
Childhood experiences of DV (16) (5.6%)
Other childhood trauma/adversity (30) (10.5%)
Both DV and other trauma/adversity (25) (8.7%)
TOTAL 286 100%

Figure 3.8: Female predominant victim – known trauma history (n=286)
Childhood
experiences
of DFV 6%
No known Known
childhood childhood
trauma trauma/ Other childhood
75% adversity trauma/
25% adversity 10%
Both DV and
other trauma/
adversity 9%
IPV homicide – deceased characteristics

This section presents data findings on demographic and personal characteristics for the person killed in the IPV
homicide. Accordingly, while this data reverts back to a more standard homicide offender/deceased structure
it is important to keep in mind the predominant offender/victim framework from the previous section, namely
that the majority of male homicide offenders were the predominant abuser and the majority of female homicide
offenders were the predominant victim.
As described earlier in this chapter, the IPV Homicide Dataset includes:
• 244 women killed by a male partner;
• 56 men killed by a female partner;
• 7 men killed by a male partner; and
• 1 woman killed by a female partner.
For the analysis that follows, the seven cases where a man killed a male intimate partner and the single case
where a woman killed her female intimate partner have been excluded on the basis that the sample size is too
small to undertake meaningful data analysis.
Deceased Age
Deceased women
The age of the 244 women killed by a male intimate partner ranged from 15 to 80 years. The average age was
39 years (Fig. 3.9).
REPORT 2021 2023 36

Deceased men
The age of the 56 men killed by a female intimate partner ranged from 19 to 61 years. The average age was 39
years (Fig. 3.9).
Figure 3.9: Deceased age (n=300)
80-84 years
75-79 years
70-74 years
65-69 years
60-64 years
55-59 years
50-54 years
45-49 years
40-44 years
35-39 years
30-34 years
25-29 years
20-24 years
15-19 years
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Men (n=56) Women (n=244)
Deceased country of birth and visa status

Deceased women
Approximately two-thirds of the 244 women killed were born in Australia (n=157, 64.3%) and the remaining third
were born outside Australia (n=87, 35.7%). The 87 women who were born outside Australia were born in 39
different countries.
Of the 87 women who were born outside Australia, 13 were on a temporary visa at the time they were killed
(Table 3.17).
Deceased men
Approximately three-quarters of the 56 men killed were born in Australia (n=43, 76.8%) and the remaining quarter
were born outside Australia (n=13, 23.2%). The 13 men that were born outside Australia were born in 11 different
countries.
Of the 13 men who were born outside Australia, five were on a temporary visa at the time they were killed (Table
3.17).

Table 3.17: Deceased country of birth and visa status (n=300)
Deceased Deceased
Country of Birth Women % Female Men % Male
Australia 157 64.3% 43 76.8%
Outside Australia 87 35.7% 13 23.2%
Temporary visa (13) (5.3%) (5) (8.9%)
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status

Deceased women
Approximately 16 per cent of the 244 women killed identified as Aboriginal (n=40, 16.4%). No women identified
as Torres Strait Islander (Table 3.18).
The Team recognises that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience domestic violence from
both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and non-Indigenous men.82 Of the 40 women who identified
as Aboriginal, 25 were killed by a man who also identified as Aboriginal (62.5%) and 15 were killed by a non-
Indigenous male offender (37.5%).
Deceased men
Over one-third of the 56 men killed identified as Aboriginal (n=20, 35.7%). No men identified as Torres Strait
Islander (Table 3.18).
Of these 20 men, 14 were killed by a woman who also identified as Aboriginal (70%) and six were killed by a non-
Indigenous female offender (30%).
Table 3.18: Deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=300)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Deceased Deceased

Islander status Women % Female Men % Male
Aboriginal 40 16.4% 20 35.7%
Non-Indigenous 204 83.6% 36 64.3%
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Deceased disability
Deceased women
Of the 244 women killed, almost 5 per cent were identified as women with disability (n=12, 4.9%). This included
nine women with a physical disability, two women with a cognitive disability and one woman with both a physical
and a cognitive disability (Table 3.19).
82 Our Watch (2018) (n 11).
REPORT 2021 2023 38

Deceased men
One of the 56 men killed was identified as a man with disability, namely a physical disability (1.8%) (Table 3.19).
Table 3.19: Deceased disability (n=300)
Deceased
Disability status Women % Female Deceased Men % Male
With disability 12 4.9% 1 1.8%
Without disability 232 95.1% 55 98.2%
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Deceased place of residence

For this dataset, the Team has relied on the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Remoteness
Structure to determine the geographical remoteness of the deceased’s place of residence.83
Deceased women
Approximately 70 per cent of the 244 women killed resided in a major city at the time of the homicide (n=172,
70.5%). Over one-quarter of the women resided outside a major city at the time they were killed (n=68, 27.9%)
(Table 3.20, Fig. 3.10).
Deceased men
Over half of the 56 men killed resided in a major city at the time of the homicide (n=32, 57.1%). Almost 40 per
cent of the men resided outside a major city at the time they were killed (n=22, 39.3%) (Table 3.20, Fig. 3.10).
Table 3.20: Deceased residence remoteness (n=300)
Deceased residence Deceased

remoteness Women % Female Deceased Men % Male
Major city 172 70.5% 32 57.1%
Inner regional 41 16.8% 14 25%
Outer regional 20 8.2% 7 12.5%
Remote 5 2% 1 1.8%
Very remote 2 0.8% 0 0%
No fixed address 4 1.6% 2 3.6%
TOTAL 244 -100% 56 100%
83 A
ustralian Bureau of Statistics (2021), Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Remoteness Structure, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/
australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026 (accessed 11 January 2024).

Figure 3.10: Deceased residence remoteness (n=300)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Major city Inner regional Outer regional Remote Very remote No fixed address
Deceased women % Deceased men %
Deceased socio-economic status

For this data analysis, the Team has relied on the ABS Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD)
to determine the socio-economic status of the deceased.84 The IRSD ranks areas in Australia based on social
and economic conditions, including income, education, employment, internet access, relationships and family
structure. The IRSD refers to the general level of socio-economic disadvantage of all the people in the area in
which a person lives, not the person or family unit itself. Areas are grouped in quintiles, with Quintile 1 being the
most disadvantaged (lowest socio-economic areas) and Quintile 5 being the least disadvantaged (highest socio-
economic areas).
Deceased women
Almost two-thirds of the 244 women killed were living in the two quintiles with the lowest socio-economic status
(n=148, 60.6%) (Table 3.21, Fig. 3.11).
Deceased men
Over half of the 56 men killed were living in the two quintiles with the lowest socio-economic status (n=32, 57.1%)
(Table 3.21, Fig. 3.11).
84 A
ustralian Bureau of Statistics (2018) (n 27); Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018), ‘Technical Paper: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)’, https://www.
ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/756EE3DBEFA869EFCA258259000BA746/$File/SEIFA%202016%20Technical%20Paper.pdf (accessed 12 October
2023).
REPORT 2021 2023 40

Table 3.21: Deceased residence socio-economic status (n=300)
Socio-economic
status Deceased Women % Female Deceased Men % Male
1st quintile 103 42.2% 23 41.1%
2nd quintile 45 18.4% 9 16.1%
3rd quintile 34 13.9% 4 7.1%
4th quintile 31 12.7% 8 14.3%
5th quintile 27 11.1% 10 17.9%
No fixed address 4 1.6% 2 3.6%
TOTAL 244 -100% 56 -100%
Figure 3.11: Deceased socio-economic status (n=300)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1st quintile 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile 5th quintile No fixed address
Deceased employment status

Deceased women
Less than half of the 244 women were known to be engaged in paid employment at the time they were killed
(n=116, 47.5%). This means that just over half of the women were either unemployed, studying, caring for children
or family members, retired or permanently unable to work (n=128, 52.5%) (Table 3.22).

Deceased men
Over half of the 56 men were known to be engaged in paid employment at the time they were killed (n=33,
58.9%) (Table 3.22).
Table 3.22: Deceased employment status (n=300)

Deceased
Employment status Women % Female Deceased Men % Male
Paid employment 116 47.5% 33 58.9%
No paid employment 128 52.5% 23 41.1%
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Deceased mental health

To-date the Team has adopted a broad approach to coding mental health status which draws from both
official service records such as medical records, as well as witness statements and other anecdotal evidence.
Accordingly, this variable captures a broad spectrum of circumstances ranging from a mental illness diagnosed
by a qualified health practitioner, to friends and family reporting behaviours consistent with psychological
distress. As described in the Limitations section, the Team acknowledges that there are shortcomings with
this approach. Accordingly, as part of its future work agenda, the Team intends to re-imagine this data capture
in partnership with mental health practitioners, to build in greater nuance around the complex intersection of
domestic violence and mental health.
Deceased women
Of the 244 women killed, almost 30 per cent had current and/or historical mental health issues (n=70, 28.7%)
(Table 3.23).
Deceased men
Of the 56 men killed, almost 30 per cent had had current and/or historical mental health issues (n=16, 28.6%)
(Table 3.23).
Table 3.23: Deceased mental health (n=300)
Deceased
Mental health status Women % Female Deceased Men % Male
Mental health issues 70 28.7% 16 28.6%
No mental health issues 174 71.3% 40 71.4%
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Deceased alcohol and drug use

In this dataset, alcohol and other drug (AOD) use refers to substance use that is negatively impacting on a
person’s health, family, relationships, work, school or other social situations. Substance dependence, also
known as ‘alcohol/drug use disorder’, may occur when a person continues to use substances even though
their use causes them significant problems. It is regarded by many as a medical condition not directly under the
control of the individual.
REPORT 2021 2023 42

Deceased women
Almost one-third of the 244 women killed were known to have AOD issues (n=74, 30.3%). This included 29
women who used alcohol only (11.9%); 13 women who used drugs only (5.3%); and 32 women who used both
drugs and alcohol (13.1%) (Table 3.24, Fig. 3.12).
Deceased men
Over three-quarters of the 56 men killed were known to have AOD issues (n=43, 76.8%). This included 14 men
who used alcohol only (25%); eight men who used drugs only (14.3%); and 21 men who used both drugs and
alcohol (37.5%) (Table 3.24, Fig. 3.13).
Table 3.24: Deceased AOD use (n=300)
Deceased
Alcohol and drug use Women % Female Deceased Men % Male
No alcohol and/or drug use 170 69.7% 13 23.2%
Alcohol and/or drug use 74 30.3% 43 76.8%
Alcohol use only (29) (11.9%) (14) (25%)
Drug use only (13) (5.3%) (8) (14.3%)
Both alcohol and drug use (32) (13.1%) (21) (37.5%)
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Figure 3.12: Deceased women AOD use (n=244)
Alcohol use
only 12%
No alcohol/ Alcohol/
drug use drug use
70% Drug use
30%
only 5%
Both alcohol/
drug use 13%

Figure 3.13: Deceased men AOD use (n=56)
Alcohol use
only 25%
Alcohol/
No alcohol/ drug use
drug use 77% Drug use
23% only 14%
Both alcohol/
drug use 38%
Deceased co-occurrence of mental health and AOD issues

Deceased women
Almost 12 per cent of the women killed had both mental health and AOD issues (n=29, 11.9%).
Deceased men
Just over 20 per cent of men killed had both mental health and AOD issues (n=12, 21.4%).
Deceased pregnancy
Six of the 244 women who were killed by their male intimate partner were pregnant at the time of the homicide
(2.5%).
IPV homicide – offender characteristics

The IPV Homicide Dataset includes:
• 244 men who killed a female partner;
• 56 women who killed a male partner;
• 6 men that killed a male partner (noting that one man killed two male partners six months apart); and
• 1 woman who killed a female partner.
As with the previous section, the cases where a male killed a male intimate partner, and the single case where a
female killed a female intimate partner have been excluded in the following data analysis.
REPORT 2021 2023 44

Homicide offender age
The age of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders who killed a female intimate partner ranged from 17 to 85 years,
the average age being 43.5 years (Fig. 3.14).
Female homicide offenders

The age of the 56 female homicide offenders who killed a male intimate partner ranged from 20 to 58 years, the
average age being 36.8 years (Fig. 3.14).
Figure 3.14: Age of IPV homicide offender (n=300)

85-89 years
80-84 years
75-79 years
70-74 years
65-69 years
60-64 years
55-59 years
50-54 years
45-49 years
40-44 years
35-39 years
30-34 years
25-29 years
20-24 years
15-19 years
0 10 20 30 40 50
Female IPV homicide offenders (n=56) Male IPV homicide offenders (n=244)
Homicide offender country of birth and visa status

Approximately two-thirds of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders were born in Australia (n=161, 66%) and one-
third of male offenders were born outside Australia (n=83, 34%). The 83 male offenders who were born outside
Australia were born in 38 different countries.
Of the 83 male offenders who were born outside Australia, 11 were on a temporary visa at the time they
committed the homicide (Table 3.25).

Approximately 80 per cent of the 56 female homicide offenders were born in Australia (n=45, 80.4%). The 11
women that were born outside Australia were born in nine different countries.

Of the 11 females that were born outside Australia, three were on a temporary visa at the time they committed
the homicide (Table 3.25).
Table 3.25: IPV homicide offender country of birth and visa status (n=300)
Female
Male Homicide Homicide
Country of Birth Offender % Male Offender % Female
Australia 161 66% 45 80.4%
Outside Australia 83 34% 11 19.6%
Temporary visa (11) (4.5%) (3) (5.4%)
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Homicide offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status

Approximately 12 per cent of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders identified as Aboriginal (n=30, 12.3%). No
male offenders identified as Torres Strait Islander (Table 3.26).

Approximately 30 per cent of the 56 female homicide offenders identified as Aboriginal (n=17, 30.4%). No female
offenders identified as Torres Strait Islander (Table 3.26).
Table 3.26: IPV homicide offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=300)
Female
Aboriginal and Torres Male Homicide Homicide
Strait Islander status Offender % Male Offender % Female
Aboriginal 30 12.3% 17 30.4%
Non-Indigenous 214 87.7% 39 69.6%
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Homicide offender disability

Of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders, approximately 6 per cent were identified as men with disability (n=15,
6.1%). This included six men with a physical disability, seven men with a cognitive disability, and two men with
both a physical and a cognitive disability (Table 3.27).

Of the 56 female homicide offenders, two were identified as women with disability (3.6%). One of the women had
a cognitive disability, and the other woman had both a physical and a cognitive disability (Table 3.27).
REPORT 2021 2023 46

Table 3.27: IPV homicide offender disability (n=300)
Male Homicide Female Homicide

Disability status Offender % Male Offender % Female
With disability 15 6.1% 2 3.6%
Without disability 229 93.9% 54 96.4%
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Homicide offender employment status

Just over half of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders were known to be engaged in paid employment at the
time they killed their female intimate partner (n=131, 53.7%) (Table 3.28).

Of the 56 female IPV homicide offenders almost one-third were known to be engaged in paid employment at the
time they killed their male intimate partner (n=17, 30.4%) (Table 3.28).
Table 3.28: IPV homicide offender employment status (n=300)
Male Homicide Female Homicide

Employment status Offender % Male Offender % Female
Paid employment 131 53.7% 17 30.4%
No paid employment 113 46.3% 39 69.6%
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Homicide offender mental health

As described previously, the Team’s current approach to coding mental health status draws from both official
service records as well as information in witness statements and other anecdotal evidence. Accordingly, this
variable captures a broad spectrum of circumstances ranging from a mental illness diagnosed by a qualified
health practitioner, to friends and family reporting behaviours consistent with psychological distress. The
shortcomings with this approach have been described previously and the Team endeavours, as part of its future
work agenda, to build in greater nuance around the complex intersection of domestic violence and mental
health.

Over half of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders had current and/or historical mental health issues (n=132,
54.1%) (Table 3.29).

Of the 56 female homicide offenders, almost two-thirds had current and/or historical mental health issues (n=35,
62.5%) (Table 3.29).

Table 3.29: IPV homicide offender mental health (n=300)
Female
Mental health status Offender % Male Offender % Female
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
Homicide offender alcohol and drug use

As described previously, alcohol and drug (AOD) use refers to substance use that is negatively impacting on a
person’s health, family, relationships, work, school or other social situations.

Approximately half of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders, had a known history of AOD use (n=123, 50.4%). This
included 39 male offenders with a history of alcohol use only (16%); 18 men who had a history of drug use only
(7.4%); and 66 men who had a history of both alcohol and drug use (27%) (Table 3.30, Fig. 3.15).

Almost two-thirds of the 56 female IPV homicide offenders had a known history of AOD use (n=34, 60.7%). Of
these 34 women, 11 had a history of alcohol use only (32.4%); 7 had a history of drug use only (20.6%); and 16
had a history of both alcohol and drug use (47.1%) (Table 3.30, Fig. 3.16).
Table 3.30: IPV homicide offender AOD use (n=300)
Female
Alcohol and drug use Offender % Male Offender % Female
No alcohol and/or drug use 121 49.6% 22 39.3%
Alcohol and/or drug use 123 50.4% 34 60.7%
Alcohol use only (39) (16%) (11) (19.6%)
Drug use only (18) (7.4%) (7) (12.5%)
Both alcohol and drug use (66) (27%) (16) (28.6%)
TOTAL 244 100% 56 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 48

Figure 3.15: Male IPV homicide offender AOD use (n=244)
Alcohol use only 16%
No alcohol/ Alcohol/drug
drug use use 50%
50%
Drug use only 7%
Both alcohol/drug
use 27%
Figure 3.16: Female IPV homicide offender AOD use (n=56)
Alcohol use only 20%
No alcohol/ Alcohol/drug
drug use use 61%
39%
Drug use only 12%
Both alcohol/drug
use 29%
Homicide offender co-occurrence of mental health and AOD issues

Over one-quarter of the 244 men who killed a female intimate partner had both mental health and AOD issues
(n=68, 27.9%).

Over 40 per cent of women who killed their male intimate partner had both mental health and AOD issues (n=23,
41.1%).
Female homicide offender pregnancy

Three of the 56 female IPV homicide offenders were pregnant at the time they killed their male intimate partner
(5.4%).
Homicide offender criminal justice outcomes

Three-quarters of the 244 male IPV homicide offenders were dealt with by way of criminal proceedings (n=183,
75%) and the remaining male offenders were subject to coronial proceedings, primarily in circumstances where
the man died by suicide following the homicide or otherwise died prior to the criminal proceedings being finalised
(n=61, 25%).
Of the 183 male IPV homicide offenders dealt with by way of criminal proceedings: approximately two-thirds
were convicted of murder (n=118, 64.5%) and one-fifth were convicted of manslaughter (n=37, 20.2%) (Table
3.31, Fig. 3.17).

Almost all 56 female IPV homicide offenders were dealt with by way of criminal proceedings (n=54, 96.4%). Two
women died by suicide following the homicide and were therefore subject to coronial proceedings (3.6%).
Of the 54 women dealt with by way of criminal proceedings almost half were convicted of manslaughter (n=25,
46.3%) and one-third were acquitted or homicide charges were withdrawn (n=16, 29.6%) (Table 3.31, Fig. 3.17).
Table 3.31: IPV homicide offender criminal justice outcomes (n=237)
Male IPV Female IPV

homicide homicide
Criminal justice outcome offender % Male offender % Female
Acquitted/Charges withdrawn 6 3.3% 16 29.6%
Manslaughter 37 20.2% 25 46.3%
Guilty plea (21) (11.5%) (16) (29.6%)
Guilty verdict (16) (8.7%) (9) (16.7%)
Murder 118 64.5% 9 16.7%
Guilty plea (51) (27.9%) (2) (3.7%)
Guilty verdict (67) (36.6%) (7) (13%)
NGMI/Not fit to stand trial 18 9.8% 4 7.4%
Lesser charge 2 1.1% 0 0%
Criminal proceedings ongoing 2 1.1% 0 0%
TOTAL 183 100% 54 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 50

Figure 3.17: IPV homicide offender criminal justice outcomes (n=237)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Acquitted/charges Manslaughter Murder NGMI/Not fit Lesser Criminal
withdrawn to stand trial charge proceedings ongoing
Male offender % Female offender %
IPV homicide – case characteristics

Method of homicide
Deceased women
Approximately one-third of the 244 women killed by a male intimate partner died as a result of stab wounds,
i.e., ‘assault – sharp weapon’ (n=80, 32.8%). The second most common manner of homicide was suffocation/
strangulation (n=35, 14.3%), followed by shooting (n=33, 13.5%) and, ‘assault – no weapon’, (n=32, 13.1%). The
manner of death is unknown for nine women in circumstances where their body has never been found (n=5) or
the cause of death was otherwise unable to be determined (n=4) (Table 3.32).
Deceased men
Almost three-quarters of the 56 men killed by a female intimate partner died as a result of stab wounds (n=41,
73.2%). The second most common manner of homicide was shooting (n=7, 12.5%) (Table 3.32).

Table 3.32: Method of homicide (n=300)
Deceased Deceased
Manner of death Women % Female Men % Male
Assault – sharp weapon 80 32.8% 41 73.2%
Assault – blunt weapon 22 9% 1 1.8%
Assault – MVA related 4 1.6% 2 3.6%
Assault – no weapon 32 13.1% 0 0%
Shooting 33 13.5% 7 12.5%
Suffocation/strangulation 35 14.3% 1 1.8%
Multiple assaultive behaviours 20 8.2% 2 3.6%
Poison/noxious substance 3 1.2% 0 0%
Fire related 5 2% 1 1.8%
Drowning 1 0.4% 0 0%
Unknown 9 3.7% 1 1.8%
TOTAL 244 -100 56 -100
Location of homicide
Deceased women
Approximately three-quarters of the 244 women were killed at home (n=185, 75.8%). Usually this was the home
the woman shared with the man who killed her (n=125, 51.2% of all women killed) and in 11 of these cases the
relationship had ended but the couple continued to reside together ‘separated under one roof’. For the remaining
60 cases where the woman was killed at home, the woman lived separately from the male offender (24.6% of all
women killed) (Table 3.33).
Deceased men
Approximately three-quarters of the 56 men were killed at home (n=41, 73.2%). This was almost always the
home the man shared with the female homicide offender (n=37, 66.1% of all men killed) and included two cases
where the couple were living ‘separated under one roof’ (Table 3.33).
REPORT 2021 2023 52

Table 3.33: Location of homicide (n=300)
Deceased Deceased
Location of homicide Women % Female Men % Male
Deceased residence 185 75.8% 41 73.2%
Shared residence (114) (46.7%) (35) (62.5%)
Shared residence but
(11) (4.5%) (2) (3.6%)
‘separated under one roof’
Separate residence (60) (24.6%) (4) (7.1%)
Homicide offender residence 16 6.6% 5 8.9%
Other residence 8 3.3% 3 5.4%
Public/open place 28 11.5% 6 10.7%
Hotel/motel 3 1.2% 1 1.8%
Deceased workplace 3 1.2% 0 0%
Unknown 1 0.4% 0 0%
TOTAL 244 100 56 100
IPV homicide – relationship characteristics

Relationship status, separation, and family law proceedings
The Team often has access to detailed information regarding a couple’s separation or intention to separate
prior to the homicide. This includes details of how soon before the homicide separation occurred, or when an
intention to separate was expressed and by whom. This section examines the relationship status at the time of
the homicide, as well as any concurrent family law proceedings.
Deceased women
Almost two-thirds of the 244 women were killed by their current male partner, including husbands, de facto
husbands and boyfriends (n=154, 63.1%). Accordingly, over one-third of women were killed by their partner after
the relationship had ended (n=90, 36.9%) (Table 3.34, Fig. 3.18).

Table 3.34: Relationship of male IPV homicide offender to female deceased (n=244)
Relationship type Deceased Women %

Current Partner 154 63.1%
Husband (69) (28.3%)
De facto husband (61) (25%)
Boyfriend (24) (9.8%)
Former Partner 90 36.9%
Former husband (35) (14.3%)
Former de facto husband (33) (13.5%)
Former boyfriend (22) (9%)
TOTAL 244 100%
Figure 3.18: Relationship of male IPV homicide offender to female deceased (n=244)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Current Partner Former partner
Husband Defacto husband Boyfriend
Deceased women killed by former partner

Almost 65 per cent of the women killed by a former partner had separated from the man within three months of
the homicide (n=58 of 90 women killed by former partner, 64.4%) (Fig. 3.19).
REPORT 2021 2023 54

Figure 3.19: IPV homicide proximal to separation – male homicide offender/female deceased (n=90)
Woman
killed
more than 3
months after
separation
Woman killed 36%
less than
3 months
after
separation
64%
Family law proceedings were ongoing in 10 of the 90 cases where a woman was killed by her former male
partner (11.1%).
Deceased women killed by current partner

Almost 45 per cent of the 154 women who were killed by their current partner had indicated an intention to end
the relationship (n=69, 44.8%), and in most cases this intention had been signalled within three months of the
homicide (n=58) (Fig. 3.20).
Figure 3.20: Intention to separate – male IPV homicide offender/female deceased (n=70)
Intention to separate
> 3 months
prior to homicide
< 3 months
prior to homicide
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Intention to separate < 3 months Intention to separate > 3 months

prior to homicide prior to homicide
Male homicide offender 0 1
Female deceased 54 11
Both parties 4 0

Accordingly, in almost two-thirds of the 244 IPV homicides involving a man killing his female partner, the
relationship had ended or was breaking down (with one or both parties intending to separate) at the time of the
homicide (n=160, 65.6%) (Fig. 3.21).
Figure 3.21: Separation – male IPV homicide offender/female deceased (n=244)
Separated
37%
Relationship
Relationship ended/breaking
ongoing down
34% 66%
Intending to
separate 29%
Deceased men
Most men were killed by their current female intimate partner, including wives, de facto wives and girlfriends
(n=45, 80.4%) (Table 3.35, Fig. 3.22).
Table 3.35: Relationship of female IPV homicide offender to male deceased (n=56)
Relationship type Deceased men %

Current Partner 45 80.4%
Wife (8) (14.3%)
De facto wife (33) (58.9%)
Girlfriend (4) (7.1%)
Former Partner 11 19.6%
Former wife (3) (5.4%)
Former de facto wife (6) (10.7%)
Former girlfriend (2) (3.6%)
TOTAL 56 100
REPORT 2021 2023 56

Figure 3.22: Relationship of female IPV homicide offender to male deceased (n=56)
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Current Partner Former partner
Wife Defacto wife Girlfriend
Deceased men killed by former partner

One-third of the men killed by a former female partner had separated from the woman within three months of the
homicide (n=4 of 11 men killed by former partner, 36.4%).
Family law proceedings were ongoing in three of the 11 cases where a man was killed by a former female
partner (27.3%).
Deceased men killed by current partner

For over three-quarters of the 45 homicides involving men who were killed by their current female partner, there
was no apparent intention to separate by either party (n=35, 77.8%). However, in the remaining 10 cases one or
both parties had indicated an intention to end the relationship (Fig. 3.23).

Figure 3.23: Intention to separate – female IPV homicide offender/male deceased (n=10)
> 3 months prior
to homicide
< 3 months prior
to homicide
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Intention to separate < 3 months Intention to separate > 3 months

prior to homicide prior to homicide
Male deceased 3 0
Female homicide offender 5 0
Both parties 1 1
Accordingly, in over one-third of IPV homicides involving a woman killing her male partner, the relationship had
ended or was breaking down (with one or both parties intending to separate) at the time of the fatal episode
(n=21, 37.5%) (Fig. 3.24).
Figure 3.24: Separation – female IPV homicide offender/male deceased (n=56)
Separated
20%
Relationship
Relationship ended/breaking
ongoing down
62% 38%
Intending to
separate 18%
REPORT 2021 2023 58

Relationship length
Deceased women
The duration of the relationships between the 244 women and the male intimate partner who killed them ranged
from 1 month to 45 years. The average relationship length was 10.6 years (Fig. 3.25). Almost 10 per cent of
women killed had been in the relationship with the male offender for less than one year (n=24, 9.8%) (Fig. 3.26).
Almost 20 per cent of women killed had been in the relationship with the male offender for more than 20 years
(n=46, 18.9%) (Fig. 3.27).
Deceased men
The duration of the relationships between the 56 men and the female intimate partner who killed them ranged
from 6 months to 33 years. The average relationship length was 7.1 years (Fig. 3.25). Five men killed had been
in the relationship with the female offender for less than one year (Fig. 3.26) and five men had been in the
relationship for more than 20 years (Fig. 3.27).
Figure 3.25: IPV homicide relationship length (n=300)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
r
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yrs
yea
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
r
1y
2y
3y
4y
5y
6y
7y
8y
9y
>20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
<1
Female deceased (n=244) Male IP deceased (n=56)

Figure 3.26: IPV homicide relationship <1 yr (n=29) Figure 3.27: IPV homicide relationship >20 yrs (n=51)
9 18
8 16
7 14
6 12
5 10
4 8
3 6
2 4
1 2
0 0
s
s
s
s
s
onth
onth
onth
onth
onth
onth
onth
onth
onth
onth
onth
21-25 26 - 30 31-35 36-40 41-45

10 m
11 m
1m
yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs

8m
9m
2m
3m
4m
5m
6m
7m
Female deceased (n=24) Female deceased (n=46)

Male deceased (n=5) Male deceased (n=5)
Age disparity
Deceased women
Approximately three-quarters of the 244 women killed were younger than the male partner that killed them
(n=185, 75.8%). The age difference between the couple ranged from 1 to 42 years (Table 3.36).
Deceased men
More than half of the 56 men killed were older than the female partner that killed them (n=32, 57.1%). The age
difference between the couple ranged from 1 to 25 years (Table 3.36).
REPORT 2021 2023 60

Table 3.36: Age disparity between deceased and offender (n=300)
Age disparity between deceased and Female Male

offender deceased % Female deceased % Male
>20 years younger than homicide offender 10 4.1% 0 0%
16-20 years younger than homicide offender 8 3.3% 1 1.8%
6-10 years younger than homicide offender 56 23% 4 7.1%
Same age as homicide offender 11 4.5% 6 10.7%
1-5 years older than homicide offender 28 11.5% 14 25%
6-10 years older than homicide offender 12 4.9% 10 17.9%
>20 years older than homicide offender 0 0 1 1.8%
TOTAL 244 -100% 56 -100%
IPV homicide and children

In approximately two-thirds of the 300 IPV homicides, children under the age of 18 were living with the deceased
person and/or the homicide offender (n=192, 64%). Usually these were the biological children of the couple (116
of 192 relationships with children, 60.4%); 62 cases involved stepchildren85 (32.3% of relationships with children);
and 14 cases involved both biological and stepchildren (7.3% of relationships with children).
Most of these children were known to have experienced domestic violence prior to the homicide, including
being directly abused (including physical and non-physical abuse); and/or experiencing the violence between the
couple (n=170, 88.5% of relationships with children) (Fig. 3.28).
85 M
eaning the deceased person and homicide offender did not have children together but one or both parties had children from a previous relationship/s and these
children resided with the couple full or part time.

Figure 3.28: IPV homicide and children’s experiences of domestic violence (n=192)
No evidence children
experienced abuse 11%
Children experienced
abuse 89%
The deceased persons and homicide offenders were known to be parents (either together or separately) to at
least 370 surviving children who were under 18 years of age at the time of the homicide.
As further described below, in 12 IPV homicides children were also killed, resulting in the deaths of 14 children.
Multiple homicide events

There were 16 cases where the homicide offender killed their intimate partner and another person/s.86 All but
one of these multiple homicide events were perpetrated by a male IPV homicide offender.
Of the 16 multiple homicide events:
• Seven involved a male IPV homicide offender killing his female partner together with one or more of their
children;
• One involved a female IPV homicide offender killing her male partner together with their children;
• One involved a male IPV homicide offender killing his female partner together with one of their children
and her new partner;
• Five involved a male IPV homicide offender killing his female partner together with another relative/s; and
• Two involved a male IPV homicide offender killing his female partner together with her new male partner
(and in one of these cases the new partner’s adult son was also killed).
The 16 multiple fatality events resulted in the deaths of 40 victims.
In eight of these cases the IPV homicide offender died by suicide after committing the multiple homicide event
(seven male homicide offenders and one female homicide offender).
86 Cases where a homicide offender killed their intimate partner and then died by suicide are not coded as a multiple homicide event in the DVDRT database.
REPORT 2021 2023 62

04
Domestic violence-
context filicide in
NSW, 2000-2022
This chapter presents a comprehensive
analysis of the 96 domestic violence-
context filicides that occurred in NSW
between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
Introduction
Filicide, or the killing of a child by a parent, has been described as a ‘virtually incomprehensible’ phenomenon;
going against duties born of both evolutionary biology and strong social norms around a parent’s duty to care for
their child.87
In Australia, after intimate partner homicide, filicide comprises the second largest proportion of domestic
homicides.88 This chapter builds on the novel filicide dataset presented in the Team’s 2019-21 Report89 and
includes in-depth analyses of all domestic violence-context filicides (‘DV-context filicides’) occurring in NSW
The data findings in this chapter reinforce the Team’s previous work which revealed that most filicides in Australia
occur following an identifiable history of intimate partner violence, meaning that the intervention and prevention of
domestic violence is a critical component in reducing the unacceptably high rates of filicide in NSW.90
The high rates and gendered nature of IPV that preceded the DV-context filicides – namely, male filicide
offenders are most often abusers against their female partners and female filicide offenders are most often
victims of abuse from their male partners – further highlights that violence against women needs to be
understood as a risk of harm to her children.
Inclusion criteria
For this analysis, DV-context filicides are those in which:
• a biological or non-biological parent (or parents);
• kills a child (or children) under the age of 18;91
• in a DV-context, i.e., there was evidence of a history of domestic violence either directed against the
child; directed against other children in the family unit; or where the child otherwise experienced domes-
tic violence behaviours between their parents/other relevant parties prior to the homicide;
• the deceased child was ordinarily a resident in NSW – the deceased child permanently resided in
NSW, notwithstanding that they may have been killed in another state or territory.
In adopting this approach, the Team seeks to highlight intimate partner violence as a risk indicator in filicide
cases and emphasise the devastating impact that seeing, hearing or otherwise experiencing such violence has
on children more broadly.
87 Klier, C. et al. (2019), ‘Filicide research in the twenty-first century’, Arch Womens Ment Health, vol. 22, pp. 135–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-018-0924-0
(accessed 2 October 2023).
88 Serpell, B. et al (2022), ‘Homicide in Australia 2019-20’, Statistical Report 39, Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/
sr39_homicide_in_australia_2019-20.pdf (accessed 2 October 2023).
89 DVDRT Report 2019-2021 (n 7).
90 Ibid.
91 Cases where an unborn child died as a consequence of domestic violence (for example, physical assault against a pregnant mother), or forced abortion are not
included in this analysis. In NSW the ‘born alive rule’ means that homicides can only be committed against a legally recognised person that has been ‘fully born in a
living state’: See R v Iby [2005] NSWCCA 178. However, the Team notes that there has been a recent development for foetal homicide laws in NSW that creates a
separate offence for unborn children who are killed as a result of a criminal act (known as Zoe’s law): s54A and B, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
REPORT 2021 2023 64

Data findings
Overview
Between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022 there were 108 filicide events in NSW resulting in the deaths of 125
children, meaning that some cases involved the killing of multiple children.92
Approximately three-quarters of the 108 filicide events occurred in a DV-context (n=80, 74.1%). The 80 DV-
context filicide events resulted in the deaths of 96 children.
The 28 filicide events that were coded as not having occurred in a DV-context (and which resulted in the deaths
of 29 children) most frequently involved an offender experiencing a significant mental health episode absent any
identifiable history of domestic violence.
Domestic violence-context filicide trends over time

This is the first time the Team has presented data on DV-context filicides over time. The significant variances
year-on-year can be partly explained by the statistically small number of cases, however it appears that there is a
general downward trend.
Figure 4.1: DV-context filicide in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=96)
12
10
0
4
2
1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-2
0-2
1-2
0-0
1-0
2-0
3-0
4-0
5-0
6-0
7-0
8-0
9-1
0-1
1-1
2-1
201
201
201
201
201
201
202
202
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
201
201
201
201
92 It is noted that a further eight suspicious child deaths occurred during this period with a parent/s being identified as a person of interest but investigations are ongoing
and there has been no definitive finding that the death was in fact the result of a homicide.

Domestic violence-context filicide and gender
Of the 80 DV-context filicides events, almost 60 per cent were perpetrated by a male parent acting alone (n=46,
57.5%) resulting in the deaths of 59 children. In 30 per cent of cases the DV-context filicide was perpetrated by a
female parent acting alone (n=24) resulting in the deaths of 27 children. In the remaining cases, both a male and
female parent were held to be criminally responsible for the child’s death (n=10, 12.5%) resulting in the deaths of
10 children (Table 4.1, Fig. 4.2).
Figure 4.2: DV-context filicide event by offender gender (n=80)
13%
Male filicide offender acting alone (n=46)

Female filicide offender acting alone (n=24)
30%
58%
Male and female filicide co-accused (n=10)
Table 4.1: DV-context filicide event by offender gender (n=80)
No. of DV
context filicide No. of deceased
Filicide Offender events % children
Male filicide offender acting alone 46 57.5% 59
Female filicide offender acting alone 24 30% 27
Male and female co-accused 10 12.5% 10
TOTAL 80 100% 96
Domestic violence-context filicide – child characteristics

This section presents the demographic characteristics of the 96 children killed in DV-context filicide events in
NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
Child gender
The 80 DV-context filicide events resulted in the deaths of 96 children, 52 boys (54.2%) and 44 girls (45.8%).
As this finding reveals little difference between the proportion of boys and girls killed in filicide events, the
following demographic findings have not been disaggregated by gender.
REPORT 2021 2023 66

Child age
The 96 children killed ranged from four weeks to 15 years of age. The average age was 4.1 years. Almost 40 per
cent of children were aged one year or less (n=38, 39.6%) (Fig. 4.3).
Figure 4.3: Age of deceased child (n=96)
25
20
15
10
0
< 1 yr 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 9 yrs 10 yrs 11 yrs 12 yrs 13 yrs 14 yrs 15 yrs
Filicide victims
Child country of birth
Nearly all of the children killed were born in Australia (n=93, 96.9%). The three children who were born outside
Australia were born in three different countries and were all permanent residents of Australia (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2: Child country of birth (n=96)
Country of Birth Deceased child %

Australia 93 96.9%
Outside Australia 3 3.1%
TOTAL 96 100%
Child Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status

Almost 20 per cent of the children killed identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (n=19, 19.8%) (Table
4.3).
These 19 children were killed by 21 filicide offenders (15 offenders also identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres
Strait Islander and six offenders were non-Indigenous).

Table 4.3: Child Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=96)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander status Deceased child %
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
19 19.8%
Islander
Non-Indigenous 77 80.2%
TOTAL 96 100%
Child disability
Approximately 10 per cent of the children killed were children with disability (n=9, 9.4%), including an intellectual
or physical disability, or both (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4: Child disability (n=96)
Disability Deceased child %

Children with disability 9 9.4%
Children with no disability 87 90.6%
TOTAL 96 100%
Child place of residence

For this dataset, the Team has relied on the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Remoteness
Structure to determine the geographical remoteness of the child’s place of residence.93
Approximately two-thirds of the deceased children were living in a major city when they were killed (n=64 out of
the 94 children with a fixed address, 68.1%). Accordingly, almost one-third of the children were living outside a
major city at the time they were killed (n=30 out of 94 children with a fixed address, 31.9%) (Table 4.5, Fig. 4.4).
Table 4.5: Child remoteness (n=96)
Remoteness Deceased child %

Major city 64 66.7%
Inner regional 24 25%
Outer regional 6 6.3%
Remote 0 0%
Very remote 0 0%
No fixed address 2 2.1%
TOTAL 96 -100%
93 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021) (n 3).
REPORT 2021 2023 68

Figure 4.4: Child remoteness (n=96)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Major city Inner regional Outer regional Remote Very remote No fixed address
Child
Child socio-economic status
The ABS Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD) has been used to determine the socio-
economic status of the children killed.
Half of the children were living in the lowest ranked socio-economic areas of NSW (n=48, 50%) (Table 4.6, Fig.
4.5).
Table 4.6: Child socio-economic status (n=96)
IRSD Quintile Deceased child %

1st quintile 48 50%
2nd quintile 17 17.7%
3rd quintile 12 12.5%
4th quintile 10 10.4%
5th quintile 7 7.3%
No fixed address 2 2.1%
TOTAL 96 100%

Figure 4.5: Child socio-economic status (n=96)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1st quintile 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile 5th quintile No fixed address
Domestic violence-context filicide – offender

Deceased children characteristics and
histories of violence
This section presents demographic and psychosocial characteristics of the 90 parents who killed their child/ren
in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
Filicide offender gender and relationship to child

Approximately 60 per cent of filicide offenders were male (n=56, 62.2%) and 40 per cent were female (n=34,
37.8%) (Fig. 4.6).
REPORT 2021 2023 70

Figure 4.6: Filicide offender gender (n=90)
Female
offender
38% Male
offender
62%
Of the 56 male filicide offenders, approximately 60 per cent were the biological father of the child/ren they killed
(n=33, 58.9% of male offenders) and 40 per cent were a non-biological parent (n=23, 41.1%)
Almost all of the 34 female filicide offenders were the biological mother of the child/ren they killed (n=31, 91.2% of
female offenders) (Table 4.7, Fig. 4.7).
Table 4.7: Relationship of filicide offender to child (n=90)
Relationship to Male filicide Female filicide

child offender % Male offender % Female
Biological parent 33 58.9% 31 91.2%
Step-parent 5 8.9% 0 0%
De facto step-parent 18 32.1% 1 2.9%
Foster parent 0 0% 2 5.9%
TOTAL 56 -100% 34 100%

Figure 4.7: Relationship of filicide offender to child (n=90)
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Biological parent Step-parent Defacto step-parent Foster parent
Male offender (n=56) Female offender (n=34)
Filicide offender history of domestic violence perpetration/victimisation

As described above, the 80 filicide events considered in this dataset occurred following an identifiable history of
domestic violence, meaning a history of intimate partner violence was evident between the parents and/or there
was a history of violence against the child that was killed and/or a sibling. This section examines the history of
domestic violence victimisation and perpetration for each of the 90 DV-context filicide offenders (56 male parents
and 34 female parents).
History of intimate partner violence

Male filicide offenders
For 48 of the 56 male filicide offenders, intimate partner violence was evident in their relationship with the child’s
mother (85.7%). In 47 of the 48 cases involving a history of intimate partner violence, the male filicide offender
was the predominant domestic violence abuser against their female partner. In the remaining case, (which
involved both the male and female parent being held criminally responsible for the child’s death) it was not
possible to distinguish which party was the predominant abuser or predominant victim based on the information
available.
At the time of the filicide, five male offenders were defendants in a current ADVO protecting the deceased child’s
mother (8.9% of all male filicide offenders).
For eight of the 56 male filicide offenders (14.3%) there was no evident history of intimate partner violence and
accordingly the DV-context related only to the male filicide offender’s history of violence towards the deceased
child (Table 4.8, Fig. 4.8).
REPORT 2021 2023 72

Table 4.8: Filicide offender history of IPV perpetration/victimisation (n=90)
Female
Male filicide filicide
Intimate partner violence history offenders % Male offenders % Female
Filicide offender was predominant IPV
47 83.9% 0 0%
abuser
Filicide offender was predominant IPV
0 0% 32 94.1%
victim
Predominant abuser/victim not able to
1 1.8% 1 2.9%
be determined
No identifiable history of IPV 8 14.3% 1 2.9%
TOTAL 56 100% 34 -100%
Figure 4.8: Male filicide offender - history of IPV (n=56)
No history of IPV
14% (n=8)
Male filicide
offenders were
predominant
IPV abuser History of IPV
(n=47 of 48) 86%
(n=48)
Female filicide offenders

For 33 of the 34 female filicide offenders, intimate partner violence was evident in their relationship with the
deceased child’s father (97.1%). In 32 of the 33 cases involving a history of intimate partner violence, the female
filicide offender was the predominant victim of domestic violence from their male partner. As noted above, in
one case where both parents were held criminally responsible for the child’s death, based on the information
available it was not possible to identify which party was the predominant abuser or predominant victim (Table
4.8, Fig. 4.9).
At the time of the filicide, four female offenders were named as the person in need of protection under a current
ADVO against the deceased child’s father (11.8% of all female filicide offenders).
In one case the female filicide offender had no evident history of experiencing intimate partner violence, and
accordingly the case involved a history of violence by the female filicide offender against the child (Table 4.8, Fig.
4.9).

Figure 4.9: Female filicide offender - history of IPV (n=34)
No history of IPV
3% (n=1)
History of IPV Female filicide

97% offenders were
(n=33) predominant
IPV victim
(n=32 of 33)
History of violence against the child/ren

Most male filicide offenders had abused the child they killed prior to the filicide (n=44, 78.6%). The remaining
offenders, who had no history of abuse directed towards the child they killed, satisfied the DV-context inclusion
criteria because the offender had been abusive towards their intimate partner (n=12, 21.4%) (Fig. 4.10).
Figure 4.10: Male filicide offender - history of violence towards deceased child (n=56)
No history of violence
towards child 21% (n=12)
History of violence
towards child
79% (n=44)
The Team acknowledges that seeing, hearing, or otherwise experiencing the traumatic effects of intimate partner
violence has a significant and long-lasting impact on the emotional and psychological well-being of children. This
finding also highlights intimate partner violence as a risk indicator in filicide cases, including in circumstances
where the child has never been the direct target of violence.
REPORT 2021 2023 74

Male filicide offenders – violence behaviours
The majority of the 44 male filicide offenders who had abused the child they killed, used emotional/psychological
violence (n=34, 77.3%) and/or physical violence (n=31, 70.5%). Sexual violence against the child was identified for
16 per cent of offenders (n=7, 15.9%) (Table 4.9, Fig. 4.11).
Table 4.9: Violence behaviours of male filicide offender towards deceased child (n=44)
Male filicide offender

with history of violence
Violence behaviours towards child towards deceased child %
Sexual violence 7 15.9%
Figure 4.11: Violence behaviours of male filicide offender towards deceased child (n=44)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Violence behaviours towards child
Emotional/psychological violence Physical violence Sexual violence
Male filicide offenders – reported history of violence

Half of the 44 male filicide offenders who had abused the child they killed, had been reported to police, child
protection services or both in relation to their violence (n=22, 50%) (Fig. 4.12).

Figure 4.12: Male filicide offender - reported history of violence against deceased child (n=44)
Reported to police
7% (n=3)
Reported to child
protection
16%
Never reported Reported (n=7)
50% 50%
(n=22) (n=22)
Reported to
both 27%
(n=12)
Two male filicide offenders were named as defendants in current ADVOs protecting the deceased child/ren at
the time of the filicide. In one of those cases, the male offender had also been convicted of a domestic violence
offence against the child resulting in a custodial sentence.

No custodial sentence
Approximately half of the female filicide offenders had abused the child they killed, prior to the filicide (n=18,
52.9%). The remaining offenders, who had no history of abuse directed towards the child they killed, satisfied
the DV-context inclusion criteria because the offender had been the victim ofCustodial
violence from her intimate partner
sentence
(n=16, 47.1%) (Fig. 4.13).
REPORT 2021 2023 76

Figure 4.13: Female filicide offender - history of violence towards deceased child (n=34)
History of No history
violence of violence
towards towards
child child
53% 47%
(n=18) (n=16)
Female filicide offenders – violence behaviours

Most of the 18 female filicide offenders who had abused the child they killed, used emotional/psychological
violence (n=15, 83.3%) and/or physical violence (n=15, 83.3%) (Table 4.10, Fig. 4.14).
Table 4.10: Violence behaviours of female filicide offender towards deceased child (n=18)
Female filicide offender

with history of violence
Violence behaviours towards child towards deceased child %
Sexual violence 0 0%

Figure 4.14: Violence behaviours of female filicide offender towards deceased child (n=18)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Violence behaviours towards child
Emotional/psychological violence Physical violence Sexual violence
Female filicide offenders – reported history of violence

Over half of the 18 female filicide offenders who had abused the child they killed, had been reported to police,
child protection services or both (n=11, 61.1%) (Fig. 4.15).
Figure 4.15: Female filicide offender - reported history of violence against deceased child (n=18)
Reported to child
protection
33% (n=6)
Never reported Reported

39% 61%
(n=7) (n=11)
Reported to both
child protection
and police 28%
(n=5)
REPORT 2021 2023 78

No female filicide offenders were named as a defendant in a current ADVO protecting the child/ren at the time of
the filicide. One female offender had been convicted of a domestic violence offence against the child resulting in
a non-custodial sentence.
Filicide offender age

The 56 male filicide offenders were aged between 18 and 68 years, with the average age being 34 years (Fig.
4.16).

The 34 female filicide offenders were aged between 18 and 47 years, with the average age being 29 years (Fig.
4.16).
Figure 4.16: Age of filicide offender (n=90)

18
16
14
12
10
0
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-70
years years years years years years years years
Male filicide offenders (n=56) Female filicide offenders (n=34)
Filicide offender country of birth

Three-quarters of the male filicide offenders were born in Australia (n=42, 75%). The remaining 14 offenders were
born in 11 different countries (25%) (Table 4.11).

Over 85 per cent of the female filicide offenders were born in Australia (n=29, 85.3%). The remaining five
offenders were born in three different countries (14.7%) (Table 4.11).

Table 4.11: Filicide offender country of birth (n=90)
Country of Birth Male offender % Male Female offender % Female

Australia 42 75% 29 85.3%
Outside Australia 14 25% 5 14.7%
TOTAL 56 100% 34 100%
Filicide offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status

Ten of the 56 male filicide offenders identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (17.9%) (Table 4.12).

Five of the 34 female filicide offenders identified as Aboriginal (14.7%) (Table 4.12).
Table 4.12: Filicide offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=90)
Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander status Male offender % Male Female offender % Female
Aboriginal/ Torres Strait
10 17.9% 5 14.7%
Islander
Non-Indigenous 46 82.1% 29 85.3%
TOTAL 56 100% 34 100%
Filicide offender mental health

As described previously, the Team’s current approach to coding mental health status draws from both official
service records as well as information in witness statements and other anecdotal evidence. Accordingly, this
variable captures a broad spectrum of circumstances ranging from a mental illness diagnosed by a qualified
health practitioner, to friends and family reporting behaviours consistent with psychological distress. The
shortcomings with this approach have been described previously and the Team endeavours, as part of its future
work agenda, to build in greater nuance around the complex intersection of domestic violence and mental
health.

Over half of the male filicide offenders had current and/or historical mental health issues (n=29, 51.8%) (Table
4.13).

Over 85 per cent of the female filicide offenders had current and/or historical mental health issues (n=29, 85.3%)
(Table 4.13).
REPORT 2021 2023 80

Table 4.13: Filicide offender mental health (n=90)
Male filicide Female filicide

Mental health history offenders % Male offenders % Female
TOTAL 56 100% 34 100%
Filicide offender alcohol and drug use

As described previously, alcohol and drug (AOD) use refers to substance use that is negatively impacting on a

Almost 60 per cent of the male filicide offenders had a history of AOD issues (n=33, 58.9%). This included: six
male parents who used alcohol only (10.7%); nine male parents who used drugs only (16.1%); and 18 men who
used both alcohol and drugs (32.1%) (Table 4.14, Fig. 4.17).

Less than half of all female filicide offenders had a history of AOD issues (n=15, 44.1%). This included: two female
parents who used alcohol only (5.9%); seven female parents who used drugs only (20.6%); and six who used
both alcohol and drugs (17.6%) (Table 4.14, Fig. 4.18).
Table 4.14: Filicide offender AOD use (n=90)

Alcohol and drug offenders % Male offenders % Female
No alcohol or drug use 23 41.1% 19 55.9%
Alcohol and/drug use 33 58.9% 15 44.1%
Alcohol use only (6) (10.7%) (2) (5.9%)
Drug use only (9) (16.1%) (7) (20.6%)
Both alcohol and drug use (18) (32.1%) (6) (17.6%)
TOTAL 56 100% 34 100%

Figure 4.17: Male filicide offender AOD use (n=56)
Alcohol use
only 11%
Drug use
No alcohol/drug Alcohol/drug only 16%
use 41% use 59%
Both alcohol/drug
use 32%
Figure 4.18: Female filicide offender AOD use (n=34)
Alcohol use
Noonly 6% sentence
custodial
Custodial sentence
Drug use
Alcohol/drug only 21%
No alcohol/drug
use 56% use 44%
Both alcohol/drug
use 18%
Custodial sentence
REPORT 2021 2023 82

Filicide offender known trauma history
Almost half of the male filicide offenders were known to have experienced trauma and/or adversity during their
childhood (n=25, 44.6%). This included 20 men who had experienced domestic violence as a child (Table 4.15,
Fig. 4.19).

Almost three-quarters of the female filicide offenders, were known to have experienced trauma and/or adversity
during their childhood (n=25, 73.5%). This included 19 women who had experienced domestic violence as a
child (Table 4.15, Fig. 4.20).
Table 4.15: Filicide offender – known trauma history (n=90)
Female
Male filicide filicide
Known trauma history offenders % Male offenders % Female
No known childhood trauma 31 55.4% 9 26.5%
Known childhood trauma/adversity 25 44.6% 25 73.5%
Childhood experiences of DV (6) (10.7%) (5) (14.7%)
Other childhood trauma/adversity (5) (8.9%) (6) (17.6%)
Both DV and other trauma/adversity (14) (25%) (14) (41.2%)
TOTAL 56 100% 34 100%
Figure 4.19: Male filicide offender – known trauma history (n=56)
Childhood experiences
of DV 11%
Known Other childhood

childhood trauma/adversity 9%
No known trauma/
childhood adversity
trauma 45%
55%
Both DV and other

trauma/adversity
25%
Custodial sentence
Figure 4.20: Female filicide offender – known trauma history (n=34)
Childhood
experiences of
DV 15%
Known Other childhood

No known
childhood trauma/adversity
childhood
trauma/ 18%
trauma
adversity
26%
74%
Both DV and other

trauma/adversity
41%
Criminal justice outcomes

Coronial proceedings No custodial sentence
Approximately one-quarter of the male filicide offenders died by suicide after killing their child/ren (n=15, 26.8%).
All but one of these offenders were the biological father of the child/ren they killed. Ten
Custodial of the 15 male filicide
sentence
offenders who died by suicide killed more than one child (see ‘Multiple filicide events and familicide’ below). The
15 cases where the male filicide offenders died by suicide were, therefore, finalised by way of Coronial Inquest.
One further case was finalised by coronial proceedings in circumstances where the male filicide offender died
accidentally in the house fire he intentionally lit, killing his former intimate partner and de facto step-child.
Criminal proceedings
For the remaining 40 male filicide offenders who were dealt with by way of criminal proceedings, approximately
half were convicted of manslaughter (n=19, 47.5%) and approximately 40 per cent were convicted of murder
(n=17, 42.5%). Three offenders were found not guilty by reason of mental illness (7.5%); and one died of natural
causes prior to trial and the matter was accordingly withdrawn (2.5%) (Table 4.16).

Coronial proceedings
Of the 34 female filicide offenders, approximately 17 per cent died by suicide after killing their child/ren (n=6,
17.6%). All these offenders were the biological mother of the child/ren they killed. Two of the six female filicide
offenders who died by suicide killed more than one child (see ‘Multiple filicide events and familicide’ below).
For the remaining 28 female filicide offenders who were dealt with by way of criminal proceedings, approximately
REPORT 2021 2023 84

60 per cent were convicted of manslaughter (n=17, 60.7%). Six female filicide offenders were convicted of murder
(21.4%); three were found not guilty by reason of mental illness (10.7%); one was found guilty of infanticide (3.6%);
and in one matter the charges were discontinued (3.6%) (Table 4.16).
Table 4.16: Filicide offender criminal justice outcomes (n=68)

Criminal justice outcome offender % Male offender % Female
Acquitted/Charges withdrawn 194 2.5% 195 3.6%
Manslaughter 19 47.5% 17 60.7%
Guilty plea (17) (42.5%) (12) (42.9%)
Guilty verdict (2) (5%) (5) (17.9%)
Murder 17 42.5% 6 21.4%
Guilty plea (6) (15%) (2) (7.1%)
Guilty verdict (11) (27.5%) (4) (14.3%)
Infanticide 0 0% 1 3.6%
NGMI/Not fit to stand trial 3 7.5% 3 10.7%
TOTAL 40 100% 28 100%
Male and female co-accused filicide offenders

As described previously in this chapter, there were 10 filicide events where both the male and female parent were
held to be criminally responsible for the death of the child (resulting in the deaths of 10 children).
In two cases the child died from neglect, and in the remaining eight cases the child died from assault.
In the two neglect cases both the man and the woman were the biological parents of the child killed. In both
cases the woman was the predominant victim of domestic violence from the co-accused male parent. In one
of these cases the woman was convicted of manslaughter for failure to seek medical attention for the child, but
her abusive male partner (also charged with manslaughter) died of natural causes while on remand. In the other
neglect case, the woman was convicted of the child’s murder and her abusive male partner was convicted of
manslaughter for failing to protect/seek medical attention for the child.
In all eight of the assault cases, the woman was the biological parent of the child. In seven of the eight assault
cases, the man was the child’s step-father. In seven of the eight assault cases, the woman was the predominant
victim of domestic violence from the co-accused male parent. In one case it was not possible to distinguish
(based on the available evidence) who was the predominant abuser and who was the predominant victim.
In five of the seven cases where the woman was the predominant victim of violence from the male co-accused
parent, it was the male parent who inflicted the fatal assault/s that killed the child, and the woman was convicted
of manslaughter for failing to protect/seek medical attention for the child. All five women received a custodial
sentence in relation to their perceived role in the child’s death.
94 The offender died of natural causes prior to trial and the matter was accordingly withdrawn.
95 In this case the woman, who was a victim of intimate partner violence by the child’s father, was charged with manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence
following the drowning death of her child. After lengthy delays in proceedings the charges were ultimately withdrawn as it was determined that there were no
reasonable prospects of a conviction.

Domestic violence-context filicide - case characteristics
This section presents additional findings in relation to the characteristics and context of the filicide events
considered in this chapter. Some case characteristics are described by reference to the 96 deceased children
(for example location of filicide, cause of death) while others are described by reference to the 80 filicide events,
noting that in several cases multiple children were killed in a single filicide event.
Location of filicide
The vast majority of the 96 children were killed in their own home (n=76, 79.2%). Usually this was the home
where the child lived full-time with the filicide offender (n=68, 70.9%). For the remaining eight cases, this was the
home the child lived in separately from the offender (8.3%) (Table 4.17).
Table 4.17: Location of filicide (n=96)
Location of filicide Deceased child %

Child’s residence 76 79.2%
Lived full-time with filicide offender (68) (70.9%)
Lived separately from filicide offender (8) (8.3%)
Filicide offender residence 10 10.4%
Public/open place 8 8.3%
Hotel/motel 2 2.1%
TOTAL 96 100%
Over three-quarters of the 96 deceased children were residing full-time with the filicide offender at the time they
were killed (n=76, 79.2%).
Method of filicide
Approximately one-third of the 96 children died from a fatal assault (n=35, 36.5%). Fatal assault includes actions
such as shaking, hitting, kicking or dropping/throwing the child from a height. All but three of the 35 children who
died from a fatal assault were aged four years or less (n=32, 91.4%) and the majority were aged one year or less
(n=23, 65.7%). Following fatal assault, the next most prevalent filicide methods were suffocation/strangulation
(n=12, 12.5%); poison/noxious substance96 (n=11, 11.5%); and shooting (n=9, 9.4%) (Table 4.18).
96 For example, carbon monoxide poisoning and methadone intoxication.
REPORT 2021 2023 86

Table 4.18: Method of filicide (n=96)
Child killed
Child killed by Child killed by by male and
Manner of death male parent female parent female parent TOTAL
Assault 21 (35.6%) 6 (22.2%) 8 (80%) 35 (36.5%)
Suffocation/strangulation 7 (11.9%) 5 (18.5%) 0 12 (12.5%)
Poison/noxious substance 7 (11.9%) 4 (14.8%) 0 11 (11.5%)
Shooting 7 (11.9%) 2 (7.4%) 0 9 (9.4%)
Assault – sharp weapon 6 (10.2%) 1 (3.7%) 0 7 (7.3%)
Drowning 3 (5.1%) 5 (18.5%) 0 8 (8.3%)
Multiple assaultive behaviours 2 (3.4%) 1 (3.7%) 0 3 (3.1%)
Neglect 1 (1.7%) 0 2 (20%) 3 (3.1%)
Assault – MVA related 2 (3.4%) 0 0 2 (2.1%)
Fire/heat related 1 (1.7%) 1 (3.7%) 0 2 (2.1%)
Unknown 2 (3.4%) 2 (7.4%) 0 4 (4.2%)
TOTAL 59 27 10 96
Evidence of planning
In over one-third of the 80 filicide events (resulting in the deaths of 96 children), the circumstances leading up to
the fatal episode demonstrated a level of planning and/or premeditation by the filicide offender (n=28, 35%) (Fig.
4.21).
Figure 4.21: Evidence of planning by filicide offender (n=80)
Evidence of
planning
35%
No evidence
of planning
65%

Evidence of planning included, for example, rigging cars to take in carbon monoxide, purchasing and
administering prescription medications, writing notes or recording testimonials detailing intentions to kill the child/
ren (usually in the context of filicide-suicide), taking the child/ren to a specific location for the purpose of carrying
out the filicide.
All 28 filicide events where there was evidence of planning were perpetrated by a filicide offender acting alone (18
men and 10 women).
Of the 18 men who demonstrated planning or premeditation behaviours prior to the filicide, 15 were the child/
ren’s biological father and three were a step-parent. In 14 of the 18 cases where the male filicide offender
demonstrated planning behaviours, the man suicided after killing his child/ren (with one further biological father
attempting suicide).
All 10 of the women who demonstrated planning or premeditation behaviours prior to the filicide were the
child/ren’s biological mother. In six of the 10 cases where the female filicide offender demonstrated planning
behaviours, the woman suicided after killing her child/ren (with a further three women attempting suicide).
Separation and/or family law proceedings

Separation
In approximately one-third of the 80 filicide events the relationship between the child’s parents had ended, or
they had indicated an intention to separate (Table 4.19).
Table 4.19: Separation by filicide event (n=80)
Separation Filicide events % filicide event

No separation identified as a feature of the filicide event 52 65%
Separation identified as a feature of the filicide event 28 35%
TOTAL 80 100%
Proximal separation
In 22 of the 28 cases where separation was a feature, the separation was ‘proximal’ (less than 3 months) to
the filicide. This meant that within three months of the filicide the parent’s relationship had either ended, or the
relationship was breaking down and one or both parents had indicated an intention to separate (Fig. 4.22).
REPORT 2021 2023 88

Figure 4.22: Proximal separation as a feature of the filicide event (n=80)
Proximal (less than

3 months) 27%
Relationship
Relationship
ongoing
ended/breaking
65%
down
35%
Distal (more than

3 months) 8%
Separation by gender
In 20 of the 28 cases where separation was a feature, the filicide was perpetrated by a male filicide offender
acting alone (71.4%). The eight remaining filicide events where separation was a feature were perpetrated by a
female offender acting alone (n=8, 28.6%). Separation was not evident in any of the 10 cases where the male
No4.20).
and female parents were jointly held responsible for the child’s death (Table custodial sentence
Table 4.20: Offender gender in filicide event where separation was a feature (n=28)
Custodial sentence
Filicide event where
separation was a
Filicide offender feature %
Male filicide offender acting alone 20 71.4%
Female filicide offender acting alone 8 28.6%
Male and female co-accused 0 0%
TOTAL 28 100%
Separation and family law proceedings

In 10 of the 28 cases where separation was a feature, the child’s parents were engaged in family law
proceedings at the time of the filicide (36%) (Fig. 4.23).

Figure 4.23: Family law proceedings in filicide events where separation was a feature (n=28)
Family law
proceedings
ongoing at
filicide
36%
No family law
proceedings
ongoing
64%
Multiple filicide events and familicide

Multiple filicide events
In 12 of the 80 filicide events, the offender killed more than one child resulting in the deaths of 28 children.97 Of
the 12 multiple filicide events, nine were perpetrated by the children’s biological father and three No
by the children’s
custodial sentence
biological mother (Table 4.21).
Table 4.21: Offender gender in multiple filicide events (n=12) Custodial sentence
Filicide offender Multiple filicide event %

Male filicide offender acting alone 9 75%
Female filicide offender acting alone 3 25%
TOTAL 12 100%
In three-quarters of the multiple filicide events, the filicide offender suicided, (n=9, 75% including the suicides of
seven men and two women).
Familicide events
In nine cases, the filicide offender killed one or more children, as well as their intimate partner (the child’s other
parent), a phenomenon referred to as familicide. The nine familicide events resulted in the deaths of 14 children
and nine intimate partners.98 Eight of these cases were perpetrated by the child/ren’s father (six biological and
two step-fathers) and one was perpetrated by the children’s biological mother (Table 4.22).
97 And in one case the children’s grandfather (the offender’s father-in-law) was also killed trying to intervene in the fatal episode.
98 And in one case a women’s new intimate partner was also killed.
REPORT 2021 2023 90

Table 4.22: Offender gender in familicide events (n=9)
Filicide offender Familicide event %
Male filicide offender acting alone 8 88.9%
Female filicide offender acting alone 1 11.1%
TOTAL 9 100%
In seven of the nine familicide events, the filicide offender suicided, (including the suicides of six men and one
woman).
The eight male familicide offenders were identified as a predominant domestic violence abuser against the
intimate partner they killed and the one female familicide offender was the predominant victim of domestic
violence from the intimate partner she killed.

05
Relative/kin
domestic violence-
context homicide
in NSW, 2000-2022
This chapter presents the Team’s most detailed
analysis of domestic violence homicides
involving family members and kin, significantly
expanding the data capture for this cohort of
cases. Accordingly, this section provides an in-
depth examination of the 94 relative/kin domestic
violence-context homicides that occurred in NSW
Introduction
For this dataset the term ‘relative/kin DV-context homicide’ is used to describe cases in which a person is
killed by a relative (or family member) following an identifiable history of domestic violence. Most commonly this
encompasses violence perpetrated by male adult children against their parents, but also extends to violence
perpetrated against siblings, in-laws, guardians, or other extended family members. Noting the previous chapters
in this report, this dataset excludes intimate partner homicides and filicides as these cases demonstrate distinct
characteristics and are analysed as unique datasets.
Over the past decade in NSW, IPV homicides have been the subject of increased attention, and this has led
to significant reforms across the domestic violence response system. By comparison, relative/kin homicides
have received only limited focus and there remains a critical gap in our understanding of these cases. Many
of the tools and resources currently relied upon when responding to relative/kin domestic violence have been
developed within an IPV framework, underpinned by IPV research. Relative/kin domestic violence remains
relatively under-researched in the literature and this chapter aims to contribute to the evidence base to improve
understanding and responses to this complex form of violence.
This chapter provides in-depth data analysis of the 88 relative/kin DV-context homicide events that occurred
in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022. As with all the Team’s analysis, this dataset draws on a rich
repository of primary source material that offers detailed information about the life course and relationship
histories of the homicide offender and the deceased person, as well as the nature of the violence they used or
experienced.
This chapter presents data findings relating to a range of factors, including homicide characteristics, ADVOs,
service contact, and issues around mental health and AOD use. The primary challenge for this ground-
breaking dataset is effectively portraying the constellation of different relationships and experiences of violence
victimisation and perpetration that can exist within the family unit. Accordingly, this dataset will continue to evolve
as discrete patterns are identified and further trends emerge.
Inclusion criteria
For this analysis, relative/kin DV-context homicides are those in which a person is killed by:
• a relative (or family member) excluding intimate partner homicides and filicides;
• in a DV-context, i.e., there was an identifiable history of domestic violence either directed against the
family member who was killed; the homicide offender; or against another member of the family unit;
• t he deceased person was ordinarily a resident in NSW – the deceased person permanently resided
in NSW, notwithstanding that they may have been killed in another state or territory.

Data findings
Overview
Between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022 there were 164 relative/kin homicide events resulting in the deaths of
183 people, including 169 adults and 14 children. Over half of the 164 relative/kin homicide events were identified
as having occurred in a context of domestic violence (n=88, 53.7%). The 88 relative/kin DV-context homicide
events resulted in the deaths of 94 people, 88 adults and six children (Table 5.1).
The 76 relative/kin homicide events that were coded as not having occurred in a context of domestic violence
occurred in a range of non-domestic violence related circumstances, most frequently an offender experiencing a
significant mental health episode absent any identifiable history of domestic violence.
Table 5.1: Relative/kin homicide – domestic violence-context
Relative/
kin
homicide Deceased Deceased
DV-context event % adults % children %
History of DV 88 53.7% 88 52.1% 6 42.9%
No history of DV 76 46.3% 81 47.9% 8 57.1%
TOTAL 164 100% 169 100% 14 100%
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide trends over time

This is the first time the Team has presented data on relative/kin DV-context homicides over time. The significant
variances year-on-year can be partly explained by the statistically small number of cases, however it appears
that there is a general upward trend in these types of homicides (Fig. 5.1).
REPORT 2021 2023 94

Figure 5.1: Relative/kin DV-context homicides in NSW, July 2000 to June 2022 (n=94)
0
1
2
0-0
1-0
2-0
3-0
4-0
5-0
6-0
7-0
8-0
9-1
0-1
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-2
0-2
1-2
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
202
202
Relationship of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide
offender to deceased
Of the 94 individuals killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide event: almost half were killed by their son (n=44,
46.8%); over 10 per cent were killed by their daughter (n=11, 11.7%); seven individuals were killed by their brother
(7.4%); with the remaining third of individuals killed by various, usually male, family members (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2: Relationship of relative/kin DV-context homicide offender to deceased (n=94)
Relation ship of
homicide offender to Deceased Deceased
deceased female % male % TOTAL %
Son 19 47.5% 25 46.3% 44 46.8%
Biological (17) (42.5%) (22) (40.7%) (39) (41.5%)
Non-biological (2) (5%) (3) (5.6%) (5) (5.3%)
Daughter 7 17.5% 4 7.4% 11 11.7%
Biological (7) (17.5%) (2) (3.7%) (9) (9.6%)
Non-biological (0) - (2) (3.7%) (2) (2.1%)
Brother 2 5% 5 9.3% 7 7.4%
Son-in-law 2 5% 3 5.6% 5 5.3%
Brother-in-law 1 2.5% 4 7.4% 5 5.3%
Nephew 3 7.5% 1 1.9% 4 4.3%

Father 0 - 3 5.6% 3 3.2%
Grandson 3 7.5% 0 - 3 3.2%
Grandfather 1 2.5% 2 3.7% 3 3.2%
Uncle 1 2.5% 1 1.9% 2 2.1%
Mother 0 - 2 3.7% 2 2.1%
Mother-in-law 0 - 2 3.7% 2 2.1%
Multiple family members 1 2.5% 1 1.9% 2 2.1%
Extended family/kin 0 - 1 1.9% 1 1.1%
TOTAL 40 100% 54 -100% 94 -100%
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide - deceased

characteristics
This section presents the demographic and psychosocial characteristics of the 94 individuals killed by a family
member in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
Deceased gender
The 94 individuals killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide included: 54 males, including four boys under 18
years of age (57.4%); and 40 females, including two girls under 18 years of age (42.6%) (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased gender (n=94)
Gender Deceased %
Males 54 57.4%
Men (50) (53.2%)
Boys (4) (4.3%)
Females 40 42.6%
Women (38) (40.4%)
Girls (2) (2.1%)
TOTAL 94 100%
Deceased age
The 94 individuals killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide ranged from three months to 87 years of age (Fig.
5.2).
The average age of females killed was 55.3 years of age and the average age of males killed was 51.6 years of
age.
REPORT 2021 2023 96

Figure 5.2: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased age (n=94)
18
16
14
12
10
0
0-9 yrs 10-19 yrs 20-29 yrs 30-39 yrs 40-49 yrs 50-59 yrs 60-69 yrs 70-79 yrs 80-89 yrs
Male deceased (n=54) Female deceased (n=40)
Deceased country of birth

Approximately 70 per cent of the 94 people killed were born in Australia (n=66, 70.2%). The 28 people born
outside Australia were born in 17 different countries. One of the men born outside Australia was on a temporary
visa at the time he was killed, and one woman was living in Australia in breach of her visa (Table 5.4).
Table 5.4: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased country of birth and visa status (n=94)
Deceased Deceased
Country of Birth Male % Male Female % Female Total %
Australia 39 72.2% 27 67.5% 66 70.2%
Outside Australia 15 27.8% 13 32.5% 28 29.8%
Temporary visa (1) (1.9%) (0) - (1) (1.1%)
Unlawful non-citizen (0) - (1) (2.5%) (1) (1.1%)
TOTAL 54 100% 40 100% 94 100%

Of the 94 people killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide, 18 identified as Aboriginal (19.1%): 10 males
(including two male children); and eight women (Table 5.5).

Table 5.5: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=94)
Aboriginal and Torres Deceased Deceased

Strait Islander status Male % Male Female % Female Total %
Aboriginal 10 18.5% 8 20% 18 19.1%
Non-Indigenous 44 18.5% 32 80% 76 80.9%
TOTAL 54 100% 40 100% 94 100%
Deceased disability
Approximately 9 per cent of the 94 people killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide identified as people with
disability (n=8, 8.5%), including intellectual and physical disability or both (Table 5.6).
Table 5.6: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased disability (n=94)
Deceased Deceased
Disability status Male % Male Female % Female Total %
With disability 5 9.3% 3 7.5% 8 8.5%
Without disability 49 90.7% 37 92.5% 86 91.5%
TOTAL 54 100% 40 100% 94 100%
Deceased place of residence - remoteness

Two-thirds of the 94 people killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide were residing in a major city at the time
they were killed (n=62, 66%) (Table 5.7, Fig. 5.3).
Table 5.7: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased residence remoteness (n=94)
Deceased Deceased
Remoteness Male % Male Female % Female Total %
Major city 33 61.1% 29 72.5% 62 66%
Inner regional 15 27.8% 6 15% 21 22.3%
Outer regional 4 7.4% 4 10% 8 8.5%
Remote 2 3.7% 1 2.5% 3 3.2%
TOTAL 54 100% 40 100% 94 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 98

Figure 5.3: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased residence remoteness (n=94)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Major city Inner regional Outer regional Remote
Deceased female % Deceased male %

As described in the IPV Homicide Dataset, the ABS Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD)
has been used to determine the socio-economic status.
Over one-third of the 94 people killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide were living in the lowest ranked
socio-economic areas of NSW (n=33, 35.1%) (Table 5.8, Fig. 5.4).
Table 5.8: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased socio-economic status (n=94)
Deceased Deceased
IRSD Quintile Male % Male Female % Female Total %
1st quintile 20 37% 13 32.5% 33 35.1%
2nd quintile 15 27.8% 11 27.5% 26 27.7%
3rd quintile 8 14.8% 9 22.5% 17 18.1%
4th quintile 4 7.4% 2 5% 6 6.4%
5th quintile 7 13% 5 12.5% 12 12.8%
TOTAL 54 100% 40 100% 94 -100%

Figure 5.4: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased socio-economic status (n=94)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1st quintile 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile 5th quintile
Deceased employment status - Adults

The findings in relation to the deceased’s employment only consider the 88 adults killed in a relative/kin DV-
context homicide.
Over one-quarter of the 88 deceased adults were known to be engaged in paid employment at the time they
were killed (n=23, 26.1%). This means that the majority of adult relatives were either unemployed, studying, caring
for children or family members, retired or permanently unable to work (n=54, 61.4%) (Table 5.9, Fig. 5.5).
Table 5.9: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased employment status (adults) (n=88)
Adult Adult
deceased deceased
Employment status male % Male female % Female Total %
Paid employment 12 24% 11 28.9% 23 26.1%
No paid employment 29 58% 25 65.8% 54 61.4%
Unknown 9 18% 2 5.3% 11 12.5%
TOTAL 50 100% 38 100% 88 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 100

Figure 5.5: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased employment status (adults) (n=88)
Unknown
13%
Paid
employment
26%
No paid
employment 61%
Deceased mental health - Adults

The comments made in the previous chapters relating to the Team’s approach to mental health similarly apply to
this dataset. It is noted, however, that the findings in relation to the deceased’s mental health only consider the
88 adults killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide.
Approximately one-quarter of the 88 adults killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide had current and/or
historical mental health issues (n=21, 23.9%) (Table 5.10).
Table 5.10: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased mental health (adults) (n=88) No custodial sentence
Adult Adult
Custodial sentence
deceased deceased
Mental health status male % Male female % Female Total %
Mental health issues 10 20% 11 28.9% 21 23.9%
No mental health issues 40 80% 27 71.1% 67 76.1%
TOTAL 50 100% 38 100% 88 100%
Deceased alcohol and drug use - Adults

The comments made in the previous chapters relating to the Team’s approach to alcohol and drug (AOD) use
similarly apply to this dataset. It is noted, however, that the findings in relation to the deceased’s AOD use only
consider the 88 adults killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide.
Over one-third of the 88 adult relatives killed were known to have AOD issues (n=32, 36.4%). This comprised:
nine adults who used alcohol only (10.2%); five adults who used drugs only (5.7%); and 18 adults who used both
drugs and alcohol (20.5%) (Table 5.11, Fig. 5.6).

Table 5.11: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased AOD use (adults) (n=88)
Adult Adult
deceased deceased
Alcohol and drug use male % Male female % Female Total %
No alcohol and/or drug use 29 58% 27 71.1% 56 63.6%
Alcohol and/or drug use 21 42% 11 28.9% 32 36.4%
Alcohol use only (7) (14%) (2) (5.3%) (9) (10.2%)
Drug use only (1) (2%) (4) (10.5%) (5) (5.7%)
Both alcohol and drug use (13) (26%) (5) (13.2%) (18) (20.5%)
TOTAL 50 100% 38 100% 88 100%
Figure 5.6: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - deceased AOD use (adults) (n=88)
Alcohol use
only 10%
No alcohol/drug Drug use

use 64% Alcohol/drug
only 6%
use 36%
Both alcohol/drug
use 20%
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide - offender

characteristics
The 88 relative/kin DV-context homicide events (resulting in 94 deaths) were perpetrated by 90 offenders, noting
Noincustodial
that in six cases the homicide offender killed multiple family members, and two casessentence
the person was killed by
multiple family members.
Custodial sentence
This section presents demographic and psychosocial characteristics of the 90 people who killed a family
member in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
Homicide offender gender

Of the 90 homicide offenders, the vast majority were male, including two boys under 18 years of age (n=74,
82.2%) and 16 were female, including two girls under 18 years of age (17.8%) (Table 5.12).
REPORT 2021 2023 102

Table 5.12: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender gender (n=90)
Gender Offender %
Males 74 82.2%
Men (72) (80%)
Boys (2) (2.2%)
Females 16 17.8%
Women (14) (15.6%)
Girls (2) (2.2%)
TOTAL 90 100%

The homicide offenders were aged between 13 and 75 years, with the average age being 35.1 years (Fig. 5.7).
Figure 5.7: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender age (n=90)

16
14
12
10
0
10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79
yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs
Male relative/kin DV homicide offenders (n=74) Female relative/kin DV homicide offenders (n=16)
Homicide offender country of birth

Approximately three-quarters of the relative/kin DV-context homicide offenders were born in Australia (n=68,
75.6%). The 20 people born outside Australia (19 males and one female) were born in 15 different countries. Two
of the male homicide offenders born outside Australia were on temporary visas at the time of the homicide (Table
5.13).
Table 5.13: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender country of birth and visa status (n=90)

Male Female
Country of Birth offender % Male offender % Female Total %
Australia 54 73% 14 87.5% 68 75.6%
Outside Australia 19 25.7% 1 6.3% 20 22.2%
Temporary visa (2) (2.7%) (0) - (2) (2.2%)
Unknown 1 1.4% 1 6.3% 2 2.2%
TOTAL 74 -100% 16 -100% 90 100%

One-fifth of the 90 relative/kin DV-context homicide offenders identified as Aboriginal (n=18, 20%): 14 males,
including one boy under the age of 18 years; and four females (Table 5.14).
Table 5.14: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=90)
Aboriginal and Torres Male Female

Strait Islander status offender % Male offender % Female Total %
Aboriginal 14 18.9% 4 25% 18 20%
Non-Indigenous 60 81.1% 12 75% 72 80%
TOTAL 74 100% 16 100% 90 100%
Homicide offender employment status

Almost three-quarters of the 90 homicide offenders were not engaged in any paid employment at the time of the
homicide, meaning that they were either unemployed, studying, caring for children or family members, retired or
permanently unable to work (n=65, 72.2%) (Table 5.15, Fig. 5.8).
Table 5.15: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender employment status (n=90)
Male Female
Employment status offender % Male offender % Female Total %
Paid employment 15 20.3% 0 - 15 16.7%
No paid employment 51 68.9% 14 87.5% 65 72.2%
Unknown 8 10.8% 2 12.5% 10 11.1%
TOTAL 74 100% 16 100% 90 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 104

Figure 5.8: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender employment status (n=90)
Unknown
Paid
11%
employment
17%
No paid employment
72%
Homicide offender - mental health status

Approximately 80 per cent of the 90 homicide offenders had current or historical mental health issues (n=73,
81.2%). Male homicide offenders were more likely to have a history of mental health issues than female homicide
offenders (Table 5.16).
Table 5.16: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender mental health status (n=90)
Paid
Male Female
employment
Mental health status offender % Male offender
26% % Female TotalNo custodial
% sentence
Mental health issues 62 83.8% 11 68.8% 73 81.1%
Custodial sentence
No mental health issues 12 16.2% 5 31.3% 17 18.9%
TOTAL 74 100% 16 -100% 90 100%
Homicide offender alcohol and drug use

As described in the IPV Homicide Dataset, AOD use refers to substance use that is negatively impacting on a
Almost two-thirds of the 90 relative/kin DV-context homicide offenders had a history of AOD use (n=59, 65.6%).
This comprised five adults who used alcohol only (5.6%); 16 adults who used drugs only (17.8%); and 38 adults
who used both drugs and alcohol (42.2%). Male homicide offenders were more likely to engage in AOD use than
female homicide offenders (Table 5.17, Fig. 5.9).

Table 5.17: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender AOD use (n=90)
Male Female
Alcohol and drug use Offender % Male Offender % Female Total %
No alcohol and/or drug use 22 29.7% 9 56.3% 31 34.4%
Alcohol and/or drug use 52 70.3% 7 43.8% 59 65.6%
Alcohol use only (4) (5.4%) (1) 6.3% (5) (5.6%)
Drug use only (14) (18.9%) (2) 12.5% (16) (17.8%)
Both alcohol and drug use (34) (45.9%) (4) 25% (38) (42.2%)
TOTAL 74 100% 16 100% 90 100%
Figure 5.9: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender AOD use (n=90)
Alcohol use
only 6%
No alcohol/drug Drug use

use 34% Alcohol/drug
only 18%
use 66%
Both alcohol/drug
use 42%
Criminal justice outcomes

Almost all the relative/kin DV-context homicide offenders were dealt with by way of criminal proceedings
(n=85, 94.4%) and the remaining five offenders (all male) were subject to coronial proceedings, primarily
in circumstances where they died by suicide following the homicide or otherwise died prior
No custodial to the criminal
sentence
proceedings being finalised (n=5, 5.6%).
Of the 85 homicide offenders dealt with by way of criminal proceedings: approximately one-third were found not
Custodial sentence
guilty by reason of mental illness (n=28, 32.9%); one-quarter were convicted of manslaughter (n=22, 25.9%); and
one-quarter were convicted of murder (n=21, 24.7%) (Table 5.18).
REPORT 2021 2023 106

Table 5.18: Relative/kin DV-context homicide - offender criminal justice outcomes (n=85)
Male Female
Criminal justice outcome offender % Male offender % Female Total %
Acquitted/Charges
5 7.2% 4 25% 9 10.6%
withdrawn
Manslaughter 16 23.2% 6 37.5% 22 25.9%
Guilty plea (10) (14.5%) (5) (31.3%) (15) (17.6%)
Guilty verdict (6) (8.7%) (1) (6.3%) (7) (8.2%)
Murder 19 27.5% 2 12.5% 21 24.7%
Guilty plea (12) (17.4%) (1) (6.3%) (13) (15.3%)
Guilty verdict (7) (10.1%) (1) (6.3%) (8) (9.4%)
NGMI/Not fit to stand trial 25 36.2% 3 18.8% 28 32.9%
4 5.8% 1 6.3% 5 5.9%
ongoing
TOTAL 69 100% 16 100% 85 100%
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide - history of

violence
Deceased history of domestic violence perpetration/victimisation with homicide offender
This section presents an examination of the history of domestic violence victimisation and perpetration for each
of the 94 family members who were killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide (54 males and 40 females),
including recorded and anecdotal histories of violence with the homicide offender, as well as experiences of
intimate partner violence.
A primary challenge in undertaking this analysis is reconciling the myriad of different familial relationship types
that are evident in this dataset into overarching experiences of domestic violence. These experiences have been
broadly captured into the following four categories:
• the deceased family member experienced violence from the homicide offender and was killed;
• the deceased family member used violence against the homicide offender, and was killed, often in the
context of self-preservation or resistance;
• the deceased person both used violence against and experienced violence from the homicide
offender and it is not able to be determined who was the predominant abuser; and
• the deceased person neither used violence against nor experienced violence from the homicide
offender but the death was determined to have occurred in a context of domestic violence. For this cat-
egory of cases, the DV-context was derived from the histories of violence by either the homicide offender
or deceased person against other family members. For example, a family member who killed, or was
killed, intervening in an episode of intimate partner violence.

Almost half of the 94 family members killed were known to have experienced violence from the homicide
offender prior to the murder (n=43, 45.7%). The rates of violence victimisation experienced by deceased female
relatives (67.5%) were more than double those experienced by deceased males (29.6%).
Just under one-quarter of the family members killed were known to have used violence against the homicide
offender (n=22, 23.4%). Male deceased relatives (33.3%) were three times more likely to have used violence
against the homicide offender, than female deceased relatives (10%).
In 17 per cent of cases, the deceased both used violence against and experienced violence from the homicide
offender (n=16). Again, this was more than twice as likely to be male deceased relatives (22.2%), rather than
female deceased relatives (10%).
In approximately 14 per cent of cases, the family member killed had neither used violence against nor
experienced violence from the homicide offender (Table 5.19).
Table 5.19: Deceased relative – history of violence perpetration/victimisation with homicide offender (n=94)
Male Female
History of violence deceased % Male deceased % Female Total %
Deceased experienced violence
16 29.6% 27 67.5% 43 45.7%
from homicide offender
Deceased used violence against
18 33.3% 4 10% 22 23.4%
homicide offender
Deceased both used and
experienced violence from 12 22.2% 4 10% 16 17%
homicide offender
Deceased neither used nor
experienced violence from 8 14.8% 5 12.5% 13 13.8%
homicide offender
TOTAL 54 -100% 40 -100% 94 -100%
Deceased police recorded history of violence and ADVOs with homicide offender
The following analysis examines only the 81 cases where the deceased used violence against and/or
experienced violence from the homicide offender (and excludes the 13 cases where no history of violence
victimisation/perpetration between the deceased/homicide offender was evident).
In just over half of the 81 cases involving a history of violence perpetration/victimisation, the history of abuse that
preceded the homicide had been reported to police (n=41, 50.6%). Accordingly, in just under half of the cases,
the history of abuse had never been reported to police (n=40, 49.4%). Cases where a female was killed were
more likely to have police recorded histories of violence than cases where a male was killed (Table 5.20).
REPORT 2021 2023 108

Table 5.20: Deceased relative – police recorded history of violence (n=81)
Male Female
Police recorded history deceased % Male deceased % Female Total %
Reported to police 22 47.8% 19 54.3% 41 50.6%
Unreported 24 52.2% 16 45.7% 40 49.4%
TOTAL 46 100% 35 100% 81 100%
At the time of the homicide, five deceased relatives (all male) were named in a current ADVO as the person
in need of protection from the homicide offender (6.2% of 81 deceased relatives with a history of violence
perpetration/victimisation). One male deceased relative was a defendant in a current ADVO protecting the
homicide offender (1.2%) (Table 5.21).
Table 5.21: Deceased relative - current ADVOs with homicide offender (n=81)
Male Female
Current ADVOs deceased % Male deceased % Female Total %
No ADVO at time of
40 87% 35 100% 75 92.6%
homicide
ADVO at time of homicide 6 13% 0 - 6 7.4%
Deceased protected from
(5) (10.9%) 0 - (5) (6.2%)
homicide offender
Homicide offender
(1) (2.2%) 0 - (1) (1.2%)
protected from deceased
TOTAL 46 100% 35 100% 81 100%
Prior to the homicide, eight of the deceased family members (four females and four males) were named in a
historical ADVO as the person in need of protection from the homicide offender (9.9% of 81 deceased relatives
with a history of violence perpetration/victimisation). Four additional deceased family members (one female and
three males) were named as the defendants in a historical ADVO protecting the homicide offender (4.9%) (Table
5.22).
Table 5.22: Deceased relative - historical ADVOs with homicide offender (n=81)
Male Female
Historical ADVOs deceased % Male deceased % Female Total %
No historical ADVOs 39 84.8% 30 85.7% 69 85.2%
History of ADVOs 7 15.2% 5 14.3% 12 14.8%
Deceased protected from
(4) (8.7%) (4) (11.4%) (8) (9.9%)
homicide offender
Homicide offender
(3) (6.5%) (1) (2.9%) (4) (4.9%)
protected from deceased
TOTAL 46 100% 35 100% 81 100%

Deceased history of domestic violence perpetration/victimisation – other relatives
Over one-third of the 94 people killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide had a history of domestic violence
victimisation and/or perpetration with other relatives within their family unit, i.e., not including the homicide
offender or intimate partners (n=36, 38.3%).
Males that were killed had much higher rates of domestic violence perpetration against other family members
(n=17, 31.5%) than the females killed (n=4, 10%). Conversely, the females that were killed were more likely to have
experienced domestic violence victimisation from other family members (n=9, 22.5%) compared to the males
that were killed (n= 2, 3.7%) (Table 5.23).
Table 5.23: Deceased relative - history of domestic violence with other relatives (n=94)
Male Female
History of DV deceased % Male deceased % Female Total %
No history of DV 32 59.3% 26 65% 58 61.7%
History of DV 22 40.7% 14 35% 36 38.3%
DV victimisation (2) (3.7%) (9) (22.5%) (11) (11.7%)
DV perpetration (17) (31.5%) (4) (10%) (21) (22.3%)
Both DV victimisation
(3) (5.6%) (1) (2.5%) (4) (4.3%)
and perpetration
TOTAL 54 100% 40 100% 94 100%
Deceased history of intimate partner violence – Adults

The following analysis of the deceased’s history of intimate partner violence victimisation/perpetration only
considers the 88 adults killed in a relative/kin DV-context homicide.
For over half of the 88 adult family members killed, intimate partner violence was evident in their current or
former relationships (n=50, 56.8%). The males who were killed were more likely to have perpetrated IPV (n=28,
56%) and the females killed were more likely to have experienced IPV victimisation (n=17, 44.7%) (Table 5.24).
Table 5.24: Deceased relative - history of IPV (adults) (n=88)
Adult Adult
Male Female
History of IPV deceased % Male deceased % Female Total %
No history of IPV 21 42% 17 44.7% 38 43.2%
History of IPV 29 58% 21 55.3% 50 56.8%
IPV victimisation (1) (2%) (17) (44.7%) (18) (20.5%)
IPV perpetration (28) (56%) (2) (5.3%) (30) (34.1%)
Both IPV victimisation and
(0) - (2) (5.3%) (2) (2.3%)
perpetration
TOTAL 50 100% 38 100% 88 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 110

Homicide offender history of domestic violence perpetration/victimisation – other
relatives
Two-thirds of the relative/kin DV-context homicide offenders had a history of experiencing domestic violence
victimisation and/or perpetration from other relatives within their family unit, i.e., not including the deceased
relative or intimate partners (n=60, 66.7%).
Male homicide offenders had much higher rates of domestic violence perpetration against other relatives (n= 32,
43.2%) compared to female homicide offenders (n=2, 12.5%). Conversely, the female homicide offenders had
much higher rates of domestic violence victimisation from other relatives (n=6, 37.5%) than the male homicide
offenders (n=8, 10.8%) (Table 5.25).
Table 5.25: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender history of domestic violence with other relatives
(n=90)
Male Female
History of DV offender % Male offender % Female Total %
No history of DV 25 33.8% 5 31.3% 30 33.3%
History of DV 49 66.2% 11 68.8% 60 66.7%
DV victimisation (8) (10.8%) (6) (37.5%) (14) (15.6%)
DV perpetration (32) (43.2%) (2) (12.5%) (34) (37.8%)
Both DV victimisation and
(9) (12.2%) (3) (18.8%) (12) (13.3%)
perpetration
TOTAL 74 100% 16 -100% 90 100%
Homicide offender history of intimate partner violence

For close to half of the 90 relative/kin DV-context homicide offenders, IPV was evident in their current or former
relationships (n=39, 43.3%).
Male homicide offenders were more likely to have perpetrated IPV (n=31, 41.9%) and the female homicide
offenders were more likely to have experienced IPV victimisation (n=5, 31.3%) (Table 5.26).

Table 5.26: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – offender history of IPV (n=90)
Male Female
History of IPV offender % Male offender % Female Total %
No history of IPV 42 56.8% 9 56.3% 51 56.7%
History of IPV 32 43.2% 7 43.8% 39 43.3%
IPV victimisation (0) - (5) (31.3%) (5) (5.6%)
IPV perpetration (31) (41.9%) (2) (12.5%) (33) (36.7%)
Both IPV victimisation and
(1) (1.4%) (0) - (1) (1.1%)
perpetration
TOTAL 74 100% 16 -100% 90 100%
Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide - case

characteristics
This section presents additional findings in relation to the characteristics and context of the relative/kin DV-
context homicide events considered in this chapter. Some case characteristics are described by reference to the
94 relatives killed (for example location of homicide, cause of death) while others are described by reference to
the 88 homicide events.
Method of relative/kin DV-context homicide

Almost half of the 94 people died from stab wounds, i.e., ‘assault -sharp weapon’ (n=46, 48.9%). The next most
prevalent methods of homicide were: ‘multiple assaultive behaviours’ (n=15, 16%); assault – no weapon (n=13,
13.8%); and shooting (n=11, 11.7%) (Table 5.27).
REPORT 2021 2023 112

Table 5.27: Method of relative/kin DV-context homicide (n=94)
Male Female
Manner of death deceased % Male deceased % Female TOTAL % Total
Assault – sharp weapon 27 50% 19 47.5% 46 48.9%
Multiple assaultive be-
7 13% 8 20% 15 16%
haviours
Assault (no weapon) 8 14.8% 5 12.5% 13 13.8%
Shooting 9 16.7% 2 5% 11 11.7%
Suffocation/strangulation 1 1.9% 3 7.5% 4 4.3%
Fire related 2 3.7% 0 2 2.1%
Drowning 0 - 1 2.5% 1 1.1%
Neglect 0 - 1 2.5% 1 1.1%
Unknown 0 - 1 2.5% 1 1.1%
TOTAL 54 -100% 40 100% 94 100%
The majority of family members were killed in their own home (n=78, 83%). Usually this was the home that they
lived in full-time with the homicide offender (n=46, 48.9%) (Table 5.28).
Table 5.28: Location of relative/kin DV-context homicide (n=94)
Male Female
Location of homicide deceased % Male deceased % Female TOTAL % Total
Deceased residence 43 79.6% 36 90% 78 83%
Lived full-time with
(22) (40.7%) (25) (62.5%) (46) (48.9%)
homicide offender
Lived separately from
(21) (38.9%) (11) (27.5%) (32) (34%)
homicide offender
Homicide offender residence 7 13% 2 5% 9 9.6%
Other residence 2 3.7% 0 - 2 2.1%
Public/open place 2 3.7% 1 2.5% 3 3.2%
Unknown 0 - 1 2.5% 1 1.1%
TOTAL 54 100% 40 100% 94 100%

In 14 per cent of the 88 relative/kin DV-context homicide events (resulting in the deaths of 94 individuals), the
circumstances leading up to the fatal episode demonstrated a level of planning and/or premeditation by the
homicide offender/s (n=12, 13.6%). Evidence of planning was apparent in eight cases perpetrated by a male
homicide offender acting alone, three cases involving a female homicide offender acting alone, and one case
where a father and son were both held criminally responsible for killing a family member (Fig. 5.10).
Figure 5.10: Evidence of planning in relative/kin DV-context homicide (n=88)
Evidence
of planning
14%
No evidence of
planning 86%
Evidence of planning included, for example, the offender specifically travelling to the deceased’s residence for the
purpose of carrying out the homicide; the offender/s establishing a false alibi; and the offender pre-purchasing
weapons/other implements for the purpose of carrying out the homicide.
Multiple fatality events

Of the 88 relative/kin DV-context homicide events, 12 involved the homicide offender killing more than one sentence
No custodial
person in the fatal episode, resulting in the deaths of 26 people. Of the 12 multiple fatality events:
• Custodial
Four cases involved the homicide offender killing both parents (three male offenders and sentence
one female
offender);
• Five cases involved a male homicide offender killing a family member/s and their intimate partner;
• One case involved a male homicide offender killing his grandmother and a stranger/bystander;
• One case involved a male homicide offender killing his father-in-law and his two children; and
• One case involved a male homicide offender killing his mother and nephew.
All but one of the 12 multiple fatality events were perpetrated by a male homicide offender (Table 5.29).
REPORT 2021 2023 114

Table 5.29: Relative/kin DV-context homicide – multiple fatality events by offender gender (n=12)
Homicide offender Multiple fatality event %

Male offender 11 91.7%
Female offender 1 8.3%
TOTAL 12 100%

06
‘Other’ domestic
violence-context
homicide in NSW,
2000-2022
This chapter examines cases where the homicide
offender and deceased person did not share an
intimate or familial relationship but the death
nevertheless occurred in a context of domestic
violence. This analysis of the 55 ‘other’ DV-context
homicides that occurred between 1 July 2000 and
30 June 2022 demonstrates that the fatal impact
of domestic violence can extend beyond intimate
and familial relationships and reveals the true
prevalence of DV-context homicide in NSW.
Introduction
The work of the Team highlights that the fatal impact of domestic violence can extend beyond intimate and
familial relationships. The term ‘other’ DV-context homicide is used by the Team to describe cases where
a person is killed by someone with whom they have no intimate or familial relationship, but the death is
nevertheless considered to have occurred in a context of domestic violence. ‘Other’ DV-context homicides
include, for example, a bystander who is killed intervening in a domestic violence episode, a person who is killed
in a police operation involving a response to domestic violence, or a person who is killed by their partner’s former
intimate partner.
Outside the work of the Team, these cases are not reflected in domestic violence homicide data in NSW. The
need for greater recognition of these cases has been acknowledged in the broader literature when examining
domestic violence homicide.99 It is critical therefore, that these homicides are examined by the Team, both
to reveal the true prevalence of domestic violence homicide in NSW and to examine patterns and distinctive
characteristics in these cases. These cases can provide critical insights into the experiences of domestic
violence victims as they frequently survive the homicide and can tell their story.
More so than any other dataset considered in this report, mapping the histories of domestic violence for ‘other’
DV-context homicides is particularly complex because of the multiple parties and relationships surrounding the
homicide, and their varying nature. For this reason, the findings for this group of cases are limited to a few key
data variables, namely: the nature of the DV-context in terms of whether it related to intimate partner violence
or relative/kin domestic violence; the relationship of the homicide offender to the deceased; the predominant
abuser status of the homicide offender and deceased; and whether anyone else was injured or killed in the
homicide event. This chapter also provides some demographic and case characteristic information in relation to
the homicide offender and deceased person.
Inclusion criteria
For this analysis, ‘other’ DV-context homicides are those in which a person is killed by:
• a person with whom they have no intimate or familial relationship;
• in a DV-context, i.e., the homicide is directly related to the domestic violence behaviours of either the
deceased or the homicide offender, including, for example a bystander who is killed intervening in a
domestic violence episode, a person who is killed in a police operation involving a response to domestic
violence, or a person who is killed by their partner’s former intimate partner.
• the deceased person was ordinarily a resident in NSW – the deceased person permanently
resided in NSW, notwithstanding that they may have been killed in another state or territory.
99 Dobash, R. and Dobash, R. (2015), ‘When Men Murder Women’, Oxford University Press, New York; Meyer, E., and Post, L. (2013), ‘Collateral Intimate Partner
Homicide’, Sage Open, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013484235 (accessed 26 November 2023).

Data findings
Overview
Between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022 in NSW, there were 1,168 people killed by a person with whom they had
no intimate or familial relationship. Approximately one in 20 of these people were killed in a context of domestic
violence, meaning that although the deceased had no intimate or familial relationship with the person that killed
them, the death was nonetheless determined to have occurred in a DV-context (n=55, 4.7%).
The 1,113 non-domestic violence related homicides occurred in a range of circumstances including: violence
between friends/acquaintances/peers; violence related to organised crime and other criminal activities and
(infrequently) stranger homicides. It should be noted that many of these homicide offenders and deceased
persons had extensive histories of using and experiencing domestic violence throughout their lives, however
this history was not of itself sufficient to satisfy inclusion in the category of ‘other’ DV-context homicide as the
homicide was not directly linked to any history of domestic violence perpetration or victimisation.
Table 6.1: ‘Other’ homicide domestic violence context (n=1,168)
Non-domestic homicides Deceased adults %

DV-context 55 4.7%
No DV-context 1,113 95.3%
TOTAL 1,168 100%
Domestic violence context

Nature of domestic violence context
Of the 55 individuals killed in ‘other’ DV-context homicides, almost 90 per cent were killed following an
identifiable history of intimate partner violence, meaning that the homicide offender and/or the deceased person
had a history of using or experiencing intimate partner violence that was directly related to the homicide event
itself (n=49, 89.1%).
The remaining six cases involved an identifiable history of violence perpetrated by a relative/kin, meaning that
the homicide offender and/or the deceased person had a history of using or experiencing relative/kin domestic
violence that was directly related to the homicide (n=6, 10.9%) (Fig. 6.1).
REPORT 2021 2023 118

Figure 6.1: Nature of DV-context (n=55)
Relative/kin
violence 11%
Intimate partner
violence 89%
Relationship of homicide offender to deceased

The majority of ‘other’ DV-context homicides involved a person who was killed by their partner’s current/former
intimate partner (n=38, 69.1%). This included a former partner killing a new partner (or perceived new partner)
(n=24, 43.6%); a current partner killing a former partner (n=11, 20%) and a current partner killing another partner
from a clandestine relationship (n=3, 5.5%).
Almost one-quarter of the homicides involved the killing of a bystander during an episode of domestic violence
(n=13, 23.6%), including the deaths of 11 people who were killed intervening in an episode of domestic violence
(n=11, 20%) and two people that were killed in the context of the homicide offender killing their intimate partner or
a family member (n=2, 3.6%).
Three individuals were lawfully killed by police officers in the context of a police operation where the officers were
responding to an episode of domestic violence (n=3, 5.5%) (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide - relationship of homicide offender to deceased (n=55)
Relationship of homicide offender to deceased TOTAL %

Current/former IP 38 69.1%
Former IP kills new IP (24) (43.6%)
Current IP kills former IP (11) (20%)
Current IP kills IP (clandestine) (3) (5.5%)
Stranger 13 23.6%
Intervener killed (11) (20%)
Bystander killed (2) (3.6%)
Police officer100 3 5.5%
Former IP kills ex-girlfriend’s father 1 1.8%
TOTAL 55 100%
Homicide offender and deceased gender

The following analysis excludes the three police officers who lawfully killed a domestic violence abuser during a
police operation and therefore considers only 52 offenders.
The vast majority of ‘other’ DV-context homicides involved male homicide offenders killing another man (Table
6.3). Of the three women killed, two were killed by another woman and one was killed by a man.
Table 6.3: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased and offender gender (n=107)
Homicide
Gender Deceased % Offender %
Men 52 94.5% 48 92.3%
Women 3 5.5% 4 7.7%
TOTAL 55 100% 52 100%
Predominant abuser status – homicide offender and deceased

Approximately 70 per cent of the 52 homicide offenders were identified as the predominant domestic violence
abuser (n=37, 71.2%). For the remaining homicide offenders who were not identified as abusers, often they were
acting in self-defence, or alternatively had been coerced into participating in the homicide.
One-third of the individuals killed were identified as the predominant domestic violence abuser (n=18, 32.7%).
These included circumstances whereby an abuser is killed by a police officer during a police operation, as well
as when a former abusive partner kills a new abusive partner, i.e., both the former partner and the new partner
had a history of abuse against the same domestic violence victim (Table 6.4).
100 As noted in Chapter 1, the Team’s definition of ‘homicide’ includes all cases where an individual’s intentional act, or failure to act, resulted in the death of another
person, regardless of whether the circumstances were such as to contravene provisions of the criminal law.
REPORT 2021 2023 120

Table 6.4: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide - predominant abuser status (n=107)
Predominant Homicide
Abuser status Deceased % Offender %
Predominant Abuser 18 32.7% 37 71.2%
Not predominant
37 67.3% 15 28.8%
abuser
TOTAL 55 100% 52101 100%
Multiple fatalities and attempted homicides

In four cases the ‘other’ DV-context homicide offender killed more than person, resulting in the death of nine
people. These four multiple fatality cases included:
• a man killing his former intimate partner and the woman’s new male partner;
• a man killing his former intimate partner, her new male partner and that man’s son;
• a man killing his former intimate partner, their daughter, and the woman’s new male partner; and
• a man killing his grandmother and a bystander.
The deaths of the former intimate partners and other family members are reflected in the relevant datasets in this
report.
A further six cases involved the homicide offender attempting to kill another person as well as the deceased.
Four of these six cases involved a man attempting to kill his former partner as well as killing the woman’s new
partner (Table 6.5).
Table 6.5: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – multiple fatalities and attempted homicide by offender (n=52)
Number of people injured/killed Homicide Offender %

One person 42 80.8%
Multiple people 10 19.2%
Injured (6) (11.5%)
Killed (4) (7.7%)
TOTAL 52102 100%
It is noted that in 21 cases the homicide offender’s current/former intimate partner was also present at the
homicide but was physically unharmed.
101 The three police officers who lawfully killed a domestic violence abuser during a police operation have been excluded from this analysis.
102 Again, the three police officers who lawfully killed a domestic violence abuser during a police operation have been excluded from this analysis.

‘Other’ DV-context homicide - deceased characteristics
This section presents the demographic characteristics of the 55 individuals killed in ‘other’ DV-context homicides
in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
Deceased age
The 55 individuals killed ranged from 19 to 67 years of age (Fig. 6.2). The average age was 40.5 years.
Figure 6.2: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased age (n=55)

16
14
12
10
0
10-19 yrs 20-29 yrs 30-39 yrs 40-49 yrs 50-59 yrs 60-69 yrs
Deceased country of birth Deceased (n=55)
More than two-thirds of the 55 people killed were born in Australia (n=37, 67.3%). The 18 people born outside
Australia were born in 14 different countries. One person born outside Australia was on a temporary visa at the
time he was killed (Table 6.6).
Table 6.6: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased country of birth and visa status (n=55)
Country of Birth Total %

Australia 37 67.3%
Temporary visa (1) (1.8%)
TOTAL 55 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 122

Of the 55 people killed in ‘other’ DV-context homicides, five identified as Aboriginal (9.1%) (Table 6.7).
Table 6.7: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=55)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status Total %
Aboriginal 5 9.1%
TOTAL 55 100%
Deceased place of residence - remoteness

Approximately 70 per cent of the 55 people killed were residing in a major city at the time of the homicide (n=39,
70.9%) with the remainder residing outside a major city (Table 6.8, Fig. 6.3).
Table 6.8: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased residence remoteness (n=55)
Remoteness Total %
Major city 39 70.9%
Inner regional 7 12.7%
Outer regional 6 10.9%
Remote 0 -
Very remote 3 5.5%
TOTAL 55 100%

Figure 6.3: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased residence remoteness (n=55)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Major city Inner regional Outer regional Remote Very remote
Deceased
The ABS Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD) has been used to determine the socio-
economic status of the deceased.
Over 40 per cent of the people killed were living in the lowest ranked socio-economic areas of NSW (n=23,
41.8%) with smaller proportions residing in the least disadvantaged areas (Table 6.9, Fig. 6.4).
Table 6.9: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased socio-economic status (n=55)
IRSD Quintile Total %

1st quintile 23 41.8%
2nd quintile 11 20%
3rd quintile 10 18.2%
4th quintile 6 10.9%
5th quintile 5 9.1%
TOTAL 55 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 124

Figure 6.4: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – deceased socio-economic status (n=55)
25
20
15
10
0
1st quintile 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile 5th quintile
Deceased
‘Other’ DV-context homicide – offender characteristics
This section presents demographic characteristics of the 52 homicide offenders who killed a person in an ‘other’
DV-context homicide in NSW between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2022.
The characteristics of the three police officers who lawfully killed a domestic violence abuser during the course
of a police operation have been excluded from this analysis.

The homicide offenders were aged between 16 years and 75 years, with the average age being 37.5 years (Fig.
6.5).

Figure 6.5: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide - offender age (n=52)
16
14
12
10
0
10-19 yrs 20-29 yrs 30-39 yrs 40-49 yrs 50-59 yrs 60-69 yrs 70-79 yrs
Offender
Homicide offender country of birth
Approximately two-thirds of the 52 homicide offenders were born in Australia (n=34, 65.4%). The 18 people born
outside Australia were born in 15 different countries. Two of the homicide offenders born outside Australia were
on temporary visas at the time of the homicide (Table 6.10).
Table 6.10: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide - offender country of birth and visa status (n=52)
Country of Birth Total %

Australia 34 65.4%
Temporary visa (2) (3.8%)
TOTAL 52 100%

Approximately 17 per cent of the homicide offenders identified as Aboriginal (n=9, 17.3%) (Table 6.11).
Table 6.11: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide - offender Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (n=52)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status Homicide Offender %

Aboriginal 9 17.3%
TOTAL 52 100%
REPORT 2021 2023 126

Homicide offender criminal justice outcomes
The vast majority of the 52 homicide offenders were dealt with by way of criminal proceedings (n=49, 94.2%) and
the remaining three offenders were subject to coronial proceedings in circumstances where the offender died by
suicide following the homicide (n=3, 5.8%).
Approximately 45 per cent of the 49 homicide offenders dealt with by way of criminal proceedings were
convicted of murder (n=22, 44.9%), and a similar proportion were convicted of manslaughter (n=21, 42.9%) (Table
6.12, Fig. 6.6).
Table 6.12: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide – offender criminal justice outcomes (n=49)
Criminal justice outcome Homicide offender %

Acquitted/Charges withdrawn 4 8.2%
Manslaughter 21 42.9%
Guilty plea (11) (22.4%)
Guilty verdict (10) (20.4%)
Murder 22 44.9%
Guilty plea (9) (18.4%)
Guilty verdict (13) (26.5%)
NGMI/Not fit to stand trial 2 4.1%
TOTAL 49 -100%
Figure 6.6: ‘Other’ DV-context homicide - offender criminal justice outcomes (n=49)
25
20
15
10
0
Acquitted/charges withdrawn Manslaughter Murder NGMI/Not fit to stand trial
Homicide Offender

‘Other’ DV-context homicide – case characteristics
This section presents additional findings in relation to the characteristics and context of the ‘other’ DV-context
homicides considered in this chapter. Some case characteristics are described by reference to the 55 people
killed (for example, location of homicide, cause of death) while others are described by reference to the 52
homicide offenders (excluding the three police officers who lawfully killed the deceased in the context of a police
operation).
Method of homicide
Over half of the 55 people killed died from stab wounds, i.e., ‘assault -sharp weapon’ (n=31, 48.9%). The next
most prevalent method of homicide was shooting (n=13, 23.6%) (Table 6.13).
Table 6.13: Method of ‘other’ DV-context homicide (n=55)
Manner of death TOTAL % Total

Assault – sharp weapon 31 56.4%
Assault – blunt weapon 3 5.5%
Assault – MVA related 2 3.6%
Assault – no weapon 2 3.6%
Shooting 13 23.6%
Shooting (police) 3 5.5%
Suffocation/strangulation 1 1.8%
TOTAL 55 100%
Most people who died in ‘other’ DV-context homicides were killed in their own home (n=24, 43.6%) (Table 6.14).
Table 6.14: Location of ‘other’ DV-context homicide (n=55)
Location of homicide TOTAL % Total

Deceased residence 24 43.6%
Homicide offender residence 10 18.2%
Other residence 12 21.8%
Public/open place 8 14.5%
Hotel 1 1.8%
TOTAL 55 -100%
REPORT 2021 2023 128

Almost half of the 52 homicide offenders demonstrated a level of planning and/or premeditation in the lead up to
the homicide (n=25, 48%). Evidence of planning included, for example, the offender specifically travelling to the
deceased’s residence for the purpose of carrying out the homicide, the offender establishing a false alibi, or
pre-purchasing weapons/other implements for the purpose of carrying out the homicide.
Figure 6.7: Evidence of planning in ‘other’ DV-context homicide (n=52)
No evidence Evidence of
of planning planning
52% 48%

07
ANNEXURE 1:
Secretariat Activities
Report
The work of the DVDRT is supported by a two-person Secretariat, comprising a Manager and a Research
Analyst. The Secretariat supports the Team to fulfil its legislative function by:
• developing and maintaining the Team’s specialised domestic violence homicide dataset;
• preparing in-depth case reviews for examination by the Team members; and
• drafting the Team’s reports for tabling in Parliament.
In addition to the work undertaken to support the operation of the DVDRT, the Secretariat’s role encompasses a
range of additional duties, including:
• leading the development of national domestic violence death review data as Chair of the Australian
Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network in partnership with ANROWS;
• working with Coroners on open cases where domestic violence is relevant to the inquiry; and
• participating in a wide range of forums to share learnings from the DVDRT.
The Australian Domestic & Family Violence Death

review Network-ANROWS partnership
Since the Team’s establishment in 2010, an additional key role of the Secretariat has been to work closely
with equivalent review bodies in other jurisdictions to share information and learnings. This engagement has
culminated in the establishment of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network in
2011. The Team’s Manager is the chair of the Network.
One of the key achievements of the Network was producing its first National Data Report in 2018 providing,
for the first time in Australia, specialised national data with respect to all intimate partner homicides that
occurred in the context of domestic violence. This report was the culmination of years of extensive work
and, as the jurisdiction most progressed in terms of data reporting, the Secretariat drove the development,
design and implementation of this project.
As a result of the significant and positive feedback on the report, in 2020 ANROWS was funded to
establish a collaborative partnership with the Network to produce a second National Data Report on
IPV Homicides.103 This report was launched at the 2022 ANROWS Annual Conference with the opening
presentation from the Team’s Manager.
Following the success of this partnership, ANROWS secured funding from the Commonwealth Department
of Social Services to continue the collaboration with the Network. In July 2024 the partner project published
a national data report with respect to filicides occurring in the context of domestic violence, titled ‘Filicides
in a domestic and family violence context 2010-2018’.104 Again, this work has been heavily guided by the
Team’s quantitative data review and the Team’s Manager was the Network lead on this important project.
103 Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network and Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (2022), ‘Data Report: Intimate
partner violence homicides 2010–2018’, 2nd ed., Research report 03/2022, ANROWS, https://www.anrows.org.au/project/australian-domestic-and-
familyviolencedeath-review-network-national-data-update/ (accessed 31 May 2024).
104 Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network & Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (2024) ‘Australian Domestic
and Family Violence Death Review Network data report: Filicide in a domestic and family violence context 2010-2018’, 1st ed., Research report 06/24, ANROWS,
https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/australian-domestic-and-family-violence-death-review-network-filicides/ (accessed 2 July 2024).

Open case review function
In addition to the case reviews prepared for the Team, the Secretariat also works with Coroners on open cases
where domestic violence is relevant to the coronial inquiry. During this reporting period the Secretariat assisted
Coroners in three Inquests.
In this role, the Secretariat assisted Coroners by:
• preparing a domestic and family violence expert report based on the brief of evidence and a comparative
analysis using its quantitative and qualitative data;
• recommending additional brief requisitions to enhance the investigation;
• giving expert evidence at hearing; and
• proposing potential areas for recommendation.

This enhanced role for the Secretariat was one of seven recommendations proposed following the Statutory
Review of the Team’s establishing legislation in late 2015. It was the Review’s perspective that this enhanced
role would utilise the expertise of the Secretariat to ensure earlier identification of individual domestic violence
related deaths and their targeted investigation in a coronial inquiry. The whole-of-government response to the
Review indicated support for this recommendation and since 2016 the Secretariat has provided assistance on 14
inquests.
Amplifying the work of the Team through

conferences, publications and other information
sharing forums
The work of the Team is recognised and highly regarded both nationally and internationally and its profile
continues to grow. The Secretariat is regularly asked to participate in a range of forums to share the learnings
from the Team.
This provides an important opportunity to engage more closely with key stakeholders and build relationships
across the domestic violence response system. Engagement of this kind also provides important reciprocal
learnings to guide the Team’s work, extends the reach of the Team and reinforces the legitimacy of this work.
Recent engagements/activities include:
• Monthly attendance at the NSW Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Sector Group meeting
convened by the NSW Women’s Safety Commissioner, Sydney.
• May 2024: Presentation to the NSW Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Board, Sydney.
• May 2024: Participation in the Federal Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner’s Crisis
Talks into Murdered and Missing Women, Canberra
• April 2024: Presentation to the NSW Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Steering Committee,
Sydney.
• February 2024: Co-chairing the Domestic Violence Homicide Review Community of Practice
Roundtable, Centre for Criminology, Law and Justice, UNSW.
REPORT 2021 2023 132

• December 2023: Presentation at the National Family Violence Safety Summit, Perth.
• December 2023: Presentation at the ANROWS Research Implications for Policy: Works in Progress
Forum - Filicides in the context of domestic and family violence.
• November 2023: Presentation at the Corrective Services NSW DFV Conference, Sydney.
• November 2023: Presentation at the ANROWS-National Plan Senior Officials Research Implications for
Policy Forum.
• November 2023: Participation as a facilitator at the DCJ Stronger Together DFV forum for religious,
community and sector leaders, Parramatta.
• November 2023: Recording a social media video for DVNSW’s 16 Days of Activism campaign –
‘Debunking myths about domestic and family violence’.
• November 2023: Presentation for Court Services Executive Meeting, Parramatta.
• September 2023: In camera briefing for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference
Committee – Inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children.
• August 2023: Presentation for the DFSV Joint Board and Steering Committee Meeting, Parramatta
• July 2023: Presentation for the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and
Law.
• April 2023: Presentation for the NSWPF Commander’s Forum, Goulburn.
• November 2022: Presentation at the USYD Law School DFV Conference.

REPORT 2021 2023 134
Domestic Violence Death Review Team
NSW State Coroner’s Court
1A Main Ave
LIDCOMBE NSW 2141
General enquiries: (02) 8584 7752

www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au

NSW Coroner's Report - Domestic Violence Death Review Team

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSW Coroner's Report - Domestic Violence Death Review Team

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSW Coroner's Report - Domestic Violence Death Review Team

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

DEATH REVIEW TEAM

The Team acknowledges that each figure reflected

II NSW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW TEAM

REPORT 2021 2023 III

Published in Sydney by the

ISSN 1839-8073 (Print)

We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and

Service Location Phone Website

1800RESPECT Nationwide 1800 737 732 www.1800respect.org.au

Domestic Violence Line NSW State-wide 1800 656 463 www.dcj.nsw.gov.au

Women’s Legal Service NSW State-wide 1800 801 501 www.wlsnsw.org.au

Men’s Referral Service Nationwide 1300 766 491 www.ntv.org.au/mrs

Immigration Advice and

Women’s Domestic Violence

NSW Ageing and Disability

Kids Helpline Nationwide 1800 551 800 www.kidshelpline.com.au

24/7 counselling service for young people aged 5-25 years.

Link2Home State-wide 1800 152 152 www.dcj.nsw.gov.au

Beyond Blue Nationwide 1300 224 636 www.beyondblue.org.au

Magistrate Teresa O’Sullivan

* Appointment pending at time of writing.

Chapter 4: Domestic violence-context filicide

REPORT 2021 2023 XV

Chapter 3: Intimate partner violence homicide

Chapter 6: Other domestic violence-context homicide

Domestic violence-context homicide in NSW

Approximately one-third of people killed in a context of domestic violence lived outside a

Approximately 40% of male abusers experienced trauma or adversity in their childhood

Approximately 60% of domestic violence-context filicides were perpetrated by a male

Almost 50% of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicides involved a son killing a

Approximately two-thirds of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders

Over 80% of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders had a history of

Almost one-third of relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide offenders were

Almost 90% of ‘other’ domestic violence-context homicides were related to intimate

Gendered nature of violence

Separation and stalking

The co-occurrence of domestic violence, AOD, and mental

Overrepresentation of Aboriginal people

• the cumulative impact of colonisation,

Domestic violence in regional or remote communities

The intersection of domestic violence and socio-economic

26 DVDRT Report 2019-21 (n 7); Campo and Tayton (2015) (n 24).

Children’s experiences of domestic violence

34 A ustralian Bureau of Statistics (2024), ‘Australia’s Population by Country of Birth’, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/australias-population-country-

CHAPTER 1: The work of the Team 3

CHAPTER 2: Domestic violence-context homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 14

CHAPTER 3: Intimate partner violence homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 18

CHAPTER 4: Domestic violence-context filicide in NSW, 2000-2022 63

CHAPTER 5: Relative/kin domestic violence-context homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 92

CHAPTER 6: ‘Other’ domestic violence-context homicide in NSW, 2000-2022 116

Domestic violence behaviours can include:

• psychological and emotional abuse;

38 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REPORT 2021 2023 4

Why review domestic violence-context deaths?

43 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016), Personal Safety Survey, Australia, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/2016

5 NSW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW TEAM

• review closed cases of domestic violence deaths;

34 A ustralian Bureau of Statistics (2024), ‘Australia’s Population by Country of Birth’, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/australias-population-country-

43 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016), Personal Safety Survey, Australia, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/2016

• details of the death;

• criminal justice outcome; and

69 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023), ‘Personal Safety, Australia’, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/2021-22