NSW Mandatory Life Sentences for Partner Murders 2026

Key Points

• NSW mandatory life sentences could be implemented for murders associated with domestic violence.
• Indy MP Phil Donato seeks the preparation of the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill 2026 in the New South Wales Parliament.
• The amendment would apply to cases where one kills a person due to domestic violence, being either their current or former partner and having a protection order at the time.
• It would also apply in cases where the accused was on bail in connection with a domestic violence offense.
• The proposed law can apply to cases when the victim is under the age of 18.
• The proposal comes after the killing of Forbes woman Molly Ticehurst in April 2024.
• The former partner of Ticehurst, Daniel Billings, got 35 years in prison, which was reduced to 28 after a guilty plea.
• Currently, NSW has a standard non-parole period of 25 years for killing a current or former partner.
• The state had already tightened bail laws related to domestic violence and implemented reform concerning stalking and electronic monitoring.
• David Heilpern, a legal academic, has been opposing the idea of mandatory life imprisonment because there is no proof of its efficiency regarding domestic violence.

Wales Crime (Wales Times) September 23, 2026 – NSW mandatory life sentences were proposed in Orange, New South Wales, by independent MP Phil Donato, in response to concerns about domestic violence-related partner killings and the penalties imposed in such cases.

According to the report published by UA.News, citing ABC News Australia, Donato introduced a motion calling for the preparation of the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill 2026. The proposed legislation would seek to require life imprisonment in specific murder cases involving domestic violence, rather than leaving the final sentence entirely to judicial discretion.

The proposal is aimed at murders committed by a person’s current or former partner in circumstances where a domestic violence protection order was in place. It would also apply where the accused was on bail for a domestic violence-related matter when the killing occurred.

The proposed changes could additionally cover cases in which the victim is a child under the age of 18. This would extend the scope of the proposed sentencing framework beyond adult partner killings and recognise situations where children are victims of violence connected to domestic or family relationships.

What would the proposed NSW law change?

The proposed measure would create a mandatory life-sentence framework for a defined category of murder cases. Under existing arrangements, life imprisonment is already available as the maximum punishment for murder, but judges determine the sentence after considering the circumstances of the offence and other relevant factors.

The proposal would change the role of judicial discretion in the cases covered by the legislation. Instead of allowing a judge to impose a term below life imprisonment, the law would require a life sentence if the relevant conditions were established.

Those conditions would include the relationship between the accused and the victim, the existence of a domestic violence protection order or the accused’s bail status, and the nature of the offence. The reported proposal would also include victims under 18, although the final wording would depend on the bill prepared after parliamentary consideration.

Donato said tougher penalties should demonstrate that partner killings connected with domestic violence are unacceptable. His motion is intended to begin the legislative process, rather than immediately change the law.

The Orange MP hopes Parliament will debate the proposed changes before the end of 2026. However, a debate would not automatically mean that mandatory life sentences would become law. The proposal would need to proceed through the legislative process, including the preparation of a bill, parliamentary debate and any required votes.

Why was the proposal introduced?

The proposal is being prepared after the sentencing of Daniel Billings for the murder of his former partner, Molly Ticehurst, from Forbes.

Ticehurst was killed in April 2024. Billings was later sentenced to 35 years in prison. His sentence was reduced to 28 years after he pleaded guilty. The court set a non-parole period of 20 years. Taking time already spent in custody into account, the reported circumstances mean that Billings could become eligible for release in approximately 18 years.

The case has contributed to debate about whether existing penalties adequately reflect the seriousness of domestic violence-related killings. Donato’s proposal seeks to ensure that certain cases result in life imprisonment, particularly where legal protections were already in place or where the accused had been released on bail.

The initiative also reflects wider concerns about the ability of the justice system to protect people who are subject to domestic violence orders. A protection order is intended to restrict an alleged perpetrator’s conduct and provide legal protection to a victim. The proposal would treat a killing committed while such an order was in force as a circumstance requiring the most severe available sentence.

What domestic violence reforms already exist in NSW?

New South Wales has already introduced measures in response to domestic violence and partner killings.

After Ticehurst’s murder, the state government changed bail rules to make it more difficult for defendants in domestic violence cases to obtain release. The reforms were intended to address concerns about accused people being released while facing allegations involving domestic or family violence.

New South Wales also established a 25-year standard non-parole period for the murder of a current or former partner. A standard non-parole period is a reference point used when determining the minimum period an offender must serve before becoming eligible to seek release on parole.

The existing framework does not mean that every offender receives exactly the same sentence. Judges continue to assess the details of each case. Factors such as a guilty plea can affect the final sentence, as occurred in Billings’ case.

The state has also strengthened rules concerning stalking, bail and electronic monitoring of people released on bail. A spokesperson for Attorney-General Michael Daley said the maximum penalty for murder is already life imprisonment.

The spokesperson’s position indicates that the government considers recent reforms to have addressed several aspects of domestic violence prevention and offender management. The proposed bill would nevertheless seek to impose a stricter sentencing requirement in cases meeting particular conditions.

Why is mandatory life imprisonment controversial?

Mandatory sentencing can reduce the amount of discretion available to judges. Supporters argue that this creates consistency and ensures that exceptionally serious crimes receive a clear and severe response.

In the context of domestic violence-related partner killings, supporters may view mandatory life imprisonment as a way to acknowledge the specific risks associated with abuse, protection-order breaches and bail decisions. They may also consider it a public statement that killing a current or former partner after domestic violence intervention has occurred deserves the highest penalty.

The proposal has also faced legal opposition.

David Heilpern, dean of the law faculty at Southern Cross University and a former local magistrate with 22 years of experience, opposed mandatory life sentences, according to the report. Heilpern argued that there is no evidence showing that moving from a possible life sentence to mandatory life imprisonment reduces violence.

His objection focuses on whether the proposed punishment would prevent domestic violence before it occurs. A harsher sentence after a murder may satisfy demands for severe accountability, but it may not address the factors that lead to domestic violence or improve the safety of victims before an attack takes place.

Heilpern said policymakers should also consider crisis housing for victims, programmes for perpetrators, and education about consent and violence. These measures address prevention, support and behavioural change rather than punishment alone.

What would judges still consider?

The exact effect on judicial decision-making would depend on the wording of the proposed bill. If Parliament adopts a mandatory life-sentence provision, judges would still need to determine whether the legal conditions had been met.

That could involve establishing whether the accused was a current or former partner, whether a domestic violence protection order was active, whether the accused was on bail for a relevant offence and whether the victim fell within the proposed age requirements.

The court would also need to consider the evidence presented during the case. The proposed law would not remove the need to prove the murder charge or the facts that trigger the mandatory sentencing provision.

However, once the required conditions were established, the court’s ability to impose a sentence below life imprisonment could be limited or removed. The legislation would need to explain how guilty pleas, mental health evidence, age, responsibility and other sentencing factors would interact with the mandatory penalty.

These details are not yet settled because the proposal remains at the motion and bill-preparation stage described in the report.

What happens next in the NSW Parliament?

The immediate next step is the preparation and consideration of the proposed Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill 2026.

Donato has indicated that he wants parliamentary debate to take place before the end of the year. The proposal would then face scrutiny from MPs, legal experts, government representatives and organisations working with domestic violence victims and offenders.

The government’s response will be important. A spokesperson for Attorney-General Michael Daley pointed to the existing maximum life penalty and recent reforms involving stalking, bail and electronic monitoring. This suggests that the government may assess whether another sentencing change is necessary alongside measures already introduced.

Parliamentary debate could examine whether the proposed law would apply to all relevant murders or only cases involving specific protection-order or bail conditions. It could also consider whether mandatory punishment is compatible with established sentencing principles and whether it would create unintended consequences.

The final outcome cannot be predicted with certainty from the current proposal. Parliament could support the bill, amend it, reject it or pursue a different approach focused on bail, victim protection, support services and prevention.

What is the background to the development?

The proposed NSW mandatory life sentences follow continuing public and political concern about domestic violence-related killings involving current or former partners.

The immediate background is the murder of Molly Ticehurst in Forbes in April 2024 and the subsequent sentencing of Daniel Billings. His 35-year sentence was reduced to 28 years following his guilty plea, with a 20-year non-parole period and an estimated 18 years remaining after credit for time already spent in custody.

The case was followed by changes to New South Wales bail rules and the introduction of a 25-year standard non-parole period for the murder of a current or former partner. Further reforms strengthened rules related to stalking and electronic monitoring.

Donato’s proposal seeks to go further by requiring life imprisonment in cases involving domestic violence protection orders, domestic violence bail and some victims under 18. The proposal has attracted support for stronger punishment but opposition from David Heilpern, who questioned whether mandatory life sentences would reduce violence and called for investment in crisis housing, perpetrator programmes and education.

How could this affect domestic violence victims and the wider public?

If adopted, the proposal could provide a clearer and more severe sentencing response in qualifying domestic violence-related murder cases. For victims and their families, it could signal that the legal system treats killings committed after protective intervention or during bail as especially serious.

The measure could also influence public expectations about accountability. A mandatory life sentence would remove the possibility of a lower prison term in cases covered by the law, although the practical effect would depend on the bill’s final wording and how courts interpret its conditions.

For people facing domestic violence, the proposal alone would not provide immediate protection. Its effect would be linked to wider measures such as effective protection-order enforcement, safe accommodation, accessible support services, appropriate bail decisions and monitoring arrangements.

For legal professionals, the development could create new questions about sentencing discretion, guilty pleas and the definition of qualifying domestic violence circumstances. For policymakers, the central issue will be whether harsher penalties can be combined with preventive services capable of reducing violence before it escalates.