STATE OF TASMANIA v LUKE SHAW, PAUL SHAW, PATRICK DOLBEY 11 December 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J
Luke Shaw, a jury has found you guilty of murder. Paul Shaw and Patrick Dolbey, you were each found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
I am required to determine the facts for the purpose of imposing sentence. In doing so, I must only find facts adverse to you if I am satisfied of those facts beyond reasonable doubt and they are consistent with the verdicts of the jury. The standard of proof of facts favourable to you is on the balance of probabilities. My findings must, of course, be based on the evidence admitted at the trial.
The relevant events commenced when the deceased received a phone call from Larissa Murfet during the evening of 22 October 2022, shortly before 8 pm. As a result of this phone call, he formed the belief that Ms Murfet was the victim of family violence perpetrated by Luke Shaw. I make no finding as to whether there was any truth to this but the relevant point is that he believed that this had taken place. He had been drinking and consuming cannabis and was intoxicated. His judgment was clearly affected and he was in a belligerent mood. In this state, he decided to walk to Ms Murfet’s house at **address**. Luke Shaw was living there at the time. The deceased made it clear to all whom he came in contact with that his intention was to assault Luke Shaw. I am also satisfied that Luke Shaw was aware of the deceased’s intentions. I accept Megan Doyle’s evidence that during the phone call from Ms Murfet to the deceased, she could hear a person whom I am satisfied was Luke Shaw, in the background inviting the deceased to “try and smash him”.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the deceased, in his intoxicated state, was determined to confront and assault Luke Shaw. He walked to **address** and on the way collected a baseball bat from Krystal Davidson. He told Ms Davidson that he needed the bat to assault Luke Shaw. In fact, according to her, he said “I’m going around to Larissa’s place and smash Luke Shaw because he is laying into Larissa”. Both Megan Doyle and Krystal Davidson attempted to dissuade him from going there, but to no avail.
I am satisfied that the deceased walked to **address** carrying the bat. He covered a considerable distance on that journey and there can be no doubt about his determination to follow through on his threats. He spent some time outside **address** yelling abuse at Mr Shaw, which included urging him to come outside to fight. Susan Singline heard him yell “Where are you Luke you dog” and demanding that Luke Shaw come out of his house. She told police in a 000 call that this went on for about 20 minutes. In evidence, she said that the deceased was acting like he was angry and wanting to fight.
At this time, Paul Shaw, Cenedra Montgomery and Patrick Dolbey were at the residence of Mr Payne and Ms Jetson Scott, engaging in what I accept was a pleasant low-key social interaction. Mr Shaw and Ms Montgomery had just discovered the gender of their first child and they had made the visit to share this news with their friends. No one there was consuming alcohol or drugs and everyone was in a good mood. At that point, they knew nothing about the actions of the deceased or Luke Shaw. They had no reason to be upset with the deceased. In fact, I accept Paul Shaw’s evidence that the deceased was a lifelong friend. He was also a friend of Mr Dolbey.
I am satisfied that when the deceased first arrived outside Luke Shaw’s house and started to call out to him, Luke Shaw telephoned his brother Paul and asked for assistance. I accept that his tone was frantic and agitated. He told Paul Shaw that there were multiple persons outside who were threatening him and wanting to bash him. Initially, Paul Shaw ignored him, reasoning that Luke was being irrational, which was a common aspect of his behaviour. However, after receiving more than one call from Luke, he decided to visit **address** to see what the problem was. He told Mr Dolbey that he was to accompany him. I am satisfied that at that time, although both men were not sure whether what Luke was saying was true, and if it was, the exact nature of the threat, they were prepared to face trouble if necessary. However, I find that their intention at this time did not extend beyond acting reasonably in self-defence or defence of another, if necessary. This of course is not unlawful and accordingly at this stage there had been no formation of a common unlawful purpose.
The events in **address** after Paul Shaw and Patrick Dolbey arrived there were the subject of disputed evidence, both from eyewitnesses and CCTV footage. I am satisfied that when the men arrived in Ms Montgomery’s car outside **address**, the deceased had for some reason left and the street was empty. I accept Paul Shaw’s evidence that they went into Luke’s house to investigate the problem but left soon after. I accept that Patrick Dolbey went to the end of the street towards the main road to check whether anyone was around. His purpose was not to look for a fight but to assess the existence of a threat. Again, at this point, their actions were reasonable and they had done nothing wrong.
Upon leaving the house at **address**, Paul Shaw concluded that there was no threat and he decided to leave. Luke Shaw unilaterally decided to go with them and got into the car. I am satisfied that before he left the house, he put the knife which was admitted into evidence, in his pocket. Neither Paul Shaw or Patrick Dolbey were aware that he had done this, or that he was carrying any kind of weapon. Patrick Dolbey was still conducting his search of the street. It was at this time that the deceased re-entered the street. He was carrying the baseball bat and making it clear that he intended to bash Luke Shaw with it. I accept the evidence of Cenendra Montgomery and Paul Shaw that the deceased was yelling that he intended to smash Luke Shaw’s head in. I am satisfied that he initially mistook Paul Shaw for Luke Shaw but, irrespective of this, he continued to approach the men in a threatening way. He was holding the baseball bat in a way that made it clear that he intended to use it.
I am satisfied that Luke Shaw, who was now out of the car, and Paul Shaw went forward to meet and grapple with the deceased. This is clearly shown on the CCTV footage. It may well be that their initial purpose in doing so was to pre-emptively defend themselves against an attack by the deceased, but the verdict of the jury can only be consistent with the spontaneous formation of a common intention to go beyond self defence and unlawfully assault the deceased. The jury must have accepted the prosecution case that the defendants quickly overpowered the deceased and thereafter continued to assault him when it was not reasonably necessary to do so in self defence. I must also accept this, as no other alternative is available having regard to the verdicts. Although Mr Dolbey was not present when Luke and Paul Shaw commenced the attack, he returned just after it started and joined in. In doing so, he became part of what was then a common unlawful purpose to unlawfully assault the deceased.
Having reviewed the CCTV footage and taken into account other evidence including the injuries discovered by the forensic pathologist, it is possible to make some findings concerning the actions of each defendant. I am satisfied that as the deceased approached the men, he had the bat held in an attacking position, and may well have swung it at Paul and Luke Shaw. I accept the reasonable possibility that he actually hit Luke Shaw on the leg at this point, causing the bruise that can be seen in the photographs. This clearly happened at some point during the initial confrontation, before the deceased and Paul Shaw fell to the ground. In any event, Paul Shaw’s initial action was to take hold of the bat with both hands. He and the deceased wrestled over it and fell to the ground while doing so. To the extent that eyewitnesses saw a bat being wielded by one man and striking another, I am satisfied that it was the deceased who was doing this. On the CCTV footage, the bat can be seen being wielded in the air before or as Paul Shaw and the deceased fall to the ground. I am satisfied that it was being wielded by the deceased and that Paul Shaw was, as he said in his evidence, struggling with the deceased over the bat before they fell to the ground and while they were on the ground. I am not satisfied that the description given by Jenni Lee that she saw a man hit repeatedly with the bat by another man until he fell to the ground is reliable and I do not act on the basis of it.
The wrestle between Paul Shaw and the deceased over the bat continued on the ground. Of course, having regard to the jury’s verdict, I have no alternative other than to accept that by this time, the struggle was part of an attack on the deceased which had gone beyond self defence and had become a common unlawful purpose to assault the deceased. In any event, while Paul Shaw was struggling with the deceased, the deceased was viciously attacked by Luke Shaw, who kicked him multiple times and stabbed him with the knife 11 times. In the CCTV, he can be seen reaching into his pocket almost as soon as the deceased falls to the ground. There is no doubt in my mind that he removed the knife from his pocket then, and immediately attacked the deceased with it. I am satisfied that the stabbings were administered in two groups, on two separate occasions. The occasions were separated by Luke Shaw kicking the deceased several times. Eight of the stab wounds were in the buttock and these entered soft tissue and were not life-threatening. However, the remaining three were in the upper back. I accept the opinion of the forensic pathologist that at least one of these stab wounds caused the death of the deceased. The stabbings in the upper back must have been administered with considerable force because they have entered the deceased’s body to the full extent of the blade, at least one of them up to the hilt. Two of these wounds penetrated the deceased’s rib cage with one perforating a rib. They were both life-threatening and at least one caused the death of the deceased. When this was taking place, the deceased was lying face down on top of Paul Shaw. At some point he would have stopped struggling but it is clear from the location of the stab wounds that he was lying face down on top of Paul Shaw throughout these events. I reject the evidence of Kelly Kaye to the extent that she says that the man on the ground, who she mistakenly thought was the third man, not Paul Shaw, was holding the deceased on the ground from behind in a chokehold. This evidence is irreconcilably inconsistent with the objective forensic evidence and what is shown on the CCTV.
I am also satisfied that this struggle was occurring when Patrick Dolbey returned to this location. I am satisfied that he kicked the deceased at least once while the deceased was on the ground with Paul Shaw. It is not possible for me to say whether it was Luke Shaw or Patrick Dolbey who was responsible for the blunt force injury to the deceased’s eye that was described by Dr Lawrence but I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this resulted from a kick by one of them.
After this, the three defendants got into Miss Montgomery’s car and left the area. It is apparent from the CCTV footage that Luke Shaw and Patrick Dolbey left the area where the deceased was lying while Paul Shaw was still lying underneath him. I can only conclude that Paul Shaw has extricated himself shortly after. What is clear is that when the defendants left the scene in Ms Montgomery’s car, the deceased was still alive but bleeding and dying on the footpath. In this regard, I refer to the evidence of Detective Constable Crates who was the first police officer to arrive at the scene, which would only have been minutes after the defendants left the area. Detective Crates confirmed that when he arrived, the deceased was being assisted by local residents. He was still breathing and bleeding heavily. His condition started to deteriorate soon after and the police commenced CPR. However, the deceased had passed away by the time that the ambulance arrived 20 minutes later.
Obviously, Luke Shaw knew what he had done and I have no doubt was aware that he was leaving the deceased to die. I am also satisfied that Patrick Dolbey saw at least some of the stabbings and knew at the point of departure that the deceased had been stabbed by Luke Shaw multiple times. He must also have realised that he was leaving a man who had suffered fatal or at least life-threatening injuries unaided on the side of the road. I am not able to make a similar finding about Paul Shaw. He would necessarily have been underneath the deceased when the stabbings took place and may not have realised that the knife had been used. I consider that this is at least a reasonable possibility, and Paul Shaw should receive the benefit of that doubt. I am satisfied, however, that because the deceased is unlikely to have been moving when Paul Shaw got himself out from underneath him, that he must have realised that the deceased had been injured in some way and he made no effort to check on him. The apparently callous acts of each defendant in leaving the deceased in the circumstances is mitigated to some extent by the fact that a group of people, including Kelly Kaye and her dog, were fast approaching and acting in a threatening way. They were undoubtedly justified in doing so given the need to break up what was obviously a violent altercation, but this also was a factor in the decision of the defendants to leave the area. Having said that, there was still a considerable degree of callousness in doing so particularly on the part of Luke Shaw who I have no doubt knew that his actions were likely to have fatally injured the deceased. At the other end of the spectrum, Paul Shaw did not have this information and would also been concerned about his pregnant partner who was waiting at the car.
As far as the respective level of culpability of each defendant is concerned, I make the following findings. In respect of Luke Shaw, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to cause the death of the deceased. The evidence does not support a finding of premeditation. Although there is a possibility that he may have formed an intention to use a knife earlier then when the attack started, there is also the reasonable possibility that he did not do so. Further, there is no evidence of a motive to kill the deceased, apart from the immediate circumstances of the events which arose from the deceased’s actions. Having said this, it is also clear that Luke Shaw put a knife in his pocket with the intention of using it if necessary. I am satisfied that at some point after the physical exchange commenced, the deceased hit Luke Shaw once with a baseball bat to his leg causing the bruise can be seen in the photographs. I am satisfied that as a result of that blow, Luke Shaw became enraged and decided to attack the deceased with the knife. It follows from the number of stab wounds and their depth and location, that he must have been aware that his actions would cause bodily harm to the deceased that was likely to be fatal. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he actually intended to cause bodily harm to the deceased which he knew was likely to cause death. This, of course, is the state of mind specified by section 157 (1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The issue of self-defence or defence of another was left to the jury in respect of each defendant including Luke Shaw. Luke Shaw’s counsel submitted to me that Mr Shaw should be sentenced on the basis that he acted in self defence by fatally stabbing the deceased, but that the jury must have decided that he used excessive force. I reject this submission. Firstly, the factual basis of sentencing is a matter for me based on the evidence at trial. Of course, my findings must be consistent with the jury’s verdict but I am not required and it is not appropriate for me in any event to attempt to deduce the jury’s reasoning process leading to its verdict. This question, of course, can only be determined on the basis of the objective evidence as Mr Shaw did not give evidence and there is no detailed explanation of his actions by him contained in a prior statement which was put in to evidence. Having regard to the objective evidence including the CCTV footage, the number and location of stab wounds and other less violent options which were available to him, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that although initially the attack on the deceased started as self defence, by the time that Luke Shaw came to fatally stab the deceased, he was not acting in self defence nor was he acting in defence of Paul Shaw. The possibility that he may have been trying to assist Paul in his struggle with the deceased does not explain his frenetic use of the knife. He could simply have dragged the deceased off Paul or at least taken hold of and pulled away the baseball bat if this had been his purpose. As I have already indicated, I am satisfied that at the time of the stabbing he was in a rage and seeking to retaliate against the deceased for the deceased’s threatening conduct and because the deceased had struck him with the baseball bat.
In relation to Paul Shaw and Patrick Dolbey, consistent with the verdict of the jury, I find that shortly after the attack on the deceased commenced, which initially commenced as self defence, each formed a common intention with Luke Shaw to prosecute an unlawful purpose, that is to assault the deceased beyond that reasonably necessary for lawful self-defence or defence of another. In Paul Shaw’s case, this happened simultaneously with Luke Shaw. In Patrick Dolbey’s case, the common intention was formed as soon as he arrived back from his reconnoitre of the street. I find that it was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose that Luke Shaw would unlawfully kill the deceased by an act which is commonly known to be likely to cause death or bodily harm, but not by stabbing him with a knife or with the murderous intention that Luke Shaw actually possessed that makes him guilty of murder. I reiterate that I am satisfied that neither of them knew prior to these events that Luke Shaw was in possession of a knife but they did know that a joint assault on the deceased would involve the infliction of blows with fists or kicks, and would be of such force that such acts are commonly known to be likely to cause death or bodily harm. Hence, both men were found guilty of manslaughter. In relation to Patrick Dolbey, while I am satisfied that he did not know prior to the assault that Luke Shaw was in possession of a knife, I am satisfied that he did see Luke Shaw stabbing the deceased when he arrived at the scene. However, I cannot be satisfied that he saw this prior to the infliction of the stab wound which caused the deceased’s death. As I have already said, I am satisfied that he did actually join in the assault by kicking the deceased at least once.
Mr Jenkins was 34 yrs of age at the time of his death. There is no question that he initiated the events which ultimately led to his death. However, it is also the case that his death was unnecessary and pointless. The threat he posed to the defendants could have been dealt with safely and effectively without causing significant injury to him or anyone else. Further, there were other ways in which they could have dealt with his aggression. The most obvious was that as soon as he started to threaten Luke Shaw from outside the house, instead of calling his brother, Mr Shaw could simply have called the police. There was certainly no need for him to stab Mr Jenkins to death.
It is clear from the impact statements presented to me that Mr Jenkins’ death has had a profound and devastating impact on many people. I have heard from his mother on behalf of herself and his father, the mother of his two young children and his sister on behalf of herself and her children, who had a close relationship with deceased. They have each spoken eloquently of the intense grief and loss arising from the Mr Jenkins death. Their lives are forever changed by this loss, and the impact is and will continue to be compounded by the terrible and avoidable circumstances in which Mr Jenkins lost his life. Of course, this crime will have had a significant impact on many others, including the deceased’s extended family and friends. Further I do not overlook the impact on those members of the community and police and ambulance officers involved in the immediate aftermath, and who tried to assist Mr Jenkins before he passed away. Life is precious and sacred and to have it taken in circumstances of violent crime on the streets of a residential community has a significant impact and is of concern to the entire community.
I will now address each of you individually.
Luke Shaw, you are 34 yrs of age. You have a shocking and lengthy criminal history which demonstrates a serious propensity for violence. You committed your first offence, common assault, when you were 12 years of age and you have been offending including often in a violent way ever since. You have been sentenced to imprisonment on a number of occasions for crimes of violence. Your counsel says that you regard yourself as institutionalised. That may well be so but this arises because you continue to commit serious crime. A criminal code assault for which you are sentenced in 2013 involved conduct which had some similarity to the circumstances of this case. Your violent offending includes many instances of family violence. The last sentence imposed on you before you committed this crime was for family violence offences committed approximately eight months before you committed the crime with which I am dealing. You were sentenced to partially suspended imprisonment and must have only been released a few months before you committed this crime. You were still subject to that suspended sentence when you did.
I have been provided with a psychological assessment. It is clear from that report and the information provided to me by your counsel that you have a lengthy history of mental illness and illicit drug use. You had a difficult childhood during which you are regularly exposed to domestic violence perpetrated by your father against your mother. You claim to have been sexually abused as a child while in state care. You have been diagnosed with a number of mental health conditions, the most prominent of which is schizoaffective disorder. You have been treated for this in the past but had refused treatment leading up to the commission of this crime. However, neither the psychologist nor your counsel seek to link your mental health condition to your commission of this crime. It seems you were using illicit drugs at the time but again it is not suggested that your offending can be explained on this basis. In any event, your voluntary use of drugs would not constitute a mitigating factor.
I regard this crime as very serious. You also bear considerable moral culpability for it. As I have already indicated, I do not believe that you committed this murder as a result of the use of excessive force in self defence. Your attack on the deceased was frenzied, sustained and indefensible. You showed absolutely no concern for his welfare afterwards and in fact acted inconsistently with any form of remorse or contrition. Your only concern was for yourself and this is best demonstrated by you prevailing on Mr Dolbey to dispose of the knife and then enlisting the support of various people to help you flee the state. Of course, you were arrested at the airport before you could do so. The only possible sentence is a significant term of imprisonment. I will backdate the sentence to the date you were taken into custody 23 October 2022, and will permit the possibility of parole. However, the non-parole period will be assessed as the minimum time that I consider you should spend in prison. This will take into account not just the serious features of your criminal behaviour, but also what I regard to be a very significant need for a sentence which inflicts punishment on you and acts as a deterrent from the commission of crime by you after your release from prison. I must say that a non-parole period in your case was not inevitable and I have given it a great deal of consideration. A grant of parole of course is not automatic and is often directed at supporting a commitment to rehabilitation. In your case, I see no evidence that you have made that commitment and I am not optimistic that you will do so. However, setting a modest non-parole period will permit the Parole Board to respond to any commitment you might develop in respect of rehabilitation during your time in prison. It will also provide the possibility for your release into the community to occur under supervision.
Paul Shaw, you are 35 years of age. Your childhood was affected by the same exposure to violence within the home as your brother. You also developed a serious problem with illicit drugs and suffered abuse during your time in state care. You also have a lengthy and concerning criminal history which includes many convictions for crimes of violence. You have been sentenced to imprisonment for serious crimes of violence on a number of occasions, including by me. I refer in particular to an horrific and cruel assault and wounding perpetrated by you against a woman who was a friend of your then partner. I sentenced you on that occasion to a lengthy term of imprisonment. In my sentencing comments, I expressed scepticism concerning your claim that you had at that time a commitment to rehabilitation. However, the evidence does suggest that apart from your commission of the crime in which I am dealing with today, you have since then followed through on that commitment and have demonstrated significant signs of rehabilitation. You were sentenced to a short-term of imprisonment in 2020 for selling drugs but apart from that there is nothing else on your record since the 2017 sentence. You now have three children, two of whom are from a previous relationship. The third of course is the child who was born after your arrest and remand in custody as a consequence of this crime. I am told and accept that you are close to the older children and are making a significant effort to be a good father. Your relationship with Ms Montgomery is a committed one. There is evidence that your behaviour in prison since being remanded is consistent with your commitment to rehabilitation. A report from the relevant manager at the prison confirms your involvement in a peer support program for the past 16 months. This program provides mentorship and support to other prisoners and the report speaks highly of your work in that area. I accept that you are genuinely committed to rehabilitation.
Having said this, the crime you committed was an objectively serious one and its consequence was the unlawful taking of life. I accept, however, that your moral culpability is mitigated by the fact that your involvement in the circumstances came about at the behest of your brother and the incident was originated by the actions of the deceased. Your criminal conduct was spontaneous and fleeting. There must be a sentence of imprisonment, but the sentence will be proportionate to the extent of your criminal conduct. I will permit the possibility of parole after an appropriate time.
Patrick Dolbey, you are now 40 years of age. You were born and raised in Tasmania although you moved to Victoria with your mother after your parents separated when you were in year 12. You then lived in both Victoria and Western Australia until returning to Tasmania after some years. There are two significant aspects of your background upon which I must comment. Firstly, you have had a serious drug problem since your youth although I accept that it had nothing to do with your commission of this crime. Secondly, although you have a relatively lengthy criminal history it does not apart from one matter, indicate a propensity for violence. I do note however that you have been consistently convicted in recent times of breaching the terms of family violence orders, although not by the perpetration of physical violence. However, the matter of significance is that in 2011, when you were aged 26, you were convicted in Western Australia of the crime of manslaughter. You were sentenced to 9 ½ years imprisonment. The crime was committed by you stabbing another man to death with a knife. It seems you were sentenced on the basis that you acted in self defence but used excessive force. Despite this, it was a violent crime and precludes any claim that you were a person of good character at the time that you committed the crime with which I am dealing. In fact, it is a matter of concern to me that you involved yourself in what you then believed to be an unlawful assault, when you had in the past served a lengthy sentence for a violent crime. It does suggest that specific deterrence is relevant to my assessment of sentence in your case.
As with Paul Shaw, the crime you committed was objectively serious. Your moral culpability is limited because of your spontaneous involvement in the assault and the fact that you did not know that Luke Shaw was carrying a knife. However, your decision to involve yourself in the assault by kicking the deceased does contribute to your moral culpability. In terms of your actions afterwards, I am satisfied that you did leave the deceased lying on the ground after having seen him being stabbed, although the approach of Kelly Kaye and others does have to be taken into account. Further, you did accept and hide the knife when it was handed to you by Luke Shaw but I also accept that he really did not leave you with much choice about this. Further, you did contact police and tell them about the knife at an early time. I accept also that you did express remorse in the immediate aftermath of these events and you did hand yourself in to police and agree to be interviewed by them at an early opportunity. There will be a sentence of imprisonment imposed on you in respect of this crime but it will be proportionate to your actual culpability in the commission of the crime. I will also provide the opportunity for parole.
In determining sentence in respect of each of you, I will take into account that your time in custody on remand has been made more punitive by what seems to be an excessive number of lockdowns. I do not have any real evidence to explain this but they are relevant to the punitive impact of your imprisonment and this should be taken into account.
Stand up please. The sentences I impose are as follows:
- Luke Shaw, you are convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 23 years. The sentence will be backdated to commence on 23 October 2022. You are not eligible for parole until you have served 16 years of that term.
- Paul Shaw, you are convicted of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years. I backdate that sentence to commence on 23 October 2022. I fix a non-parole period of three years which means that you are eligible now to apply for parole.
- Patrick Dolbey, you are convicted of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six years. That sentence will be backdated to commence on 22 October 2022. You are not eligible for parole until you have served four years of that sentence.