MELBOURNE -.
A Victorian Supreme Court judge has sentenced Rimoni Muliaga, 44, to a maximum of 24 years’ imprisonment for murdering his wife, Lise, in the family’s Melton South backyard, ruling he will be eligible to apply for parole in 16 years after time served. In court on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, Justice James Gorton called the knife attack “a serious case of murder driven by unjustified and unwarranted jealousy,” noting three of the couple’s five children were present or nearby when their mother was stabbed four times in the chest on September 18, 2023.
“Your crime was an act of the most serious domestic violence against an innocent and unarmed woman,” the judge said. “It warrants serious condemnation.”
Prosecutors said Muliaga had accused his wife of infidelity before the killing, which occurred months after the family relocated from New Zealand to Melbourne’s west. “[Lise] had a frightening and violent death,” Justice Gorton said, adding that “the presence of the children at the murder was an aggravating feature.” He acknowledged the couple’s children are “coping better than expected” due to support from extended family, but told the defendant: “Nonetheless, your children will spend the rest of their lives without their mother and having to deal with the fact that you, their father, killed her.”
Why the sentence looks this way in Victoria
In Victoria, murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Since 2018, the state’s “standard sentence” for adult murder has been set at 25 years-a statutory guidepost Parliament introduced to promote consistency and transparency, and which judges must take into account alongside all of the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Against that backdrop, recent data show higher courts commonly impose head sentences in the low- to mid‑20s for murder, with non‑parole periods calibrated to culpability, prior history, prospects of rehabilitation and community protection.
Justice Gorton accepted medical evidence that Muliaga lives with an intellectual disability and a depressive disorder, finding a causal connection to how he reasoned and regulated emotions during what the judge described as “morbid jealousy.” Victorian courts treat impaired mental functioning as relevant to punishment under the Verdins principles, which can reduce moral culpability, temper the weight given to general deterrence and specific deterrence, and recognise that imprisonment will be more onerous where a genuine impairment helped drive the offending.
The judge also referenced the state’s family‑violence framework, noting that the offence occurred in a domestic setting and involved a partner who had recently migrated and was financially and emotionally tied to the relationship. Under Victoria’s Crimes Act, courts are required to take the gravity of family‑violence offending into account, and sentencing remarks in such cases are closely watched by advocates and policymakers as a signal of how the justice system is responding to entrenched violence against women.
Children as witnesses: an aggravating reality in law
Australian appellate courts have repeatedly held that domestic violence perpetrated in a child’s presence is a serious aggravating feature because of the harm and trauma it inflicts, and because it normalises violence within the home. That approach is reflected in Victorian Court of Appeal guidance, which stresses that exposing children to the killing or serious assault of a parent compounds the offending and calls for additional denunciation and protection. In this case, Justice Gorton said the presence of three of the couple’s children-two of them young-meant the murder struck “at the heart of the family unit” and would shape their lives long after their father’s sentence has expired.
A trans‑Tasman dimension: prison, then likely removal
Justice Gorton noted that deportation upon release will weigh heavily on the prisoner, but emphasised that migration consequences are a matter for the executive government rather than the courts. Under Australia’s Migration Act, non‑citizens sentenced to 12 months or more face mandatory cancellation of their visa on “character” grounds while in prison, subject to limited avenues for revocation; cancellation is routinely followed by removal from Australia. New Zealanders living in Australia-often on Special Category visas-have been disproportionately affected by these section 501 character decisions over the past decade, a recurring irritant in trans‑Tasman relations even as both governments have sought to recalibrate policy settings.
For Muliaga, that regime means the sentence imposed in Melbourne is unlikely to be the end of his contact with the justice system: if his visa is cancelled while in custody, he would move from Victorian prison authorities to federal immigration detention before any forced return to New Zealand. For cross‑border families such as his, that layering of criminal and migration sanctions has become a live policy issue, raising questions about rehabilitation, ongoing child contact and the respective responsibilities of state and Commonwealth agencies.
Australia’s intimate‑partner homicide trendline
The case lands amid a renewed national focus on domestic and family violence and mounting pressure on governments to act. The Australian Institute of Criminology’s latest reporting shows that domestic homicides comprised about one‑third of Australian homicide incidents in 2024-25, with intimate‑partner homicides a significant share; earlier analysis found nearly half of all female homicide victims in 2022-23 were killed by a current or former partner. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that women account for the vast majority of hospitalisations from partner assault, underscoring that the kind of violence seen in the Muliaga case sits at the extreme end of a much broader pattern of abuse.
State and federal ministers have pledged to reduce intimate‑partner killings to zero within a decade under national plans to end violence against women and children, but recent high‑profile cases and coronial findings have sharpened scrutiny of how effectively police, courts and support services identify escalation risks and protect victims. Sentences in murder cases like this one are therefore read not only as individual justice, but as part of a wider institutional response to a persistent public‑safety crisis.
What courts mean by “morbid jealousy”
In psychiatric literature, “morbid jealousy” (often called Othello syndrome) describes a pathological, sometimes delusional conviction of a partner’s infidelity that can arise alongside diagnosed mental illnesses or neurological conditions. The term is descriptive rather than a stand‑alone diagnosis. In courtrooms, evidence about such a condition is weighed under established rules about mental impairment and sentencing: it can help explain an offender’s distorted thinking and emotional volatility, but does not excuse criminal responsibility for violence or negate the need for punishment, deterrence and community protection.
Justice Gorton made that distinction plain, accepting that Muliaga’s intellectual disability and depressive disorder contributed to his “morbid jealousy” while stressing that he acted with intent, armed himself with a knife and attacked an unarmed woman in her own home. The judge said the community “must be left in no doubt” that jealousy and suspicion-however deeply felt-cannot be invoked as a justification for lethal violence.
Case timeline
- September 18, 2023 – Lise is stabbed to death at the family home in Melton South, in Melbourne’s west.
- December 2025 – A jury convicts Muliaga of murder after a Supreme Court trial.
- February 27, 2026 – Victim impact statements from family members are read at a pre‑sentence hearing.
- March 25, 2026 – Justice James Gorton sentences Muliaga to a 24‑year head sentence; with time served, parole eligibility is in 16 years.
Muliaga is serving his Victorian sentence in a maximum‑security facility and, with time credited, will be eligible to apply for parole in 16 years. Any release decision will rest with the state’s Adult Parole Board, which must weigh the safety of the community, the views of victims and the prisoner’s progress in custody before determining whether he should be released on supervision.
