NSW Criminal Law judgments

R v Issa; R v Rohaim [2026] NSWDC 286. Following jury convictions for specially aggravated kidnapping, the Court considered the factual basis on which each offender could be sentenced consistently with the verdict. It found the detention lasted only minutes, the victim probably transferred $20,000 himself, and the bodily harm involved no more than one blow, rejecting more serious allegations that were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Childhood disadvantage and mental illness reduced both offenders’ moral culpability. Issa, who also failed to comply with a digital evidence access order, received an aggregate sentence of two years and three months. Rohaim received two years. Both sentences are to be served by intensive correction orders.

Sampson v R [2026] NSWCCA 117 concerned an appeal against an aggregate seven-year sentence for seven sexual offences against four children. Mr Sampson argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider or adequately explain how findings that his youth and childhood background reduced his moral culpability affected general deterrence and the sentence. The Court rejected an inflexible reading of Taylor v R, holding that the explanation required depends on the significance of reduced culpability in the particular case. Youth reduced culpability only slightly for one count, while background did so only to a limited degree. Time was extended and leave granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

A sentence appeal after Zahab drove co-offenders to a Bankstown hotel robbery and pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob in company. The Crown could not prove he knew of any firearm. The CCA held the District Court wrongly counted the co-offender’s weapon, blurred joint-enterprise liability with his limited role, failed to reflect reduced moral culpability in deterrence, and relied on prior convictions he did not have. Appeal allowed; sentence cut from 4 years 3 months to 3 years 3 months (NPP 2 years 2 months).

Divided sentence appeal on persistent domestic-violence and public-justice offending against a former partner and others, including threats, mass electronic contact, and attempts to interfere with proceedings. A 15-year State aggregate (overall effective 16 years) was held by majority to be manifestly excessive despite the gravity of the offending; a post-sentence psychiatric report did not establish miscarriage. State aggregate reduced to 11 years (effective head 12 years; NPP 8 years). Roberts J dissented on manifest excess.