King v R [2026] NSWCCA 153 concerns Jonnathon King’s sentence for Blacktown home-invasion offences and an assault committed while on remand at Parklea Correctional Centre. The key issues were whether the District Court wrongly applied s 56 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), despite King not being a “convicted inmate”, and whether the unexplained effective non-parole ratio of 83.75 per cent was erroneous after special circumstances were found. The Court unanimously upheld both grounds, extended time, granted leave and allowed the appeal. By majority, King was re-sentenced to an effective term of six years and five months, with parole eligibility on 9 July 2027.

Farrell v R [2026] NSWCCA 152 concerns appeals from convictions for dangerous driving occasioning death and grievous bodily harm following an offset head-on collision. The central issue was whether a crime scene officer’s opinions about road gouges and the collision point were admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Farrell crossed the centreline. The Court found the officer had relevant specialised knowledge, adequately explained his factual basis and reasoning, and that no procedural unfairness arose. It also rejected challenges to objective seriousness and manifest excess. Leave was granted, but both appeals were dismissed.

VLS3 v Osborne [2026] NSWSC 1184 concerned a civil claim for damages arising from historical childhood sexual abuse. The central issue was which allegations were proved on the balance of probabilities, given the passage of almost 40 years, expanded later accounts, contemporaneous records, and Osborne’s 1987 guilty pleas and admissions. The Court found multiple assaults on Council grounds, including sexual touching and digital penetration, but rejected alleged abuse at the school and other conduct first alleged decades later. It attributed 70 per cent of the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition to the abuse, awarded aggravated but not exemplary damages, and entered judgment for $461,046.02, with costs.

R v Biggart [2026] NSWDC 353. Mahony SC DCJ sentenced Anthony Biggart for maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child aged 13 and 14, involving about 20 sexual acts across 14 incidents over 19 months. The central issue was the appropriate sentence after assessing the relationship as a whole, including its persistence, penetrative acts, age disparity and abuse of family trust, alongside Biggart’s guilty plea, remorse, childhood disadvantage and rehabilitation prospects. The Court found the offence at the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness and imposed 15 years’ imprisonment with an eight-year non-parole period, plus a 15-year post-release reporting period.

R v Sheard; R v Clarke [2026] NSWDC 351 concerned sentencing for two counts each of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm during a planned drug robbery. Sheard fired a rifle five times, seriously wounding two victims; Clarke was unarmed but participated knowing firearms were present, with liability through extended joint criminal enterprise. The key issue was the individualised assessment of their objective criminality, disadvantage, mental illness, deterrence and community protection. Both were convicted. Finding special circumstances, the Court sentenced Sheard to 10 years with a six-and-a-half-year non-parole period, and Clarke to six years with a three-and-a-half-year non-parole period.

R v Marshall [2026] NSWSC 1165. McGuire J sentenced Robert Marshall for manslaughter by excessive self-defence after he deliberately stabbed Adam Cordingley three times with a hunting knife. Cordingley, who was unarmed, had confronted Marshall about an affair and initiated the physical assault. The key issue was the proper basis and seriousness of the offending, including whether Marshall intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The Court found that intent unproved and sentenced him for an unlawful and dangerous act, towards but not at the lower end of objective seriousness. Mental health, remorse, good character and rehabilitation prospects mitigated sentence. Marshall received six years’ imprisonment, with a three-year-and-eight-month non-parole period.

O’Toole v R [2026] NSWDC 348 concerned appeals against nine Local Court convictions arising from two matters. In the Passat matter, the prosecution relied on a police officer’s recognition of O’Toole during a fraction-of-a-second side-on observation. In the motorbike matter, identity depended on circumstantial evidence, including footage, clothing, number-plate evidence and an alleged false 000 call. The key issue was whether the evidence, independently reassessed on appeal, proved identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the recognition insufficiently reliable and the circumstantial strands unable collectively to exclude reasonable alternatives. Both appeals were allowed, all convictions set aside, and all nine charges dismissed.

R v Ballesty [2026] NSWDC 352 is a sentencing decision concerning seven Commonwealth offences arising from extremist online conduct: failing to comply with a s 3LA assistance order, five uses of a carriage service to menace, harass or offend, and displaying a Nazi salute. A further carriage-service offence was taken into account. The key issue was the appropriate sentence, balancing the seriousness of the violent and racist communications against Ballesty’s materially contributing mental health impairment, remorse and rehabilitation prospects. Mahony SC DCJ held that general deterrence remained important and rejected time served and an intensive correction order. An aggregate three-year prison term was imposed, with recognizance release after 16 months.

Mehieddine v R [2026] NSWCCA 151 concerned an appeal against a seven-year aggregate sentence, with a four-year and eight-month non-parole period, for eight Commonwealth fraud offences involving 40,844 false Medicare claims and $2,215,351. The principal issue was whether reopening previously agreed facts, causing delay and adjournments, could justify a 20% rather than 25% guilty-plea discount, despite the corrections favouring the applicant. The Court held that the discount was open and procedural fairness had been afforded. Findings on limited insight and remorse were also available, and the sustained, sophisticated fraud justified the sentence. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

CR v R [2026] NSWCCA 150 concerned an appeal against an aggregate seven-year sentence, with a four-year-six-month non-parole period, for six domestic violence-related offences committed shortly after CR’s release on parole. The key issue was whether the sentencing judge impermissibly treated actual or threatened violence under s 21A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 as aggravating the choking and assault offences, despite violence already being an element of those offences. The Court unanimously found impermissible double counting, while differing on whether the reasons were also inadequate. Nevertheless, given the serious, repeated offending and CR’s circumstances, no lesser sentence was warranted. Leave was granted, but the appeal dismissed.

R v Park [2026] NSWDC 318 concerns sentencing for jointly attempting to possess commercial quantities of MDMA, methamphetamine and cocaine concealed in an imported heat pump. The key issue was whether the offence’s scale and life maximum required further full-time custody, despite Park’s limited, closely supervised role, low culpability, rehabilitation and exceptional family hardship. Wass SC DCJ assessed the offending towards the lower end of objective seriousness, noting Park accepted delivery but did not control the importation or know the drugs’ precise contents. He received three years’ imprisonment, with immediate release on a four-year recognizance subject to stringent supervision and treatment conditions. The drugs were ordered destroyed.

R v Palesoo [2026] NSWDC 319 concerned the sentencing of Crew Palesoo, Simon Palesoo and Keanan Carroll for conspiring to supply more than a large commercial quantity of cocaine, with proceeds-of-crime offences taken into account. The key issues included their differing roles, parity with a previously sentenced offender, plea discounts and credit for restrictive bail amounting to quasi-custody. Beckett DCJ held that role and organisational responsibility mattered more than quantity alone, ranking Crew as most culpable and Carroll as least. After 15% plea discounts, Crew received four years and six months’ imprisonment, Simon three years and five months, and Carroll three years. Forfeiture and proceeds orders were also made.

R v Fisher [2026] NSWDC 324 concerns sentencing for three historical indecent assaults on the same child between 1967 and 1970, with another offence taken into account on a Form 1. The Court weighed the abuse of trust, enduring victim harm and objective seriousness against Fisher’s earlier imprisonment for related offending, voluntary 1971 admissions to broader conduct, genuine remorse, complete rehabilitation and 55 years without reoffending. The key issue was whether imprisonment was the only appropriate penalty under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). It was not. Concurrent community correction orders of two years, 18 months and two years were imposed.

R v Siddiqui [2026] NSWDC 331 concerned sentencing for two offences of dishonestly using a director’s position contrary to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), with a further offence taken into account. Siddiqui diverted about $1.39 million owed to EFSOL into an account he controlled and transferred it for unrelated purposes while knowing the company was in acute financial distress. The key issue was whether anything short of imprisonment could adequately punish and denounce the deliberate breach of trust. After allowing for guilty pleas, remorse, other mitigating factors and totality, Anderson SC DCJ convicted Siddiqui and imposed six years and six months’ imprisonment, with a three-year-and-three-month non-parole period.

R v Kerfoot [2026] NSWDC 332 concerns a judge-alone circumstantial prosecution for recklessly destroying by fire an unoccupied house at 69 Bligh Street, South Grafton. The central issue was identity: whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mitchell Kerfoot was the person captured entering and leaving the property around the time of the fire. Newlinds SC DCJ held that the cumulative effect of CCTV, gait and clothing, digital evidence, a Metallica beanie containing Kerfoot’s DNA, and his false account of his route home excluded reasonable alternatives. Expert evidence supported deliberate ignition using an ignitable liquid. The Court found Kerfoot guilty on the single count.