Forbes v R [2026] NSWCCA 147 concerns an appeal against a 17-year aggregate sentence for seven offences arising from an armed robbery at the Sussex Inlet RSL, including detaining six staff members. The key issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Although sentencing statistics were not determinative, the sentence was the highest recorded for the relevant offence and exceeded one imposed for significantly more serious violent offending. The Court found the sentence wholly disproportionate, with excessive accumulation and inadequate regard to totality. It granted leave, allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence and resentenced Forbes to 10 years’ imprisonment with a seven-year non-parole period.

Crook v R [2026] NSWCCA 146. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal considered an aggregate sentence of six years and four months for fourteen offences, including two counts of using an offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension committed hours apart. The key issue was whether the sentencing judge had impermissibly increased the objective seriousness of the second count because Crook had committed the first earlier that day. The Court found this amounted to double punishment and was a material error requiring resentencing. On resentencing, it found the second offence remained at the more serious end and no lower sentence was warranted. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Cripps v R (s 52A guideline judgment) [2026] NSWCCA 144 reconsidered sentencing for dangerous driving offences after Timothy Cripps received four years’ imprisonment for two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm following an impaired, high-speed collision. The Court revoked the numerical guideline in R v Whyte and replaced it with a non-numerical guideline, clarifying that objective seriousness and moral culpability are distinct and that imprisonment is required in all but very rare s 52A cases. Although Cripps established doubt that subjective matters had been included in assessing objective seriousness, resentencing would have produced a slightly higher sentence. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

R v XK [2026] NSWSC 1129 concerned a joint application under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). XK had killed her two children and attempted suicide. Although she understood the nature and quality of her actions, the key issue was whether severe mental illness prevented her from reasoning with moderate sense and composure about their wrongfulness. After independently scrutinising substantially unanimous psychiatric evidence, Cavanagh J found the mental health impairment defence established. The Court entered special verdicts that the acts were proven but XK was not criminally responsible, ordered her continuing detention, and referred her to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

El Seidi v R [2026] NSWCCA 143 concerns a conviction appeal from a judge-alone trial for dangerous driving occasioning death and grievous bodily harm. The applicant argued that an epileptic seizure may have made his driving involuntary, that the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and denied procedural fairness, and that the verdicts were unreasonable. The Court held that the judge could assess omissions from the applicant’s voluntary accounts, including the absence of any reported pre-seizure buzzing sensation. Considering the expert, eyewitness and physical evidence cumulatively, the Court found the seizure hypothesis was not reasonably possible. Time was extended, leave granted, and the appeal dismissed.

Mahoney v R [2026] NSWCCA 142 concerns an appeal against a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment, with a 10-year non-parole period, for multiple sexual offences and an assault against a child complainant. The key issues were whether the sentencing judge could find beyond reasonable doubt that penile-vaginal intercourse involving ejaculation was unprotected, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court held the finding was reasonably open on the agreed facts, the unchallenged exchange at sentence and the absence of any reference to a condom. Although severe, the sentence properly reflected nine episodes over two years and was not plainly unjust. Time was extended, leave granted, and the appeal dismissed.

Vute v R [2026] NSWCCA 141. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal against an aggregate sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment, with an 18-month non-parole period, for five property offences involving unlawful entry and theft. Vute argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider alternatives to full-time custody, inadequately addressed institutionalisation, erred in refusing an intensive correction order, and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. The Court held that each relevant matter had been considered and that the complaints largely challenged discretionary weight or outcome rather than identifying House v The King error. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Application of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; In the matter of Singh [2026] NSWSC 1103 concerned consent orders over bank accounts associated with eight entities controlled by Sarpreet Singh, which had been involved in selling illegal vaping products. The key issue was whether s 316 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) authorised the orders without determining the Commissioner’s substantive entitlement under ss 19, 38, 49 and 69(2). Elkaim AJ found that the orders fell within Chapter 2 and that both the Commissioner and Singh, as the relevant affected person, had consented. The Court therefore made the signed consent orders without deciding the underlying merits.

R v Fahmy (No. 3) [2026] NSWDC 330 concerns sentencing after jury convictions for five fraud offences against the National Disability Insurance Agency and one money laundering offence. Over about two and a half years, Fahmy made more than 1,000 false claims through controlled entities, obtaining $2,212,967.90, and dealt with over $1 million of the proceeds through multiple accounts. The Court addressed the facts established by the verdicts, the objective seriousness of each offence, and concurrency given the overlap between the frauds and laundering. Despite significant mitigation, general deterrence required custody. Fahmy received seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a four-year non-parole period, plus a forfeiture order.

TD v R [2026] NSWCCA 139 concerns TD’s sentence for three child sexual offences against his two young nieces, with three further offences taken into account. The key issue was whether, after finding that TD’s profoundly deprived and abusive childhood reduced his moral culpability, the sentencing judge also had to determine its effect on general and specific deterrence. The Court held that the failure to do so was a material sentencing error. It did not decide the separate mental illness ground. Granting leave, it allowed the appeal, quashed the original eight-year aggregate sentence and resentenced TD to seven years’ imprisonment, with a four-year non-parole period.

R v Tammer-Spence [2026] NSWSC 1090. Cavanagh J sentenced Jacob Tammer-Spence for manslaughter by excessive self-defence after he fatally stabbed Sitaleki Filihiahekava once in the chest during a brief street confrontation. The central issue was the offence’s objective seriousness, particularly how far the force exceeded a reasonable response to Tammer-Spence’s genuine fear that he might be shot. The Court found the resort to a knife significantly excessive, while accepting that his traumatic deprivation and causally significant PTSD reduced moral culpability. After a 25 per cent guilty-plea discount and a finding of special circumstances, he received eight years and three months’ imprisonment, with a five-year, five-month non-parole period.

R v Billings [2026] NSWSC 1088. N Adams CJ at CL sentenced Daniel Billings for the planned murder of his former partner, Molly Ticehurst, after she reported alleged sexual assault and domestic violence offences to police. The central issue was the appropriate sentence, including the murder’s objective seriousness, its retaliatory public justice character, the effect of Billings’ depression and childhood adversity, and the guilty plea discount. The Court placed the offence at the high end of objective seriousness while accepting reduced moral culpability. A 20% plea discount was applied. Billings received 28 years’ imprisonment, commencing 20 April 2024, with a 20-year non-parole period.

Pearce v R [2026] NSWCCA 138 concerned appeals against Pearce’s conviction for aiding or abetting an attempt to possess a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported cocaine, and his six-year, three-month sentence. He acted as a spotter in a sophisticated importation operation. The principal conviction issue was whether the circumstantial evidence, considered collectively, permitted the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that he believed he was assisting a drug offence. The Court held that it did. His parity challenge also failed: differences between the co-offenders’ roles, plea discounts, criminal histories and personal circumstances justified their different sentences. Leave was granted for both appeals, but each was dismissed.

ST v R [2026] NSWCCA 136 concerns the guilty-plea discount available where ST pleaded guilty to remaining child sexual offence charges on the first day scheduled for a pre-recorded evidence hearing, months before jury empanelment. The key issue was whether “the first day fixed for the trial” under ss 25C and 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was the pre-recorded hearing date or the later jury date. The Court held that the hearing formed part of the trial because the children’s evidence was given when recorded. ST therefore qualified only for a 5% discount. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

AW v R [2026] NSWCCA 134 concerns a sentence appeal by a mother who injected her medically vulnerable infant daughter with insulin, causing life-threatening hypoglycaemia. The key issues were whether her later refusal to deal with two paediatricians aggravated the offence, and how her Factitious Disorder, traumatic history and related circumstances affected objective seriousness and moral culpability. The Court found no evidentiary basis to treat the later conduct as aggravating, rejected further reduction of objective seriousness to avoid double counting, and held that her moral culpability was significantly reduced. The appeal was allowed and AW was resentenced to one year and ten months’ imprisonment, with an eleven-month non-parole period.