R v Ballard [2026] NSWDC 297 concerned sentencing for supplying 17.457 kilograms of 1,4-butanediol, a large commercial quantity. The central issues were Ballard’s role in the organised transaction, the effect of childhood disadvantage, mental illness and addiction on moral culpability, parity with two co-offender drivers, and whether imprisonment should be served in custody or by Intensive Correction Order. Mahony SC DCJ found Ballard was an impulsive, subordinate driver rather than a planner or principal, placing the offence in the low range of seriousness. After a 25% guilty-plea discount, the Court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment, served by Intensive Correction Order with supervision, community service, abstinence and treatment conditions.

R v Munday [2026] NSWDC 296. Peter Munday was sentenced for possessing three child-like sex dolls and creating and possessing 200 AI-generated child abuse images. The Court considered the objective seriousness of material involving no real children, the Commonwealth mandatory minimum arising from prior similar convictions, and the effects of autism spectrum disorder and paedophilic disorder on culpability, deterrence and future risk. Both offences were at the low, but not lowest, end of seriousness. Autism reduced culpability to some degree, while paedophilic disorder alone was not mitigating. After plea reductions and recognition of cooperation, Munday received an effective six-year sentence, with registration and forfeiture orders.

The King v Ko [2026] HCA 29 concerned a conviction for attempting to import a commercial quantity of methamphetamine and phenylethylamine concealed in a dough mixer. The prosecution alleged Ko used his logistics experience to facilitate the consignment’s customs clearance and delivery. The key issue was whether jury directions improperly allowed awareness of a real or substantial chance that the consignment contained a substance to establish an intention to import it. By a five-to-two majority, the High Court held the directions risked conflating recklessness with intention, causing a miscarriage of justice. The Crown’s appeal was dismissed, leaving intact orders quashing the conviction and remitting the matter for retrial.

Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28 concerned whether joint representation of co-offenders at sentence created conflicting duties and vitiated the sentencing discretion. The same Senior Counsel represented Farrugia and Kanmaz, submitting that Farrugia’s offending was more serious than Kanmaz’s while arguing that both offenders’ conduct was less serious than the Crown alleged. By majority, the High Court dismissed Farrugia’s appeal. It held that a sentencing error or procedural irregularity must be material, meaning it could realistically have affected the judge’s reasoning. Without evidence of Farrugia’s advice or instructions, the record established only a possibility of conflict, not practical injustice. Edelman and Jagot JJ dissented.

R v Davidson [2026] NSWSC 958. Campbell J considered a joint application concerning Callan Davidson’s killing of his mother, Cheryl Anne Davidson, at Gunnedah. Although the parties agreed that the mental health impairment defence applied, the Court had to determine independently whether it was established on the balance of probabilities. Accepting unanimous psychiatric evidence, the Court found that active schizophrenia, paranoid delusions and command hallucinations prevented Davidson from appreciating the killing’s moral wrongness. It returned a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible, ordered his detention until release by due process of law, and referred him to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

R v McKinnon [2026] NSWDC 295 is a sentencing decision concerning a month-long series of thefts, threats, assaults and robbery in the lower Clarence Valley, several involving knives. The key issue was how to balance the objective seriousness of the offending and community protection against McKinnon’s profound childhood disadvantage, homelessness, addiction, likely mental illness, remorse and early guilty pleas. Applying Bugmy principles, the Court reduced his moral culpability but found his rehabilitation prospects guarded and full-time custody necessary. An aggregate sentence of seven years was imposed, commencing 9 August 2025, with a three-year-and-six-month non-parole period after special circumstances were found.

R v Aller (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 964 concerns the sentencing of Michael Aller for the manslaughter of Amy Aiton by substantial impairment, following a special hearing, an earlier limiting term and his restored fitness to be tried. Muston J assessed the sustained stabbing as a very serious manslaughter. Key issues included the effect of Aller’s mental illness, his earliest available guilty plea, and whether the previous 11-year-and-six-month limiting term capped the sentence. The Court held it did not, adopted a 16-year starting point and allowed a 25% plea discount. Aller was convicted and sentenced to 12 years, commencing 1 September 2012 and expiring 31 August 2024.

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.