AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 14 November 2025

Rangihuna v R

[2025] NSWCCA 186

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyPublic order & justice offences
OFFENDERS — WHERE FIVE CO OFFENDERS SENTENCING JUDGMENT

Citation: Rangihuna v R [2025] NSWCCA 186
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 14 November 2025
Judge(s): Adamson JA, Chen J (principal judgment), Rigg J

Background

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Campbelltown Local Court to two offences arising from a violent home invasion and kidnapping in the early hours of 1 June 2021. A group of men forced entry into a home in Bringelly, NSW, assaulted family members, and abducted the victim, who was then held for approximately nine hours in a warehouse in Revesby while ransom demands of up to $100 million were sent from his phone. Police eventually conducted a tactical operation to resolve the siege.

The applicant was convicted of specially aggravated kidnapping (s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and specially aggravated break and enter (s 112(3) of the Crimes Act). Two further offences were taken into account on a Form 1: possession of ammunition without a licence and tampering with evidence by fire. On 15 December 2022, Judge Baly SC sentenced the applicant to an aggregate term of 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

The applicant was sentenced first among a group of co-offenders. All five co-offenders were subsequently sentenced, each receiving lesser terms. The applicant then sought leave to appeal on the single ground that this disparity was unjustifiable, giving rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.

  • Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file his notice of appeal, given that the last co-offender was not sentenced until December 2024.
  • Whether there was unjustifiable disparity between the applicant's sentence and the sentences imposed on each of his five co-offenders, such that he had a justifiable sense of grievance.
  • Whether inconsistent factual findings made by different sentencing judges in relation to different co-offenders could be challenged through a disparity appeal.

Decision

Extension of time: The applicant filed his notice of appeal in August 2025, well outside the ordinary 3-month period following sentence. The Court accepted that it was reasonable to await the sentencing of all co-offenders before mounting a disparity argument, with the last co-offender sentenced in December 2024. The Crown did not oppose the extension, and the Court granted it on the basis that the applicant's solicitor proceeded with reasonable promptitude once that final sentence was imposed.

Co-offenders convicted of basic kidnapping only (Feilo, Gillett, Schaaf): Three co-offenders were convicted of the basic, not specially aggravated, form of kidnapping and were not convicted of any break and enter offence at all. Their sentencing judges also found that their roles in the offending differed from the applicant's. Chen J held that these significant differences in the nature and extent of the offending readily explained the difference in sentences, and no unjustifiable disparity arose.

Mr Saafi: Although Saafi pleaded guilty to the specially aggravated form of kidnapping, he was not sentenced in relation to the specially aggravated break and enter. His role was also found to differ from the applicant's. The Court held that these distinctions were sufficient to explain the sentencing difference.

Mr Finau: Finau pleaded guilty to the same two principal offences as the applicant, but the sentencing judge found that he had an intellectual disability and did not play a managerial or planning role. Chen J confirmed that these differences were meaningful and that the lesser sentence was a product of a legitimate exercise of sentencing discretion. The Court also affirmed the established principle that inconsistent factual findings across co-offender sentencing proceedings do not, of themselves, found a basis for appellate intervention, as sentencing proceeds on the evidence before each individual judge rather than on an objectively established singular truth.

Orders Made

  • Extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal granted to 7 August 2025.
  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a disparity ground requires more than a numerical difference in sentences. The disparity must be unjustifiable after accounting for differences in the offences, roles, and subjective circumstances of each co-offender.
  • Where co-offenders are convicted of substantively different offences (for example, the basic rather than the specially aggravated form of an offence), that difference alone can be a substantial and sufficient explanation for a lesser sentence.
  • Inconsistent findings of fact across separate sentencing proceedings involving co-offenders do not automatically give rise to appellate error. Sentencing proceeds on the evidence before each sentencing judge, and it is not open to this Court to resolve contradictory factual findings made by different judges on different material.
  • A co-offender's intellectual disability, and a finding that they played no managerial or planning role, are recognised as factors that can legitimately produce a markedly different sentencing outcome even where the formal charge is identical to that of another participant.
  • An extension of time to appeal on a disparity ground may be granted where the applicant waited for all co-offenders to be sentenced before filing, provided the appeal was then pursued with reasonable promptitude.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 86(3), 112(3), 317(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 10
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 65(3)

Cases:
- Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462
- Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
- Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601
- PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179; (2017) 268 A Crim R 61
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Mohr v R [2024] NSWCCA 197; (2024) 390 FLR 293
- Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540
- Black v R (2022) 107 NSWLR 225
- Doyle v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 1