AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 3 December 2025

Hadid v R; Singh v R

[2025] NSWCCA 207

Drugs

Citation: Hadid v R; Singh v R [2025] NSWCCA 207
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 3 December 2025
Judges: Ward P, Adamson JA, Weinstein J

Background

Two applicants, referred to here as the first applicant (Hadid) and the second applicant (Singh), pleaded guilty in the District Court to attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, specifically methamphetamine (179.12 kilograms pure weight) and cocaine (972 grams pure weight), contrary to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The drugs had been concealed inside industrial machinery shipped from the United States to a business in Prestons, NSW. A co-offender who owned and operated that business was the consignee of the machinery and the organiser of the scheme.

The two applicants became involved through an encrypted messaging group and participated for approximately 24 hours. Their role centred on dismantling the machinery to extract the drugs, with the second applicant having the additional roles of purchasing the required tools and arranging access to a garage for the operation. Each received a 25% discount on sentence for their guilty pleas. The first applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and three months; the second applicant received nine years and six months with a non-parole period of five years and eight months.

The co-offender, sentenced separately by a different judge approximately 14 months later, received 13 years and three months imprisonment (undiscounted: 14 years) with a non-parole period of eight years, reflecting his central and organisational role and his significantly smaller plea discount of only 5%.

  • Whether the sentences imposed on each applicant were manifestly excessive
  • Whether each applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance arising from the lesser sentence received by the co-offender (the parity ground)
  • Whether the second applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance arising from the lesser sentence received by the first applicant
  • Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted, given the notices of appeal were filed late

Decision

Extension of time. The notices of appeal were filed outside the prescribed time limit under the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW). The delay arose because the transcript of the co-offender's sentence, delivered in December 2024, was not received by the applicants' solicitor until April 2025. The Court accepted this as a reasonable explanation for the delay and, noting that the grounds were not unarguable, granted leave to both applicants to file out of time.

Manifest excess. The Court found no manifest excess in either sentence. Weinstein J (with whom Ward P and Adamson JA agreed) was satisfied that the sentencing judge was alive to the specific features of each applicant's case and applied established sentencing principle. The sentences fell well within the legitimate range available in the exercise of sentencing discretion. The Court examined comparable sentences for similar offences to confirm this conclusion.

Parity with the co-offender. The Court rejected the argument that the applicants had a justifiable sense of grievance when compared with the co-offender's sentence. The co-offender received a much heavier sentence, not a lighter one, so the applicants' complaint was that the co-offender's sentence was insufficiently severe relative to theirs. The Court found the difference was reasonably justified by the co-offender's significantly greater culpability: he owned the importing business, arranged customs clearance, paid import costs, and was the organiser of the entire scheme, in contrast to the applicants' peripheral 24-hour involvement. The Court also noted that a parity analysis is not a purely mathematical comparison and that the relationship between sentence length and severity is not linear.

Parity between the two applicants. The second applicant's additional ground, that his sentence was unjustifiably higher than the first applicant's, also failed. The Court accepted the sentencing judge's finding, which was open on the evidence, that the second applicant played a slightly more prominent role through purchasing tools and organising the garage. The difference in penalties appropriately reflected that difference in criminality.

Orders Made

  • Time for filing the notice of appeal extended to 23 June 2025 (both applicants)
  • Leave to appeal granted (both applicants)
  • Appeals dismissed (both applicants)

Key Takeaways

  • A parity complaint does not require that the co-offender received a lighter sentence; it can arise where an applicant contends that a co-offender's heavier sentence reveals an unjustified disparity. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that significant differences in culpability, role, and plea discount can fully justify substantial differences in sentence outcome.
  • In dismissing the manifest excess grounds, the Court reaffirmed that sentences will only be disturbed on this basis where they fall outside the legitimate range available to the sentencing judge, not merely because a different outcome was possible.
  • Where an applicant does not challenge the sentencing judge's findings as to their respective roles, those findings provide a sound basis for distinguishing between co-offenders sentenced for the same offence.
  • Parity analysis is not a mechanical mathematical exercise. The Court applied the principle, drawn from prior authority, that the relationship between sentence length and its severity is not linear, and this bears on how apparent numerical differences between sentences should be assessed.
  • An extension of time to appeal will be granted where an applicant provides a reasonable explanation for delay and the grounds are not unarguable, even if the Crown opposes the extension on the basis that the appeal lacks merit.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 10
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.1, 307.5
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 3.5

Cases
- Baladjam v R [2018] NSWCCA 304; (2018) 341 FLR 162
- Chan, Lo and Nguyen v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 153
- Dao v R [2011] NSWCCA 183
- He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- Keen v R [2024] NSWCCA 157; (2024) 389 FLR 9
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217
- Lu v R; Huang v R [2021] NSWCCA 68
- Mohr v R [2024] NSWCCA 197; (2024) 390 FLR 293
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Ozgen v R (Cth) [2025] NSWCCA 65
- PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179; (2017) 268 A Crim R 61
- Piao v R [2019] NSWCCA 154
- R v Barkl; R v Dumbrell; R v Theobald [2023] NSWCCA 309
- R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301
- R v M.A.K., R v M.S.K. [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
- R v Pham, Tran & Dang; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2017] QCA 46
- R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133
- R v Zeng [2008] NSWCCA 183