R v Assaad [2025] NSWDC 359

Citation: R v Assaad [2025] NSWDC 359
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 September 2025
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender, born in March 2006 and aged 18 at the time of sentencing, pleaded guilty to two serious offences committed on consecutive days in late March 2024. Both offences involved armed robberies of taxi drivers using a silver switchblade knife. The offender was arrested two days after the second offence and had spent just over a year in custody by the time of the sentence hearing.

The first offence occurred on 28 March 2024. The offender boarded a taxi in South Granville, brandished the knife, held it to the driver's body, and demanded $500. When the driver pulled into a service station and called for help, the offender fled but returned briefly to steal the dash camera from the vehicle.

The second offence occurred the following day, 29 March 2024. A similar scenario unfolded in Guildford, but with considerably greater violence. The offender produced a knife, smashed the dash camera, and demanded $600. When the driver resisted, the offender stabbed him multiple times in the hand and forearm, causing serious lacerations that required surgery. The driver lost consciousness at the scene from blood loss. The victim's injuries had lasting physical, psychological, financial, and social consequences, as recorded in his victim impact statement.

Legal Issues

What were the appropriate sentences for each offence, having regard to objective seriousness and the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346?
How should the sentences be structured under the aggregate sentencing regime in s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)?
Were special circumstances established under s 44(2) of that Act, justifying a non-parole period shorter than the statutory default of one-third of the head sentence?
How did the offender's youth, background, drug dependency, and guilty plea affect the sentencing exercise?

Decision

The District Court applied the guideline judgment in R v Henry to both offences, situating them within the relevant sentencing ranges for aggravated robbery. The court assessed the second offence (Sequence 4, under s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900) as the more serious, involving repeated stabbings, significant injuries requiring surgery, and a victim who suffered lasting harm. The first offence (Sequence 1, under s 95(1)) was treated as serious but less grave in its physical consequences.

In assessing objective seriousness, the court took into account the use of a weapon, the vulnerability of taxi drivers working alone, the premeditated nature of the conduct, and the serious injuries inflicted in the second offence. However, the court also considered subjective factors in the offender's favour. These included his youth (he was 17 at the time of the offences), his reported history of sexual abuse in school, his significant drug dependency including fentanyl use, his plea of guilty, and the fact that he had no relevant prior criminal history.

On the question of totality, the court found that the two offences, while occurring on consecutive days with some common features, involved separate victims and warranted some accumulation. Partial concurrency was appropriate, resulting in a head sentence of 4 years imprisonment. The court found special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, citing the offender's young age, his first period of custody, and the need for an extended supervisory period to support rehabilitation for drug addiction and address its underlying causes. This justified reducing the non-parole period below the standard one-third proportion, producing a 2-year non-parole period within the 4-year head sentence.

Orders Made

Conviction recorded for Sequence 1: aggravated robbery and inflict actual bodily harm, contrary to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.
Conviction recorded for Sequence 4: assault with offensive weapon with intent to rob and wounding, contrary to s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900.
Aggregate sentence imposed pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Special circumstances found under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Non-parole period of 2 years, commencing 3 August 2024 and expiring 2 August 2026.
Balance of term of 2 years, commencing 3 August 2026 and terminating 2 August 2028.
Parole eligibility date: 2 August 2026.

Key Takeaways

The District Court applied the R v Henry guideline to both offences, treating the s 98 offence involving repeated stabbings and surgery as the more serious of the two and structuring the aggregate sentence accordingly.
Where two offences on consecutive days share common features but involve separate victims, partial concurrency rather than full concurrency is appropriate to reflect the distinct criminality directed at each victim.
A finding of special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 may be supported by a combination of factors including extreme youth, a first custodial sentence, and the need for extended post-release supervision to address entrenched drug dependency.
Significant drug dependency, a history of abuse, and the commission of offences during adolescence are relevant subjective mitigating factors, even where the objective seriousness of the offending is high.
Guilty pleas, combined with youth and rehabilitation prospects, can affect the structure of an aggregate sentence without displacing the need for some accumulation where the offending involved multiple victims.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 95(1), 98
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44(2), 53A

Cases:
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
- BP v R [2010] 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
- TC v R [2009] NSWCCA 296
- R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105
- R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1