AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 8 October 2025

R v Cikar

[2025] NSWDC 465

Assault & violenceFraud & dishonesty
CRIME SENTENCE CONCEAL SERIOUS INDICTABLE OFFENCE

Citation: R v Cikar [2025] NSWDC 465
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 October 2025
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to two substantive offences. The first was concealing a serious indictable offence under s 316(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, arising from his awareness of a drug transaction in Penrith in July 2024, which he failed to report to police. The second was assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company under s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, arising from a violent group attack on a fellow inmate at Shortland Correctional Centre, Cessnock, on 28 February 2025.

The drug supply offence involved a transaction in which 138.2 grams of methylamphetamine (80% pure) was sold for $16,250 to an undercover police operative. The offender was present in the vicinity during the transaction. While he was not the supplier and had no knowledge of the planning, he was aware of the transaction and said nothing to police. He also refused to provide PIN codes to his mobile phones when directed by a Digital Evidence Access Order, which became a Form 1 matter.

The prison assault involved six co-offenders attacking a victim in the exercise yard. The offender played a sustained and active role: punching the victim to the head, dragging him to the ground, and continuing to punch and kick him. The victim spent four nights in hospital, sustaining a comminuted nasal fracture, lung bruising, and significant ear swelling.

  • What sentence was appropriate for each substantive offence, having regard to objective seriousness and personal circumstances?
  • What discount applied by reason of the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas?
  • Whether s 56 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which ordinarily requires consecutive sentences for convicted inmates who assault others, applied to the offender at the time of the prison assault.
  • To what extent the sentence should be backdated, given the complexity of the offender's custody history (bail refusal, parole revocation, and the timing of the assault).

Decision

Bourke SC DCJ accepted the agreed facts for both offences and applied a 25% discount across both counts, reflecting the utilitarian value of the offender's guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity.

On the s 56 question, both the prosecution and the offender agreed, and the court accepted, that the offender was not a "convicted inmate" at the time of the assault because his parole had not yet been formally revoked when the assault occurred. At that date, he was in custody only on a bail refusal. The section therefore did not apply in terms, and the court was not strictly required to impose a consecutive sentence.

However, the court held that the policy behind s 56, confirmed in Kuruppu v R [2021] NSWCCA 261, remained relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion over backdating. That policy reflects the principle that offences committed in custody should not, in effect, be served concurrently with pre-existing custodial obligations without good reason.

Weighing all factors, the court determined to backdate the sentence by approximately one-third of the period between the initial arrest date (4 December 2024) and the expiry of the revoked parole (2 October 2025), equating to around 100 days. The sentence was therefore fixed to commence on 24 June 2025.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate head sentence of two years and five months, commencing 24 June 2025 and expiring 23 November 2027.
  • Non-parole period of one year and seven months, expiring 23 January 2027.
  • Form 1 matters (failing to comply with a Digital Evidence Access Order; affray) taken into account.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that a person held in custody solely on bail refusal does not qualify as a "convicted inmate" for the purposes of s 56 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, even if parole is later revoked with backdated effect.
  • Under s 56, the legislative policy favouring consecutive sentences for custodial assaults continues to be relevant to the court's sentencing discretion even where the section does not apply in strict terms, as confirmed in Kuruppu v R [2021] NSWCCA 261.
  • Where an offender's custodial history is complicated by overlapping periods of bail refusal and parole revocation, the sentencing court retains discretion to backdate a sentence to an appropriate intermediate date rather than either the earliest or latest available date.
  • A 25% discount for the utilitarian value of early guilty pleas was applied consistently across both substantive offences.
  • Form 1 matters that would ordinarily have been dealt with in the Local Court were taken into account subject to the jurisdictional limits of that court, consistent with the Crown's concession.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(2), 316(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 56

Cases:
- Kuruppu v R [2021] NSWCCA 261