Citation: R v Abdou [2025] NSWDC 480
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 21 November 2025
Judge: Newlinds SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 34-year-old man with a longstanding diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, appeared for sentencing on one count of aggravated robbery under s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years' imprisonment. A related charge of intimidation was placed on a Form 1 (meaning it was taken into account in arriving at the overall sentence without being separately punished).
In March 2024, while living in his father's home, the offender punched his 68-year-old father in the nose after a dispute over $50, dragged him to the ground, stood on his back, and removed $1,100 and a phone from his father's person. As he left, he threatened to "finish off" his father if the police were called. The father sustained a displaced nasal fracture. At the time of the offence, the offender was already serving a sentence in the community on an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO), was in breach of that order's reporting conditions, and was non-compliant with a Community Treatment Order (CTO) imposed by the Mental Health Tribunal requiring him to take his medication.
The offender pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity in the Local Court and had remained in custody on a bail refusal since the date of arrest, a total of 605 days at the time of sentencing.
Legal Issues
- Whether the offending fell above, at, or below the mid-range of objective seriousness for aggravated robbery, by reference to the guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- What discount applied for the early guilty plea
- How the offender's severe and longstanding mental illness, combined with his poor history of compliance with treatment and supervision, should be weighed in sentencing
- What sentence structure and parole conditions were appropriate given the prospect of further non-compliance with treatment upon release
Decision
His Honour found that the offending fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness, rejecting both the Crown's submission (above mid-range) and the defence submission (at mid-range). The key reason was that the offender was clearly mentally unwell at the time of the offending, which reduced his moral culpability. Although actual violence was used and the victim was vulnerable at 68 years of age, there was no planning, the incident was impulsive and brief, and the amount taken was relatively modest.
The offender received a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of his early guilty plea. His Honour also noted that the offender had immediately admitted the conduct to his case manager, which was a relevant subjective consideration. Against that, the offender's substantial criminal history, which included prior violence and robbery directed at family members, disentitled him to leniency on that ground.
The subjective case raised significant concerns about the intersection of the mental health system and the criminal justice system. The Mental Health Tribunal file ran to approximately 900 pages spanning supervision since 2012. The sentencing hearing itself was repeatedly disrupted because the offender appeared, on each occasion, to be mentally unwell and unable to give coherent instructions. At one point he demanded the court impose the maximum penalty so the process would simply end. His Honour observed frankly that the criminal justice system is an unsatisfactory vehicle for addressing the needs of offenders with this profile, and expressed concern that the prospect of appropriate treatment upon release was low.
His Honour ultimately structured the sentence to give the offender the earliest realistic opportunity for parole, framing that as offering him "every chance of rehabilitation." Parole eligibility was set at 20 December 2025, shortly after the sentence was imposed.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1 (aggravated robbery), commencing 21 July 2024 and expiring 20 July 2026.
- A minimum non-parole period of 17 months was set, expiring 20 December 2025, being the first date of parole eligibility.
- The Crown was directed to write to the Parole Board enclosing the sentencing remarks, with the court's recommendation that a condition of parole be a formal referral, with all relevant medical records, to Community Mental Health Services at Concord Mental Health and to the Mental Health Tribunal, for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment, including residential facilities if possible.
- The court recommended that the following conditions from the Corrective Services Breach Report of 4 April 2024 be imposed as parole conditions:
- Ongoing contact with Concord Mental Health to monitor medication adherence
- Referral to a drug and alcohol counselling service, possibly inpatient, to address alcohol and other drug concerns
- Ongoing police and Domestic Violence Liaison Officer (DVLO) contact to ensure compliance with conditions, including any apprehended violence orders
Key Takeaways
-
Mental illness at the time of offending can reduce an offender's moral culpability and thereby bring the objective seriousness of the offence below the mid-range, even where actual violence was used and the victim was vulnerable. The District Court applied this reasoning to place the offending below mid-range despite the Crown arguing for above mid-range.
-
A 25% utilitarian discount for a guilty plea entered at the first opportunity in the Local Court applied in these circumstances, consistent with established principle. The strength of the Crown case reduced, but did not eliminate, the significance of the plea.
-
Longstanding non-compliance with medication, treatment orders, and supervision conditions does not, of itself, preclude a finding that mental illness reduced moral culpability at the time of the offence. The two assessments operate on different questions.
-
His Honour expressed pointed judicial concern about the inadequacy of the criminal justice system as a mechanism for managing and treating seriously mentally ill offenders, characterising the intersection between the mental health system and the criminal justice system as "unsatisfactory."
-
Where the prospect of appropriate post-release treatment is low, a sentencing court may nonetheless structure the sentence to enable early parole eligibility, accompanied by detailed recommendations to the Parole Board about mental health referral conditions, as the best available mechanism to support rehabilitation.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 95(1) (aggravated robbery)
Cases
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 (guideline judgment on aggravated robbery sentencing)
- R v Harbourne [2025] NSWDC 388
- R v Broadstock-Maloney [2025] NSWDC 331