AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 15 December 2025

R v HAMDAN [2025]

[2025] NSWDC 574

Assault & violenceTraffic & drivingPublic order & justice offences
CRIME SENTENCING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM WITH INTENT FAIL TO STOP AND ASSIST DRIVING ROAD RAGE SENTENCING

Citation: [2025] NSWDC 574
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 15 December 2025
Judge(s): S Beckett DCJ

Background

The offender, a young man on his red provisional licence, was sentenced for two offences arising from a road rage incident on the Cumberland Highway, Smithfield, on the evening of 4 January 2024. The victim, a stranger who had his two-and-a-half-year-old child in the car, had beeped his horn after the offender cut dangerously into his lane. What followed was an escalating confrontation: the offender threw a bottle at the victim's car, drove aggressively between lanes to block the victim, and pursued him by flashing lights and braking suddenly.

The situation culminated when both vehicles stopped near Hamilton Road. The victim got out of his car and walked towards the offender's vehicle carrying a torch retrieved from his boot. After a brief standoff in which the offender initially drove away, he performed a U-turn, mounted the median strip, and deliberately drove his Ford Ranger into the victim on the footpath. The impact caused the victim to become airborne, after which the vehicle ran over the lower part of his body. The offender remained at the scene for approximately 13 seconds before reversing and driving away. The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including a broken leg requiring surgical insertion of a metal plate and screws, a broken nose requiring surgery, a fractured eye socket causing his eye to sink 2 millimetres, facial fractures, a brain haemorrhage, and a dislocated shoulder. He was unable to work for approximately eight months.

The offender was charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, standard non-parole period of 7 years) and failing to stop and assist after a vehicle impact causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 52AB(2) of the Crimes Act (maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment). He presented himself at Granville Police Station the day after the incident, having seen a police media release, and participated in a record of interview. He ultimately pleaded guilty on 25 July 2025 after the matter was referred to the Plea Resolution Call-over.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900) and the offence of failing to stop and assist (s 52AB(2))?
  • Where did the offending fall on the spectrum of objective seriousness, particularly having regard to the standard non-parole period of 7 years for the s 33(1)(b) offence?
  • What weight should be given to aggravating factors under s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, including the use of a vehicle as a weapon, the vulnerability of the victim (who had a young child present), and the offender's failure to stop?
  • What weight should be given to mitigating factors under s 21A(3), including the offender's youth (he was on a provisional licence), his mental health conditions, his lack of prior criminal history, his early surrender to police, and his plea of guilty?
  • What discount was appropriate for the guilty plea, and what discount (if any) was appropriate for assistance to authorities under s 22A and s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act?
  • What role did the offender's youth, prospects of rehabilitation, and diagnosed mental health conditions play in the sentencing exercise?
  • Whether there were special circumstances justifying a departure from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of the term of the sentence?

Decision

The court found that the offending was objectively serious. The use of a motor vehicle as a weapon to deliberately strike a pedestrian was treated as a grave act. Her Honour noted several aggravating features: the offender used his vehicle as a weapon, the offending occurred in the context of a road rage incident that the offender significantly escalated, the injuries were severe and life-altering, and the victim's young child was present in the victim's vehicle during the earlier stages of the confrontation. The offender's failure to stop and render assistance after striking the victim compounded the seriousness of the episode. The court accepted the agreed position that the striking of the victim and the subsequent running over constituted a single act rather than two distinct acts, which limited the degree of aggravation to some extent.

In terms of mitigation, the court gave weight to the offender's youth, his lack of prior criminal record, and his voluntary presentation to police the following day. The court also took into account evidence of the offender's mental health conditions, though the judgment text available does not disclose the precise diagnoses or the extent of the discount attributed to those conditions. Her Honour considered the offender's plea of guilty, entered at the Plea Resolution Call-over stage, and applied an appropriate discount for that plea, as well as considering any discount for assistance to authorities arising from his early surrender and participation in the record of interview. The court had regard to the principles in Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 regarding the standard non-parole period as a guidepost, and to comparable sentencing decisions cited by both parties, including R v Thompson [2021] NSWSC 590, R v Wooley [2019] NSWDC 474, and Chemaissem v R [2021] NSWCCA 66.

Her Honour also weighed the offender's prospects of rehabilitation, noting the relevance of youth as discussed in cases such as R v BAP [2024] NSWCCA 206 and DS v R and DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156. The court found that there were special circumstances justifying a longer than usual parole period, taking into account the offender's age and rehabilitation prospects, as well as the need for supervision and support upon release. The victim's partial contribution to the escalation — by getting out of his car and approaching the offender with a torch — was acknowledged, although the court was careful not to overstate this given the extreme disproportionality of the offender's response.

Note: Because the full text of the judgment was truncated, the precise terms of the sentence imposed (aggregate sentence length, non-parole period, and any other specific orders) are not available from the material provided. The reasoning summarised above is drawn from the available portion of the judgment and the metadata.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced on Count 1 (cause grievous bodily harm with intent, s 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900) and Count 3 (fail to stop and assist, s 52AB(2) Crimes Act 1900).
  • The precise sentence lengths and non-parole periods are not available from the truncated text. The offender had already served 6 days in pre-sentence custody, which would have been taken into account.
  • Special circumstances were found, indicating a departure from the standard statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the total term.

Note: Readers should consult the full judgment on NSW Caselaw for the complete sentencing orders.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated the deliberate use of a motor vehicle to strike a person as an extremely serious form of grievous bodily harm offending, assessing objective gravity accordingly notwithstanding the offender's youth and lack of prior criminal history.

  • Where an offender is identified as the primary escalator in a road rage incident, this significantly increases the objective seriousness of the offending. The Court closely examined the trajectory of the confrontation and found that the offender's pursuit, intimidation, and ultimately deliberate violence were key aggravating features, even though the victim made some contribution to the confrontation.

  • Youth, mental health, and rehabilitation prospects received meaningful weight in mitigation but were ultimately constrained by the need for general deterrence and denunciation in cases involving deliberate, life-threatening violence.

  • A voluntary surrender to police the day after the offence, combined with a guilty plea, attracted mitigation. However, the District Court noted that the timing of the plea (entered at the Plea Resolution Call-over stage rather than at the earliest opportunity) reduced the utilitarian discount applied.

  • Failing to stop and assist after causing grievous bodily harm was treated as a distinct and serious matter, warranting separate consideration in sentencing beyond the principal offence of causing grievous bodily harm.