AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 15 July 2026

Shehade v R

[2026] NSWCCA 107

Theft & property
CRIME APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE APPLICANT RESENTENCED

Citation: Shehade v R [2026] NSWCCA 107
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 15 July 2026
Judge(s): Cavanagh J, Rigg J, Roberts J

Background

The applicant, aged 18 years and one month at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to two counts of armed robbery under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offending involved a scheme in which the applicant posted fraudulent car sale advertisements on Facebook Marketplace, lured victims to a Yagoona address with cash intended for a purchase, and then threatened them with a knife and demanded the money. A third armed robbery arising from the same scheme was taken into account on a Form 1.

In the District Court, Judge Scotting sentenced the applicant to an aggregate term of 5 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years. The sentencing judge noted the applicant's age, found good prospects of rehabilitation, and observed that the offending reflected a lack of consequential thinking linked to youth, immaturity, and ADHD.

The applicant sought leave to appeal on two grounds: that the sentencing judge failed to properly engage with the principles governing the sentencing of young offenders, and that the judge failed to adequately account for the applicant's background of disadvantage in assessing moral culpability.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider whether the applicant's youth and immaturity reduced his moral culpability for the offending
  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to assess whether general and specific deterrence should be moderated on account of the applicant's youth
  • Whether the sentencing judge failed to give increased weight to rehabilitation as a sentencing purpose
  • Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the Bugmy principles in relation to the applicant's background of disadvantage

Decision

Ground 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c): Failure to engage with youth principles

The Court found the sentencing judge's treatment of youth was insufficient. While the judge had recorded the applicant's age, identified good prospects of rehabilitation, and attributed the lack of consequential thinking to youth and immaturity, the Court held that these observations fell short of what the law requires. It was necessary for the judge to go further and expressly determine whether the applicant's youth and immaturity reduced his moral culpability, and to engage with how youth might moderate the role of general and specific deterrence in the sentencing exercise. Applying Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79, the Court held that error was established.

Ground 2: Bugmy principles and background of disadvantage

Having allowed the appeal on Ground 1, the Court found it unnecessary to consider Ground 2. The Court noted that the principles applicable to that ground were well established and that no question of principle arose from it.

Resentencing

On resentencing, the Court found that the applicant's youth and immaturity, combined with a background that had adversely affected his emotional development, collectively reduced his moral culpability. The Court accepted that general deterrence remained important given the nature of the offending, but held that the applicant's reduced moral culpability warranted a diminished emphasis on deterrence in the sentencing exercise. Rehabilitation was given additional weight, consistent with the applicant's age and positive prospects. The Court also found special circumstances based on the applicant's age, his first time in custody, and the need for an extended parole period to support reintegration. An aggregate sentence of 4 years' imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed
  • Sentence imposed by the District Court on 15 September 2025 quashed
  • Applicant resentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, commencing 7 August 2025 and expiring 6 August 2029, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months, commencing 7 August 2025 and expiring 6 December 2027

Key Takeaways

  • Noting an offender's age and finding good prospects of rehabilitation does not, of itself, satisfy the obligation to properly apply youth sentencing principles. A sentencing court must expressly consider whether youth and immaturity reduce moral culpability and whether they moderate the weight to be given to general and specific deterrence.
  • Under the principles confirmed in Sarhene v R and the broader line of CCA authority, each of the three inquiries (moral culpability, deterrence, and rehabilitation) requires discrete engagement in the reasons for sentence, not merely an acknowledgment that the offender is young.
  • Reduced moral culpability flowing from youth does not eliminate the role of general deterrence, particularly for offending of a serious and planned nature. It does, however, sound in a reduced emphasis on deterrence when balancing the sentencing purposes.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeal found special circumstances warranted by the applicant's age, his first custodial experience, and the value of an extended parole period, adjusting the statutory ratio to slightly less than 60%.
  • A background that has adversely affected an offender's emotional development can operate alongside youth and immaturity as a compounding factor in the assessment of moral culpability, consistent with the Bugmy line of authority.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) , s 97
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) , s 32

Cases
- Abed v R [2025] NSWCCA 223
- BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Coleman v R [2025] NSWCCA 211
- DG v R [2025] NSWCCA 137
- DS v R [2025] NSWCCA 53
- Faaoloii v R [2026] NSWCCA 51
- HJ v R [2014] NSWCCA 21
- Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- KT v R (2008) 182 A Crim R 571; [2008] NSWCCA 51
- Nasrallah v R (2021) 105 NSWLR 451; [2021] NSWCCA 207
- NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
- R v Dalton [2004] NSWSC 446
- R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451; [2001] NSWCCA 37
- Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79
- Singh v R (2020) 104 NSWLR 43; [2020] NSWCCA 353
- Taylor v R [2018] NSWCCA 255
- TM v R [2008] NSWCCA 158
- Yildiz v R [2020] NSWCCA 69
- Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44