AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 August 2026

Awad v R

[2026] NSWCCA 122

Fraud & dishonesty
CRIMINAL APPEAL SENTENCING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FORGERY 33 COUNTS INVOLVING SINGLE ACT S 21A(2)(M)

Citation: Awad v R [2026] NSWCCA 122
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 19 August 2026
Judge(s): N Adams CJ at CL, Hamill J, Roberts J

Background

The appellant was a registered tax accountant who, together with a co-offender, produced 71 false documents, including 67 false individual tax returns, intended to induce lenders to grant loans that would not otherwise have been approved. He earned $5,850 across 35 transactions over four months before his arrest in October 2021. Importantly, no financial loss resulted because the third co-offender who supplied the information never actually used the false documents in a loan application.

Following his guilty pleas after committal, the appellant was sentenced in the District Court to an aggregate term of two and a half years imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order (ICO). A 10% sentencing discount was applied for his late guilty pleas. His co-offender, sentenced separately in the Local Court on 14 of his offences, received a 25% discount for an early plea and a two-year ICO.

The appellant sought leave to appeal on two grounds: that the sentencing judge wrongly applied a statutory aggravating factor, and that he suffered a justifiable sense of grievance arising from the disparity with his co-offender's sentence.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by finding the offences were aggravated under s 21A(2)(m) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) on the basis that the offending "comprised a series of criminal acts," where each individual count involved a single act
  • Whether the appellant suffered a justifiable sense of grievance arising from parity with the co-offender's sentence
  • On resentencing, whether any sentence of imprisonment remained the only appropriate sentencing option given events that had occurred since the original sentence was imposed

Decision

Ground 1: Aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(m)

The Court found that the sentencing judge erred. Although the appellant committed 33 offences, each individual count involved a single act, namely the creation of one false document. Under well-established authority, the aggravating circumstance in s 21A(2)(m) (that the offence "comprised a series of criminal acts") does not apply where each offence is constituted by a single act. The respondent conceded the error was open to be found, though it maintained no lesser sentence was warranted.

Ground 2: Parity with co-offender

The Court found it unnecessary to resolve this ground definitively, because the parity considerations would be addressed in the resentencing exercise. The Court noted that the principles of equal justice remained applicable, even though comparison was complicated by the co-offender having been sentenced in the Local Court on only 14 offences and benefiting from a substantially higher discount. The Court also noted that the appellant's case was objectively less serious than the co-offender's, because the co-offender's conduct caused $190,000 in actual loss to ANZ Bank, whereas the appellant's conduct caused no financial detriment.

Resentencing

On resentencing, the Court assessed the objective seriousness of the offences as low relative to other forgery offences, and found the appellant's subjective case was more compelling than his co-offender's. The critical factor informing the final outcome was the appellant's situation since sentence was imposed. By the time of the appeal hearing, he had served approximately 12 months of his ICO and had completed all 150 hours of the community service component. The Court held that these unusual circumstances meant it was not satisfied that a further period of imprisonment was warranted. Hamill J, with the agreement of the other members of the Court, resentenced the appellant to an 18-month community correction order with supervision conditions.

N Adams CJ at CL emphasised that, absent those unusual circumstances, she would have concluded that the s 5(1) threshold (requiring that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate) had been crossed.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed
  • Aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court quashed
  • In lieu thereof, the appellant convicted of 33 offences and sentenced to an 18-month community correction order commencing 19 August 2026 and expiring 18 February 2028, with conditions including: no commission of any offence; appearance before the District Court if called upon; and supervision by a community corrections officer

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 21A(2)(m) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the aggravating circumstance that an offence "comprised a series of criminal acts" does not apply where each individual count is constituted by a single act, even if the offender committed many such counts across a period of time.
  • Parity principles remain applicable where co-offenders are sentenced in different courts with different jurisdictional limits, though the comparison requires careful attention to those structural differences.
  • Events occurring after an original sentence is imposed are relevant to the resentencing exercise on appeal, including the extent to which an offender has already served conditions attached to an ICO.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeal declined to impose a further term of imprisonment on resentencing where the appellant had completed all community service hours and served approximately half of his ICO, treating imprisonment as a measure of last resort in those unusual circumstances.
  • N Adams CJ at CL expressly noted that the outcome would have differed had the appellant not already completed such a substantial portion of his original sentence, underscoring that the decision turns on its particular facts rather than establishing any general departure from the s 5(1) threshold.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5(1), 8(1), 21A(2)(m), 21A(2)(o), 71, 88, 89(2)(b), 89(2)(g)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) , ss 253, 253(b)(ii)
- Local Court Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases
- AM v R [2024] NSWCCA 26; (2024) 313 A Crim R 562
- Aslett v R [2006] NSWCCA 360
- Breen v R [2025] NSWCCA 182
- Cargnello v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2012) 266 FLR 464; [2012] NSWCCA 162
- DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320; (2023) 312 A Crim R 301
- Dorsett v R [2024] NSWCCA 192
- FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114
- LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131
- Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97; (2021) 289 A Crim R 260
- R v Boney [2001] NSWCCA 432
- R v Dyson [2023] NSWCCA 132
- R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125; (2023) 308 A Crim R 465
- R v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740; [2005] NSWCCA 145