AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 1 June 2026

Siddiqui v R

[2026] NSWCCA 67

Sexual offences

Citation: Siddiqui v R [2026] NSWCCA 67
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal (New South Wales)
Date: 1 June 2026
Judge(s): McHugh JA, Sweeney J, R A Hulme AJ

Background

The applicant, an Uber driver, was convicted by a jury in the District Court at Penrith on 7 March 2023 of one count of sexual intercourse without consent (forced fellatio) and two counts of sexual touching without consent. The offences occurred in July 2021 when the applicant picked up a 16-year-old male complainant who had booked an Uber ride home from work. During the trip, the applicant deviated from the agreed route, stopped the car near a reserve, moved into the back seat, and committed the offences.

The applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and three months. At trial, the applicant's case was that the sexual activity occurred but was consensual and initiated by the complainant. He admitted lying to police in his initial interview, attributing the lie to concerns about his sexuality given his Muslim faith and marriage.

The applicant, now self-represented, sought an extension of time to appeal against both conviction and sentence. He raised 14 grounds of appeal against conviction and 8 grounds against sentence, which the Court reorganised into broader issues for analysis.

  • Whether any of the applicant's numerous grounds of appeal against conviction disclosed material error on the part of the trial judge or defence counsel
  • Whether the jury's guilty verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
  • Whether the trial judge erred in prohibiting disclosure of a report under s 29 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) and s 130 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  • Whether the jury directions and summing up were fair and balanced
  • Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive
  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to account for bail conditions as "quasi-custody," post-sentencing conduct, absence of character references, or the applicant's personal circumstances

Decision

R A Hulme AJ, with McHugh JA and Sweeney J agreeing, refused leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. All three judges independently reviewed the trial record and were satisfied the verdicts were open to the jury on the evidence. McHugh JA expressly stated he was "entirely satisfied" the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on each count, applying M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

On the conviction appeal, the Court found no material irregularity in the trial process and concluded that none of the applicant's complaints had the potential to affect the verdicts. The jury directions and summing up were held to be fair and balanced. The trial judge's decision to prohibit disclosure of a report under the care and protection legislation and the public interest immunity provisions of the Evidence Act was found to involve no error, particularly as the report was irrelevant to any issue at trial. The trial judge had been "sympathetic to concerns regarding procedural fairness" in dealing with the issue.

On the sentence appeal, the Court held the sentencing judge had adequately accounted for all relevant aspects of the applicant's personal circumstances, including mental and physical health and separation from family. The Court declined to consider post-sentencing material (including conduct in custody, character references, and course certificates), noting such matters are only relevant if sentencing error is first established. The bail conditions imposed on the applicant were not uncommon and did not constitute "quasi-custody." The sentencing judge had identified several mitigating factors but was obliged to impose a sentence proportionate to the objective gravity of the offending. The aggregate sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal against conviction refused
  • Leave to appeal against sentence refused

Key Takeaways

  • All three members of the Court of Criminal Appeal independently assessed the trial evidence before confirming the guilty verdicts were open to the jury, applying the test from M v The Queen and the more recent authority of The King v ZT (2025) 281 CLR 137.
  • No material error in trial process, jury directions, or defence counsel's conduct was established across any of the 14 grounds of appeal against conviction raised by the self-represented applicant.
  • Post-sentencing material, such as in-custody conduct, character references, and course completion certificates, could not be taken into account on a sentence appeal absent a threshold finding of sentencing error, consistent with Richardson v R and Kentwell v The Queen.
  • Bail conditions that are not uncommon do not amount to "quasi-custody" warranting a sentencing discount, and consideration of such conditions is not mandatory in any event.
  • Where a sentencing judge has expressly identified mitigating factors but imposed a sentence proportionate to the objective gravity of the offending, the resulting sentence will not be disturbed as manifestly excessive.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), s 29
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61HA(b), 61I, 61KC(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5, 21A(3)(i)
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 5F(3), 6(1), 6(3)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 29, 66(2), 130
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), rr 3.5(5), 4.15

Cases:
- Bonett v R [2013] NSWCCA 234
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118; (2011) 209 A Crim R 509
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
- Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
- R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
- R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284; (2021) 293 A Crim R 253
- Richardson v R [2021] NSWCCA 304
- Smith v R [2025] NSWCCA 104
- The King v ZT (2025) 281 CLR 137; [2025] HCA 9
- TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46