AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Court of Criminal Appeal 3 July 2026

Rahim v R

[2026] NSWCCA 93

Sexual offences
SENTENCING APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE SEXUAL OFFENDING AGAINST TWO VICTIMS

Citation: Rahim v R [2026] NSWCCA 93
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 3 July 2026
Judge(s): Stern JA, Huggett J (with reasons), Sirtes J

Background

The applicant stood trial on an indictment containing 19 counts of sexual and related offending against two child victims, aged between 14 and 16. He was convicted on 17 of those counts, acquitted on two. The offending took place over a single evening in August 2023 and involved grooming, sexual intercourse, sexual touching, and the production and possession of child abuse material.

The sentencing judge in the District Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 11 months, pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The 17 counts encompassed three grooming offences, four offences of using a child for the production of child abuse material, seven counts of sexual intercourse with a child, two counts of sexual touching, and one count of possessing child abuse material.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against that sentence on the sole ground that the aggregate sentence failed to reflect the totality principle and was manifestly excessive.

  • Whether the aggregate sentence of 14 years and 6 months failed to reflect a proper application of the totality principle (the requirement that the overall sentence not be crushing or disproportionate when multiple offences are sentenced together).
  • Whether, in the alternative, the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to comparable cases involving offences under s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
  • Whether any latent error in one or more of the indicative sentences would itself require resentencing by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Decision

Ground: Aggregate sentence failed to reflect totality and was manifestly excessive

Huggett J, with Stern JA and Sirtes J agreeing, granted leave to appeal given the length of the sentence and the interests of finality, notwithstanding the Crown's opposition to leave.

The court reviewed a line of comparative decisions concerning offences under s 66C(3), including the analysis compiled by Cavanagh J in Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 330. That review confirmed that offences of this kind encompass a wide range of objective and subjective circumstances, producing a correspondingly wide range of sentences. The cases relied upon by the applicant, including Kenny, Beavis, Alarcon, Blackett, and Brown, were each distinguished on their facts and offered no meaningful basis for concluding the present sentence was excessive.

The court rejected the argument that excessive accumulation had produced a crushing sentence. The sentencing judge had allowed a high degree of notional concurrency to account for the overlapping criminality across counts. The applicant had not discharged the heavy burden of demonstrating that the totality principle was misapplied or that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Latent error in indicative sentences

On the question of whether latent error in one or more indicative sentences would itself require resentencing, the court noted competing authority from comments by Dhanji J in Lee v R and RA v R, but followed the preponderance of authority as identified by N Adams J in Dorsett v R: latent error in an indicative sentence may support a ground of manifestly excessive sentence, but is not itself an error requiring resentencing.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that an applicant seeking to disturb an aggregate sentence bears a heavy burden of demonstrating that the totality principle was misapplied or that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.
  • Comparative sentencing cases involving s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) span a wide range of circumstances and sentences; close attention to factual distinctions is required before such cases can assist an argument of manifest excess.
  • A sentencing judge's allowance of substantial notional concurrency across multiple counts is a recognised mechanism for giving effect to the totality principle, and the Court of Criminal Appeal will not lightly interfere with that exercise of discretion.
  • Latent error in one or more indicative sentences within an aggregate sentence may ground a manifestly excessive argument, but it does not, of itself, require the appellate court to resentence the offender, reflecting the preponderance of authority as summarised in Dorsett v R [2024] NSWCCA 192.
  • Where grooming behaviour is deliberate and premeditated rather than opportunistic, and where serious sexual offending is perpetrated against multiple victims in a single course of conduct, the sentencing court may properly treat deterrence and denunciation as significant factors.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), including ss 66C(3), 66DB(a), 66EB(3), 91G(2)(a), 91H(2)
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 53A
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW)

Cases
- Alarcon v R [2018] NSWCCA 298
- Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58
- Beavis v R [2018] NSWCCA 248
- BJS v R [2013] NSWCCA 123
- Blackett v R [2021] NSWCCA 210
- Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 330
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
- Dorsett v R [2024] NSWCCA 192
- Elmir v R [2023] NSWCCA 260
- Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
- JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
- Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6
- KS v R [2024] NSWCCA 147
- Lee v R [2023] NSWCCA 70
- Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
- Murray v R [2024] NSWCCA 107
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155
- PD v R [2012] NSWCCA 242
- Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
- PN v R [2024] NSWCCA 86
- RA v R [2024] NSWCCA 149