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

Narayan v R

[2026] NSWCCA 94

Assault & violenceFirearms & weapons

Citation: Narayan v R [2026] NSWCCA 94
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 1 July 2026
Judge(s): McGuire J (primary judgment); Kirk JA and Yehia J agreeing

Background

The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to two offences arising from a single incident in Liverpool on 31 July 2024: reckless wounding (maximum penalty 7 years) and custody of a knife in a public place (maximum penalty 4 years). The offences arose after the applicant, already agitated from an encounter at Liverpool Police Station, approached two men he wrongly believed had been speaking about him in Hindi. Despite the victim's repeated attempts to de-escalate the situation, the applicant stabbed the victim in the forearm with a knife he had drawn from his jacket.

Following pleas of guilty with 25% discounts applied to each, the sentencing judge indicated an indicative sentence of 2 years and 6 months for the reckless wounding offence and 12 months for the knife custody offence. An aggregate sentence of 3 years imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of 2 years (adjusted for special circumstances), commencing 2 August 2024.

The applicant sought leave to appeal that sentence on two grounds: that the sentencing judge had double counted in assessing objective seriousness, and that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred by double counting facts when assessing the objective seriousness of the two offences, given the factual overlap between them
  • Whether the use of the knife was a permissible consideration in assessing objective seriousness for the custody of a knife offence
  • Whether the applicant's history of knife-related convictions was improperly treated as an element of the knife custody offence
  • Whether the aggregate sentence of 3 years imprisonment was unreasonable or plainly unjust

Decision

Ground 1: Double Counting in Objective Seriousness

The Court confirmed that sentencing judges hold a broadly based discretion in characterising the degree of objective seriousness of an offence. The proper question is not how the sentencing judge ought to have reasoned, but whether the characterisations arrived at were open. The Court found no error.

The sentencing judge recognised that both offences arose from a single course of conduct and took care to distinguish between the use of the knife and its possession. For the reckless wounding offence, the use of the knife to inflict the wound was correctly treated as relevant to objective seriousness, since the manner of wounding, the surrounding circumstances, and the nature and seriousness of the wound are all proper considerations. For the knife custody offence, the sentencing judge confined his assessment to the fact that the knife was possessed in a public place, in a high-traffic area, during daylight hours, and made no reference to the wounding itself. That distinction was sufficient to guard against double counting.

The Court also addressed the applicant's submission that his history of knife-related convictions had been improperly treated as an element of the custody offence. A prior history of knife-related offending is not an element of the custody offence under s 93IB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The relevance of that history was confined to the operation of Schedule 4 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW), which disentitled the applicant from having the offence dealt with by penalty notice.

Ground 2: Manifest Excess

The Court reiterated the established principle that there is no single correct sentence, and that manifest excess requires the applicant to demonstrate the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The sentencing judge's assessments of objective seriousness, considered alongside the maximum penalties, the surrounding circumstances, and the applicant's subjective case (which the sentencing judge accepted), justified the aggregate sentence.

The comparative cases relied upon by the applicant did not assist his argument. Some involved indicative sentences for reckless wounding equal to that imposed here; the remainder involved longer indicative sentences. All involved factual dissimilarities. The Court also noted that JIRS statistics referable to a single component of an aggregate sentence, and compiled prior to an increase in the maximum penalty, are of limited utility. Taking all competing considerations into account, including the applicant's lengthy criminal history, poor rehabilitation prospects, and high reoffending risk factors, the aggregate sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • When two offences arise from a single course of conduct, the sentencing court must be alert to the risk of double counting, but can guard against it by clearly distinguishing the factual basis for each offence's assessment of objective seriousness.
  • The use of a knife to inflict a wound is a relevant consideration when assessing the objective seriousness of a reckless wounding offence, but it is not relevant to the objective seriousness of a custody of a knife offence charged under s 93IB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
  • A prior history of knife-related convictions is not an element of the knife custody offence; its relevance in this case was limited to the question of whether a penalty notice was available under Schedule 4 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW).
  • In dismissing the manifest excess ground, the Court of Criminal Appeal reaffirmed that comparative cases are a guide to the range of sentences, not a boundary fixing the permissible sentence, and that factual dissimilarities between comparative decisions limit their utility.
  • JIRS statistics applicable to a single component of an aggregate sentence and predating an increase in the maximum penalty carry limited weight in manifest excess arguments.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 35(4), 93IB
- Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW), Sch 4

Cases
- Anderson v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 272; [2022] NSWCCA 187
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Craft v R [2021] NSWCCA 131
- Delleci v R [2020] NSWCCA 4
- Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Downes v R [2020] NSWCCA 167
- Elwood v R [2023] NSWCCA 200
- He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95
- Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
- House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
- Kliendienst v R [2020] NSWCCA 98
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Maybury v R [2022] NSWCCA 233
- McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94; (2009) 194 A Crim R 439
- Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
- Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Perry v R [2021] NSWCCA 244
- Prince v R [2020] NSWCCA 268