Citation: [2026] NSWDC 139
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 May 2026
Judge(s): Conlon SC ADCJ
Background
The appellant pleaded guilty in the Downing Centre Local Court to six charges of being an accessory before the fact to intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying property, and one charge of knowingly participating in a criminal group by directing its activities. The offences occurred across January 2025 and involved a coordinated series of antisemitic attacks across Sydney, including spray-painting hate speech on vehicles and buildings, arson of motor vehicles and a childcare centre near a synagogue, and the vandalisation of the Newtown Synagogue with swastika symbols.
The appellant, then aged 31, acted on instructions from unknown persons overseas who were part of a broader criminal organisation. He directed co-offenders in Sydney to commit the offences or carry out preparatory acts, including sourcing stolen vehicles, flammable liquids, and equipment. Communications between the appellant and his co-offenders via the encrypted messaging application Signal revealed the appellant's central coordinating role in the Australian operations.
The Local Court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and four months, applying a full 25% discount for early guilty pleas. The appellant appealed to the District Court on the ground of severity.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Local Court overstated the objective seriousness of each offence, including the characterisation of the appellant's role in the joint criminal enterprise
- Whether the imposition of identical indicative sentences of two years for each individual offence was erroneous, given that the offences fell into different categories of seriousness
- Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive, including by reference to parity considerations with co-offenders
Decision
The District Court rejected the submission that the Local Court's characterisation of the appellant as "the instigator and dominant figure" and "the person in Australia planning and controlling the commission of the offences" was inconsistent with the agreed fact that he was acting under instructions from overseas. Conlon SC ADCJ conducted a detailed review of the agreed facts and concluded that the Local Court's assessment of the appellant's role could be reconciled with those facts.
On the question of indicative sentences, the Court noted that when a Local Court imposes an aggregate sentence for very serious criminality, the specification of indicative sentences can be "problematic" because of jurisdictional limits. Citing Saleh v R [2026] NSWCCA 42, the Court reiterated that indicative sentences are not themselves amenable to appeal, although they may guide whether error exists in the aggregate sentence. Even if indicative sentences are assessed as excessive, that does not necessarily mean the aggregate sentence is excessive. The Local Court itself had acknowledged that some indicative sentences would have been well beyond two years but for the jurisdictional limit.
The Court considered the totality of the criminality involved. The offences were committed while the appellant was on bail for a separate matter relating to hindering a police investigation into an organised criminal group murder, an aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The offences were also motivated by hatred or prejudice against a group of people on the ground of their religion, engaging s 21A(2)(h). The deliberate strategy disclosed by the messaging evidence, including attempts to incite division between communities to further the overseas criminal group's aims, underscored the gravity of the offending.
The appeal against severity was dismissed. The Court was not persuaded that the aggregate sentence failed to reflect the totality of the criminality or that it was manifestly excessive.
Orders Made
- Appeal against severity dismissed
- The aggregate sentence of five years' imprisonment (non-parole period of three years and four months) imposed by the Local Court was confirmed
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that a Local Court's characterisation of an offender as the dominant domestic figure in an organised criminal enterprise is not necessarily inconsistent with a finding that the offender acted under overseas instructions, where the agreed facts support both propositions.
- Following Saleh v R and JM v R, indicative sentences recorded under an aggregate sentencing exercise are not themselves amenable to appeal, and even excessive indicative sentences do not necessarily render the aggregate sentence excessive.
- Local Court jurisdictional limits on individual sentences are not to be treated as a form of maximum penalty or a penalty reserved for the worst case.
- In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending, the Court applied the aggravating factors under s 21A(2)(h) (motivation by hatred or prejudice based on religion) and s 21A(2)(j) (offending while on bail) in the context of organised antisemitic criminal activity.
- No error was established on the parity ground, as the appellant's more senior coordinating role distinguished him from the co-offenders who carried out the physical acts, justifying a heavier aggregate sentence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93T(1A), 346/195(1A)(a) and (b)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2)(h), 21A(2)(j), 23
Cases:
- AA v R [2024] NSWCCA 132
- JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
- Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
- Saleh v R [2026] NSWCCA 42