AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 March 2026

R v Haidar

[2026] NSWDC 63

Sexual offencesAssault & violence
SENTENCING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT CONSENT INTENTIONAL CHOKING SEX WORKERS NON CONSENSUAL PENILE

Citation: R v Haidar [2026] NSWDC 63
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 March 2026
Judge(s): Sutherland SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man in his mid-to-late 60s with no prior criminal history, was tried before a jury on an indictment containing nine counts relating to two separate complainants. One count was the subject of a directed verdict of Not Guilty during the trial. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all eight remaining counts following a trial running from 17 September to 9 October 2025.

The first complainant (referred to by the pseudonym "Daisy Flower") was 18 years old at the time of the offending on 3 February 2022. She had joined a "Pay per Meet" dating website and arranged to meet the offender at a hotel in Chippendale in exchange for $500. After an initial period of consensual sexual activity, the offender engaged in two separate acts of non-consensual penile-anal intercourse (Counts 1 and 2). The complainant told him to stop, said anal sex was "her boundary," and began crying, but the offender continued and told her to stop crying because it was a "turn-off."

The second set of offences occurred approximately 18 months later, on 17 August 2023, while the offender was on bail for the charges relating to the first complainant. The second complainant (pseudonym "Rose Jones"), aged 31, was working as a masseuse at an erotic massage parlour. After an initial period of consensual sexual activity, the offender subjected her to multiple acts of non-consensual sexual intercourse (Counts 3 and 5–9) and intentional choking without consent (Count 4). The offending against Ms Jones was described as forceful and sustained: the offender physically restrained her, pinning her down, and continued despite her repeated crying and requests to stop.

  • Sentencing for eight offences: seven counts of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (maximum penalty 14 years' imprisonment; standard non-parole period of 7 years) and one count of intentional choking without consent contrary to s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (maximum penalty 5 years' imprisonment).
  • Factual findings for sentencing purposes, including the degree of force used, the extent of physical harm, and whether certain aggravating facts (such as ejaculation) were established beyond reasonable doubt.
  • The relevance of aggravating factors under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including that the second set of offences was committed while the offender was on bail.
  • The weight to be given to mitigating factors, including the offender's age, physical ailments, mental health issues, lack of prior criminal history, and the fact that this was his first time in custody.
  • The application of totality principles in structuring sentences across multiple offences involving two separate victims and two separate incidents.
  • Whether a s 23 order under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) was appropriate, or whether the offender's mental health conditions reduced his moral culpability.
  • Consideration of the victim impact on both complainants, as required by s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Decision

The court's factual findings for sentencing were carefully circumscribed. In relation to the first complainant, Sutherland SC DCJ found that there were two separate acts of non-consensual penile-anal intercourse but noted a "distinct lack of clarity" about the duration of each act or the interval between them. His Honour was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender ejaculated, nor that any physical injury detected could be attributed to the offending. The court accepted, consistently with the jury's verdict, that both acts of anal intercourse occurred without the complainant's consent, and that the offender continued despite her clearly expressed objection, physical distress, and crying.

In relation to the second complainant, the court's findings (based on the truncated text available) disclosed a significantly more prolonged and violent course of offending. The offender physically restrained Ms Jones — flipping her over on the massage table and positioning himself on top of her with his legs pinning hers — while engaging in forceful non-consensual penile-vaginal intercourse and digital penetration, as well as intentionally choking her. This conduct persisted despite Ms Jones's repeated requests to stop and visible distress. The court treated the commission of these offences while the offender was on bail for the charges relating to the first complainant as a significant aggravating factor under s 21A.

In assessing mitigating factors, the court had regard to the offender's age (mid-to-late 60s), his several physical ailments, mental health issues, the absence of any prior criminal history, and the fact that this was his first period in custody. However, the judgment's approach — consistent with authority including Kentwell v The Queen and R v Pogson — was to weigh these factors against the seriousness of the offending. The vulnerability of both complainants as sex workers, and the offender's exploitation of the transactional nature of the encounters to overstep clearly communicated boundaries, were evidently central to the court's assessment of objective seriousness.

The court also considered the victim impact evidence from both complainants, as required by s 53A. While the full detail of the sentences imposed is not available from the truncated text, the structure of the judgment indicates that Sutherland SC DCJ imposed separate sentences structured to reflect the totality of the offending across two distinct incidents and two victims, with appropriate allowance for accumulation and concurrency.

Orders Made

  • The offender was found guilty by jury verdict on all eight remaining counts (Counts 1–5, 7–9; Count 6 having been the subject of a directed acquittal).
  • Sentences of imprisonment were imposed. (Note: The precise terms and structure of the sentences are not available from the truncated text provided.)
  • Pre-sentence custody of approximately 7 months (approximately 2 months from arrest in March 2024 to bail in May 2024, plus approximately 5 months from the jury verdict on 9 October 2025 to the sentencing date) was taken into account.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated offending against sex workers with full seriousness, holding that the complainants' engagement in sex work did not diminish the gravity of the offences. Consent to some sexual activity does not extend to other acts, and clearly communicated boundaries, including a refusal of specific acts, must be respected.

  • Where the offender committed a second, more serious set of offences while on bail for the first, this was treated as a substantial aggravating feature consistent with s 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), underscoring the risk of escalation that bail conditions are intended to guard against.

  • No aggravating facts (such as ejaculation or physical injury attributable to the offending) were found where those facts were not established beyond reasonable doubt, even though the jury's verdict established the offences themselves. This reflected the orthodox approach to factual findings for sentencing under R v Pogson and related authority.

  • Subjective factors, including the offender's age, health, lack of prior criminal record, and first experience of custody, were given weight but did not overwhelm the assessment of objective seriousness. The District Court concluded that these considerations were insufficient to warrant a non-custodial outcome for serious sexual offending.

  • In scrutinising the context in which consent was purportedly given, the Court gave particular attention to the power dynamics inherent in commercial sexual encounters and their capacity to be exploited. The seriousness of the offending was not discounted simply because the encounters commenced on a consensual or transactional basis.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 37(1A), 59, 61I, 61J
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5, 21A, 53A
- *Mental Health (