AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 9 October 2026

R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan (No 10) (Sentence)

[2026] NSWSC 1249

HomicideFirearms & weapons
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCING GUN SUPPLY AND MURDER FACT FINDING AFTER TRIAL OFFENDERS ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

Citation: R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan (No 10) (Sentence) [2026] NSWSC 1249
Court: Supreme Court of NSW
Date: 9 October 2026
Judge(s): Hamill J

Background

On 5 September 2022, three offenders played various roles in brokering the sale of what they believed was a real pistol. The seller had substituted a gel blaster, pocketing the purchase price in what the judgment describes as a "rip." When the buyer discovered the deception in the early hours of 6 September 2022, the three offenders set about locating the seller, Anthony Nugent, a resident of Hamilton South who lived with his long-term partner.

That evening the three men, together with an associate, walked to Mr Nugent's unit. One of the three, Mohamad Raad, discharged a loaded shotgun through the front door at close range, killing Mr Nugent. His partner was inside the home and witnessed him die.

A jury empanelled in a joint trial returned unanimous guilty verdicts on 8 May 2026 on charges of murder and of supplying a firearm. All three offenders had earlier pleaded guilty to the firearm supply on the first day of trial. Hamill J then undertook a detailed sentencing exercise, resolving contested factual questions before imposing sentence on each man.

Legal Issues

  • Whether Mohamad Raad discharged the shotgun with an intention to kill or merely with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm
  • Whether Tyrone Tuli and Mohd Azlan Latham Aznan were parties to a simple joint criminal enterprise to shoot Mr Nugent, or only to an extended joint criminal enterprise to intimidate him with a loaded firearm
  • What weight to give to the evidence of Witnesses B, C, J and others whose credibility was seriously contested
  • How to assess the objective seriousness of the murder and the firearm supply offence for each offender
  • How the principle of totality applies when an offender is already serving, or subject to, multiple concurrent and accumulated prison terms for related and unrelated offending

Decision

Issue 1: Raad's intention at the time of the shooting

Hamill J found beyond reasonable doubt that Raad intended to kill Mr Nugent when he pulled the trigger. The central basis for that finding was the nature of the weapon and its discharge at very close range, around or less than one metre from Mr Nugent's chest, combined with the jury's inherent finding that the trigger was pulled deliberately (at [74]). The court rejected the argument that poor lighting could have meant Raad could not see his target (at [74]). While the court accepted that it could not exclude the possibility that the intention to kill was formed spontaneously at the door rather than earlier in the day, that finding did not reduce the gravity of the offending (at [75]).

Issue 2: The nature of Tuli's participation

The court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Tuli joined a simple joint criminal enterprise to kill or shoot Mr Nugent. His obtaining of the shotgun and close association with Raad pointed in that direction, but the circumstances immediately before the shooting, including a delay at the door while an associate attempted to negotiate a refund, and apparent shock expressed by Tuli afterwards, raised a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's primary case (at [80]). Tuli will be sentenced on the basis of an extended joint criminal enterprise: he joined an enterprise to intimidate Mr Nugent with a loaded firearm and continued to participate having foreseen that Mr Raad might shoot with murderous intent (at [80], [96]).

Issue 3: The nature of Latham's participation

The court found Latham's role was more peripheral than Tuli's. Latham was absent for many hours during the day, remained near the stairway rather than approaching the door, and appeared to have played little part in key communications. There were genuine uncertainties about when he first saw the weapon and where he was when it was loaded (at [83]). He was not found to be a party to any agreement to shoot. He will be sentenced on the extended joint criminal enterprise basis: he joined an enterprise to intimidate Mr Nugent with a loaded gun and continued despite knowing it was possible that Raad might kill with intent to kill or inflict really serious injury (at [85]).

Issue 4: Witness credibility

The court declined to act on Witness C's evidence unless independently corroborated, finding him self-serving, unconvincing and dishonest, and concluding he fashioned his account to implicate Tuli in exchange for a sentencing benefit (at [58]). The court also treated Witnesses B, F and J with significant caution given their individual reliability problems. Despite Witness J's credibility difficulties, the court found that her account of a threat being made at 8:37 pm on 6 September 2022 was supported by surrounding circumstances and was made by Raad (at [70]), though the threat alone did not establish an intention to kill (at [71]).

Issue 5: Objective seriousness and sentencing

The firearm supply offence was assessed as falling very far below the middle of the range for that offence category, largely because the object supplied was a gel blaster deemed by statute to be a firearm rather than an actual weapon (at [89]). Raad's murder was placed in the upper part of the middle range of objective seriousness (at [94]). Tuli's murder was placed in the broad middle range but well below Raad's (at [97]). Latham's objective criminality was significant but fell a little below the putative mid-range (at [100]).

Issue 6: Totality and the structure of sentences

Applying totality principles was described as "complicated" in Tuli's case because he was already serving sentences for serious firearm offences committed around a month after the present offending and for a further wounding committed while in custody. The court selected a commencement date six months before his current earliest release date, applied a finding of special circumstances to reduce the statutory non-parole ratio, and tempered the total sentence to avoid a "crushing" outcome while remaining conscious that multiple sentences must not be seen to give an offender a discount for prolific offending (at [177], [178]). A partial accumulation of three or four months was imposed between the firearm supply sentence and the murder sentence for each offender (at [179]).

Orders Made

  • Mohamad Raad: convicted and sentenced to a total effective term of 23 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years and 6 months, commencing 2 August 2023 and expiring 1 February 2041, with a balance of term of 5 years and 9 months expiring 1 November 2046
  • Tyrone Tuli: convicted and sentenced to a total effective term of 20 years and 4 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years and 4 months commencing 21 December 2026 and expiring 20 April 2041, with a balance of term of 6 years expiring 20 April 2047
  • Mohd Azlan Latham Aznan: convicted and sentenced to a total effective term of 15 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years and 3 months commencing 1 August 2023 and expiring 31 October 2033, with a balance of term of 5 years expiring 31 October 2038
  • Each offender was advised that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) applies to them

Key Takeaways

  • Where the precise scope of a joint criminal enterprise is in dispute at sentencing after a jury verdict, the sentencing judge must resolve that dispute to the criminal standard. Here, the court declined to sentence Tuli and Latham on the prosecution's primary case of a simple joint enterprise to shoot, finding instead that only the extended joint criminal enterprise basis was established beyond reasonable doubt (at [80], [85]).

  • A finding of spontaneous, rather than premeditated, intention to kill does not reduce the gravity of a murder. The court expressly held that forming a spontaneous intention to kill still increases the seriousness of the offence and placed Raad's offence in the upper part of the middle range (at [93], [94]).

  • The supply of a gel blaster deemed by statute to be a firearm is generally less serious than the supply of an actual firearm, because it does not pose the same public danger as trading in real weapons. Accordingly, the court placed all three offenders' firearm supply offences very far below the middle of the relevant range (at [88], [89]).

  • The totality principle does not prevent some accumulation when offenders are already serving multiple sentences, but courts must guard against a "crushing" total and cannot impose a commencement date or non-parole structure that effectively gives a discount for multiple offending. Hamill J navigated this tension by selecting a considered commencement date, finding special circumstances, and tempering the aggregate, while acknowledging that the resulting concertina effect meant Tuli would serve no separate term for a further serious in-custody offence (at [177], [187]).

  • Disparate sentences among co-offenders convicted of the same murder charge are justified where their objective criminality differs significantly. Latham received a substantially lower sentence than his co-offenders, reflecting both his lesser role in the extended joint criminal enterprise and his compelling subjective case, including very good prospects of rehabilitation and a limited prior record (at [168], [175]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes ( High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes ( Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 10A, 21A(2), 21A(2)(c), 21A(2)(e), 21A(2)(eb), 21A(2)(j), 21A(2)(n), 21A(3)(e), 21A(3)(f), 21A(3)(g), 21A(3)(i), 22A, 30E, 44, 45, 54A(2)
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4D, 51(1A)(a)
- Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53C, 55G

Cases
- Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
- Kanaan & Ors v R [2006] NSWCCA 109
- Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
- Perish, Anthony v R; Perish, Andrew v R; Lawton, Matthew v R (2016) 92 NSWLR 161; [2016] NSWCCA 89
- R v Knight [2005] NSWCCA 253; (2005) 155 A Crim R 252
- R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
- R v Martin [2015] NSWSC 521
- R v Phong Ngoc Pham; R v Vu Ngoc Pham; R v Minh Hoang Nguyen [2002] NSWSC 1261
- R v Raad, Tuli & Latham Aznan (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 397
- R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan (No 8) [2026] NSWSC 397
- R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan (No 9) [2026] NSWSC 498
- R v Spinks [2021] NSWSC 649
- R v Woods; R v Hayes; R v McLachlan; R v Harding; R v Farnsworth (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 545
- Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98