AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 12 June 2026

R v Atteya; R v Khaled

[2026] NSWSC 675

Homicide

Citation: R v Atteya; R v Khaled [2026] NSWSC 675
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 June 2026
Judge(s): Sweeney J

Background

A jury found both offenders guilty of murder in June 2025. The victim was shot eight times, including twice to the head, in the basement car park of his apartment building in Rhodes on 27 June 2022. His wife was in the car with him and witnessed the killing.

The first offender was found to have participated in the murder as either the shooter or the driver of the vehicle used in the attack. The second offender was found to have played a supporting role, including providing a vehicle used in the planning of the crime. A third man, identified as the ringleader, had been sentenced separately.

Sentencing was delayed in part because the first offender sought to adduce evidence about his cognitive capacity, requiring several adjournments. The second offender agreed his sentencing should not be separated from that of the first.

  • What factual findings could be made consistently with the jury's guilty verdicts, applying the correct standards of proof (beyond reasonable doubt for facts adverse to the offenders; balance of probabilities for facts favourable to them)?
  • Whether the first offender was the shooter or the driver, and whether that distinction materially affected his culpability.
  • Whether the first offender's cognitive impairment, if established, constituted a mitigating factor.
  • Whether the culpability of either offender was so extreme as to warrant the imposition of a life sentence under s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
  • What non-parole periods and total sentences were appropriate, including the correct commencement dates.

Decision

Factual findings: first offender. Sweeney J found the first offender was present in the basement car park at the time of the shooting, acting as either the shooter or the driver. The court was unable to find positively that he was the shooter, but equally declined to find that he was not. Significantly, the court characterised the culpability of the shooter and the driver as "barely distinguishable." The court also found that from 18 June 2022 the first offender participated in a series of reconnaissance and planning activities directed at killing the victim, including multiple visits to the Rhodes area, transferring between vehicles, and attending a location where a car was later set alight.

Factual findings: second offender. The second offender's role was the subject of disputed facts, including whether he drove a stolen Range Rover to a meeting point and whether his white utility vehicle was collected as part of the planning. The court resolved those disputes and made findings about the second offender's involvement in the preparatory steps, though his participation was assessed as less direct than that of the first offender.

Life sentence. The court declined to impose a life sentence on the first offender. While acknowledging the killing was meticulously planned and carried out in part for financial reward, Sweeney J was not satisfied that his culpability was so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection, and deterrence could only be met by a life sentence. The court noted that the ringleader was another man and that the first offender's involvement appeared motivated by friendship and loyalty, which explained rather than mitigated his participation. No comparable life sentence consideration appears to have been live for the second offender given his more limited role.

Cognitive impairment. The court addressed the first offender's disputed cognitive capacity, which had been the subject of evidence obtained through adjournments. The judgment's treatment of that issue is not fully reproduced in the available text, but it did not result in any finding that significantly reduced the sentence ultimately imposed.

Orders Made

  • First offender sentenced to a non-parole period of 25 years and 6 months, commencing 14 June 2023, with an additional term of 8 years and 6 months, producing a total sentence of 34 years imprisonment. The non-parole period expires 13 December 2048.
  • Second offender sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 years, commencing 19 January 2024 (accumulated by 9 months on an existing sentence), with an additional term of 6 years, producing a total sentence of 24 years imprisonment. The non-parole period expires 18 January 2042.
  • Both offenders were advised that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) may apply to them.

Key Takeaways

  • Where a sentencing court cannot determine whether a murder offender was the shooter or the driver, it may decline to make either finding and instead assess culpability on the basis that the roles were barely distinguishable.

  • A life sentence under s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) requires the sentencing judge to be satisfied that the offender's culpability is so extreme that only a life sentence can meet the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection, and deterrence. The Supreme Court here refused to reach that threshold despite a premeditated, multi-day planned killing carried out in part for financial reward.

  • The court recognised the ringleader's role as a relevant contextual fact when assessing the first offender's moral culpability, even though it did not formally mitigate the offence. Participation motivated by loyalty to the ringleader explained the offending without excusing it.

  • Disputed cognitive impairment raised in sentencing proceedings can require substantial adjournments to resolve through evidence, and its ultimate weight depends on the findings made about the nature and extent of any established impairment.

  • Facts adverse to offenders at sentencing must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; facts favourable to them need only be established on the balance of probabilities. This distinction governed the court's approach to the numerous disputed factual issues in these proceedings.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A (murder offence and maximum penalty)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21(1), 22A, 61(1) (sentencing principles; life sentences)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases
- Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
- Rogerson v R; McNamara v R [2021] NSWCCA 160; (2021) 290 A Crim R 239
- R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; [2004] NSWCCA 19
- R v Harris [2000] NSWSC 285; (2000) 111 A Crim R 415
- R v Adams (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 179
- R v Arthurell (Supreme Court (NSW), Hunt CJ at CL, 3 October 1997, unrep)