R v Assaad - [2025] NSWDC 359

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Assaad [2025] NSWDC 359
Hearing dates: 28 August 2025
Date of orders: 12 September 2025
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [88]

Catchwords:
Aggravated robbery – Application of guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
BP v R [2010] 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
TC v R [2009] NSWCCA 296

Category: Sentence
Parties: Hattam Assaad (The offender)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (The Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Breeze (The offender)
Solicitors:
Ms A Salam (The offender)
Ms C Strati (The Crown)

File Number(s): 2024/00119014
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender who was born in March 2006 is to be sentenced in respect of the following two offences to which he has pleaded guilty:-

Sequence 1 – Aggravated robbery and inflict actual bodily harm, an offence pursuant to s95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“the CA”). The maximum penalty prescribed is 20 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.
Sequence 4 – Assault with offensive weapon with intent to rob and wounding, an offence pursuant to s98 of the CA. The maximum penalty prescribed is 25 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 7 years imprisonment.

The offences occurred on 28 March and 29 March 2024 respectively. The offender was arrested on 31 March 2024 and as at the date of the sentence hearing had spent 1 year and 25 days in custody.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 28 August 2025. The Crown sentence summary became Exhibit A, and it included a summary of agreed facts which may be further summarised as follows.
At about 5:15 p.m. on 28 March 2024 the offender requested a taxi to an address in South Granville. When the taxi arrived the offender approached the vehicle from the driver’s side and entered the passenger seat behind the driver telling the driver to drive him to “Granville bank”. As the driver commenced to drive, he heard the offender say “500” multiple times. The agreed facts contained stills from CCTV footage inside the vehicle which demonstrated that the offender covered his face and brandished a silver switch blade knife approximately 15 to 20 cm in length. The offender said to the driver “Look to this side, look to this side”, and the offender held the knife to the driver’s body on his left side. The offender then…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Assaad

Details

AGLC: R v Assaad [2025] NSWDC 359
Case: [2025] NSWDC 359
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent was convicted of aggravated robbery. The sentencing judge applied the guideline judgment of R v Henry to determine the appropriate penalty. The respondent appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the principles of totality and proportionality. The appeal was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The central legal issue was whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of totality and proportionality in determining the penalty. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the totality of the offender's criminal conduct and whether it was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court also had to determine if the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the principles of R v Henry.

The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of totality and proportionality. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and reflected the totality of the respondent's criminal conduct. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered the principles of R v Henry and had given appropriate weight to them in determining the penalty. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the sentence was excessive and held that the sentence was just and appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was upheld.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a full-time custodial sentence. The specific details of the sentence were outlined in the court's reasons at [88]. The respondent was to serve the sentence in a correctional centre. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the principles of totality and proportionality in sentencing and confirmed the appropriate application of the guideline judgment in R v Henry.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [88]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Assaad [2025] NSWDC 359
Hearing dates:	28 August 2025
Date of orders:	12 September 2025
Decision date:	12 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [88]
Catchwords:	Aggravated robbery – Application of guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	BP v R [2010] 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 TC v R [2009] NSWCCA 296
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Hattam Assaad (The offender) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (The Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Breeze (The offender) Solicitors: Ms A Salam (The offender) Ms C Strati (The Crown)
File Number(s):	2024/00119014
Publication restriction:	Nil.