R v Kadadi - [2025] NSWDC 450

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Kadadi
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 450
Hearing Date(s):	12 August 2025, 18 August 2025
Date of Orders:	18 August 2025
Decision Date:	18 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Anderson SC DCJ
Decision:	See [110] to [116]
Catchwords:	Crime - Sentence - Fraud on the Commonwealth; intensive corrections orders; fines; conflicting psychological reports; moral culpability.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Hoskins v The Queen (2021) NSWCCA 169 Mitchell v The Queen (2021) NSWCCA 306 Mustafa v The Queen (2021) NSWCCA 164 NK v The King (2025) NSWCCA 73 O’Hanlon v The King (2025) NSWCCA 118 The Queen v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Vamadevan v The King (2024) NSWCCA 223
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ayman Kadadi (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Fomiatti (Crown) Mr P Lange (Offender)
File Number(s):	2024/00070475
Publication Restriction:	Nil

JUDGMENT

Mr Ayman Kadadi is currently 41 years of age, and he comes before the Court having pleaded guilty to two charges under s 134.2 of the Commonwealth’s Criminal Code 1995.
Sequence 1 is an offence that between 23 April 2021 and 16 August 2021 the offender made 66 fraudulent claims on the Commonwealth which resulted in him receiving a financial advantage of $68,400. Sequence 67 is an offence that between 8 August 2021 and 3 October 2021 the offender made four fraudulent claims on the Commonwealth which resulted in him receiving a financial advantage of $24,300. The total advantage received by the offender is $92,700.
The maximum penalty for each of those charges is 10 years’ custody and/or a fine of $133,200 per offence. The maximum sentences indicate the seriousness with which the Commonwealth parliament views offences of this nature. It sets the parameters for arriving at the appropriate sentence.
As these are Commonwealth offences, Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) applies. Section 16A(2) of that Act sets out a range of matters that must be considered where they are relevant and known to the Court. Where relevant, common law principles also have a role to play. Section 17A of the Crimes Act provides that a Court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances.
In this case, the offender submits that it would be open to the Court to impose an intensive corrections order or order the offender’s release from custody forthwith and to be placed on a recognisance. The Crown’s submission is that only a lengthy custodial sentence would acknowledge the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
I note that, to date, the offender has not spent any time in custody for these offences.

THE FACTS

Between 23 April 2021 and 16 August 2021, the offender…

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 Kadadi

Details

AGLC: R v Kadadi [2025] NSWDC 450
Case: [2025] NSWDC 450
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kadadi involved the respondent, Kadadi, who was convicted of various fraud offences against the Commonwealth. The legal proceedings took place in the County Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Kadadi, considering the conflicting expert psychological opinions regarding his mental state and moral culpability. The prosecution sought a custodial sentence, while the defence argued for an alternative sentencing option, such as an intensive corrections order.

The court was required to weigh the conflicting expert psychological reports and determine Kadadi's moral culpability in light of these reports. The prosecution argued that Kadadi's actions demonstrated a high degree of moral culpability, justifying a significant custodial sentence. In contrast, the defence contended that Kadadi's mental state and personal circumstances warranted a non-custodial sentence, such as an intensive corrections order. The court also considered the availability of fines and community service orders as potential sentencing options.

The court carefully evaluated the evidence and expert opinions presented. It found that, despite the conflicting psychological reports, Kadadi's actions demonstrated a significant degree of moral culpability. The court held that the gravity of the offences warranted a custodial sentence. However, considering Kadadi's personal circumstances and the possibility of rehabilitation, the court opted for an intensive corrections order, supplemented by fines. The court determined that this approach would adequately address the public interest in punishment and deterrence while also providing Kadadi with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court, as detailed in paragraphs [110] to [116] of the judgment, included a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term, suspended over a period of time, subject to the conditions of an intensive corrections order. Additionally, Kadadi was ordered to pay fines and comply with other specified conditions, such as community service and counselling requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [110] to [116]

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.