ST v R [2026] NSWCCA 136 concerns the guilty-plea discount available where ST pleaded guilty to remaining child sexual offence charges on the first day scheduled for a pre-recorded evidence hearing, months before jury empanelment. The key issue was whether “the first day fixed for the trial” under ss 25C and 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was the pre-recorded hearing date or the later jury date. The Court held that the hearing formed part of the trial because the children’s evidence was given when recorded. ST therefore qualified only for a 5% discount. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

AW v R [2026] NSWCCA 134 concerns a sentence appeal by a mother who injected her medically vulnerable infant daughter with insulin, causing life-threatening hypoglycaemia. The key issues were whether her later refusal to deal with two paediatricians aggravated the offence, and how her Factitious Disorder, traumatic history and related circumstances affected objective seriousness and moral culpability. The Court found no evidentiary basis to treat the later conduct as aggravating, rejected further reduction of objective seriousness to avoid double counting, and held that her moral culpability was significantly reduced. The appeal was allowed and AW was resentenced to one year and ten months’ imprisonment, with an eleven-month non-parole period.

Pagliari v R [2026] NSWCCA 133 examines an unreasonable-verdict challenge to a conviction for aggravated break and enter and committing intimidation, centred on the identity of a man depicted in CCTV footage. The circumstantial Crown case linked Pagliari to a beer can discarded outside the home through a partial DNA profile recovered from its mouthpiece. The key issue was whether a reasonable alternative remained that Pagliari had merely shared the can while staying in the car. Independently assessing the whole evidence, the Court held that hypothesis was a bare or unreasonable possibility and that the jury could find identity beyond reasonable doubt. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Skinner v R [2026] NSWCCA 131 concerned an appeal against sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after Skinner struck the victim once with a machete, causing a serious hand injury. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive despite no challenge to the sentencing judge’s findings. The Court held that the original sentence failed to reflect cumulatively the offence’s assessed seriousness, Skinner’s reduced moral culpability, guilty plea, and the particularly onerous effect of custody arising from his disabilities and health conditions. Leave was granted, the appeal allowed, and Skinner resentenced to five years, eight months and 11 days, with a three-year, six-month non-parole period.

Jacono v R [2026] NSWCCA 120 concerned an out-of-time sentence appeal for offences against the applicant’s former partner, witness dissuasion and breach of an apprehended domestic violence order. The key issue was whether further evidence of sexual abuse in juvenile detention and resulting complex PTSD should be admitted, and whether its absence invalidated the sentencing exercise. Applying Farrugia v The King, the Court found a compelling explanation for the earlier non-disclosure and held that the evidence could realistically have affected the sentence, causing practical injustice and a vitiating procedural irregularity. Time was extended, leave granted and the appeal allowed. The effective 16-year sentence was replaced by 14 years, with a 10-year and six-month non-parole period.

McGinn v Law Society of New South Wales (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1067 determined costs following dismissal of Ms McGinn’s appeal against three Fidelity Fund Management Committee decisions. The key issue was whether, despite the general no-costs rule in s 247(7) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), an order was in the interests of justice. The Court found the appeal lacked reasonable prospects, contained unsupported allegations of fraud or dishonesty, and had deficiencies explained before proceedings began. Ms McGinn’s unreasonable interlocutory conduct also caused substantial expense. Her procedural objections were rejected, and she was ordered to pay the Law Society’s costs on the ordinary basis.

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Yuan [2026] NSWSC 1050. McGuire J gave reasons for urgent ex parte asset-preservation orders arising from an AFP investigation into alleged money laundering involving Mr Yuan, two companies and accounts through which about $9 million and $22 million had passed. The key issues were whether action without notice was justified and whether the reasonable-suspicion requirements for restraining orders under ss 18 and 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) were met. Finding a sufficient factual basis and a risk of dissipation despite discretionary bank freezes, the Court restrained the property and placed it under the Official Trustee’s control.

Solo v R [2026] NSWCCA 130 concerned Frederick Solo’s sentence for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company, arising from a joint criminal enterprise during a violent melee. His sole appeal ground alleged parity with co-offender Maurice Trindall, who received a shorter sentence despite a more active role and an additional Form 1 matter. The Court held that numerical comparison alone was insufficient. Solo’s substantially worse subjective case—including his criminal history, offending while on parole and community correction orders, poor compliance, sparse remorse and weaker rehabilitation prospects—justified the difference. Backdating also narrowed the practical disparity. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

R v Baziad (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1038. Boulten J sentenced Gofal Baziad for the 2004 murder of Jason Palmer, committed amid a love triangle. Baziad attacked Palmer with a glass object and knife, concealed and disposed of his body, fled Australia and continued denying responsibility. The key sentencing issues were the facts proved in the circumstantial case, objective seriousness, whether life imprisonment was required, and the effect of the long delay, age and low future risk. Planning was not proved, and the murder was assessed around mid-range seriousness. The Court imposed 24 years’ imprisonment, with an 18-year non-parole period commencing 17 June 2024.