Impact of Youth on Moral Culpability Must Be Considered in Sentencing

Ali Qadir arranged to meet Karim Shehade at an address in the Sydney southwestern suburb of Yagoona at around 11 pm on 14 October 2023, in order to buy a car that the latter had listed on Facebook Marketplace for $12,500. Qadir arrived with a male friend and $10,000 in cash, only to find Shehade wearing a mask, holding a knife and ready to commit armed robbery.

Shehade grabbed Qadir, held the blade at his stomach and said, “Give me the cash. Honest, I will kill you.” Qadir retrieved the cash from his locked car, and handed it over, along with his watch and his mobile phone. He also demanded the phone belonging to Qadir’s friend. The victims then called NSW police after the assailant fled, and on checking, the Facebook post had been removed.

Seven nights later, an Ali Abotorabi contacted Shehade about another car listing, this time for $14,000. Abotorabi arrived at an address in Yagoona with $10,000 in cash in his pocket, and a further $10,000 in the console of his vehicle. Shehade again held a knife to his victim and demanded the money, but Abotorabi ran. Shehade then took the money from the man’s unlocked car and fled.

Shehade had only turned 18 a month prior to committing these offences. The young man was arrested on 28 October 2023 and wasn’t granted bail until 6 December that year. Shehade then remained on bail until he was sentenced to prison last September.

Not so innocent

Shehade pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery, contrary to subsection 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries up to 20 years prison time, and it can involve robbing an individual, or assaulting them with intent to rob them, using an offensive weapon or instrument, or taking mail from another whilst armed via stopping a vehicle, a railway train or a person to do so.

Section 4 of the Crimes Act defines an offensive weapon or instrument as “a dangerous weapon, any thing that is made or adapted for offensive purposes or any thing that, in the circumstances, is used, intended for use or threatened to be use for offensive purposes, whether or not it is ordinarily used for offensive purposes or is capable of causing harm”.

A third count of robbery was also taken into account on a Form 1. This third count involved Shehade having stolen the mobile phone belonging to the friend of the first victim, who’d been present during the crime.

Form 1 offences are charges laid against an accused, of which they’re not convicted over, but they accept responsibility. Section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that these extra crimes can be taken into account alongside a principal offence, when the defendant requests that the judge do so.

A 5 May 2025 sentencing assessment report outlined that Shehade was living at home with family members in a supportive relationship, which had been strained at the time of his offending due to his drug use. A report from psychologist Sam Albassit insisted that the young man had a troubled childhood, and his ADHD, drug use and gambling had all contributed to his offending.

NSW District Court Judge Andrew Scotting found that in terms of the seriousness of his crimes, the initial robbery was of “considerable objective gravity”, as Shehade made “very serious and repeated threats” and had grabbed the victim and held a knife up to him, while the second incident was found to have involved “some objective gravity” and both crimes involved a modicum planning.

The judge further rejected some of the assertions made in the Albassit report relating to Shehade. His Honour raised the point that testimonies from Shehade’s family members didn’t reflect that he’d had serious drug and gambling issues, as the report had suggested. The judge did, however, accept that the defendant had experienced a deprived childhood.

On 15 September 2025, Judge Scotting sentenced Shehade to an aggregate sentence of 5 years prison time, with non-parole set at 3 years. This reflected a 25 percent discount due to the utilitarian value of his early guilty plea.

The judge further noted the need for the sentence to encourage general deterrence, or to attempt to prevent others from repeating such behaviour, as well as to provide specific deterrence, or the need for the punishment to be severe enough to prevent Shehade from repeating his criminal behaviour.

His Honour also found “special circumstances” due to the defendant’s young age and his good prospects for rehabilitation because of it, which meant he could spend a longer time living in the community on parole than statutorily permitted.

Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that a parole period must not exceed a third of the overall time an offender has been sentenced to, unless special circumstances are found. 

This meant that Shehade would have been spending more time in prison and less time under supervision in the community if he was not as young as he was at the time of his offending.

Lack of maturity must be considered

Shehade appealed his sentence to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) on 27 May 2026. He did so based on two grounds. The first ground involved the sentencing judge not having considered how his young age impacted his moral culpability, and further whether this should have served to moderate the need to deterrence, both generally and specifically, via the severity of his sentence.

The second ground comprised of whether the sentencing judge had failed to take into account the Bugmy principles, which involve circumstances where an accused has been found to have experienced a childhood of profound deprivation or disadvantage, and this should, therefore, serve to mitigate, or lessen, any sentence handed down. 

NSWCCA Justice Helen Roberts reminded the court that the authorities consider that youth is a significant factor to consider on sentencing a person convicted over crimes, especially in terms of culpability, as it is considered that the more immaturity involved in an offence, the more the criminality involved is diminished.

Her Honour noted that the sentencing judge had raised Shehade’s youth on sentencing by citing it at the time the offences were recorded, by raising it when considering that prospects for his rehabilitation were good and when recognising that the thinking behind the young man’s crimes was not properly considered in part due to his lack of maturity.

Justice Roberts explained that Shehade’s offending did display “immature thinking and reasoning” but there was no mention of his reduced culpability due to his youth on sentencing. And whilst presenting reasons for both specific and general deterrence, his Honour made no mention of the fact that his youth would moderate the need for such approaches.

This lack of adequately addressing the offender’s youth meant that the first ground was upheld, and as resentencing was to take place, there was no need to consider the viability of the second ground of appeal.

Youth and deprivation considered

On resentencing, Justice Roberts found that Shehade’s crimes were serious and involved some planning. Yet, at the time of offending, the youth had only just turned 18. He suffered from ADHD and his living arrangements during his teens were disruptive. And further, the deprivation and disadvantage of his youth did necessarily engage the Bugmy principles.

“I consider that the applicant’s youth, immaturity and ADHD diagnosis, in combination with the applicant’s background and its impact upon his emotional development, are all matters which contributed to his compromised capacity for mature decision-making, thereby reducing the applicant’s moral culpability for the offending,” her Honour noted.

“As the sentencing judge found, the applicant’s offending demonstrated a ‘serious lack of consequential thinking’,” she added, “in the applicant’s case, this reduction in moral culpability by reason of his youth and other factors, sounds in a reduced emphasis upon general deterrence in the sentencing exercise. However, general deterrence still remains a matter of significance.”

On 15 July 2026, Justice Roberts resentenced Shehade to 4 years imprisonment, with non-parole set at 2 years and 4 months. This reflected the 25 percent early guilty plea sentencing discount and also a finding of special circumstances, which meant the offender was warranted more time spent on conditional release in the community.

And NSWCCA Justices Richard Cavanagh and Belinda Rigg agreed with their colleague’s orders.