NSW Criminal Law judgments

New South Wales Criminal Law Judgments is a series of short podcasts exploring recently published criminal decisions from the NSW Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeal, and the District Court. Criminal matters adjudicated by the High Court of Australia are also included. Each episode is a spoken case note on a single judgment: the facts the Court accepted, the issues decided, the orders made, and why the reasoning matters. It separates submissions from findings, ratio from obiter, and notes when earlier authority is distinguished or qualified — drawing only from the published reasons. For barristers, solicitors, educators and students, as well as informed listeners who want a clear path through a judgment. Not legal advice; not a substitute for reading the full case. Listeners are encouraged to read the official published judgment. Disclaimer This podcast discusses High Court of Australia and NSW judgments. It is not legal advice and not

29 episodes

8d ago latest

daily cadence

English language

▶ Play latestRSS feed Website Business Education News

https://podcast.evidenceedge.com.au/feed.xml

Episodes 32

R v Graham [2026] NSWSC 1017
3d ago · 9:31
R v Graham [2026] NSWSC 1017 concerns Jo-Ann Graham’s killing of her friend Diedre Anne Folpp by repeated stabbing in October 2023. In a hearing under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), the central issue was whether Graham’s acute psychosis meant she was not criminally responsible, despite possible contributions from substance use. Lonergan J found that she had schizophrenia with substance use disorder, that her impairment was not caused solely by drugs or intoxication, and that she could not reason about the act’s wrongfulness. The Court ent
SafeWork NSW v SMB Car Transport Employment Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v SMB Australia Car Transport Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Mytkowski (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 308
4d ago · 9:54
SafeWork NSW v SMB Car Transport Employment Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v SMB Australia Car Transport Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Mytkowski (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 308 concerns sentencing related companies and their director for WHS offences after a damaged 800-kilogram gate fell on an employee, causing serious permanent injuries. The key issue was each offender’s culpability, including whether the employment company bore less responsibility because another company controlled the premises and gates. The Court held the duties were concurrent and non-transferable, assessed the offending as mid-range, and rej
SafeWork NSW v ANJ Container Services & Bond Stores Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 307
4d ago · 9:19
SafeWork NSW v ANJ Container Services & Bond Stores Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 307. Following conviction, the Court sentenced ANJ for exposing Darren Spinks to a risk of death or serious injury under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, after he was fatally struck by a reversing reach stacker. The key issue was the seriousness of ANJ’s breach, including whether a worker’s momentary driving error reduced the company’s responsibility for systemic safety failures. The Court found high culpability and fined ANJ $800,000, with half payable to SafeWork. ANJ generally had to pay the prosecutor’s co
R v Delaney [2026] NSWSC 1003
8d ago · 9:03
R v Delaney [2026] NSWSC 1003 concerned a s 31 hearing after the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed Lucas Delaney’s murder conviction. The Court found that Delaney killed his sister, Gabriella, by repeatedly striking her with a hammer. The key issue was whether his mental health impairment was excluded because drug ingestion triggered his psychosis. Dhanji J accepted that Delaney suffered from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and did not know his act was wrong. As an underlying psychotic illness was also causally operative, intoxication was not the sole cause. The Court returned a speci
R v Hartcher [2026] NSWDC 306
8d ago · 10:19
R v Hartcher [2026] NSWDC 306. Mahony SC DCJ sentenced Hartcher for three online child-procurement offences and eight child abuse material offences, with two further offences taken into account. The central issue was the appropriate aggregate sentence, balancing the high seriousness of the persistent, sexually motivated offending against Hartcher’s acquired brain injury, cognitive decline, advanced age, early guilty pleas and rehabilitation. The Court found the impairment somewhat reduced moral culpability and deterrent weight but did not excuse the prolonged conduct. After a 25% plea discount
R v Randall [2026] NSWDC 305
8d ago · 9:42
R v Randall [2026] NSWDC 305 concerns sentencing for aggravated break and enter, taking and driving a conveyance without consent, and a referred offence of driving while disqualified. Randall entered a 90-year-old man’s home at night while he slept, stole personal and sentimental property, and drove away in his Lexus. The key issue was balancing the mid-range seriousness of the offences and community protection against Randall’s early guilty pleas, profound childhood deprivation, trauma, addiction, mental health, remorse and rehabilitation efforts. After a 25% plea discount, substantial concur
R v Smith [2026] NSWSC 999
8d ago · 9:15
R v Smith [2026] NSWSC 999 concerned a section 31 hearing after Andrew Charles Smith killed his partner, Mavis Stanley, by inflicting multiple blunt-force injuries. The central issue was whether a psychotic mental health impairment rendered him not criminally responsible, despite his understanding the nature and quality of his act. Hamill J found, on the balance of probabilities, that Smith suffered from schizophrenia or a delusional or schizophrenic disorder and could not reason with moderate sense and composure about whether his conduct was wrong. The Court entered a special verdict of act p
Acopian v R [2026] NSWCCA 127
8d ago · 10:20
Acopian v R [2026] NSWCCA 127 concerns an appeal from two convictions for sexual intercourse without consent, centred on a sexually charged, secretly recorded pretext call. The applicant argued that statements apparently acknowledging he continued after the complainant said “red” and told him to stop were fantasy and should have been excluded under ss 90 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The Court held that correctness review applies to unfairness under s 90 and that the jury had sufficient context to assess the statements. No further jury directions were required, and the verdicts were o
NR v R [2026] NSWCCA 126
8d ago · 9:20
NR v R [2026] NSWCCA 126 concerns an appeal against three convictions for historical sexual offences arising from an alleged 1986 incident involving a 14-year-old complainant. The principal issue was whether the trial judge’s interventions while NR gave evidence created a real danger of an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice. The Court found three questions improperly probed NR’s memory or truthfulness, but their neutral tone, brevity, dispersal and peripheral subject matter meant no miscarriage occurred. It also rejected the contention that the verdicts were unreasonable after independe
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v MB; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Sharp [2026] NSWCCA 125
8d ago · 10:20
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v MB; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Sharp [2026] NSWCCA 125. The Court considered three appeals from a District Court judge’s refusal to disqualify herself from criminal proceedings. The key issue was whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend bias arising from the judge’s parliamentary submission criticising the Director, private communications with defence lawyers, and incomplete disclosure of those communications. Applying the objective “double might” test, the Court held that each
Alex v R [2026] NSWCCA 121
8d ago · 9:47
Alex v R [2026] NSWCCA 121 concerns five conviction appeals from a lengthy Commonwealth conspiracy trial involving alleged tax withholding losses and dealing with proceeds of crime. After the jury foreman conducted extensive unauthorised internet research, shared prejudicial material, and alleged approaches to secure a not guilty verdict, the remaining jurors were questioned under caution. The key issue was whether these combined irregularities caused a miscarriage of justice, notwithstanding judicial directions and the trial judge’s refusal to discharge the jury. Applying the “double might” t
R v Taiba [2026] NSWDC 303
9d ago · 9:33
R v Taiba [2026] NSWDC 303. Newlinds SC DCJ sentenced Youssef Taiba for two Commonwealth child sexual abuse material offences, with a further offence taken into account under s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The Court refused an adjournment sought to complete treatment programs. The key issue was whether, despite strong mitigation and rehabilitation prospects, s 17A permitted any sentence other than imprisonment. Applying Vazquez, the Court found no preliminary presumption of actual custody, but concluded imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence. Taiba received an aggregate three-yea
Haouchar v R [2026] NSWCCA 124
10d ago · 8:19
Haouchar v R [2026] NSWCCA 124 concerns six firearms and drug convictions arising from contraband found at an unoccupied Yagoona property and vehicle. The Crown’s circumstantial case relied on Haouchar’s DNA and fingerprints on firearms, wrapping materials, a magazine and shopping bags containing drugs. The key issue was whether those traces proved knowing custody or control beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held they did not establish when or how Haouchar handled the items, while handling or placement by others remained reasonable possibilities. Leave was granted and the appeal allowed. The
Aslan v R [2026] NSWCCA 123
10d ago · 9:00
Aslan v R [2026] NSWCCA 123 concerns a commercial drug supply conviction after police found 1,4-Butanediol in a bag the applicant retrieved from bushes. His trial case was that the bag belonged to his girlfriend and he did not know it contained drugs. The key issue was whether the jury required a direction under R v Carey that temporary custody of drugs for return to their owner does not constitute possession for supply. The Court held that denying knowledge did not genuinely raise knowing temporary possession. Any omission was immaterial given the Liberato direction and the tension with the p
R v Lardner (No 9) [2026] NSWSC 971
11d ago · 8:32
R v Lardner (No 9) [2026] NSWSC 971. In a judge-alone trial, Lardner admitted stabbing David Vale twice during a confrontation arising from Vale’s grievance over a drug supply. The central issue was self-defence: whether Lardner believed the stabbing was necessary and whether his response was reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them. Campbell J found an intention to inflict really serious bodily injury, but the Crown had not excluded the reasonable possibility that the knife fell from Vale or that Lardner believed defensive action was necessary. Because following and stabbing Vale
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Casper (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWSC 969
12d ago · 8:54
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Casper (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWSC 969 concerned sentencing for criminal contempt after Casper pleaded guilty to wilfully refusing to testify in an attempted murder trial despite a subpoena and repeated warnings. The key issue was whether immediate imprisonment was required, although the refusal was not shown to have significantly affected the trial outcome. Sirtes J found the three-day refusal serious, any fear from a threat peripheral, and loyalty to the accused the predominant motive. An eight-month term was reduced by 25% for the early
R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 300
12d ago · 8:37
R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 300 concerns Margaret Colquhoun’s application for release pending intended appeals against her fraud conviction and sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment, with a one-year-and-two-month non-parole period. Abadee DCJ considered whether special or exceptional circumstances existed under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), despite final appeal grounds not yet being settled, and whether release posed unacceptable risks. The Court found that reasonably arguable sentence grounds, likely appellate delay consuming a substantial part of the non-parole period, and Colquhoun’
R v Noufl (No 2) (Section 45 Crime Commission Act) [2026] NSWSC 983
12d ago · 7:55
R v Noufl (No 2) (Section 45 Crime Commission Act) [2026] NSWSC 983 determined whether confidential NSW Crime Commission evidence relevant to Noufl’s prosecution should be disclosed under s 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW). Hamill J considered whether the interests of justice required access and how confidentiality should be protected. The Court ordered transcripts from 11 and 17 September 2024 disclosed only to prosecution and defence lawyers, subject to redactions and strict handling requirements. It declined to release a second witness’s evidence from 24 September after persuasi
R v Baysari [2026] NSWDC 299
12d ago · 8:02
R v Baysari [2026] NSWDC 299. Following a judge-alone trial, Milad Baysari faced alternative counts arising from eight shots fired at a Kelso dwelling: discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and firing at a dwelling with reckless disregard for another’s safety. The central issue was whether the circumstantial evidence proved he was the shooter beyond reasonable doubt. His DNA was found on a gunshot-residue-bearing balaclava in the stolen Kluger linked to the attack, while phone evidence supported an opportunity to travel west. Although the Court found Baysari was very
R v Smith (AVL) [2026] NSWSC 978
12d ago · 8:53
R v Smith (AVL) [2026] NSWSC 978 concerned a contested application for a murder accused to attend an agreed s 31 mental health inquiry by audio visual link from the South Coast Correctional Centre. Hamill J considered whether the inquiry was a “physical appearance proceeding” under the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW), but left that question unresolved and applied the stricter s 5BA test. The deceased’s family wished to deliver Victim Impact Statements in Smith’s physical presence. However, psychiatric evidence of treatment disruption, assault, anxiety and psychotic relap
R v Ballard [2026] NSWDC 297
15d ago · 9:47
R v Ballard [2026] NSWDC 297 concerned sentencing for supplying 17.457 kilograms of 1,4-butanediol, a large commercial quantity. The central issues were Ballard’s role in the organised transaction, the effect of childhood disadvantage, mental illness and addiction on moral culpability, parity with two co-offender drivers, and whether imprisonment should be served in custody or by Intensive Correction Order. Mahony SC DCJ found Ballard was an impulsive, subordinate driver rather than a planner or principal, placing the offence in the low range of seriousness. After a 25% guilty-plea discount, t
R v Munday [2026] NSWDC 296
16d ago · 8:53
R v Munday [2026] NSWDC 296. Peter Munday was sentenced for possessing three child-like sex dolls and creating and possessing 200 AI-generated child abuse images. The Court considered the objective seriousness of material involving no real children, the Commonwealth mandatory minimum arising from prior similar convictions, and the effects of autism spectrum disorder and paedophilic disorder on culpability, deterrence and future risk. Both offences were at the low, but not lowest, end of seriousness. Autism reduced culpability to some degree, while paedophilic disorder alone was not mitigating.
The King v Ko [2026] HCA 29
17d ago · 8:27
The King v Ko [2026] HCA 29 concerned a conviction for attempting to import a commercial quantity of methamphetamine and phenylethylamine concealed in a dough mixer. The prosecution alleged Ko used his logistics experience to facilitate the consignment’s customs clearance and delivery. The key issue was whether jury directions improperly allowed awareness of a real or substantial chance that the consignment contained a substance to establish an intention to import it. By a five-to-two majority, the High Court held the directions risked conflating recklessness with intention, causing a miscarri
Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28
17d ago · 8:55
Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28 concerned whether joint representation of co-offenders at sentence created conflicting duties and vitiated the sentencing discretion. The same Senior Counsel represented Farrugia and Kanmaz, submitting that Farrugia’s offending was more serious than Kanmaz’s while arguing that both offenders’ conduct was less serious than the Crown alleged. By majority, the High Court dismissed Farrugia’s appeal. It held that a sentencing error or procedural irregularity must be material, meaning it could realistically have affected the judge’s reasoning. Without evidence of F
R v Davidson [2026] NSWSC 958
17d ago · 8:23
R v Davidson [2026] NSWSC 958. Campbell J considered a joint application concerning Callan Davidson’s killing of his mother, Cheryl Anne Davidson, at Gunnedah. Although the parties agreed that the mental health impairment defence applied, the Court had to determine independently whether it was established on the balance of probabilities. Accepting unanimous psychiatric evidence, the Court found that active schizophrenia, paranoid delusions and command hallucinations prevented Davidson from appreciating the killing’s moral wrongness. It returned a special verdict of act proven but not criminall

Episodes

Reading the feed…

More Business shows

NSW Criminal Law judgments

Episodes 32

R v Graham [2026] NSWSC 1017

SafeWork NSW v SMB Car Transport Employment Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v SMB Australia Car Transport Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Mytkowski (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 308

SafeWork NSW v ANJ Container Services & Bond Stores Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 307

R v Delaney [2026] NSWSC 1003

R v Hartcher [2026] NSWDC 306

R v Randall [2026] NSWDC 305

R v Smith [2026] NSWSC 999

Acopian v R [2026] NSWCCA 127

NR v R [2026] NSWCCA 126

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v MB; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Sharp [2026] NSWCCA 125

Alex v R [2026] NSWCCA 121

R v Taiba [2026] NSWDC 303

Haouchar v R [2026] NSWCCA 124

Aslan v R [2026] NSWCCA 123

R v Lardner (No 9) [2026] NSWSC 971

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Casper (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWSC 969

R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 300

R v Noufl (No 2) (Section 45 Crime Commission Act) [2026] NSWSC 983

R v Baysari [2026] NSWDC 299

R v Smith (AVL) [2026] NSWSC 978

R v Ballard [2026] NSWDC 297

R v Munday [2026] NSWDC 296

The King v Ko [2026] HCA 29

Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28

R v Davidson [2026] NSWSC 958

Episodes

More Business shows

Trading Nut | Trader Interviews - Forex, Futures, Stocks

Podcast 森辺一樹のグローバル・マーケティング 〜すべてはアジアで売るために〜

Let's Talk Money with Dave & Reb

The Get Ready For The Future Show

Life's Inside Track

Reach Your Full Potential – The Mentors Radio

Episodes 32

R v Graham [2026] NSWSC 1017

SafeWork NSW v SMB Car Transport Employment Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v SMB Australia Car Transport Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Mytkowski (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 308

SafeWork NSW v ANJ Container Services & Bond Stores Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 307

R v Delaney [2026] NSWSC 1003

R v Hartcher [2026] NSWDC 306

R v Randall [2026] NSWDC 305

R v Smith [2026] NSWSC 999

Acopian v R [2026] NSWCCA 127

NR v R [2026] NSWCCA 126

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v MB; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Sharp [2026] NSWCCA 125

Alex v R [2026] NSWCCA 121

R v Taiba [2026] NSWDC 303

Haouchar v R [2026] NSWCCA 124

Aslan v R [2026] NSWCCA 123

R v Lardner (No 9) [2026] NSWSC 971

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Casper (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWSC 969

R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 300

R v Noufl (No 2) (Section 45 Crime Commission Act) [2026] NSWSC 983

R v Baysari [2026] NSWDC 299

R v Smith (AVL) [2026] NSWSC 978

R v Ballard [2026] NSWDC 297

R v Munday [2026] NSWDC 296

The King v Ko [2026] HCA 29

Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28

R v Davidson [2026] NSWSC 958

Podcast 森辺一樹のグローバル・マーケティング〜すべてはアジアで売るために〜