High Court and NSW Criminal Law judgments

High Court and NSW Criminal Law judgments

By EvidenceEdgeBusinessNewsEducation
Download on the App Store

High Court and NSW Criminal Law judgments episodes

  • Campbell v Winch (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1319
    Campbell v Winch (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1319 concerned a private prosecutor’s appeal from Local Court acquittals for alleged offences under s 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW). The key issue was whether the driveway constituted “inclosed lands”. The Supreme Court held that the whole boundary must be recognisable from the physical features specified by the Act. Those features may contain gaps and need not prevent entry, but partial delineation is insufficient; the definition’s inclusive wording does not create a separate category for buildings, structures or associated land. The driveway failed that test. The appeal was dismissed, with the prosecutor ordered to pay the defendants’ ordinary costs.
    11 min
  • Asanovic v R [2026] NSWCCA 173
    Asanovic v R [2026] NSWCCA 173 concerns an appeal against a 12-year aggregate sentence, with an eight-year non-parole period, for drug-supply offences and related offending, including knowingly directing a criminal group. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge impermissibly double counted conduct common to the supply counts and the criminal-group offence. The Court held that significant factual overlap may constitute double punishment even where neither offence wholly comprehends the other, and found error because substantially the same conduct had been relied upon. However, on independently re-exercising the sentencing discretion, the Court found no lesser sentence warranted. Time was extended, leave granted, and the appeal dismissed.
    10 min
  • R v XY [2026] NSWCCA 174
    R v XY [2026] NSWCCA 174 concerns a Crown appeal against a four-year, six-month sentence, with a two-year non-parole period, for aggravated sexual intercourse without consent involving a victim aged 12 or 13. The Crown argued that backdating and substantial concurrency with an earlier sentence for related sexual offences produced an effective total sentence that failed to reflect XY’s total criminality and was manifestly inadequate. The Court accepted that the sentence was lenient but held that neither misapplication of totality nor manifest inadequacy was established. The unusual delay, repeated trials, broken custody and unchallenged subjective findings remained relevant. The appeal was dismissed.
    10 min
  • Pele v R [2026] NSWCCA 172
    Pele v R [2026] NSWCCA 172. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether detailed questions asked during deliberations indicated impermissible private research by jurors in Joshua Pele’s trial for specially aggravated break and enter and detaining a person in company occasioning actual bodily harm. The key issue was whether the trial judge’s refusal to examine the foreperson caused a miscarriage of justice. The Court held there were no objective facts establishing research or misconduct; the questions were reasonably explained by the evidence, submissions and directions concerning “in company”. The claim remained conjectural, and the fair-minded observer test was not satisfied. Time was extended and leave granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
    11 min
  • Watson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2026] NSWCA 222
    Watson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2026] NSWCA 222 concerns judicial review of Beckett DCJ’s refusal to state questions of law under s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). Following an unsuccessful conviction appeal, Mr Watson argued that issues involving legal professional privilege, bias and procedural fairness warranted referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The key issue was whether these were pure questions of law and whether misclassification could constitute jurisdictional error. The Court held the complaints were fact-dependent or mixed questions, and found no bias or denial of procedural fairness. The amended summons was dismissed with costs.
    12 min
  • Galey-Newbury v R [2026] NSWCCA 171
    Galey-Newbury v R [2026] NSWCCA 171 concerns an out-of-time conviction appeal arising from a joint sexual-offence trial. The Crown argued that the applicant and his co-accused gave a mutually false account, and that the applicant’s denials demonstrated consciousness of guilt. The Court held that this invited impermissibly circular reasoning: the denials could not be characterised as lies without first concluding that the offences occurred as alleged. The trial judge’s directions did not cure the resulting prejudice. As the applicant’s position was materially indistinguishable from his co-accused’s successful appeal from the same trial, the Court extended time, granted leave, allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and sentence, and ordered a retrial.
    7 min
  • Harford v R [2026] NSWCCA 170
    Harford v R [2026] NSWCCA 170 concerns a sentence appeal arising from guilty pleas to nine Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences and two related New South Wales offences. The central issue was whether the guilty plea reduced the statutory mandatory minimum sentences themselves when used as sentencing yardsticks, or instead reduced only the sentences selected after applying those fixed yardsticks. The Court held that the minimum remains unchanged: s 16AAC permits the ultimate sentence to fall below it but operates on the sentence, not the yardstick. It also rejected the claim that the aggregate sentences and effective total were manifestly excessive. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
    10 min
  • Person 2 (a pseudonym) v R [2026] NSWCCA 168
    Person 2 (a pseudonym) v R [2026] NSWCCA 168 concerns a sentence appeal arising from a serious stabbing, a planned contract shooting targeting four people, and the attempted commercial supply of firearms. The applicant challenged his 24-year aggregate sentence on totality, manifest excess and parity grounds. The Court rejected the totality and manifest excess arguments, finding the sentence reflected his overall criminality and could not be mathematically reconstructed from indicative sentences. However, Person 1’s reduced sentence created an unjustifiable disparity between the co-offenders. Time was extended, leave granted and the appeal allowed. The original sentence was replaced with 19 years’ imprisonment, with a 13-year, three-month non-parole period.
    10 min
  • Early v R [2026] NSWCCA 167
    Early v R [2026] NSWCCA 167 concerns an out-of-time appeal against Stanley Early’s 2023 conviction for the 1987 murder of Raymond Keam in Alison Park, Randwick. Early challenged the admission and possible misuse of hearsay and tendency evidence, evidence of his travel to Queensland, trial counsel’s handling of informer Tom Brown, the prosecution’s joint criminal enterprise case, and the reasonableness of the verdict. The Court accepted that one item of second-hand hearsay would have been inadmissible if challenged, but found it could not realistically have affected the verdict. Clear jury directions and rational forensic choices prevented unfairness. Time was extended and leave granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
    11 min
  • Harling v R [2026] NSWCCA 166
    Harling v R [2026] NSWCCA 166 concerns an appeal against two convictions for sexual intercourse with a child, arising from a complainant’s evidence about events recalled years later. The key issues were whether the Crown could cross-examine the complainant on his earlier police statement after he failed to recall an alleged act and its sequence, and whether the statement could be used for its truth. The Court clarified “at such a time” and “fresh in the memory” in s 32 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Although the trial judge misconstrued s 32, the error was immaterial. Leave was granted on three grounds, but the appeal was dismissed.
    11 min

About High Court and NSW Criminal Law judgments

From the publisher's feed

High Court and New South Wales Criminal Law Judgments is a series of short podcasts exploring recently published criminal decisions from the NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Court of Criminal Appeal, and the District Court. Criminal matters adjudicated by the High Court of Australia are also included.