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 entered a special verdict of “act proven but not criminally responsible” and ordered her detention.

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 rejected reduced-capacity-to-pay and section 10 arguments. Each company was convicted and fined $180,000; Mytkowski was convicted and fined $15,000 and $45,000.

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 costs, but SafeWork had to pay costs caused by its subpoena non-compliance.

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 special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible, ordered detention and referred Delaney to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

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 and application of totality, Hartcher received six years and six months’ imprisonment, with a three-year non-parole period. Forfeiture and registration orders followed.

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 concurrency, and allowances for custody and rehabilitation, the Court imposed five years’ imprisonment with a three-year non-parole period.

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 proven but not criminally responsible, ordered his detention and referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and remitted four related charges to the Local Court.

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 open. Leave was partly granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

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 independently assessing the evidence. Leave was granted on both grounds, but the appeal was dismissed and the convictions remained in place.

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 matter independently required disqualification. The appeals were allowed, the refusal orders set aside, and the proceedings remitted to another District Court judge.