High Court and NSW Criminal Law judgments

Yao v R [2026] NSWCCA 163 concerned convictions for common assault and aggravated sexual intercourse without consent arising from events on 11 October 2022. Yao argued that the verdicts were unreasonable because of multiple concerns about the complainant’s credibility and were inconsistent with acquittals concerning alleged conduct the previous day. The Court held that weaknesses specific to the earlier allegations rationally explained the mixed verdicts. Six prompt complaints and aspects of the medical evidence supported the later allegations, while credibility concerns about the complainant’s relationship and proposed visa application could be explained or quarantined. Giving full weight to the jury’s advantages, the Court granted leave but dismissed the appeal.

RB v R [2026] NSWCCA 162 concerned an application for leave to appeal against eight convictions for sexual intercourse without consent involving three teenage complainants. The sole ground was that the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Independently reviewing the whole record, the Court held that each complainant’s account was capable of acceptance. Consensual conduct on other occasions, affectionate messages, delayed complaints and continuing contact did not undermine the occasion-specific allegations. Near-contemporaneous communications and objective records supported aspects of the evidence, while the asserted alibis did not exclude the offences. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was unanimously dismissed.

Markovich v R [2026] NSWCCA 161. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies to conduct intended to pervert justice in Federal Court proceedings that did not involve State law. Following a guilty jury verdict, Markovich appealed before sentence, arguing that “the course of justice” was confined by the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) to justice in and of New South Wales. The Court rejected that construction, holding that s 319 extends to Federal Court proceedings where the Crimes Act’s geographical requirements are met. Leave was granted because the issue was discrete and significant, but the appeal was dismissed.

GR v R [2026] NSWCCA 159. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether GR’s trial for child sexual offences miscarried after three witnesses gave evidence capable of implying that he had also sexually abused his biological daughter, whose charges had been removed before the second trial. The key issue was whether directions to disregard the references could realistically cure their prejudice in a case turning on credibility. The Court found a very high risk that the material affected the jury’s reasoning and held that a miscarriage of justice occurred. The proviso was not applied because guilt could not independently be established beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered.

Muldoon v R [2026] NSWCCA 158. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed a sentence appeal concerning three offences of recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime, with four further offences taken into account. Muldoon was already serving overlapping State and federal sentences. The key issue was totality: although the District Court’s two-year sentence did not extend his total effective term, it unintentionally delayed parole eligibility by seven months. The Court found a miscalculation of the orders’ practical effect, rather than a misunderstanding of totality. It quashed the sentence and imposed two years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period expiring on 18 September 2026. The remaining grounds were not determined.

Vujica v R [2026] NSWCCA 156 concerns an appeal from a judge-alone murder conviction arising from Danny Vujica’s fatal stabbing of Michael Haynes after a dispute over $50. Vujica argued that the verdict was unreasonable because the Crown had not excluded his claimed belief that stabbing was necessary in self-defence. He also contended that the trial judge’s reasons on that subjective limb of self-defence were inadequate under s 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Independently reviewing the evidence, including CCTV footage, the Court found anger, not defensive necessity, explained the stabbing. It extended time, granted leave, but dismissed the appeal.