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.

Eljamal v R [2026] NSWCCA 155 concerned an appeal against an aggregate seven-year sentence imposed after Eljamal pleaded guilty to recklessly causing grievous bodily harm by shooting through the ceiling beneath his wife’s bedroom, leaving her permanently paraplegic, and using an unauthorised pistol. He argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider her evidence that his imprisonment caused continuing hardship because she wanted him to care for her. The Court held that this use of the evidence was not advanced below and had effectively been disavowed. It also held that s 3A(g) concerns harm caused by the offence, not hardship flowing from imprisonment. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan (No 10) (Sentence) [2026] NSWSC 1249. Hamill J sentenced three offenders for supplying a supposed pistol and murdering Anthony Nugent. Sentencing turned on individual culpability. Raad shot Nugent at close range intending to kill, potentially spontaneously. Tuli and Latham, not proved to have agreed to a shooting, were sentenced on an extended joint criminal enterprise basis for armed intimidation with foresight of murderous violence. Raad received 23 years and 3 months, with a 17-year and 6-month non-parole period; Tuli 20 years and 4 months, with 14 years and 4 months; and Latham 15 years and 3 months, with 10 years and 3 months.

Zarounas v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1159 concerns an imprisoned plaintiff’s application for leave to maintain a damages claim arising from alleged childhood sexual abuse by a public school teacher. The key issue was whether the requirements of ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) were satisfied, including whether the claim was an abuse of process and had a prima facie basis. Lonergan J found the pleaded allegations and psychiatric evidence established an arguable claim. Leave was granted nunc pro tunc from 28 May 2026, with the motion’s costs made costs in the cause.

Goldman v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Armidale & Anor [2026] NSWSC 1158 concerned an imprisoned plaintiff seeking leave under ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) to pursue damages for alleged childhood sexual abuse at Narrabri and Daruk Boys’ Home. The key issue was whether the proceedings were an abuse of process and had a prima facie, arguable basis. Lonergan J held that the detailed pleading and psychiatric report met the statutory threshold, despite no separate statement from Goldman. Leave was granted nunc pro tunc, with costs of the motion made costs in the cause.

R v Douglas [2026] NSWCCA 145 concerns the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions’ interlocutory appeal in proceedings for attempted child sexual activity offences. The children’s actual ages could not be proved, and the prosecution had disavowed any need to prove either actual age or Douglas’s intention concerning age. The Court held that the trial judge correctly required proof of actual age on the case presented. Although an intention-based case could in principle support liability for an impossible attempt, the Director could not rely on appeal on an argument expressly rejected below. The appeal was competent under s 5F(2) but was unanimously dismissed.

Crosby v R [2026] NSWCCA 157 concerns an appeal against an aggregate sentence of seven years and six months for methylamphetamine supply and proceeds-of-crime offences. Crosby argued that the sentencing judge committed a De Simoni error by effectively punishing him for knowledge or intention amounting to more serious proceeds offences, and mishandled the objective seriousness of an agreement-to-supply count. The Court held that references to transferred money, the supply chain and street dealing were used in mitigation, not aggravation. An apparent reference to 61 supplies was an immaterial slip. Time was extended and leave granted, but the appeal was dismissed and the sentence remained unchanged.

Waldron v R [2026] NSWCCA 154. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered convictions for corruptly receiving benefits and aiding and abetting another executive to do likewise. The Crown alleged that documents supporting Waldron’s legitimate-payment explanation were fabricated after charge and back-dated. The trial judge instead found they were contemporaneous devices disguising corrupt rewards, although the prosecutor had expressly declined to advance that theory. The Court unanimously held that conviction on this unnotified basis denied procedural fairness and materially affected the reasoning to guilt. The proviso did not apply. Time was extended, leave granted, the appeal allowed, the convictions and sentence quashed, and a retrial ordered.

The King v Bechaud [2026] HCA 36 concerns the separation of jurors during deliberations in a Victorian rape trial. The jurors had taken the prescribed oath on the first day of trial, nine days before retiring, and were not reminded of it before two separations. The High Court held that s 50 of the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) requires the oath to be taken before separation, but imposes no requirement of temporal proximity or a reminder. The oath ordinarily continues to bind jurors, and the trial judge’s discretion had not miscarried. The Crown’s appeal was allowed, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s orders were set aside, and Bechaud’s conviction appeal was dismissed.

NSW Resources Regulator, Department of Regional NSW v Young Mining Company Pty Ltd [2026] NSWDC 359. Scotting DCJ sentenced Young Mining Company and its managing director, Aditya Jhunjhunwala, for work health and safety offences arising from a worker’s serious crush injuries at a mine processing plant. The central issue was the appropriate penalty where known, recurring and potentially fatal risks were identified in safety documents but not effectively controlled in practice. The company was convicted and fined $750,000, while Mr Jhunjhunwala was convicted and fined $50,000. No further penalty was imposed for the company’s information-notice offence. Both offenders were ordered to pay costs.