R v Fahmy (No. 2) [2026] NSWDC 334 concerns the accused’s application to exclude the whole of Crown witness Sam Diego’s evidence after he failed to return for further cross-examination about his personal income tax returns. The Court accepted that the lost opportunity caused procedural unfairness but held that the evidence had high probative value. Diego’s credit had already been substantially challenged, the returns were in evidence and available for forensic use, and any remaining prejudice could largely be addressed through an appropriate jury direction. The thresholds for exclusion under ss 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) were not met, and the application was refused.

R v Fahmy (No. 1) [2026] NSWDC 333. In a trial concerning alleged dishonest NDIS claims and money laundering, the Crown sought orders allowing two former employees of the accused to testify by audio-visual link. The central issue under s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) was whether remote evidence, despite disputed credibility and the accused’s objection, served the interests of the administration of justice without causing unfairness. The District Court granted the application. Reliable technology enabled effective cross-examination and jury assessment, while the witnesses’ childcare, travel and medical circumstances, alongside efficient trial administration, favoured remote testimony.

R v Odisho [2026] NSWDC 337 concerns sentencing for unlawfully selling firearms three times or more within 12 months and dealing with $12,500 in proceeds of crime. Odisho negotiated three pistol sales through encrypted communications; two were completed, while the third did not proceed. The key issue was whether alleged threats linked to a substantial debt established non-exculpatory duress. Beckett DCJ rejected that claim as vague and insufficiently proved, but accepted that refugee-related childhood disadvantage, difficult acculturation and PTSD reduced moral culpability and, to some extent, general deterrence. After a 25% guilty-plea discount, the Court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years and two months, with a three-year and five-month non-parole period.

R v Grunnet [2026] NSWDC 347 concerns sentencing for intentionally providing material support to a criminal organisation, reckless as to whether it aided an attempted importation. A Qantas cargo employee, Grunnet used secure airport access to inspect a consignment concealing 127.7 kilograms of pure pseudoephedrine and warn that authorities had interfered with it. The key issue was the appropriate sentence for his limited but operationally valuable assistance, without sentencing him for the importation itself. Anderson SC DCJ found the offence serious but considered his guilty plea, childhood disadvantage, good character, rehabilitation prospects, delay and restrictive bail. Grunnet received two years and four months’ imprisonment, with release after 18 months on recognizance.

R v Tynas [2026] NSWDC 342 is a sentencing decision concerning three Commonwealth child sex offences arising from a video-streamed encounter with a 15-year-old, and a State offence of failing to report a Snapchat account. The key issue was how to structure State and Commonwealth sentences while applying mandatory minimums, recognising overlap between the Commonwealth offences, and maintaining separate parole regimes. Newlinds SC DCJ assessed the Commonwealth offending towards the lower end of seriousness, but found guarded rehabilitation prospects and a significant reoffending risk. The Court imposed an effective sentence of six years and six months, with parole eligibility after three years and ten months, forfeiture of the iPhone, and lifetime registration.

Casella v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWSC 1141 examines whether a conviction for concealing a serious indictable offence under s 316(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was an offence involving dishonesty under the firearms regime, disqualifying Mr Casella from seeking NCAT review of a firearms prohibition order. The Supreme Court held that classification depends on the offence as legally defined, not the particular facts. Dishonesty was neither an element nor inherent in every contravention, as passive non-reporting may not be dishonest. Leave was granted, the appeal allowed, and the matter remitted to NCAT for determination according to law, with costs.

Worrell v R [2026] NSWCCA 149. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal considered an aggregate sentence of four years and six months for intentionally choking a former domestic partner until she lost consciousness and contravening an ADVO. Worrell argued that the sentencing judge mishandled his childhood deprivation, addiction, mental illness, remorse, guilty plea discounts and post-sentence rehabilitation, and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. The Court held that the interconnected mitigating factors were properly assessed without double counting, while community protection could counterbalance reduced culpability. No error concerning remorse or discounts was shown, and later rehabilitation was unavailable. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

R v Molnar [2026] NSWCCA 148 concerns a Crown appeal against an 18-month intensive correction order imposed for possessing child abuse material obtained using a carriage service, with a further accessing offence taken into account. The key issue was whether that sentencing option was legally available for the federal offence. Although the federal provision was not expressly listed among offences barring such orders, Molnar’s conduct necessarily constituted the corresponding NSW offence under s 91H of the Crimes Act 1900, for which an intensive correction order was prohibited. The Court accepted Molnar’s concession, allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence and remitted the matter to the District Court for sentence.

Geeves v R; Geeves v R [2026] NSWSC 1121 concerns Robert and Anne Geeves’ applications for costs certificates following their acquittals of Amber Haigh’s murder. The key issue was whether instituting the proceedings was unreasonable on the statutory hypothesis that the prosecution possessed evidence of all relevant facts. Lonergan J found that crucial asserted evidence was discredited or nonexistent: a key witness was unreliable, alleged admissions could not be heard in recordings, and the remaining circumstantial case rested on suspicion. Neither applicant had contributed to the proceedings through unreasonable conduct, and no discretionary factor justified refusal. Certificates were granted under ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Jenson [2026] NSWSC 1132 concerned a prosecutor’s appeal from the dismissal of a charge of knowingly contravening an ADVO through alleged harassment. The key issue was whether s 14(1) required proof that the defendant knew or intended that his conduct amounted to harassment or breached the order. Emmett J held that the prosecution must prove intentional conduct, knowledge or intention concerning relevant circumstances and effects, and knowledge of the ADVO and its terms, but not appreciation of the legal characterisation. The appeal was allowed, the dismissal set aside, and the charge remitted to the Orange Local Court.

R v Noufl (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1136 concerns an application to protect the names of the adult children of Nirmeen Noufl and her deceased husband while Noufl awaited sentence for his unlawful killing. Six children provided sensitive affidavit evidence about domestic violence relevant to sentencing. The key issue was whether anonymity was necessary in the public interest and significantly outweighed open justice. Hamill J found that identification alongside the case’s gruesome facts could compound their trauma and discourage witnesses from giving important evidence. A narrow Australia-wide non-publication order was made, expiring on 17 September 2031 unless earlier varied or later extended.

R v Noufl (No 4) (Sentence) [2026] NSWSC 1137. Hamill J sentenced Nirmeen Noufl for manslaughter by excessive self-defence after she fatally stabbed her husband once while he was choking her, against a sustained history of serious domestic violence. The key issues were the degree of excessive force and how her subsequent dismemberment, disposal and prolonged concealment of the body affected objective seriousness and the sentencing synthesis. The Court found the force substantially, but not grossly, disproportionate. The post-offence conduct did not significantly increase objective seriousness, though it heightened denunciation and community-protection concerns. After a 25% plea discount, Noufl received six years and nine months, with a three-year non-parole period.

R v Martin [2026] NSWDC 338 concerns sentencing for attempting to possess 187.1 kilograms of pure methamphetamine concealed in an imported cast-iron pulley. The central issue was the appropriate sentence given Martin’s active but low-level role, knowledge that a large quantity of drugs was involved, youth, trauma, mental health, rehabilitation, strict bail and parity with a younger co-offender. Mahony SC DCJ placed the offence in the lower range of objective seriousness for its category, while emphasising its gravity. After a 15% guilty-plea discount and allowances for remand and quasi-custody, Martin received five years’ full-time imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months.

R v Cucek [2026] NSWDC 339. Mahony SC DCJ sentenced Jake Cucek for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs after he drove and guarded a pulley concealing 187.1 kilograms of pure methamphetamine and tried to cut it open. The key issue was the appropriate sentence, particularly Cucek’s role, knowledge, youth, rehabilitation, strict bail conditions and parity with co-offenders. The Court found his operational role essential but low in the hierarchy, and inferred he knew a large drug quantity was involved. Allowing a 15% guilty-plea discount and 290 days’ custody credit, the Court imposed five years’ imprisonment with a two-year, three-month non-parole period.

R v YS [2026] NSWDC 340. Mahony SC DCJ sentenced YS for a rolled-up offence involving seven controlled supplies of methylamphetamine and possession for supply, totalling just under 2.5 kilograms. The central issues were objective seriousness, including quantity, purity, repetition and YS’s role, and the effect of trauma, addiction, an early guilty plea and restrictive bail. The Court held the offence was just below the mid-range but moral culpability was high; police prevention of dissemination was not mitigating. After a 25% plea discount and finding special circumstances, YS received four years and six months’ imprisonment, with a two-year and nine-month non-parole period.