Pagliari v R [2026] NSWCCA 133 examines an unreasonable-verdict challenge to a conviction for aggravated break and enter and committing intimidation, centred on the identity of a man depicted in CCTV footage. The circumstantial Crown case linked Pagliari to a beer can discarded outside the home through a partial DNA profile recovered from its mouthpiece. The key issue was whether a reasonable alternative remained that Pagliari had merely shared the can while staying in the car. Independently assessing the whole evidence, the Court held that hypothesis was a bare or unreasonable possibility and that the jury could find identity beyond reasonable doubt. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Skinner v R [2026] NSWCCA 131 concerned an appeal against sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after Skinner struck the victim once with a machete, causing a serious hand injury. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive despite no challenge to the sentencing judge’s findings. The Court held that the original sentence failed to reflect cumulatively the offence’s assessed seriousness, Skinner’s reduced moral culpability, guilty plea, and the particularly onerous effect of custody arising from his disabilities and health conditions. Leave was granted, the appeal allowed, and Skinner resentenced to five years, eight months and 11 days, with a three-year, six-month non-parole period.

Jacono v R [2026] NSWCCA 120 concerned an out-of-time sentence appeal for offences against the applicant’s former partner, witness dissuasion and breach of an apprehended domestic violence order. The key issue was whether further evidence of sexual abuse in juvenile detention and resulting complex PTSD should be admitted, and whether its absence invalidated the sentencing exercise. Applying Farrugia v The King, the Court found a compelling explanation for the earlier non-disclosure and held that the evidence could realistically have affected the sentence, causing practical injustice and a vitiating procedural irregularity. Time was extended, leave granted and the appeal allowed. The effective 16-year sentence was replaced by 14 years, with a 10-year and six-month non-parole period.

McGinn v Law Society of New South Wales (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1067 determined costs following dismissal of Ms McGinn’s appeal against three Fidelity Fund Management Committee decisions. The key issue was whether, despite the general no-costs rule in s 247(7) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), an order was in the interests of justice. The Court found the appeal lacked reasonable prospects, contained unsupported allegations of fraud or dishonesty, and had deficiencies explained before proceedings began. Ms McGinn’s unreasonable interlocutory conduct also caused substantial expense. Her procedural objections were rejected, and she was ordered to pay the Law Society’s costs on the ordinary basis.

This is a case from the NSW Court of Appeal. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2026] NSWCA 186. This case considers whether 335 days AR spent on bail pending retrial counted towards an aggregate sentence later restored when the High Court allowed the Crown’s appeal. The Court held that ss 18, 25A and 28A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) concern bail pending an offender’s own appeal, not bail pending retrial during a Crown appeal. The District Court was functus and lacked power to alter the restored sentence. Its order was quashed. AR’s sentence expires on 23 January 2032, with the non-parole period expiring on 23 April 2027.

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Yuan [2026] NSWSC 1050. McGuire J gave reasons for urgent ex parte asset-preservation orders arising from an AFP investigation into alleged money laundering involving Mr Yuan, two companies and accounts through which about $9 million and $22 million had passed. The key issues were whether action without notice was justified and whether the reasonable-suspicion requirements for restraining orders under ss 18 and 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) were met. Finding a sufficient factual basis and a risk of dissipation despite discretionary bank freezes, the Court restrained the property and placed it under the Official Trustee’s control.

Solo v R [2026] NSWCCA 130 concerned Frederick Solo’s sentence for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company, arising from a joint criminal enterprise during a violent melee. His sole appeal ground alleged parity with co-offender Maurice Trindall, who received a shorter sentence despite a more active role and an additional Form 1 matter. The Court held that numerical comparison alone was insufficient. Solo’s substantially worse subjective case—including his criminal history, offending while on parole and community correction orders, poor compliance, sparse remorse and weaker rehabilitation prospects—justified the difference. Backdating also narrowed the practical disparity. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

R v Baziad (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1038. Boulten J sentenced Gofal Baziad for the 2004 murder of Jason Palmer, committed amid a love triangle. Baziad attacked Palmer with a glass object and knife, concealed and disposed of his body, fled Australia and continued denying responsibility. The key sentencing issues were the facts proved in the circumstantial case, objective seriousness, whether life imprisonment was required, and the effect of the long delay, age and low future risk. Planning was not proved, and the murder was assessed around mid-range seriousness. The Court imposed 24 years’ imprisonment, with an 18-year non-parole period commencing 17 June 2024.

RS v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2026] NSWCCA 128 concerned a subpoena for material relating to alleged sexual offending by the applicant’s son, RJ. RS faced Commonwealth charges over child abuse material found on his phone and proposed that RJ, who allegedly had access to it, may have been responsible. The key issue was whether the subpoenaed material had a legitimate forensic purpose. The Court held that the primary judge mischaracterised RS’s proposed defence, overlooked relevant similarities and failed to give proper significance to earlier prosecutorial disclosure. Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed, the Commissioner’s motion dismissed and production ordered.

R v Lui (Sentence Judgment) [2026] NSWSC 965 concerns Pei Lui’s sentence for the manslaughter of Tao Cheng following a prolonged, fatal assault in a Sydney CBD stairwell. After a jury acquitted Lui of murder, the key issue was whether the Court could find beyond reasonable doubt that he alone inflicted the violence without contradicting that verdict. McNaughton J held it could: intoxication left open reasonable doubt about murderous intent. The attack was extremely serious, random and vicious, although Lui’s profound childhood disadvantage reduced his moral culpability. After a 25% discount for an early manslaughter plea offer, he received 10 years and 6 months, with a 7-year non-parole period.

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.