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.

Alex v R [2026] NSWCCA 121 concerns five conviction appeals from a lengthy Commonwealth conspiracy trial involving alleged tax withholding losses and dealing with proceeds of crime. After the jury foreman conducted extensive unauthorised internet research, shared prejudicial material, and alleged approaches to secure a not guilty verdict, the remaining jurors were questioned under caution. The key issue was whether these combined irregularities caused a miscarriage of justice, notwithstanding judicial directions and the trial judge’s refusal to discharge the jury. Applying the “double might” test, the Court found the trial’s integrity fundamentally compromised. Leave was granted, the appeals allowed, all convictions quashed, and new trials ordered, with bail continued.

R v Taiba [2026] NSWDC 303. Newlinds SC DCJ sentenced Youssef Taiba for two Commonwealth child sexual abuse material offences, with a further offence taken into account under s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The Court refused an adjournment sought to complete treatment programs. The key issue was whether, despite strong mitigation and rehabilitation prospects, s 17A permitted any sentence other than imprisonment. Applying Vazquez, the Court found no preliminary presumption of actual custody, but concluded imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence. Taiba received an aggregate three-year term, with release after one year on a two-year recognizance release order. Registration and forfeiture orders were also made.

Haouchar v R [2026] NSWCCA 124 concerns six firearms and drug convictions arising from contraband found at an unoccupied Yagoona property and vehicle. The Crown’s circumstantial case relied on Haouchar’s DNA and fingerprints on firearms, wrapping materials, a magazine and shopping bags containing drugs. The key issue was whether those traces proved knowing custody or control beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held they did not establish when or how Haouchar handled the items, while handling or placement by others remained reasonable possibilities. Leave was granted and the appeal allowed. The convictions were quashed, acquittals entered, the aggregate sentence set aside, and guilty-plea matters remitted for fresh sentencing.

Aslan v R [2026] NSWCCA 123 concerns a commercial drug supply conviction after police found 1,4-Butanediol in a bag the applicant retrieved from bushes. His trial case was that the bag belonged to his girlfriend and he did not know it contained drugs. The key issue was whether the jury required a direction under R v Carey that temporary custody of drugs for return to their owner does not constitute possession for supply. The Court held that denying knowledge did not genuinely raise knowing temporary possession. Any omission was immaterial given the Liberato direction and the tension with the primary defence. Leave was refused and the appeal dismissed.

R v Lardner (No 9) [2026] NSWSC 971. In a judge-alone trial, Lardner admitted stabbing David Vale twice during a confrontation arising from Vale’s grievance over a drug supply. The central issue was self-defence: whether Lardner believed the stabbing was necessary and whether his response was reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them. Campbell J found an intention to inflict really serious bodily injury, but the Crown had not excluded the reasonable possibility that the knife fell from Vale or that Lardner believed defensive action was necessary. Because following and stabbing Vale twice was objectively excessive, Lardner was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter by excessive self-defence.

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Casper (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWSC 969 concerned sentencing for criminal contempt after Casper pleaded guilty to wilfully refusing to testify in an attempted murder trial despite a subpoena and repeated warnings. The key issue was whether immediate imprisonment was required, although the refusal was not shown to have significantly affected the trial outcome. Sirtes J found the three-day refusal serious, any fear from a threat peripheral, and loyalty to the accused the predominant motive. An eight-month term was reduced by 25% for the early guilty plea to six months. A suspended sentence was refused and no costs order was made.

R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 300 concerns Margaret Colquhoun’s application for release pending intended appeals against her fraud conviction and sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment, with a one-year-and-two-month non-parole period. Abadee DCJ considered whether special or exceptional circumstances existed under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), despite final appeal grounds not yet being settled, and whether release posed unacceptable risks. The Court found that reasonably arguable sentence grounds, likely appellate delay consuming a substantial part of the non-parole period, and Colquhoun’s favourable bail compliance and risk profile cumulatively justified release. Conditional bail was granted, including a requirement to prosecute the appeal expeditiously.

R v Noufl (No 2) (Section 45 Crime Commission Act) [2026] NSWSC 983 determined whether confidential NSW Crime Commission evidence relevant to Noufl’s prosecution should be disclosed under s 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW). Hamill J considered whether the interests of justice required access and how confidentiality should be protected. The Court ordered transcripts from 11 and 17 September 2024 disclosed only to prosecution and defence lawyers, subject to redactions and strict handling requirements. It declined to release a second witness’s evidence from 24 September after persuasive opposition, but left the issue open for reconsideration if developments at trial altered the assessment.

R v Baysari [2026] NSWDC 299. Following a judge-alone trial, Milad Baysari faced alternative counts arising from eight shots fired at a Kelso dwelling: discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and firing at a dwelling with reckless disregard for another’s safety. The central issue was whether the circumstantial evidence proved he was the shooter beyond reasonable doubt. His DNA was found on a gunshot-residue-bearing balaclava in the stolen Kluger linked to the attack, while phone evidence supported an opportunity to travel west. Although the Court found Baysari was very probably the shooter, evidentiary gaps left a reasonable doubt. He was acquitted on both counts.

R v Smith (AVL) [2026] NSWSC 978 concerned a contested application for a murder accused to attend an agreed s 31 mental health inquiry by audio visual link from the South Coast Correctional Centre. Hamill J considered whether the inquiry was a “physical appearance proceeding” under the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW), but left that question unresolved and applied the stricter s 5BA test. The deceased’s family wished to deliver Victim Impact Statements in Smith’s physical presence. However, psychiatric evidence of treatment disruption, assault, anxiety and psychotic relapse risks from transport to Dubbo outweighed that benefit. The Court ordered Smith to appear by AVL.