AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 8 October 2025

R v Williams (No. 2)

[2025] NSWSC 1150

Homicide
CRIM INAL LAW MURDER TRIAL SUBPOENA ISSUED BY DEFENCE

Citation: R v Williams (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 1150
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 October 2025
Judge(s): Lonergan J

Background

The accused, Bryce Mark Williams, is standing trial in the Supreme Court on a charge of murder, with the trial commencing on 3 September 2025. The defence issued a subpoena to the NSW Commissioner of Police on 5 August 2025 seeking production of certain documents. A further subpoena had been issued in October 2024 and had been the subject of an earlier ruling by Garling J upholding a public interest immunity claim.

The Commissioner of Police brought a notice of motion seeking orders under ss 130(1) and 131A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to be excused from producing those documents, or parts of them. The Commissioner relied on open and confidential affidavits from Assistant Commissioner Peter Cotter sworn 28 August 2025, as well as the earlier affidavit material considered by Garling J in October 2024.

The defence argued that there had been a material change in circumstances since Garling J's October 2024 ruling, such that the Court should revisit it. Given non-publication orders in place, the judgment was necessarily expressed in general terms.

  • Whether the Commissioner of Police should be excused from producing certain documents, or redacted portions of documents, on the ground of public interest immunity under s 130(1) and s 131A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
  • Whether the circumstances surrounding the October 2024 ruling by Garling J had materially changed so that it was in the interests of justice, under s 130A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), not to be bound by that earlier ruling.
  • How the balancing exercise under s 130(5) of the Evidence Act should be conducted, weighing the public interest in non-disclosure against the public interest in courts having access to relevant evidence.

Decision

Lonergan J accepted that the defence had a legitimate forensic purpose in issuing the subpoenas and also accepted that the Commissioner had a sound basis for claiming public interest immunity. The Court examined both the first tranche of documents (produced in October 2024) and the second tranche (produced in August 2025) in unredacted form to ensure a consistent approach was taken to both sets of material.

On the question of whether to revisit Garling J's October 2024 ruling, Lonergan J took a practical approach. Her Honour accepted that the circumstances outlined in the defence's submissions may have amounted to a change in circumstances. However, even if the earlier ruling were revisited, she considered it in the interests of justice to examine both tranches of material together to ensure consistency in what was protected from production. This approach reflected the more nuanced analysis left open by Beech-Jones J in R v Obeid (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 1442.

Conducting the balancing exercise required by s 130(5) of the Evidence Act, her Honour found that none of the redacted material would be of any material assistance to the accused. There was no evidence that the substance of the redacted information had been previously published. Although the seriousness of the murder charge was an important factor in the balancing exercise, the balance clearly favoured non-disclosure.

Lonergan J made the order excusing the Commissioner from producing the redacted portions of the responsive documents on 19 September 2025, and delivered written reasons on 8 October 2025. Her Honour noted that a confidential version of the judgment could be prepared and placed on the court file upon request.

Orders Made

  • The Commissioner of Police was excused from producing the redacted portions of documents produced in response to both the August 2025 subpoena and the October 2024 subpoena.

Key Takeaways

  • Lonergan J confirmed that the court must conduct the balancing exercise under s 130(5) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) by inspecting the unredacted material itself, comparing it against the redacted versions, before determining whether the public interest in non-disclosure outweighs the public interest in access to relevant evidence.
  • Where the defence seeks to revisit an earlier public interest immunity ruling, the onus rests on the party seeking to depart from that ruling to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that it is not in the interests of justice for the earlier order to be binding: Hayne v R [2022] NSWCCA 11.
  • A material change in circumstances is the primary consideration for revisiting an earlier interlocutory ruling under s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), but under Obeid, such a change does not exhaust the circumstances in which the interests of justice may warrant departure from an earlier order.
  • The seriousness of the charge is an expressly relevant factor in the balancing exercise, but its weight does not automatically displace a well-founded immunity claim where the withheld material would not materially assist the accused.
  • Non-publication orders applicable to public interest immunity proceedings may require that judgments express their reasoning in general terms, and a confidential version may be placed on the court file on request.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 130(1), 130(3), 130(5), 131A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 130A(1), s 130A(3)

Cases
- Attorney General (NSW) v Lipton [2012] NSWCCA 156
- Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532; [2008] HCA 4
- Hayne v R [2022] NSWCCA 11
- R v Francis [2004] NSWCCA 85; (2004) 145 A Crim R 233
- R v Obeid (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 1442
- R v Williams (No. 3) [2024] NSWSC 91