AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 29 October 2025

R v Williams (No. 4)

[2025] NSWSC 1279

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW SUBPOENA ISSUED BY PROSECUTOR A CCUSED’S WIFE FIRST ACCESS TO THE ACCUSED

Citation: R v Williams (No. 4) [2025] NSWSC 1279
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 October 2025
Judge: Lonergan J

Background

The accused, Bryce Williams, faces a murder charge relating to the killing of Mejid Hamzy, described in the proceedings as the head of the Hamzy organised crime network (OCN). During the trial, defence counsel raised a "feud" between the Hamzy and Alameddine OCNs as the reason behind the shooting. A co-accused, Christopher O'Brien, was separately acquitted of the same murder charge in 2024.

The prosecution (the DPP) issued a subpoena to the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) seeking audio recordings of specific calls made by the accused from gaol. Those calls were made to two phone numbers: one subscribed to the wife of Christopher O'Brien, and one subscribed to a person known to be a member or associate of the Alameddine OCN.

The accused sought to have the subpoena set aside by notice of motion, contending it lacked a legitimate forensic purpose and amounted to a fishing expedition. At the conclusion of oral argument, Lonergan J dismissed the motion, refused to set aside the subpoena, and granted the accused's legal team first access to the produced material.

  • Whether the Crown had identified a legitimate forensic purpose for the subpoena, as required before access to subpoenaed documents is granted.
  • Whether it was "on the cards" that the gaol call recordings would materially assist the prosecution's case.
  • Whether the broader "apparent relevance" test from the civil case Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145 (Blacktown Council) applies to criminal proceedings, or whether the stricter "on the cards" test from R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86 governs.

Decision

Lonergan J identified the applicable legal framework: a party issuing a subpoena must (1) identify a legitimate forensic purpose, and (2) establish that it is "on the cards" that the documents will materially assist its case. A mere fishing expedition is not permitted, and bare relevance is insufficient. The Court noted that Blacktown Council had relaxed the test to one of "apparent relevance" in civil matters, but that several subsequent criminal decisions had left open whether this relaxed approach applies in criminal proceedings. Lonergan J found it unnecessary to resolve that question here.

The Court was satisfied the "on the cards" threshold was met on the specific facts. Regarding the calls to the number subscribed to O'Brien's wife, Lonergan J accepted reliable evidence from NSW Crime Commission investigators that persons involved in criminal activity commonly use phones subscribed to family members. Given evidence already before the trial about the closeness of the relationship between the accused and O'Brien, and a live issue about how that relationship changed following the murder, the content of those calls was likely to shed light on the relationship and materially assist the Crown. The calls were also potentially relevant to the examination or cross-examination of O'Brien, depending on whether he was ultimately called.

As to the calls to the number subscribed to Joseph Vokai, a known member or associate of the Alameddine OCN, the Court noted that the feud between the Hamzy and Alameddine OCNs had been placed squarely in issue by the defence as the motive for the killing. Calls between the accused and a person associated with the Alameddine OCN were therefore capable of materially assisting the Crown on that issue.

The Court noted that questions of privilege and the further question of whether to permit the Crown access to the produced material remained to be determined, with first access to be given to the accused's legal team in the first instance.

Orders Made

  • The notice of motion to set aside the subpoena was dismissed.
  • The subpoena issued by the DPP to DCJ dated 25 September 2025 was not set aside.
  • First access to the material produced under the subpoena was granted to the accused's legal team, with a deadline subsequently extended by consent to 10:00 am on 29 October 2025.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court confirmed that a party seeking access to documents produced under subpoena in criminal proceedings must identify a legitimate forensic purpose and establish it is "on the cards" that the documents will materially assist the case, consistent with R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86.
  • Whether the relaxed "apparent relevance" test from Blacktown Council applies in criminal proceedings remains an open question in New South Wales; Lonergan J declined to resolve it because the stricter "on the cards" standard was satisfied on the facts.
  • A finding that an accused made repeated calls from gaol to a number subscribed to a close associate's family member, in circumstances where evidence already before the trial addressed the nature of that relationship, can suffice to establish the "on the cards" threshold.
  • Where the defence itself raises a particular motive (here, an OCN feud) as central to the case, communications between the accused and persons connected to that narrative are more readily capable of meeting the forensic purpose requirement.
  • Granting first access to produced material to the accused's legal team, ahead of the Crown, is a recognised procedural step; questions of privilege and Crown access were explicitly left to be determined separately.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), Sch 3
- Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 75 r 3(1)(g)
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 33.1(a) and r 33.4(1)

Cases
- R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14; (1989) 39 A Crim R 406
- R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86
- NSW Commissioner of Police v Tuxford & Ors [2002] NSWCA 139
- Attorney-General for (NSW) v Dylan Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; (2008) 182 A Crim R 536
- Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145
- Waters v Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 193
- Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Fantakis [2022] NSWCCA 94
- R v Abdaly; R v Hosseinishoja (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1482
- DPP v Enoch (No. 2) [2025] ACTSC 332 (restricted)