Citation: R v Noufl (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1136
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 September 2026
Judge(s): Hamill J
Background
The offender pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of her husband in May 2023, with the plea accepted in full discharge of a murder indictment. The case involved particularly confronting facts, including the dismemberment and disposal of the victim's corpse. The sentencing hearing took place on 14 September 2026.
Eight adult children of the offender and the victim were connected to the proceedings. Six of the eight provided affidavits describing a history of domestic violence in the family home. That evidence was tendered at the sentencing hearing and was central to understanding the offender's motive, her response to the victim's attack, and her psychiatric conditions.
On 26 August 2026, Hamill J made an interim non-publication order preventing publication of the children's names. The application for a final order came before the court at the sentencing hearing. The prosecution neither supported nor opposed the application, and no media representative sought to be heard at either the interim or final hearing stages.
Legal Issues
- Whether a final non-publication order under ss 7 and 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) should be made preventing publication of the adult children's names
- Whether the high statutory test of "necessity" was satisfied in the circumstances
- How to balance the public interest in open justice against the public interest in witnesses providing evidence free from the chilling effect of unwanted publicity
Decision
The applicable test: The Act imposes a demanding threshold. Necessity means more than what is merely convenient, reasonable, or sensible, and it is not satisfied by a general appeal to the public interest (at [9]). Section 6 requires the court to treat open justice as a primary objective of the administration of justice, and s 8 makes necessity the governing standard for non-publication orders (at [5]).
Why the children did not fall within s 8(1)(d): The specific protective provision in s 8(1)(d), which applies to proceedings for offences of a sexual nature, was not available here (at [9]). The court therefore had to consider whether the order was necessary on broader grounds.
Finding that necessity was established: Hamill J concluded that the necessity test was met in the particular circumstances of this case (at [10]). The children's affidavits provided important evidence of domestic violence that assisted the sentencing court in understanding the offender's motive, her response to the attack, and her psychiatric state (at [7]). There is a recognised public interest in witnesses, including secondary victims of domestic violence, coming forward with first-hand accounts, and that interest may be undermined if publication of their names is a foreseeable consequence (at [8]). The dismemberment aspect of the case was identified as a feature likely to heighten the distress and embarrassment that name publication could cause (at [8]).
Minimal interference with open justice: The court emphasised that the restriction was narrow. Media outlets remain free to report fully on the facts of the case, the content of the children's evidence, and the details relevant to sentence, including the more gruesome aspects of the matter. The only restriction is publication of the children's actual names in connection with the case (at [11]).
Orders Made
- A non-publication order is made on the ground that it is necessary in the public interest and that interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice.
- The order applies throughout the Commonwealth of Australia (pursuant to s 11).
- The order remains in place until further order, or for five years expiring on 17 September 2031, unless extended by a judge of this court or a higher court (pursuant to s 12).
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the necessity test under s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) sets a high bar: an order is not justified merely because it is convenient, reasonable, sensible, or serves some general notion of the public interest (at [9]).
- A non-publication order covering only the names of witnesses, while permitting full reporting of all other case details, represents a minimal interference with open justice and weighs in favour of satisfying the necessity test (at [11]).
- Recognised public interest in witnesses and secondary victims of domestic violence providing first-hand accounts can form part of the necessity analysis, particularly where the nature of the case may magnify the distress caused by name publication (at [8]).
- Where no media representative seeks to be heard, the court remains obliged to apply the Act on its own terms and to scrutinise the open justice considerations independently, without relying on the absence of opposition as a substitute for proper analysis (at [4]).
- The s 8(1)(d) ground, which is specific to proceedings for sexual offences, was not available to the children despite the sensitivity of the evidence, meaning the court had to identify necessity on broader public interest grounds (at [9]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) , ss 3, 6, 7, 8, 8(1)(d), 10, 11, 12
Cases
- Nationwide News Pty Limited v Qaumi (2016) 93 NSWLR 384; [2016] NSWCCA 97 Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403