Citation: R v Willcockson [2026] NSWSC 25
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales — Common Law Division (Criminal)
Date: 4 February 2026
Judge(s): Harrison AJ
Background
The accused is on trial before a jury for the murder of Mr Davy at Kendall on 22 November 2023. He has pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The basis of that guilty plea had not yet been explained to the jury at the time of this ruling.
On 26 November 2023, detectives attended a house occupied by the accused and arrested him. The arrest was captured on body worn video (BWV). During the arrest and a subsequent conversation with officers outside the premises, the accused gave an account of events that the Crown says was false. The Crown sought to tender the BWV footage — and an accompanying transcript — for the purpose of impugning the accused's credibility at trial. It was accepted by all parties that the accused had lied to police about what he knew of the deceased's death, and that the transcript accurately recorded the conversation.
The accused objected to the tender of the BWV. His objection was not directed at the substance of what he said — the conversation itself was admitted — but rather at portions of the video that he contended were irrelevant to the credit issue and unfairly prejudicial. This ruling dealt with those objections.
Legal Issues
- Whether body worn video footage of the accused's arrest should be admitted where the Crown relies on it to impugn the accused's credibility through a false version of events given to police.
- Whether portions of the video depicting the forceful manner of the arrest were unfairly prejudicial, potentially creating the impression that the accused was a dangerous or violent person.
- Whether footage of the accused standing handcuffed and semi-clothed on a grass verge outside the premises — filmed from an angle that did not capture his face — had any probative value, or was instead unfairly prejudicial and an unnecessary affront to the accused's dignity.
Decision
Harrison AJ adopted what he described as a "middle course." His Honour ruled that the audio and video of the arrest itself — up to the point where the accused is seen standing on the grass verge outside the property — was admissible. The manner of the arrest was characterised as no more than usual police practice. It said nothing about the accused's guilt or innocence, and would hardly surprise the jury, who would inevitably learn that the accused had been arrested. Importantly, the arrest footage provided relevant context for the conversation that followed, upon which the Crown wished to rely.
However, his Honour excluded the video — though not the audio — of the accused's subsequent conversation with police officers outside the premises. That footage depicted the accused standing handcuffed, dressed only in board shorts, with the camera angle emphasising his bare abdomen. His face was not visible in the footage. Harrison AJ found no relevance in the visual of the accused's "moderately corpulent naked abdominal profile" as he spoke to police. The substance of what the accused said was captured in the audio and the agreed transcript. The vision added nothing of probative value and risked operating as an unnecessary distraction from the real purpose of the tender.
His Honour emphasised the importance, where possible, of maintaining the dignity of a person charged with a criminal offence, provided that doing so does not interfere with the administration of justice or unnecessarily impede the Crown case. Excluding the outdoor vision achieved that balance: the Crown retained the full audio of the conversation for its credit case, while the accused was spared the prejudice of being displayed in an undignified state before the jury.
Orders Made
- The entire audio of the body worn video material was admitted into evidence.
- The video component was admitted only up to and including the arrest inside the house, and was excluded from the point at which the accused was seen standing on the grass verge outside the premises.
- The video of the accused's conversation with officers outside the premises was excluded.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court recognised the dignity of the accused as a relevant consideration when ruling on the admissibility of visual evidence, particularly where the probative value of the visual component was marginal. This did not result in automatic exclusion, however; the Court only excluded such evidence where doing so did not impede the Crown case.
- Audio and video components of a single recording were treated as severable, with Harrison AJ admitting the audio of the conversation while excluding the accompanying video. This approach demonstrated that each component of a recording could be assessed independently for admissibility.
- Footage depicting the standard forceful manner of a police arrest was found not to be inherently unfairly prejudicial, on the basis that juries would expect to see evidence of an arrest and the footage provided relevant context for the conversation that followed.
- Where video footage lacked independent probative value (because the substance of what was said was already captured in the audio and an agreed transcript), it was vulnerable to exclusion on the ground that it added nothing relevant and risked distraction or prejudice.
- In adopting a practical "middle course," the Court appeared to be facilitated by the accused's targeted objections, which identified precisely which portions of the footage were objectionable and articulated specific bases for prejudice rather than raising a blanket challenge.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
- No specific legislation or cases were cited in the judgment as reported. The ruling appears to have been made by reference to general principles governing the admissibility of evidence, including the balance between probative value and unfair prejudice — principles ordinarily found in provisions such as sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), though those provisions were not expressly named in the text.