Citation: [2026] NSWSC 285
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 April 2026
Judge(s): Hamill J
Background
Three co-accused stood trial for the murder of Anthony Nugent. The alleged motive was retribution for a fraudulent firearm sale: Mr Nugent had sold a gel blaster (deemed a firearm under legislation but not a real gun) to a purchaser for $22,000, when it had cost roughly $2,000. The three accused had brokered the deal. When the purchaser discovered the fraud, the accused were blamed and, according to the prosecution, resolved to "sort out" those responsible.
The prosecution alleged that on the evening of 6 September 2022, the accused attended Mr Nugent's unit, where one of them discharged a shortened double-barrel shotgun into Mr Nugent's chest through a locked screen door. Each accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to the alternative count of manslaughter, and each had also pleaded guilty to an offence of knowingly being involved in the supply of the purported firearm.
Before the jury was empanelled, one of the accused (Mr Tuli) objected to the admissibility of various out-of-court statements attributed to him by three prosecution witnesses. The statements concerned conversations in which Mr Tuli allegedly expressed anger about the fraudulent gun deal, spoke of finding those responsible and harming them, and discussed his involvement in obtaining the shotgun ultimately used in the killing. The court was required to resolve these objections in a series of voir dire hearings.
Legal Issues
- Whether the probative value of the various out-of-court statements attributed to Mr Tuli was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, assessed under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
- Whether individual portions of the impugned conversations should be excluded, admitted in full, or admitted in redacted form, having regard to the relevance of each statement to Mr Tuli's state of mind, his role in the alleged murder, or his admissions of involvement.
- Whether there was a risk that some statements would be used against co-accused under s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (representations by a party's agent or associate), and how the rulings should be managed procedurally in light of that possibility.
- How to handle inconsistencies and confusion in the witnesses' accounts of the content and timing of the various conversations.
Decision
Hamill J assessed each objection individually across five separate conversations reported in seven documents (witness statements and police interviews) from three prosecution witnesses (referred to as Witness B, Witness C, and another witness). The court evaluated the probative value of each statement in the context of the prosecution's overall case, including the alleged motive (the need to "save face" and extract retribution for the fraudulent gun sale), the chronology of events leading to the killing, and Mr Tuli's alleged role in obtaining the shotgun.
For the first objection, concerning conversations with Witness C in which Mr Tuli allegedly expressed anger and stated he intended to find and hurt or shoot those responsible for the fraud, Hamill J considered the statements probative of Mr Tuli's state of mind in the period before the murder. The court noted the prosecution's concession that it would not lead witness opinions about Mr Tuli's mood or state of mind (such as Witness C's belief that Mr Tuli had "lost face" or was "ready for war"), except where those opinions comprised descriptions of acts, appearance, and words. The court's rulings differentiated between portions of the conversations that were directly probative of motive and intention, and those that were speculative or merely reflected the witness's interpretation.
The court resolved each objection by balancing the significance of the evidence to the prosecution case, specifically its capacity to prove motive, joint intention, or the accused's role, against the risk that the evidence might be used unfairly, misunderstood by the jury, or given disproportionate weight. Some statements were admitted in full, some were admitted in redacted form, and some were excluded. The judgment noted the difficulty in enumerating the total number of objections due to overlap between witness accounts and inconsistencies in the witnesses' recollections of content and timing.
Hamill J indicated rulings without reasons on 25 March 2026 (with the parties' consent) so the trial could proceed, and delivered this judgment setting out the detailed reasoning afterwards.
Orders Made
- Individual rulings were made on all objections to the impugned statements across the five conversations, with some evidence admitted in full, some admitted in redacted form, and some excluded.
- The prosecution was not permitted to lead evidence of certain witness opinions regarding Mr Tuli's mood, state of mind, or intention, except where those opinions comprised descriptions of his acts, appearance, and words.
- Specific portions of witness statements were allowed or disallowed as particularised in the judgment (the full text of which was truncated in the available material).
Key Takeaways
- Out-of-court statements by an accused that reveal state of mind, motive, or admissions of involvement can carry significant probative value in a murder trial, but each statement must be individually assessed against the danger of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
- The Supreme Court distinguished between a witness's interpretive opinions about an accused's emotional state (for example, that the accused had "lost face" or was "ready for war") and the witness's descriptions of the accused's observable acts, appearance, and words, admitting only the latter category of evidence.
- Where multiple witnesses reported overlapping but inconsistent accounts of the same conversations, Hamill J assessed each statement and each document separately rather than treating the body of evidence as a single block.
- Procedural management was found to be necessary where statements by one co-accused may later be sought to be tendered against other co-accused under s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and the Court indicated that it may be appropriate to deliver rulings before providing reasons in order to allow a trial to proceed without delay.
- Evidence of an accused's motive and intention, including statements about wanting to find and harm the victim, survived a s 137 challenge where it was directly relevant to the prosecution case theory, provided the risk of unfair prejudice was managed through appropriate redactions and limitations on what was led.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 87, 97, 137
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 51(1A)(a)
Cases:
- R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan [2026] NSWSC 283
- R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 284