AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 30 March 2026

R v Noufl

[2026] NSWSC 384

Homicide
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SUPPRESSION AND NON PUBLICATION ORDERS GROUNDS ORDERS MADE

Citation: R v Noufl [2026] NSWSC 384
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 March 2026
Judge(s): McGuire J

Background

The accused is charged with the murder of her husband in May 2023. The Crown case is a "no-body" murder: the deceased's body has not been recovered, but the prosecution alleges that various records — banking, Medicare, border control and other databases — show no activity consistent with the deceased being alive since May 2023.

A critical part of the Crown case concerns two witnesses, referred to by the pseudonyms "Witness A" and "Witness B." The Crown expects Witness A to give evidence about observing the accused in possession of knives, what appeared to be a chainsaw, tarpaulins, plastic bags, blood and items described as "pieces of meat." Witness A is also expected to give evidence about assisting the accused, at her direction, in placing those items into plastic bags and disposing of them in wheelie bins and industrial bins at various suburban Sydney locations. Witness B is expected to give evidence about conversations with Witness A after the alleged murder and disposal.

The Commissioner of Police for New South Wales applied by Notice of Motion for suppression and non-publication orders under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to protect the identities of Witness A and Witness B. The application was supported by both an open affidavit and a confidential affidavit sworn by Acting Assistant Commissioner Paul Dunstan. Neither the Crown nor the accused opposed the application, though neither formally consented to it.

  • Whether suppression and non-publication orders protecting the identities of Witness A and Witness B were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice under s 8(1)(a) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010.
  • Whether such orders were necessary to protect the safety of those witnesses under s 8(1)(c).
  • Whether such orders were otherwise necessary in the public interest, and if so, whether that public interest significantly outweighed the public interest in open justice under s 8(1)(e).
  • Whether the appropriate balance was struck between the need for open justice (s 6) and the protective purposes of the orders sought — including pseudonym orders, closed court orders, and restricted retention orders lasting until 18 December 2074.

Decision

McGuire J began by emphasising the statutory requirement under s 6 of the Act to take into account the primary objective of safeguarding the public interest in open justice. His Honour noted, however, that each ground in s 8 imports a test of "necessity," and that this word should not be construed narrowly. Drawing on Fairfax Digital v Ibrahim and R v Kwok, the Court observed that "necessary" does not mean that proceedings would be unable to continue without the order. Rather, the question is whether failing to make the order would produce consequences that are "unacceptable" in the relevant sense — including hardship to witnesses, impediment to the future supply of information, or making it more difficult to obtain evidence to bring alleged offenders before the courts.

In relation to the safety ground under s 8(1)(c), the Court applied the risk-calculus approach endorsed in AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3), which requires consideration of the nature, imminence and degree of likelihood of harm. Where the prospective harm is very severe, even a mere possibility of risk may suffice. His Honour also adopted the approach of Harrison J in Hamzy v R, which held that if the potential publication of evidence raises "even some doubt" that a witness's safety would be compromised, the benefit of that doubt should be given to the witness.

Applying these principles to the facts, McGuire J was satisfied on the basis of the confidential affidavit material that the orders were necessary on multiple grounds. Witness A could be characterised as a "rollover witness" (or something akin to one) whose evidence was potentially fundamental to the Crown case. The Court accepted that without protective orders, Witness A may not give evidence at all, which could be fatal to the prosecution. The Court was satisfied that the confidential material established genuine concerns about the safety of both witnesses and real risks that disclosure of their identities would prejudice the administration of justice. His Honour found that the public interest in the protective orders significantly outweighed the public interest in open justice in the circumstances.

The duration sought — until 18 December 2074 — was designed to align with an earlier suppression order made in the Local Court in December 2024 for a period of 50 years. The Court accepted this was appropriate given the nature of the risks identified.

Orders Made

  • Witness A and Witness B are to be known by those pseudonyms throughout the proceedings.
  • The Court is to be closed for the duration of the evidence of Witness A and Witness B.
  • A restricted retention order was made in respect of material identifying the witnesses.
  • The suppression and non-publication orders apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and continue until 18 December 2074.
  • The orders were made on the grounds in s 8(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).

Key Takeaways

  • "Necessity" under the Court Suppression Act is not construed narrowly. The Supreme Court held that necessity is assessed by considering whether the absence of an order would produce "unacceptable" consequences, rather than by asking merely whether proceedings would be unable to continue.
  • Where the potential harm is severe, a suppression order may be warranted even if the likelihood of harm is relatively low. Consistent with the approach in AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3), the Court applied a calculus of risk in which the gravity of the threatened consequence (such as a threat to life) can justify protective measures despite a lower probability of occurrence.
  • Rollover witnesses, or witnesses akin to rollover witnesses, received particular consideration. The Court recognised that such witnesses warrant protective orders especially where their evidence is critical to a prosecution and there is a realistic prospect they would not testify absent such orders.
  • Confidential affidavit evidence was disclosed only to the Court where necessary to support the application, without being served on the parties, an approach accepted in the circumstances of this case.
  • A long-duration order of approximately 48 years was held to be appropriate given the ongoing and severe nature of the safety risks, particularly where the order was aligned with orders already made at an earlier stage of proceedings.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 6, 7, 8, 11, 12

Cases:
- AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3) [2019] NSWCCA 46
- Attorney-General for New South Wales v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2007) 73 NSWLR 635; [2007] NSWCCA 307
- DRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2020] NSWCA 136
- Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52; [2012] NSWCCA 125
- Hamzy v R [2013] NSWCCA 156
- R v Kwok (2005) 64 NSWLR 335; [2005] NSWCCA 245