Citation: R v Lui (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 670
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 May 2026
Judge(s): McNaughton J
Background
The accused stands trial for the murder of a 25-year-old man who was killed in a stairwell of a Sydney CBD building on 4 December 2022. The deceased had been living in the stairwell near a gaming café he frequented. The accused and a co-associated man, who has since pleaded guilty to manslaughter arising from the same events, were alleged to be the only other people present in the stairwell at the relevant time.
The co-associated man's separate murder trial ended in a hung jury. He subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and the Crown accepted that plea. He is to be called as a Crown witness in the current trial.
During the trial, the defence challenged the admissibility of three categories of evidence on voir dire (a preliminary hearing to determine admissibility before the jury). McNaughton J delivered an ex tempore ruling on all three categories.
Legal Issues
- Whether a bundle of emails between the accused and his romantic partner was relevant and, if so, whether its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
- Whether a Google Map showing a mobile phone tower location and business records from a motel were relevant and admissible
- Whether Snapchat messages exchanged between the accused and the co-associated man approximately ten days before the killing were relevant and admissible
Decision
Issue 1: Email bundle (26 November to 8 December 2022)
The defence argued the emails were only marginally relevant because they showed financial hardship, a fact already established through bank records. McNaughton J rejected that characterisation. His Honour found the emails went well beyond demonstrating financial hardship: they illuminated the nature and intensity of the accused's romantic relationship and, critically, showed that the accused was keen to avoid police following his attendance at the gaming café on 7 December 2022, the same day plain-clothed officers were visible near the crime scene. The email address change occurring shortly after that café visit was central to this reasoning.
The defence also pressed an unfair prejudice argument. The accused had not answered bail in relation to an unrelated matter, which would have provided an independent explanation for his apparent anxiety about police. The defence contended it was unfairly prejudicial to admit the emails without that context before the jury. McNaughton J acknowledged the sensitivity of placing before a jury evidence that an accused is wanted by police for another matter, but observed that ways exist to introduce such material while minimising prejudice. His Honour held that choosing not to lead that evidence, and then complaining of prejudice from the lost inference, was a difficult argument to sustain. Applying the High Court's direction in Hillier and Baden-Clay that circumstantial evidence must be assessed in combination rather than piecemeal, his Honour found the probative value of the emails clearly outweighed any unfair prejudice. The emails were admitted.
Issue 2: Motel records and Google Map
The defence conceded the final motel booking entry was admissible but contested the earlier entries, arguing they were irrelevant. McNaughton J disagreed, finding the full series of records was necessary to place the final booking in proper context and to illuminate the financial and residential relationship between the accused and his partner over the relevant period. As to the prejudice argument that the jury might view the accused negatively for living off a woman financially, his Honour dismissed that concern as not reflecting a live social stigma in 2026, and noted in any event that the accused's primary income from Centrelink was already before the jury through bank records. The Google Map was admitted on the basis that the Crown is entitled to place phone tower evidence clearly before the jury even without an agreed fact conceding the accused held the deceased's phone. Both items were admitted.
Issue 3: Snapchat messages (24 November 2022)
The defence submitted these messages added nothing because the accused's acquaintance with the co-associated man was not in dispute. McNaughton J held that the nature and quality of the relationship, including any power dynamic between the two men in the weeks before the killing, was very much a fact in issue. The Snapchat messages formed part of the circumstantial case bearing on that relationship and were admitted.
Orders Made
- The bundle of emails between the accused's partner and the accused (26 November to 8 December 2022) was admitted into evidence.
- The business records of the Westside Motor Inn, Ashfield, and the Google Map showing the mobile phone tower location were admitted into evidence.
- The Snapchat messages between the accused and the co-associated man dated 24 November 2022 were admitted into evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Emails revealing the emotional and financial dynamics of a relationship were found to carry significant probative value in a circumstantial murder case, going well beyond what bank records alone could establish.
- A tactical decision not to lead available evidence explaining an accused's behaviour does not automatically give rise to an unfair prejudice argument simply because a potentially exculpatory inference becomes unavailable to the defence.
- Consistent with The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 and The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308, the Supreme Court assessed the contested evidence in combination with the broader circumstantial case rather than in isolation when weighing probative value against prejudice.
- Motel booking records covering a period prior to the charged offence were admitted in full, the court finding that earlier entries were necessary to contextualise later ones and to give the jury a complete picture of the accused's residential and financial arrangements.
- Evidence of the relationship and power dynamic between a charged accused and a co-associated witness can constitute relevant circumstantial evidence even where the bare fact of acquaintance is undisputed.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
- The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13
Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the judgment text.