AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 21 July 2026

R v Noufl (Section 45 Crime Commission Act)

[2026] NSWSC 982

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

Citation: R v Noufl (Section 45 Crime Commission Act) [2026] NSWSC 982
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 July 2026
Judge(s): Hamill J

Background

The accused stands trial for murder. The Crime Commission had previously examined witnesses in its private hearings under compulsion, giving those witnesses the usual assurance that their evidence would remain confidential. Following a disclosure by the Commission to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the matter came before Hamill J to determine whether that compelled evidence should be released to the parties at trial.

On 5 June 2026, Hamill J made a direction and granted a certificate under s 45(4) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW), requiring the Commission to produce the relevant material to the Court for review. The Court then examined that material privately, assisted by confidential submissions from both the DPP and the Crime Commission, before neither party to the murder trial was present or informed of the content.

The critical tension in the application was between the promise of confidentiality extended to witnesses who gave evidence under compulsion, and the entitlement of the accused and the prosecution to access material that may be relevant to the live issues at trial.

  • Whether the material obtained under s 45(4) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) satisfies the test in s 45(5) such that its disclosure to the parties at trial is required in the interests of justice
  • What the correct legal test is for "required" under s 45(5), including whether that test demands proof that the interests of justice would otherwise be "impeded or frustrated"
  • What weight should be given to the assurances of confidentiality extended to witnesses who gave compelled evidence before the Crime Commission
  • How procedural fairness applies, including the right of interested parties (the examined witnesses) to be heard before any disclosure order is made

Decision

Issue 1: The applicable test under s 45(5)

Hamill J adopted and endorsed the approach of Davies J in R v Jaghbir (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 762, as accepted by RA Hulme AJ in Decision restricted [2025] NSWSC 696. Under that approach, the test is not as stringent as requiring proof that the interests of justice would be "impeded or frustrated" without disclosure. Rather, the court must assess whether the examination material is germane or significant to the issues at trial. Evidence may satisfy the test even where its absence would not impede or frustrate the trial, for example by adding to or detracting from strands in a circumstantial case.

Issue 2: Relevance of the material to the trial issues

The defence has filed a s 143 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) notice identifying self-defence and substantial impairment (under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) as the defences to be raised. Filing those defences also resolved any earlier question about whether the deceased was dead or merely missing. Against that background, Hamill J identified the live trial issues as including the credibility of a potentially important witness, the nature of the relationship between the accused and the deceased (including the presence or absence of coercive control or violence), the movements of both parties around the time of the disappearance, the deceased's alleged new romantic involvement and the accused's response to it, and the question of financial motive.

Having reviewed the material from two separately examined witnesses, his Honour concluded provisionally that the evidence from the first witness was of obvious and potent potential relevance to several of those issues. The evidence from the second witness was assessed as less obviously relevant, but still potentially relevant to the deceased's new relationship and the accused's response to it.

Issue 3: Procedural fairness for the examined witnesses

Hamill J reached only a provisional view in favour of disclosure, because procedural fairness requires the examined witnesses to have an opportunity to be heard before any final order is made. A separate hearing date has been set for that purpose, and the date itself is subject to a suppression order. Neither party to the murder trial will know the date or be present. The two interested parties are listed at different times so that each remains unaware of the other's involvement.

Orders Made

  • Direction made and certificate granted under s 45(4) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) on 5 June 2026, requiring the Commission to produce the relevant material to the Court
  • Provisional finding that the requirements of s 45(5) are satisfied and the material should be provided to both parties to the trial
  • A separate hearing date set (suppressed) for the examined witnesses to make submissions against the provisional view, to be conducted in closed court in the absence of the trial parties
  • Crime Commission lawyers directed to liaise with the interested parties regarding their wish to be heard, and to liaise with the Associate on a confidential basis
  • Suppression order made over the date and time of the interested parties' hearings

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW), the test for whether disclosure of compelled examination evidence is "required" in the interests of justice does not demand proof that the interests of justice would be impeded or frustrated by non-disclosure. The court must assess whether the material is germane or significant to the trial issues, which is a lower threshold.
  • Identifying the precise issues to be contested at trial is a necessary preliminary step in any s 45(5) application. The filing of a s 143 Criminal Procedure Act notice by the defence materially clarified the issues and shaped the relevance assessment in this case.
  • Assurances of confidentiality given to witnesses who testify under compulsion before the Crime Commission carry real weight, but they do not automatically prevail over a defendant's entitlement to access potentially relevant material in a serious criminal trial.
  • Procedural fairness requires examined witnesses to be heard before a final disclosure order is made. Courts have developed practical mechanisms to protect witness identities during that process, including suppressed hearing dates, closed-court proceedings, and staggered listing of interested parties.
  • This case is notable for applying the s 45(5) framework outside the more common organised crime context, demonstrating that the provisions extend equally to homicide proceedings where the underlying evidence touches on domestic relationships, credibility, and motive.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW), ss 45(4), 45(5) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 143

Cases
- Decision restricted [2025] NSWSC 696 R v Jaghbir (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 762
- R v Parkes; R v Sloan [2024] NSWSC 16
- R v Qaumi & Ors (No 11) [2016] NSWSC 252