NSW Criminal Law judgments

About NSW Criminal Law judgments

High Court and New South Wales Criminal Law Judgments is a series of short podcasts exploring recently published criminal decisions from the NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Court of Criminal Appeal, and the District Court. Criminal matters adjudicated by the High Court of Australia are also included. Each episode is a spoken case note on a single judgment: the facts the Court accepted, the issues decided, the orders made, and why the reasoning matters. It separates submissions from findings, ratio from obiter, and notes when earlier authority is distinguished or qualified — drawing only from the published reasons. For barristers, solicitors, educators and students, as well as informed listeners who want a clear path through a judgment. Not legal advice; not a substitute for reading the full case. Listeners are encouraged to read the official published judgment. Disclaimer This podcast discusses High Court of Australia and NSW judgments. It is not legal advice and not an official judgment. Commentary is not sponsored or endorsed by the High Court of Australia or the NSW Courts stated, and must not be presented as an official version of any judgment, or as affiliated with or endorsed by those Courts. We keep the material accurate, respect suppression and publication restrictions. For High Court decisions, we attribute and thank the High Court of Australia as the source and indicate that any summary is based on the original version available on the Court’s website at https://www.hcourt.gov.au/ (https://www.hcourt.gov.au/). For NSW decisions, we attribute and thank the NSW Caselaw site as the source. For the authoritative text, go to https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/ (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/).

Publisher

EvidenceEdge

Category

business · education · news

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

11 Aug 2026

Latest episode

28 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

115 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   28 Oct 2026

   R v Mottram [2026] NSWDC 391

   R v Mottram [2026] NSWDC 391 concerned sentencing for a common assault committed in custody while Bradley Mottram was serving a lengthy sentence for murder. Mottram bit another inmate on the cheek, causing pain. Although the assault was at the lowest end of objective seriousness and substantial mitigation applied, the key issue was whether any penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The Court rejected the parties’ proposed Community Correction Order as practically meaningless in custody. Emphasising general deterrence and the need for a real consequence, it imposed a fixed one-month term commencing when Mottram becomes eligible for parole in 2029.

2. 

   27 Oct 2026

   Large v R [2026] NSWCCA 175

   Large v R [2026] NSWCCA 175 concerned convictions for two sexual assaults and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and an aggregate five-year sentence. The conviction appeal alleged a miscarriage because trial counsel neither confronted nor recalled the complainant about taxi records contradicting her account of her movements. Although the judges differed on whether counsel’s approach was rational or erroneous, the Court unanimously found no material irregularity capable of affecting the verdicts. The sentence appeal succeeded because the judge failed to consider how Large’s acquired frontal brain injury affected deterrence after finding it contributed to impulsive offending. The sentence was replaced with three years and four months, with a two-year non-parole period.

3. 

   23 Oct 2026

   Campbell v Winch (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1319

   Campbell v Winch (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1319 concerned a private prosecutor’s appeal from Local Court acquittals for alleged offences under s 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW). The key issue was whether the driveway constituted “inclosed lands”. The Supreme Court held that the whole boundary must be recognisable from the physical features specified by the Act. Those features may contain gaps and need not prevent entry, but partial delineation is insufficient; the definition’s inclusive wording does not create a separate category for buildings, structures or associated land. The driveway failed that test. The appeal was dismissed, with the prosecutor ordered to pay the defendants’ ordinary costs.

Contact NSW Criminal Law judgments

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.