R v Rokomaqisa (No 2) - [2025] NSWSC 176

No judgment structure available for this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: On 18 February 2025, I heard argument at a pre-trial hearing as to the admissibility of various items of evidence the Crown proposes to adduce at the accused’s trial.
The trial is scheduled to commence on 4 August 2025.
There are three counts in the indictment which allege the accused:

The Crown case is that the accused murdered Bilal Hamze on Bridge Street in the city on 17 June 2021 as an act of retaliation by the Alameddine organised crime network (OCN) against the Hamze OCN following the murder of Assad Alahmad on 7 June 2021. It is further alleged that on 14 August 2021, he and another person were in the vicinity of the apartment building in which Ibrahem Hamze was living in North Sydney with the intention of killing him. They were distracted from that endeavour by a police officer who followed their car because of traffic infringements. They were successful in evading a police pursuit but then committed a “carjacking” offence after their own vehicle sustained damage.^[1]
1. A Crown Case Statement is on the court file, it having been tendered during pre-trial legal argument that was before Sweeney J in May 2024.
Wilson J, in her capacity as Criminal List Judge, was given to understand when fixing a trial date that there was the prospect of substantial matters requiring pre-trial determination. On 3 May 2024, Sweeney J determined that evidence pertaining to Counts 1 and 2 was cross-admissible as coincidence evidence pursuant to s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW): R v Rokomaqisa [2024] NSWSC 511.
The present matter concerns the admissibility of discrete aspects of the evidence appearing in witness statements and transcripts of covertly recorded conversations. In preparation for this hearing, the parties have refined each of their positions and reduced the number of objections that are in dispute. It has been some time coming but I am grateful for the parties’ practical and realistic co-operation that is now evident. I trust it will continue.
By way of an overview, the Crown submitted:^[2]

Statement of Witness A of 28 November 2022

2. Crown written submissions in reply (CWSR) [4]-[7].

Paragraphs [4]-[12]

The Crown contends the events described in these paragraphs occurred in December 2020 – January 2021. It is said by Witness A to be the occasion of first meeting the accused. It was at [REDACTED]. Its relevance is to show that the accused was involved in the Alameddine OCN; associated with people who had access to firearms; and was acting as an agent on this occasion.^[3]
3. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 6-7.
[REDACTED].^[4]
4. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 11-12.
Mr Thomas further contended that if the evidence had probative value it was outweighed by the unfair prejudice of the alleged participation in uncharged but very serious criminal conduct. He intimated that, subject to obtaining instructions, the purposes for which the Crown sought to adduce the evidence could be achieved by way of agreed facts.^[5]

5. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 12.

This evidence appears to be relevant in the way described in the Crown’s overview above and in its submissions in reply. [REDACTED]. The Crown also submitted that the evidence is of some significance because it is the occasion when Witness A first met the accused and may assist the jury’s assessment of his credibility as a criminally concerned informer witness.
The degree of prejudice that might flow from evidence such as this must be assessed in the context of it being part of the case for both parties that there was a history of hostility between the Alameddine and Hamze OCNs.^[6] There is going to be a need for directions that the jury not give inappropriate weight or emphasis to, or be distracted by, implied or explicit indications of involvement in uncharged criminal conduct. I acknowledge the element of prejudice but am not persuaded that it outweighs the probative value of the evidence such that it should be excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act.
6. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 7(10)-(20).
It would be desirable if the parties work towards minimising the amount of prejudicial evidence that will be before the jury. It would be of benefit to all if facts in relation to this and various other matters can be agreed.

Paragraph 19

Witness A said there was an occasion when the accused showed some news footage on his phone. It was a YouTube video concerning the murder of Bilal Hamze in the city. Witness A told him of having seen it on the news. The accused let Witness A watch the whole video and said, “That was me, that is what we do with the cars … that is it, that is what we doing, that is what the cars for”. This occurred in the context of Witness A being asked by the accused for help in relation to cars. Witness A “thought it was dodgy” and the accused spoke of a “young guy” who had been helping but was not around anymore and there being concern about whether the young guy was working with the police to give everyone up.^[7]
7. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 7-8.
The Crown relies upon the representation, “That was me”, as an admission by the accused to his direct involvement in the murder of Bilal Hamze.^[8] The reference to “cars” may be taken to be a reference to the alleged use of multiple stolen cars with false number plates in relation to the events of 17 June 2021 and 14 August 2021.
8. CWSR [21].
Mr Thomas advised that this event was said to have occurred in about July 2021. That could be determined by reference to an earlier statement made by Witness A.^[9] The Crown does not accept this, but that is not a relevant matter in relation paragraphs 19 or 26.
9. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 8.
The objection was that this was “second-hand evidence, hearsay in nature, about the content of something that [Witness A] has viewed which we do not have”.^[10] He contended that knowledge of the content of what Witness A was shown was critical to comprehension of the statements attributed to the accused.^[11]
10. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 13(41).
11. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 14(8).
Mr Thomas developed this by contending that the further representation attributed by Witness A to the accused, “That is what we do with the cars” leads to imprecision as to what it is the accused might be admitting to (if it was an admission of anything). The Crown case is that the accused was in the car at the time of the shooting, either as the driver or the shooter. But these representations are equivocal as to his presence in the car; they could relate to him having something to do with the preparation of the cars.^[12]
12. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 14(30)-16(35).
It was suggested that the jury could be directed as to the use of this evidence as only an admission of involvement in the murder of Bilal Hamze in an unspecified capacity. However, Mr Thomas submitted the evidence should be excluded to avoid the danger of misuse, and thus unfair prejudice.

I am not persuaded that the alleged statement by the accused, “That was me”, is inadmissible second-hand hearsay. Witness A was describing a combination of two forms of representation by the accused, one being by conduct (showing a video that was concerned with the murder of Bilal Hamze) and the other being the statement he made (“That was me”). Together they amount to an admission by the accused in respect of that event.
It may be accepted that the statement did not include a description as to the role played by the accused in the event. It may be that at its highest it could be understood as an admission of criminal involvement in the murder without detail of the role played or even whether the accused was present. Being at that level of generality does not deny the evidence of probative value but how far it goes might depend upon the context in which it falls to be considered, namely all of the other evidence in the case.
I am satisfied that the permissible and potentially limited use of this evidence is capable of direction so as to avoid any risk of misuse by way of giving it greater weight than is justifiable. Whether such a direction is required, and if so, the content of it, will become apparent once all the evidence is in. (In this regard I am mindful, for example, of the evidence set out in paragraph 26 of Witness A’s statement.) The parties should bear this in mind and raise it during the trial, if appropriate. The evidence is, however, admissible.

Paragraph 26

This paragraph concerns continued conversation following the viewing of the video referred to in paragraph 19. The first sentence asserts that Witness A said, “so he drives you around, and you?” In response to this, the accused is said to have nodded and said, “yeah”. The Crown relies upon this as an admission to the murder of Bilal Hamze because it occurred in the context just mentioned.
Witness A then asked the accused what “they” did with the car and claimed the accused “said that they burnt it and they got away”. This is also relied upon by the Crown in respect of Count 1. The Crown case is that it correlates with objective evidence. The car used in the murder of Mr Hamze was destroyed by fire soon afterwards.
Witness A also said that “this time the burning went right”, but claimed the accused went on to say, “not like in the past when the car wasn’t burnt properly and they had to go back and burn it again and another occasion the guy burnt himself when setting the car on fire”. The first part of this representation is relevant to Count 1 but the Crown did not explain the relevance of the balance of it.
It is noted that the Crown does not press Witness A’s statement: “I understand it was Sam was doing the shooting and the young guy was the driver.”
The objection was based upon the asserted admissions in this paragraph having been made following the viewing of the video referred to in paragraph 19, with the content of the video being unknown.^[13] It was submitted in the alternative that if the admission is to be adduced the reference to burning cars on other occasions should be excluded as irrelevant.^[14]

13. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 19(27)-(34).

14. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 19(36)-(49).

The same reasoning as to the objection to paragraph 19 applies. The evidence is not inadmissible second-hand hearsay. It is mostly relevant. It would be open to the jury to reason that by nodding and saying “yeah” the accused was admitting to having been present in the car as the shooter. It would also be open to the jury to consider that the statements as to burning the car was a further admission of being present in the car.
However, absent any contention that the reference to burning cars on other occasions in the past is relevant, and my being unable to discern that for myself, I uphold the objection to that portion.
The evidence is admissible in part.

Paragraphs 29, 33 and 36

Each of the events described in these paragraphs were asserted by the Crown Prosecutor to have relevance to Counts 2 and possibly 3. Mr Thomas, however, contended by reference to matters within Witness A’s statement that they occurred prior to 14 August 2021 and therefore are irrelevant to those counts. In its submissions in reply, the Crown described a rather complex but seemingly viable process of reasoning to a conclusion that the events in these paragraphs occurred subsequently.^[15] Taking the evidence at its highest (IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 at [44] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ)) I accept this proposition.
15. CWSR [13]-[20].

Paragraph 29

Witness A referred to an occasion when he was with the accused in a shed at the back of the accused’s home. He asserts that the accused alluded to some “other shooting”. The Crown contends this is a reference to a shooting, singular. He also said he was involved in “the attempt”. He had a white Mercedes and had an issue with a flat tyre which had caused a lot of problems “last time”. The Crown says this conversation involves admissions pertaining to Counts 2 and 3 which involved the use of a light silver/grey Mercedes which sustained a flat tyre.^[16]
16. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 8; CWSR [32].
The Crown also relies more broadly upon the third sentence of this paragraph, where the accused spoke of “doing it or [sic – for?] the money” as evidence of the accused’s motivation for his participation and involvement in crimes for the Alameddine OCN.^[17]
17. CWSR [31].
The objection was that this conversation preceded the alleged occurrence of the events with which Counts 2 and 3 are concerned.

On the basis that the Crown case at its highest is that the conversation occurred after the occurrence of Counts 2 and 3, this evidence is both relevant and admissible.

Paragraph 33

Further on the same night, Witness A asserted the accused spoke of getting rid of a gun. The Crown does not press the last sentence.^[18] It relies upon the other four sentences as the accused speaking of destroying evidence relevant to Count 2 as well as his access to firearms at a time approximate to both Counts 1 and 2.^[19] It also relies upon the request made by the accused in relation to Witness A assisting with disposal of a gun as indicating the level of trust the accused had in him.^[20]
18. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 9(11).
19. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 9.
20. CWSR [39].
The objection was that it could not be relevant to Count 2 because the conversation was at an earlier time. If paragraph 33 related to Count 1, it would be excluded because it was part of conversation that occurred following the playing of the video about the murder with the content of that video not being known.

Insofar as the objection concerned the temporal aspect rendering this conversation irrelevant to Count 2, I take a different view for the reasons previously stated.
The Crown did not press for admissibility as an admission concerning the murder of Bilal Hamze, but only as tending to show an association with firearms. The evidence would be relevant to both Counts 1 and 2 in that respect, given they involve allegations of the accused’s involvement in one shooting incident followed by an aborted shooting incident. All but the last sentence of this paragraph (which is not pressed by the Crown) is relevant and has a probative value that is not outweighed by any unfair prejudice to the accused.

Paragraph 36

The conversation described in this paragraph is said to have occurred a week after the foregoing. The Crown relies upon it as further evidence of the accused’s association with firearms, notably, in this instance, more talk of getting rid of a handgun. It also relies upon this paragraph for its reference to the accused “getting paid soon” and that he “should get half a mil (Million) and will sort you out”. That related to either or both of Counts 1 and 2.^[21]
21. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 9; CWSR [38]-[39].
The objection was based on the same temporal point which, again, must be rejected. If the evidence was relevant to Count 1, the reference to getting rid of a handgun that had some relevance to the shooting on Bridge Street was said to be speculative. Mr Thomas submitted that there was a “disconnect” between what was allegedly said about the shooting and the reference to the accused expecting to be paid soon and would “sort [Witness A] out for the cars” that Witness A was helping the accused with.^[22] The supposed expectation of the accused receiving half a million dollars could relate to other activity, although Mr Thomas conceded that the availability of an alternative inference did not render the evidence inadmissible.

22. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 21(39)-(45).

Mr Thomas was correct to concede that the availability of other inferences does not render potentially relevant evidence inadmissible: R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335; (2013) 237 A Crim R 238 at [159]-[160].
It would be open to the jury to consider the content of this conversation in the context of that which had been discussed between the accused and Witness A only a week before. Moreover, given the relative temporal proximity of this conversation with the events with which both Counts 1 and 2 are concerned, it would be open to a jury to consider that the alleged statements by the accused related to them. In this way, the evidence is relevant. If, once all the evidence is in, there is perceived a risk that the jury might infer that either or both things the accused spoke about related to some other criminal activity, then the parties should raise the prospect of an appropriate judicial warning being provided.

Statement of Witness B of 24 October 2022

Witness B had known the accused for some years and their relationship was cordial.
[REDACTED].
[REDACTED] the accused came and saw her one night. He told her, “One of the younger boys, around 18 or 19 old [sic], had been raided and found with some pot and some keys to the cars. Sam said he had been told the boy got scared and had rolled on him and Joe.” The Crown case is that the latter is a reference to Joseph Vokai, a person alleged to have been a “high up member of the Alameddine OCN” who was “responsible for organising the cars and where they were housed”.^[23]
23. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 24(28)-(38).
The Crown was asked whether there would be any evidence of some young person having been raided and found with some pot, and having keys to cars, and having something to do with cars involved in Counts 1 or 2, or both.^[24] The Crown Prosecutor responded by indicating that Ponipate Rakuli had been raided and he was one of the men who were involved in organising cars for the Alameddine OCN. He was involved in renting the garage at Morden Street, Cammeray which was where vehicles used in relation to Counts 2 and 3 were stored.^[25]
24. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 25(42)-(46).
25. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 25(42)-26(16).
In its submissions in reply, the Crown indicated that Rakuli was a young male who had been the subject of a search by police on 28 August 2021 during which a number of cloned vehicle registration plates, car keys and a small amount of cannabis were found in his possession. He was charged with offences related to the conspiracy. The Crown submitted that the representation about a young person having “rolled on him” could only be referable to the use of cars with cloned number plates and no other criminality.
The Crown did not press the balance of the paragraph.^[26] The first two sentences were pressed as an expression of concern by the accused that the cars and their connection with Counts 1 and 2 would be disclosed to the authorities. [REDACTED].^[27]
26. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 23(33); 24(23).
27. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 23(33)-(40).
The objection to admissibility was based on uncertainty as to the reason there was concern about being “rolled on”, for example, whether it was in relation to supplying drugs or engaging in other criminal activity. The assertion it had something to do with either or both of Counts 1 and 2 was vague and speculative. In relation to the Crown’s reference to the Mercedes, Mr Thomas referred to there having been multiple motor vehicles and said that there was nothing to identify this particular one. There was no foundation for an inference that the Mercedes was the motor vehicle used in the events relating to Counts 2 and 3.^[28]

28. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 24(48)-25(37).

Based upon the additional evidence referred to by the Crown and described above, it appears there will be a basis upon which an inference could be drawn that the accused was concerned about being “rolled on” in respect of vehicles involved in both incidents the subject of the indictment. The evidence is relevant and has a probative value that is not outweighed by unfair prejudice to the accused.

Statement of Witness C of 15 February 2023

Paragraph 7

Witness C said he met the accused in July 2021. About a week after they first met, the accused came to Witness C’s home where they consumed drugs and socialised. During the course of this evening the accused “showed us all a news story on his phone. He played a video of the news story of the murder of Bilal Hamze in the city”. Witness C stated he was aware of the murder; it happened while he was in gaol; it was a big story there. While the video was playing, the accused said, “Me and my cousin did this job. I was the driver”. Witness C recalled that the accused also bragged about being a good driver and how he got away but could not specifically recall the accused’s exact words.
The Crown relies upon this as an admission in relation to Count 1.^[29]
29. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 26(22).
The objection is based upon the same submission as was made in relation to Witness A of conversations alleged to have occurred in the context of the accused having shown a video, the content of which will not be before the jury. Mr Thomas accepted that a distinction was that in this case there was alleged to have been specific reference by the accused to the role he played in the murder.
However, Mr Thomas submitted that the evidence should be excluded pursuant to s 90: “having regard to the circumstances in which the admission was made, it would be unfair to [the accused] to use the evidence”. The unfairness was said to arise from the absence of evidence as to the content of the video and that the participants in the conversation were drug affected.

The fact that the video is unavailable has been considered in the context of objections to portions of Witness A’s statement and rejected. The objection has even less force here where there is precise identification by the accused (according to Witness C) of the role the accused played in carrying out the murder.
The discretion to exclude admissions under s 90 of the Evidence Act usually turns on the circumstances in which the admission was elicited: see, for example, The Queen v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1. Here there was no eliciting behaviour on the part of Witness C or others who were present. The accused simply produced and played the video and then unilaterally volunteered an admission by way of bragging about his conduct. Mr Thomas did not submit that the admission of the evidence would render the accused’s trial unfair.
The fact those present were using drugs and may, to some extent which is not presently known, have been affected by them is a matter relevant potentially to the reliability of what the accused said and what Witness C may recall him saying. The evidence is capable of being accepted by the jury as being probative of the accused’s alleged guilt. There is nothing that would justify exclusion under s 90 of the Evidence Act or on any other basis.

Paragraph 10

Witness C recalled an occasion subsequent to the event in paragraph 7. He was sitting in the back shed at the accused’s house with the accused and another person. They were sitting around talking and having a cigarette. Witness C claimed that the accused said words to the effect of, “I can’t get any ice because I got a job coming up, they won’t let me have it. I’m on a payroll and I get paid in parts to be the driver of hits.”
The Crown submitted an inference was available that this conversation took place at a time not long preceding the events in Counts 2 and 3. Reference was made to paragraph 14 where Witness C described an occasion in August 2021 when the accused requested and obtained a jerry can and fuel from him. The Crown case is that this jerry can was found in the vehicle abandoned at the scene of the carjacking alleged in Count 3 immediately after the police chase away from the scene of the intended shooting murder of Ibrahem Hamze alleged in Count 2. The DNA of Witness C was on the jerry can and the accused’s DNA was on the plastic bag the jerry can was contained in.^[30]
30. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 27.
The Crown relies upon the representation in paragraph 10 as an admission to his direct involvement in the offending involving being the “driver of hits” on behalf of the Alameddine OCN. It also indicated the control it had over him, namely in directing him not to use illicit drugs. The reference to being “on a payroll” was consistent with other evidence about him being paid for such jobs.^[31]
31. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 27(27); CWSR [45]-[47].
The objection was confined to “the driver of hits”. Mr Thomas conceded in his submissions that the references to being on a payroll, getting paid, and the accused by inference being under the control of the organisation was admissible. However, the alleged statement that he was “the driver of hits” would suggest to the jury that the accused was involved in the murder of many people unconnected with any of the charges that would be before the jury. This was said to invoke overwhelming prejudice that would be impossible for the accused to overcome. In short, the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed probative value.
Mr Thomas also referred to the irony that after supposedly making these statements the accused was said to have joined with Witness C and another or others in smoking ice at the nearby home of a person the accused referred to as his uncle. This might say something about whether the accused was in fact under the control of the Alameddine OCN but was not put as a basis upon which the evidence should be excluded.^[32]

32. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 27(6)-(10).

It would be open to the jury to determine that this conversation preceded the events with which Counts 2 and 3 are concerned. On the Crown case, the accused had been in the car from which Bilal Hamze was shot and killed on 17 June 2021 and he would soon be in a car that would go to the home of Ibrahem Hamze on 14 August 2021 for the same purpose.
The brazen claim to being “the driver of hits” has powerful probative value in these circumstances. A direction to the jury that the Crown does not allege that the accused was involved in any other such incidents and the evidence should not be construed in that way would be well within the capacity of a jury to understand and comply with. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that there is a danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs the probative value of the evidence and so it will not be excluded.

Telephone Intercept on 8 September 2021

The telephone intercept on 8 September 2021 is concerned with a conversation between the accused and Witness B. In the course of complaining to Witness B about various things, the accused said:

The Crown contends this was a reference to the murder of Bilal Hamze and is therefore an admission in relation to Count 1. This is said to be supported by its consistency with him having played videos of news footage about that incident to Witnesses A and C.^[33]
33. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 29(22); CWSR [48].
Mr Thomas submitted: “uncertain, vague, speculative, very low probative value, unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value”. This was because “job in the city” could mean anything. Witness B did not say anything in her statement about the accused telling her of a job in the city.^[34]

34. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 29(32)-(47).

The combined effect of all of the statements made by the accused around time of the occurrence of the events in Counts 1, 2 and 3, could give rise to a conclusion that the accused repeatedly made brazen admissions to various people about his involvement in those events. On its own, a “job in the city” could mean anything, but considered in the context just mentioned, it could legitimately be regarded as a reference to the Bilal Hamze shooting.
The only prejudice that could possibly arise from evidence of this statement is that the jury could adopt an impermissible approach to the drawing of inferences. That will be countered by the giving of the usual directions about the care that needs to be applied to that task.
The evidence is admissible.

Surveillance device recorded conversation on 8 December 2021

This a recording of conversation that was primarily between the accused and a fellow inmate at the MRRC Silverwater. On page 6 of the transcript the accused is attributed with saying something at length. Objection is taken to the following sentence that appears in the middle of it:

The Crown relies upon this as evidence of association with the Alameddine OCN. It proposed to redact the words “all the”. Mr Thomas was content with that and withdrew the objection.^[35]
35. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, pp 30(28)-31(13).

Surveillance device recorded conversation on 14 January 2022

This is a recorded conversation between the accused and Jamel Alameddine at the MRRC Silverwater. The evidence provided for the determination of this objection was confined to the transcript. It is 11 pages in length and the portion objected to appears on pages 10 and 11. It is necessary to set it out in full: (transcriber’s editorial notes excluded.)

The Crown relies upon the references to “Bilal” who “died” and Alameddine asking the accused whether “he saw you”? It also relies upon a further reference to “Bilal” and to “you go over the bridge and come back” as being consistent with the car used in the murder of Bilal Hamze having been driven over the Harbour Bridge and subsequently found burnt at Northwood. The Crown says this amounts to an admission by the accused as to his involvement in the murder in Count 1.^[36]
36. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 31(26)-(34).
The Crown Prosecutor contended that this portion of conversation on 14 January 2022 must be considered together with a portion of that which took place between the accused and Jamel Alameddine on 17 January 2022 which was the subject of the next objection. However, in its submissions in reply, the Crown indicated that the latter was no longer pressed.^[37]
37. Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 33(33); CWSR [52].
The primary basis for the objection is that there are so many “indecipherable” parts of the conversation that no clear meaning can be ascribed to what is decipherable.

The references to “Bilal”, who “died”, a “girlfriend”, and going across “the bridge” in combination strongly suggest the subject of the conversation is the murder of Bilal Hamze as alleged. However, precisely what is being said by the accused about it is entirely unclear. It is possible that there are indecipherable parts of the conversation that would characterise it in a way that is different to that for which the Crown contends. Without being able to have any certainty about that, it would be unfairly prejudicial to admit the evidence when balanced against its relatively low probative value.
This evidence is excluded.

Other Items

There were also objections to the attribution to the accused of a sound in a surveillance device recording on 21 January 2022 and to a portion of a conversation between the accused and Witness B in a call from gaol on 22 February 2022. In its submissions in reply, the Crown indicated it no longer pressed the former and at the hearing on 18 February 2025, Mr Thomas indicated he no longer objected to the latter.^[38]
38. CWSR [52]; Tcpt, 18 February 2025, p 36(50).

Pre-Trial Case Management Orders

At the conclusion of the hearing on 18 February 2025 there was discussion about trial preparation generally. Mr Thomas indicated that if the parties were to agree on a number of factual issues, the previous estimate for the trial of three months could be revised downwards to six weeks. From my perspective, I think that two months would be an appropriately conservative estimate.
To enhance the prospect of agreement being reached, I proposed that a pre-trial conference be held, to which neither party expressed any opposition.
The following matters were observed and orders made:

**********

ANNEXURE 1 – TABLE OF ADVANCE RULINGS

R v Rokomaqisa (No 2) Annexure 1 (docx)

Endnotes

Amendments

03 November 2025 - Redactions made.

Decision last updated: 03 November 2025

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

R v Rokomaqisa (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 176

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

2

IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14

R v Sica [2013] QCA 247

IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Rokomaqisa (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 176
Hearing dates:	18 February 2025
Date of orders:	11 March 2025
Decision date:	11 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	R A Hulme AJ
Decision:	(1) Rulings made as to the admissibility of evidence as set out within this judgment and summarised in its annexure. (2) Trial date of 4 August 2025 confirmed, noting the Court’s expectation that a jury will be empanelled on that date. (3) The attention of the parties was drawn to the need for compliance in all respects with paragraph 14 of Supreme Court Practice Note SC CL 2. In this respect it was noted that the prosecution notice pursuant to s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) is to be filed and served by 28 April 2025; the defence response under s 143 is to be filed and served by 19 May 2025; and the prosecution’s response to the defence response under s 144 is to be filed and served by 2 June 2025. (4) Pursuant to s 140 of the Criminal Procedure Act, there is to be a pre-trial conference to be held on or before 6 June 2025. (5) Pursuant to s 140(4)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the parties are to determine matters which are to be the subject of agreed facts and the content of such agreed facts. (6) The pre-trial conference form is to be filed within seven days after the holding of such conference. It is to include a report upon the outcome of the parties’ determination of facts which are to be agreed. (7) A copy of the Crown Submissions in reply on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence dated 19 February 2025 shall be placed with the Court file and marked for identification ‘3’.
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE — Advance ruling — Three counts alleging murder, conspiracy to murder and assault — Admissions — Admissions referring to unavailable video evidence — Discretion to exclude admissions under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 90 — Objections to evidence — Prejudicial evidence — Evidence of criminal association — Probative value of indecipherable conversation captured by surveillance recording device CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Case management — Pre-trial hearing
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 140(4)(d), 142, 144 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 90, 98, 137
Cases Cited:	IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335; (2013) 237 A Crim R 238 R v Rokomaqisa [2024] NSWSC 511 The Queen v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Samuel John Rokomaqisa (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: K Ratcliffe with J Sfinas (Crown) G Thomas with R Deppeler (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)(Crown) Ace Legal Practice (Accused)
File Number(s):	2022/00280742
Publication restriction:	Publication of this judgment is restricted to the parties until the conclusion of proceedings involving a jury.