R v Rokomaqisa (No 5) - [2025] NSWSC 914

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rokomaqisa (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 914
Hearing dates: 12 August 2025
Date of orders: 12 August 2025
Decision date: 13 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
Application for blanket non-publication and take down orders refused.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Murder – Non-publication orders – Takedown orders – Present trial concerning member of Alameddine OCN charged with offences arising out of feud with opposing OCN – Where accused in future trials belonged to OCN and alleged to have committed different offences but in the context of the same feud – Where prejudice asserted arising from similarities in evidence – Principle of open justice prevails.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 128
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 98(1)(a)

Cases Cited:
Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v AA [2025] NSWCA 72
Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52; [2012] NSWCCA 125
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Quami (2016) 93 NSWLR 384; [2016] NSWCCA 97
Munshizada v R [2021] NSWCCA 307
R v Chalabian (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 63
R v Adam Cranston [2023] NSWSC 1004

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Samuel John Rokomaqisa (Accused)
Masood Zakaria (Applicant in the Notice of Motion)
News Life Pty Ltd, Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, Australian Broadcasting Corporation News (ABC News) (Respondent to the Notice of Motion)
Representation: Counsel:
K Ratcliffe with J Sfinas (Crown)
G Thomas with R Deppeler (Accused)
C Parkin (Applicant in the Notice of Motion)
M J Lewis SC (Respondent to the Notice of Motion)

File Number(s): 22/280742
Publication restriction: Publication restricted until the conclusion of proceedings concerning the applicant involving a jury.

JUDGMENT

The accused, Samuel John Rokomaqisa, is being tried for the alleged murder of Bilal Hamze on 17 June 2021, conspiracy to murder Ibrahem Hamze between 23 July and 15 August 2021, and aggravated carjacking on 14 August 2021. A jury was empanelled and the trial commenced on 4 August 2025. The present estimate is that the Crown case will conclude on or about 29 August 2025.
The Crown alleges the accused was associated with the Alameddine Organised Criminal Network (OCN) and that the alleged offences arose from a public feud between the Alameddine and Hamze OCNs. This allegation is not in dispute. The Alameddine and Hamze OCNs have become notorious through media reporting in recent years; to deny that is to ignore what is patently obvious. It is understandable as a result that the trial has received some degree of media interest.
There presently exists separate but factually related proceedings concerning murder, conspiracy to murder and other charges against Masood Zakaria, a person who is alleged by the Crown to be a member of the Alameddine OCN. Zakaria’s trial for the alleged murder of Toufic Hamze and Salim Hamze on 20 October 2021 is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rokomaqisa (No 5) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 914
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rokomaqisa (No 5) was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Rokomaqisa, is a member of the Alameddine Organised Crime Network and is charged with offences arising from a feud with another Organised Crime Network. The dispute in this matter concerns the court's refusal to grant non-publication orders and takedown orders in relation to the accused's trial. The primary issue before the court was whether the principle of open justice should be overridden in this case due to the potential for prejudice arising from similarities in the evidence presented in future trials against other members of the Alameddine Organised Crime Network.

The court found that the open justice principle is fundamental to the Australian legal system and should not be lightly set aside. The court held that the potential for prejudice in future trials does not outweigh the importance of ensuring that justice is seen to be done. The court noted that the accused would still have the opportunity to argue that evidence from previous trials should not be admitted in subsequent trials. The court held that the open justice principle prevails, and the non-publication orders and takedown orders were not granted.

The court's decision was based on the principle of open justice and the importance of ensuring that justice is seen to be done. The court held that the potential for prejudice in future trials does not outweigh the importance of this principle. The court also noted that the accused would still have the opportunity to argue that evidence from previous trials should not be admitted in subsequent trials. The court's decision ensures that the principle of open justice is upheld, and the accused's right to a fair trial is protected. The court's refusal to grant non-publication orders and takedown orders was upheld.

Orders