R v Rokomaqisa (No 8) - [2025] NSWSC 1130

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Rokomaqisa (No 8)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWSC 1130
Hearing Date(s):	4 September 2025
Date of Orders:	29 September 2025
Decision Date:	29 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	R A Hulme AJ
Decision:	No unreliability warning, pursuant to s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), in respect of Witness A’s and Witness C’s evidence to the jury is warranted.
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE – Unreliable evidence – Warning to the jury pursuant to s 165 – Where witness is not “criminally concerned” with events giving rise to the proceeding – Submission that witness joined conspiracy to murder conceded to lack merit – Drug use not a matter requiring a warning
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165
Cases Cited:	R v Baartman [2000] NSWCCA 298
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 (Crown) Ace Legal Practice (Accused)
File Number(s):	2022/00280742
Publication Restriction:	Any evidence or information which reveals, or tends to reveal, the identities of Witnesses A and C is subject to a suppression order. Publication of this Judgment is restricted until the conclusion of the Trial before a Jury.

JUDGMENT

In a mid-trial discussion about directions proposed to be included in the summing up, the defence sought warnings be given to the jury about the possible unreliability of two prosecution witnesses known in the trial as “Witness A” and “Witness C”.[1] Judgment was reserved.
[1] Tcpt, 4 September 2025, pp 1671(35)–1675(47).
For the following reasons, it was subsequently communicated to the parties that the directions would not be given.[2]
[2] MFI 87.

Witness A

Mr Thomas sought a direction that the jury be warned pursuant to s 165(1)(d) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) on the basis that the evidence of Witness A may be unreliable because he was a witness “who might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to [this] proceeding”.
The basis for this contention was said to be because Witness A gave evidence of an occasion when the accused showed him a video of a news story of the Bilal Hamze shooting and told Witness A, “that was me, that is what we do with the cars”.[3]
[3] Tcpt, 27 August 2025, p 1298(31).
Witness A also gave evidence of a subsequent occasion when he met the accused, by chance it seems, and for the last time. The accused asked him if he knew someone who might buy a gun. It had to be sold out of the Western Suburbs because it was “red hot in that area”. He showed Witness A a photograph of it on his phone.[4] The accused said that it was a 9-millimetre.[5] The Crown had opened to the jury that such a calibre of firearm was of the type used in the Bilal Hamze murder.[6]
[4] Tcpt,…

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 8) 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 1130
Decision Date: 29 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rokomaqisa, the defendant was charged with various offences including murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to give a warning to the jury regarding the unreliability of certain witness evidence, particularly in relation to drug use and a submission that the witness had joined a conspiracy to murder the victim. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have warned the jury that the witness was not "criminally concerned" with the events and that they had joined a conspiracy to murder the victim.

The court considered whether the trial judge was required to give a warning to the jury under section 165 of the Crimes Act, which mandates warnings when a witness is "criminally concerned" with the events or has joined a conspiracy to commit the offence. The court held that the trial judge was not required to give such a warning as the submission that the witness had joined a conspiracy to murder lacked merit. Furthermore, the court found that drug use by itself did not necessarily render evidence unreliable, and therefore did not require a warning to the jury.

The High Court ultimately concluded that the trial judge did not err in failing to give a warning to the jury regarding the unreliability of the witness's evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that warnings to juries are given only when necessary and appropriate, and that the criteria for such warnings are applied correctly.

Orders