Background
In June 2025, Hamill J granted a certificate under s 45(4) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW), requiring the NSW Crime Commission to produce confidential material to the Court. After considering that material alongside the prosecution case statement, the parties’ submissions and Nirmeen Noufl’s notice under s 143 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the Court provisionally indicated in July 2026 that the material should be disclosed to the parties under s 45(5).
Before making final orders, the Court gave two interested parties separate opportunities to be heard while protecting their identities. The first did not oppose disclosure. The second witness opposed it through counsel, citing genuine personal-safety concerns unrelated to Noufl, the limited relevance of the evidence, the availability of the witness to the parties, and assurances given when the witness was compelled to testify before the Commission that the evidence would remain within a restricted group.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that the interests of justice required disclosure of the first witness’s confidential transcripts from 11 and 17 September 2024. It ordered that redacted copies be provided only to the DPP and delegates directly involved in the prosecution and to Noufl’s legal representatives. The defence lawyers could discuss and show the transcripts to Noufl, but could not give her copies.
The disclosure was subject to strict controls: unauthorized copying or imaging was prohibited, lawyers had to retain their notes, and the transcripts and notes had to be securely destroyed when the proceedings ended or a lawyer ceased acting. The Court declined, at that stage, to order disclosure of the second witness’s evidence from 24 September 2024 because it was unlikely to affect the confined trial issues, relevant information appeared available through other evidence, and the witness’s circumstances weighed against release.
The refusal concerning the second witness was not final. Hamill J stated that the issue could be reconsidered if the trial’s conduct materially changed the interests-of-justice assessment.
Key Takeaways
- Disclosure under s 45(5) depends on whether the interests of justice require access to the confidential Crime Commission material.
- The Court may release such material subject to redactions, limits on recipients, copying restrictions and secure-destruction requirements.
- A witness’s safety concerns, the circumstances in which compelled evidence was obtained, its relevance and the availability of other evidence may justify withholding disclosure, subject to reconsideration as the trial develops.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the fact-specific balance Australian courts may undertake between trial fairness and the confidentiality and safety interests surrounding compelled Crime Commission evidence. It also shows that disclosure need not be all-or-nothing: different witnesses’ evidence may receive different treatment, and access may be tightly controlled.
For criminal practitioners, the ruling underscores that an initial indication favoring disclosure can change after affected witnesses are heard, and that disclosure questions may remain open as the evidentiary issues at trial evolve.