//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 857
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-07-20
Elkaim AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Collis v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 857
Hearing dates: 20 July 2026
Date of orders: 20 July 2026
Decision date: 20 July 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Elkaim AJ
Decision: 1. On the notice of motion to set aside the subpoena filed on filed on 1 May 2026:
(a) Paragraph 8 is set aside with leave given to substitute the following paragraph 8:
“All communications including emails in relation to the incident underpinning E1062392890 (R v Regan Vicky Collis) between the dates of 18 March 2020 and 22 January 2024 to and from:
• Detective Jamell Wilson of Manning Great Lakes LAC
• Senior Constable Luke Murray of Manning Great Lakes LAC
in relation to the charging and prosecution of Regan Vicky Collis.
(b) Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the subpoena are set aside.
(c) Paragraph 16 of the subpoena is set aside, but is to be substituted by the following paragraph:
“All emails (including any annexures to same) sent to and from the following officers between 18 March 2020 and 31 March 2024:
• Detective Jamell Wilson of Manning Great Lakes LAC
• Senior Constable Luke Murray of Manning Great Lakes LAC
Concerning:
• The appropriateness of laying, maintaining or withdrawing the charges laid in E1062392890 (R v Regan Vicky Collis) and investigation contrary to s.315(1)(A) Crimes Act.
• The evidence (or lack thereof) available in support of such charges.
• The weaknesses in the prosecution case concerning such charges.
• The availability of any possible defences to such charges.
• All emails sent to and from any legal representative acting for Regan Vicky Collis in respect of the appropriateness of laying, maintaining or withdrawing the charges laid against Regan Vicky including representations to have the said charges withdrawn by police.”
(d) Paragraph 18 is set aside
(e) The subpoena as amended, and so far not answered, is returnable on 27 July 2026 before the Registrar.
(f) In respect of paragraph 10 of the subpoena, leave is granted to the defendant to redact their reply for unrelated materials concerning third parties.
(g) In respect of the subpoena notice of motion, costs are reserved
2. In respect of the notice of motion filed on 17 June 2026 for amendment to the defence:
(a) Leave is given to the defendant to file an amended defence in the form attached to the affidavit of Stephanie Koch and marked “A”.
(b) The amended defence is to be filed and served within 24 hours.
(c) In respect of costs for the amended defence notice of motion, costs are costs in the cause
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — no appearance by plaintiff — plaintiff given sufficient notice — hearing of motions to proceed in plaintiff’s absence — hearing imminent
CIVIL PROCEDURE — application by defendant to narrow subpoena — no issue of principle
CIVIL PROCEDURE — application by defendant to file an amended defence — no prejudice to plaintiff — leave granted to amend defence
Legislation Cited: Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 170
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regan Vicky Collis (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
S Woodland (Defendant)
Solicitors:
The Crown Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2024/28087
Publication restriction: No
The proceedings were commenced with the filing of a statement of claim on 23 January 2024. The plaintiff is primarily seeking damages for wrongful imprisonment and unlawful arrest arising from her arrest on 10 June 2020, and subsequent detention at the Taree Police Station. The claim extends beyond these torts to breaches of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) and to a claim for trespass to land arising from an incident on 18 March 2020.
A defence was filed on 4 October 2024. In short, the defendant denies all of the allegations of misconduct made against its employees, police officers working at the Taree Police Station.
The matter is set down for hearing, to commence on 10 August 2026 with an estimate of seven days.
There are two notices of motion before the court. The first was filed by the defendant on 1 May 2026 and seeks an order that certain paragraphs within a subpoena be set aside. The second was filed on 17 June 2026, also by the defendant, and seeks leave to file an amended defence.
When the proceedings were instituted, the plaintiff had legal representation. That is no longer the case. She is now self-represented. On 17 July 2026 the plaintiff sought leave to appear today by audiovisual link (AVL) from Taree. I granted leave. The plaintiff did not however appear when the matter commenced at 10am by AVL or otherwise.
The email correspondence on 17 July confirms that the plaintiff was aware of the hearing today.
Because the plaintiff, in paragraph 8 of her affidavit of 1 May 2026, had indicated a willingness to refine the subpoena, and the defendant’s written submissions suggest the plaintiff should have leave to refine some paragraphs of the subpoena, I suggested to the defendant this morning that it propose some acceptable changes to the subpoena and send them to the plaintiff. I then adjourned to 11.45am in the hope that the plaintiff would appear and perhaps agree with the proposed changes.
When the matter came back to court at 11.45am there was still no appearance from the plaintiff, and she had not responded to the proposed amendments.
The subpoena was filed on 20 March 2025. It was issued to the Commissioner of Police.
The notice of motion to set aside the subpoena is supported by an affidavit of Ms Stephanie Koch dated 21 May 2026. Ms Koch is a solicitor employed by the Crown Solicitor for New South Wales. The plaintiff filed her own affidavit, dated 1 May 2026.
According to Ms Koch, a previous subpoena had been issued to the same recipient, on 4 November 2024, by the solicitor then acting for the plaintiff, Mr Greg Walsh. This subpoena prompted a letter from the Crown Solicitor’s Office to Mr Walsh on 16 December 2024 asking for the subpoena to be stood over to enable documents to be found and consideration of objections to the subpoena.
Mr Walsh replied on 17 December 2024, making a complaint about a CNI number in the letter from the defendant. It is unclear but not important what became of this subpoena.
The subpoena at issue here was then issued by the plaintiff on 20 March 2025. The Crown Solicitor’s Office initially wrote to Mr Walsh but, on 22 January 2026, Mr Walsh filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act.
On 19 May 2026, the Crown Solicitor’s Office wrote to the plaintiff. The letter says that the Commissioner would like paragraphs 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18 of the subpoena to be set aside.
The reasons given for setting aside these paragraphs which were repeated and expanded upon today by learned counsel for the defendant are as follows.
Paragraph 8 is too broad and seeks communications from police officers against whom there are no allegations. In addition, the subpoena is not specific as to date and subject.
The problem with paragraph 14 of the subpoena is that it is vague and too broad. In addition, the documents fall under s 170 of the Police Act 1990 (NSW). Section 170 imposes a privilege on certain documents. The same issues arise in respect of paragraph 15 of the subpoena.
Paragraph 16 of the subpoena is said to suffer from the same deficiencies as paragraph 8 and also includes a reference to the plaintiff’s former partner which should be removed.
Paragraph 18 is objected to because “it is not apparent how these documents would materially assist on an identified issue in the proceedings ….” It is also not known what the mainframe log refers to.
The plaintiff did not respond to the letter of 19 May 2026. A response however was pre-empted by her affidavit of 1 May 2026. The plaintiff offers to refine the subpoena to:
(a) “confine it to material directly relevant to the investigation and evidentiary issues in dispute; (b) limit timeframes where appropriate.”
The defendant does not seem to have responded to this offer. The letter from the Crown Solicitor’s Office of 19 May 2026, was presumably written after the plaintiff’s affidavit was served, but it is not mentioned.
The plaintiff’s affidavit is also not mentioned in the defendant’s written submissions, but the submissions do refer to an email from the plaintiff dated 21 May 2026, which does not seem to be in the court book.
Another anomaly is that the notice of motion identifies, as the subject of complaint, the paragraphs in the subpoena I have described above (namely paragraphs 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18). The written submissions include other paragraphs, such as 1 and 19 which are said to be affected by the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth).
The objections to paragraphs 1 and 19 were however withdrawn by an email sent to the court on 17 July 2026.
Returning to today’s events and to paragraphs 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18, the defendant’s counsel today in my view justified the proposed changes made in the proposal sent to the plaintiff.
I agree with the observations made about these paragraphs and will make orders accordingly.
Turning to the notice of motion to amend the defence, it is supported by an affidavit of Ms Stephanie Koch dated 17 June 2026.
According to Ms Koch the purpose of the amendments is to:
clarify a response to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the statement of claim;
to make an admission that police officers did enter the plaintiff’s house on 18 March 2020, and thereby engaged in a trespass to land, and further that the plaintiff is entitled to “ordinary compensatory damages” for the trespass; and
to deny that police officers intended to humiliate or oppress the plaintiff or any other person.
The plaintiff was sent a copy of the proposed amended defence on 11 May 2026 and invited to consent to the filing of the amended pleading. The plaintiff did not do so, leading to the filing of the motion.
On 25 June 2026, by email correspondence the plaintiff indicated that she objected to the orders sought in both motions.
I can see no reason to not make the orders sought. The amendments do not suggest any prejudice to the plaintiff. If anything, they are, overall, beneficial to her.
The proximity of the hearing date means the amendment should be made as soon as possible.
(a) Paragraph 8 is set aside with leave given to substitute the following paragraph 8:
“All communications including emails in relation to the incident underpinning E1062392890 (R v Regan Vicky Collis) between the dates of 18 March 2020 and 22 January 2024 to and from:
Detective Jamell Wilson of Manning Great Lakes LAC
Senior Constable Luke Murray of Manning Great Lakes LAC
in relation to the charging and prosecution of Regan Vicky Collis.
(b) Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the subpoena are set aside. (c) Paragraph 16 of the subpoena is set aside, but is to be substituted by the following paragraph:
“All emails (including any annexures to same) sent to and from the following officers between 18 March 2020 and 31 March 2024:
Detective Jamell Wilson of Manning Great Lakes LAC
Senior Constable Luke Murray of Manning Great Lakes LAC
Concerning:
The appropriateness of laying, maintaining or withdrawing the charges laid in E1062392890 (R v Regan Vicky Collis) and investigation contrary to s.315(1)(A) Crimes Act.
The evidence (or lack thereof) available in support of such charges.
The weaknesses in the prosecution case concerning such charges.
The availability of any possible defences to such charges.
All emails sent to and from any legal representative acting for Regan Vicky Collis in respect of the appropriateness of laying, maintaining or withdrawing the charges laid against Regan Vicky including representations to have the said charges withdrawn by police.”
(d) Paragraph 18 is set aside (e) The subpoena as amended, and so far not answered, is returnable on 27 July 2026 before the Registrar. (f) In respect of paragraph 10 of the subpoena, leave is granted to the defendant to redact their reply for unrelated materials concerning third parties. (g) In respect of the subpoena notice of motion, costs are reserved
(a) Leave is given to the defendant to file an amended defence in the form attached to the affidavit of Stephanie Koch and marked “A”. (b) The amended defence is to be filed and served within 24 hours. (c) In respect of costs for the amended defence notice of motion, costs are costs in the cause
**********
Collis
State of New South Wales