R v Williams (No. 4)

Before: Lonergan J

Decision: (1) Notice of motion dismissed. Refuse the application to set aside the subpoena directed to the Department of Communities and Justice issued on 25 September 2025.
(2) The accused is to have first access to the material produced.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – subpoena issued by Prosecutor – calls made by the accused from gaol to a phone subscribed to co-accused’s wife – calls made by the accused from gaol to a phone subscribed to Joseph Vokai, a person known to be a member or associate of the Alameddine OCN – murder of Mejid Hamzy, the head of the Hamzy OCN – “feud” between the Hamzy and Alameddine OCNs raised by counsel for the accused as being “the reason behind the shooting” – on the cards that the gaol calls will materially assist the Crown – first access to the accused

Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), Sch 3
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 75 r 3(g)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 33.1(a)

Cases Cited: Attorney-General for (NSW) v Dylan Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; (2008) 182 A Crim R 536
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Fantakis [2022] NSWCCA 94
DPP v Enoch (No. 2) [2025] ACTSC 332 (restricted)
NSW Commissioner of Police v Tuxford & Ors [2002] NSWCA 139
R v Abdaly; R v Hosseinishoja (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1482
R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14; (1989) 39 A Crim R 406
R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86
Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145
Waters v Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 193

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Rex (Crown)
Bryce Mark Williams (Accused)

Representation: Counsel:
N Marney & A Hughes (Crown)
N Carroll & S Dayeian (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Fahmy Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00069385

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. By notice of motion dated 7 October 2025, the accused, Bryce Williams, sought an order that the subpoena issued at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”), directed to the Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”), dated 25 September 2025 seeking certain identified gaol call recordings, be set aside.

2. Written submissions were provided by Ms Carroll for the accused on 8 October 2025 and Mr Hughes for the DPP on 10 October 2025. Reply submissions were provided on 21 October 2025 by Ms Carroll. The issue was debated on 22 October 2025.

3. At the conclusion of the oral argument, I dismissed the notice of motion and refused to set aside the subpoena, and provided the accused with first access to the material produced. These are my reasons for making those orders.

The evidence and the subpoena in issue

4. The notice of motion was supported by an affidavit of Jessica Fahmy sworn 7 October 2025.

5. The subpoena in issue was prefaced by a subpoena to DCJ issued on 16 September 2025 that sought the following:

“(1) Visitor records for the inmate Bryce Marc Williams (CNI: 660345899) from 24 December 2024 to the present.

(2) Call logs for the inmate Bryce Marc Williams (CNI: 660345899) from 24 December 2024 to present.”

6. There was no objection to this subpoena. I understand that records were produced in response, and access granted to both parties by the Registrar.

7. Inspection of those records led to the issue of the subject subpoena on 25 September 2025 which sought the following:

“(1) The audio recordings of the calls from 24 December 2024 to the present between inmate, Bryce Mark Williams, and the following numbers:

(a) 0419 566 997, and

(b) 0460 845 395.

The call logs that were produced under Packet S48 indicate that calls with 0419 566 997 were had on the following occasions:

• 16/09/2025 at 1:59:27PM

• 13/09/2025 at 11:30:21AM

• 13/09/2025 at 11:08:07AM

• 05/09/2025 at 08:01:07PM

• 28/08/2025 at 10:08:48AM

• 07/08/2025 at 9:28:33AM

• 19/07/2025 at 11:10:54AM

• 13/07/2025 at 11:20:24AM

• 25/06/2025 at 7:12:29PM

• 18/06/2025 at 1:32:06PM

• 22/05/2025 at 07:29:33PM

• 11/05/2025 at 9:25:51AM

• 27/04/2025 at 12:38:26PM

• 04/04/2025 at 11:58:43AM

• 25/03/2025 at 11:20:12AM

• 17/03/2025 at 12:34:22PM

• 24/02/2025 at 12:37:19PM

• 07/02/2025 at 6:44:53PM

• 21/01/2025 at 11:45:46AM

• 16/01/2025 at 6:25:07PM

• 04/01/2025 at 11:43:31AM.

The calls logs that were produced under Packet S48 indicate that calls with 0460 845 394 were had on the following occasions:

• 20/08/2025 at 1:33:27PM

• 09/05/2025 at 12:54:01PM

• 17/06/2025 at 12:48:11PM

• 12/06/2025 at 11:21:13AM.”

8. Ms Fahmy’s affidavit referred to advising the DPP on 25 September 2025 that the accused objected to general access. On 30 September 2025, the DPP responded, indicating that it pressed the subpoena.

9. Electronic material was produced by DCJ to the Registry in response to the subpoena. At the return of the subpoena before the Registrar on 2 October 2025, an adjournment to this Court was obtained, pending the filing of this notice of motion. The results of police inquiries as to those numbers were confirmed with Ms Fahmy on 3 October 2025 by email to the effect that the “997” number was subscribed to Chris O’Brien’s wife, Faten Hammouda, and the “394” number was subscribed to Joseph Vokai.

Rules regarding setting aside a subpoena

10. By operation of Pt 75 r 3(1)(g) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), the provisions of Pt 33 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) apply to criminal proceedings such as this, being proceedings under Sch 3 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

11. Rule 33.4(1) provides that the Court may, on the application of a party or any person having a sufficient interest, set aside a subpoena in whole or in part, or grant other relief in respect of it.

Relevant authorities

12. There is an obligation on the issuing party to identify expressly and precisely the legitimate forensic purpose for which access to the document is sought: R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14; (1989) 39 A Crim R 406 at 18C; NSW Commissioner of Police v Tuxford & Ors [2002] NSWCA 139 at [22]; Attorney*-*General for (NSW) v Dylan Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; (2008) 182 A Crim R 536 (“Chidgey”) at [5].

13. The issuing party needs to first identify the legitimate forensic purpose for which access is sought, and second, establish that it is “on the cards” that the documents will potentially assist its case: R v Saleam (No. 2) [1999] NSWCCA 86 at [11].

14. A fishing expedition is not permitted: Chidgey at [58]-[59] and [66].

15. Mere relevance or possible relevance is not sufficient: Chidgey at [59]-[63].

16. If the issuing party fails to establish a legitimate forensic purpose, then the subpoena is an abuse of process and should be set aside: Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145 (“Blacktown Council”) at [60].

17. Blacktown Council was a civil case in which Bell P (as the Chief Justice then was) cautioned against dogmatically applying “the language of “tests”” and held that so long as the material has an apparent relevance to the issues in the case and/or bears upon the cross-examination of witnesses expected to be called in the proceedings, it will have a legitimate forensic purpose: Blacktown Council at [80].

18. This appears however to be confined to civil cases:

“[80] My review of the authorities in relation to the setting aside of subpoenas and/or the refusal to permit access to documents produced leads me to the conclusion that, although a party will generally be able to demonstrate that it had a legitimate forensic purpose in issuing a subpoena where, to quote Simpson J (as her Honour then was, and with whom Spigelman CJ and Studdert J agreed) in Saleam at [11], it can:

“(i) identify a legitimate forensic purpose for which access is sought; and

(ii) establish that it is ‘on the cards’ that the documents will materially assist his case”,

at least in civil matters, an inability to demonstrate that it is “on the cards” that the documents sought will materially assist the subpoenaing party’s case will not automatically require either that the subpoena be set aside or that access to the documents produced be refused. It will generally be sufficient and prima facie evidence of a legitimate forensic purpose if the documents sought to be produced on subpoena have an apparent relevance to the issues in the case and or bear upon the cross examination of witnesses expected to be called in the proceedings.” (emphasis added)

19. Sound contextual reasons are set out in other parts of the judgment as to why the “apparent relevance” approach may be inappropriate for criminal matters: see Bell P at [72] and [74]-[79]; Brereton JA at [84] and [91].

20. The question has been left open in decisions made in criminal proceedings after Blacktown Council, on the basis that in the context of those matters, a conclusion as to whether what was said in Blacktown Council does or should apply in criminal proceedings, was not required: Waters v Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 193 at [26]-[27] per Davies J; Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Fantakis [2022] NSWCCA 94 per N Adams J at [47]; R v Abdaly; R v Hosseinishoja (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1482 per Hamill J at [19]. A similar approach was taken by Baker J in the Supreme Court of the ACT in D**PP v Enoch (No*.* 2) [2025] ACTSC 332 (restricted) at [26]. See in particular her Honour’s discussion of the authorities at [21] to [25].

21. Self-evidently, apparent relevance to the issues in the case is easier to demonstrate. However, I have concluded that I do not need to decide the question of whether the apparent relevance approach should be applied here, because I have decided that it is “on the cards” that the gaol calls sought will materially assist the Prosecution, and so on either approach, a legitimate forensic purpose is established.

Legitimate forensic purpose?

22. I understand from the annexures to the affidavit of Ms Fahmy that a written request was made by Ms Fahmy to the DPP for the DPP to provide an outline of the legitimate forensic purpose of the subpoena, noting a concern that the subpoena was a “fishing expedition”.

23. An unhelpfully brief response was provided by the DPP by email on 3 October 2025:

“The Crown sought the material in order to access the honesty and reliability of potential witnesses”.

24. In the written submissions provided on 10 October 2025, Mr Hughes provided the following more appropriately detailed outline of the forensic purpose:

“44. In short, the forensic purpose of this material, is that is likely to be of material relevance to the two important issues in the trial, namely:

a. The nature and existence of a close relationship between Christopher O’Brien and Bryce Williams, and any change in that relationship in the aftermath of the murder. The content of the calls may be relevant to the nature and existence of the joint criminal enterprise which the Crown alleges existed between the two.

b. The nature and extent of the relationship accused with Joseph Vokai, and by implication between the Alameddine OCN and the accused.

45. It is clear from the way the trial has been conducted to date, that the relationship between the accused and Mr O’Brien is an issue central to the case.

46. W1 makes a claim that CO and BW knew each other going back to their childhood. This claim was challenged with the Basha witnesses called in the pre-trial hearing, and it is to be expected that a similar challenge will be made when the witnesses are called in the trial.

47. In relation to Mr Vokai, he has already been the subject of evidence in the trial, to the effect that he was a member or associate of the Alameddine OCN:

a. Ms Campbell was cross-examined as to the existence of a reference sample taken from Mr Vokai and used in DNA testing (T1048.15-16).

b. Detective Senior Constable Hartigan gave evidence in examination in chief as to investigations into the Alameddine OCN, including that these investigations led to the charging of Mr Vokai, and Mr Vokai’s membership of that OCN (T1061.49-1062.24)

c. DSC Hartigan was cross-examined on the Alameddine OCN, Mr Vokai’s status as an associate thereof, his inclusion on the document which became exhibit #34 (T1065.1, 1066.32)

48. The evidence adduced in the trial establishes that Mr Vokai was a member or associate of the Alameddine OCN. It would appear that the accused’s case includes that the Alameddines were behind the murder of Mejid Hamzy, and that Mr Williams has no connection to this group. If Mr Williams gives evidence to that effect, the content of his call, whether ruled admissible or not, is likely to materially assist in respect of these issues, by being deployed in cross-examination of the accused on that point.”

25. This response was significantly more revelatory and outlined in a thorough fashion an identifiable forensic purpose for seeking the gaol calls identified in the subpoena.

26. The accused maintained his position that the subpoena was fishing, arguing that the relevance to the Crown case of Mr Vokai was “unknown” and that there was evidence available from the Officer in Charge – the statement of Sgt Latham of 22 November 2024 – that Mr Vokai had been excluded as a suspect.

27. The accused submitted that calls to Mr O’Brien’s wife’s phone, even if these calls in fact were conversations with Mr O'Brien, would be of speculative assistance given that Mr O'Brien is not to be called as a Crown witness.

28. These arguments were developed further in written submissions in reply and in the oral submissions made on 22 October 2025, to focus on the effluxion of time since the murder – October 2020 – and the time of the calls – January to September 2025 – to support the submission that the calls are too late in time to contain anything that would be relevant to the Crown case of joint criminal enterprise between the accused and Chris O’Brien, and that the current state of their relationship, to the extent it would be revealed in such calls, if at all, is not relevant.

29. In relation to Mr Vokai, the written submissions in reply referred to “what the Crown perceives as it being the accused’s case that the Alameddine OCN were behind Mejid Hamzy’s murder” and argued that is was speculation to assert that phone calls in 2025 would materially assist the Crown.

Discussion and decision

(i) Telephone calls by the accused to Joseph Vokai

30. There is evidence that Mr Vokai, was at relevant times, a member and/or associate of the Alameddine OCN. It is the accused, and not the Crown, who has made Mr Vokai, and the nature, timing, and extent of his relationship with the accused, a relevant and potentially important issue.

31. In her opening address, counsel for the accused, Ms Carroll, planted firmly in the minds of the jury, that Mejid Hamzy was shot dead as part of a feud between the Hamzy OCN, of which he was the head in October 2020, and the Alameddine OCN:

“… I anticipate there will (be) evidence, and undisputed by the NSW Police, that Mejid Hamzy was not only the head of the Hamzy organised crime network, OCN, but was heavily involved in organised crime, and very, very serious organised crime. An international drug empire, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and many allegations of involvements in past murders and future.

I anticipate you will hear undisputed evidence of the feud that already existed at the time between the Hamzy OCNs and the Alameddine family. And that feud we would say, not only existed but was the reason behind the shooting. There's enough evidence to suggest that was the case. What's not in dispute, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are that police had been watching on Simmat Avenue Mejid Hamzy. He was under investigation, other investigations. They had been surveilling him. They had searched his house recently. And you'll hear evidence of some of what had occurred. But I anticipate undisputed you will hear that he had many, many, many enemies.”

32. This position was augmented and emphasised by repeated cross-examination of police witnesses as to their knowledge and understanding of the feud between the Alamaddines and the Hamzys around the time of the murder.

33. Detective Blom was asked the following questions in cross-examination:

“Q. Do you agree that there had been, up to and including, or up to the time of the murder on 19 October 2020, some significant conflict between the Alameddine organised crime network and the Hamzy organised crime network?

A. Yes.

…

Q. In terms of what you know in relation to the Alameddine OCN, can I ask you these questions as at October 2020?

A. Yes.

Q. At that point in time, you hadn't been involved in any homicide investigations involving the Alameddine OCN, is that right?

A. That's right.

…

Q. Are you aware of how many murders Rafat Alameddine has been charged with?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of whether Rafat Alameddine has been charged with the murder of any members of the Hamze family?

A. No, I’m not.”

34. On day 9, Detective Blom was asked the following questions in cross-examination about links between the Alameddine OCN and Ezzedine Omar, who by that stage had been the subject of evidence led by the Crown as to his activities on the night of the murder:

“Q. Ezzedine Omar was known to have links to the Alameddine OCN is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. He had provided the Alameddine organised crime network with vehicles on more than one occasion. Is that right?

A. I can't say whether it was the Alameddine OCN. He provided vehicles in other matters.

Q. You don't know which ones they are. Is that right?

A. I know - I know which murders they are I don't know whether they've got links to the Alameddine OCN.

…

Q. That exhibit can be returned. I asked you some questions about Ezzedine Omar and his association with the Alameddine OCN. I'm just going to take you now to some evidence you gave last year in October. This was asked of you, question, "And was it also recorded that Ezzedine Omar was known by police at this stage, as is recorded in that document, to have been providing cars for criminal offences to the Alameddine OCN?", and your answer was yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Information was received by police regarding Ezzedine Omar's involvement in the sourcing of cars for the Alameddine OCN, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And a person of interest associated with this particular report was Rafat Alameddine, do we see that there?

A. Yes.”

35. Detective Blom was also asked questions about Mohammed Omar – revealed in other evidence to be Ezzedine Omar’s brother:

“Q. All right. I think you've previously given evidence last year - my friend's referenced transcript 262 - that Mohammed Omar was a known Alameddine associate but not member, is that right?

A. Mohammed Omar, yes, yes.

Q. There was information received by the NSW Police that Mohammed Omar had pulled the trigger on Mejid Hamzy, do you recall that?

A. I think it was in the intel report that you showed me.”

36. The subject of a link between Ezzedine Omar and Rafat Alameddine was returned to later in the cross-examination of Detective Blom:

“Q. Then if we're looking again - and I know you've had a moment to read through the report - was information also received by the NSW Police that Rafat Alameddine had requested that associates in gaol look after Ezzedine Omar after his arrest?

A. Yes.

…

Q. And as per your statement of 29 October 2021 at paragraph 22 you were aware and had put in your statement of the ongoing historical and recent conflict between the Hamze and Alameddines, that's right?

A. I don't recall what I put in there but I had experience in the, in the conflict yes.”

As was the subject of the Hamzy v Alameddine OCN conflict:

“Q. “Consideration was given to ongoing historical and recent conflict between the Hamzy OCN and the Alameddine OCN”. That's in your statement, isn't it?

A. Yes, yes.”

37. Detective Hartigan was asked specifically about the Alameddine OCN by reference to a NSW Crime Commission chart that was tendered by the accused (Exhibit 34) which had photos and names of the members of the Alameddine OCN, including Joseph Vokai:

“Q. Back in 2020, the Alameddine OCN was it also made up of a subgroup called KVT?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the table that we have there, the diagram, does that include the KVT members as known at that time?

A. Yes, it does. Yes.

Q. Samuel Rokomaqisa, does he appear in the blue section on the chart?

A. Yes.

Q. And also Joseph Vokai, does he appear in the green section?

A. In the green, sorry, yes, he does.

…

Q. Do we see Mr Rakuli on the chart of members of the Alameddine OCN?

A. Yes. I mean, when you - that blue sort of chart, I would say is more KVT members or associates, rather - yeah.

Q. Mr Rakuli was considered a KVT member?

A. At that time, yes.

Q. The KVT group was considered a subgroup of the Alameddine OCN, is that right?

A. That's right.

…

Q. Did you become aware at some stage that police had identified that Rafat Alameddine's home had been shot at a number of times very close in time to the shooting of Mejid Hamze?

A. Yes.

Q. Can I hand to you this document? Does this appear to be the COPS entry in relation to the shooting of Rafat Alameddine's home at Fairmount Street, Merrylands?

A. Yes.”

38. Constable Simmons, a police officer who worked as an intelligence officer at the NSW Crime Commission, was asked the following questions in cross-examination:

“Q. In this case, you had received information in relation to the shooting of Mejid Hamzy?

A. Yes, I believe the words were the murder of Mejid Hamzy, but yes, that's correct.

Q. Part of the information that you were providing was information suggesting that he had been killed by the Alameddine Organised Crime Network, is that right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And that there was an escalating conflict between the two families?

A. Yes, that's correct.

…

Q. Part of the information you'd received was there's a suspicion that Ali Younes may have been involved, is that right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. He was considered, at that stage, a member of the Alameddine OCN?

A. Yes.

Q. There's further reference there to the assault of Shaylin Zreika?

A. Yes.

Q. And the shooting at Auburn Road of the Hamzy house, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, the drive by shooting of Rafat Alameddine's that occurred shortly before the murder of Mejid, is that right?

A. Yes.”

39. Aaron Meyer, an intelligence analyst from the NSW Crime Commission, was pressed by counsel for the accused in relation to the nature, extent and adequacy of investigation of another suspect, Aymen Manly, who was a likely associate of the Alameddine OCN:

“Q. If you could read that out loud to the jury, please?

A. "Proximity analysis via Palantir(?) identified that Manly was likely associated with the Alameddine OCN at the time of the murder. For example, in the afternoon of 19 October 2020 at around 3pm, Manly was located in Watsons Bay and crossed over with Ali Younes and Masood Zakaria."

…

Q. In the paragraph you read out, you referred to "likely associated with the Alameddine OCN". If I can show you another document, is this a document that's been provided to you prior to giving evidence today?

A. I've, I've seen the document before.

Q. This is a two page document with emails, albeit the second page is completely blacked out, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. On the first page, the first email is dated 18 March 2022, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's an email from you to Sergeant Latham, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In the first paragraph of that email, you start off by saying, "Given Manly's close association with the Alameddine OCN," and then that continues on, do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it your assessment as of 18 March 22 that Mr Manly had a close association with the Alameddine OCN?

A. Well, I would say that close association has no work with a technical or specific definition so I've written it in an email but there's no threshold that I would have had to reach to write that in an email to Sergeant Latham.”

40. In addition to the tender of the photos and names of members and associates of the Alameddine OCN, counsel for the accused also tendered a NSW Police intelligence report regarding a suspected shooting at the residence of Rafat Alameddine on the evening of 18 to 19 October 2020 as evidence of the feud between the Alameddines and the Hamzys being active within hours of the time at which Mejid Hamzy was murdered. That intelligence report also cited a “home invasion” by the Alameddine OCN of a Hamzy OCN safe house in early 2020; an assault on 14 October 2020 by the Hamzy OCN of a member of the Alameddine OCN; and on 17 October 2020; the Alameddine OCN “shooting at the Hamzy OCN on Auburn Road Auburn”.

41. The clear import of the opening statement, cross-examination of police and the tender of the Alameddine OCN Chart, (Exhibit 34), and the police intelligence report of 26 October 2020, (Exhibit 40), is that the accused says that the jury should entertain a reasonable doubt that the accused murdered Mejid Hamzy, because the Alameddine OCN was responsible for the murder, not him.

42. The Crown is entitled to subpoena material that, on its face, appears to provide a link to or connection between Bryce Williams and the Alameddine OCN via Mr Vokai, even if that material comprises phone calls in 2025. The phone calls have the potential to materially assist the Crown case, because they show a link between the accused and an Alameddine OCN member/associate.

43. The submissions of counsel for the accused overstate what the Crown is required to demonstrate under the approach in Saleam*.* It is not that the gaol calls sought must, in fact, “materially assist the Crown case”; only that it is “on the cards” that the documents will materially assist the Crown case.

44. It cannot be demonstrated at this stage of the argument that the records produced will in fact materially assist the Crown case. This cannot be known until the records are accessed.

45. Whether access should be permitted by the Crown and to what of the items produced and whether what is produced ends up being relevant and/or admissible is a separate issue for later consideration and determination. Those questions have no bearing on the decision being made now as to whether to set aside the subpoena or not.

(ii) Telephone calls by the accused to Chris O’Brien’s wife’s phone

46. In respect of the calls to the phone subscribed to Chris O’Brien’s wife, there is reliable evidence from investigators from the NSW Crime Commission that persons involved in criminal activity would often use phones subscribed to family members or false identities. It is evident that Chris O’Brien was engaged in drug dealing. I have concluded that it is likely that the calls being made by the accused are to speak to Chris O’Brien, given other evidence led in the trial as to the closeness of their relationship, and I have proceeded on that basis.

47. There has been an issue raised in the trial about a change to the relationship between the accused and Chris O’Brien in the year or so following the murder. Whether this is coincidental, and/or to do with drug deals gone wrong, or excessive drug use by the accused, or something else, is a live issue in the trial.

48. Although much closer in time to this trial than to the time of the murder, the content of phone calls with Chris O’Brien will potentially shed light on his relationship to the accused, and so materially assist the Crown case. It will also potentially materially assist in the cross-examination of the accused, should he be called to give evidence, and in the examination or cross-examination of Mr O’Brien, should he be called to give evidence in the trial.

49. Whether Mr O’Brien is to be called by the Crown, or for the defence, or not at all, remains unresolved. He was acquitted of the charge of murder in 2024. When the Court was last informed about whether he was to be called or not, the Crown was waiting for a response from Mr O’Brien’s solicitors as to whether he was prepared to be interviewed by police. His inclusion in the witness list was left to be determined at a later stage and although unlikely, it is not completely out of the question. The Court does not know whether the accused plans to call Mr O’Brien, or the accused, or call no evidence.

Access to produce material and admissibility issues

50. Questions of any privilege that may apply, and whether to permit access by the Crown, are yet to be the subject of submissions and debate. First access to the accused’s legal team was agreed to by the Crown, with that access to be completed initially by 10:00am on Monday 27 October 2025. By consent that time has been extended to 10:00am on Wednesday 29 October 2025.

**********