Jury Discharged in Sydney Underworld Murder Trial After Prolonged Deliberations
The jury in the NSW Supreme Court trial of Samuel John Rokomaqisa, linked to alleged underworld violence, has been discharged after almost four weeks of deliberations without reaching a verdict. Acting Justice Robert Allan Hulme formally discharged the jurors, marking the end of an extended chapter in a case that has drawn significant attention to Sydney’s criminal landscape.
What Happened: The Charges and the Context
Rokomaqisa, a Fijian national, faced multiple charges related to a June 2021 killing and related offenses. Prosecutors alleged that he murdered Bilal Hamze, a boss within the Hamze crime family, and conspired to murder Bilal’s younger brother, Ibrahem Hamze. The case also included an accusation of assaulting an elderly man during a carjacking. The allegations tied Rokomaqisa to ongoing gang dynamics in Sydney and were framed by investigators as an attempt to demonstrate loyalty to a rival faction linked to the Alameddine group.
The trial began in early August and saw extensive testimony and evidence over several weeks. The jury retired to deliberate on Tuesday, September 23, and by the time foreperson conveyed concerns about progress, it was clear that members were wrestling with difficult evidentiary questions and complex legal standards.
The Deliberations: Why a Verdict Didn’t Emerge
Over the course of the fourth week, jurors reported there was no likelihood of reaching even a majority verdict on any of the charges. Acting Justice Hulme acknowledged their dedication and the unusual length of the proceedings, noting that a criminal trial of this scale often challenges jurors more than expected. “You’ve been here a lot longer than anyone thought you would be,” he remarked, underscoring the human element of the judicial process.
The decision to discharge reflected the presiding judge’s view that further delay would not produce a different outcome. In legal terms, the court must consider whether a reasonable juror could reach a verdict after reviewing the evidence and giving due weight to witness testimony, forensic leads, and the defense’s arguments. If the jurors indicate persistent deadlock or an inability to reach a majority, a retrial may be contemplated, depending on the Crown’s ongoing assessment of the strength of the case and public interest considerations.
What Comes Next for Rokomaqisa
Following the discharge, Rokomaqisa will return to court on November 7 to learn whether a retrial will proceed. This development will hinge on prosecutors’ assessment of the likelihood that a retrial would yield a different verdict and on any new evidence or legal arguments that could be introduced. The decision to proceed with a retrial is typically guided by strategic considerations, including the strength of the prosecution’s case, the potential impact on victims’ families, and the resources involved in a second trial.
Impact on the Case and the Community
The case has broader implications for Sydney’s handling of organized crime and the competition between rival groups. It also highlights the operational challenges juries face when confronted with high-profile cases that involve violence, gang affiliations, and complex conspiracy theories. Legal observers note that long trials can test jurors’ stamina and the accessibility of complicated legal instructions, sometimes affecting the speed and clarity of verdicts.
Next Steps for Media and Public Interest
As proceedings move toward a potential retrial, media coverage will focus on key witness accounts, forensic analyses, and the evolving landscape of Sydney’s underworld. Public interest remains high given the potential implications for law enforcement strategies and the signal it sends about how highly consequential crimes tied to organized crime are adjudicated in New South Wales courts.
In the meantime, Acting Justice Hulme’s courtesy toward the jurors and his acknowledgment of their service reflect the seriousness with which Australian courts treat the juror system. The court’s approach—balancing the need for timely justice with respect for the deliberative process—underscores the delicate equilibrium at the heart of criminal proceedings.
