Legal Research
Cases
R v Wright

R v Wright

Case [2025] NSWSC 822 25 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wright [2025] NSWSC 822
Hearing dates: 10 – 12 June 2025
Date of orders: 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 17 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 12 years.
(2) The offender will be first eligible for parole on 31 August 2035. The total sentence will expire on 30 November 2040.
(3) As the offender is convicted of a “serious offence”, it is the requirement that he be warned of the existence of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and of its application to the offence (Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act, s 25C). I ask the offender’s solicitor to undertake that task on the Court’s behalf.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – murder – intent to kill – firearms offence – deceased was shot twice – plea of guilty – disputed facts – several aggravating features –reduced moral culpability – limited evidence of remorse – aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act, s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 25D(1), Pt 4, Div 1A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 7A(1), 51H(1), 65(3)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v AEM, KEM and MM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Dastan [2024] NSWSC 55
R v Klein [2008] NSWSC 835
R v Liavaa; Liavaa v R [2025] NSWCCA 101
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Stanley [2025] NSWSC 735
R v Stefanato [2023] NSWSC 73
R v Tonga [2025] NSWCCA 100

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Joshua David Wright (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Young (Crown)
P Krisenthal (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00227478
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 13 April 2023, the offender, Joshua David Wright, shot and killed John Simpson at Laguna in New South Wales.
Pursuant to an indictment filed on 31 March 2025, the offender was charged with the murder of Mr Simpson contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
The offender was further charged that between 12 April 2023 and 18 July 2023, at Laguna in the State of New South Wales, he did possess a stolen firearm, namely a .223 Remington calibre Savage model rifle contrary to s 51H(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (the firearms offence).
On 4 April 2024, he was arraigned and entered pleas of guilty to those offences.
There are a further four charges…

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.

Continue reading R v Wright

Details

AGLC: R v Wright [2025] NSWSC 822
Case: [2025] NSWSC 822
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, the respondent was convicted of murder and several related firearms offences. The deceased was shot twice, and the respondent pleaded guilty to murder, though the facts of the shooting were disputed. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account various legal considerations. These included the respondent's intent to kill, the use of firearms, the nature of the offence, and several aggravating features. The court also considered the limited evidence of remorse shown by the respondent.

The court examined the legal principles relevant to sentencing in cases of murder and firearms offences. It noted the need to balance the severity of the crime with any mitigating factors, such as the respondent's reduced moral culpability and the limited evidence of remorse. The court assessed the aggravating features of the case, including the use of firearms and the respondent's intent to kill. It also considered the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the need for general deterrence. The court weighed these factors to determine an appropriate aggregate sentence for the respondent.

After considering the evidence and legal principles, the court decided that the respondent's sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime, while also taking into account the mitigating factors. The court found that the respondent's moral culpability was reduced due to certain circumstances, and there was limited evidence of remorse. However, the use of firearms and the intent to kill were significant aggravating factors. The court imposed a sentence that it deemed appropriate, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court's final orders included a sentence for the respondent, reflecting the balance between the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors. The sentence was designed to serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also considering the impact on the victim's family and the community. The court's decision provided clarity on the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the complex legal considerations involved in cases of murder and firearms offences.

Orders