R v Wright - [2025] NSWDC 316

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wright [2025] NSWDC 316
Hearing dates: 24 June 2025, 27 June 2025
Date of orders: 27 June 2025
Decision date: 27 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Anderson SC DCJ
Decision:
See [96] - [97]

Catchwords:
Sections 111(2) and 154F Crimes Act 1900; joint criminal enterprise; suitability of an intensive corrections order; consideration of De Simoni principles; aggravating factors at s 105A of the Crimes Act 1900

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dacre v The Queen (2018) 57 VR 285
Huhyn v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 220
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Dugan [1984] 2 NSWLR 554
The Queen v Delphin (2001) 79 SASR 429

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Glynnis Wright (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms H McMillan (Crown, ODPP Dubbo)
Mr J D Ormaechea (Trial Advocate, ALS Dubbo)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)

File Number(s): 2024/00182632
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Glynnis Wright appears for sentence on two charges. The first is Count 2, an offence at s 154F of the Crimes Act, being that on 14 May 2024 she did steal a motor vehicle, which carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. The second is Count 5, an offence at s 111(2) of Crimes Act that on 14 May 2024 she entered the dwelling of the victim with intent, specifically, intent to steal, in circumstances of aggravation, being that she knew there was a person present at the dwelling. This offence carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
There is no standard non-parole period for either offence.
The maximum penalties represent the Parliament’s assessment of the seriousness of these two offences.
I have considered the timing of the offender’s plea of guilty, which was entered in the Local Court. Her sentence is reduced by 25% below what I would have imposed had she not pleaded guilty at that time.
In the careful and detailed written submissions prepared on her behalf by Mr Ormaechea, who appears from the Aboriginal Legal Service, the offender submitted that her plea of guilty also represents her acceptance of responsibility and willingness to facilitate the course of justice. It was also submitted that the plea of guilty is evidence of remorse, a mitigating consideration under s 21A(3)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
I accept the offender has demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice through her plea and, of course, she is entitled to the discount of 25%. But I do not accept that she is remorseful. The offender’s written submissions were provided prior to the parties receiving the sentencing assessment report, dated 19 June 2025. In that report there is the following statement at p 2,

“Ms Wright disputed the agreed facts by stating she did not steal anything from the victim and that she took the vehicle to escape. When challenged why she…

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] NSWDC 316
Case: [2025] NSWDC 316
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wright, was convicted of several charges related to a joint criminal enterprise involving drug trafficking. The case came before the court to determine the appropriate sentencing for Wright, specifically whether an intensive corrections order was suitable. The appeal focused on the application of the De Simoni principles, which guide the imposition of intensive corrections orders, and the consideration of aggravating factors as outlined in section 105A of the Crimes Act 1900.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the trial judge erred in considering Wright’s offending as part of a joint criminal enterprise when determining the suitability of an intensive corrections order and whether the trial judge appropriately considered the aggravating factors under section 105A of the Crimes Act 1900. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge correctly applied the De Simoni principles in assessing the appropriateness of an intensive corrections order.

The court found that the trial judge correctly considered the nature of the joint criminal enterprise and its implications for sentencing. It was determined that the judge appropriately evaluated the De Simoni principles, particularly the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the character and circumstances of the offender. The court also concluded that the trial judge did not err in considering the aggravating factors under section 105A, as the factors were relevant and appropriately weighed in the sentencing decision. Consequently, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

The court confirmed the original sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding no grounds for altering the sentence. The intensive corrections order was deemed suitable, and the court recognised the trial judge's balanced approach in applying the relevant legal principles and statutory requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [96] - [97]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Wright [2025] NSWDC 316
Hearing dates:	24 June 2025, 27 June 2025
Date of orders:	27 June 2025
Decision date:	27 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Anderson SC DCJ
Decision:	See [96] - [97]
Catchwords:	Sections 111(2) and 154F Crimes Act 1900; joint criminal enterprise; suitability of an intensive corrections order; consideration of De Simoni principles; aggravating factors at s 105A of the Crimes Act 1900
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Dacre v The Queen (2018) 57 VR 285 Huhyn v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 220 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Dugan [1984] 2 NSWLR 554 The Queen v Delphin (2001) 79 SASR 429
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Glynnis Wright (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms H McMillan (Crown, ODPP Dubbo) Mr J D Ormaechea (Trial Advocate, ALS Dubbo) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)
File Number(s):	2024/00182632
Publication restriction:	Nil