R v Wrigley (No 1)

[2025] NSWSC 299

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Wrigley (No 1) [2025] NSWSC 299

Hearing dates:

31 March 2025

Decision date:

01 April 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Ierace J

Decision:

The objection by Natalie Riley to being called as a witness in the trial of Clinton Wrigley is rejected.

Catchwords:

EVIDENCE — Witness evidence — Compellability — Spouses, parents and children — where Crown witness is in a de facto relationship with the accused — where evidence is likely to adversely affect relationship — whether there is a likelihood that harm will be caused to witness and children if required to give evidence

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 150

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 18, 18(2), 18(6)(a), 18(6)(b)

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Rex
Clinton Beau Wrigley (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
M Swift (Crown)
N Broadbent SC (Accused)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s):

2023/101184

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: The accused, Clinton Wrigley, is to be tried on a count of murder, namely, that on or about 23 January 2023 (23 January), near Nyngan, he murdered Joel Carter. There are three other counts on the indictment, involving the unlawful use or disposal of property of Joel Carter, on the same date.

2. The allegation in the Crown case is that on the evening of 22 and 23 January, the accused, who was aged 37 at the time, drove to a remote rural property on which Mr Carter was residing alone, known as Rosehill, and killed him by the infliction of blunt force head injuries. He stole a vehicle and some tools that belonged to Mr Carter and destroyed the vehicle by setting fire to it in the early hours of the morning of 23 January.

3. The Crown case is circumstantial in nature. The Crown will seek to establish that the accused was in the vicinity of Rosehill at the relevant time by evidence that includes expert forensic evidence as to the whereabouts of two mobile phones that the accused is alleged to have been using, and the content of text messages and times of certain calls made between those phones and others.

4. The accused has provided the Crown with a notice pursuant to s 150 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (the alibi notice), in which he states that between approximately 11.30pm on 22 January and approximately 8.30pm on 23 January, he was in his vehicle, which was a Toyota Tarago, that was parked in a location he identified on an attached map as being less than 1km outside the Nyngan township.

5. Some of the phone calls made from and to the accused’s mobile phones, and some text messages sent to those phones, were from a phone associated with Natalie Riley, between 6.52am and 7.38.52am on 23 January. Ms Riley resided in Warren, which is approximately 78km from Nyngan. The text messages appear to suggest that Ms Riley intended to pick up the accused and was seeking his whereabouts.

6. The accused was generally residing with Ms Riley at the time and was in an intimate relationship with her. The Crown proposes to call Ms Riley as a witness, although she has declined to give a statement to police in this matter. The Crown’s principal area of interest in Ms Riley’s testimony is as to what was said by the accused in those phone calls

7. Ms Riley has obtained independent legal advice from a solicitor, Anne Hazelton, and has objected to giving evidence in the trial, relying upon s 18 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). That objection was made by way of an email that Ms Hazelton forwarded to the Crown on 17 March 2025. It relevantly states:

“a.   They were in a relationship but not living together when [the accused] was initially arrested. He got bail on that offence and was living with Ms Riley from then until he was arrested for this offence. She thinks that was a period of less than 12 months. They have no children, but she is his main support person and the first person he uses his limited credit to call from custody. She considers they are still partners.

b.   She intends to support him at trial whenever her work permits, and she is concerned that being a witness would limit her ability to attend the trial as his support person.

c.   She considers she is unlikely to have much evidence to give. She says she sent him some texts about where to pick him up but did not pick him up.”

8. Ms Riley has given sworn evidence as to her concerns about giving evidence. Ms Riley said that she had been in a relationship with the accused since about May 2022, when he started living with her. Ms Riley initially said that she did not want to give evidence in the trial because she did not consider that it would be “of any use”. When asked if she thought that giving evidence would affect her relationship, she replied, “I don’t think it would affect it at all”. Shortly following that answer, she was stood down to enable her to receive further advice from Ms Hazelton, to ensure to the Court’s satisfaction that she understood the potential consequences to the Defence case of her giving evidence, in light of the accused’s alibi. Ms Hazelton was provided with relevant material from the Crown case statement and the alibi notice to facilitate that advice. Following Ms Riley’s return to the witness box, she said that the only likely impact of her being a witness, in terms of her relationship with the accused, was that for some of the trial she would not be permitted inside the court room, which would impact adversely on her role as the accused’s primary support person.

9. Ms Riley identified a second concern, which was as to her safety and that of her three youngest children, aged 7, 9 and 10, who resided with her. She said that since the accused had been in custody, which I note was since the date of his arrest on 28 March 2023, their residence had been visited at night about five times by men who have shone torches around. She did not know who they were or why they had come. The vehicle would then leave. The most recent occasion was “probably last month”. She also feared “a certain person” who she had heard of. She did not identify the person, who she referred to as a male, but said he was not present in the courtroom.

10. I note that in an interview with police on 28 February 2023, the accused denied that Ms Riley was his partner, preferring to describe her as “a friend, she’s a lady friend”.

Consideration

11. I am satisfied that Ms Riley is in a relationship with the accused. Although the evidence as to the precise status of their present relationship is not entirely clear, I accept, for the purposes of this issue, that they are in a de facto relationship, so that s 18(2) is satisfied.

12. I am satisfied that Ms Riley was aware of the effect of s 18, as it applies to her. In that regard, the Court is grateful to Ms Hazelton for her assistance.

13. As to the terms of s 18(6)(a), I note that it is not known what Ms Riley’s evidence would be, in terms of what she recalls, if anything, as to the content of the phone calls that were apparently made between her and the accused between 6.52am and about 7.39am on 23 January. It is appropriate to assume, for the purposes of this exercise, that her evidence would be damaging to the Defence case. While Ms Riley did not anticipate any harm would come to their relationship, taking into account that Ms Riley presented as an unsophisticated person, in my view it is inevitable that if her evidence harms the Defence case it is likely to adversely affect their relationship.

14. In relation to s 18(6)(b), I note the seriousness of the charge of murder and the direct relevance of Ms Riley’s potential evidence. The texts suggest that she is well-placed to give evidence of where the accused told her as to his location or likely location for a rendezvous.

15. I am of the view that, with due respect to Ms Riley’s concerns about her safety and that of her children, the evidence does not disclose a reasonable possibility of harm befalling them if she gives evidence. There is no apparent relationship between the night-time visits and what she has heard about the potentially threatening male that suggests otherwise.

16. Accordingly, I find that Natalie Riley is a compellable witness in the trial of Clinton Wrigley.

Order

17. The objection by Natalie Riley to being called as a witness in the trial of Clinton Wrigley is rejected.

**********

Decision last updated: 03 June 2025