Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wrigley (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 477 Hearing dates: 15 May 2025 Decision date: 15 May 2025 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: Jury provided with copies of transcript of summing up and closing addresses of counsel.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Access to transcript — Where request is not opposed
Cases Cited: R v Cranston (No 24) [2023] NSWSC 10
R v Medich (No 24) [2017] NSWSC 293
R v Qaumi & Ors(No 66) [2016] NSWSC 1403
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex
Clinton Beau Wrigley (Accused)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Swift (Crown)
N Broadbent SC (Accused)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s): 2023/101184
JUDGMENT
-
HIS HONOUR: The accused, Clinton Wrigley, is on trial on a count of murder, namely, that on or about 23 January 2023, near Nyngan, he murdered Joel Carter (the deceased). There are three other counts on the indictment, involving the theft and/or disposal of property that was allegedly taken from the deceased’s residence, at about the time of his death.
-
The jury was empanelled on 3 April 2025. The trial before the jury commenced on Tuesday 8 April, following, in all, six days of the hearing of pre-trial issues. The jury retired to consider their verdict at 9.30am this morning, Thursday 15 May. At about 10.15am, the jury forwarded a note seeking a copy of the transcript of the summing up. When the Court was convened, the foreperson clarified that the note was intended to seek copies of the transcript of the addresses of counsel, as well.
-
The jury’s request was not opposed. Senior Counsel for the defence took the Court to three decisions of this Court concerning similar requests: R v Qaumi & Ors(No 66) [2016] NSWSC 1403, R v Medich (No 24) [2017] NSWSC 293 and R v Cranston (No 24) [2023] NSWSC 10. Consistently with these cases and others cited by the respective trial judges, neither counsel disputed that the Court has a discretion to provide the transcripts sought.
-
I determined that it was appropriate to do so, having regard in particular to the length of the trial.
**********
- AGLC
- R v Wrigley (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 477
- Case
- [2025] NSWSC 477
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the trial judge had erred in not granting the respondent's request to access the transcript. The court examined the circumstances of the request and whether there were any reasons to believe that the jury might be influenced by the transcript. The court noted that the request was not opposed by the prosecution and that the jury had already been discharged. The court held that in the absence of any opposition to the request and given that the jury had already been discharged, the trial judge should have allowed the respondent to access the transcript. The court held that the trial judge's refusal to grant the request was an error of law and that it deprived the respondent of a fair trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. The court held that the error of law was not merely a technical one but had the potential to affect the fairness of the trial and the outcome. The court held that the error was not trivial and that it deprived the respondent of a fair trial. The court held that the only appropriate course of action was to quash the conviction and order a retrial. The court held that the error of law was not merely a technical one but had the potential to affect the fairness of the trial and the outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.