R v Wrigley (No 5)

[2025] NSWSC 477

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:
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 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. I determined that it was appropriate to do so, having regard in particular to the length of the trial.

**********

Decision last updated: 03 June 2025