Legal Research
Cases
R v Wrigley (No 6)

R v Wrigley (No 6)

Case [2025] NSWSC 527 2 June 2025

Jurisdiction

Abuse of Process

Contempt of Court

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wrigley (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 527
Hearing dates: 16 May 2025
Date of orders: 16 May and 19 May 2025
Decision date: 02 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
16 May 2025:
(1) Pursuant to s 53A(1)(c) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), Juror N is discharged.
19 May 2025:
(1) The application to discharge the jury is refused.
(2) Pursuant to s 53C(1)(c) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) the trial shall continue with a jury of eleven.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Discharge of individual juror — Where juror has engaged in misconduct
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Discharge of whole jury — Whether to continue the trial with the remaining jurors would give rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice — Where strong inference that discharged juror was the dissident juror — Whether the accused has lost the sole voice standing against a conviction — Whether discharged juror’s misconduct has contaminated the remaining jurors

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53A(1)(c), 53B, 53C(1), 55F, 55F(2)(a), 55F(3)(b), 55DA, 55DA(3), 68C

Cases Cited:
Addo v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 522; [2022] NSWCCA 141
BG v R (2012) 221 A Crim R 215; [2012] NSWCCA 139
Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71
Crofts v The Queen (1969) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22
Haile v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 288; [2022] NSWCCA 71
Haines v R; Brown v R [2023] NSWCCA 108
R v Azari (No 9) [2018] NSWSC 1678
Rassi v R [2023] NSWCCA 119
Watson v R [2022] NSWCCA 208

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

HIS HONOUR: The accused, Clinton Wrigley, is on trial on four counts. The first is a count of murder, namely, that on or about 23 January 2023, near Nyngan, he murdered Joel Carter (the deceased). The other three counts on the indictment, involve 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 retired to deliberate on its verdicts on Thursday 15 May 2025. On Friday 16 May, I discharged a juror for misconduct and on Monday 19 May, I determined that the trial would continue with a jury of 11. These are my reasons for those determinations.
Relevant background for the purposes of this judgment is that a key Crown witness who is subject to a non-publication order, and who I will refer to for that reason as witness A, gave evidence of some of the accused’s movements in the hours immediately prior to and after the time frame within which the four offences were likely committed. Evidence before the jury included information that, at the time, witness A had…

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 Wrigley (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Wrigley (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 527
Case: [2025] NSWSC 527
Decision Date: 02 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wrigley (No 6) involved a dispute concerning the trial process, specifically focusing on the discharge of a juror and the potential discharge of the entire jury. The case was heard in an Australian court, which was required to determine the appropriate course of action following the misconduct of a juror. The accused, Wrigley, faced charges, and the integrity of the trial was at stake due to the actions of one of the jurors.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the misconduct of a single juror warranted the discharge of that juror alone and, if so, whether continuing the trial with the remaining jurors would result in a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court also had to consider whether the accused had effectively lost the sole voice standing against a conviction and whether the misconduct of the discharged juror had the potential to contaminate the remaining jurors.

The court found that the misconduct of the discharged juror was serious enough to warrant their removal from the jury. However, given the significant inference that the discharged juror was the sole dissenting juror, continuing the trial with the remaining jurors would risk a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the accused had indeed lost the sole voice standing against a conviction and that the misconduct had the potential to taint the remaining jurors. Consequently, the court decided to discharge the entire jury, necessitating a retrial to ensure the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.

The court ordered a retrial of the case to ensure a fair trial for the accused. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the jury process and protecting the accused's right to a fair trial. The outcome highlighted the court's cautious approach to discharging jurors and its commitment to preventing any risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Orders