R v Wrigley (No 7) - [2025] NSWSC 981

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wrigley (No 7) [2025] NSWSC 981
Hearing dates: 24 July 2025
Decision date: 28 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
(1) For the offences of stealing the vehicle, destroying the vehicle by fire and stealing the tools, I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years and 8 months, backdated to commence on 1 June 2024 and which will expire on 31 January 2029, with a non-parole period of 1 year, which expired on 31 May 2025. The indicative sentences are, for stealing the vehicle: 3 years imprisonment; for destroying the motor vehicle by fire: 3 years imprisonment; and for the theft of the tools: 6 months imprisonment.
(2) For the offence of murder, I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 23 years and 9 months, backdated to commence on 1 June 2025 and to expire on 28 February 2049. I fix a non-parole period of 16 years and 3 months, which will expire on 31 August 2041.

Catchwords:
Crime — Sentence — Murder — Theft and destruction of deceased’s vehicle by fire — Theft of power tools belonging to deceased — Entry of rural premises and multiple application of blunt force using implement or implements to head of deceased while he lay asleep — Vulnerability of victim — Where location of injuries, degree of force and evidence of admissions bespeaks intention to kill — Objective seriousness above mid-range — Where offender’s psychological profile warrants a reduction in moral culpability — Where prospects of rehabilitation are guarded — Finding of special circumstances by virtue of offender’s Type 1 Diabetes condition — Principle of totality in context of existing sentences of imprisonment

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 117, 154F, 195(1)(b)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2), 21A(2)(d), 21A(2)(eb), 21A(2)(l), 21A(2)(j), 21A(2)(n), 21A(3)(b), 22A, 30E(6)

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA
Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322
NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
R v Danishyar [2025] NSWCCA 46
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Wrigley (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 527
Weininger v R (2003) 212 CLR 629; [2003] HCA 14

Texts Cited:
L Huo et al, “Burden of Diabetes in Australia: life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy in adults with diabetes” (2016) 59(7) Diabetologia, 1437

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Clinton Beau Wrigley (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Swift (Crown)
N Broadbent SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/101184

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Clinton Wrigley, was convicted at trial of the murder of Joel Carter (the deceased) on or about 23 January 2023, in the residence of a remote rural property near Nyngan, known as Rosehill. The jury also returned verdicts…

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 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Wrigley (No 7) [2025] NSWSC 981
Case: [2025] NSWSC 981
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wrigley (No 7), the appellant faced a serious charge of murder, involving the theft and destruction of the deceased's vehicle by fire, as well as the theft of power tools belonging to the deceased. The incident included the entry of rural premises and the multiple application of blunt force using an implement or implements to the head of the deceased while he lay asleep. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these heinous acts.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the objective seriousness of the crime warranted a sentence above the mid-range, and if so, the extent to which mitigating factors such as the offender's psychological profile and prospects of rehabilitation should be considered. The court also had to weigh the principle of totality in the context of the existing sentences of imprisonment the offender was serving. The court needed to consider the special circumstances of the offender's Type 1 Diabetes condition in determining the final sentence.

The court concluded that the objective seriousness of the crime was indeed above the mid-range, given the location of the injuries, the degree of force used, and the evidence of admissions by the offender that indicated an intention to kill. However, the court also found that the offender's psychological profile warranted a reduction in moral culpability, and while the prospects of rehabilitation were guarded, the special circumstances of the offender's Type 1 Diabetes condition warranted consideration. The principle of totality was also applied, taking into account the existing sentences of imprisonment. The court ultimately determined the appropriate sentence after balancing these factors, ensuring that it reflected the gravity of the crime while also considering the mitigating circumstances.

Orders