Citation: R v Wrigley (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 477
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 May 2025
Judge(s): Ierace J
Background
The accused stood trial on a count of murder, alleged to have been committed on or about 23 January 2023 near Nyngan. The indictment also included three further counts relating to the theft and disposal of property allegedly taken from the deceased's residence around the time of his death.
The jury was empanelled on 3 April 2025, with the trial proper commencing on 8 April following six days of pre-trial hearings. The jury retired to consider its verdict on the morning of 15 May 2025.
Approximately 45 minutes after retiring, the jury forwarded a note requesting a copy of the transcript of the summing-up. When the court was convened, the foreperson clarified that the request was intended to include the transcripts of both counsel's addresses as well.
Legal Issues
- Whether the court has a discretion to provide the jury with transcripts of the trial judge's summing-up and counsel's addresses upon the jury's request.
- Whether it was appropriate to exercise that discretion in the circumstances of this trial.
Decision
Senior counsel for the defence drew Ierace J's attention to three prior decisions of the Supreme Court addressing materially 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. Consistent with those decisions, neither party disputed that the court possesses a discretion to provide the requested transcripts.
The request was not opposed by either party. Ierace J determined that it was appropriate to exercise the discretion in favour of providing the transcripts, taking into account in particular the length of the trial.
Orders Made
• The Court determined it was appropriate to provide the jury with copies of the transcript of the summing up and the addresses of counsel.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed, consistently with prior authority, that a trial court has a discretion to provide a deliberating jury with transcripts of the summing-up and counsel's addresses.
- Prior decisions including Qaumi, Medich, and Cranston were cited without controversy, indicating this discretion is well established in New South Wales practice.
- The length of the trial was identified as a particularly relevant consideration in favour of exercising the discretion.
- Where neither party opposes a jury's transcript request, the court may be more readily inclined to accede to it, though the decision remains discretionary.
- This ruling was procedural in nature, arising mid-deliberation, and does not address the underlying merits of the murder charge or any other count on the indictment.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- R v Qaumi & Ors (No 66) [2016] NSWSC 1403
- R v Medich (No 24) [2017] NSWSC 293
- R v Cranston (No 24) [2023] NSWSC 10
Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the judgment.