AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 2 June 2025

R v Wrigley (No 6)

[2025] NSWSC 527

HomicideTheft & propertyPublic order & justice offences

Citation: R v Wrigley (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 527
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 2 June 2025
Judge: Ierace J

Background

The accused stands trial on four counts: one count of murder, alleged to have occurred near Nyngan on or about 23 January 2023, and three further counts involving the theft and disposal of property taken from the deceased's residence around the time of his death.

A central feature of the defence case was a challenge to the credibility of a key Crown witness (referred to as "Witness A" due to a non-publication order). The defence contended that Witness A had both the motive and opportunity to have committed or organised the murder, relying in part on the forensic identification of Witness A's DNA near the deceased's body. The jury was told that two of Witness A's siblings had served or were serving lengthy prison sentences for drug supply offences. What the jury was not told was that another sibling held a senior oversight role within NSW Police.

The jury retired to deliberate on 15 May 2025. The following day, the jury sent two simultaneous notes to the court: one indicating a unanimous verdict on three counts but a deadlock of 11 to 1 on the murder count, and a second from a juror (Juror N) admitting that he had conducted independent internet research about Witness A's sibling's connection to NSW Police.

  • Whether Juror N had engaged in misconduct sufficient to warrant discharge under the Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
  • Whether, following the discharge of Juror N, the trial should continue with the remaining eleven jurors or the whole jury should be discharged
  • Specifically, whether continuing with eleven jurors would give rise to a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice, having regard to:
  • The strong inference that Juror N was the sole dissenting juror on the murder count
  • Whether the accused had thereby lost the only voice standing against a conviction
  • Whether Juror N's misconduct had contaminated the remaining jurors

Decision

Discharge of Juror N

Juror N admitted in his written note and on examination under oath that he had conducted internet research overnight during deliberations to investigate the nature of Witness A's sibling's role with NSW Police. He then disclosed the fact of this research to all other jurors that morning. This conduct constituted a plain breach of section 68C of the Jury Act 1977, which prohibits jurors from making any inquiry for the purpose of obtaining information about matters relevant to the trial. Ierace J had given clear and detailed directions against such conduct at the outset of the trial. Juror N was accordingly discharged under section 53A(1)(c) of the Act, and a certificate was provided to him under section 55DA(3) in respect of his evidence on examination.

Whether to Discharge the Whole Jury

The defence applied for a discharge of the entire jury. The principal arguments were that, given the 11-to-1 split disclosed in the foreperson's note, there was a strong inference that Juror N was the lone dissenter on the murder count, meaning the accused had effectively lost the only juror standing against conviction. A secondary concern was that Juror N's disclosure of his research to the other jurors may have contaminated their deliberations.

Ierace J accepted that the inference was strong that Juror N was the dissenting juror on count one. However, his Honour identified several factors pointing against discharge of the whole jury. The information Juror N had obtained and shared concerned Witness A's sibling's connection to NSW Police, a matter that, if anything, tended to favour the defence case rather than disadvantage it. The remaining jurors, when asked, indicated they did not believe they would be unable to disregard what Juror N had told them. The court also provided a direction to the jury specifying that Juror N's discharge related exclusively to his misconduct, and not to any view he had expressed on the evidence.

Balancing these considerations against the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice, Ierace J concluded that the trial could properly continue with eleven jurors. The application to discharge the whole jury was refused.

Orders Made

  • On 16 May 2025: Pursuant to section 53A(1)(c) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), Juror N is discharged.
  • On 19 May 2025: The application to discharge the jury is refused.
  • Pursuant to section 53C(1)(c) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), the trial shall continue with a jury of eleven.

Key Takeaways

  • A juror who conducts internet research about a witness during deliberations, and then discloses that research to fellow jurors, commits misconduct under section 68C of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) sufficient to ground discharge under section 53A(1)(c), regardless of the juror's stated motivation.

  • Where there is a strong inference that a discharged juror was the sole dissenter on a count, the court must carefully assess whether the accused has thereby lost the only voice against conviction. However, that inference does not automatically require discharge of the whole jury.

  • The nature of the improperly obtained material is a relevant consideration. Where that material tends to favour the defence rather than the prosecution, any prejudice flowing from the irregularity is less likely to disadvantage the accused.

  • Under section 55DA of the Jury Act 1977, a judge may examine a juror on oath to determine whether the juror has contravened section 68C, and must provide the juror with a certificate protecting that evidence from use in subsequent criminal proceedings against the juror.

  • Directions to the remaining jurors, clarifying that a discharged juror's removal was unconnected to any substantive view expressed during deliberations, form part of the framework for managing the risk of contamination when a whole-jury discharge is refused.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53A(1)(c), 53B, 53C(1), 55DA, 55DA(3), 55F, 68C

Cases
- 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 (1996) 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
- Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81