Citation: R v Mapp [2025] NSWSC 549
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 May 2025
Judge: Harrison CJ at CL
Background
The offender, a 56-year-old man, was tried for the murder of his 82-year-old mother at her home in Tumbi Umbi on 28 July 2022. A jury found him guilty on 24 October 2024 after a trial before Harrison CJ at CL. The sentencing remarks followed on 29 May 2025.
The offender had a longstanding heroin addiction that had caused ongoing friction with the deceased, who was his biological mother. He had stolen her television weeks before the offence, and on the morning of the killing he had made a series of calls seeking money. He was also experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and, on the evidence, was likely in heroin withdrawal at the time of the offence.
The killing occurred when the offender struck his mother to the back of the head with a pot-plant weighing approximately 15.2 kilograms inside her kitchen and dining area. She sustained a 40mm laceration, surface bleeding on the brain, and ultimately died from blunt force head trauma. After the assault, the offender pawned her television and whipper-snipper for $200, purchased heroin, and did not call emergency services until that afternoon.
Legal Issues
- Whether the offence was motivated by the offender's need for money to purchase heroin
- Whether external neck compression was applied to the deceased, in addition to the blunt force trauma
- Whether the offender acted with an intention to kill, or merely an intention to cause grievous bodily harm
- Where on the spectrum of objective seriousness the offence fell
- Whether the offender's mental health conditions (generalised anxiety disorder), COVID-19, and drug withdrawal reduced his moral culpability
- Whether general deterrence should carry significant weight in the circumstances
- Whether the offender was genuinely remorseful
- Whether there was a limited risk of reoffending
- The appropriate head sentence and non-parole period, noting the standard non-parole period for murder is 20 years
Decision
The court found the offence sat at the lower end of objective seriousness for murder. Harrison CJ at CL concluded that the offender did not intend to kill his mother, though his conduct was entirely consistent with an intention to cause very serious injury, which was sufficient to ground the murder verdict. The court found that the deceased's death was a tragic and unintended consequence of the offender losing self-control, driven by a build-up of emotional turmoil largely attributable to his longstanding anxiety disorder.
On the contested factual issues, the court found the offence was motivated at least in part by the offender's need for money to purchase heroin, consistent with the phone calls made that morning and his conduct in the immediate aftermath. The question of whether neck compression was applied remained in dispute at trial and was not resolved as an aggravating feature. The court accepted the offender's generalised anxiety disorder, the effects of COVID-19, and drug withdrawal each impaired his decision-making and capacity for self-control at the time of the offence, reducing his moral culpability to a degree.
General deterrence was given reduced weight. The court noted the combination of longstanding mental illness and treatment-resistant addiction made heavy emphasis on general deterrence inappropriate in the circumstances, consistent with the approach in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa. The court also noted a limited risk of reoffending, though the offender's addiction and mental illness were likely to persist beyond his release, indicating a need for an extended parole period.
On remorse, the court engaged with whether the offender's expressions of remorse were genuine. The court took into account a victim impact statement, described as "sole but eloquent," which conveyed the grief of those affected by the deceased's death and confirmed that the killing was the awful culmination of the offender's deteriorating condition. The court also noted the offender's significant difficulties in custody, including exposure to unwanted media notoriety and serious gastrointestinal health issues, the latter complicated by the offender's reluctance to undergo diagnostic procedures due to childhood trauma.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to 21 years' imprisonment for the murder of Colleen Wilson, commencing 28 July 2022 and expiring 27 July 2043.
- A non-parole period of 15 years was set, expiring 27 July 2037.
- The earliest date of eligibility for release on parole is 27 July 2037.
- The court noted, in compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006 (NSW), that the provisions of that Act have potential application to the offender.
Key Takeaways
- A finding that the offender did not intend to kill the deceased does not preclude a murder verdict where the conduct is consistent with an intention to cause grievous bodily harm; the court was satisfied both elements coexisted here.
- Generalised anxiety disorder, drug withdrawal, and COVID-19 illness, taken together, can reduce moral culpability in a murder sentencing even where they do not negate criminal responsibility.
- Where an offender's mental illness and addiction are longstanding and treatment-resistant, the Supreme Court held that significant emphasis on general deterrence is not appropriate, consistent with the principle stated in De La Rosa.
- A non-parole period of 15 years was set against a standard non-parole period of 20 years, reflecting the court's assessment that the offence fell at the lower end of objective seriousness and that the offender's subjective circumstances warranted some mitigation.
- Under s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006 (NSW), sentencing courts are required to note when that Act has potential application to an offender, as occurred here.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Cases:
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194