Citation: R v Walmsley-Hume; R v Walmsley (No 6) [2025] NSWSC 582
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 June 2025
Judge: Wright J
Background
On 24 February 2022, Taj Hart was walking along a track beside Old Southern Road in South Nowra when he was struck from behind by a white Mitsubishi Triton dual cab ute and killed. The driver was a young male offender (Jayden Walmsley-Hume) and the front passenger was his mother (Katie Walmsley). After spotting Mr Hart on the road, the pair performed a U-turn and drove the ute seven metres off the road to hit him directly from behind.
The killing occurred against a background of prolonged animosity between the offenders and Mr Hart and his associates. The Crown case was that the act was a deliberate revenge attack, motivated by an ongoing feud. Both offenders were tried together and a jury found each guilty of murder.
This judgment deals solely with sentencing. Wright J was required to make factual findings consistent with the jury's verdicts, assess the objective seriousness of each offender's conduct, and determine the appropriate sentence for each, taking into account their individual circumstances.
Legal Issues
- What findings of fact, consistent with the jury's verdicts, should be made for sentencing purposes, including the precise nature of the joint criminal enterprise?
- What was each offender's intention: did the driver intend to kill, and what did the passenger agree to?
- What is the objective seriousness of each offender's conduct?
- What mitigating subjective circumstances apply to each offender?
- What sentences, including non-parole periods, are appropriate having regard to the purposes of sentencing, including denunciation and general deterrence for revenge-motivated offending?
Decision
Wright J found that the driver, Walmsley-Hume, had an intention to kill when he drove the ute at Mr Hart. The passenger, Ms Walmsley, was a party to a joint criminal enterprise: the agreed common purpose extended at least to causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Hart and potentially to killing him. The jury's verdict rejecting Walmsley-Hume's account of his actions and intentions was consistent with the eyewitness and expert evidence, which the court found to be largely credible and reliable.
On fact-finding, the court rejected Walmsley-Hume's evidence entirely, characterising his account of his actions, intentions, and what was said in the ute as unacceptable. Ms Walmsley did not give evidence, so findings about the joint enterprise were drawn from inferences based on the whole of the evidence, including the history of animosity between the offenders and Mr Hart, eyewitness observations, dashcam footage, and expert crash reconstruction evidence.
The court treated the offending as seriously aggravated by its deliberate, premeditated, and revenge-driven character. A weapon (the vehicle) was used in a targeted attack on a pedestrian who had no opportunity to protect himself. The need for denunciation and general deterrence featured prominently in the sentencing analysis, particularly given the context of feud-motivated violence. Mitigating subjective circumstances were identified for each offender and taken into account, though the judgment does not elaborate on those circumstances in the portions of text available.
Life imprisonment was not imposed. The maximum penalty of life imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of twenty years for murder were treated as statutory guideposts in calibrating the appropriate sentences.
Orders Made
• Convicted of the murder of Taj Jared Hart
• Sentenced to imprisonment for 21 years and 6 months
• Non-parole period of 15 years commencing 7 April 2022 and expiring 6 April 2037
• Balance of term of 6 years and 6 months expiring 6 October 2043
• First eligible for release to parole on 6 April 2037
Key Takeaways
- Wright J confirmed that, on sentencing, a judge may make factual findings beyond those strictly implicit in the jury's verdict, provided those findings do not conflict with the verdict; facts found against an offender must be established beyond reasonable doubt, while facts found in favour of an offender need only be established on the balance of probabilities.
- Where two offenders participate in a joint criminal enterprise resulting in murder, their individual culpability may differ: the driver who formed an intention to kill was sentenced on that basis, while the passenger's liability was assessed by reference to the scope of the agreed common purpose, which the court found encompassed at least grievous bodily harm.
- Revenge-motivated violence using a vehicle as a weapon against an unprotected pedestrian was treated as objectively serious offending requiring significant weight to be given to denunciation and general deterrence.
- A sentencing court is not required to treat statutory aggravating factors (such as use of violence, use of a weapon, and substantial injury) as additional aggravation where those features are already inherent in the nature of the offence and have been taken into account in assessing objective seriousness.
- Under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), both the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of twenty years for murder operate as guideposts rather than fixed outcomes, and the court must calibrate the sentence to all the circumstances of the individual offending and offender.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 14, 15, 33
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 19A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22A, 30E, 54A
Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
- Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
- GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
- GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202
- Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
- R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
- R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
- Tapueluelu v R [2006] NSWCCA 113
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
- TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185