AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 28 August 2025

R v Wrigley (No 7)

[2025] NSWSC 981

HomicideTheft & property

Citation: R v Wrigley (No 7) [2025] NSWSC 981
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 August 2025
Judge(s): Ierace J

Background

Following a jury trial, the offender was convicted of murdering a 59-year-old man at a remote rural property near Nyngan on or about 23 January 2023. The deceased lived alone at the property and was killed while asleep, having been struck repeatedly to the head with a blunt implement or implements. The offender, then aged 37, was a truck driver and farmhand who had come to know the deceased through rural contract work they both performed in the area.

The jury also returned guilty verdicts on three related property offences: stealing the deceased's Toyota HiLux, destroying that vehicle by fire, and stealing power tools belonging to the deceased. All four offences arose from the same incident.

This judgment, the seventh in the Wrigley proceedings, dealt solely with sentencing for all four offences. The court noted factual disputes from the trial that required resolution for sentencing purposes, including the offender's motive, the weapon or weapons used, and the extent of planning involved.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the murder offence, having regard to the manner of the killing, the vulnerability of the victim, and evidence of admissions bearing on intention?
  • Whether the offender's psychological profile warranted a reduction in moral culpability, and if so, to what extent.
  • Whether the offender's Type 1 Diabetes condition constituted "special circumstances" justifying a departure from the standard ratio between non-parole period and head sentence.
  • How the principle of totality applied in structuring sentences for the murder alongside the property offences and any existing sentences of imprisonment.
  • What facts adverse to or in favour of the offender could be established to the relevant standard of proof for sentencing purposes.

Decision

Ierace J assessed the objective seriousness of the murder as above the mid-range. The location of the injuries, the degree of force applied, and evidence of admissions all pointed to an intention to kill. The victim was particularly vulnerable, being asleep and alone at a remote rural property when the offender entered the premises and attacked him. The court found these circumstances elevated the gravity of the offence beyond an ordinary case of murder.

On moral culpability, the court accepted that the offender's psychological profile provided some basis for mitigation, warranting a reduction in his moral culpability. The full judgment details the basis for that finding, which is not reproduced in the extracts available, but the court treated it as a genuine, albeit limited, mitigating factor rather than a complete answer to the seriousness of the conduct.

The court found special circumstances by reason of the offender's Type 1 Diabetes condition. Special circumstances, under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), allow a court to depart from the usual relationship between the non-parole period and the total head sentence, typically by lengthening the parole supervision period. The court concluded that the management of this chronic medical condition in a custodial setting justified that adjustment. The offender's prospects of rehabilitation were assessed as guarded.

In applying the totality principle, the court structured the aggregate sentence for the property offences to run before the murder sentence, ensuring the combined result was just and proportionate rather than crushing. The court also formally notified the offender of the potential future application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) as he approaches the end of his murder sentence.

Orders Made

  • Property offences (aggregate): 4 years and 8 months imprisonment, backdated to commence 1 June 2024, expiring 31 January 2029; non-parole period of 1 year, which expired 31 May 2025.
  • Indicative sentence for stealing the vehicle: 3 years imprisonment.
  • Indicative sentence for destroying the vehicle by fire: 3 years imprisonment.
  • Indicative sentence for theft of the tools: 6 months imprisonment.
  • Murder: 23 years and 9 months imprisonment, backdated to commence 1 June 2025, expiring 28 February 2049; non-parole period of 16 years and 3 months, expiring 31 August 2041.

Key Takeaways

  • A murder involving entry onto rural premises, multiple blows to the head of a sleeping victim, and evidence of admissions pointing to an intention to kill was assessed as above mid-range objective seriousness, even where some mitigation in moral culpability arose from the offender's psychological profile.
  • Vulnerability of the victim, here a person asleep and alone at a remote property, is a statutory aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(l) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and featured in the court's assessment of seriousness.
  • A chronic medical condition such as Type 1 Diabetes can constitute special circumstances under the sentencing framework, justifying adjustment of the non-parole period to parole ratio to accommodate the offender's particular needs during the supervision period.
  • In sentencing for multiple offences where some carry existing sentences, the totality principle requires the court to structure the overall sentencing package so that the combined effect is proportionate and not oppressive.
  • The Supreme Court confirmed the obligation to notify an offender of the potential operation of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) at the time of sentencing for murder, so the offender is aware that continued supervision or detention after sentence may be sought if he is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk upon release.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- 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:
- 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