//
[2025] NSWSC 549
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-05-29
Harrison CJ at CL
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mapp [2025] NSWSC 549
Hearing dates: 24 April 2025
Date of orders: 29 May 2025
Decision date: 29 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Decision: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 21 years commencing on 28 July 2022 and expiring on 27 July 2043 with a non-parole period of 15 years expiring on 27 July 2037.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – sentence for murder – where offender is found guilty of murdering his mother with a pot-plant – contested factual issues – whether the offence was motivated by a need for money to purchase heroin – whether pressure was applied to mother’s neck – whether offender acted with an intention to kill – where victim’s death was the tragic and unintended consequence of the offender’s actions – lower end of objective seriousness – subjective case – where generalised anxiety disorder, COVID and drug withdrawal affected offender’s decision making capabilities and his capacity to control himself – whether the offender’s moral culpability is reduced – where emphasis upon general deterrence is not appropriate – limited risk of re-offending – whether the offender was truly remorseful – victim impact statement – difficulty coping with the prison environment
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
David Andrew Mapp (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
C Young (Crown)
S Talbert (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Australian Criminal & Family Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/222292
Publication restriction: Nil
HIS HONOUR: David Mapp stood trial on 14 October 2024 before me sitting with a jury charged that on 28 July 2022, at Tumbi Umbi in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Colleen Wilson. On 24 October 2024, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on that charge. Mr Mapp is now to be sentenced for that offence.
The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The Crown does not submit that a life sentence is warranted in the circumstances of this case.
With some relatively minor exceptions to which I will shortly refer, the following are facts, with which I note the parties also agree, that I find are consistent with the jury’s verdict.
Ms Wilson was born in January 1940 and was 82 years old at the time of her death on 28 July 2022. She was 162cm tall, weighed 68kg and was of small build. David Mapp was Ms Wilson’s biological son, born in August 1965 and was 56 years old at the time of the offence.
Ms Wilson lived on Eastern Road, Tumbi Umbi. In the months prior to July 2022, Mr Mapp stayed at his mother’s house approximately three times a week. He otherwise stayed in a unit that he rented at Watanobbi.
Mr Mapp had a longstanding addiction to heroin which had caused ongoing tensions in the relationship between him and his mother. They regularly argued because Mr Mapp asked his mother for money. She would occasionally raise her voice. However, there was no evidence of prior physical violence between them.
In the weeks prior to the offence, Mr Mapp had stolen his mother’s television and taken it to a pawn shop. This upset his mother although she did not contact the police. Instead, Ms Wilson went to the pawn shop and redeemed it.
At approximately 7:00am on Tuesday 26 July 2022, Mr Mapp rang Lynette Perkin, a friend of his mother, and asked her for money as "he couldn't pay for his smokes and the bus". Ms Perkin agreed to give Mr Mapp $100 as a deposit for him doing some work at her house the following day. About an hour later, Ms Wilson drove Mr Mapp to Ms Perkin's house where she gave him $100.
Later that day, Ms Wilson rang Ms Perkin and said, "David had COVID" and so he could not attend her house the following day to do the work. Ms Wilson told Ms Perkin that her son was "shivering" and "not feeling well", and that she would get a doctor if his condition got worse.
At 9:16am on Wednesday 27 July 2022, Ms Wilson spoke by phone with her friend Rosalyn Rowley. She mentioned that Mr Mapp had COVID and Ms Rowley told her, "well you really can't leave the house because you know, you would be in contact with him".
At 10:06am, Ms Wilson had a conversation with Ms Perkin. She said Mr Mapp was sitting in the sun and asked how to report that he had COVID. Ms Perkin said Mr Mapp could not attend her house because of his condition.
At 6:40am the following day, Mr Mapp used his mobile phone to ring Ms Perkin's home phone. At 6:42am he rang her mobile. The calls were not answered.
At 6:42am, Mr Mapp called Mark Thuax. Mr Thuax had met Mr Mapp a few months before and occasionally used heroin with him. During the conversation, Mr Mapp said he had a "raging habit" which was "costing a lot of money and it was all coming to a screaming halt". Mr Thuax asked "why?" and Mr Mapp said, "money".
Mr Mapp: “Can I come now?”
Ms Perkin: “David, you've got COVID and you have to isolate and we'll do the job at the end of next week.”
Mr Mapp: “Mum doesn't want me.”
Ms Perkin: “Well, just talk to mum and tell her you need to isolate and I'll give you a call tonight to see how you are.”
Sometime between the phone call at 6:51am and Mr Mapp’s attendance at the Long Jetty Pawnbrokers at 9:33am, he murdered Ms Wilson. He used a pot-plant which weighed approximately 15.2 kilograms to assault her inside the kitchen/dining area of the house. The pot included soil, a plant and part of a brick. Ms Wilson was struck to the back of the head, causing a 40mm laceration. The injury caused bleeding on the surface of her brain and led to her death.
Ms Wilson fell to the ground next to the dining table and suffered a right collarbone fracture. She had a pattern of rib fracturing which was consistent with having received cardiopulmonary resuscitation and uncommonly seen in cases of physical assault.
The cause of death was "blunt force head trauma". Whether it was accompanied by "external neck compression" was in dispute at trial.
After the murder and prior to attending the Long Jetty Pawnbrokers, Mr Mapp:
(a) Changed out of his blood-stained pants; (b) Retrieved the car keys to Ms Wilson's vehicle; (c) Removed the large television from the table in the living room and loaded it into Ms Wilson's car; (d) Loaded a whipper-snipper into Ms Wilson's car; and (e) Drove Ms Wilson's car to the Long Jetty Pawn Brokers.
At 9:36am, Mr Mapp entered the Long Jetty Pawn Brokers at 391 The Entrance Road, Long Jetty and pawned the television and whipper snipper for $200 cash. Mr Mapp left the store at 9:41am.
At 9:47am, Lara McCabe called Mr Mapp. They agreed to meet at the Bateau Bay shopping centre so she could give him a deposit for car detailing. At 10:15am, Mr Mapp drove his mother's car into the Bateau Bay shopping centre.
At 11:03am, Mr Mapp called Mr Thaux and told him he was at the shopping centre. He did not say why he was there or what he was doing. Mr Thaux thought he appeared to be "a bit confused, like he didn't know why he was calling me".
Mr Mapp walked around the shopping centre before meeting Ms McCabe at 11:11am. They sat in Ms Wilson’s car until 12:45pm. Ms McCabe recalled that during that time Mr Mapp said he felt "a bit sick" and "I'm a mess, I don't feel well". Mr Mapp drove Ms Wilson’s car out of the shopping centre car park at approximately 12:46pm.
At some stage during the day, Mr Mapp purchased and used heroin. He left the used syringe in the centre console of his mother’s car.
Before the police attended the house, Mr Mapp returned the damaged pot-plant to a position on the veranda.
By the afternoon of 28 July 2022, both Ms Fowler and Ms Rowley became concerned about Ms Wilson not responding to calls. Ms Fowler rang Mr Mapp at 4:10pm. He answered the phone, although his voice was "very slurred" throughout the conversation. The following conversation occurred:
Mr Mapp: “Hello.”
Ms Fowler: “Where's your mother? I can't get hold of her.”
Mr Mapp: “Oh, I just got up late. She must be down the shop.”
Ms Fowler: “Well, please get her to ring me. I'm really worried about her.”
Mr Mapp: “All right.”
"I asked where his mother was, and he said that she was down the street, which meant the shops. And I said ‘why have you got her mobile? Why are you answering?’ He said she'd forgot to take it."
At 5:18pm, Mr Mapp called 000. He said to the operator, "Good morning. Um, I'd like to, um, ah, report ah, a death." Mr Mapp said to the operator, "I'm at mums and we had a bad argument. We were up half the night arguing and yeah, things got pretty bad and, we had an argument, myself and mum and um, she well, fell down, and I tried to revive her". Mr Mapp told the operator his mother had been chasing him around the house with a kitchen knife, and he had thrown a pot-plant at her to protect himself. He also told the operator he had been conducting CPR on his mother "all day hoping she'd come to".
Police and paramedics arrived at the house at 5.20pm. It was in darkness. Mr Mapp had put a red blanket over his mother. She had red congealed blood pooled around her head and there was a pile of soil around her and on her body. Paramedics confirmed that Ms Wilson was dead and they did not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
When speaking to police on body-worn video, Mr Mapp maintained that he threw the pot-plant at his mother because she was threatening him with a kitchen knife and "I protected myself". He said that his mother had asked him to bring a pot-plant inside. Mr Mapp initially said that he "lunged" at his mother with the plant but later admitted that he threw it at her. He said he did not know how hard he was throwing it and that he was in the midst of arguing with her. Mr Mapp told police he had been "sitting here all day not knowing what to do" and "tried the CPR on and off, eight hours, um, into the afternoon basically".
At several points in the conversation, Mr Mapp did not finish what he was saying about what had happened that day, telling the police that he did not remember.
Dr Yvonne Skinner, psychiatrist, gave evidence, having watched the body worn footage, that although Mr Mapp was able to speak with the police, he appeared confused about aspects of what he was saying. Dr Skinner said, "It might be the result of drug use or it might be just that he was distressed. I mean, in a situation like that I think it's not surprising that he comes across as a bit confused because it's not a situation where you would expect a person sit down and give you a completely coherent account".
Mr Mapp was arrested at 5:54pm and conveyed to Wyong Police Station.
At the time of the offence, Mr Mapp had severe generalised anxiety disorder, which was aggravated by his state of drug withdrawal and the effects of COVID. That condition substantially impaired his decision-making and capacity to control himself at the time of the offence. The impairment was not so substantial as to warrant a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder.
Three factual issues are contested:
Whether the offence was motivated by Mr Mapp’s need for money to purchase heroin.
The Crown submitted that the offence falls just below the mid-range of objective seriousness. The following matters were emphasised in support of that submission.
Ms Wilson was an 82 year old woman of small build and vulnerable to an assault. She was killed in her own home. She was Mr Mapp’s mother and had continued to care for him even as an adult. Mr Mapp armed himself with a weapon violently to attack her. Ms Wilson was herself unarmed and the attack was unprovoked. Mr Mapp left the scene of the attack and did not provide or seek assistance for his mother for some hours.
Mr Mapp contended in contrast that it fell at the low level of objective seriousness. The offence was not premeditated or planned, being the spontaneous result of a loss of self-control. Mr Mapp suffered from a mental impairment. The fatal assault was brief and the degree of violence was minimal. Nor did the offending involve gratuitous cruelty or prolonged suffering.
I consider that the murder of Ms Wilson falls at the lower end of objective seriousness for offences of this type. It should in my view be characterised as an unintended consequence of a dispute that descended rapidly into a brief but fatal confrontation. It lacks many of the common indicia of the crime of murder. Whilst the death of Ms Wilson is a serious matter, the crime that led to her death lies at the lower end of seriousness.
Mr Mapp was suffering at the time of the commission of the offence from a generalised anxiety disorder, aggravated by drug withdrawal and the effects of COVID. This combination adversely affected his decision making capabilities and his capacity to control himself.
From a report prepared by Dr Yvonne Skinner, psychiatrist, dated 7 April 2025, the following things emerge. Mr Mapp reports that he is not using drugs since entering custody. At the time of the offence he was not suffering from an underlying mood disorder or psychotic mental illness. He is currently prescribed blood pressure medication, an anti-depressant and an anti-psychotic although he is apparently occasionally non-compliant. Mr Mapp has a background history of physical abuse and emotional deprivation in childhood. Mr Mapp has demonstrated remorse but has limited insight into the factors that precipitated the incident. Mr Mapp has indicated a willingness to engage with drug and alcohol services but given his long history of substance abuse and unsuccessful attempts to reduce or cease drug abuse, this is likely to prove difficult for him. Mr Mapp’s risk of re-offending has been described as “relatively low” but is related to the risk of relapse to substance abuse.
The following details should also be noted.
Mr Mapp was 56 years old at the time of the offence and is 59 years old now. He was institutionalised at Stewart House at age 7 or 8 when his parents were having difficulties. He was sexually abused whilst there. As a child he witnessed and was a victim of domestic violence from his father who was an alcoholic. When he left Stewart House, he was returned to his father and rarely saw his mother.
Mr Mapp commenced using marijuana from about age 12 and was introduced to heroin by his older brother four years later. This was the start of a 45-year addiction. During this time he also used benzodiazepines. He ran away from home when he was 16, prior to which he had stopped attending school from an early age.
Mr Mapp completed several long-term residential drug rehabilitation programs in the 1990s but rapidly returned to drug use. He has been on the methadone programme. His employment had been intermittent due to his drug use and at the time of the offence he was on the Disability Support Pension.
Mr Mapp has previously been in custody in Queensland with respect to stealing offences associated with his drug use. When he was released in about 2012, he returned to live with his mother. He did not like being alone and would return to live with her even when community housing was available to him.
Mr Mapp reported to Dr Skinner that he had always felt anxious during his life. Shortly before the offence he suffered from COVID and had been very ill. He was also withdrawing from heroin at that time.
According to Dr Skinner, Mr Mapp’s childhood experiences rendered him prone to suffer from anxiety. She considered that it was probable that he still suffers from an underlying anxiety disorder from childhood, affecting his capacity to develop skills of independent living during adolescence which has persisted throughout his life.
Dr Skinner elaborated on this in her evidence, citing the separation from his mother at an early age and ongoing low contact with her as an important cause of the development of anxiety. She was of the opinion that at the time of the offence Mr Mapp:
“was suffering from a severe generalised anxiety disorder, an underlying condition aggravated by drug withdrawal and the effects of influenza. The ongoing arguments with his mother would have increased his anxiety levels and perception of emotional tension. It is likely that this caused an abnormal state of mind such that his capacity for judgment, reasoning and [ability to] control his actions was adversely affected. The underlying condition of severe chronic anxiety disorder is consistent with the requirement for a mental health impairment…”.
Dr Skinner clarified that the word “severe” meant that “it really inhibits the person from leading a normal lifestyle” and that the underlying impairment was significant for clinical diagnostic purposes.
Dr Skinner’s evidence was that Mr Mapp’s impairment may have affected his judgment, as in his ability to make decisions about what to do, for example, to walk out of the room from his mother as opposed to what he did. It also would have affected his capacity to control himself, in that he reacted in a way that he might not normally have done owing to his inability to control his emotions in a situation of increased distress and agitation.
Dr Skinner’s opinion was that the continued arguing with his mother would have increased the emotional tension for Mr Mapp and may have created a situation that could be described as “the straw that broke the camel’s back” which continued to a point where he lost control.
Mr Mapp’s mental condition is relevant to sentence in a number of ways: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194.
For example, where the state of a person’s mental health contributes to the commission of the offence in a material way, the offender’s moral culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence. Mr Mapp submitted that Dr Skinner’s evidence supports the fact that his mental health impairment was severe and operated at the time of the offence to affect his capacity for judgment and his ability to control his actions. He submitted that his mental illness considerably reduces his moral culpability and the need for retribution and denunciation. He also submitted that he is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence, thereby supporting a reduction in the sentence which would otherwise have been imposed.
An offender’s experience of custody may also be more onerous due to mental illness. Mr Mapp contended that this was so in the present case and that I should allow for the fact that his mental health problems make a custodial sentence weigh more heavily, increasing his vulnerability compared to other inmates. Mr Mapp has been treated in custody with anti-psychotic medication, anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication. He attempted suicide when he was first admitted into custody and was on the RIT program for about two months and later in the mental health unit.
In my assessment, Mr Mapp’s moral culpability is substantially reduced as the result of his underlying anxiety disorder and the accepted medical fact that it contributed significantly to his decision making and the ability to control himself. The Crown acknowledged that a reduction in Mr Mapp’s moral culpability for this reason was appropriate but submitted that it should not be substantial. This was said to be for the reason that Mr Mapp’s motivation was to some extent driven by his need for money and that he was not suffering from a major underlying mood disorder or psychosis. It will be apparent that I have not accepted that Mr Mapp was motivated by the need for money in the sense asserted by the Crown in this context.
This does not appear to me to be a case where an emphasis upon general deterrence is appropriate. The circumstances of this case make it reasonably apparent that the offence arose out of the specific and particular relationship between Mr Mapp and his mother in the emotionally fraught and troubled environment of her home where he was a tolerated but not particularly welcome guest and where there were historical tensions of long standing. The offence was unplanned, unexpected and a spontaneous reaction to a unique situation. This necessarily limits the general significance and implications of any sentence that might be imposed.
For different reasons, specific deterrence is also of limited significance in this case. Mr Mapp’s sentence and the age at which he will return to society combine in my view to mean that his prospect of reoffending will be almost non-existent. Moreover, the unique facts of his offending are by definition never going to present themselves again.
In my assessment, Mr Mapp presents with a very limited risk of reoffending. As I have noted, the unique and somewhat enigmatic circumstances in which Mr Mapp killed his mother cannot be repeated and the prospect that Mr Mapp is likely to commit some other similar offence seems to me to be remote in the extreme.
It was submitted on Mr Mapp’s behalf that he was distressed following his offending and remorseful for what he had done. His attempt to resuscitate his mother was said to be consistent with such an emotion. Mr Mapp did not give evidence before me.
I confess to not a little difficulty assessing whether Mr Mapp is truly remorseful in the circumstances. Much of that difficulty flows from his post-offence conduct on the day, in which he drives to the pawn shop with his mother’s property, ultimately returning to the home and calling the police. This behaviour is not classically associated with remorse, a fact which in the present case may well be best considered in light of his emotionally distracted and drug-dependant state. The video recorded conversation between Mr Mapp and the attending police officers is also hardly replete with expressions of remorse, being more consistent with a confused attempt by Mr Mapp to excuse his actions.
Mr Mapp has found it difficult to cope with the prison environment given a previous assault on him in custody and his fear of other prisoners. After the jury verdict, Mr Mapp was placed in a non-association unit due to media attention causing unwanted notoriety amongst his fellow prisoners.
Mr Mapp has also experienced gastrointestinal health issues, including faecal incontinence. He has had difficulties with access to incontinence pads. Mr Mapp’s condition is currently undiagnosed as he has declined a colonoscopy due to trauma related to his childhood sexual abuse.
Mr Mapp has, as already noted, a significant and largely treatment resistant addiction to illicit drugs. There is undoubtedly a relationship between both his addiction and the difficulty treating it on the one hand and his long standing mental illness on the other hand. This unfortunate combination is in my experience very likely to survive his time in custody, whatever medical or other treatment or assistance he may have been able to obtain before his release. The need for an extended period on parole is clearly indicated, even though that period will obviously already be substantial.
I make the following orders:
David Mapp, for the murder of Colleen Wilson on 28 July 2022, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 21 years commencing on 28 July 2022 and expiring on 27 July 2043 with a non-parole period of 15 years expiring on 27 July 2037.
The first date upon which you will become eligible for release on parole is 27 July 2037.
Finally, in compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006 (NSW), I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to you. Your solicitor may be expected to provide you with further information about that.
**********
R
Mapp [2025] NSWSC 549
(2010) 79 NSWLR 1
At 6:51am, Ms Perkin rang Mr Mapp. The conversation as recalled by Ms Perkin was as follows:
Whether Mr Mapp applied pressure to his mother’s neck during the commission of the offence.
Whether Mr Mapp acted with an intention to kill.
With respect to the first issue, I find that Mr Mapp became involved in a dispute or argument with his mother. Their relationship was historically difficult for a number of reasons. One of these is that Mr Mapp had a heroin habit but did not have an income that was sufficient to support it. Mr Mapp had pawned his mother’s goods in the past. I consider that the inference is overwhelming that he did so to obtain money for the purchase of heroin. Mr Mapp and his mother had previously argued about his constant need and requests for funds for this purpose. The argument that culminated in the death of Mr Mapp’s mother arose in that context. However, the evidence does not support a finding that he killed her for the purpose of facilitating his unhindered access to his mother’s possessions. Rather, the death occurred when the type of argument that Mr Mapp had regularly had with his mother got out of hand when his frustration could no longer be controlled. Mr Mapp had stolen from his mother in the past without resorting to violence and had no need to do so on this occasion.
With respect to the second issue, there is no evidence that Mr Mapp’s DNA was found or located on his mother’s neck in the location or position that corresponded to the area where the suggested pressure is said to have been applied. It is not possible in those circumstances to find beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Mapp attempted to choke or strangle his mother, or howsoever the allegation might be characterised. In any event, there is a respectable medical contest in the professional opinions of Dr Murray and Dr Duflou between which it is not possible to choose beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the evidence of bruising, haemorrhages and bleeds to the neck at autopsy were also consistent with blunt force trauma: less force would have been necessary than normal to inflict such injuries on the deceased given her age and general health. Notably as well, the deceased did not have a fracture of her laryngeal structures which might be expected in the event of a forceful application of external pressure to her neck.
With respect to the third issue, I am not satisfied that Mr Mapp intended to kill his mother. Consistently with my conclusion concerning the first issue, I consider that Mr Mapp’s mother died in the course of an argument that got out of hand. It follows that the assault with the pot-plant was committed with an intention to do no more than cause really serious injury.
Nor is this a case where Mr Mapp’s mental illness makes him a particular danger to the community. His offending could be considered to be an aberration borne of his mental health issues and the unique situation of drug withdrawal during COVID.
I consider that Mr Mapp’s moral culpability is substantially reduced by reason of his mental illness.