R v Wright

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act, s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 25D(1), Pt 4, Div 1A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 7A(1), 51H(1), 65(3)

Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v AEM, KEM and MM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Dastan [2024] NSWSC 55
R v Klein [2008] NSWSC 835
R v Liavaa; Liavaa v R [2025] NSWCCA 101
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Stanley [2025] NSWSC 735
R v Stefanato [2023] NSWSC 73
R v Tonga [2025] NSWCCA 100

Category: Sentence

Parties: Rex (Crown)
Joshua David Wright (Offender)

Representation: Counsel:
C Young (Crown)
P Krisenthal (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00227478

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. On 13 April 2023, the offender, Joshua David Wright, shot and killed John Simpson at Laguna in New South Wales.

2. Pursuant to an indictment filed on 31 March 2025, the offender was charged with the murder of Mr Simpson contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

3. The offender was further charged that between 12 April 2023 and 18 July 2023, at Laguna in the State of New South Wales, he did possess a stolen firearm, namely a .223 Remington calibre Savage model rifle contrary to s 51H(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (the firearms offence).

4. On 4 April 2024, he was arraigned and entered pleas of guilty to those offences.

5. There are a further four charges to be dealt with on the Form 1, being:

6. H80619383/2 – Possess unauthorised firearm, namely a .177 calibre Gamo Model Spectra single shot air rifle – contrary to s 7A(1), Firearms Act;

7. H80619383/3 – Possess unauthorised firearm, namely a Chinese manufacture single shot air pistol – contrary to s 7A(1), Firearms Act;

8. H80619383/4 – Possess unauthorised firearm, namely a .177 air rifle calibre Diana model 24 single shot air rifle – contrary to s 7A(1), Firearms Act; and

9. H80619383/6 – Possess ammunition without holding licence/permit/authority – contrary to s 65(3), Firearms Act.

10. The offender was committed for sentence on 5 March 2025. The sentencing hearing took place between 10 and 13 June 2025. The offender was represented by Mr Krisenthal of Counsel.

11. This is the sentencing judgment.

12. The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of 20 years (Part 4, Division 1A, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Procedure Act”)). The firearms offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

13. The maximum term of imprisonment and the standard non-parole period are guideposts to which the Court must have regard to when imposing a sentence (Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [27] per French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

14. The determination of the appropriate sentence necessarily requires consideration of many factors, including the purposes of sentencing as set out in s 3A of the Sentencing Procedure Act, the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s subjective circumstances.

15. For the purposes of sentencing, I must make findings of fact. I remind myself that I must not make findings adverse to the offender unless I am satisfied of those findings beyond a reasonable doubt. I may make findings positive to the offender if I am satisfied of those matters on the balance of probabilities (The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 at [27] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

16. The parties rely on extensive agreed facts. Almost all of the facts are agreed. The area of dispute relates to the events which occurred immediately before the offender shot Mr Simpson.

17. For the purposes of sentencing the Crown relied on a bundle of material, including:

18. Crown Sentence Summary;

19. Court Attendance Notice;

20. Statement of agreed facts with areas of dispute identified; and

21. The offender’s criminal history in New South Wales and Queensland.

22. In addition and primarily for the purposes of the dispute as to the facts, the Crown also relied on a transcript of an intercepted phone call, an edited version of the ERISP interview with the offender on 19 July 2023, and a photograph shown to the offender during the ERISP interview.

23. The Crown also adduced oral evidence from three witnesses, being Matthew Woods, Jeremy McLachlan, and Detective Senior Constable Katie Burnell. Their evidence was relevant to the facts which remain in dispute.

24. The offender relied on the psychological assessment report of Dr Emma Collins dated 17 March 2025 and a video of the viewing of the property with Mr McLachlan which was relevant to the disputed facts on sentence.

25. Prior to dealing with matters such as objective seriousness and the offender’s subjective case, I wish to say something about Mr Simpson and the victim impact statements.

Victim impact statements

18. I received victim impact statements from Mr Simpson’s mother, Lorraine Simpson, Mr Simpson’s sister, Ms Elizabeth Lasnick, and Mr Simpson’s former partner and the mother of his children, Bianca Waters.

19. The statements of Lorraine Simpson and Elizabeth Lasnick were read onto the record without objection. Ms Waters read her statement in Court.

20. The content of the statements demonstrates the significant loss and anguish that the death of Mr Simpson has caused. Each of the witnesses continue to suffer as a result of his death and having regard to the circumstances of his death.

21. Ms Waters’ words were very moving. She provided an insight into the life of Mr Simpson and his character as well as demonstrating how his death impacted upon her.

22. I have regard to the victim impact statements in accordance with the law as an aspect of the harm done to the community arising out of the conduct of the offender. Again, I express my sympathy to the members of Mr Simpson’s family who have suffered considerable loss and anguish as a result of his death.

23. It is in the nature of these proceedings that I do not know as much about Mr Simpson as I do about the offender. However, it is plain that he was a good father to his two young children and a loving son and brother. Indeed, he appears to have been a father figure to a number of other persons. He appears to have been in regular employment.

24. Nothing he did caused his death.

Events leading to the shooting

25. Subject to one area of dispute, the circumstances of the offending are set out in the agreed facts.

26. On 13 April 2023, the offender was 34 years of age. Mr Simpson was also 34.

27. The offender and Mr Simpson lived at premises at Great North Road, Laguna in New South Wales with another house mate, Jeremy McLachlan, also known as Stems.

28. The Laguna property was a 50-acre property and had been leased by Mr Simpson and Mr McLachlan from the landlord since July 2020. Although the offender was not on the lease, he had lived on the property for approximately three and half years prior to April 2023.

29. The area of lease was a small fenced off area on the property, although it appears that the occupants had access to the rest of the property from time to time.

30. In the weeks leading up to Mr Simpson’s death, his relationship with the offender had been acrimonious. There was an ongoing dispute about the payment of rent. At one point Mr Simpson told the offender to move out of the premises and the offender had responded “make me”.

31. On 1 April 2023, the landlord indicated that the lease would be terminated for failure to pay rent and demanded that the occupants vacate the premises by 7 May 2023.

32. At the time of the relevant events, the offender was employed as a handyman by a Mr Baker who owned property down the road but lived mainly in Sydney. The offender had mentioned to Mr Baker that he was having trouble with Mr Simpson as he had not paid the rent and they were being evicted.

33. In April 2023, Megan Soper was in an on-and-off relationship with Mr Simpson. In early April 2023, she observed the offender and Mr Simpson having an argument during which time Mr Simpson said he would have the offender move out and the offender said he should make him. Mr Simpson said, “I’ll just get your gun and shoot you”. The offender responded, “‘I’ll get my gun and shoot you first.”

34. On 6 April 2023, Mr Simpson was doing some handyman work at other premises in Laguna. He told the owner that he had not seen the offender for five days and that the offender’s dogs had not had any food. The owner then called the RSPCA and reported the malnourished dogs. During that call, the owner handed the phone briefly to Mr Simpson to provide the address where the dogs were to the RSPCA, which he did. The owner cooked some food for the dogs and she and Mr Simpson then went back to Mr Simpson’s property and gave the dogs some food.

35. On 11 April 2023, Mr Simpson was working on another property and had a conversation with Lienka Pocock. Ms Pocock gave Mr Simpson some food to take home and said, “Don’t let your flatmates eat it.” Mr Simpson said, “I feel I just want to go and shoot him in the face.”

36. On 13 April 2023, Mr Baker organised for the offender to do some handyman work for him. He was paid for 6 hours work that day. During that day Mr Baker drove the offender to Cessnock where the offender purchased a 6-kilogram bag of dog food for his dogs.

37. At approximately 12.10pm on 13 April 2023, a RSPCA officer attended the offender’s residence and saw the offender’s two rottweiler dogs in an emaciated state. The dogs were held on a damaged deck which was covered in dog faeces. Only Mr McLachlan was home. The RSPCA officer spoke to Mr McLachlan, gave him the seizure paperwork and seized the dogs.

38. On the same day, Mr Simpson was also doing handyman work on a different property in Laguna. At approximately 3.00pm, Mr Simpson was observed walking along the side of the Great North Road. Some people stopped and he said his car had broken down. They gave him a lift back to his car and helped him to restart his car.

39. The offender arrived home at approximately 3.00pm. He noticed that his dogs were missing. He had a conversation with Mr McLachlan who told him that the RSPCA had taken the dogs. The offender became upset and angry. He told Mr McLachlan that he should have told the RSPCA to come back when he, the offender, was home.

40. Some time that afternoon, Mr Simpson arrived home. He parked his vehicle in the shed behind the house. He remained in the shed working on a car or a motorbike.

41. At some point, Mr McLachlan went to his bedroom to smoke ice and play video games.

42. There is a dispute as to what happened next.

Disputed facts

43. On the Crown case, having heard about the removal of his dogs, the offender was angry. He went to the cupboard near the kitchen and took out the rifle. He then left the house and walked towards the shed where he knew Mr Simpson was.

44. He confronted Mr Simpson and he then shot him twice. The Crown says that these facts tend to suggest that the killing was planned and methodical.

45. The offender does not accept that he took the gun from the cupboard just before he shot Mr Simpson. He says that Mr Simpson’s shooting was precipitated by an altercation with Mr Simpson in the shed during which Mr Simpson swung the rifle at him.

46. Having regard to his ERISP interview, the offender’s version is that on hearing that his dogs had been taken, he became angry. He decided to confront Mr Simpson with the intention of punching him. He went outside and walked towards the shed. As he approached Mr Simpson, Mr Simpson grabbed what the offender thought was some sort of long object and swung it at him. As it turned out, it was a rifle. There was an altercation, and the gun discharged with a bullet entering Mr Simpson’s arm. Mr Simpson collapsed to the ground with blood coming from his arm.

47. Based on what the offender said during the ERISP interview, Mr Simpson had the gun and the first shot was in some way accidental arising from the physical altercation.

48. Having said that, the offender said in the ERISP interview that, immediately after Mr Simpson had been shot the first time and whilst Mr Simpson was still on the ground, the offender picked the rifle up off the ground and then deliberately shot Mr Simpson in the upper back area.

49. He was unable to explain why he did that, repeating that he did not know. He also suggested in the interview that Mr Simpson might have already been dead by that time.

50. As he has pleaded guilty to Mr Simpson’s murder and accepts for the purposes of these proceedings that he intended to kill Mr Simpson, there is now no suggestion that Mr Simpson might have already been dead by the time of the second shot. The offender accepts that he shot Mr Simpson deliberately and that he intended to kill him.

51. The relevance of the disputed facts is really whether the killing of Mr Simpson was something that the offender planned to do when he left the house (and did so) or whether the firing of the second shot was more an impetuous act in the heat of the moment, following some form of altercation with Mr Simpson.

52. In support of his contention that the offender picked up his rifle from the cupboard inside the house, went outside and then shot Mr Simpson twice in quick succession, the Crown relied on evidence from three witnesses, being Matthew Woods, a friend of the offender; Jeremy McLachlan, being the housemate; and Detective Senior Constable Burnell, being a police officer involved in the investigation, who spoke to Mr Woods and recorded what he said in her police notebook.

53. Both Mr Woods and Mr McLachlan were cross-examined extensively as to the statements they made; the fact that they both initially lied to the police about their knowledge and involvement in the events, and the fact that they both gave induced statements which were said by the offender to include for the first time statements about the facts which are now disputed.

54. Indeed, the offender submitted that I should give myself a warning in accordance with s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in respect of the evidence of both persons.

55. In respect of Mr McLachlan’s evidence, the offender submitted that having regard to his involvement in moving and concealing the body after the event, he may reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceedings. The offender thus relies on s 165(1)(d).

56. In respect of Mr Woods’ evidence, the offender relies on s 165(1)(c) as Mr Woods has schizophrenia and one of his symptoms is the presence of delusions.

57. I accept the offender’s submission in respect of s 165 and remind myself that I should exercise caution in assessing the evidence of both Mr Woods and Mr McLachlan as their evidence may be unreliable.

58. The Crown sought to rely on Mr Woods to establish that the offender had told Mr Woods sometime after the event that he grabbed the rifle from the cupboard and then went outside and went “boom boom” (signifying two shots in quick succession). That is, the Crown sought to rely on Mr Woods’ evidence as containing a statement from the offender as to what he had done.

59. However, there are number of problems with Mr Woods’ evidence.

60. Firstly, Mr Woods presented as a person suffering from a mental illness. He admitted that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

61. He spoke repeatedly about his belief in God as if to offer support for his own credibility. He said he would never not tell the truth having regard to his belief in God. That may be so but Mr Woods calling on God in support of his own credit is not a matter on which I could place any weight.

62. He made some unusual statements, particularly in relation to his observations about two investigating female police officers. Further, he accepted that he had repeatedly lied to the police. He also accepted that during his induced statement the police had placed some importance on how many “booms” there were.

63. My impression was that he had to think about it and settled on there being two “booms”. However, what he said in his induced statement was inconsistent with what he told Detective Senior Constable Burnell during an earlier conversation with her. She recorded in her police notebook that she had spoken with Mr Woods, and he had made a statement to the effect that “and then boom and it was all over” (thereby referring only to one boom and making no mention of the offender stating that he collected his gun from inside the house).

64. Detective Senior Constable Burnell gave evidence and maintained that what was contained in her police notebook would be an accurate recording of what she had been told by Mr Woods at the time. I thus have some reservations as to the source of Mr Woods’ subsequent knowledge or recollection of being told something different or more extensive by the offender.

65. These matters cause me to have a doubt as to the reliability of Mr Woods’ evidence.

66. Similarly, I have some doubts about Mr McLachlan’s reliability. He admitted to assisting the offender to move Mr Simpson’s body almost immediately after Mr Simpson was shot. He then lied about his post-shooting involvement.

67. He ultimately provided an induced statement. In that statement he said that he heard and saw the offender go to the kitchen cupboard and remove his rifle before the offender went outside. Mr McLachlan says he then heard “boom boom” (again indicating two shots in quick succession).

68. However, at the time Mr McLachlan says he saw and heard what the offender was doing, he was inside his room playing Nintendo and smoking ice. It may be that he might have been able to hear certain things from his position inside his room and it may be that he might have been able to see what the offender was doing from inside his room, but he was unable to satisfactorily explain how that might have been so.

69. Mr McLachlan was plainly fearful at how the offender would react when he came home and found out that his dogs had been taken. My impression is that he had decided to stay in his room almost to avoid trouble.

70. No evidence was adduced by the Crown establishing precisely where Mr McLachlan might have been in his room and how he might have been able to see and hear the things that he maintains that he saw and heard. Further, Mr McLachlan agreed that his memory was not good and he presented as a somewhat vague historian.

71. All of these matters cause me to have some concerns as to whether I could accept his evidence as to what he saw and heard.

72. My doubts are highlighted by a statement he made at the end of his evidence. For the first time (that is, not recorded in his earlier induced statement or anywhere else) he said that he had heard the offender exclaim words to the effect “it wasn’t me” immediately after he had heard the shots.

73. It was put to Mr McLachlan that he had never mentioned this to anyone previously. The Crown accepted that Mr McLachlan had not said this previously. How it came to be that Mr McLachlan suddenly remembered hearing these important words is not known.

74. There is other evidence that Mr Simpson might have used those words but again the source of Mr McLachlan’s recent recollection of hearing those words around the time of the shots is not known. It is most surprising that he would have not ever mentioned hearing words of such significance at any earlier time to the police.

75. The other evidence of importance on the disputed facts is the offender’s ERISP interview. An edited version was played. I have already indicated in general terms what the offender said referring to Mr Simpson being outside and using some sort of object (it turned out to be the rifle) to ward off or hit the offender before Mr Simpson was shot, and the gun fell to the ground.

76. During his interview, the offender was asked a number of times whether he wanted to say anything about other people who might have been involved, almost directing the offender to what happened after the shooting involving Mr McLachlan, but the offender lied saying there was no other person involved.

77. Whilst the offender admitted to deliberately firing the second shot into Mr Simpson, the first part of his explanation was intended to be exculpatory, that is, Mr Simpson started it by swinging the rifle at him as a result of which he was accidentally shot (the first shot).

78. The Crown points to a number of problems with the offender’s version including that:

79. Other evidence points to Mr Simpson arriving home after the offender.

80. The idea that Mr Simpson would have got the loaded rifle from the cupboard and had it with him outside just in case presupposes that Mr Simpson was worried about being attacked by the offender because he had called the RSPCA. In fact, Mr Simpson did not call the RSPCA, albeit he provided the address.

81. The idea that Mr Simpson would have taken the rifle, loaded it and then swung it at the offender with the barrel pointing towards him rather than simply pointing the barrel at the offender as he approached seems unlikely.

82. These matters lead me to have considerable doubts about the version provided by the offender. I do not accept the version he provided in the ERISP interview. It is improbable and inconsistent with other evidence.

83. All of this means that I have doubts as to the reliability of the two witnesses relied upon by the Crown to establish the Crown version of events on the disputed facts. The Crown has not established these matters beyond a reasonable doubt.

84. Yet, the offender was plainly untruthful when answering questions in his ERISP interview. He appears initially to put forward a version of events which would tend to be exculpatory, improbable and self-serving.

85. It is important that, if I do not accept the offender’s version of events, I must put it aside as the offender bears no onus of proof even in respect of disputed facts on sentencing.

86. That leaves me in the position that I do not accept the offender’s version but neither has the Crown established precisely what occurred in the minutes before Mr Simpson was killed.

87. The offender admits to shooting him for the second time as he lay defenceless on the ground. The offender also admits shooting him twice but the precise circumstances in which the offender shot him the first time are not known. By this I mean that I do not know whether the first shot was precipitated by some sort of an argument or altercation between the two men in the shed and I do not know whether the offender fired two shots in quick succession.

88. The absence of that finding, that is, the absence of any finding as to an earlier plan and intention may impact upon my finding as to objective seriousness and any aggravated features but other than that, it does not impact upon the acceptance by the offender that when he shot Mr Simpson, he intended to kill him.

89. Mr Simpson was shot twice. The first round perforated the soft tissue of his upper arm and then into the chest wall through the ribcage. The injury would have resulted in bleeding from the lungs with lung collapse and compromised respiratory function.

90. The second shot entered Mr Simpson’s lower neck, with associated injuries to the vertebral column and spinal cord at the C6/C7 level. The projectile path was from back to front and downwards. The cervical spine injury was almost certainly fatal.

91. It follows that it was the second shot which proved to be fatal and it is not disputed that the offender fired that second shot using his rifle and that when he did so he intended to kill Mr Simpson.

Events subsequent to the shooting

89. That which occurred after the shooting is again subject to agreed facts.

90. About half an hour after the shooting, the offender went back into the house and Mr McLachlan came out of his room. Mr McLachlan said, “What happened?” The offender responded, “I’ve done it.” Mr McLachlan said, “What have you done?”. The offender responded, “I finally shot the cunt.”

91. Thereafter the offender walked back to the shed and was gone for about an hour. He came back inside and asked Mr McLachlan to give him a hand.

92. Mr McLachlan went outside and saw Mr Simpson. He was lying face down, slumped near the back right hand corner of the shed.

93. The offender and Mr McLachlan then lifted the body into a wheelbarrow. The offender pushed the wheelbarrow, and Mr McLachlan stabilised it from the other side. They pushed the wheelbarrow for a less than a minute to the back of the property and placed the wheelbarrow containing Mr Simpson’s body into the bush to conceal it. Mr McLachlan and the offender then cleaned up the blood in the shed. This took several hours.

94. After Mr Simpson did not attend work the next two days, his employer sought to locate him through sending several Facebook messages and ultimately by someone attending at the property. At the time, Mr Simpson had been employed as a handyman at a wedding venue operated in part by Simon Cranch.

95. When Mr Cranch could not locate Mr Simpson, he went to the property on 15 April 2023. As soon as he arrived, the offender came out of the house and told Mr Cranch that Mr Simpson had been picked up Thursday night down the road by someone and they drove off towards Cessnock.

96. When Mr Simpson had not appeared some days later, Mr Cranch called the Cessnock police to report that he was missing. The police conducted checks and ascertained that a person with the same name was in custody, but this of course was a different person. No missing person report was then created.

97. Over the next week various other persons attempted to ascertain the whereabouts of Mr Simpson. The offender told them that someone had picked him up. In other words, the offender lied to people looking for Mr Simpson so as to conceal his own involvement in his disappearance.

98. On 24 April 2023, the offender called a person he knew, David Thomas, and asked him to hire a Ute from Bunnings. Mr Thomas did so.

99. The offender, Mr Thomas and Mr McLachlan then retrieved Mr Simpson’s body but at this stage he was no longer in a wheelbarrow and had been wrapped in a plastic awning.

100. They lifted Mr Simpson’s body into the back of the Ute. The offender then drove the Ute to Mr Baker’s property and then back to his home. The Ute was ultimately returned to Bunnings.

101. On 7 May 2023, Mr Cranch provided further information to the police about Mr Simpson. The police then again spoke to Mr McLachlan who told the police that Mr Simpson “literally did a runner”.

102. On 9 May 2023, a search warrant was issued. Items retrieved included a bank debit card in Mr Simpson’s name in the offender’s bedroom, boxes of spent .233 cartridges and a full box of .233 Remington cartridges, various items of clothing burning in a fire pit, and a NSW vehicle registration plate belonging to the Mr Simpson’ Toyota Hilux burnt in the fire pit.

103. The offender’s fingerprint was ultimately found on the exterior of a fired .233 cartridge case seized from the offender’s bedroom. Subsequent analysis also identified the offender’s DNA profile on boxes of ammunition.

104. On 11 May 2023, the offender was arrested in relation to outstanding warrants for traffic matters at the address of Mr Thomas.

105. A further search warrant was executed. A shopping bag containing an air rifle was discovered. The offender’s DNA profile was located on the trigger of the firearm.

106. At 5.41pm on 11 May 2023, the offender participated in an interview. He lied about a number of matters, including when he last saw Mr Simpson, suggesting Mr Simpson had left and walked out of the shed and he had not seen him again. He said someone had driven up the driveway and picked him up.

107. On 16 May 2023, the police executed a search warrant and commenced a search of Mr Baker’s property. They located an unusual area of disturbed ground next to the pathway with excavator track marks. Subsequent examination revealed a neatly dug grave containing Mr Simpson’s remains wrapped in two plastic tarps and a doona, held together with white rope. Subsequent forensic analysis identified the offender’s DNA profile on the rope and the excavator key.

108. The offender fled to Melbourne. He was subsequently arrested and extradited back to New South Wales.

109. In July 2023, SES volunteers located a large plastic gun case containing the .233 Remington calibre Savage rifle with three live rounds. This was the firearm used by the offender to inflict Mr Simpson’s fatal injuries. A .177 calibre air rifle and a Chinese manufacture single shot gel blaster pistol were also located (these are the subject of sequences two and four on the Form 1).

Objective seriousness

110. Other than as to precisely what occurred in the minutes before the shooting of Mr Simpson, all the matters to which I have referred to are the subject of agreement between the parties.

111. Having regard to my factual findings, the offender urges upon me findings that he acted impetuously out of anger and that the shooting of Mr Simpson was not planned or premeditated.

112. The Crown generally adopts that position accepting (based on my indication during the sentencing hearing that I had a reasonable doubt as to the facts which were disputed by the offender) that it is not established that the shooting of Mr Simpson was part of some plan or premeditated act.

113. As I have said, I am unable to make a finding as to precisely what had occurred in the shed but the offender accepts that the second shot which he fired was done so deliberately and with the intention of killing Mr Simpson.

114. I accept that that was a spontaneous act. He was angry at Mr Simpson because he (wrongly) held the view that Mr Simpson had been the person who had reported him to the RSPCA and it was Mr Simpson’s conduct which had led to his dogs being removed from the property.

115. He may not have initially intended to kill Mr Simpson in the sense that he might not have formed that view when he was inside the house and whether there was some sort of an altercation between Mr Simpson and him immediately before firing the second shot is not known, but the offender was plainly angry at Mr Simpson and motivated by what he wrongly perceived was an injustice towards him.

116. None of that in any way justifies his conduct. It merely offers some explanation for what occurred. Again, I emphasise that nothing Mr Simpson did should have caused or led the offender to react in the way that he did.

117. Although the shooting was spontaneous and not planned, there are a number of aggravating features being:

118. Mr Simpson was shot and killed in his own home;

119. The offender was on parole at the time;

120. The offender used a weapon, being the rifle; and

121. The offender’s post-shooting conduct. He sought to conceal Mr Simpson’s body initially moving it to bush on the same property and then burying it on another property. He provided false information to anyone seeking information about Mr Simpson’s whereabouts.

122. Plainly, the offending is serious offending. The offender shot and killed Mr Simpson whilst he was defenceless. He did so with the intention of killing Mr Simpson in circumstances where there are a number of aggravating features.

123. The offender submits that the offending falls a little below the mid-range of offending for this type of conduct.

124. The Crown submits that, if it had been established that the shooting of Mr Simpson was planned and premeditated it would fall within a much higher range. I accept that, but that is not my finding. The Crown also suggests that the offending falls below the mid-range of offending for this type of offence. As such, I accept that joint position.

125. In respect of the firearms offence, I also accept that the offending is slightly below the mid-range.

Subjective circumstances

122. The offender did not give evidence on the sentence hearing. No statement or letter was received from him.

123. The offender relies on a psychological assessment report of Dr Emma Collins dated 17 March 2025.

124. Dr Collins was not required for cross-examination and there is no suggestion by the Crown that I should reject her opinions. Having said that, the weight which I give to the report is a matter for me having regard to the discretionary nature of the sentencing exercise.

125. As said in Dr Collins’ report, the purpose of her assessment was to provide a report to the Court for the purposes of the sentencing proceedings.

126. Dr Collins records that the offender was born and raised in Cessnock and is the oldest of four children. He had a difficult upbringing, which deteriorated when he was 10 years old. His father was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at that time and went from being a healthy and active person to being in a wheelchair within three months.

127. His father became verbally and physically abusive on a daily basis. He recalled being hit by his father and being called denigrating names. He and his siblings grew to hate his father.

128. Further, he did not receive much support from his mother within the home as she was required to deal with his father. His mother became a full-time carer and his father also obtained outside care.

129. The offender says that he became a different person as a result of the problems which emerged in the home. He became estranged from his mother and two brothers due to the situation with his father’s care. This ultimately led to changes in his attitude, mood and behaviour and to the early onset of substance abuse.

130. Fortunately, he did not report any academic problems at school and used reading as an escape from the home situation. He left school at the beginning of Year 11.

131. He had worked at least on a part-time basis during his teenage years. He commenced full-time work at the age of 17 and had undertaken various jobs since that time. The longest period of employment was a period of six years from the age of 21 when he worked as vineyard manager at Rothvale. Thereafter, he seems to have fallen on difficult times in terms of his employment and financial situation.

132. At some stage he moved back home and took over the full-time care of his father until his father died. He suffered significant loss as a result of the death of his father.

133. In 2022, he returned to casual employment in the nature of property maintenance and landscaping work and was undertaking that work until July 2023.

134. The offender did not report any relevant medical history. He is not taking any medications and considered himself to be in reasonable physical health at the time of the assessment.

135. He did however suffer from substance abuse problems. He commenced using illicit substances at the age of 13. He replaced the use of cannabis with the use of crystal methamphetamine at the age of 15. By the age of 21 he had moved to intravenous use, which then continued until he was taken into custody.

136. He did have a drinking problem as a teenager but denied any subsequent drinking problem. He endorsed occasional use of ecstasy, MDMA and hallucinogens whenever available.

137. The offender has only been in one significant relationship and that was from when he 17 until his early twenties. His ex-partner remains a positive support to him. He remains single and has only engaged in occasional casual relationships from time to time.

138. According to Dr Collins, the offender reported a long-term pattern of low mood suggesting that he has experienced persistent sadness for most of his life. He expressed low self-worth, and feelings of hopelessness and guilt since early adolescence. He says he has never liked himself.

139. Dr Collins accepted that the offender’s account of depressive features is consistent with a persistent depressive disorder. The offender reported that his mood has begun to improve since becoming drug free in custody.

140. He was engaging in work within the custodial setting and completing a certificate in engineering, which he is due to finalise this year. He hopes to engage in further tertiary studies such as a degree in agricultural science. According to Dr Collins, a combination of drug abstinence as well as employment and educational goals has reduced his depressive symptomatology.

141. Dr Collins undertook a risk assessment. She concluded that his prognosis is guarded and he likely poses a moderate risk of reoffending, including with potential violence. That risk will reduce should he remain drug free upon his eventual return to the community. The educational opportunities that he can access in custody will likely act protectively in terms of reducing further risk.

142. It would be beneficial for him to explore programmes to help him with drug abstinence.

143. I accept that the onset of illness and deterioration in the offender’s father changed the dynamic in the family home. The offender was subject to emotional and some physical abuse in his teenage years. The later years of his childhood became extremely difficult, and he ultimately became estranged from other family members. Having said that, there must have been some form of reconciliation with his father as he returned to care for his father in the period before he died.

144. He continued to attend school at least until Year 11 and appears to have enjoyed school. Perhaps the most significant impact on the offender was that he turned to illicit drugs in his early teenage years. This became a lifelong problem at least until he entered custody after being arrested in July 2023.

Moral culpability and deterrence

145. I accept that the symptoms described to Dr Collins would tend to suggest that the offender has suffered from a long-term depressive disorder as opined by Dr Collins. However, there is no evidence that this condition caused or contributed to his offending.

146. Yet, his experiences of deprivation and disadvantage, and consequent substance abuse as well as the suffering from a mental health condition are matters which can be taken account of in terms of the offender’s subjective case. There are matters that may impact on the sentence, including moral culpability (R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 at [69], per Simpson J, Bathurst CJ and Adamson J; Bugmy v T**he Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 at [43]-[44], per French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ; and R v Stanley [2025] NSWSC 735 at [144], per Yehia J).

147. The extent to which they do remains a matter for the sentencing judge. As I said most recently in R v Tonga [2025] NSWCCA 100 and R v Liavaa*;* Liavaa v R [2025] NSWCCA 101 at [128], the existence of Bugmy factors does not mandate a particular level of leniency. Whilst full weight must be given to the Bugmy factors, it is always up to the sentencing judge to determine how and the extent to which the Bugmy factors should impact upon an exercise of their sentencing discretion.

148. In this matter, I agree with the Crown position that there should be a reduction in moral culpability. Reduced moral culpability is an important factor to be considered in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.

149. Further, I accept that in the offender’s particular circumstances and having regard to his reduced moral culpability, the role of both general and specific deterrence is reduced. In many cases a reduction in moral culpability will mean that the offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence resulting in a sentence which would otherwise have been imposed being reduced.

150. I accept that the offender’s reduced moral culpability has that impact on the importance of general deterrence.

151. Similarly, I accept that the importance of specific deterrence is reduced having regard to the offender’s reduced moral culpability and in particular the circumstances of the offending. The offending was spontaneous in nature.

Criminal history

152. The offender has a criminal history commencing in 2018. He committed a number of serious driving type offences and has been convicted on one occasion for possessing ammunition without authority. Other than that, the only offences of relevance are stalk/intimidate and common assault type offences which occurred on 7 February 2021 for which he was convicted and sentenced to an 18-month community correction order.

153. I do not consider the offender’s criminal history as being of any real significance in the determination of the appropriate sentence.

Remorse

154. The offender submits that there is some evidence of remorse having regard to paragraph 22 of the report of Dr Collins as follows:

“22 Mr Wright acknowledged that he was angry with the victim, noting that he wanted to confront him and physically hurt him for the loss of his dogs, stating that his dogs were ‘my family’. He expressed regret for his actions and said that he wished he could undo what occurred. Mr Wright showed appropriate empathy and acknowledged that the victim had family and children, noting that his death must have deeply impacted his loved ones.”

155. The offender submits that his acknowledgement of regret for his actions and showing empathy to the family of Mr Simpson is indicative of remorse. He does not suggest full remorse, but the offender submits that I should have regard to the content of Dr Collins’ report in making a finding of remorse.

156. Further, it is submitted that I should have regard to some statements made in his ERISP interview. Presumably, the offender refers to the statements made to the effect that he did not mean for it to happen, and he did not walk to the shed to shoot him and further that they were mates, but they had not been getting along for a month or so beforehand.

157. In my view, the evidence of remorse is limited. There is a difference between expressing regret for one’s own conduct and expressing an understanding for the impact on the victim’s family and expressing remorse.

158. The offender did not give evidence and caution must be exercised before too much weight is placed on a line or two in a psychologist report obtained for the sentence proceedings (see Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 at [57(2)]).

159. Having said that, the Crown accepts that the offender has expressed some remorse, albeit the Crown also submits that he has not demonstrated full insight of his offending.

160. I accept that submission and in the circumstances I accept what appears to be a common position, which is that there is some evidence of remorse although not full remorse. In my view, it should be given little weight in the exercise of the discretion.

Rehabilitation

161. Although Dr Collins suggests that there is a moderate risk of the offender reoffending, and the prognosis is guarded, the offender has made good steps towards his ultimate rehabilitation.

162. For the first time in many years, he is not taking drugs and is pursuing all available educational opportunities within the custodial setting. He has indicated an intention to further his education, and he has expressed the determination to keep away from the drugs that had been part of his life for so many years.

163. This all bodes well for his future rehabilitation. I accept that his prospects of rehabilitation are good.

Assistance to Authorities

164. The offender submits that he assisted the police in locating the firearms and that he entered an early plea of guilty as well. I do not accept that the entry of an early plea of guilty entitles him to some additional discount, that is over and above the 25 percent he must receive.

165. After being charged, the offender has accepted responsibility for the killing at an early stage but that means that he is entitled to the mandatory 25 percent discount. It does not entitle him to some further discount.

166. I have regard to his conduct in assisting the police in locating the firearms but this is a very minor factor in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. It is not necessary that I indicate any percentage discount on account of this factor.

Special circumstances

167. The offender submits that he will need a significant time in the community to adjust to his situation, particularly having regard to the absence of any real family support.

168. The offender has lived without pro-social support in the community for a long period and is likely to need additional time to reintegrate into the community, particularly having regard to his prior drug habit.

169. I accept that special circumstances exist. The statutory ratio between the parole and non-parole period will be varied to a certain extent.

Discount for early plea

170. I accept that the offender is entitled to a 25 percent discount having regard to his early guilty plea. This is mandatory (s 25D(1), Sentencing Procedure Act) in the sense that parliament has determined that offenders who accept responsibility and enter a guilty plea at an early stage must receive a 25 percent discount on their sentence.

Comparative cases

171. The offender relies on a number of comparative cases.

172. Care must be taken before too much reliance is placed on other sentences, particularly in circumstances in which no case is identical and the sentence judgments often demonstrate differences both on the subjective features and objective seriousness (R v AEM, KEM and MM [2002] NSWCCA 58 at [117], Hili v The Queen; Jones v T**he Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 at [53]-[54]).

173. The offender refers to R v Dastan [2024] NSWSC 55. That offender was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years and 6 months. The victim was shot to death four times with an intention to kill and the offender had a strong subjective case.

174. In R v Stefan**ato [2023] NSWSC 73, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 13 years and 7 months after the victim was shot with an intention to kill in circumstances in which the offender was angry and stressed. He also hid the body post-killing. This case has some similarities to the circumstances of this matter.

175. In R v Kle**in [2008] NSWSC 835, the offender shot a person he knew in the chest and the back of the head during a confrontation over a debt. There was no initial intention to kill. He was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years and 6 months. There was no mandatory discount as he was convicted after trial.

176. I have regard to these cases but the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the offender’s subjective circumstances are different to all of those cases.

Sentence

177. As I said at the outset, in imposing a sentence I have regard to the objects of sentencing. The objects of sentencing are set out in s 3A of the Sentencing Procedure Act.

178. I have regard to my findings on objective circumstances and all my findings in relation to the offender’s subjective circumstances.

179. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of both the offence of murder and the possession of a stolen firearm, and I take into account the four other matters on the Form 1.

180. In respect of the firearm offence, the offender was in possession of a stolen firearm between 12 April 2020 and 18 July 2023. He knew it had been stolen.

181. Having said that, I accept the Crown submission that the possession of the rifle is linked with the murder offence.

182. For the firearms offence I provide an indicative sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, after the discount for the early plea.

183. For the offence of murder, I provide an indicative sentence of 23 years if not for the discount. The offender is entitled to the statutory 25 percent discount.

184. In the circumstances, the indicative sentence I impose will be 17 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 12 years.

185. I consider that the sentence for the firearms offence should be served concurrently with the sentence for the murder offence.

186. The offender has been in custody since he was arrested on 18 July 2023. He served a sentence for an unrelated offence during the period of 20 July 2020 to 19 October 2023.

187. The Crown accepts that in applying the totality principle, it may be appropriate to commence the sentence at some point between 20 July 2023 and 17 October 2023 but the Crown submits that the sentence should not be wholly concurrent with the unrelated sentence. I accept that.

188. I propose to commence the aggregate sentence on 1 September 2023.

189. The offender is sentenced as follows:

190. The total sentence I impose is a term of imprisonment of 17 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 12 years.

191. The offender will be first eligible for parole on 31 August 2035. The total sentence will expire on 30 November 2040.

192. As the offender is convicted of a “serious offence”, it is the requirement that he be warned of the existence of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders*)* Act 2006 (NSW) and of its application to the offence (Crimes (High Risk Offenders*)* Act, s 25C). I ask the offender’s solicitor to undertake that task on the Court’s behalf.

**********

Amendments

25 July 2025

Hearing dates corrected