R v XE [2025] NSWSC 877 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

R v XE [2025] NSWSC 877 | Case summary | Zoe

In approximately 2010, the offender’s brother commenced a relationship with Christine. The couple lived together from that time at 26 Jilliby Street Wyee with the offender’s father and, from time to time, with the offender. In February 2017 the offender’s brother discovered that Christine had been having sexual relations with Jayke Rodgers. The offender’s brother was angry about Christine’s infidelity and he decided to seek revenge upon Jayke Rodgers.
On 1 July 2017 the offender’s brother told Christine that he wanted Rodgers to come over to their home. The offender’s brother used Christine’s Facebook account to message Rodgers. While posing as Christine, the offender’s brother told Rodgers that he would be in Nelson Bay for the weekend, and invited Rodgers to come to their house to meet Christine.
At approximately 1.30am on Sunday 2 July 2017, Rodgers attended 26 Jilliby Street intending to meet with Christine. He was immediately struck with a hard object by at least one person who appeared from the darkness. Rodgers was hit with the object several times before he managed to jump over the fence towards the street. He was then assaulted by at least 2 people, including the offender’s brother, before he crawled away and sought help from a neighbouring house.
Whilst paramedics were in attendance, the offender walked up to Rodgers, handed him his mobile phone, and said “Fuck. Stop thinking with your dick”. Rodgers was hospitalised and released early on 2 July 2017. He told a number of his friends about the assault, including Levi Dean, Shane Weir and Billy Thompson. Rodgers was re-admitted to hospital later that day and spent that Sunday night at hospital. Whilst in hospital, Rodgers sent a number of messages to the offender’s brother threatening revenge.
At about 11.35am on Monday 3 July 2017, Levi Dean and Shane Weir attended the offender’s house in Jilliby Street, Wyee in the Toyota Kluger. They confronted the offender’s brother and the offender, remonstrating with them about Rodgers having been assaulted by the offender’s brother in a cowardly manner. The offender approached the front door from within the house and yelled out to Levi Dean and Shane Weir, “It was one-on-one. He deserves what he gets”.
Before Levi Dean and Shane Weir left, one of them picked up a spirit level that was on the grass and threw it at the front glass sliding door. The level shattered the entire glass pane and caused superficial grazing and bleeding to the offender. This caused her distress.
The offender immediately rang her father and reported the confrontation to him. As a result, the offender’s father immediately returned home. CCTV footage from the nearby Wyee Bakery captured the offender’s father returning home in his woodchipper truck and then leaving in the Triton ute two minutes and 22 seconds later, with the offender’s brother in the passenger seat and the offender in the rear seat. One of them took a 12-gauge shotgun with ammunition.
At about the same time, Luke Hill, Jesse Thompson and Daniel Hill attended the home of Billy Thompson in Woodward Avenue, Wyong. About a half hour later, the three decided to leave. They walked out the front of Billy Thompson’s home when the offender and her family pulled up outside the house in the Triton ute. The offender asked Luke Hill, “Where's big fella and Rodgers?” When Hill indicated that he did not know, she replied, “Don't fucken lie to me Hilly, I know he just come here, cause they just left my house”. Luke Hill replied “I don't know. Well, he's not here”.
Either the offender’s brother or the offender’s father then raised his right arm and presented a single-barrel shotgun saying, “Look cunt, I'm not fucking around, where is he?”. Luke Hill replied, “I don't know, it's got nothing to do with us”. The Triton ute then drove down Woodward Avenue and the offender yelled out, “I'll kill your fucken missus Hilly”.
Rodgers was picked up from Wyong Hospital at midday by Shane Weir and Levi Dean in the Toyota Kluger. He learned of their recent visit to the offender’s home. After they drove away from the hospital, Billy Thompson rang Levi Dean and told him the of the recent visit from the offender’s family outside his home. Rodgers then rang the offender via Facebook Messenger. It was arranged that they all would meet at Baker Park in Wyong. The offender was heard telling Rodgers, “Fuck you. We'll meet up at Baker Park. You shouldn't have fucked Christine”.
The three men in the Toyota Kluger immediately made their way to Billy Thompson's house in Woodward Avenue, where they learned more about what had just transpired. Rodgers, Dean, Luke Hill, Weir, Jesse Thompson and Billy Thompson then armed themselves with weapons, including a wooden log/stick, a metal pole and knives/blades, and piled into the Toyota Kluger. They intended to meet with and confront the offender’s family at Baker Park.
Both the Triton ute and the Toyota Kluger attended Baker Park at different times from about 12.13pm. Both cars continued to drive around the area. The offender used Facebook Messenger to tell Rodgers to meet where there were no “workers”. The Toyota Kluger, driven by Shane Weir, then travelled towards Baker Park along Ithome Street where they saw the Triton ute stopped. The offender’s brother was hanging out the front passenger window and the offender was in a rear seat.
The Toyota Kluger came to a stop behind the Triton ute. Rodgers, Hill, Dean, Jesse Thompson and Billy Thompson got out of the Toyota Kluger. The offender’s brother then discharged the single-barrel shotgun from the open passenger window. Everyone except Dean and Billy Thompson managed to jump back into the Toyota Kluger. Weir reversed the Toyota Kluger away from the Triton ute which was also reversing. Dean and Billy Thompson ran and attempted to hide behind a bush. They then ran into Ithome Street as the Triton ute followed them. They managed to jump into the Toyota Kluger as it briefly stopped to pick them up on Ithome Street.
The Toyota Kluger then drove from that location with the Triton ute speeding after it. The Toyota Kluger travelled along a number of streets in Wyong with the Triton ute in close pursuit. CCTV from Wyong Railway Station showed part of the pursuit. Numerous civilian witnesses described both vehicles as driving aggressively, at times on the wrong side of the road and at high speed, with their wheels spinning and screeching as they navigated around corners.
As the Toyota Kluger reached the intersection of Byron Street and Panonia Road it attempted to make a right turn onto Panonia Road. The Triton ute then crossed to the incorrect side of the road and overtook the Toyota Kluger, cutting it off and blocking its path, forcing both cars to come to a standstill.
The offender’s brother pointed the single barrel shotgun out the front passenger window and directed it towards the driver's window of the Toyota Kluger. From the rear drivers' side seat of the Kluger, Dean threw a small metal pole at the Triton ute. The offender’s brother moved the gun so that it was pointing towards the rear of the Toyota Kluger and discharged it, causing a fatal gunshot wound to Jesse Thompson who was seated second from the left. The Triton ute then drove west along Panonia Road with the offender raising her left arm out the window at a 90-degree-angle and holding her middle finger up before it made its way back to the offender’s home in Jilliby Street Wyee at about 12.35pm.
At 12.23pm, NSW Ambulance officers attended Warner Avenue where the Toyota Kluger occupants had stopped to seek help for Jesse Thompson. Paramedics rendered medical assistance to Jesse Thompson. He was unable to be revived and was declared deceased at 12.53pm.

The Crown relied on the following material contained within the Crown bundle, which was marked as exhibit 1:-
The indictment;
Agreed Facts (as set out above);
The offender’s New South Wales criminal history;
A Queensland warrant report;
The offender’s custodial history;
Agreed Facts in relation to a charge of reckless wounding H63216537;
Sentencing Remarks of the Children’s Court in relation to H63216537;
Police Facts in relation to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and larceny (value less than $2000) H6933170; and
A Youth Justice Report dated 19 March 2021.
Four victim impact statements were tendered as exhibit 2 and read out in court. On the application of the Crown, and with the consent of the offender, I considered it appropriate to take them into account on the basis that the harmful impact of Jesse Thompson’s death on the members of his immediate family is an aspect of harm done to the community pursuant to the former s 28(4) of the Sentencing Act, which was in force at the relevant time (and which now appears as s 30E of that Act).
The offender relied on the following material contained within the defence bundle which was marked as exhibit 3:-
The Youth Justice report dated 19 March 2021 (also tendered by the Crown);
A report of Adrian Gillespie, psychologist, dated 11 March 2021;
A report of Brittany Phillips, provisional psychologist, dated 5 July 2019;
A report of Lauren Adams, psychologist, dated 27 July 2020;
A report of Dr John Kasinathan, psychiatrist, dated 27 April 2021;
A letter from the offender dated 18 February 2021;
Dorchester Education and Training Unit reports dated 27 April 2020 and 10 February 2021;
Slattery Unit Personalised Transition Plan, undated;
Letter from Laura Alford, transition advisor, Dorchester Education and Training Unit, dated 19 February 2021;
Letter from Courtney Stewart, youth officer at Reiby Youth Justice Centre, dated 12 March 2021;
Letter from Brittney Phillips, custodial psychologist at Reiby Youth Justice Centre, dated 19 February 2021;
Undated letter from Joshua Kallu, youth officer at Reiby Youth Justice Centre;
Undated letter from Dani Conway, mentor at Shine for Kids;
Letter from Brooke Barclay, youth officer at Reiby Youth Justice Centre, dated 2 March 2021;
Undated letter from Telesia Ahovelo, youth officer at Reiby Youth Justice Centre;
Undated letter from Ally Colquitt, program facilitator at Women’s Justice Network;
Letter from Lee Bromley, chaplain at Reiby Youth Justice Centre, dated 22 March 2021;
Undated letter from Shaylee Matthews, Assistant Project Officer, Aboriginal Strategic Coordination Unit, Youth Justice NSW;
Undated letter from the offender (which post-dates her letter of 18 February 2021);
Letter of Offer from the University of New England dated 3 February 2021;
Confirmation of enrolment from the University of New England dated 19 February 2021;
Email correspondence from Clarence Correctional Centre dated 26 March 2021 concerning the inability to study online at that facility;
Undated letter from Daniel Saliba, chaplain at Reiby Youth Justice Centre; and
Photographs of the offender engaging in activities at Reiby Youth Justice Centre, including photographs of her artwork.
The offender also read two affidavits. The first is an affidavit of the offender’s solicitor Karen Psaltis affirmed on 23 July 2025. The second is an affidavit affirmed by the offender on 30 July 2025 which outlines her progress from May 2021 after her entry into adult custody from a Youth Justice Centre. Neither Ms Psaltis nor XE were cross-examined.
I will now summarise some of the documents which are before me.

Both parties relied on a Youth Justice Report dated 19 March 2021 authored by Karen Lee, a caseworker with Youth Justice NSW. I observe that this report is now over four years old and was prepared for the previous sentencing proceedings.
Ms Lee reported that the offender initially had trouble adjusting when she first entered custody in 2017. She was reportedly argumentative and manipulative, had a lack of respect for authority and rigid anti-social and pro-criminal thinking patterns, and demonstrated limited insight into and responsibility for her behaviour.
Ms Lee reported a significant improvement in the offender’s behaviour by the date of the report. The offender had reportedly progressed to the highest stage of the Juvenile Justice Incentive Scheme and had demonstrated the ability to adhere to the rules and expectations of the juvenile justice centre and consider the consequences of her actions before responding. Ms Lee reviewed the offender’s recent misbehaviour reports and noted that they all tended to relate to things like swearing, lying or the unauthorised use of equipment, as opposed to violence or subversive behaviour.
Ms Lee also reported that the offender had been reclassified for custodial classification purposes in 2019, which had allowed her to access a wider range of programs in custody. Due to XE’s positive behaviour, Ms Lee reported that she was able to participate in more pro-social activities, which had in turn fostered her protective factors and minimised her risk factors for re-offending.
Ms Lee described the offender’s family and living circumstances as follows. At the date of the report, the offender was 21 years old. She is of Aboriginal descent and the only child of her father and her mother. Prior to entering custody, she had lived with her father and paternal half-brother on the Central Coast, with her father having full custody due to her mother’s issues with substance abuse and periods of incarceration. The offender reported that her father was not supportive of her having contact with her mother for these reasons, and that her mother’s absence from her life affected the bond and attachment to her.
The offender expressed admiration of and gratitude to her father. She reported that he had provided for her during her formative years and had prioritised her primary needs. She reported that, although he was not emotionally expressive, he had always been there for her. She described him as a strict disciplinarian and accepted that some of his values were not pro-social. She reported that he placed importance on family loyalty, revenge and retribution, and that he had taught her to use violence to solve interpersonal conflicts.
The offender reported having difficulty when her father remarried. When she was 15 years old, her father sent her to live with aunts in Maitland and then in Queensland, in an effort to address her increasing risk-taking behaviour and disengagement at school. The offender expressed gratitude to her family for their support but reported that she had not had the mindset necessary for positive change. The offender reported that at the time of the offending, she had recently returned from Queensland and that her father had been disappointed in her for not taking advantage of the opportunity to live with her aunts. The offender reported that he had ceased placing parental boundaries around her and that her risk-taking behaviours and substance abuse had correspondingly escalated.
The offender’s father and brother were incarcerated at the time of the report. Ms Lee reported that the offender was in written communication with them and had received approval for inter-gaol phone contact with her father, although these calls occurred infrequently.
Ms Lee reported that the offender had regular contact and strong support from her aunt and uncle, who had agreed that the offender could live with them upon her release. Her aunt and uncle lived in Queensland but had advised Youth Justice that they would relocate to NSW to facilitate the offender’s release from custody.
Ms Lee described the offender’s employment and education as follows. The offender had attended several different schools but was ultimately expelled in 2016 for fighting and drug use. She attended TAFE whilst living in Queensland, but she did not resume her studies when she returned to NSW, instead working casually at Coles and assisting her father with his business. Prior to entering custody, she had obtained her White Card and had been due to start working as a traffic controller.
Since entering custody, XE had completed year 11, three year 12 ATAR subjects and a pre-tertiary psychology bridging course. At the date of the report, she had recently commenced studying a Bachelor of Psychological Science through the University of New England, by distance as a mature age student.
Ms Lee reported that the offender did not have difficulty initiating friendships and that she had a wide and varied peer group. At the time of her offending, XE reported a friendship group that was generally older and involved in substance misuse and anti-social behaviours. Ms Lee reported that, since entering custody, the offender had distanced herself from anti-social, pro-criminal associates and had become a role model to younger detainees within the juvenile justice centre. The offender reportedly realised the importance of maintaining pro-social friendships to avoid further offending.
Ms Lee described the offender’s history of substance abuse. The offender had reportedly used cannabis and ecstasy periodically prior to a knee injury in 2016, which had terminated her sporting ambitions. Following her injury, the offender’s substance abuse escalated, culminating in the daily use of methamphetamine by December of that year. The offender reported daily poly-substance abuse at the date of the current offending. Ms Lee reported that since entering custody, the offender had participated in drug and alcohol educational programs and had displayed a motivation to abstain from all drug use upon release, having recognised that her substance abuse was a risk factor with respect to further offending.
Ms Lee described the offender as a strong and intelligent young woman with a complex childhood history. An atmosphere of violence had prevented her from developing non-violent problem-solving skills. Ms Lee observed that the offender was engaged with both regular and criminogenic-focussed counselling services in custody, and noted the report of Ms Phillips (to which see below) which records the offender as displaying significant changes in her empathy and in her critical and moral reasoning skills. Ms Lee described the offender’s willingness to engage in offence focussed interventions to be a protective factor against further offending.
The offender had reportedly embraced her Aboriginal culture in custody. She was said to have taken a lead role in cultural programs and events and engaged positively with mentors and elders. She also regularly participated in the chaplaincy’s bible study program, various mentoring programs, and other self-development and education programs.
Ms Lee reported that the offender had demonstrated a commitment to addressing the factors which had contributed to her offending behaviour. Ms Lee noted that Corrective Services staff had reported a significant change in her attitudes and belief system. Ms Lee acknowledged the serious nature of the offence and the fact that it occurred while on bail for other serious offences, but she also emphasised the age of the offender at the time of the offending and her demonstrated history of good behaviour whilst in a custodial environment.
Ms Lee reported that the offender had displayed insight into her various risk factors, including her anti-social peer group, substance abuse issues, disconnection from culture and her experience of past trauma. The offender also recognised the role played by her father’s emphasis on family loyalty, revenge and retribution, and the use of violence to solve interpersonal problems. The offender reportedly advised Ms Lee that while family loyalty remained important to her, she now placed it in the context of clear boundaries and her development of alternative conflict resolution and coping strategies. The offender reportedly maintained some negative attitudes towards the police, although Ms Lee noted the offender’s participation in police outreach programs while custody.
Due to the serious and violent nature of the offending, a psychological assessment of XE’s (then) current risk of violence was obtained from Adrian Gillespie. His conclusions are set out in further detail below.
Ms Lee summarised her assessment as follows:-

Before me are two letters from the offender which were included in the defence material at the offender’s first sentencing in 2021.
The first letter is dated 18 February 2021. At the time of writing this letter, XE was 21 years old and incarcerated at the Reiby Youth Justice Centre. By this date, she had been incarcerated for almost four years.
The offender says that she is deeply sorry for the death of the deceased. She describes his death as a tragic event and expresses her condolences to the deceased’s loved ones.
XE describes her family and her upbringing. She says that drug use, violence and anti-authority behaviour were normalised in her household. She discloses her use of methamphetamine. She describes how her life revolved around drugs and the consequences that followed.
The offender acknowledged her negative attitude when she first entered custody. She says that over time, her attitudes changed. She recounts her experience being sentenced by the Woy Woy Children’s Court, when a Magistrate told her that she had potential and that her life would be the average of the lives of the five closest people around her. She says that this statement stuck with her.
The offender says that there was not a precise moment when her attitude and perspective changed, but rather that it happened gradually over time. She says that she is growing each day, and over time she has come to develop her own set of values, beliefs and morals. She expresses gratitude to the juvenile correctional centre staff who have pushed, motivated and inspired her to be a better person. She describes how her experience with the chaplaincy service challenged her pre-conceived notions of faith and religion and how this deepened her connection with her own spirituality.
The offender recounts working with her psychologist. She says that she has learned to set goals and achieve them. She details her participation in indigenous cultural and mentoring programs. She describes how she completed her high school studies whilst in custody, and how she was recently accepted into the Bachelor of Psychological Science program, minoring in criminology, at the University of New England. She says that she would like to experience university life on campus.
XE sets out her aspirations for the future. She acknowledges that her offending may affect her employment opportunities but says that she will not let it define her and that she will do everything she can to get to where she wants to be.
XE says that she has discussed her goals with her caseworker and her transition advisor, and her options for achieving them whilst in custody. She hopes to be able to continue her university studies whilst at an adult correctional facility, and to participate in work and study pre-release programs.
The offender says that, bearing in mind all that she has achieved, being incarcerated has been a blessing in disguise.
The second letter is undated, but it is apparent from its content that it was drafted after the first letter, and approximately a month after the offender’s transition into adult custody (in May 2021).
The offender begins by expressing her gratitude for her time in the Youth Justice system and for the opportunity to stay out of adult custody for as long as possible. She says that since arriving in adult custody, she has seen “the same amount … if not more” drugs and drug paraphernalia than she saw outside of custody. The offender says she knew that adult custody would be different to juvenile custody, but that she “did not think it would be like this”.
The offender says that Dillwynia Correctional Centre, where she was housed at the time of this second letter, does not offer much in the way of employment, education or progress programs. She describes the waitlist for programs and the time she must spend in her cell. She observes that this time could be put to better use if she could access educational materials, which she is not permitted to have.
The offender describes how she was able to gain entry to her university course whilst in juvenile custody, which she refers to as the biggest achievement in her life. She says that she will be unable to continue her studies after transferring to Dillwynia Correctional Centre (despite the fact that her course was entirely online). She expresses her sadness and disappointment that she cannot continue to put her time to good use by continuing her studies.
The offender recounts how, whilst in juvenile custody, she made a decision to deliberately remove herself from an anti-social and negative peer group. This included ending a relationship with her long-term partner and some of her closest friends. The offender observes that the many of people with whom she is now housed in adult custody are negative influences. She describes her efforts trying to keep to herself while not coming off as rude to other inmates, something she says can cause unnecessary conflict. She says that, unlike youth custody, she has difficulty finding like-minded, pro-social inmates. She says that some of her fellow inmates are not the peer group with whom she would choose to associate but that in the custodial environment she has no choice.
XE says that her future is uncertain. She observes that she has worked very hard to improve her circumstances and that she does not want to go backwards.

An affidavit of the offender affirmed on 30 July 2025 was read.
Like Ms Psaltis, the offender provided an account of her recent custodial classification history. She explains how, prior to her appeal, she had been due to be reclassified for custodial purposes, such that she might have become eligible for imminent placement at a transition centre. She says that after her successful conviction appeal, she reverted to being a remand inmate and cannot be reviewed by SORC until she is re-sentenced.
XE says that during her time in juvenile custody, she completed high school and secured a place at university. She observes that she completed a term of university before being moved to adult prison, at which point she was unable to continue her studies and thus never progressed further. The offender says that she is looking forward to resuming her university studies once she is released, although she sensibly proposes to study part time so that she can also secure some employment.
The offender says that when she first arrived in adult prison, she found herself around inmates who were badly behaved and had access to drugs. She explains that she relapsed shortly after entering adult custody. XE says that she has experienced periodic relapses in the years since, particularly during periods of high stress such as court appearances. The offender states that she now concentrates on working and vocational training and otherwise keeps to herself as much as possible.
The offender describes her involvement with Aboriginal art projects whilst in custody. She notes her participation in courses such as an Intensive Drug and Treatment Program. She explains that she completed all but the last couple of weeks of what is a six-month course but was unable to finish due to becoming a remand inmate again. She says she has been unable to do any courses or programs because they are not available to remand inmates.
The offender says that, prior to her conviction appeal, she had been working as a leading hand in the ground maintenance unit. She lost this role when she reverted to being a remand inmate. However, the offender says that she was recently able to resume her ground maintenance role, even though remand inmates are not usually allowed to work, as she was a good worker and doing well. The offender expressed her appreciation for this “show of faith”.
The offender says that she takes daily medication for symptoms of her bipolar disorder. She is trusted to be allocated her whole month's allowance at once and does not have to be supervised when taking her medication.
XE says that although she tries not to think too far ahead, she feels that she has made a lot of progress. She has received a lot of support in custody and notes that, with the assistance of Legal Aid NSW, she has obtained an offer of priority housing upon release.
Annexed to the offender’s affidavit are two documents. The first is a document recording the minutes from the offender’s most recent SORC assessment interview, which occurred on 27 February 2025. I set out that document in full:-

I note the agreed facts set out above. XE’s participation in the joint criminal enterprise included:-
Advising and assisting to locate the men from the Toyota Kluger soon after she let her home in Wyee with her co-offenders;
Implicitly threatening Daniel Hill and Luke Hill outside Billy Thompson’s house in Woodward Avenue as part of the endeavour to locate the men from the Toyota Kluger; and
Willingly being the communication point between the two groups before they met up at Baker Park.
XE accepts that she was part of an agreement that her brother would discharge the shotgun with an intention to kill, rather than with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm.
The Crown submitted that the shooting at the Toyota Kluger was not spontaneous. Whist the initial decision to leave Wyee with a loaded shotgun within the Triton ute was made quickly by the offenders, the act of fatally shooting Jesse Thompson happened in circumstances where:-
The offenders took a shotgun with them on their drive to locate Shane Weir, Levi Dean and/or Jayke Rodgers;
There was a drive of some duration from Wyee to Wyong;
There was a confrontation outside Billy Thompson’s house in Woodward Avenue that involved the presentation of the shotgun and a threat;
There was a suggestion that the parties meet at Baker Park and later, the suggestion that the meeting take place in an area secluded from “workers”;
There was the presentation and the discharge of the shotgun at Baker Park; and
There was the extended erratic pursuit of the Toyota Kluger through the streets of Wyong.
The Crown accepts that XE’s culpability must necessarily be less than her co-offenders by reason of their more “hands-on” role. However, it was submitted that she was an active and enthusiastic participant between at least the time of receiving the first communication from Jayke Rodgers at 12.06 pm on the day of the shooting and the time that she raised her left arm out the window holding up her middle finger at about 12.25 pm just after shooting.