By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
Clinton Wrigley appeared before New South Wales Supreme Court Justice Mark Ierace in April 2025, in relation to questions about the admissibility of a 28 February 2023 police interview and related body-worn video (BWV) footage as evidence during Wrigley’s upcoming trial in relation to the 23 February 2023 murder of 59-year-old Joel Carter nearby the NSW northwestern township of Nyngan.
Wrigley was facing multiple criminal offences, including one count of murder, contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
In his late 30s, the accused is said to have killed Carter at the remote property of Rosehill and then burned the deceased’s Toyota HiLux, and circumstantial evidence places Wrigley in the area and making phone calls to a witness A from that vicinity.
These pretrial hearings involved the rule of evidence contained in section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which stipulates that evidence gathered improperly or unlawfully “is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained”.
Two BWV clips and two interviews were deemed problematic as Wrigley was a “protected suspect”, under part 9 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), when taken in for questioning, and despite it being known he is Aboriginal and that custody managers have additional protective responsibilities for protected Aboriginal suspects, these weren’t adhered to.
If an individual in custody is a protected suspect, then a custody manager must set out their rights under sections 122 through to 130 of the LEPRA, and this includes that Aboriginal people are put in phone contact with a legal representative from the Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS) NSW/ACT, as per regulation 37 of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2016 (NSW).
Circumstantial evidence
The Crown case is that on the night of 22/23 January 2023, 37-year-old farmhand Wrigley drove to the remote rural property of Rosehill and killed Joel Carter, 59, when Wrigley and witness A had been working at Rosehill and were residing in their vehicles at nearby property, Neeroc. Joel’s father, Carter Owen, owned the properties. Wrigley usually resided in Warren with his partner, Natalie Riley.
Wrigley and witness A had driven to the BP at Nyngan on the evening of 22 January to have dinner and a shower. They returned to Neeroc and at 11.30 pm, Wrigley said he was going out in his Toyota Tarago to search for a stolen quad bike. The accused then called witness A at about 2.30 am on 23 January, asking directions from a backroad so he could find his way to the town of Warren.
At around 5.30 am, Wrigley then called witness A again, asking for a lift from the backroad. Witness A noted the Tarago was back at Neeroc. At around this time, an eyewitness noticed a car on fire along the road between the towns of Nyngan and Warren, which was Carter’s HiLux. Witness A, who had initially searched for Wrigley in the wrong place, then located him on the Nyngan-Warren road.
On 28 February, two NSW Police Homicide Squad detectives, including sergeant Gardiner, approached Wrigley at home, with BWV activated, and said they were interviewing people working around Nyngan during the time of Carter’s murder.
Wrigley agreed to attend Warren police station, and in the police car, the BWV was switched back on, and Wrigley was warned about it recording but missing from the required caution was that what he said could be used as evidence against him in a court of law. Back at the station, the accused was further told he was “not under arrest” and that they’d be conducting an interview.
During the BWV, officers ascertained that Wrigley had driven from Nyngan to Warren on 22 January and that he worked for witness A. During the interview, Wrigley was cautioned by detectives, he denied the scenario that he’d killed Carter and burnt his car, and when police asked if he understood he was a suspect but not under arrest and he’d conducted the interview voluntarily, he said he did.
The accused’s lawyers argued in court in April this year that Wrigley had fallen into the category of a “protected suspect” by this stage, which raises the question as to whether there was enough evidence for the detectives to have considered that he may have committed the offence, and detective Gardiner has said he only consider Wrigley a “person of interest”, not a “suspect”.
Protected suspects
Justice Ierace noted in his 28 April 2025 findings that a “protected suspect”, as per section 110 of the LEPRA, refers to a person in company of a police officer for the purpose of an investigation, who “has been informed that he or she is entitled to leave at will” and the officer believes that there is sufficient evidence that the person has committed the offence and should be arrested.
His Honour found that as for the anomaly involved in the section 110 definition of a protected suspect regarding an officer taking someone into custody they believe is guilty but then not arresting them, he considered this means the officer is “inclined to the view that the person had committed the offence”, but they’re not totally convinced and that is why the person is “entitled to leave at will”.
Detective Gardiner had explained that he didn’t consider Wrigley a protected suspect as the evidence that suggested he might be the murderer could be explained away. In his understanding, a suspect is someone that police are ready to charge, and he further set out that a suspect involves higher surety that they have committed a crime, as they’re not free to leave like protected suspects.
Justice Ierace explained that there was evidence available to Gardiner that suggested that Wrigley may be guilty, which included that his partner lied about having been to the remote properties, along with the great number of calls Wrigley placed to her number on the morning of the murder, as well as text messages that seem to infer he was requesting a lift similar to as he did with witness A.
Considered a suspect
According to his Honour, the evidence shows that detective Gardiner and his partner considered Wrigley the primary suspect in the murder at the time they took him to the station for questioning, even though there continued to be other possibilities that could not be excluded, and more evidence would be needed for a conviction.
So, based on this, the question as to the admissibility of evidence contained in section 138 of the Evidence Act is triggered. The NSW Supreme Court justice further set out that even if detective Gardiner didn’t suspect Wrigley at the time, the evidence before him spoke otherwise, and that he had failed to follow protected suspect protocols was revealed as the ALS had not been consulted.
Regulation 37 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation stipulates that if a detained person or a protected suspect is an Aboriginal person then the Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT must be contacted, and if possible, the individual will then be placed on the phone to consult with them. This right was not afforded Wrigley on being taken to the station.
Evidence inadmissible
Justice Ierace set out that when the homicide detectives turned up at Wrigley’s home to take him to the station to interview him, they didn’t follow the rules relating to police interviews in New South Wales, specifically, to issue a formal caution which includes informing him that he was a suspected of a crime, had a right to silence and could seek legal advice. Despite not doing this, the detectives proceeded to interview Wrigley for over an hour.
Based on the failings of the attending homicide detectives, his Honour found the 28 February interview and the two BWV clips from that day were inadmissible as evidence.
Wrigley was arrested on 28 March 2023. He then spoke to an ALS solicitor, and he told them he was not willing to be interviewed. The ALS lawyer then told the detectives of her client’s wishes. But the detectives interviewed Wrigley anyway. So, Gardiner, who later admitted he knew the man had refused the interview, then had him answer in the affirmative that he would like to be interviewed.
In terms of the 28 March interview, his Honour found that the “impropriety” involved in obtaining it “was grave”, and considering the seriousness of the charge, and the fact that an ALS solicitor had advised NSW police of this, first over the phone and subsequently in writing via email, while, as the importance of the interview in proceedings was limited, he ruled it too was inadmissible.
So, on 28 April 2025, Justice Ierace ruled that the three pieces of evidence obtained in questionable circumstances in relation to a charge of murder of Joel Carter against Clinton Wrigley’s name, should not be admitted as evidence during trial.
