Zoo Murderer Jude Wijesinghe Has Sentence Reduced on Appeal

Jude Wijesinghe was convicted of the 2023 stabbing murder of Tshewang Choden and was originally sentenced to 30 years in jail with a non-parole period of 20 years.

Wijesinghe has had the sentence reduced by three and a half years and the non-parole period reduced by two years.

The appeal judges said Chief Justice McCallum made an error in reducing the non-parole period, not the head sentence, in relation to Wijesinghe's guilty plea.

A chef who murdered his co-worker at the National Zoo and Aquarium has had a small reduction to his jail sentence.

Jude Wijesinghe admitted fatally stabbing Tshewang Choden 14 times after trapping her in a storeroom at the zoo in Canberra in 2023.

ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Lucy McCallum sentenced him to 30 years in jail, describing the attack as premeditated "murderous violence".

It was one of the ACT's most significant sentences, with Chief Justice McCallum stopping short of imposing life in jail.

She found his mental illness provided "some explanation" for the murder and reduced his moral culpability, but did not warrant a reduction in the overall sentence given the "very serious objective features" of the offence.

But the 32-year-old appealed against his sentence, arguing the court failed to properly account for his mental impairment when determining his punishment.

The ACT Court of Appeal has now set aside the original sentence, instead imposing a jail term of 26 years and six months.

Wijesinghe's non-parole period was also reduced from 20 to 18 years, meaning he'll be eligible for release in 2041, instead of 2043.

Plea discount should also apply to head sentence: appeal judges

The appeal sat before Justice Darryl Rangiah, Justice Andrew Muller, and Justice Jon White.

In their written reasons for the decision, the justices said Chief Justice McCallum made an error in reducing the non-parole period, not the head sentence, in relation to Wijesinghe's plea of guilty.

"Her Honour did accept that the plea of guilty had utilitarian value and that that should be reflected in the penalty, albeit her Honour did not reflect it in the head sentence, and did not specify the penalty she would otherwise have imposed," they said.

"We are of the view that to apply a discount for a plea of guilty only to the non-parole period and not to the head sentence is contrary to principle and constitutes an error which calls for the present sentence to be set aside."

The judges also determined it was an error for Wijesinghe's mental condition to only justify a reduction in the non-parole sentence.

"A sentencing judge is specifically enjoined to take into account subjective factors relevant to an offender including the offender's mental condition,"

they said.

"There is no basis for ignoring them in relation to the head sentence but taking them into account in relation to the non-parole period."

But the Court of Appeal unanimously held that Chief Justice McCallum was correct to find that the offender's mental illness did not reduce the objective seriousness of the offence, rejecting that ground of appeal.