A man who killed his colleague at a Canberra zoo has appealed the severity of his 30-year jail term, arguing the sentencing judge failed to properly account for his mental impairment.
Jude Luckshan Wijesinghe, 32, fatally stabbed Tshewang Choden 14 times in a Jamala Wildlife Lodge kitchen storeroom, inside Canberra's National Zoo and Aquarium.
In December 2025, Wijeshinghe was handed a 30-year sentence and a 20-year non-parole period for the 2023 stabbing attack after he pleaded guilty to a single charge of murder.
Such violence against women, Chief Justice Lucy McCallum found, "is a scourge" and "warrants the sternest punishment".
Wijesinghe took his case to the ACT Court of Appeal on Wednesday, July 28, before justices Jon White, Andrew Muller, and Darryl Rangiah.
His barrister, Kylie Weston-Scheuber, argued the 30-year sentence was "manifestly excessive" and said Chief Justice McCallum made multiple errors by failing to properly account for Wijesinghe's mental impairment.
At sentencing, the Chief Justice accepted psychiatric evidence that the 32-year-old suffered from a major depressive disorder with psychotic features during the attack.
Dr Weston-Scheuber argued the judge erred by finding the man had diminished moral culpability without applying a corresponding sentence reduction.
She also submitted that the judge erred in finding the impairment did not reduce the objective seriousness of the crime, contending his actions could not be viewed outside the context of his mental illness.
Describing the judge's sentencing approach as "overly technical" and "reflective of error," Ms Weston-Scheuber further argued Wijesinghe was entitled to a sentence discount for his guilty plea.
She also challenged two of the Chief Justice's factual findings, arguing there was no evidence to support conclusions that Wijesinghe killed his co-worker "because he could not have her for himself," or that he was "resistant to seeking help" for his mental health.
Seeking to have the original sentence maintained, Elizabeth Ruddle SC argued there were "structural issues" in the defence's arguments, saying the nature of a crime and an offender's personal circumstances must not be conflated.
Ms Ruddle defended the 30-year term as falling within an appropriate range, arguing that while comparative cases cited by the defence suggested a 19-to-24-year window, this matter had to be assessed on its own unique and tragic circumstances.
"Let's not forget how horrific this murder was," she told the court.
"She was trapped in that room knowing she was going to die."
She submitted that objective seriousness evaluates the gravity and scale of the crime itself, which should remain unchanged regardless of an offender's moral culpability.
"That's what the court needs to looks at, the actual features of the offence ... it cannot be conflated," Ms Ruddle said.
The lawyer rejected claims that the judge took an overly strict approach, arguing Chief Justice McCallum had "clearly taken into account" all relevant circumstances by reducing his non-parole period specifically to reflect his diminished moral culpability.
She also argued that while applying a guilty plea discount purely within the non-parole period was an "unorthodox approach," it remained a valid exercise of judicial discretion rather than an error.
Addressing the challenged factual findings, Ms Ruddle said both conclusions were open to the judge to make inferences on based on the evidence presented to the court.
The three judges will hand down their decision at a later date.
