R v Ari Hayden Bullock - [2005] NSWSC 1071

CITATION:
R v Ari Hayden Bullock [2005] NSWSC 1071

HEARING DATE(S): 03/08/2005, 04/08/2005, 08/08/2005, 09/08/2005 10/08/2005, 14/10/2005, 21/10/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

21 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Buddin J

DECISION:
The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 years to commence on 11 July 2004. An overall sentence of 8 years which will commence on 11 July 2004 and expire on 10 July 2012 is fixed. The offender will thus be eligible for parole on 10 July 2009.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentence - manslaughter - provocation

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141
R v Cardoso (2003) 137 A Crim R 535
R v Blacklidge (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
R v McDonald (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v See [2001] NSWSC 776
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Troja (CCA, 16 July 1991 unreported)
Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES:
Regina
Ari Hayden Bullock

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2005/469

COUNSEL:
D Howard SC (Crown)
Ms L Flannery (Offender)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
S O'Connor (Offender)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

FRIDAY 21 OCTOBER 2005

2005/469 – R v ARI HAYDEN BULLOCK
Remarks on Sentence

1 BUDDIN J: The offender was arraigned upon a charge of having murdered Tapua Taria at Lakemba on 11 July 2004. He pleaded not guilty to that charge but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment and a jury was duly empanelled. The offender was convicted by the jury of manslaughter, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years.

2 The trial was short and there was little, if anything, of a factual nature that was in dispute. The sole issue upon which the trial was contested was the question of provocation. It is apparent from its verdict that the jury was not satisfied that the Crown had proved to the requisite standard that the offender was not acting under provocation at the time at which he killed the deceased.

3 An agreed statement of facts was tendered at the sentence hearing and I have drawn heavily upon that statement in setting out the factual background of the offence.

4 On the evening of Saturday 10 July 2004 the deceased was drinking at the Lakemba Hotel in Haldon Street, Lakemba.

5 At about 1 am on the morning of 11 July 2004, Tamu Poigatule, Stacey Leishman, David Samuela and Shannon Stanley arrived at the hotel. They went into the back bar where there were tables including a pool table. There were about ten people in the back room when they arrived. Among them was the offender who was sitting at one of the tables.

6 At some stage before 2.30 am, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ari Hayden Bullock and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWSC 1071
Decision Date: 21 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was R v Ari Hayden Bullock, a matter involving the sentencing of the accused for the offence of manslaughter, specifically in the context of provocation. Bullock was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury in the County Court of Victoria, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria for sentencing. The incident in question arose from a confrontation between Bullock and the victim, which culminated in the victim's death. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Bullock, taking into account the mitigating factor of provocation.

The court was required to determine the weight to be given to the mitigating factor of provocation in assessing the appropriate sentence. The defence counsel argued that Bullock's actions were a direct result of the provocation he received from the victim and that this significantly impacted his self-control and culpability. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence, while also considering the mitigating factors present in the case. The court needed to balance these considerations in arriving at a just and proportionate sentence.

The court considered the circumstances leading up to the offence, the degree of provocation, and the manner in which Bullock responded. The court acknowledged that Bullock's actions were influenced by the provocation but also noted the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. After weighing all the factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would reflect the mitigating effect of provocation while also serving the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community. The court sentenced Bullock to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the balance between the mitigating factor of provocation and the need for general deterrence.

Orders