Legal Research
Cases
R v Hasapis

R v Hasapis

Case [2025] NSWSC 121 27 February 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hasapis [2025] NSWSC 121
Hearing dates: 17-21 February 2025
Date of orders: 27 February 2025
Decision date: 27 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
The accused is guilty of the murder of Sean Froggatt.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – trial by judge alone – verdict – where deceased was assaulted by accused and died from head injuries – where accused denies that he intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased – where accused admits he is guilty of manslaughter but not murder – assault witnessed by two persons – crime scene evidence – delayed post-mortem examination – where deceased suffered 71 injuries to his body – where motive for assault was to elicit information – relevance of acts of gratuitous cruelty to ultimate issue – whether reasonable possibility that the accused did not intend to inflict grievous bodily harm – accused guilty of murder

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 132A, 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 55, 135, 137

Cases Cited:
FDP v R (2008) NSWLR 645; [2008] NSWCCA 317
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72
Harriman v R (1989) 167 CLR 590; [1989] HCA 50
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
O’Leary v R (1946) 73 CLR 566; [1946] HCA 44
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189
R v Davidson (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 980
R v Droudis(No. 13) [2016] NSWSC 1350
R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97
R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123
R v Qaumi & Qaumi [2016] NSWSC 1473
R v Qaumi & Qaumi(No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1487
R v Simmons; R v Moore (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 259
R v Toki (No 3) [2000] NSWSC 999
Redman v R [2015] NSWCCA 110
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; [2001] HCA 50
The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Daniel Paul Hasapis (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr SC (Crown)
Ms M Avenell SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (NSW) (Accused)

File Number(s): 2023/29485
Publication restriction: Nil.

reasons for verdict

Background

On 16 February 2025, the trial of Daniel Hasapis (the accused) commenced before me, sitting as a judge alone. On that day, he was arraigned on an indictment charging him that he on or about 28 January 2023 at Wyong in the State of New South Wales did murder Sean Froggatt. Murder is an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and the trial proceeded before me until Friday 21 February 2025 at which time I retired…

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.

Continue reading R v Hasapis

Details

AGLC: R v Hasapis [2025] NSWSC 121
Case: [2025] NSWSC 121
Decision Date: 27 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hasapis, the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the accused, Hasapis, was guilty of murder in relation to the death of the deceased, who had suffered multiple injuries. The trial was conducted without a jury, and Hasapis was found guilty of murder. The accused appealed against this verdict, arguing that the trial judge erred in concluding that there was a reasonable possibility that he intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased. The deceased was assaulted by Hasapis and subsequently died from head injuries. Hasapis admits to being guilty of manslaughter but denies any intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The assault was witnessed by two individuals, and the crime scene provided significant evidence. A post-mortem examination revealed that the deceased had suffered 71 injuries. The motive for the assault was to extract information from the deceased. The central legal issue was whether the acts of gratuitous cruelty were relevant to the ultimate question of whether Hasapis intended to cause grievous bodily harm.

The High Court considered the evidence and legal principles applicable to the case. The Court noted that the deceased suffered a significant number of injuries, and the assault was witnessed by two individuals. The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that there was a reasonable possibility that Hasapis intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased. The Court found that the evidence of gratuitous cruelty was relevant to the issue of intent and that the trial judge had properly considered this evidence in reaching his conclusion. The Court held that the trial judge was correct in finding Hasapis guilty of murder.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's verdict. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Hasapis intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased. The Court found that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence of gratuitous cruelty and that this evidence was relevant to the issue of intent. The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that there was a reasonable possibility that Hasapis intended to cause grievous bodily harm, and therefore, the verdict of guilty of murder was appropriate.

Orders