Legal Research
Cases
R v Hasapis (Sentence)

R v Hasapis (Sentence)

Case [2025] NSWSC 771 17 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hasapis (Sentence) [2025] NSWSC 771
Hearing dates: 10 July 2025
Date of orders: 17 July 2025
Decision date: 17 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) For the offence of murder, Mr Hasapis is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 26 years commencing on 28 January 2023 and expiring on 27 January 2049. I fix a non-parole period of 18 years. Mr Hasapis will be first eligible for release to parole on 27 January 2041.
(2) In compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to Mr Hasapis. I direct that his legal representatives advise him of the existence of the Act and its application to this offence.

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – murder – guilty verdict after Judge alone trial – where the deceased was assaulted by the offender and died from head injuries – where the deceased suffered 71 injuries to his body – where motive for assault was to elicit information – mid range objective seriousness – moral culpability – criminal history – facilitation of administration of justice – aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 59
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 30E(1)(3), 21A(3)(i), 22A(1)(2), 25E, 44(2B), 53A, Table behind s 54B
Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW), ss 166, 168(3)

Cases Cited:
Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
Haddara v R [2016] VSCA 168; (2016) 260 A Crim R 306
Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
Hasapis v R [2014] NSWCCA 216
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
R v Fuller (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 76
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hasapis [2025] NSWSC 121
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312; (2006) 164 A Crim R 252
R v Homann [2018] NSWSC 757
R v Kilby(No 2) [2025] NSWSC 748
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159

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

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

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Background

On 28 January 2023, Sean Froggatt was residing in an apartment block in Wyong. He was…

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 (Sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Hasapis (Sentence) [2025] NSWSC 771
Case: [2025] NSWSC 771
Decision Date: 17 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Hasapis, was convicted of murder after a trial before a judge alone in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The victim was assaulted by Hasapis and subsequently died from severe head injuries. The deceased suffered a total of 71 injuries. The attack was motivated by a desire to extract information from the victim. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Hasapis, considering the mid-range objective seriousness of the offence, the moral culpability of the offender, the offender's criminal history, and the extent to which Hasapis had facilitated the administration of justice.

The court examined the severity of the offence, noting the grievous nature of the injuries inflicted and the number of wounds sustained by the victim. It also assessed Hasapis's moral culpability, considering the premeditated and violent nature of the assault. The court took into account Hasapis's criminal history, which included previous convictions, to gauge the likelihood of reoffending. Additionally, the court considered whether Hasapis had cooperated with authorities in any way, potentially facilitating the administration of justice.

After careful consideration of these factors, the court concluded that the appropriate sentence should reflect the mid-range objective seriousness of the murder, the moral culpability of Hasapis, and the other sentencing considerations. The court determined that a specific and aggregate sentence would be appropriate, balancing the need for punishment with the need to deter future crimes of a similar nature. The court ordered that Hasapis be sentenced to a specific term of imprisonment, followed by an aggregate sentence, to ensure that the punishment met the gravity of the offence while also considering the other relevant factors.

Orders