Legal Research
Cases
R v Sullivan

R v Sullivan

Case [2010] NSWSC 755 9 July 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Sullivan [2010] NSWSC 755

HEARING DATE(S): 17 Dec 2009; 3 Jun 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years comprised of a non-parole period of 18 years and 9 months commencing on 7 October 2007 and expiring on 6 July 2026 with a balance of term of 6 years and 3 months commencing on 7 April 2026 and expiring on 6 October 2032.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - whether causal link between offender's brain damage and offending - level of objective seriousness - significance of previous criminal record

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Aslett v R [2006] NSWCCA 360
Collon v R [2009] NSWCCA 187
Maxwell v R [2007] NSWCCA 304; 177 A Crim R 498
Mencarious v R [2008] NSWCCA 237; 189 A Crim R 219
Perry v R [2006] NSWCCA 351; 166 A Crim R 383
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v McEvoy [2010] NSWCCA 110
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566
R v Slater [2001] NSWCCA 65; 121 A Crim R 369
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465 at 477
Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76
Yun v R [2008] NSWCCA 114; 185 A Crim R 58

PARTIES: The Crown
Anthony Ramon Sullivan (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/8730

COUNSEL: H Wilson (Crown)
C Jeffreys (Solicitor) (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

FULLERTON J

9 JULY 2010

2008/8730 R v ANTHONY RAMON SULLIVAN
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR

: On 24 June 2009 the Crown presented an indictment charging the offender, Anthony Ramon Sullivan, with the murder of Adam Guy Prochilo on 3 October 2007. The offender pleaded not guilty to murder and the matter proceeded to trial.

2 On 7 July 2009 the jury returned a verdict of guilty to murder.

3 The delay in sentencing has been as a result of a submission, raised by Mr Jeffreys for the first time in the sentence proceedings convened in December 2009, that at the time of the murder the offender suffered from an underlying neurological deficit associated with pre-existing frontal lobe damage he sustained as a result of a head injury in 1985. He submitted that this condition has impacted adversely on the offender’s mental functioning in a number of material respects since that time such as to reduce the objective seriousness of the murder of the deceased for sentencing purposes.

4 Although the Crown Prosecutor was on notice of the offender’s claim that he had sustained a head injury in 1985, given that his liability for a homicide committed in 1986 was reduced from murder to…

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 Sullivan

Details

AGLC: R v Sullivan [2010] NSWSC 755
Case: [2010] NSWSC 755
Decision Date: 9 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sullivan involved the defendant, Sullivan, who had been convicted of murder. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Sullivan, with particular focus on whether there was a causal link between his brain damage and his offending behaviour, the level of objective seriousness of the crime, and the significance of Sullivan's previous criminal record. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the primary consideration was the sentence to be imposed on Sullivan, who had been convicted of murder.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Sullivan's brain damage was causally linked to his offending, the degree of objective seriousness of the crime, and the relevance of Sullivan's previous criminal record in determining his sentence. The court needed to determine if there was a causal link between Sullivan's brain damage and his offending behaviour, which could potentially mitigate his sentence. Additionally, the court had to assess the level of objective seriousness of the murder and whether it warranted a particular sentence. Finally, the court had to consider the significance of Sullivan's previous criminal record in determining his sentence.

The court found that there was no causal link between Sullivan's brain damage and his offending. It was determined that Sullivan's brain damage did not contribute to his criminal behaviour and thus did not mitigate his sentence. The court also found that the murder was of high objective seriousness, taking into account the brutal nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim. The court further considered Sullivan's previous criminal record, which included multiple convictions for violent offences, and found that it was a significant aggravating factor in determining his sentence. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence for Sullivan was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years.

Orders