R v Sullivan

Case [2022] NSWDC 404

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sullivan [2022] NSWDC 404
Hearing dates: 1 September 2022
Date of orders: 9 September 2022
Decision date: 09 September 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:

See [91 - 92]

Catchwords:

CRIME — Sexual offences — Aggravated sexual assault 

CRIME — Intimate images — Distribute intimate image without consent 

CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

CRIME — Violent offences —  Intimidation 

CRIME — Apprehended violence orders — Contravene apprehended violence order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

R v Gebrail unrep 19.11.94 NSWCCA

Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

De la Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

Ragg [2022] NSWCCA 150

Pearce [1998] HCA 57, Mill (1988) 166 CLR 59

Johnson [2004] HCA 15

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1

Texts Cited:

Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Sullivan (Offender)
Representation:

Dobraszczyk Counsel for the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions

Pearsall Counsel (NSW Public Defender) for the Offender
File Number(s): 2020/00269726
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

Reasons on Sentence

  1. Wade Sullivan (“the offender”) appears for sentence in respect of three matters on an indictment and in respect of seven matters to be dealt with summarily set out on a section 166 certificate. Additionally there are four matters to be taken into account by way of the Form 1 procedure when sentencing for count 2 on the indictment, a charge of aggravated sexual assault.
  2. Each of these matters is set out in the following table together with the maximum penalty for the particular offence.

Sec

Offence

Max Pen

1

37(2)

Choke with intent to commit another indictable offence

25y

2

61J

Agg sex assault (deprive liberty)

20y; snpp 10y

3

91Q

Distribute intimate image

3y

4 F1 1

59

AOABH

5y

5 F1 2

61

Assault

2y

6 F1 3

59

AOABH

5y

7 F1 4

91P

Record intimate image without consent

3y

Related matters to be dealt with summarily

8

13

Intimidation

5y

9

13

Intimidation

5y

10

61

Assault

2y

11

13

Intimidation

5y

12

61

Assault

2y

13

13

Intimidation

5y

14

14

Contravene ADVO

2y
  1. As indicated in the table the offence under section 61J has a standard non-parole period of 10 years. No other of the offences has a standard non-parole period. I take the maximum sentences, and in respect of the section 61J offence the standard non-parole period also, to be legislative guideposts indicating the legislature's view of the seriousness of the offences to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence.
  2. In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offence for which the offender is being sentenced. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrence…

Continue reading R v Sullivan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Sullivan [2022] NSWDC 404
Case
[2022] NSWDC 404
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sullivan was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, involving a defendant charged with a series of serious criminal offences. The charges included aggravated sexual assault, distribution of intimate images without consent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, intimidation, and contravening an apprehended violence order. The case involved allegations of severe physical and psychological harm inflicted by the defendant on his partner over a prolonged period.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the credibility of the victim's testimony, and the applicability of mitigating factors. The court also needed to consider the interplay between the various charges and how they collectively depicted the defendant's conduct. Another critical issue was whether the prosecution had established that the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the apprehended violence order.

The court meticulously evaluated the evidence presented, focusing on the victim's testimony and corroborating factors. It assessed the credibility of the witness and the consistency of her account with other evidence. The court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the defendant's guilt on all counts, noting the seriousness of the offences and the impact on the victim. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were not only illegal but also indicative of a pattern of abusive behaviour. The court ultimately found the defendant guilty on all charges and proceeded to consider sentencing.

The final orders of the court included the defendant's conviction on all charges, with sentencing to be determined in a subsequent hearing. The court emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need for a punitive response that would also serve to protect potential future victims. The case underscored the importance of holding perpetrators of domestic violence accountable and the role of the court in providing justice to victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [91 - 92]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.