R v Sullivan - [2018] NSWDC 366

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sullivan [2018] NSWDC 366
Hearing dates: 26 October 2018
Date of orders: 26 October 2018
Decision date: 26 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years and a head sentence of 4 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – Intervening in a dispute between a man and a woman –Motivated by anger – Violence inflicted on man trying to prevent violence – Parity – Extensive and ongoing injuries to victim
Cases Cited: .
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Dermot John Sullivan
Representation: Counsel:
A Robertson – The Crown
D McMahon – The offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown

File Number(s): 2015/182112

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The offender Dermot Sullivan appears for sentence after pleading guilty, at a relatively late stage, to one offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The offence occurred on 19 June 2015.
The offender was in Australia on a work visa. He was staying at a backpacker’s hostel in Manly. He went out, having some drinks, although not many, with two others who were also staying at the hostel, a Mr Kornic and a Mr Hickey. The three of them, that is, Mr Sullivan, Mr Kornic and Mr Hickey saw a man named Madden push his girlfriend, Ms Roberts, to the ground causing an injury to her knee. Consistent with Mr Sullivan’s earlier behaviour, which I will mention in a little while, of intervening to look after others he and his friends approached Mr Madden and Ms Roberts to intervene. An argument ensued resulting in Mr Madden throwing punches towards Mr Kornic. An altercation arose with Mr Kornic and Mr Hickey throwing punches at Mr Madden.
There were two bystanders nearby, including a Mr Neal Glassey who was sitting a bus stop. He saw the men chasing Mr Madden who was on his own. Mr Glassey walked over to intervene because Mr Madden was clearly outnumbered. The other bystander was a Mr Jordy McKay, it was he who ultimately became the victim of Mr Sullivan’s offending. He saw the males appearing to have a fight with Mr Madden. He could see Mr Madden having a verbal argument with Ms Roberts. He saw Mr Glassey get in-between Mr Madden and two Irish males, they were Mr Kornic and Mr Hickey. They were trying to get at Mr Madden despite Mr Glassey’s intervention. At this stage Mr Sullivan was some distance away from the main altercation, about 3 metres.
Mr McKay decided that it was necessary to intervene as things were again getting heated. Not for Mr McKay was the attitude of ‘do not get involved’. He decided, and one can well understand this decision, that he should intervene because of the risk of things becoming more violent. He put out his hand in front of the offender and said, “Come on guys”. The offender…

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 [2018] NSWDC 366
Case: [2018] NSWDC 366
Decision Date: 26 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sullivan involved the defendant, Sullivan, who was charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to another individual. The incident occurred when Sullivan intervened in a dispute between a man and a woman. Sullivan's motivation was driven by anger, and his actions resulted in significant violence being inflicted upon the man who was attempting to prevent any further escalation of the conflict. The injuries sustained by the victim were extensive and ongoing, leading to a criminal prosecution.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for Sullivan's actions. Given the nature of the crime, the court was required to consider the principles of parity in sentencing, the extent and severity of the injuries inflicted, and the mitigating factors that may have influenced Sullivan's behaviour at the time of the offence. The court also had to weigh the need for punishment against the potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering its decision, the court emphasised the seriousness of the crime and the significant harm caused to the victim. The judge highlighted that Sullivan's decision to intervene in a volatile situation was not justified and led to disproportionate violence. Despite acknowledging the mitigating factors, the court concluded that a substantial custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence and to serve as a deterrent against similar conduct in the future. Ultimately, the court sentenced Sullivan to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and a head sentence of 4 years, ensuring that the punishment was commensurate with the harm caused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years and a head sentence of 4 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Sullivan [2018] NSWDC 366
Hearing dates:	26 October 2018
Date of orders:	26 October 2018
Decision date:	26 October 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years and a head sentence of 4 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – Intervening in a dispute between a man and a woman –Motivated by anger – Violence inflicted on man trying to prevent violence – Parity – Extensive and ongoing injuries to victim
Cases Cited:	.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Dermot John Sullivan
Representation:	Counsel: A Robertson – The Crown D McMahon – The offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
File Number(s):	2015/182112