R v Sultana (No.7) - [2025] NSWSC 1102

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sultana (No.7) [2025] NSWSC 1102
Hearing dates: 09 July 2025
Date of orders: 14 July 2025 – 18 July 2025;
21 July 2025, 22 July 2025, 24 July 2025.
Decision date: 26 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Guilty of the murder of Dayna Isaac

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Single count of murder – Trial by Judge alone – Circumstantial case – Plea of not guilty – Strangulation by two ligatures – Sexual intercourse with body after death – Crime scene evidence – Evidence of a struggle – Whether alternative verdict of manslaughter made out – Mental element – Specific intent – Effect of intoxication – Case for the accused – Third-party intruder theory – No evidence of a break-in – Where the accused’s post-offence conduct was said to be the result of a panic that he would be blamed for the murder
CRIMINAL LAW – Witness evidence – Expert evidence – DNA evidence – Where a witness being the next-door neighbour of the deceased was able to provide a contemporaneous account of the murder – Where the accused was positively identified by a witness as leaving the scene of the murder immediately after the murder occurred
CRIMINAL LAW – Witness evidence – Pseudonym order – Where an informant has given evidence to the Court of admissions made by the accused whilst incarcerated – Where information provided to the Court by an informant could only have come from the murderer – Prison informer
CRIMINAL LAW – Post-offence conduct – Where the accused’s post-offence conduct demonstrated a consciousness of guilt – Where the accused brought his mother to the deceased’s body – Where the accused drove the deceased’s vehicle to a remote area and set it on fire – Where the accused burnt his clothes following the murder – Where the accused changed his appearance following the murder – Where the accused demonstrated suicidal ideations following the murder

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 132(1), 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 184
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 428B, 428C, 428E(1)

Cases Cited:
Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573
Liberato v The Queen [1995] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: The Crown
Paul Jason Sultana (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Y Prowse (Crown)
Dr G Woods KC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Proctor & Associates (Accused)

File Number(s): 2023/17108
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

JUDGMENT

On Monday 14 July 2025, Paul Jason Sultana (“the accused”) was arraigned before me on an Indictment dated that day.
The accused was charged with the murder of Dayna Isaac (“the deceased”), on 16 January 2023, in the State of New South Wales. To this charge, he pleaded not guilty.
On that day, at the request of the accused and with the consent of the Crown, for reasons which I delivered ex…

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 Sultana (No.7)

Details

AGLC: R v Sultana (No.7) [2025] NSWSC 1102
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1102
Decision Date: 26 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sultana, the defendant was charged with a single count of murder. The trial was held before a judge alone in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution presented a circumstantial case, alleging that the defendant strangled the victim using two ligatures, engaged in sexual intercourse with the body after death, and attempted to destroy evidence by burning the victim’s car and clothes. The defence argued that the case for the accused included the possibility of a third-party intruder, though there was no evidence to support this theory.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had established the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the impact of intoxication on the defendant's mental state, and the significance of post-offence conduct. The court also needed to assess the credibility of expert evidence, DNA evidence, and witness testimony, including that of a neighbour who provided a contemporaneous account of the events and a witness who identified the defendant leaving the scene.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's post-offence conduct and expert analysis, sufficiently established the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected the defence’s argument that the defendant’s actions were a result of panic about being blamed. The court held that the evidence of a struggle, the presence of ligatures, and the defendant’s conduct following the murder demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The court also found that the evidence of the neighbour and the witness who saw the defendant leaving the scene was reliable and corroborated other evidence in the case.

The court found the defendant guilty of murder. The court made a pseudonym order to protect the identity of a witness who provided information about admissions made by the defendant while incarcerated. The court considered this evidence crucial and reliable in establishing the defendant's guilt.

Orders