Sullivan v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 41

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sullivan v R [2012] NSWCCA 41
Hearing dates: 25 November 2011
Decision date: 22 March 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at 1
Blanch J at 2
Hislop J at 74
Decision:
Grant an extension of time to appeal against conviction and to seek leave to appeal against sentence.
Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
Dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - reckless indifference to human life - intoxication - unreasonable verdicts - fact finding on sentencing - standard non-parole periods
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Regina v Stones [1956] State Reports 25
Viro v The Queen (1976-1978) 141 CLR 88
R v Andres Galambos (1980) 2 A Crim R 388
Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107
Bellchambers v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 235
R v White, Evans and Parker (1988) 17 NSWLR 195
Crabbe v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 464
Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378
R v Shaw (1981) 2 NSWLR 648
R v Murray and R v Manton (1980) 2 NSWLR 526
R v O'Connor (1980) 54 ALJR 349
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Isaacs (1996-1997) 41 NSWLR 374
The Queen v Olbrich (1999-2000) 199 CLR 270
Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Ramon Sullivan (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: M Ramage QC (Applicant)
P Ingram SC (Respondent)
Jeffreys Lawyers (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2008/8730
Decision under appeal

Citation:

R v Anthony Ramon Sullivan

Date of Decision:

2010-07-09 00:00:00

Before:

Fullerton J

File Number(s):

2008/8730

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Blanch J.

BLANCH J: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction for murder and for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The grounds of appeal are:

(1) The trial miscarried as a result of a failure to direct on intoxication.

(2) The trial miscarried as a result of a failure to insufficiently direct on reckless indifference.

(3) The verdict was unreasonable.

The trial occurred between 24 June and 7 July 2009 and a verdict of guilty of murder was returned by the jury on a charge that on 3 October 2007 at The Entrance in the State of New South Wales the applicant did murder Adam Guy Prochilo.

On 9 July 2010 he was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment comprised of a non-parole period of 18 years and 9 months and a balance of term of 6 years and 3 months to date from 7 October 2007.

The facts

The applicant and the deceased were known to each other. The applicant sold drugs to the deceased which were sometimes paid for in money and sometimes in the form of goods. Prior to 3 October 2007, the date of the alleged offence,…

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 Sullivan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sullivan v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 41
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 41
Decision Date: 22 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sullivan v The Queen, the High Court of Australia reviewed a case concerning the defendant's conviction for murder and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The defendant, Sullivan, was found guilty of murdering a police officer during a high-speed car chase. Sullivan was heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident, and the primary issue before the court was whether his intoxication should have negated his capacity to form the necessary intent to commit murder. The court was also tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence of intoxication and whether the trial judge should have considered certain mitigating factors during sentencing.

The court began by examining the legal principles surrounding recklessness and intoxication in the context of murder. The High Court recognised that while intoxication may mitigate the severity of a crime, it does not absolve the offender of criminal responsibility if they acted with reckless indifference to human life. In this case, the court found that the jury was entitled to conclude that Sullivan's extreme intoxication did not negate his capacity to act with reckless indifference. The court emphasised that the jury had access to all the evidence and was in the best position to assess Sullivan's state of mind and the circumstances of the incident. The court found no basis to conclude that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

The court further addressed the issue of fact-finding during sentencing, noting that the trial judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including Sullivan's intoxication, in determining the appropriate penalty. The court held that the trial judge did not err in declining to reduce the standard non-parole period based on the intoxication. The High Court ultimately upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge, affirming that the jury's verdict was sound and that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence.

Orders