Sullivan v R [2012] NSWCCA 41

Sullivan v R [2012] NSWCCA 41

The appeal against conviction failed because the only evidence of intoxication was the applicant's imprecise description that he was "whacked", "out of it" or "cruising", which, when evaluated against his detailed evidence of events and recollection, was not capable of raising a reasonable possibility that he lacked the requisite intent; the reckless indifference direction correctly required foresight that the act would probably cause death; and the evidence, including admissions, conduct after the stabbing, Gould's evidence and the covert recording, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the stabbing was deliberate and not in self-defence. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Conviction and to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'reckless Indifference to Human Life' 'intoxication' 'self Defence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'objective Seriousness' 'protection of the Community']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'reckless Indifference to Human Life' 'intoxication' 'self Defence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'objective Seriousness' 'protection of the Community']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Conviction and to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial miscarried because the trial judge failed to direct the jury on intoxication in relation to the requisite intent for murder.' 'Whether the trial judge insufficiently directed the jury on reckless indifference to human life.' 'Whether the verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant intended to kill the deceased.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the offence fell within the mid range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in respect of the need for protection of the community.' 'Whether the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and severe.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because the only evidence of intoxication was the applicant's imprecise description that he was "whacked", "out of it" or "cruising", which, when evaluated against his detailed evidence of events and recollection, was not capable of raising a reasonable possibility that he lacked the requisite intent; the reckless indifference direction correctly required foresight that the act would probably cause death; and the evidence, including admissions, conduct after the stabbing, Gould's evidence and the covert recording, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the stabbing was deliberate and not in self-defence. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['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.']