Citation: R v Hasapis [2025] NSWSC 121
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 February 2025
Judge: N Adams J
Background
The accused was charged with murdering Sean Froggatt on or about 28 January 2023 at Wyong, New South Wales. The accused did not dispute that he had physically assaulted the deceased, or that the assault caused his death. His position at trial was that he was guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
The central factual context was that the accused had assaulted the deceased in order to extract information from him. The assault was witnessed by two people, and post-mortem examination revealed 71 separate injuries to the deceased's body, with death resulting from head injuries. A co-accused pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising from a related assault on one of those eyewitnesses.
Both the accused and the Crown agreed to a trial by judge alone, partly because senior counsel for the accused had foreshadowed evidence objections on the basis of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). That arrangement was considered to better manage those evidentiary concerns.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased at the time of the assault.
- Whether, in the absence of direct evidence of intent, the available circumstantial evidence supported an inference of the requisite intent for murder under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
- What weight, if any, should be given to acts of gratuitous cruelty in determining intent.
- Whether various items of evidence, including photographs, post-mortem findings, and evidence of the assault on the eyewitness, were admissible or should be excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act.
Decision
Adams J found the accused guilty of murder. The sole contested element was intent: specifically, whether the accused had intended to inflict grievous bodily harm (meaning "really serious injury") when he assaulted the deceased. The Crown did not allege an intention to kill.
There was no direct evidence of what the accused intended. The court drew inferences from established primary facts, including the nature and extent of the assault as observed by eyewitnesses, the severity of the injuries documented at post-mortem, the motive of eliciting information through the assault, and what the court characterised as acts of gratuitous cruelty. The post-mortem found 71 injuries across the deceased's body, with fatal head injuries caused by blunt force trauma.
Adams J applied the principle established in O'Leary v R (1946) 73 CLR 566 that a connected series of violent acts may be treated as a single continuing transaction, and that earlier acts of violence can illuminate the state of mind accompanying later acts. The acts of cruelty inflicted during the assault were relevant to the ultimate question of intent. On the totality of the evidence, her Honour was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable possibility that the accused lacked the intention to inflict grievous bodily harm.
On the evidentiary objections, Adams J ruled on admissibility at the conclusion of the evidence, as the parties had agreed. Her Honour addressed each challenged category, including crime scene and post-mortem photographs, forensic summary evidence, and evidence of the assault on the eyewitness. The rulings were delivered orally on 19 and 21 February 2025, with reasons incorporated into the judgment.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), murder requires proof that the accused's act causing death was done with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm ("really serious injury"), even absent any intention to kill.
- Where direct evidence of intent is unavailable, a court may draw an inference of intent from established primary facts, including the nature, severity, and manner of an assault, provided the inference is rationally available and no reasonable competing inference remains open.
- Applying O'Leary v R, acts of gratuitous cruelty forming part of a continuing transaction are admissible and relevant to establishing the mental state that accompanied the ultimately fatal acts in that same episode.
- A joint application by both the accused and the Crown for a judge alone trial under s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) required the court to make the order; late filing of the application required leave, which the court granted in the circumstances.
- The accused's concession that he was guilty of manslaughter did not resolve the murder charge: the distinction turned entirely on whether the Crown could exclude, beyond reasonable doubt, any reasonable possibility that the accused lacked the specific intent for murder.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 132A, 133
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 55, 135, 137
Cases
- O'Leary v R (1946) 73 CLR 566; [1946] HCA 44
- FDP v R (2008) NSWLR 645; [2008] NSWCCA 317
- Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72
- Harriman v R (1989) 167 CLR 590; [1989] HCA 50
- IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
- Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
- Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; [2001] HCA 50
- The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40
- R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189
- R v Davidson (No 1) [2019] NSWSC 980
- R v Droudis (No 13) [2016] NSWSC 1350
- R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97
- R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123
- R v Qaumi & Qaumi [2016] NSWSC 1473
- R v Qaumi & Qaumi (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1487
- R v Simmons; R v Moore (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 259
- R v Toki (No 3) [2000] NSWSC 999
- Redman v R [2015] NSWCCA 110