AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 17 July 2025

R v Hasapis (Sentence)

[2025] NSWSC 771

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIME SENTENCE MURDER GUILTY VERDICT AFTER J UDGE ALONE TRIAL MID RANGE OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS MORAL CULPABILITY

Citation: R v Hasapis (Sentence) [2025] NSWSC 771
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 July 2025
Judge: N Adams J

Background

The offender, a 30-year-old man, lived in the same apartment block in Wyong as the deceased, a 52-year-old NDIS recipient with schizophrenia and epilepsy. In the early hours of 28 January 2023, the offender subjected the deceased to a prolonged assault lasting at least half an hour, punching, kicking, and whipping him in what the court characterised as an interrogation. The deceased died from blunt force head injuries shortly afterwards, sustaining 71 injuries to his body in total.

The offender was also charged in connection with assaults on two women present during the same long weekend: his estranged partner, Bonnie Cullen, and her friend, Mariana Taitoko. The assault on Ms Taitoko on 26 January 2023 was the subject of an earlier guilty plea to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH). That assault also arose from the offender's belief that Ms Taitoko had stolen his property, and it included burning her with a jet lighter, punching, kicking, and hair-pulling over several hours, causing multiple subdural haematomas and 17 dermal burns.

The offender's murder trial proceeded before Adams J sitting alone. He did not deny assaulting the deceased but contested that he had intended to inflict grievous bodily harm. The court rejected that defence and returned a guilty verdict on 27 February 2025. At the sentencing proceedings on 10 July 2025, the offender was dealt with for three offences: murder, AOABH on Ms Taitoko, and AOABH on Ms Cullen (the latter pleaded guilty at sentence as a related offence).

  • What is the appropriate objective seriousness of the murder, having regard to the nature, duration, and purpose of the assault?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's criminal history, including a prior Court of Criminal Appeal decision concerning him?
  • What discount, if any, applies for the guilty pleas to the AOABH offences, and for any facilitation of the administration of justice?
  • How should the aggregate sentence be structured across three offences arising from substantially the same circumstances?
  • What non-parole period is appropriate given all relevant factors?

Decision

Adams J assessed the murder as falling within the mid-range of objective seriousness. The assault was prolonged, purposive, and brutal: it was conducted as an interrogation to elicit information, and the deceased suffered 71 injuries. The motive of extracting information, rather than acting in the heat of passion, elevated the moral culpability of the offending, even though the Crown did not press for a life sentence.

The court considered the offender's criminal history, which included prior convictions and a previous appeal decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal. His history was treated as a factor reducing the weight available to rehabilitation as a mitigating consideration and reinforcing the need for specific deterrence and community protection.

The guilty pleas to the two AOABH offences attracted discounts, though the court's reasons note the limited utilitarian value of pleas entered late in proceedings. The offender received no discount on the murder conviction, having been found guilty after a contested trial. The court noted that the standard non-parole period for murder is 20 years, and treated that as a statutory guidepost alongside the full range of sentencing purposes under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The court imposed an aggregate sentence, fixing a single term covering all three offences. Adams J noted the application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 and directed that the offender's legal representatives advise him of that Act's potential operation.

Orders Made

  • Murder: aggregate term of imprisonment of 26 years, commencing 28 January 2023 and expiring 27 January 2049, with a non-parole period of 18 years expiring 27 January 2041. First eligible for parole: 27 January 2041.
  • The court noted the potential application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C, and directed that the offender's legal representatives advise him accordingly.

(Note: The published text omits the formal orders for the two AOABH offences, though the reasons indicate the aggregate sentence of 26 years was reduced from an indicated 26 years and 2 months to 24 years and 2 months for those counts before arriving at the aggregate figure.)

Key Takeaways

  • Mid-range objective seriousness for murder does not preclude a substantial sentence where the assault was prolonged, instrumentalised as an interrogation, and resulted in catastrophic injury across multiple victims on the same occasion.
  • A guilty verdict after a contested trial attracts no sentencing discount; discounts for guilty pleas to related offences are limited where those pleas were entered late and their utilitarian value is reduced.
  • Under s 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the court applied restrictions on the weight available for a late guilty plea, reinforcing that the timing of a plea directly affects any reduction in sentence.
  • Where a related offence is not dealt with on indictment but arises from substantially the same circumstances as a serious offence, the court's power to impose imprisonment is capped at two years under s 168(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
  • The Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 applies to murder convictions, and sentencing courts are required under s 25C to ensure the offender is advised of the Act's potential operation at the time of sentence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 59
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(3)(i), 22A(1)(2), 25E, 44(2B), 53A, Table behind s 54B
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 168(3)

Cases
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
- Hasapis v R [2014] NSWCCA 216
- R v Hasapis [2025] NSWSC 121 (verdict judgment)
- Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
- Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
- NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
- Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- R v Fuller (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 76
- R v Homann [2018] NSWSC 757
- R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
- Haddara v R [2016] VSCA 168; (2016) 260 A Crim R 306