R v Ari Hayden Bullock [2005] NSWSC 1071

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Ari Hayden Bullock [2005] NSWSC 1071

HEARING DATE(S) : 03/08/2005, 04/08/2005, 08/08/2005, 09/08/2005 10/08/2005, 14/10/2005, 21/10/2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 21 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF : Buddin J

DECISION : The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 years to commence on 11 July 2004. An overall sentence of 8 years which will commence on 11 July 2004 and expire on 10 July 2012 is fixed. The offender will thus be eligible for parole on 10 July 2009.

CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - sentence - manslaughter - provocation

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141 R v Cardoso (2003) 137 A Crim R 535 R v Blacklidge (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported) R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397 CASES CITED : R v McDonald (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported) R v See [2001] NSWSC 776 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 R v Troja (CCA, 16 July 1991 unreported) Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Regina PARTIES : Ari Hayden Bullock

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2005/469

D Howard SC (Crown) COUNSEL : Ms L Flannery (Offender)

S Kavanagh (Crown) SOLICITORS : S O'Connor (Offender)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

FRIDAY 21 OCTOBER 2005

2005/469 – R v ARI HAYDEN BULLOCK

Remarks on Sentence 1 BUDDIN J: The offender was arraigned upon a charge of having murdered Tapua Taria at Lakemba on 11 July 2004. He pleaded not guilty to that charge but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment and a jury was duly empanelled. The offender was convicted by the jury of manslaughter, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. 2 The trial was short and there was little, if anything, of a factual nature that was in dispute. The sole issue upon which the trial was contested was the question of provocation. It is apparent from its verdict that the jury was not satisfied that the Crown had proved to the requisite standard that the offender was not acting under provocation at the time at which he killed the deceased.