R v Hasapis (Sentence) [2025] NSWSC 771 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

R v Hasapis (Sentence) [2025] NSWSC 771 | Case summary | Zoe

On 28 January 2023, Sean Froggatt was residing in an apartment block in Wyong. He was in receipt of support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (“NDIS”) for medical conditions including schizophrenia and epilepsy. The offender, Daniel Hasapis, was a neighbour in the same apartment block. In the early hours of 28 January 2023, the offender assaulted Mr Froggatt by punching, kicking and whipping him during an interrogation that lasted at least a half an hour. Mr Froggatt died of blunt force head injuries shortly afterwards. During the prolonged assault on the deceased, the offender also punched and whipped two other women present at the scene: his estranged partner, Bonnie Cullen, and her friend, Mariana Taitoko.
The offender was arrested and charged with Mr Froggatt’s murder on 28 January 2023. He was refused bail and has remained in custody since that date.
On 17 February 2025, the offender’s murder trial commenced before me, sitting as a judge alone. He had previously offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, but that plea was not accepted by the Crown. On that day, he also pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (“AOABH”) on Mariana Taitoko on or about 26 January 2023 contrary to s 59 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.
The offender’s trial for Mr Froggatt’s murder proceeded before me until Friday, 21 February 2025 at which time I retired to consider my verdict. The issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the fatal assault the offender intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased. The offender did not deny that he had assaulted the deceased; his defence to the murder charge was that he did not intend to inflict really serious harm on Mr Froggatt.
On 27 February 2025, I found the offender guilty of murder: R v Hasapis [2025] NSWSC 121 (the verdict judgment).
At the proceedings on sentence before me on 10 July 2025, the offender asked to be sentenced in relation to three offences. In addition to the murder of Mr Froggatt and the AOABH on Ms Taitoko he also asked to be dealt with for the “related offence” of one count of AOABH on Bonnie Cullen on 27-28 February 2023. [1] Evidence of that assault was adduced during the murder trial. The offender pleaded guilty to that charge at his proceedings on sentence and asked to be sentenced on the facts adduced at the trial. I am satisfied that this offence arose from substantially the same circumstances as those from which the murder arose. Given that charge is not being dealt with on indictment, the maximum penalty I can impose for that offence is 2 years’ imprisonment. [2]
It is now my role to sentence the offender in relation to these three offences. I am required to identify and consider all factors relevant to the sentence and ultimately make a value judgment as to what the appropriate sentence is given all the factors in the case. [3] In doing so, I must have regard to the purposes of sentencing. The sentence imposed must adequately punish the offender, denounce his conduct, make him accountable for his actions, protect the community, act as both a general and specific deterrent and recognise the harm done to the family of the deceased and the community. On the other hand, the sentence to be imposed must also promote the offender’s rehabilitation. [4] The extent to which more or less emphasis is to be placed on these purposes of sentencing turns on the findings I make based on the material that was before me.
The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment. [5] The standard non-parole period (“SNPP”) for murder is 20 years’ imprisonment. [6] The Crown did not contend that this is a matter in which I would impose the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Ms Taitoko awoke the following morning. She was in pain and felt tired from her injuries. Ms Cullen gave her with some breakfast. Both women remained at Unit 1.
At about 4:30pm that day, the offender left Unit 1 and travelled to Wentworthville in Sydney to purchase methylamphetamine. It was an agreed fact that at that time he had been supplying methylamphetamine out of Unit 1. He was driven to Wentworthville by a neighbour named Darren Thornthwaite, who resided in Unit 7, directly above the offender and Ms Cullen. At 4:45pm, the offender sent Ms Cullen a text message demanding that she not let any “random cunts” in the house until he had picked up his property.
Whilst the offender was away, Ms Cullen arranged for the deceased to attend Unit 1 to supply her and Ms Taitoko with cannabis. The deceased visited Unit 1 and remained there for a period of time smoking cannabis with Ms Cullen and Ms Taitoko in the loungeroom. During this time, another unknown male came to Unit 1 for a short time. He wanted to speak to the offender but left when advised that the offender was not there. The deceased left Unit 1 and returned to his own unit after smoking the cannabis with Ms Cullen and Ms Taitoko.
There were some missed calls between Ms Cullen and the offender that afternoon. The offender sent a text to Ms Cullen at 6:25 pm in which he said, “Stupid hooker you think your (sic) on the phone being a fuckwit”. They later spoke by telephone at 8:11pm.
The offender and Mr Thornthwaite returned to Unit 1 at around 8:00pm to 8:30pm. The four of them all smoked some “ice” and Mr Thornthwaite then left. The offender became angry. He believed that some further property had been removed from the unit in his absence. He yelled at Ms Cullen and Ms Taitoko, demanding to know who had been at the unit when he was out. He accused them of performing sex work from the unit in his absence. Whilst he was yelling at them both, he slapped Ms Cullen to the face and punched Ms Taitoko to the head. Ms Taitoko eventually told the offender that both the deceased and an unknown male had attended Unit 1 when the offender had been out that day.
After hearing this, the offender became enraged and attempted to get the deceased to come to the unit. There was further shouting which was heard by a neighbour. Call charge records show that the offender placed a few calls to the deceased’s carer, Mr Dickinson, who told the offender that the deceased was asleep. At 11:25pm, there was a text exchange in which the offender asked Mr Dickinson to tell the deceased to pop down to Unit 1 when he woke up. The deceased woke up about ten minutes later and went downstairs to see the offender at Unit 1.

At around this time, a neighbour (Mr Thornthwaite’s son) in the unit above Unit 1 heard a loud bang in Unit 1, followed by the deceased’s voice. The deceased said, “oh fucking hell”. The neighbour then heard a few more bangs, followed by the offender’s voice. The offender was yelling at somebody. The neighbour heard the offender yell, “shut the fuck up”. For the next 30 minutes, multiple bangs and multiple voices yelling could be heard. The loud noises were not constant but were happening every now and again. The neighbour fell asleep after hearing noises for that 30 minute period.
Both Ms Taitoko and Ms Cullen witnessed the fatal assault on the deceased. As I have explained in my verdict judgment, although there were some inconsistencies between their evidence, having regard to the forensic evidence, I accept much of their evidence as to what occurred despite the fact that they were drug affected and had other difficulties which may have adversely impacted on their ability to remember clearly what happened.
When Mr Froggatt arrived, the offender began yelling at him and told the three of them to go into the second bedroom. Once in the spare room, the offender punched the deceased in the head. He was angry. Ms Cullen tried to stop him, but the offender then assaulted her and Ms Taitoko. This went on for some time. Mr Froggatt was crying and telling the offender to stop. The offender also punched Mr Froggatt in the stomach about four times and “just kept hitting him” in the head and in the stomach. Ms Cullen described the offender hitting Mr Froggatt to his head with a closed fist. She told the offender, “It wasn’t him, it wasn’t him”, but the offender continued to hit Mr Froggatt “very forcefully” to his head and he fell to the floor. Mr Froggatt kept saying “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. When Mr Froggatt fell to the floor, he put his arms up to cover his face. He was kicked about five times to the abdomen and upper body (his chest and torso) and struck with a chain. He had swelling on his face and his breathing was heavy. The offender also whipped the two women with the gold chain about five to ten times. Ms Cullen was struck on the upper arm and “a couple of other places”. A photograph tendered at the trial shows a mark on Ms Cullen’s arm as a result of the whipping with the chain. This is the basis for the AOABH charge in relation to Ms Cullen.
Each time that Mr Froggatt failed to answer one of the offender’s questions, the offender punched and/or kicked him. Ms Cullen described the punches and kicks as “ongoing” in that the offender kept asking questions and then punching Mr Froggatt, who did not throw any blows in return. She agreed that they were “big punches” and that they were all “big kicks”. The offender also kicked Mr Froggatt to the head as well.
The offender only stopped hitting Mr Froggatt when he finally said to him, “the Yugoslavian set you up”. It is not clear what was meant by this but when he said this the offender left the room with Ms Cullen. He turned the light out and closed the door. He and Ms Cullen kept arguing outside the door.
Ms Taitoko was left alone in the room with Mr Froggatt. She could not see him, but she could hear him on the ground trying to breathe. His breathing was “raspy”, and he was gasping for air. This went for about 10 minutes. Mr Froggatt tried to crawl towards her, but she was scared and could not move. She was sitting on the floor trying not to cry. Mr Froggatt was moving on the ground a bit and then stopped and was just lying there.
Sometime later, the offender and Ms Cullen came into the room. Ms Cullen thought they were out of the room for about half an hour to an hour. When they re-entered the room, they used the light from the mobile phone and saw that Ms Taitoko was at the end of the bed and the deceased was on the floor.
The offender told Ms Taitoko to bring the deceased back to life. She tried mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and chest compressions. It did not work. The offender told her to put “ice” in his “bum” and breath it into his mouth. She did this but it did not work either. Ms Taitoko told him that there was no pulse. She tried to resuscitate the deceased for 35 to 40 minutes. The body was then covered with a sheet.
As for the number of punches, Ms Cullen said there were a bit more than ten whereas Ms Taitoko described about eight closed fist punches to the deceased’s face and four punches to his stomach. Ms Taitoko described that the offender “just kept hitting him, just kept punching him”, although she also explained that there was questioning in between those strikes.
Ms Cullen’s evidence was that there was an impression of more than ten punches to the head and that the deceased was kicked to the abdomen and upper body about five times. Ms Cullen’s impression was that the punches were very forceful. [7]

After the deceased died, the offender used the torch from his phone and wrapped up Mr Froggatt’s body in a sheet. Ms Taitoko was asleep at this time. Ms Cullen described how the body was dragged to the laundry by the offender and subsequently moved to the bathtub in the bathroom and covered with a doona.
When Ms Taitoko woke up the next day, she used Spray n’ Wipe to clean up the bedroom as did Ms Cullen. There was blood up the walls, on the curtains and on the floor, but primarily on the deceased. The offender had told them to clean the bedroom. They used “Chux” and Windex.
That morning, Mr Dickinson sent messages to the offender inquiring about Mr Froggatt’s whereabouts, but the offender did not respond.
Ms Taitoko returned to the Howarth Street premises that afternoon. Upon seeing her injuries, the occupants of that address contacted Police immediately. The call to emergency services was made at 4:28pm on Saturday, 28 January 2023. Ms Taitoko was conveyed by ambulance to Gosford Hospital. She was admitted to the Emergency Department overnight and moved to general inpatient hospital accommodation on 29 January 2023. She remained an inpatient at Gosford Hospital until 1 February 2023, when she discharged herself against medical advice.
At 5:29pm on 28 January 2023, Mr Dickinson placed a call to the offender’s mobile phone. The offender did not answer. At 5:30pm, Mr Dickinson sent the offender a text message: “Cops are here”.
Ms Cullen described the offender as being “psycho” until police arrived. He was quite erratic and uncontrollable prior to this, over the two-day period, to the point that Ms Cullen felt she could not reason with him.
The police attended Unit 1 in relation to the assault on Ms Taitoko. They arrived at 5:30pm that day. The offender was arrested. Whilst they were doing a sweep of the unit, they found the deceased’s body located in the bath. This is where Ms Taitoko had told them it would be. A blue fitted sheet was covering Mr Froggatt’s head and neck area and he was wrapped in a blue and white doona cover. Photos of the deceased were tendered during the trial depicting his injuries at that time.
A crime scene was established. Cleaning products were found in the second bedroom, the kitchen area and the laundry, and blood and blood stains were found at numerous places around the flat. I do not propose to summarise the crime scene evidence. It is consistent with the body being moved to the laundry and then dragged again to the bathtub where it was found by police. Luminol testing confirmed this as well.
A gold and a silver chain was found in the laundry sink which had the same link pattern as the injuries to the deceased’s arms from when he was whipped by the offender during the fatal assault.
Police also seized items that were located inside rubbish bags on the rear balcony of Unit 1. One such bag contained, amongst other things, a blood-stained pillow and a blood-stained bra.
When the offender was spoken to, he exercised his right to silence. The deceased’s blood was located on the offender’s socks and shoe on arrest.

It is necessary for me to assess the objective seriousness of the murder. Both senior counsel for the Crown and the offender accepted that there was no obligation to place the objective seriousness of the murder on any particular range. Despite this, it was accepted that it can be useful to do so, and I propose to adopt that course.
The Crown submitted that I would make a finding that this was in the mid-range of objective seriousness whereas the offender submitted that I would make a finding of below mid-range objective seriousness.
In support of their respective submissions, both senior counsel for the Crown and the offender identified various aspects of the offending as being relevant to the assessment. I have considered those matters carefully and consider the following circumstances to be relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness.
First, as to the degree of planning, I accept the submission made on behalf of the offender that this was not an offence that had been planned for some time. There was nothing sophisticated nor ordered about the circumstances leading to the assault nor its execution. The offender’s focus upon Mr Froggatt was unjustified and irrational. On the other hand, it cannot be described as “spontaneous”. After learning from Ms Taitoko and Ms Cullen that the deceased had been inside Unit 1 that day, the offender became angry and arranged for the deceased to come down to visit him, which he subsequently did. The assault commenced shortly after the deceased arrived at his premises. It was not a situation where the offender first sought explanations from the deceased before he commenced the assault and then “snapped”.
I accept that the deceased was not constantly struck during the period of the assault; the offender took time out from the assault on the deceased to assault Ms Cullen and Ms Taitoko as well. But the fact that the blows were not continuous throughout the entire assault has to be considered in the context that there was intermittent questioning as well. I accept the Crown submission that this was a form of gratuitous cruelty.
Secondly, the fatal assault lasted for at least 30 minutes. The neighbour did not describe it stopping after half an hour, he simply fell asleep after hearing it for half an hour. That is a lengthy period of time over which to sustain injuries. I have had regard to this fact on a number of bases. The repeated blows increase the dangerousness of the offender’s actions. The prolonged nature of the assault provided the offender with opportunities to reconsider his actions at any time during the deceased’s final moments. He did not do so. The offender was determined to continue the violent assault, even when the deceased’s increasing vulnerability to further blows must have been apparent to him and when it would otherwise have been obvious to the offender that the deceased was struggling significantly.
Thirdly, the offender was aware that the deceased was a slighter person than him, weighing only 63 kg. He was also aware that he had repeatedly assaulted the deceased for at least half an hour. Although Mr Froggatt was vulnerable given that he was on the NDIS scheme, there was no evidence before the court that the offender was aware of that fact, and I have not had regard to it. As the defensive injuries found at post-mortem revealed, the deceased did not fight back. He was described as crying and asking the offender to stop.
Fourthly, the motive for the attack was somewhat unclear but it was accepted that the offender was angry and trying to get answers from the deceased. The offender also submitted during the trial that the motive included getting some psychological satisfaction from assaulting, torturing or interrogating the deceased in order to get information.
Fifthly, there were 71 external injuries occasioned across all parts of the body of the deceased including repeated and focused blows to the deceased’s head and the blowout fracture to the deceased’s left orbital wall and floor. I have had regard to the number of injuries. I have discounted some of them which were relatively superficial and I accept the possibility that some of them may have been caused by either the deceased falling to the floor or the resuscitation attempts made by Ms Taitoko. The deceased must have been on the ground prior to the final fall to the ground to explain the numerous injuries to his lower body which were consistent with kicks and being assaulted when he was down.
The expert evidence, which I accepted, was that it would have taken at least an hour for the deceased to die. During that time, he would have been in a state of profound unconsciousness. He was subjected to “the indignity of drug-related resuscitation attempts” at a time when he was close to death. At no time did the offender call for any medical or other assistance.
Sixthly, although there is no evidence that the violent whipping of the deceased with the gold chain could have led to his death, it did involve gratuitous cruelty. The photos show 16 injuries to the deceased caused by being whipped with the gold chain. These injuries broke the skin and would have bled. The chain marks on the back of the door in the second bedroom are consistent with the accused bringing his arm back to whip him with great force.
Finally, the offender is to be sentenced on the basis that he intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased rather than kill him. That was the Crown case at trial. Although an intention to kill is a consideration generally tending to greater objective seriousness than an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, that is not always necessarily so. [9] As I indicated in my verdict judgment, although I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender commenced the assault with the intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, I am satisfied that he formed this intention as the assault progressed when he was unable to get the answers he wanted from the deceased.
Overall, the fatal assault was severe, prolonged, involved gratuitous cruelty, and was carried out against a defenceless man. The degree of mitigation that would ordinarily flow from a finding of the lesser intent for murder needs to be moderated in this case. The deceased’s final moments must have been terrifying, painful and accompanied by a feeling of hopelessness.
Having considered all of these matters, I am satisfied that the objective seriousness falls in the mid-range.

The Crown tendered a victim impact statement on behalf of the family from Mr Froggatt’s sister, Kylie Jordan, dated 7 July 2025. Ms Jordan read that statement to the court at the proceedings on sentence.
Ms Jordan described the “profound and enduring” impact the death of Mr Froggatt had on their family as a “void that cannot be filled”. She described the “unfathomable” stress and trauma Mr Froggatt’s death had on their father who was the first one to speak to police. Her father had to deliver the news of the death to the family, repeatedly recount the events and manage Mr Froggatt’s affairs. This has left a visible emotional toll on him and “robbed him of the peace he deserved in his retirement years”. Ms Jordan described how her father “carries the pain of Sean’s loss with him every day”.
Ms Jordan also described how the initial shock she experienced gave way to “overwhelming fear and anxiety” and “shattered [her] sense of safety”. Although her mother is deceased, her mother’s twin, her aunt has seen a deterioration in her mental health and life “with grief that will never leave her”. The tragedy has left “a permanent scar” on their family, cast “a shadow” over “every celebration” and changed the way they “move through the world” and trust others.
Section 30E(1) of the Sentencing Act provides that I must consider this statement and may make any comment on it that I consider appropriate. Further, the Crown made an application under s 30E(3) of the Sentencing Act that the victim impact statement be taken into account in connection with the determination of the punishment for the murder on the basis that the harmful impact of Mr Froggatt’s death on family victims is an aspect of harm done to the community. I may only do so if the Crown applies for this to occur, and I consider it to be appropriate.
The Sentencing Act does not explain how the court is to determine when it is “appropriate” to take such statements into account in this way. As McCallum J (as her Honour then was) observed in R v Halloun [10] the provision cannot be taken to suggest that some lives are more valuable than others. All human lives are of equal value. Every unlawful death causes harm to the community and to the family of the person killed. As her Honour did in that case, I have had regard to the statement of Ms Jordan to give texture to the “undoubted proposition” that every unlawful taking of a human life harms the community in some way. In that way, the provision serves the purposes of sentencing stated in s 3A of the Sentencing Act, one of which is to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.
It is clear that the deceased’s senseless death has had a significant impact on those who loved him. No sentence that the court might impose could adequately reflect that loss and no sentence could possibly ease the grief of those who were close to him. On behalf of the Court and the community it serves, I extend my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Sean Froggatt.

The offender did not give evidence at his sentence proceedings. His subjective case was placed before the court in a psychological report prepared by Dr Mamta Sidhu dated 19 June 2025. I have taken the following background from that report as told to Dr Sidhu by the offender.
The offender was born in 1992 in Sydney to young parents, a 15-year-old mother and a 20-year-old father. Due to his mother’s young age and her reported heroin addiction the offender was placed in the care of his paternal grandparents, who were of Greek origin, when he was 4 years old.
The offender reported that his grandparents’ home was a safe and loving environment and denied any violence or exposure to substance use or abuse in the home environment. Even though his grandparents provided a safe and stable environment, there were communication barriers that prevented the offender from forming a meaningful attachment to them. He was unable to speak Greek, and their command of English was limited. He described that being the only child in his grandparents’ home made him often feel isolated and lonely.
The offender’s experience at school was poor. He was not able to integrate into the school environment. He had learning difficulties and was racially bullied. He fought with those that bullied him, and this resulted in his suspension on a number of occasions.
The offender did not have strong feelings of connection with his parents. He had regular contact with his mother but irregular contact with his father, who was “working a lot”. He has four half siblings on his mother’s side with whom he had regular contact and enjoyed spending time with. He only had irregular contact with his two half siblings on his father’s side.
As he grew older, he became more integrated with his peers for social connection. This had a negative influence on him, exposing him to drug and alcohol use from an early age and contributing to his anti-social behaviours. The offender’s issues with learning, peer integration and behaviour continued in high school, and he was expelled in Year 9. He reported that lack of boundaries at home resulted in him “doing what [he] wanted” in his teenage years.
The offender’s work history started with working in landscaping with his father. He remained in that role for 12 months and then commenced working as a delivery driver on a casual basis. Regrettably, his anti-social lifestyle choices impacted his work history, and he was not able to hold down steady employment for many years. This made him reliant on anti-social strategies to survive financially. He was able to later complete a Certification Level II in Hospitality at a TAFE course as well as a Barista course.
As an adult, the offender now has a better relationship with his father than his mother. He has been estranged from his mother for the past 13 years but described his relationship with his father as close. He described him as “his most consistent support”. His grandparents have since died.

On behalf of the offender, it was accepted that his background was not one of deprivation, but it was one of disfunction in that he did not have a relationship with his parents, had only a limited ability to communicate with his primary carers and has low verbal skills. It was submitted that these factors affected his development of a strong moral code. The Crown on the other hand submitted that the offender was not exposed to domestic violence, nor substance use or abuse in the home environment in his formative years. He was generally raised in a safe and loving home environment with his grandparents, albeit his childhood was a lonely and isolated one. The offender’s exposure to alcohol and substance use was from outside of the home environment, by an older peer group.
Having carefully considered Dr Sidhu’s report, there is nothing identified in the offender’s childhood or upbringing that might explain why the offender would have had a reduced capacity to reason or appreciate the full wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the fatal assault. It seems to me that it was his consumption of ice, rather than his upbringing by his grandparents, which may have impaired his capacity for emotional regulation. In fact, Dr Sidhu opined that the impact of the offender’s heavy drug use from an early age likely impacted his brain development in that it resulted in deficits in his thinking skills, such as judgement, planning and consequential thinking, and coping ability and affected his decision making.
An assessment of whether the Bugmy principles are applicable in any case to some extent involves an evaluative assessment upon which judicial minds may differ. I accept that the offender reported a sad and lonely childhood. He had no close relationship with his biological parents and an inability to communicate freely with his primary caregivers, his grandparents, due to language difficulties. His poor verbal skills may have contributed to that. He sought solace with an anti-social peer group which led to usage of illicit drugs from a very early age. His grandparents are now deceased and there is no material before me to explain whether they were aware of his descent into heavy drug use at a very early age and were unable to control the offender or whether they were even aware of it at all.
Although I consider the matter to be finely balanced, I am satisfied that the offender’s childhood is such that I would make a moderate reduction in his moral culpability on account of it. Such a finding does not automatically translate to a reduced sentence. [18] I have also considered whether there are any countervailing sentencing factors. [19] I am satisfied that the small reduction I would make in moral culpability is largely but not entirely offset by the weight to be afforded in this matter to general deterrence and the need for the sentence to vindicate the dignity of the victim and reflect the community’s disapproval of the offending. [20]
Despite the fact that I am satisfied that the small reduction in moral culpability is offset in this way, his background of disadvantage must be given “full weight” and I propose to do so as part of the process of instinctive synthesis. [21]