//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2010] NSWDC 333
plaintiff. Sullivan was convicted of recklessly wounding SD and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment from 20 October 2009, expiring 19 January 2011; the balance of the term was set at nine months, expiring 19...
Sullivan pleaded guilty to recklessly wounding his former partner with a sauce bottle, causing a cut that needed three stitches. The judge treated the offence as serious domestic violence and said imprisonment was required. Sullivan's rehabilitation history was mixed: there were periods of participation and progress, but also breaches and departures from rehabilitation settings. Those failures affected the judge's view of his rehabilitation prospects, not the objective seriousness of the original offence. The judge counted some rehabilitation time as equivalent custody, found special circumstances related to health and rehabilitation, and imposed fifteen months' imprisonment with a nine-month balance of term.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,200 words · generated 28/09/2026
In R v Sullivan, Anzac [2010] NSWDC 333, the NSW District Court sentenced Anzac Sullivan after he pleaded guilty to recklessly wounding SD, his former de facto partner. The judgment records that Sullivan and SD had been in a relationship for about four years and had a young daughter together ([4]).
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
In the early hours of 16 January 2009, SD returned home after drinking with other people. Sullivan, who was also intoxicated, was asleep on the front porch. After he woke, he believed SD had spoken harshly to him. He went inside, picked up a sauce bottle and pointed it towards her. His case was that he intended to tap her on the head with it to show he was unhappy. The judge found that the bottle struck her forehead and that Sullivan was reckless ([5]). It did not break. SD bled, walked to hospital, and received treatment from a registered nurse. The nurse recorded a two-centimetre laceration that required three stitches ([5]-[6]).
Police attended, and SD identified Sullivan as the person responsible. The judgment says she did not want to make a formal statement, but Sullivan was arrested the next day and remanded in custody ([6]). The indictment included a charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and an alternative charge of recklessly wounding. Sullivan pleaded not guilty to the first charge and guilty to the alternative. The plea was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment ([7]).
Sentencing did not occur immediately after the plea. The judgment traces a lengthy period involving custody, s 11 bail, and rehabilitation arrangements. Sullivan was transferred from custody to Orana Haven in September 2009. He was discharged from that centre in November after smoking marijuana. That evening he assaulted a woman outside the Brewarrina RSL, and the judge records several breaches of his bail conditions ([15]-[16]). In February 2010, bail was restored on a condition that he reside at Waraku Rehabilitation Hostel. He arrived there in March, but was later asked to leave. The judgment also records an earlier failure to return from approved leave as directed and a later failure to maintain contact with Probation and Parole ([17]-[22]).
The sentencing assessment considered both the failures and evidence of progress. A report about Waraku described Sullivan's participation in counselling, life-skills work, TAFE, mental-health courses, and practical activities, including obtaining a white card and assisting with an irrigation system ([21]). The judge also noted two periods of substantial compliance in different rehabilitation settings, and described progress markers alongside the breaches ([25]). The record included an extensive history of custody for offences primarily involving violence, including common assault, contravention of a domestic violence order, property damage and assaulting police ([9]-[10]).
The judge discussed Sullivan's health, family background and support, and personal skills. The judgment records unresolved leg injuries following a motor vehicle accident and a prolonged stay at the Long Bay Prison Hospital, while noting that the medical material available to the court was limited ([27]-[29]). It also records family support and Sullivan's relationship with his daughter, as well as his interest and ability in music ([12]-[14], [30]-[33]).
The judge's sentencing reasons turn on the interaction between the seriousness of the offence and Sullivan's circumstances. The injury was a laceration requiring stitches, but the court did not treat the case as merely a minor injury. The offence occurred in a domestic relationship, and the judge characterised it as a serious example of domestic violence ([35]). The judge said that general deterrence was called for where domestic violence caused actual bodily harm and that imprisonment was appropriate in this case ([35]).
The judgment also emphasises accountability. At paragraph 7, the judge describes the guilty plea as the point at which Sullivan formally accepted responsibility. That acceptance sat alongside a substantial prior record and a history of returning to custody soon after release ([8]-[10]). The judge viewed custody as a blunt means of addressing the underlying conduct, particularly where offending was associated with alcohol or drugs, but considered that the law had to respond to the offence before the court ([11]-[12]).
The treatment of the s 11 bail history is carefully qualified. The judge expressly said that breaches of bail and discharges from rehabilitation did not make the offence being sentenced more criminal and did not affect the assessment of its objective criminality ([24]). Instead, those events mattered to the assessment of contrition, insight into the offending, and the role alcohol and drugs had played. The judge considered the repeated difficulties with structured rehabilitation a reason for more guarded prospects of rehabilitation ([24]). At the same time, the judgment records that Sullivan had periods of compliance and made identifiable progress in rehabilitation ([25]-[26]). The sentencing analysis therefore did not treat the history as uniformly negative.
The judge made a numerical allowance for time in rehabilitation settings. The judgment records ten months and nineteen days of full-time custody, plus five months and one day in quasi-custody at Orana Haven and Waraku. The judge equated the latter period to two months and sixteen days of full-time custody, producing a total of thirteen months and five days for the calculation described at paragraph 34. The judgment does not set out a general formula for such conversions; it records the allowance made in this case.
The plea did not receive a further utilitarian discount. The judge reasoned that a substantial benefit for the plea had already been achieved through the allowances for quasi-custody and the grant of s 11 bail ([36]). The judge also found special circumstances, identified as Sullivan's health needs, the advantage of rehabilitation taking place in the community, and progress already made ([37]). These considerations informed the sentence structure, but did not displace the judge's conclusion that imprisonment was called for.
This judgment is a sentencing decision by a single District Court judge. It does not cite legislation establishing the offence, sentencing provisions, or earlier cases. The reference to “s 11 bail” appears in the judgment, but the decision does not identify the statute or explain the section's wider legal operation. Accordingly, the text supports an account of how the judge approached this particular sentence, not a comprehensive statement of the statutory law.
Before the decision, the case came before the court on an indictment containing a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and an alternative charge of recklessly wounding. Sullivan pleaded guilty to the alternative, and the plea was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment ([7]). The court was therefore sentencing for recklessly wounding, not deciding the contested intent charge.
The decision records the judge's approach to several sentencing considerations: general deterrence for domestic violence causing bodily harm, the relevance of rehabilitation history to prospects and insight, an allowance for time spent in rehabilitation settings, and the absence of a separate plea discount in light of other benefits. Those are the reasons given in this case. The judgment does not state that its approach changed the law or establish a universal rule about the weight to be given to these factors.
After the decision, the document before us provides no information about appeal proceedings or later judicial treatment. It therefore cannot establish whether a later court affirmed, distinguished, followed, or questioned the sentencing approach. A search of later authorities would be needed to assess any subsequent treatment; no later cases can properly be identified from this judgment alone.
At paragraph 24, the judge states that bail breaches and rehabilitation discharges did not affect “the objective criminality” of the offence. In plain English, the judge kept separate the seriousness of the assault itself from Sullivan's later conduct while on bail. The later events were still relevant, but for different reasons: they informed the assessment of his contrition, insight and prospects of rehabilitation.
At paragraph 25, the judge puts that history into context. The judgment acknowledges further offending, but also two periods of substantial compliance and practical progress, including training, work and rehabilitation activities. In plain English, the court recognised a mixed record rather than treating each failed placement as erasing all progress.
At paragraph 34, the judge describes the calculation of full-time custody and quasi-custody. “Quasi-custody” is the judge's description of Sullivan's time in rehabilitation settings for purposes of the calculation. The judgment states the conversion made in this case, but does not give a general conversion rule.
At paragraph 35, the judge says that where women are injured in domestic violence, imprisonment is “the most likely outcome”, and concludes that incarceration was called for in Sullivan's case. This passage expresses the judge's view of deterrence and accountability in the particular sentencing context. It should be read alongside the specific sentence and reasons, rather than treated as a statutory provision or a quoted rule from another authority.
At paragraph 36, the judge says there would be no additional utilitarian discount for the plea because a substantial benefit had already been achieved. In plain English, the judge considered the plea's benefit in the round with other allowances already made, rather than applying a further reduction.
Finally, paragraph 37 identifies special circumstances: Sullivan's health needs, the benefit of community-based rehabilitation, and progress already made. The following paragraph sets out the sentence and parole arrangements. The judgment's explanation is specific to the material before this judge, including the limited medical reports described at paragraphs 27-29.
The judgment is most directly relevant as an example of sentencing reasoning where an offender pleads guilty to recklessly wounding a domestic partner, the injury causes actual bodily harm, and the sentencing court considers general deterrence and imprisonment. The facts included a blow to the complainant's forehead with a bottle, a laceration requiring stitches, and intoxication on the night ([5]-[6]).
It may also be informative where an offender's bail or rehabilitation history is mixed. In Sullivan, there were repeated breaches and failed placements, but also periods of compliance and practical achievements in rehabilitation. The judge expressly distinguished the relevance of those events to rehabilitation prospects from their relevance to the objective criminality of the original offence ([24]-[26]).
The case also addresses a sentencing assessment involving substantial prior custody, health difficulties, family support, a young child, and skills or interests that could form part of a rehabilitation discussion ([9]-[14], [27]-[34]). The judge considered time spent in rehabilitation settings when calculating an equivalent custody allowance and identified health and rehabilitation considerations as special circumstances ([34], [37]).
These features describe the factual setting of this decision, not a checklist that automatically determines the result in another case. The judgment itself does not establish that every domestic-violence wounding offence, every rehabilitation placement, or every health issue must be treated in the same way. Its discussion is tied to the evidence and sentencing history before the court.
The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later cases, and the document provides no later history. It also does not cite other judicial decisions. As a result, there is no source-grounded basis here to say that later courts followed, applied, distinguished, or rejected R v Sullivan, Anzac.
The judgment is a NSW District Court sentencing decision. Its reasoning can be described as the judge's approach in this case, but the document alone does not establish its subsequent precedential status or influence. A reliable account of later treatment would require later judgments or other legal sources, which are not included in the material supplied.
Several matters remain unanswered by the judgment. First, it does not identify the statutory provision defining recklessly wounding or explain the legal elements of the offence. It records the charge and the plea, but its focus is sentencing ([7], [38]). It also does not identify the statutory source for the reference to s 11 bail.
Second, although the judge gives figures for full-time custody and quasi-custody, the judgment does not explain a general method for converting rehabilitation time into equivalent custody ([34]). The decision shows the calculation made for Sullivan, not how a court should calculate such an allowance in a different case.
Third, the medical evidence was described as scant and dated, and the judgment notes that no report explained Sullivan's current condition or extended stay in the prison hospital ([27]-[29]). The judge nevertheless considered health needs in finding special circumstances ([37]). The judgment does not explain how the sentencing assessment might have differed if more complete medical evidence had been available.
Fourth, the decision does not provide a broader account of the statutory framework for parole or the “balance of term”. It records the sentence and release order, including the qualification that other offences might keep Sullivan in custody ([38]). It does not address the operation of those arrangements beyond this case.
Finally, later appellate history and subsequent treatment are absent. The decision itself supplies no basis for conclusions about whether its sentencing approach was later approved or altered.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
CITATION: R v Sullivan, Anzac [2010] NSWDC 333
DECISION: Convicted - Sentenced -15 months non-parole period - balance of term 9 months.
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Recklessly wound - domestic violence - alcohol and drug related - use of bottle to inflict wound - 2 cm laceration - failed s.11 bail - review of offender's s.11 bail history - 27year old single male - some family support - lengthy custodial record - quasi custody allowance made.
PARTIES: Regina (Prosecution) Anzac Sullivan (Offender)
SOLICITORS: Crown: Mr A Raymundo Defence: Mr S Rajan
...the other set of skills he has are some skills in horticulture that go beyond the average man skills of knowing when to mow a lawn". It may be that his injury to his leg which needs an operation may inhibit his capacity to do that sort of work. Although he did not tell me when he first gave evidence he also has skills with the acoustic and base guitars. For reasons I shall come to Sullivan is housed at the prison hospital within the Long Bay prison complex. He has joined a music class in the thirteen wing LBH2 and recorded six original songs to CD with what his music teacher, Maurice Cook, describes as professional results and quality. One of the tracks was played during evidence on 19 November last. Having heard that track I see no reason to disagree with his teacher's assessment. 13. The further skills included writing lyrics and music, the music teacher has identified a creative talent which, if pursued, could give Sullivan not only an income and possibly status but the satisfaction that comes from creating something worthwhile. He also plays the didgeridoo. 14. When in Broken Hill I canvassed with both legal representatives whether Mr Sullivan should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that he could rehabilitate to break the cycle of being out for a little while then going back to prison for some stupid offence usually caused by alcohol. Both counsel indicated that they saw this as an appropriate outcome. Sullivan, himself, had indicated a willingness and enthusiasm for doing this. 15. At the time I noted that "given his record" I must necessarily be concerned about the safety of the community. Most of his offences are offences against other community members so I have to keep a close eye on him, which I intend to do. The general proposal was this, "that he go from prison on 10 September next to Orana Haven and accept all reasonable directions from that institution and participate fully in the various programs so that he can show me and more importantly show himself that he was able to rehabilitate in terms of alcohol and drug issues". On 10 September 2009, Anzac Sullivan was transferred from the Correctional Centre at Broken Hill to Orana Haven outside Brewarrina. There he lasted until 25 November when he was discharged from the centre for smoking marijuana. 16. At approximately 8pm that evening he assaulted a female outside the Brewarrina RSL. His consumption of the marijuana, his failure to pass the urine test, his assault upon the female and his failure to maintain contact with Probation and Parole represented the several breaches of his s 11 bail conditions. In fairness, I should note that prior to his discharge he had complied with the rehabilitation regime at Orana Haven. The minimum period he agreed to stay there was three months, periods in excess of the three months were not inappropriate for rehabilitation and were allowed. 17. An arrest warrant was issued on 26 December 2009, he had been arrested and was admitted to the Wellington Correctional Centre. He appeared before me on 11 February 2010 from custody at the Dubbo District Court. Again, I was persuaded to restore the s 11 bail on condition that he reside at Waraku Rehab Centre. However, there was some difficulties relating to transport. He was ultimately released from custody on 1 March 2010. 18. I should note he gave an account that when discharged from Orana Haven of travelling to Dubbo and from there to Cobar and thence to Limber Station where he worked for $150 per day until a few days before Christmas. He claims to have had Christmas with his brother and father and was arrested the following day. 19. Upon release from Wellington he made his way ultimately to Bacchus House sobering up centre and thence to Waraku where he arrived on 17 March. He was asked to leave Waraku. In a letter dated 28 May, the manager, Keith Hampton, wrote: "Anzac Sullivan is no longer a client at Waraku Rehabilitation Hostel as Anzac has different ideas on the way a rehabilitation hostel should be operating and we cannot come to an agreement so it is with regret that I have decided with the rest of the Waraku staff that Anzac is to be asked to leave the hostel.
In my earlier report, Anzac had made the most of his opportunities before he went to court in Wentworth on 14 May 2010 but since that day Anzac has changed his attitude towards Waraku and feels that I should let him stay in Mildura to get ongoing treatment for his leg and I have tried on several occasions to persuade Anzac to return to Waraku. I would have taken him to Mildura to receive treatment on the appointed times but he keeps saying 'It is my call if he stays in Mildura to receive his treatment.' But I believe Anzac is at risk if this happens as he has a past history of drug and alcohol abuse. 20. There was, in fact, perhaps an earlier indication that all was not going well. Sullivan was granted leave to attend a funeral in the Wilcannia community. He departed Waraku on 4 May, was directed to return on the 6th. Even though he had been accompanied by an employee and/or resident he failed to return as directed until Monday 10 May, that is, a couple of days before I was to see him on the 14th. 21. The report prepared for 14 May progress hearing was very positive noting Sullivan's participation and drug and alcohol counselling, life skills, TAFE, mental health, courses and work about the rehabilitation centre. He obtained his white card, assisted in setting up a minor irrigation system, shed clearing and small mower maintenance. He was described as having leadership qualities something I have already referred to. Importantly, there was no complaint of drug or alcohol use but I should qualify that by saying there was no drug testing at Waraku either. 22. Again, Anzac Sullivan was in breach of his s 11 bail for leaving the rehab centre, failing to make contact with Probation and Parole. For a second time on 1 June I issued another arrest warrant. He was arrested on 1 September 2010 if I understand correctly at Lake Cargelligo where, if I understand, his father and brother live. 23. He was returned to custody. I think he was initially returned to custody at Broken Hill and he made his way via Wellington to the Long Bay Prison Hospital where I think he began being housed at about 8 or 9 September last. Before he left Broken Hill on 1 September 2010 the Broken Hill Local Court imposed a sentence of one month imprisonment upon him for the offence that had occurred in Brewarrina on 25 November last. 24. I should note the various breaches of bail and discharges from the rehabilitation centre do not make the criminality I am dealing with any greater. They do not impact upon any assessment I might have of the objective criminality of that offence. Its importance is directed to assessing the offender's contrition, insight into his offending behaviour, and the contribution that alcohol and drugs have made to it. All of which point to his prospects of rehabilitation which become the more guarded because of these failures. 25. The breaches of bail must be seen in context. True, there is further offending but only the one instance. There were also two periods of substantial compliance with rehabilitation regimes within two different settings. He made a number of quite distinct progress markers, for example, his white card, the irrigation system, work about the place and a sustained abstinence from alcohol and drugs, even if it was not complete. 26. While I am satisfied he abused alcohol at the time of the assault in Brewarrina there have been no other reported episodes of his using drugs or alcohol and in his case that is remarkable. General Health 27. Anzac Sullivan is twenty-seven years old, he will be twenty-eight in January next. In 2008, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained a broken tibia and fibula. For a relatively young man he is not in good physical condition. He has been housed at the Long Bay Prison Hospital now for more than two months. On 10 September this year he was at the Prince of Wales Hospital for "medical treatment" for an unspecified condition, which resulted in him not being able to attend court. It must have been significant because the custodial system always focuses on getting people to court if it is physically possible. 28. There is no report from the prison hospital or Justice Health as to the nature of his current indisposition or why he has remained in hospital in excess of two months. Such medical reports as I have are scant are dated. Arising from the motor vehicle accident are the fractures right tibia and fibula. This injury to his right leg has not resolved; nor, it would seem, is he accepting responsibility for its resolution. He refuses or seems to be unable to address the hospital needs he has. For instance, at Waraku he was relying on his address, he went to the hospital at Albury; but he blames them because they did not have the right equipment and he still has not yet, unless it is currently happening, received the remedial treatment he needs for his leg. In 2008, there was what was described as "almost anatomical alignment" of the comminute fractures of the tibia and fibula. Even so his capacity to walk is significantly compromised. 29. In July 2008, while he was still in custody, he was complaining of pain at the site of the fractures - complaints that seemed to me to be viewed by the nursing staff there as tainted with malingering - a proposition that I find in past cases, those administering health within the prison are too quick to come to. His evidence is, he still experiences pain at the site. So why would he not have had pain in July 2008 closer to the accident? He told Probation and Parole in October 2009 he was unable to walk long distances. He was walking with a noticeable limp. There is a radiology report from July 2008 so far as his spine is concern reporting displaced fractures involving the right C5 lamina and superior articular process of C6 also on the right extending to involve the C5/C6 joint. What, if any, incapacity or pain is arising from that injury site on his spine, or whether there are any other areas of the spine suffering because of unresolved fractures of his right leg, is not before me. Background & Support Mechanisms 30. My understanding is both natural parents have passed, his father in 2000 and his mother in 2008 during one of his periods in custody. He was not permitted to attend her funeral. He is the sixth of eight children. His childhood was disruptive. Between the years of nine and eleven he was fostered with a non-indigenous man who had earlier fostered his brothers. I understand his brothers allege being sexually assaulted by the foster carer. Even though the offender denies he was sexually assaulted I would not rule it out that he may have been sexually assaulted. He went to a boys home in 1995 aged eleven. Growing up within his family, he saw a lot of violence between adults. He left school in Year 8. He says that he received most of his schooling within Juvenile Justice institutions. 31. In 2009, three of his brothers were in custody, a not unusual phenomenon in Aboriginal families. That is, four of the eight children in custody and two of them, I think, were girls so that means a high percentage of the boys were in custody. He speaks of visiting his father in Lake Cargelligo. I suspect that is a stepfather who, as I understand it, has diabetes and needs dialysis. OFFENDER: He's got dialysis. HIS HONOUR: 32. My mistake, kidney problem and is in poor health needing dialysis. His relationship with the complainant in this matter is problematic. She is a drinker as I noted at the outset. When he drinks with her there is a serious risk of violence. His daughter is with a grandparent in Albury where he has stayed and enjoyed the child's company. 33. I am satisfied there is family support from his brother who I think is Adrian, the stepfather and the grandmother. I am satisfied his commitment to the young child could be a positive rehabilitation motivator. However, there is demonstrated difficulty by him in complying with structural rehabilitation professionals, the significance of which I have already noted. He is not without skills. I noted he appeared more depressed on this last occasion when I saw him in the witness box than on prior occasions when I have seen him. He did become animated when speaking about his past success with music and his future aspirations. There have been other pathfinders before him who have seen custody and made their mark outside the prison walls in music. Whilever his injury remains chronic, active work is no longer possible. It may be for him the answer will lie in his creativity. Custody 34. This offender's custody includes ten months nineteen days of full time custody. He also spent two months fourteen days at Orana Haven and two months eighteen days at Waraku making a total of five months and one day in full time quasi custody for rehabilitation purposes. I am prepared to equate that to two months sixteen days equivalent to full time custody giving a total of thirteen months and five days custody. Setting the Sentence 35. Whilever the courts continue to deal with domestic violence offences such as this offence, where actual bodily harm has been caused, there is a call for general deterrence. Men, including Aboriginal men, must understand that where women are injured in a domestic violence thrashing, gaol is the most likely outcome. This offence constitutes a serious example of domestic violence, a sentence of incarceration is called for. I have sought to give an opportunity for and recognition of time spent in custody in the course of rehabilitation. I do not regard the effort as a total waste of time. Indeed, I have tried to highlight the positives that have come out of it. In the last fourteen months he has committed only the one assault. He has had substantial period off alcohol. He has spent five months out of custody. On his past history one offence in fourteen months is progress. Hopefully, he can do better when he released. 36. In the light of the allowances made for quasi custody and the granting of s 11 bail I do not propose to give any utilitarian discount for the plea in my view a substantial benefit for the plea has already been achieved. 37. The sentence I would have set was one of two years. That will be the sentence I will set. I find special circumstances, namely, his health needs and the advantage of his rehabilitation taking place in the community and such progress as he has already made in rehabilitation. 38. Anzac Brian Sullivan, you are convicted that you, on or about 16 January 2009 at Wilcannia recklessly wounded SD. I sentence you to fifteen months imprisonment to date from 20 October 2009 and to expire on 19 January next year, 2011. I set a balance of term of nine months to expire on 19 October 2011. I order you to be released to parole on 19 January next year assuming no other offences are keeping you in custody. I want you to spend the next little while making arrangements as to where you are going to live when you get out and I wish you good luck when you go. oOo
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
R
Sullivan, Anzac
Sullivan was convicted of recklessly wounding SD and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment from 20 October 2009, expiring 19 January 2011; the balance of the term was set at nine months, expiring 19 October 2011, with release to parole on 19 January 2011 if no other offences kept him in custody.