The father of a young Australian found guilty of first degree murder in Bulgaria says he is gearing up for an appeal.

"I obviously need to digest it a bit more to think a bit more it," said Dr Simon Palfreeman from his hotel in Sofia.

Overnight 23 years old Jock Palfreeman was found guilty of the murder of 20-year-old Andrei Monov and the attempted murder of Anton Zahariev on December 27, 2007. He has been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay approximately $400, 000 in damages to both families as well as court costs.

The prosecution claimed Palfreeman acted with hooligan intent and called for life imprisonment without parole. In her original indictment, prosecutor Parvoleta Nicova wrote that Jock Palfreeman 'premeditatively' killed Monov and 'attempted to premeditatively' kill Zahariev.

The judge found the murder was wilful and represented hooliganism.

The defence claimed that Jock Palfreeman acted in self defence after a large group of soccer fans attacked him in a large, open square in downtown Sofia in the middle of the night when he went to defend a gypsy who was being beaten.

"At this stage I found the judgement totally outrageous," said Dr Palfreeman, a pathologist who has been acting as his son's legal representative along with a noted Bulgarian human rights lawyer.

"I did not think the judgement related in any way to the degree of detailed evidence that was presented by defence team. But unfortunately it's really difficult to comment further until we get the judges' reasonings and then we will have a better idea of exactly how the court came to this decision."

Dr Palfreeman said he did not expect to see the judges' reasons for another month.

"On face value I am extremely concerned about how the judge came to this decision because it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the amount of evidence presented to the court over the last 18 months. And I personally can see no justification to come out with such a harsh sentence. But unfortunately he is not obliged to give any reason and so we will have to wait for those written reasons."

It is a case that has generated heated debate in the Bulgarian media. The dead man is the son of a high-ranking and prominent psychologist in the Bulgarian government.

Dr Palfreeman described the unfolding of events in last over night as bizarre.

"I was extremely surprised when the prosecution summary, which included the prosecution, three lawyers and Mr and Mrs Monov, was all over in 30 minutes, and that despite quite detailed analysis of the evidence by Mr Kanchev (Palfreeman's Bulgarian lawyer) , myself and Jock, none of that was rebutted by the prosecution. We went to recess and at that stage we thought since they've made no effort to contradict any of our evidence, I thought our evidence was quite powerful, it was an absolute surprise to me when the judge came back and pretty much said he agreed with the prosecution."

The Bulgarian justice system has come under recent attack from the Commision of European Communities and the Global Corruption Barometer of Transparency International.

Bulgaria uses a version of the continental justice system where the judge's role is more inquisitorial than in the common law system used in Australia.

There is no jury but there is a panel of two legally trained judges and three non-legally trained judges who have equal standing.

The family of the dead man and the injured man are running a civil claim for damages during the criminal proceedings.

Andrei Monov's parents were the first witnesses called.

The victims' role extends to the very evidence able to be admitted.

They have been able to block the admission of the original witness statements, many of which support Palfreeman's version of events, using a law drawn up to assist defendants claiming police 'verballed' them.

Until recently so too could the prosecutor.

The defence has been prohibited from referring to discrepancies between what was said soon after the event and what was given as evidence in court.

It also has been prohibited from cross examining witnesses about discrepancies.

The trial has taken 18 months amidst delays that included one of the judges failing to turn up twice.