R v Dickson & Ryan - [2007] VSC 59

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No: 1429/2007

THE QUEEN

MARK EWAN DICKSON
and
LEONARD FRANK RYAN

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 February 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 March 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dickson and Ryan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 59

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Armed robbery – informer’s discount – sentencing of co-offenders, parity, sentencing submissions of the DPP.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Ryan SC with Mr T. Wallwork	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Dickson	Ms M. Warren	Ms D. Jovanovska, Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Accused Ryan	Mr J. Montgomery SC	Mr A. Furstenberg Lewenberg & Lewenberg

HER HONOUR:

Mark Ewan Dickson, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, one count of assisting an offender and one count of armed robbery, which occurred on 7 June 2004. The count of assisting offender related to the armed robbery, the subject of Count 2, which occurred on 8 March 2005.

Leonard Frank Ryan, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and one count of armed robbery which occurred on 8 March 2005.

The two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery are identical for each of you, occurring in respect of Count 4 between 12 and 24 May 2005 and Count 5 between 12 and 26 May 2005. You each have relevant prior convictions.

You, Mark Dickson, have a prior conviction for two counts of armed robbery and one count of theft on 21 October 1993 at the County Court at Melbourne, for which you received an overall sentence of six years with a minimum of three years.

You, Leonard Frank Ryan, have been convicted of dangerous driving in Sydney in 1990 for which you were fined and disqualified; 1991, also in Sydney, for malicious damage to property and placed on a good behaviour bond; in October 1991, 14 driving offences for which you received a combination of fines, community service and licence disqualification; and in November 1991, common assault, for which you were fined $200.

None of those matters are of any real significance in a matter such as this, but of real relevance is the prior conviction in February 1996 for one count of armed robbery and one count of theft in the County Court at Melbourne. You were sentenced to five and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum term of four years.

You, Mark Ewan Dickson, are now aged 45, having been born on 4 May 1961 and your occupation, when working, is as a driver.

You, Leonard Frank Ryan, are now aged 34, having been born on 10 September 1972, and a mechanic by occupation.

You were both residing at Unit 7, 618 Inkerman Street, Caulfield North, at the time of your involvement in these robberies.

In relation to the facts: Count 1 on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Dickson & Ryan

Details

AGLC: R v Dickson and Ryan [2007] VSC 59
Case: [2007] VSC 59
Decision Date: 9 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dickson & Ryan involves two defendants, Dickson and Ryan, who were charged with armed robbery. The dispute arose from their involvement in an armed robbery incident and the subsequent legal proceedings regarding their sentencing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the application of an informer’s discount to the sentences of the defendants, the principle of parity in sentencing co-offenders, and the sentencing submissions made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. A key issue was how the court should balance the need to apply the informer’s discount with the requirement to ensure that the sentences were proportionate and fair to both defendants.

The court examined the evidence and submissions provided, considering the roles of Dickson and Ryan in the armed robbery. It determined that an informer’s discount was applicable, given that one of the defendants had provided significant information to the police. However, the court also emphasised the importance of achieving parity in sentencing, ensuring that the sentences reflected the relative culpability of each defendant. After careful consideration, the court concluded that while the informer’s discount was warranted, it was essential to adjust the sentences to maintain parity between the co-offenders. The final orders reflected the court's reasoning, with sentences adjusted to account for both the informer’s discount and the need for parity in sentencing.

Orders