R v. O'Ryan - [2008] QCA 390

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v O'Ryan [2008] QCA 390

PARTIES:

R
v
O'RYAN, Michael Anthony Timothy
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 324 of 2007
DC No 3434 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2008

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and White AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused2.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of defrauding the Commonwealth and two counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage – where the appellant claimed to be suffering from a mental illness known as dissociative identity disorder – where the expert evidence on the nature of this illness and its impact upon the appellant was conflicting – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied on all the evidence of the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months – whether the sentence imposed was in the circumstances manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 134.2

HML v The Queen (2008) 82 ALJR 723; [2008] HCA 16, cited
R v Hurst; ex parte Commonwealth DPP[2005] QCA 25, cited
R v Lovel[2007] QCA 281, cited
R v Wright (1994) 74 A Crim R 152; [1994] QCA 16, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
C Ryan (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

JERSEY CJ: de I have had the opportunity of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA. I agree with the orders proposed by His Honour, and with his reasons.

KEANE JA: On 1 November 2007 the appellant was convicted of two counts of defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia and two counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage. On each count, the appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. The appellant was also ordered to pay by way of reparation to the Commonwealth the sum of $120,516.98.

The appellant has appealed against each of the convictions on the ground that "the verdict was unreasonable in all of the circumstances". The appellant also seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him on the ground that it was "manifestly excessive".

These matters came on for hearing on 17 September 2008. At that time the appellant sought and was granted an adjournment to enable him to…

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. O'Ryan

Details

AGLC: R v O'Ryan [2008] QCA 390
Case: [2008] QCA 390
Decision Date: 5 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, O'Ryan, appealed against his conviction and sentence for defrauding the Commonwealth and dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that his sentence was excessive. The appellant claimed to have a mental illness, dissociative identity disorder, which he argued impacted his ability to commit the crimes. However, the court found that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, despite the conflicting evidence regarding the impact of his mental illness.

The court was required to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the evidence presented, including the conflicting expert evidence regarding the impact of the appellant's mental illness on his ability to commit the crimes. The court also examined the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdict was open to the jury on the evidence presented. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence, finding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant had a lengthy criminal history and that the offences were serious, involving substantial financial loss to the Commonwealth. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders:
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v O'Ryan [2008] QCA 390
PARTIES:	R v O'RYAN, Michael Anthony Timothy (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 324 of 2007 DC No 3434 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 November 2008
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and White AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused2.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of defrauding the Commonwealth and two counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage – where the appellant claimed to be suffering from a mental illness known as dissociative identity disorder – where the expert evidence on the nature of this illness and its impact upon the appellant was conflicting – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied on all the evidence of the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months – whether the sentence imposed was in the circumstances manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 134.2 HML v The Queen (2008) 82 ALJR 723; [2008] HCA 16, cited R v Hurst; ex parte Commonwealth DPP[2005] QCA 25, cited R v Lovel[2007] QCA 281, cited R v Wright (1994) 74 A Crim R 152; [1994] QCA 16, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf C Ryan (sol) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent