R v Ryan

[2019] NSWDC 195

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 195

Hearing dates:

18 April 2019

Date of orders:

22 May 2019

Decision date:

22 May 2019

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Yehia SC DCJ

Decision:

See [119] – [123]

Catchwords:

Historical indecent assaults on children committed by a person in authority

 

Application of the principles of totality and proportionality where the offender has previously served a lengthy term of imprisonment and comes to be sentenced following expiration of the non-parole period

  Considerations of the competing principles of sentencing

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5, 7, 8, 21A, 24, 25AA
Parole of Prisoners Act 1966 (NSW)(repealed)

Cases Cited:

DPP v George Pell [2019] VCC 260
Mainwaring v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 207
Mill v The Queen (1988) 36 A Crim R 468
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267
R v Ryan (No 2) [2003] NSWCCA 35
R v Vincent Gerard Ryan (26 September 1997 – unreported – NSWDC)
R v Vincent Gerard Ryan (30 May 1996 – unreported – NSWDC)

Texts Cited:

Chasmore, J, & Shackel, R (2013). The long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Canberra: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Rich, P (2003). Sexually Abusive Behaviours, Victims, and Perpetrators, Understanding, Assessing and Rehabilitating Juvenile Sexual Offenders (pp.15-37). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report (2017) Vol 3, 77.

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Director of Public Prosecutions
Vincent Gerard Ryan

Representation:

Counsel:
David Patch
Michael King

  Solicitors:
Laura Hawke
Maria Walz

File Number(s):

2017/72911

Publication restriction:

S578A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 applies to this matter, no publication of any matter which identifies the complainants or may lead to the identification of the complainants

Judgment

1. Vincent Gerard Ryan (who may also be referred to as the offender during the course of this judgment), is to be sentenced for committing four offences involving indecent assaults on two children. The offences constitute serious criminal conduct committed against children who were entitled to expect a childhood free of sexual violation and the distress such violation causes.

2. The sentence proceedings have raised important and somewhat conflicting considerations that must be addressed. The offender’s criminal conduct must be denounced and the harm done to the victims acknowledged. He committed these indecent assaults on MB and SH when he was a priest. He held a position of high moral authority, influence and standing in his community.

3. The relationship of trust that existed between him and the victims, children he supervised and interacted with in the context of his position of high moral authority, was betrayed in a profound and egregious manner. His acts must be punished.

4. Denunciation, punishment, general deterrence and acknowledging the harm done to the victims are relevant sentencing considerations that pull in one direction. I must also have regard to a number of other sentencing considerations. Significant amongst them are the principles of proportionality and totality.

5. The victims’ accounts came to…