R v Ryan

Case [2013] NSWDC 281 14 February 2013

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ryan [2013] NSWDC 281
Decision date: 14 February 2013
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Count 1 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.
Count 2 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.
Count 3 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non parole period of 3 years and 3 months.
Count 4 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months.
Count 6 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and 9 months with a non parole period of 7 years and 6 months.
Count 7 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months.
Count 8 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.
Count 9 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL - Sentencing, standard non parole period, special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Makarian v The Queen (2005) 226 CLR 357
Hayes v The Queen (1984) 1 NSWLR 740
R v Ponfield & Ors (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
The Queen v King [2003] NSWCCA 352
Veen (No2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465
The Queen v R King [2009] NSWCCA 117
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Moffit (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Trevor Ross Ryan - Offender
Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr King - Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service

File Number(s): 2011/237890

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Trevor Ross Ryan appears today for sentence in relation to eight offences, in respect of which he entered pleas of guilty to having committed between 15 July 2011 and 17 July 2011, at various places in New South Wales, but particularly at Tumbarumba, Wagga Wagga and Lucknow, near Orange.

The offences were committed when Mr Ryan was an escapee from a Corrective Services establishment near Tumbarumba.

The offences to which he pleaded guilty in summary were, in order of their occurrence: Firstly, an offence of breaking, entering and stealing at Tumbarumba, where he broke and entered the dwelling house of Anne Cameron and stole certain property particularised in the charge, which included a set of car keys. That offence, contrary to s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment.

Related to that offence is count 2, when the prisoner took and drove the car of Ms Cameron by the use of the car keys that he had stolen from inside her dwelling house, taking the car without her consent. This offence contrary to s 154A Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

Three offences were committed on 16 July in the early hours of the morning in Wagga Wagga as…

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 Ryan

Details

AGLC: R v Ryan [2013] NSWDC 281
Case: [2013] NSWDC 281
Decision Date: 14 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ryan, was convicted on nine counts of various criminal offences and the matter came before the court for sentencing. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for each count, taking into consideration the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

The court identified several legal issues that needed to be addressed, including the appropriate standard non-parole period for each count, as well as whether any special circumstances were present that would warrant a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The court also had to consider the totality of the appellant's offending and the need for any sentences to be cumulative.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the appropriate sentences for each count were as follows: Count 1, a term of imprisonment of 3 years; Count 2, a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months; Count 3, a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months; Count 4, a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months; Count 6, a term of imprisonment of 12 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months; Count 7, a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months; Count 8, a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months; and Count 9, a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months. The court considered the totality of the appellant's offending and determined that the sentences should be cumulative.

The court made orders for the appellant to be sentenced to the terms of imprisonment specified above for each count, with the non-parole periods as determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years.

Count 2 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.

Count 3 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non parole period of 3 years and 3 months.

Count 4 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months.

Count 6 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and 9 months with a non parole period of 7 years and 6 months.

Count 7 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months.

Count 8 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.

Count 9 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Ryan [2013] NSWDC 281

Most Recent Citation

The King v Cameron; The King v Wunta [2024] NTSC 64

Cases Citing This Decision

The King v Cameron; The King v Wunta [2024] NTSC 64
Citation 1

…[3] See R v Ryan (2013) 33 NTLR 123, 131-132 [27].…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Fernando [2025] NSWSC 654
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…irectly at least, based upon the material available to it at the time of preparing the written submissions, by reference to the decision of Wood J in The Queen v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58.…
Moffitt v The Queen [2020] NSWDC 486
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…ting further offences, or presenting a danger to the community. He needs an extended period of supervision to adjust to community living ( R v Moffit (1990) 20 NSWLR 114, (at 120-121) per Wood J).…
R v Ponfield [2019] NSWDC 867
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…ware of what Lee J said in Hayes v The Queen, (1984) 1 NSWLR 740 but particularly I take into account Groves J observations in R v Ponfield and ors , (1999) 48 NSWLR 327, one of the early guideline judgments, in respect of break and enter matters.…
Reid and Secco [2018] FamCA 95
Citation 4

…011) 244 CLR 120 The Queen v King [2003] NSWCCA 352 Veen (No2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 The Queen v R King [2009] NSWCCA 117 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Moffit (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Trevor Ross Ryan - Offender Representation: Directo…
The Queen v Putra Hendra [2014] ACTSC 102
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…wever, for the purposes of this sentencing exercise, the matter that I wish to dwell on just for a moment is the consequences of Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120, as it relates to the offences which have standard non-parole periods. Amongst other reasons there are general statements by Muldrock v The Queen tha…
R v Hayes [2012] SASCFC 96
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…In relation to 'breaking and entering matters' I am also aware of what Lee J said in Hayes v The Queen, (1984) 1 NSWLR 740 but particularly I take into account Groves J observations in R v Ponfield and ors , (1999) 48 NSWLR 327, one of the early guideline judgments, in respect of break and enter matters.…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…However, for the purposes of this sentencing exercise, the matter that I wish to dwell on just for a moment is the consequences of Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120, as it relates to the offences which have standard non-parole periods. Amongst other reasons there are general statements by Muldrock v The Queen that might…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…way in which mental health may influence or affect sentencing, as set out in summary cases such as Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 or R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228.…
R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…The issue of the age of the child, in the context of the charge pleaded, was discussed in the decision of The Queen v King [2009] NSWCCA 117. Obviously the very young age of the child, noting what the learned Judges in that Court said, is a relevant factor for consideration of the assessment of the objective serious…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…in conjunction with s 21A, an approach to sentencing that is consistent with the approach to sentencing described by McHugh J in Makarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, particularly at [51], whereby the judge endeavours to identify all the relevant factors, including those at common law, to the sentencing exercise,…
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…fluence or affect sentencing, as set out in summary cases such as Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 or R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228.…
R v King [2003] NSWCCA 352
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…be regarded as being a greater aggravation than if each of the offences was committed while subject to "conditional liberty", citing The Queen v King [2003] NSWCCA 352.…
R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…I have somewhat paraphrased his Honour's words, but I do note that his Honour, nine years later in Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121, in a context of dealing with one of the early suspended sentences the subject of a Crown appeal, reflected upon the observations of King CJ in Yardley v Betts and by the South Au…
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Citation 14

…rock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 The Queen v King [2003] NSWCCA 352 Veen (No2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 The Queen v R King [2009] NSWCCA 117 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Moffit (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Trevor Ross Ryan - Offender Representat…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…aw perspective, an independent aggravating feature. I do not believe, however in proper context, that the observations of the majority in Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 (at 477), have been reached at this point.…
Hayes v The Queen [1967] HCA 29
Citation 16

…special circumstances. Legislation Cited: Crimes act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Makarian v The Queen (2005) 226 CLR 357 Hayes v The Queen (1984) 1 NSWLR 740 R v Ponfield & Ors (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 The Queen v King [2003] NSWCCA 352 Veen (No2) v The Queen…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ryan [2013] NSWDC 281
Decision date:	14 February 2013
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Count 1 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. Count 2 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months. Count 3 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non parole period of 3 years and 3 months. Count 4 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months. Count 6 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and 9 months with a non parole period of 7 years and 6 months. Count 7 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. Count 8 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months. Count 9 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL - Sentencing, standard non parole period, special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Makarian v The Queen (2005) 226 CLR 357 Hayes v The Queen (1984) 1 NSWLR 740 R v Ponfield & Ors (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 The Queen v King [2003] NSWCCA 352 Veen (No2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 The Queen v R King [2009] NSWCCA 117 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Moffit (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 R v PGM (2008) 187 A Crim R 152
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Trevor Ross Ryan - Offender
Representation:	Director of Public Prosecutions Mr King - Offender Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service
File Number(s):	2011/237890