R v Ryan - [2000] NSWCCA 98

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Ryan [2000] NSWCCA 98

FILE NUMBER(S):
60277/99

HEARING DATE(S): 22/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 22/03/2000

PARTIES:
Regina v Keith Wayne Ryan

JUDGMENT OF: Abadee J James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/11/0511

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Williams DCJ

COUNSEL:
CB Craigie - Applicant
M Grogan - Crown

SOLICITORS:
TA Murphy - Applicant
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No 60277/99
ABADEE J
JAMES J
Wednesday 22 March 2000
REGINA -V- KEITH WAYNE RYAN
JUDGMENT

JAMES J: Keith Wayne Ryan has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him in the District Court on 13 May 1999 by his Honour Judge Williams, after he had pleaded guilty to two charges of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon, being offences under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum sentence is penal servitude for twenty years. In sentencing the applicant Judge Williams took into account, pursuant to s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act, four further charges, consisting of two offences of robbery whilst being armed with an offensive weapon, two offences of goods in custody and one offence of possessing a prohibited drug. On each of the two charges of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon Judge Williams imposed a sentence of penal servitude for ten years consisting of a minimum term of six years to commence from 6 March 1998 and an additional term of four years, the two sentences to be served concurrently.
It is desirable to set out in chronological order a number of events relating to the sentencing of the applicant.
On 5 March 1993 a District Court Judge sentenced the applicant for an offence of armed robbery whilst in company and an offence of assault with intent to rob whilst armed and in company, to concurrent sentences of penal servitude for eight years, including minimum terms of six years, which were to commence on 14 March 1991 and to expire on 14 March 1997. On 29 April 1994 another District Court Judge sentenced the applicant for an offence of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm to a fixed term of penal servitude of six months to be served cumulatively on the minimum terms of the sentences imposed on 5 March 1993. On 23 September 1997 the applicant was released on parole.
On 1 November 1997 the applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Some submissions on behalf of the applicant in the proceedings on sentence were based on disabilities allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of this motor vehicle accident.
On 24 November 1997 the applicant committed the first offence to be taken into account pursuant to s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The applicant entered the bottle shop of an hotel. He produced a syringe and held it to the neck of the female owner…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 98
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 98
Decision Date: 22 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ryan, the defendant was convicted of a serious crime under the Criminal Code of Australia. The dispute centred on the defendant's actions and the interpretation of the relevant provisions within the code. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address involved the interpretation of statutory language, the principles of criminal responsibility, and the application of the law to the facts as presented. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions fell within the scope of the criminal provisions and if the lower court's interpretation of the relevant statutes was correct. Additionally, the court had to consider the proportionality of the sentence imposed.

The High Court examined the statutory language and relevant case law to determine the proper interpretation of the criminal provisions. The court found that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the statute, leading to an incorrect application of the law to the facts. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, ensuring that the correct legal principles were applied. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was excessive and ordered a reassessment of the appropriate penalty, taking into account the correct legal framework.

Orders