R v Ryan

Case [2014] QCA 78 15 April 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78

PARTIES:

R
v
RYAN, Jason Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 206 of 2013
SC No 5 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal granted.1.

Appeal allowed.2.

A sentence of 10 years imprisonment is substituted for the sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed below.3.

Sentence below otherwise confirmed.4.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the prosecutor submitted at sentence that the street value of the methylamphetamine involved in this trafficking was between $541,000 and $1,665,000 – where the tendered schedule of facts was internally inconsistent as to the street value of the drugs involved in the trafficking – where the sentencing judge concluded the trafficking involved at least hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably in excess of a million dollars – where the sentencing judge was led into error by the confusing statement of agreed facts and the prosecutor's submissions – whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with a sentence of four years imprisonment previously imposed – where the applicant had spent two and a half years in custody since his arrest, only 20 days of which could be declared as time served under the sentence – where the totality principle requires a consideration of whether the effective combined sentence for both episodes of offending is too harsh and crushing a penalty – whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, cited
R v Galeano[2013] QCA 51, cited
R v Kashton[2005] QCA 70, cited

COUNSEL:

B Mumford for the applicant/appellant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant pleaded guilty on 14 August 2013, together with Darron Smith, Benjamin Carey, Juan Bright and Corie Weldon, to unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs at Rockhampton between 1 August 2010 and 17 February 2011. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with a sentence of four years imprisonment for unlawful wounding imposed on 8 March 2011. The applicant's ground of appeal is that his sentence…

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 [2014] QCA 78
Case: [2014] QCA 78
Decision Date: 15 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Ryan, was convicted of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that the original sentence of 12 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. Ryan had already spent two and a half years in custody, but only 20 days of this time could be considered time served under the sentence for the current offence. The applicant argued that the total effective combined sentence for both episodes of offending was too harsh and crushing a penalty, considering the totality principle.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had been led into error by the confusing statement of agreed facts and the prosecutor's submissions, which resulted in an inconsistent assessment of the street value of the drugs involved. The applicant contended that the sentencing judge's conclusion that the trafficking involved at least hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably in excess of a million dollars was incorrect, and this led to an inappropriate sentence.

The court determined that the application for leave to appeal should be granted, finding that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentencing judge had been misled by the conflicting information provided and that the applicant's sentence should be reconsidered. The court substituted a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the original sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed below, while confirming the sentence in all other respects.

The court's final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, a sentence of 10 years imprisonment was substituted for the sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed below, and the sentence below was otherwise confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal granted.1.

Appeal allowed.2.

A sentence of 10 years imprisonment is substituted for the sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed below.3.

Sentence below otherwise confirmed.4.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78

Most Recent Citation

R v Safi [2015] QCA 13

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

R v GBP
[2024] QCA 200 Para 6

…. In his analysis, Fraser JA stated:[16] “The Court has recently analysed the relevant sentencing decisions: see R v Galeano at [26]-[31], R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78 at [43]-[45], and R v Johnson at [43]-[46]. As I observed in R v Safi [2015] QCA 13 those analyses indicate that, whilst each sentence requires an exer…
R v Castner
[2018] QCA 265 Para 7

…Fraser JA stated at [11]: “The Court has recently analysed the relevant sentencing decisions: see R v Galeano at [26]-[31], R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78 at [43]-[45], and R v Johnson at [43]-[46]. As I observed in R v Safi [2015] QCA 13 those analyses indicate that, whilst each sentence requires an exercise of discret…
R v Bush (No 2)
[2018] QCA 46 Para 26

…in Brown at [46]. Citations omitted. “The Court has recently analysed the relevant sentencing decisions: see R v Galeano at [26]-[31], R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78 at [43]-[45], and R v Johnson at [43]-[46]. As I observed in R v Safi [2015] QCA 13 those analyses indicate that, whilst each sentence requires an exercise…
R v Tran; Ex parte
[2018] QCA 22 Para 2

…without a significant criminal history and with excellent rehabilitative prospects may be sentenced to slightly lesser terms.” [4] [2] R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78; R v Safi [2015] QCA 13; R v McGinniss [2015] QCA 34; R v Nguyen [2016] QCA 57. [3][2014] QCA 79, [43]-[46]. [4] R v Safi [2015] QCA 13 at [18].…
R v Nguyen
[2016] QCA 57 Para 10

…offending and were not comparable. Nine and a half years would have been an appropriate sentence here. [2][2009] QCA 376. [3][2013] QCA 51. [4][2014] QCA 78. [5][2014] QCA 79. [6][2015] QCA 13. [7][2015] QCA 34. [8][2015] QCA 51. [9][2007] QCA 93. [10][2014] QCA 181. [11][2001] QCA 98. [12][2000] QCA 246. [13][…
R v Cant
[2016] QCA 52 Para 45

…convicted of an earlier serious drug offence or offences such as trafficking or supply, as in the present case. [6] R v Carey [2015] QCA 51; R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78; R v Cameron [2014] QCA 55; R v C’Ward [2014] QCA 15; R v Miller [2013] QCA 346; R v Boyd [2013] QCA 335 ; R v Galeano [2013] 2 Qd R 464; R v Brigg s…
R v Cornick
[2015] QCA 279 Para 3

…will be eligible for parole after serving approximately nine years and seven months in custody. [13][2009] QCA 376. [14][2013] QCA 51. [15][2014] QCA 78. [16][2014] QCA 79. [17][2015] QCA 13. The application for leave to appeal against sentence…
R v Ahmetaj
[2015] QCA 248 Para 24

…Fraser JA said:[84] “The Court has recently analysed the relevant sentencing decisions: see R v Galeano at [26]-[31], R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78 at [43]-[45], and R v Johnson at [43]-[46]. As I observed in R v Safi [2015] QCA 13 those analyses indicate that, whilst each sentence requires an exercise of discretion wi…
R v Brown
[2015] QCA 225 Para 13

…Fraser JA said:[31] “The Court has recently analysed the relevant sentencing decisions: see R v Galeano at [26]-[31], R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78 at [43]-[45], and R v Johnson at [43]-[46]. As I observed in R v Safi [2015] QCA 13 those analyses indicate that, whilst each sentence requires an exercise of discretion wi…
R v Carey
[2015] QCA 51 Para 6

…ed sentencing judge erred in calculating the gravity of his trafficking; and that re-sentencing is required in light of the re-sentencing of Ryan. [1][2014] QCA 78. The applicant’s antecedents…
R v McGinniss
[2015] QCA 34 Para 11

…The Court has recently analysed the relevant sentencing decisions: see R v Galeano at [26]-[31], R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78 at [43]-[45], and R v Johnson at [43]-[46]. As I observed in R v Safi [2015] QCA 13 those analyses indicate that, whilst each sentence requires an exercise of discretion with reference to the f…
R v Safi
[2015] QCA 13 Para 1

…relevant sentencing decisions have been extensively analysed in recent decisions of this Court: R v Galeano [2013] QCA 51 at [26] – [31], R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78 at [43] – [45], and R v Johnson [2014] QCA 79 at [43] – [46]. Of course there are various differences between this case and each of those cases and the…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Galeano
[2013] QCA 51 Para 1

…sideration. He sentenced the applicant to 12 years imprisonment concurrent with his four year sentence for unlawful wounding. [12][2009] QCA 376. [13][2013] QCA 51.…
R v Feakes
[2009] QCA 376 Para 1

…e sentenced to between 10 and 12 years imprisonment. He had 20 days of declarable presentence custody prior to his sentence for unlawful wounding. [6][2009] QCA 376.…
R v Kashton
[2005] QCA 70 Para 1

…ing at the time of his sentence for trafficking. The totality principle required moderation of the trafficking sentence to 10 years imprisonment. [14][2005] QCA 70. [15][2013] QCA 51, [31]. [16](1988) 166 CLR 59, Wilson, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ 62-63.…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70

…ing a penalty – whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited R v Feakes [2009] QCA 376, cited R v Galeano [2013] QCA 51, cited R v Kashton [2005] QCA 70, cited COUNSEL: B Mumford for the applicant/appellant P J McCarthy for the respondent…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78
PARTIES:	R v RYAN, Jason Robert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 206 of 2013 SC No 5 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	15 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Application for leave to appeal granted.1. Appeal allowed.2. A sentence of 10 years imprisonment is substituted for the sentence of 12 years imprisonment imposed below.3. Sentence below otherwise confirmed.4.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the prosecutor submitted at sentence that the street value of the methylamphetamine involved in this trafficking was between $541,000 and $1,665,000 – where the tendered schedule of facts was internally inconsistent as to the street value of the drugs involved in the trafficking – where the sentencing judge concluded the trafficking involved at least hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably in excess of a million dollars – where the sentencing judge was led into error by the confusing statement of agreed facts and the prosecutor's submissions – whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with a sentence of four years imprisonment previously imposed – where the applicant had spent two and a half years in custody since his arrest, only 20 days of which could be declared as time served under the sentence – where the totality principle requires a consideration of whether the effective combined sentence for both episodes of offending is too harsh and crushing a penalty – whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, cited R v Galeano[2013] QCA 51, cited R v Kashton[2005] QCA 70, cited
COUNSEL:	B Mumford for the applicant/appellant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent