R v Ryan - [2000] NSWSC 724

CITATION: REGINA v RYAN [2000] NSWSC 724

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70003/99

HEARING DATE(S): 3/03/2000, 13,03/2000,14/03/2000, 15/03/2000, 16/03/2000, 17/03/2000, 20/03/2000, 21/03/2000,22/03/2000, 23/03/2000, 24/03/2000,27/03/2000,28/03/2000,29/03/2000,30/03/2000, 31/03/2000, 03/04/2000, 10/04/2000, 19/05/2000, 14/07/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Michael James Ryan

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr W Dawe QC (Crown)
Mr P Skinner (Accused)

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy (Crown)
S E O'Connor (DPP) (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Manslaughter - sentence - semi-trailer driver - unwitting amphetamine intoxication - relevance

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 at 85
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 esp at 231

DECISION: See paragraphs 31 and 32

Transcript revised
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ADAMS J
FRIDAY 14 JULY 2000

070003/99

REGINA v MICHAEL JAMES RYAN

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 14 March 2000 an indictment was presented against the offender charging him with the murders of Arthur Hwee Siew Wong and Susan Mary Barnes on 18 September 1998 at Strathfield in the State of New South Wales. He was charged in the alternative with driving a motor vehicle dangerously whilst his ability to drive was substantially impaired by being under the influence of a drug and occasioning the death of those two persons. He pleaded not guilty to the charges of murder but guilty to the alternative charges. The Crown did not accept the pleas of guilty in full discharge of the indictment and, accordingly, the offender was put on his trial for murder. On 3 April 2000 the jury, being unable to agree on a verdict, was discharged and the offender remanded in custody pending a fresh trial. On 10 April 2000 the Crown preferred charges of manslaughter in respect of the deaths of Mr Wong and Mrs Barnes to which the offender pleaded guilty. 2 It is unnecessary for present purposes to set out in detail the evidence of the trial. However a brief summary of the material facts is required. Each of the deceased persons was the driver of a motor vehicle moving north in Centenary Drive when it was struck by the semi-trailer then being driven by the offender on the wrong side of the road in a northerly direction. Centenary Drive is a six-lane highway with three lanes going in each direction divided by a median strip a little over a metre wide. A number of witnesses were called as to the speed and course of travel on the road taken by the offender's truck at the material time. The effect of this evidence is that the truck was travelling north in Centenary Drive and was driven across the median strip and was on the wrong side of the highway for about 500 metres, when it struck the two vehicles being driven by the deceased persons, almost immediately thereafter swerving right and coming to a halt, jammed against the side wall of the roadway. It is clear that the offender…

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] NSWSC 724
Case: [2000] NSWSC 724
Decision Date: 14 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court was against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Ryan, who was convicted of manslaughter by negligent driving while operating a semi-trailer. The prosecution was brought against Ryan after his vehicle collided with another vehicle on a highway, resulting in the death of the other driver. The defence argued that Ryan's unwitting consumption of amphetamines, which impaired his driving ability, was a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether this factor was relevant to the sentencing of Ryan.

The central legal issue before the Court was the relevance and weight to be given to Ryan's unwitting amphetamine intoxication in determining the appropriate sentence. The defence contended that the intoxication should be considered as a mitigating factor, as it impaired Ryan's driving ability and contributed to the accident. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the intoxication should not be taken into account, as it was not a factor that Ryan could have reasonably foreseen or controlled. The Court had to balance these competing arguments and determine the appropriate weight to be given to the intoxication in sentencing.

In its decision, the Court held that the unwitting amphetamine intoxication was a relevant factor to consider in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court found that, while the intoxication was not a factor that Ryan could have reasonably foreseen or controlled, it did impair his driving ability and contributed to the accident. The Court held that this factor should be taken into account as a mitigating factor in sentencing, as it demonstrated that Ryan's culpability was not as great as it would have been in the absence of the intoxication. The Court ultimately concluded that the sentence imposed on Ryan was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including his unwitting amphetamine intoxication.

No additional orders were made by the Court.

Orders