R v Ryan - [2019] NSWDC 877

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877
Hearing dates: 13 December 2019
Decision date: 13 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of three years with a non parole period of one year six months. See orders [34]- [38]

Catchwords:
SENTENCE- drug supply- criminal group
SENTENCE- relevant factors on sentence - guilty plea- member of criminal group - parity not a significant issue - subordinate role - first offender - drug addiction –gambling addiction– general deterrence considered - other purposes of sentencing apply here - special circumstances - strong prospects for rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Blackman and Walters v R [2001] NSWCCA 121
R v Blair (2005) 152 A Crim R 462
R v Losco [2019] NSWDC 837
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
Category: Sentence
Parties: Peter Ryan (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Powell (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
Ms A Bird (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00008996

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

Earlier today I sentenced Roberto Losco for a series of drug supply matters: R v Losco [2019] NSWDC 837. Peter Ryan was involved with Losco as part of his criminal group. Ryan is now to be sentenced for the crimes he committed while working with and for Losco.
Ryan is to be sentenced on the basis of agreed facts. Those facts differ slightly in their focus from those that applied to Losco. Their roles in the commission of these crimes and their antecedents justify a significant difference in penalty. No question of significant parity arises as between them. Although their sentencing proceedings were held together I thought it appropriate to impose the sentences independently and separately.
Peter Ryan was born in 1979. Until he came to the notice of police in relation to this matter in October 2018 he had never been before a court before, he had never offended before. He had been able to work and provide for his family. At times he did use illicit drugs. I am aware of statistics that show at least 50% of the population at some stage have used an illicit drug. I do not hold that fact against him. But it is clear that at some stage in 2018 he went from being an occasional user of illicit drugs to a regular user. And, as is sadly often a consequence, he then found himself engaged in quite serious criminality; so serious that it is accepted that only a custodial sentence can be imposed upon him.
The agreed facts before the Court are comprehensive and detailed. I read them yesterday and again today. I will not set out all the details - it is late on a Friday and there is a gaol truck waiting.

Facts

From 30 October 2018 Losco was being monitored by a…

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 [2019] NSWDC 877
Case: [2019] NSWDC 877
Decision Date: 13 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ryan was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent, Ryan, was found guilty of various drug supply offences. Ryan appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that it was excessive. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the sentencing principles and relevant factors.

The court considered several factors in its decision. Ryan was a first offender, and he pleaded guilty, which should typically result in a discount to the sentence. He was also a member of a criminal group, but the court found that his role was subordinate and that parity with other offenders was not a significant issue. Additionally, Ryan suffered from drug and gambling addictions, which were mitigating factors. The court also considered the purposes of sentencing, including general deterrence and rehabilitation. Given these factors, the court found that a sentence of three years with a non-parole period of one year and six months was appropriate.

The court emphasised that while general deterrence was a consideration, it was not the sole purpose of sentencing. Other purposes, such as specific deterrence and rehabilitation, were also relevant. The court found that Ryan had strong prospects for rehabilitation, which supported a lesser sentence. The court also noted that special circumstances, such as Ryan's addictions, warranted a reduced sentence.

The final orders of the court were that Ryan's sentence would remain as an aggregate of three years with a non-parole period of one year and six months, as determined in the orders from [34] to [38].

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of three years with a non parole period of one year six months. See orders [34]- [38]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ryan [2019] NSWDC 877
Hearing dates:	13 December 2019
Decision date:	13 December 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of three years with a non parole period of one year six months. See orders [34]- [38]
Catchwords:	SENTENCE- drug supply- criminal group SENTENCE- relevant factors on sentence - guilty plea- member of criminal group - parity not a significant issue - subordinate role - first offender - drug addiction –gambling addiction– general deterrence considered - other purposes of sentencing apply here - special circumstances - strong prospects for rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Blackman and Walters v R [2001] NSWCCA 121 R v Blair (2005) 152 A Crim R 462 R v Losco [2019] NSWDC 837 R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Peter Ryan (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Powell (for the offender) Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) Ms A Bird (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00008996