R v Ryan; Ex parte - [2014] QCA 68

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ryan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 68

PARTIES:

R
v
RYAN, Shane O'Reilly
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 320 of 2013
SC No 324 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Vary the sentence to the limited extent of substituting a parole eligibility date of 14 October 2014 for the parole eligibility date of 14 May 2014.

3.   Otherwise confirm the sentence imposed at first instance.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin (count 1), possessing heroin (count 2) and related summary offences – where the trafficking extended over about five weeks and involved the regular supply of relatively small quantities of the drug to known drug addicts – where the respondent had a serious criminal history – where there were many mitigating features – where he was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment on count 1, two years imprisonment on count 2 and convicted but not further punished for the summary offences – where the judge fixed the parole eligibility date after nine months – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18, cited
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, cited
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29, cited
R v Bugmy (2013) 87 ALJR 1022; (2013) 302 ALR 192; [2013] HCA 37, cited
R v Cottle-Pilides[2006] QCA 72, cited
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, cited
R v Georgieff[1997] QCA 70, cited
R v Hobson, unreported, Margaret Wilson J, SC No 326/13, 29 July 2013, considered
R v Tilley (1991) 53 A Crim R 1, cited
R v Whiting[2013] QCA 18, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan QC for the appellant
J J Allen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: The respondent, Shane Ryan, pleaded guilty on 21 November 2013 to trafficking in heroin between March and April 2012 (count 1) and possessing heroin on 19 April 2012 (count 2). He also pleaded guilty to three related summary offences committed on 19 April 2012: possession of utensils or pipes used in connection with…

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; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Ryan; Ex parte [2014] QCA 68
Case: [2014] QCA 68
Decision Date: 11 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the respondent, who pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin, possessing heroin, and related summary offences. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The respondent had a history of criminal activity, and the trafficking of heroin involved the regular supply of small quantities over about five weeks to known drug addicts. Despite several mitigating factors, the respondent was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment on the trafficking charge, two years imprisonment on the possession charge, and no further punishment for the summary offences. The judge set the parole eligibility date after nine months.

The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. This required a consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offences, the respondent’s criminal history, and the mitigating factors. The court needed to weigh these elements to determine if the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the severity and impact of the crimes committed. The respondent argued that the sentence was too lenient, given the seriousness of the offences and his criminal history, while the prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances.

In deciding the matter, the court assessed the totality of the circumstances and concluded that while the sentence was not manifestly inadequate overall, the parole eligibility date was too early. The court found that the sentence reflected a balanced approach considering both the gravity of the offences and the mitigating factors. However, the early parole eligibility date did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the respondent's criminal history. The court thus allowed the appeal and adjusted the parole eligibility date to 14 October 2014, confirming the rest of the sentence as imposed at first instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Vary the sentence to the limited extent of substituting a parole eligibility date of 14 October 2014 for the parole eligibility date of 14 May 2014.

3. Otherwise confirm the sentence imposed at first instance.

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.

CITATION:	R v Ryan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 68
PARTIES:	R v RYAN, Shane O'Reilly (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 320 of 2013 SC No 324 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 March 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal. 2. Vary the sentence to the limited extent of substituting a parole eligibility date of 14 October 2014 for the parole eligibility date of 14 May 2014. 3. Otherwise confirm the sentence imposed at first instance.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin (count 1), possessing heroin (count 2) and related summary offences – where the trafficking extended over about five weeks and involved the regular supply of relatively small quantities of the drug to known drug addicts – where the respondent had a serious criminal history – where there were many mitigating features – where he was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment on count 1, two years imprisonment on count 2 and convicted but not further punished for the summary offences – where the judge fixed the parole eligibility date after nine months – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18, cited Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, cited Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29, cited R v Bugmy (2013) 87 ALJR 1022; (2013) 302 ALR 192; [2013] HCA 37, cited R v Cottle-Pilides[2006] QCA 72, cited R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, cited R v Georgieff[1997] QCA 70, cited R v Hobson, unreported, Margaret Wilson J, SC No 326/13, 29 July 2013, considered R v Tilley (1991) 53 A Crim R 1, cited R v Whiting[2013] QCA 18, cited
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan QC for the appellant J J Allen for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent