R v Ryan (No 4) - [2020] NSWSC 1629

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ryan (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1629
Hearing dates: 4 December 2020
Decision date: 10 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Convicted of the offence of murder.
(2) Convicted of the offence of breaching an apprehended violence order.
(3) For the latter offence, I impose a fixed term of imprisonment for 18 months, to commence on 12 November 2018.
(4) For the offence of murder, I impose a non-parole period of 17 years, to commence on the same date. That will be followed by a parole period of 6 years, to commence on 11 November 2035 and expire on 11 November 2041.
(5) To express my sentences another way, I have imposed a head sentence of imprisonment for 23 years with a non-parole period of 17 years, with a full backdate, and a wholly concurrent sentence for the breach of the AVO.
(6) The first date upon which it appears that the offender may be eligible for release to parole is 11 November 2035.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – verdict of guilty of murder after judge alone trial – substantial impairment not established – fatal domestic violence – unplanned and frenzied stabbing – intention to kill – contravention of interim AVO imposed on morning of killing – previous threats of violence if deceased refused to terminate new romantic relationship – primary motives of jealousy and anger – brain damage caused by chronic alcoholism – acceptance of brain damage, mood disorder, and loss of control as contributing to offence – minimal criminal record – sentence imposed

Cases Cited:
R v Ryan (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 142

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Paul Ryan (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Watts (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/347939

remarks on sentence

Introduction

On 15 October 2020, at the conclusion of a trial by judge alone conducted in Lismore, I returned a verdict of guilty of murder against Paul Ryan (the offender). That verdict resolved an allegation that, on 12 November 2018, the offender had murdered Marie Van Beers (the deceased) in the regional centre of Tweed Heads, on the border between New South Wales and Queensland.
The matter was stood over for proceedings on sentence on 4 December 2020 in Sydney, and it is my duty to sentence the offender for that murder today.
I provided detailed written reasons for my verdict: see R v Ryan (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 142. They were read out in open court, paper copies were thereafter distributed, they have been posted to NSW Caselaw, they have been promulgated by at least two forms of social media, and the digital copy of these remarks will provide a hyperlink to them. Because of all of those measures, and in order to avoid fruitless repetition, these remarks on sentence will be briefer than otherwise.
Murder carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life without…

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 (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Ryan (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1629
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1629
Decision Date: 10 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ryan (No 4) involved a conviction for murder following a trial before a judge alone in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Ryan, was found guilty of murdering a woman in a domestic violence incident marked by an unplanned and frenzied stabbing. The primary motive behind the killing was identified as jealousy and anger, exacerbated by the deceased's refusal to terminate a new romantic relationship. The court had to consider whether the defendant's substantial impairment, caused by brain damage and a mood disorder resulting from chronic alcoholism, was sufficient to mitigate the offence. The defence argued that Ryan's loss of control and diminished responsibility due to these conditions should be taken into account in sentencing.

The key legal issues for the court were the extent to which Ryan's brain damage and mood disorder impacted his culpability, and whether these factors constituted a substantial impairment. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the severity of the offence and the intention to kill demonstrated by Ryan's actions. Additionally, the court considered whether Ryan's contravention of an interim AVO and previous threats of violence were relevant to the circumstances of the killing. The court ultimately determined that while the mitigating factors were significant, they did not constitute a substantial impairment that would negate the intention to kill.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the complex interplay between Ryan's brain damage, mood disorder, and loss of control, and the deliberate and violent nature of the killing. Despite these factors, the court found that Ryan's actions were premeditated and driven by primary motives of jealousy and anger. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence reflecting the gravity of the offence, taking into account the mitigating factors but primarily focusing on the need to deter such acts of domestic violence and protect the community. The sentence imposed recognised the unique circumstances of the case while ensuring that justice was served in light of the serious nature of the crime.

Orders