R v Ryan No. Sccrm-97-262 Judgment No. S6485

FRIDAY, 12 DECEMBER 1997

R v RYAN
Court of Criminal Appeal: Prior, Perry and Williams JJ
Prior J
This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant received a sentence of five years and ten months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months to run from 16 June 1997. He had pleaded guilty in the District Court to selling heroin.
The matter has been considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in private in accordance with the rules, an application for leave having been refused by a single judge on 7 November 1997.
Perry, Williams JJ and I are of the opinion that the application for leave to appeal should be refused. In our opinion the appeal has no prospect of success. The case for a reduction in sentence is not reasonably arguable. The application is refused on that ground.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ryan, sought leave to appeal against his sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was ultimately refused. Ryan had been sentenced to five years and ten months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months following his guilty plea in the District Court to selling heroin. The Court of Criminal Appeal, comprising Prior, Perry, and Williams JJ, reviewed the application in private, in line with the relevant rules, after a single judge had previously dismissed the application on 7 November 1997. The Court found that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and, consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on Ryan was appropriate and whether there was a reasonable arguable case for a reduction in the sentence. The Court had to assess the merits of the application and determine whether there were grounds on which the sentence could be successfully challenged. The Court found that the argument for a reduction in the sentence was not reasonably arguable.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, in refusing the application for leave to appeal, emphasised that the appeal had no prospect of success. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The Court also highlighted that the case for a reduction in sentence was not reasonably arguable, as the arguments presented did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the sentence. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established