R v Van Ryn - [2019] NSWDC 164

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Van Ryn [2019] NSWDC 164
Hearing dates: 03 May 2019
Date of orders: 10 May 2019
Decision date: 10 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
The offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, commencing on 10 April 2020.

Catchwords: CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 — Circumstances of aggravation
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Totality
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Extra curial punishment
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Blanco v R [1999] NSWCCA 121
EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
Mill v R [1988] HCA 70
R v Holder; R v Johnson [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649
R v Van Ryn (No 3) [2016] NSWCCA 307
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
R v Wilhelm [2010] NSWSC 378
R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015
RWB v R [2010] NSWCCA 147
Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Texts Cited: Royal Commission into Institutional Response to Child Sex Abuse
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Maurice Van Ryn (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Fox (Crown)
Mr C Heazlewood (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
David Griffiths Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/00253524
Publication restriction: Names of Victims, Neighbours; Locations of residence of Offender other than State, Location of Current residence of victim (other than ‘interstate’), Location of place of offences other than State.

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

Maurice Van Ryn appears for sentence. He has pleaded guilty to four charges contrary to s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act where he engaged in aggravated sexual intercourse with a person between 14 and 16.
The charges are;

That between 1 December 2010 and 1 February 2011, in the State of New South Wales, the offender had sexual intercourse with AZ, AZ being a person above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 14 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the complainant was under the authority of the offender;

That between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011, in the State of New South Wales, the offender did have sexual intercourse with AZ, AZ being a person above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 14 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the complainant was under the authority of the offender;

That between 30 May 2011 and 30 May 2012, in the State of New South Wales the offender had sexual intercourse with AZ, AZ being a person above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 15 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the complainant was under the authority of the offender;

That between 30 May 2011 and 30 May 2012, in the State of New South Wales, the offender had sexual intercourse with AZ, AZ being a person above the age of 14 years and under…

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 Van Ryn

Details

AGLC: R v Van Ryn [2019] NSWDC 164
Case: [2019] NSWDC 164
Decision Date: 10 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Van Ryn, the appellant was convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a child over the age of fourteen. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant, taking into account the totality principle, the gravity of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the extra-curial punishment the appellant had already faced.

The court addressed the nature of the crime and the appellant's culpability, highlighting the serious breach of trust and the significant impact on the victim. It was noted that while the victim was over the age of fourteen, the relationship dynamics and the appellant's position of authority were critical factors in the sentencing. The court emphasised the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the severity of the crime and provided adequate deterrence. The court also took into account the appellant's remorse and the extra-curial punishment already endured, including the loss of employment and social ostracism.

Considering all these factors, the court determined that a sentence of nine years imprisonment was appropriate. The court highlighted that this sentence balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and the possibility of rehabilitation. The sentence also adhered to the principle of totality, ensuring that the overall punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court ordered that the sentence commence on 10 April 2020.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, commencing on 10 April 2020.

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 Van Ryn [2019] NSWDC 164
Hearing dates:	03 May 2019
Date of orders:	10 May 2019
Decision date:	10 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	The offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, commencing on 10 April 2020.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >14 <16 — Circumstances of aggravation SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Totality SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Extra curial punishment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Blanco v R [1999] NSWCCA 121 EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 Mill v R [1988] HCA 70 R v Holder; R v Johnson [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649 R v Van Ryn (No 3) [2016] NSWCCA 307 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 R v Wilhelm [2010] NSWSC 378 R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015 RWB v R [2010] NSWCCA 147 Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Texts Cited:	Royal Commission into Institutional Response to Child Sex Abuse
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Maurice Van Ryn (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Fox (Crown) Mr C Heazlewood (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) David Griffiths Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00253524
Publication restriction:	Names of Victims, Neighbours; Locations of residence of Offender other than State, Location of Current residence of victim (other than ‘interstate’), Location of place of offences other than State.