Leeming JA at [1]; Johnson J at [2]; R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
1. Crown appeal allowed. 2. Sentence imposed in the District Court on 9 September 2015 quashed. 3. Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13 years 6 months. The sentence will date from 10 December 2014. The offender will become eligible for release on parole at the end of the non-parole period which will expire on 9 June 2028. The total term will expire on 9 December 2032.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – Crown appeal – sentencing judgment cited numerous principles and authorities but little exposure of reasoning – failure to assess objective seriousness of offences – no indication of whether general and personal deterrence and community protection factored into assessment of sentence – error in treatment of offences taken into account – error in having regard to possibility some offences could have been dealt with in Local Court
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – Crown appeal – multiple child sexual assault offences against nine victims – respondent a paedophile – early pleas of guilty – early seeking out of treatment – prior good character – necessity for Court to make its own assessment of objective seriousness of offences – significant matters in mitigation cannot prevail over need to impose sentence proportionate to gravity of crime - aggregate sentence unreasonable and unjust – affront to the administration of justice – Court persuaded to exercise discretion to intervene – respondent resentenced
[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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 1
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Van Ryn, the respondent faced multiple child sexual assault offences against nine victims. The case reached the court after the Crown appealed the sentencing decision, asserting that the original sentence was manifestly unjust and unreasonable. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the original sentencing judgment contained sufficient reasoning to justify the sentence imposed, particularly considering the objective seriousness of the offences, and whether the mitigating factors outweighed the need for a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the crimes.
The court found that the sentencing judgment cited numerous legal principles and authorities but provided little in the way of explicit reasoning. There was no clear assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences, and it was not evident whether considerations of general and personal deterrence and community protection were factored into the sentence. The court also identified an error in how the offences taken into account were treated and in having regard to the possibility that some offences could have been dealt with in the Local Court. These issues led to the conclusion that the sentence was unreasonable and unjust.
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court determined that the aggregate sentence was an affront to the administration of justice. The court exercised its discretion to intervene and resentenced the respondent, highlighting the necessity for the Court to make its own assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences. The court noted that significant matters in mitigation could not prevail over the need to impose a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the crime. The final orders of the court included a resentencing to ensure that the sentence reflected the true nature and severity of the respondent's crimes.