Re Ryan - [2022] VSC 663

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0272

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by RODNEY RYAN

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 November 2022
DATE OF RULING:	3 November 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Ryan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 663

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Applicant charged with Schedule 2 offences – Charges of sexual penetration of a child – Charges of committing further Schedule 2 offences while on bail – Charges arising from telephone contacts by complainant with applicant – Applicant 54 years old – No previous criminal history – Exceptional circumstances established – Unacceptable risk not demonstrated- Bail granted with conditions – Bail Act (Vic) ss 3AAA, s4AA, s4A,s 4D, s4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S Stafford	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
For the Respondent	Mr D O’Doherty	Mr P Champion, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 20 May 2022, the applicant was arrested by Warrnambool police and charged with a number of offences including sexual penetration of a child, common law assault and kidnapping. The offences were alleged to have been committed by the applicant in respect of one complainant, RI, between February 2015 and February 2018. RI, who was born in February 2001, was between the ages of 14 and 17 years at the time of the alleged offending. The applicant was bailed to attend the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court on 26 May 2022. He was also served with a copy of a Family Violence Intervention Order in which RI was classed as the affected family member. Under the order, the applicant was prohibited from having any contact with RI.

On 26 May 2022, the applicant attended the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court and was further bailed to 19 August 2022. In the meantime, on 22 June 2022, the applicant was arrested on charges that included contravention of the Family Violence Intervention Order, attempting to pervert the course of justice and contravention of a conduct provision of bail. Those charges are based on a series of telephone calls that took place between RI and the applicant on 7 June 2022.

Following his arrest, the applicant unsuccessfully made an application to the Magistrates’ Court for bail. The charges against the applicant have been listed for a committal mention hearing in the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court on 25 November next.

In the meantime, on 3 August 2022, the applicant was charged with sexual offending in respect of three further complainants, DK, AG and AS. In 2018, DK and AG had made complaints by way of VARE recordings. Subsequently, in June and July 2022, DK, AG and AS each provided statements in respect of the alleged offending. At the time of the alleged offending, DK was between 13 and 14 years of age, AG was between 15 and 16 years of age and AS was 19 years of age.

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 Re Ryan

Details

AGLC: Re Ryan [2022] VSC 663
Case: [2022] VSC 663
Decision Date: 3 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Ryan, the applicant appeared before the court seeking bail in relation to charges of sexual penetration of a child and additional charges of committing further Schedule 2 offences while on bail. The applicant, aged 54, had no prior criminal history. The case centred on the balance between granting bail and the potential risk to the community, given the serious nature of the charges.

The court was tasked with determining whether the exceptional circumstances had been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant the granting of bail, and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the community if bail were to be granted. The applicant argued that the charges arising from telephone contacts with the complainant were not sufficient to establish an unacceptable risk to the community, particularly given his age and lack of criminal history. The prosecution contended that the seriousness of the charges warranted a denial of bail.

The court considered the provisions of the Bail Act (Vic) and concluded that while the charges were indeed serious, the exceptional circumstances presented by the applicant warranted the granting of bail. The court found that the risk to the community was not unacceptable, and thus, granted bail subject to a set of conditions designed to ensure the safety of the community and the protection of the complainant. The conditions included a requirement for the applicant to reside at a specified address and to observe a curfew, among other restrictions.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be granted bail, subject to the specified conditions, pending the resolution of the charges against him. The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect the community, particularly in cases involving serious offences against children.

Orders