REGINA v Ryan (No 2) - [2003] NSWCCA 35

CITATION: REGINA v RYAN (No 2) [2003] NSWCCA 35

HEARING DATE(S): 5 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Hulme J at 48; Smart AJ at 49

DECISION: Appeals allowed in part. Fresh sentence imposed. See par 47.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal appeal - sentencing - remitter from High Court - many acts of sexual abuse of boys by priest - deterrence - relevance of good character - totality principle

PARTIES :
REGINA v Vincent Gerard RYAN (No 2)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60501 of 1997

COUNSEL: Crown: G Rowling
Appellant: P Johnson

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor - DPP
Appellant: Carol & O'Dea

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 97/41/0141

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Nield DCJ

CCA 60501/97
DC 97/41/0141

MASON P
HULME J
SMART AJ

Thursday 27 February 2003

REGINA v Vincent Gerard RYAN (No 2)

Judgment

1 MASON P: The High Court has remitted this matter for sentencing in accordance with its reasons for judgment (Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267).

2 The appellant was born on 22 April 1938. He was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1966. Between 1972 and 1991 he committed numerous sexual offences against young boys.

3 On 30 May 1996 he appeared before Judge Rummery QC pleading guilty to 11 charges and asking the court to take nine further offences into account. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment commencing from 23 May 1996 with a minimum term of four years and an additional term of two years. A Crown appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence was later dismissed.

4 These sentencing proceedings were accompanied by considerable publicity. As a result, three further victims came forward and provided information to the police.

5 In August 1996 the appellant participated in a record of interview. He admitted the three additional offfences and he volunteered detailed information about a substantial number of matters involving previously unknown victims. He told the police that he had previously not intended disclosure with respect to previously unidentified complainants because:

I thought I've already hurt them, why should I interfere with their lives. It's up to them…. So I, I thought all the time up till I spoke to [my solicitor] yesterday probably the best was just to let ‘em come forward. But this could happen the rest of me life and I couldn't put up with that. So I'd like [to] mention the incidents as best I recall them as far back as I can remember."

6 The police endeavoured to interview the further victims. Some were unavailable or unwilling to make statements, but many others did so. The upshot was that the appellant was charged on indictment with 14 additional offences involving 12 separate victims. He pleaded guilty and admitted a further 39 offences which he asked to be taken into account. These involved some of the victims who were the subject of the charges in…

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 REGINA v Ryan (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ryan (No 2) [2003] NSWCCA 35
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 35
Decision Date: 27 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Ryan (No 2) involved an appeal against sentencing by a former priest, Ryan, who had been found guilty of multiple acts of sexual abuse against young boys. The case came before the court following a remitter from the High Court. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Ryan, considering the gravity of the crimes committed against vulnerable victims and the need for deterrence. The court had to balance the severity of the offences against Ryan's otherwise good character and apply the totality principle in sentencing.

The court examined the nature and extent of Ryan's offending, the impact on the victims, and the broader societal need for deterrence. The relevance of Ryan's good character, which had been consistently demonstrated throughout his life, was also considered. The court needed to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes while also taking into account the principles of justice and proportionality. The totality principle, which requires that the cumulative sentence for multiple offences be proportionate to the overall harm caused, was a significant consideration in determining the appropriate punishment.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the heinous nature of Ryan's crimes, which involved the sexual abuse of young boys over an extended period. The court found that the original sentence imposed was inadequate in light of the need for deterrence and the harm caused to the victims. The court increased the sentence, emphasising the importance of sending a strong message that such heinous acts would not be tolerated. The totality principle was applied to ensure that the overall sentence reflected the cumulative harm caused by Ryan's actions. The court concluded that a more severe sentence was necessary to adequately address the crimes committed and to serve as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar offences.

Orders