Regina v Shannon Ryan - [1999] NSWCCA 432

CITATION: Regina v Shannon Ryan [1999] NSWCCA 432

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60498/98

HEARING DATE(S): 1 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Shannon Ryan

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Grove J at 2; Sully J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/1070

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

COUNSEL: C. K. Maxwell SC - Crown
P. J. D. Hamill - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Heenan & Co. - Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law, breaking, entering and stealing - 8 separate offences - receiving - 3 separate offences - applicant sentenced in respect of the 8 offences of breaking, entering and stealing to penal servitude for 4 years, MT/2 years, AT/2 years. Applicant sentenced in respect of the receiving sentences to penal servitude for a fixed and concurrent term for 2 years - appeal based upon parity with a co-offender whose sentence had been reduced by an earlier decision of the CCA - held: some adjustment justified by reason of parity - appeal against sentence allowed and the minimum term of 2 years imposed in respect of the offences of breaking entering and stealing reduced to 1-1/2 years.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Sentencing Act

CASES CITED:
Reg v Diamond: Hunt CJ at CL and James J, Smart JJ dissenting: unreported, 18/2/93; Reg. v Steele: Sheller JA, Grove and Simpson JJ: unreported, 17 April 1997

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentences allowed and sentences quashed; For each contravention of s.188 of the Crimes Act 1900, the applicant sentenced to penal servitude for a fixed term of 1 year and 6 months, to commence on 11 August 1998 and to expire on 10 February 2000; and in respect of each contravention of s.112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, the applicant sentenced to penal servitude for 3 years and 6 months, divided between a minimum term of 1 year and 6 months to commence on 11 August 1998 and to expire on 10 February 2000, and an additional term of 2 years to commence on 11 February 2000, and to expire on 10 February 2002.

- 11 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60498/98
SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J
16 December 1999

REGINA v Shannon RYAN
JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Sully J.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60498/98
SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J
16 December 1999

REGINA v Shannon RYAN
JUDGMENT

2 GROVE J: I agree with Sully J.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60498/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J

16 December 1999

REGINA v Shannon RYAN

JUDGMENT

3 SULLY J: Mr. Shannon Ryan, [“the applicant”], applies for leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences passed upon him on 11 August 1998, and by his Honour Judge Nield sitting in the District Court at Penrith. The Court heard the application in conjunction with the hearing of the Attorney-General’s application for a guideline judgment in connection with offences…

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 Shannon Ryan

Details

AGLC: Regina v Shannon Ryan [1999] NSWCCA 432
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 432
Decision Date: 16 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Shannon Ryan involved the applicant, Shannon Ryan, who had been convicted of eight separate offences of breaking, entering, and stealing, as well as three separate offences of receiving. The case was heard and determined in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Ryan had been sentenced to penal servitude for four years, with a minimum term of two years, for the eight breaking, entering, and stealing offences, and a concurrent fixed term of two years for the receiving offences. Ryan appealed his sentence, arguing that it should be reduced to reflect parity with a co-offender whose sentence had been reduced by an earlier decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentence imposed on Ryan was excessive and whether it should be reduced to reflect parity with the co-offender. The Court had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the sentence imposed on Ryan was proportionate to the offence committed, as well as whether there were any mitigating factors that should be taken into account.

In its decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that some adjustment to the sentence was justified by reason of parity with the co-offender. The Court noted that the co-offender had been sentenced to a lesser term of imprisonment, and that the disparity in sentences was significant. The Court held that the sentence imposed on Ryan was excessive and that it should be reduced to reflect parity with the co-offender. The Court reduced the minimum term of imprisonment imposed on Ryan for the offences of breaking, entering, and stealing from two years to one and a half years. The Court also noted that the concurrent fixed term of two years for the receiving offences was appropriate and did not require adjustment.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed Ryan's appeal against his sentence and reduced the minimum term of imprisonment imposed on him for the offences of breaking, entering, and stealing from two years to one and a half years. The Court noted that the sentence imposed on Ryan was excessive and that it should be reduced to reflect parity with the co-offender. The Court did not alter the concurrent fixed term of two years imposed on Ryan for the receiving offences.

Orders