Ridley v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 299

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Ridley v R [2008] NSWCCA 299

HEARING DATE(S): 13 November, 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 November 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Bell JA at 12; Blanch J at 1; Hall J at 14

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 13 November 2008

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal against severity of sentence be allowed. Sentence imposed in the District Court quashed. In lieu, sentence to be deferred on condition the applicant enter into a bond under s9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 to be of good behaviour for a period of three years with no order as to supervision.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900, s73(2)
Criminal Appeal Act, 1912, s6(3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999, s9

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

PARTIES: Colin Ridley (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/11840

COUNSEL: A P Cook SC (Applicant)
V Lydiard (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor, Legal Aid Commission
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/31/0233

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Phegan DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 11 April, 2008

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Colin Ridley

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2007/11840

BELL JA
BLANCH J
HALL J

13 November, 2008

Colin RIDLEY v Regina

JUDGMENT

1 BLANCH J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court on 11 April 2008 in respect of one count under s73(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The charge was:

“That he between 1 December 2003 and 31 December 2003 at
Port Macquarie in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with Rebecca Louise Ridley, a person of the age of 17 years and under the age of 18 years, Rebecca Ridley then being in the special care of Colin Ridley.”

2 The maximum penalty for this offence is four years imprisonment. The applicant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months with a non-parole period of six months to commence on 11 April 2008. He was released on bail pending the outcome of this appeal on 11 June 2008.

3 The complainant was born on 9 March, 1986. Her mother and father separated and subsequently her mother formed a relationship with the applicant and she and her brother lived with her mother and the applicant in Port Macquarie. Shortly after Easter, 2003 the relationship between the applicant and the complainant's mother broke down and the applicant left the family home and when did he so, the complainant went with him. At that stage she was 17 years old. The applicant and the complaint moved into a residence in Church Street and they began to have sexual intercourse. The applicant said that the first act was at the invitation of the complainant. They stopped living together in 2004 and as a result of their relationship a child was born in March 2004.

4 The complainant's complaint related to a series of asserted non-consensual…

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 Ridley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ridley v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 299
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 299
Decision Date: 13 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ridley v The Queen involved an application by the defendant, Ridley, for leave to appeal against his sentence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant had been convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and thus warranted leave to appeal. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the characteristics of the offender, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The defendant argued that the sentence was disproportionate in light of the circumstances of the crime and his personal background.

In delivering its judgment, the court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider the specific circumstances of each case. The court noted that while the offence was serious, it did not automatically follow that the sentence was excessive. The court examined the facts of the case, including the defendant's role in the crime, his previous criminal history, and any mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and denied the application for leave to appeal. The court affirmed the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need to avoid unnecessary interference in the sentencing process.

Orders