Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - ongoing supply of drugs - mental disorder - drug addiction - where primary Judge accepted uncontested evidence of psychologist - whether primary Judge erred in failing to reduce moral culpability - where no direct link between mental condition and offending - where offender relapsed into drug use - life issues - whether primary judge erred in failing to reduce weight to be afforded to general deterrence - no causal link required - moderate sentence imposed - no evidence that judge disregarded principle - reasons thoughtful balanced and compassionate - no error established
Jason Garry Ryan (Applicant) Regina (Respondent Crown)
Representation:
Counsel: Mr A Hughes (Applicant) Mr F Veltro (Respondent Crown)
Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent Crown)
File Number(s):
2016/206050
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
18 November 2016
Before:
Judge Hunt
File Number(s):
2016/206050
Judgment
LEEMING JA: I agree with Hamill J.
BUTTON J: I agree with Hamill J.
HAMILL J: Jason Ryan seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Hunt on 18 November 2016 in the District Court sitting in Campbelltown. The applicant entered a plea of guilty to an offence of ongoing supply of a prohibited drug. That is an offence contrary to s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986 (NSW) which prescribes a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no applicable standard non-parole period. The applicant received a reduction of 25% for his plea of guilty and his Honour imposed a total sentence of three years. This comprised of a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 7 July 2016 and expiring 6 July 2018 with a balance of term of 1 year from 7 July 2018 to 6 July 2019. His Honour found special circumstances pursuant to s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and reduced the non-parole period from 75% of the total sentence to 66.6% of that sentence.
The applicant advanced two grounds of appeal:
The sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account…
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 Ryan v Regina
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209
Case
[2017] NSWCCA 209
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Ryan v Regina, the appellant, Ryan, appealed against his sentence for the ongoing supply of drugs. The trial judge accepted uncontested evidence from a psychologist that Ryan suffered from a mental disorder and drug addiction. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in failing to reduce Ryan's moral culpability due to his mental condition and drug addiction, as well as whether the judge erred in not reducing the weight afforded to general deterrence. The appellant argued that there was no direct link between his mental condition and his offending behaviour, and that his relapse into drug use should have been considered in the sentencing process.
The court considered whether the trial judge erred in not reducing Ryan's moral culpability due to his mental disorder and drug addiction. The court noted that a causal link between the mental condition and the offending was not required, and that the trial judge had accepted the uncontested evidence from the psychologist. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in not reducing the weight to be afforded to general deterrence, finding that no causal link was required for this consideration. The court found that the trial judge had imposed a moderate sentence and had not disregarded any relevant principles. The reasons provided by the trial judge were thoughtful, balanced, and compassionate.
The court found that no error was established in the trial judge's sentencing of Ryan. The trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including Ryan's mental disorder and drug addiction, as well as the need for general deterrence. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to reduce Ryan's moral culpability or in not reducing the weight afforded to general deterrence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence stood.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the trial judge be upheld. The court found that the trial judge had provided thoughtful, balanced, and compassionate reasons for the sentence imposed, and that no error had been established in the trial judge's consideration of Ryan's mental disorder and drug addiction, as well as the need for general deterrence.