Ryan v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 198

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
Ryan v R [2008] NSWCCA 198
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/5107

HEARING DATE(S):
11 August 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 August 2008

PARTIES:
Stephen Walter James Ryan
Regina

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJ at CL Barr J Price J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
07/61/0088

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Woods ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
2/11/2007

COUNSEL:
J Manuell (Applicant)
D Arnott SC (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Aboriginal Legal Services (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence
sentence manifestly excessive
application of guideline judgment
subjective circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 - s97

CASES CITED:
R v Henry and Others [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49
R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2007 / 5107
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
BARR J
PRICE J
FRIDAY 29 AUGUST 2008

Stephen Walter James RYAN v REGINA

Judgment

McCLELLAN J: I agree with Barr J.
BARR J: Stephen Walter James Ryan seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court. For an armed robbery committed on 19 March 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months dating from 2 November 2007. The charge was laid under s97(1) Crimes Act.

On the afternoon of 19 March 2007, the applicant, aged 18, had been drinking alone. Shortly after 7.30pm the applicant entered the Bogas Service Station in Windsor Parade, Dubbo where Charles Rogers was working as the console operator. The applicant was armed with a knife. While Mr Rogers was bending down at a cupboard, the applicant grabbed Mr Rogers’ shirt, forcing him to stand up. The applicant pointed the knife at Mr Rogers and asked for money. Mr Rogers and the applicant went into the locked console, where Mr Rogers opened the cash register and placed cash into a plastic bag. He gave the applicant the plastic bag and two packets of cigarettes. As the applicant left the console area he cut the telephone cord and told Mr Rogers not to call the police.

The entire incident was captured on closed circuit television and the footage was later shown on local television. There was no response by the public. Three days later, on 22 March 2007, the applicant, together with his parents, attended the Dubbo police station. He participated in an ERISP and made full admissions to the armed robbery. He also gave the police the plastic bag which contained most, if not all, of the money stolen from the service station.

The applicant entered a plea of guilty in Dubbo Local Court on 8 June 2007 and maintained his plea in the District Court. He stood for sentence before Woods ADCJ on 31 October, 1 and 2 November 2007.

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ryan v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 198
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 198
Decision Date: 29 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ryan, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Ryan appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, taking into account his subjective circumstances and the principles set out in guideline judgments. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. This required the court to consider the principles established in previous cases concerning the assessment of sentence severity, particularly in relation to the subjective circumstances of the offender. The court had to determine if the sentence was outside the range of penalties that could be considered reasonable and appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the trial judge had properly considered the principles of sentencing and the subjective circumstances of Ryan. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be considered reasonable and appropriate for the offence committed. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed and that Ryan's original sentence be upheld. The court did not alter the sentence but confirmed its validity in light of the guideline judgments and the circumstances of the case.

Orders