Ryan v The Queen; Coulter v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 175

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v R; Coulter v R [2013] NSWCCA 175
Hearing dates: 11 April 2013
Decision date: 29 July 2013
Before: Simpson J at [1]; Price J at [83]; Harrison J at [84]
Decision:
Helen Ryan:
(i) Leave granted to appeal against sentence;
(ii) Appeal dismissed.
Coralie Coulter:
(i) Appeal against conviction dismissed;
(ii) Leave granted to appeal against sentence;
(iii) Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - murder - conviction - leave required under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to argue sole ground of appeal - whether error in failing to leave partial defence under s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 to the jury - no evidence which required s 421 issue to be left to jury - leave to argue ground refused - appeal dismissed

CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - application for leave to appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive - no error found - leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - application for leave to appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether error in departure from the standard non-parole period - whether error in findings relating to appellant's prospects of rehabilitation - whether insufficient attention given to mitigating factors in s 21A(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - whether error in not adequately disclosing reasons for exceeding non-parole period - no error found - leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Rules
Surveillance Devices Act 2007
Cases Cited: Barton v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 164
Braysich v The Queen [2011] HCA 14; 243 CLR 434
Des Rosiers v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 16
Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34; 227 CLR 166
Goebel-McGregor v R [2006] NSWCCA 390
Pemble v The Queen [1971] HCA 20; 124 CLR 107
R v Braham (1994) 73 A Crim R 353
R v Ceniccola [2011] NSWSC 302
R v Chen (2003) 138 A Crim R 433
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
2009/282687
Helen Kay Ryan (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
2010/38082
Coralie Coulter (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
I Barker QC/J Willims/G J Stanton (Ryan)
S Odgers SC (Coulter)
J Dwyer (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Cambridge Law (Ryan)
Elamrousy Lawyers (Coulter)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/282687; 2010/38082
Decision under appeal

Citation:

[2011] NSWSC 1249

Date of Decision:

2011-10-21 00:00:00

Before:

Latham J

File Number(s):

2009/282687; 2010/38082

Judgment

SIMPSON J: On 4 July 2011 Helen Kay Ryan and Coralie Coulter were convicted after jury trial, each on a single count of murder. By s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900, each became liable to imprisonment for life. By Pt 4 Div 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("the Sentencing Procedure Act") a standard non-parole period of 20 years is prescribed.

On…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ryan v The Queen; Coulter v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWCCA 175
Decision Date: 29 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ryan v The Queen and Coulter v The Queen involved appeals against conviction and sentence for two individuals convicted of murder. The appellants contested both their convictions and sentences, with the primary issues being the adequacy of the partial defence under s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 and the proportionality of their sentences. The Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether there was an error in the trial judge's handling of the partial defence and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

In addressing the first issue, the court determined that there was no error in the trial judge's decision not to leave the partial defence of provocation to the jury, as there was insufficient evidence to warrant such a course. Consequently, the appellants' request for leave to argue this ground of appeal was refused. Regarding the second issue, the court examined whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. In the case of Ryan, the court found no error in the sentence, and leave to appeal was refused. However, in the case of Coulter, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence, but ultimately found no error in the sentencing process and dismissed the appeal.

The court's reasoning was grounded in a thorough examination of the evidence presented at trial and the legal principles governing the partial defence of provocation and the proportionality of sentences for murder. The court concluded that the trial judge's decisions were sound and that the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances of the case. In light of this, the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences remained intact.

Orders