Rylands v Regina - [2008] NSWCCA 106

Reported Decision: 184 A Crim R 534

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: RYLANDS v REGINA [2008] NSWCCA 106

HEARING DATE(S): 28 March 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 May 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; James J at 111; Hoeben J at 112

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Particular offences – offences against the person – other offences against the person – sexual offences – rape and sexual assault – proof and evidence - CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – appeal and new trial – appeal against sentence – appeal by convicted persons – applications to reduce sentence – when refused – particular offences – offences against the person – sexual offences – whether sentence unduly harsh and severe – whether failure to take into account offender’s age and good character - EVIDENCE – Admissibility and relevance – opinion evidence – expert opinion – other cases – DNA evidence – where expert gives opinion on DNA matters – Sorbolene cream facilitating transfer of DNA – where expert had no experience with Sorbolene cream and DNA – where evidence alleged to have no scientific basis – where witness alleged to lack specialised knowledge – Evidence Act 1995, s79

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486
HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2, 197 CLR 414
Keller v R [2006] NSWCCA 204
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305
Middleton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 213, (2000) 114 A Crim R 258
R v Dib (NSWCCA, Meagher JA, Allen and Badgery-Parker JJ, 13 September 1991)
R v Girard [2004] NSWCCA 170
R v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82

TEXTS CITED: “The Art of Advocacy: Character and Skills for the Trial of Cases” (1948) 34 American Bar Association Journal 4
Burnside J, “R v AA Rouse” (2003) 124 Victorian Bar News 55

PARTIES: Christopher William RYLANDS
REGINA

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3074 CCAP

COUNSEL: Appellant: M C Ramage QC
Respondent: L Wells

SOLICITORS: Appellant: Jeffreys & Associates
Respondent: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Piublic Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 06/61/0066

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 19 April 2007

CCA 2007/3074

MASON P
JAMES J
HOEBEN J
Friday 23 May 2008

Christopher William RYLANDS v REGINA

Judgment

1 MASON P: The appellant was tried in the District Court before Judge Freeman and a jury on an indictment charging as follows:

Count 1 involved an aggravated indecent assault when the appellant fondled the breasts and genitals of the 15 year old complainant.

Count 2 involved a sexual assault when the appellant engaged in cunnilingus.

Count 3

2 The…

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 Rylands v Regina

Details

AGLC: Rylands v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 106
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 106
Decision Date: 23 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rylands v Regina, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for sexual offences. The trial court found the appellant guilty of several counts of sexual assault and rape, and sentenced him to a lengthy term of imprisonment. The primary issues before the court were the adequacy of the evidence to support the conviction, particularly focusing on the admissibility and reliability of DNA evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and severe, especially considering the appellant's age and good character. The court was also required to determine if the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's age and character in the sentencing process.

The court examined the DNA evidence presented at trial, which was crucial in establishing the appellant's involvement in the offences. The expert witness provided an opinion on the DNA analysis, but the court found that the witness lacked specific experience with Sorbolene cream, which was alleged to have facilitated the transfer of DNA. Additionally, the court noted that the opinion given by the expert appeared to lack a scientific basis and was contested for its reliability. Despite these concerns, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficiently reliable to support the conviction, as it was corroborated by other evidence presented at trial.

In assessing the sentence, the court considered the appellant's age and good character but ultimately found that the sentence was not unduly harsh or severe. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the appellant's age and character but determined that the gravity of the offences warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court further noted that the appellant's age and character did not absolve him of the seriousness of his crimes. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court. The appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders