R v Ryan (a pseudonym) (No.3) [2022] NSWDC 15

R v Ryan (a pseudonym) (No.3) [2022] NSWDC 15

The application to reopen the offender's case was refused because it was made irregularly, there was no explanation why the letter's contents could not have been provided during the hearing, granting leave would require further hearing in proceedings that had already gone on too long, and the material would require reconsideration of expert evidence that the Court was not prepared to revisit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Re Open the Offender's Case After Decision Reserved in Sentence Proceedings
Outcome
Application to re-open the offender's case is refused.
Legal Topics
["re Opening of Offender's Case" 'contested Facts Hearing' 'fresh Subjective Material' 'reserved Decision']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Re Open the Offender's Case After Decision Reserved in Sentence Proceedings

  1. 1 ["Whether the offender's case should be re-opened after the sentence hearing had concluded and decision had been reserved, in order to receive a letter from the offender's mother as further subjective material."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen the offender's case was refused because it was made irregularly, there was no explanation why the letter's contents could not have been provided during the hearing, granting leave would require further hearing in proceedings that had already gone on too long, and the material would require reconsideration of expert evidence that the Court was not prepared to revisit.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open the offender's case is refused.

Orders

  • ["The application to reopen the Offender's case is refused."]