REGINA v RYAN (No 2) [2003] NSWCCA 35

REGINA v RYAN (No 2) [2003] NSWCCA 35

The only material error requiring correction was the sentencing judge's refusal to give any leniency for the appellant's otherwise good character. Given the grave and prolonged sexual offending, breaches of trust, vulnerable victims, need for denunciation, punishment, protection and deterrence, and the proper treatment of the guilty pleas and disclosures, good character warranted only a small reduction. The appropriate way to reflect that reduction while maintaining totality was to leave the one-year fixed terms on counts 1-9, 13 and 14 undisturbed, quash the sentences on counts 10-12, and impose concurrent six-year sentences starting on 23 May 2008 with two-year non-parole periods.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Sentencing / Remitter From High Court for Sentencing After Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeals allowed in part; sentences on counts 10, 11 and 12 quashed and fresh concurrent sentences imposed; appeals otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences Against Children' 'good Character as Mitigation' 'deterrence' 'totality Principle' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'form 1 Offences' 'breach of Trust']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Offences Against Children' 'good Character as Mitigation' 'deterrence' 'totality Principle' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'form 1 Offences' 'breach of Trust']

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 Appeal Sentencing / Remitter From High Court for Sentencing After Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What allowance should be made on re-sentencing for the appellant's otherwise good character after the High Court held that the sentencing judge erred by giving it no weight." 'Whether the appellant should receive a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of his guilty pleas.' 'How the totality principle should be applied to multiple sexual offences and Form 1 matters committed over many years.']

Ratio Decidendi

The only material error requiring correction was the sentencing judge's refusal to give any leniency for the appellant's otherwise good character. Given the grave and prolonged sexual offending, breaches of trust, vulnerable victims, need for denunciation, punishment, protection and deterrence, and the proper treatment of the guilty pleas and disclosures, good character warranted only a small reduction. The appropriate way to reflect that reduction while maintaining totality was to leave the one-year fixed terms on counts 1-9, 13 and 14 undisturbed, quash the sentences on counts 10-12, and impose concurrent six-year sentences starting on 23 May 2008 with two-year non-parole periods.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeals allowed in part; sentences on counts 10, 11 and 12 quashed and fresh concurrent sentences imposed; appeals otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeals allowed in part.' 'Dismiss the appeals on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14, being fixed terms of 1 year on each count.' 'Allow the appeals on counts 10, 11 and 12; sentences on those counts quashed.' 'On count 10, taking into account matters 1, 3, 5, 7, 31 and 35 on...