Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

VINCENT GERARD RYAN APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21

3 May 2001

S248/1999

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dated 2 March 1998 and in place thereof, remit the matter to that Court for sentencing in accordance with the reasons for judgment of this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation:

P A Johnson SC with D Jordan for the appellant (instructed by Carroll & O'Dea)

A M Blackmore with R D Ellis for the respondent (instructed by S E O'Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Ryan v The Queen

Criminal law – Sentencing – Sexual offences against children – Where appellant disclosed a large number of offences to police – Whether disclosure entitled appellant to a significantly discounted sentence – Whether the likelihood of disclosed offences being otherwise discovered should have been assessed.

Criminal law – Sentencing – Use of character in the sentencing process – Whether the appellant's otherwise good character entitled him to some leniency.

1. McHUGH J. This appeal is brought against an order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales dismissing an appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court of New South Wales. The appeal raises three issues:

. Disclosure of previously unknown offences. The appellant was a priest who had abused his position of trust by sexually assaulting young boys over a long period of time. A large number of the offences became known to the police only because the appellant disclosed them. The appellant claims that the sentencing judge erred in the sentencing process by failing to assess the likelihood of these disclosed offences being otherwise discovered. He also claims that, by reason of the disclosure, he was entitled to a significant discount from the sentences otherwise appropriate but that the sentencing judge failed to give him a significant discount. Did the Court of Criminal Appeal err in holding that the learned judge had made no error in respect of the appellant's disclosure of offences?