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

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ryan (a pseudonym) (No.3) [2022] NSWDC 15 Hearing dates: 11 February 2022 Decision date: 11 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Colefax SC DCJ Decision: Application to re-open the offender's case is refused. Catchwords: CRIMINAL - re-opening of offender's case after decision reserved. Cases Cited: R v Ryan (a pseudonym) (No.1) [2021] NSWDC 727; R v Ryan (a pseudonym) (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 733 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Regina (Crown/Respondent)

Ms Ryan (a pseudonym) (Offender/Applicant) Representation: Ms Johnson (ODPP Wollongong - Crown/Respondent

Mr Boyd (Solicitor) (Offender/Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/00201825 Publication restriction: Statutory non publication and suppression orders made of the names of the offender, child victim, co offender or of any other thing that might, directly or indirectly, identify any of them.

judgment 1. On 19 November 2021 this matter was listed for a contested facts hearing as part of protracted sentence proceedings. On that date an application was made that I should disqualify myself from further hearing this matter. That application was refused: see R v Ryan (a pseudonym) (No 1) [2021] NSWDC 727. 2. In refusing the application, amongst other things, I noted that that listing, excluding bail listings, was the 18th occasion the matter had been before a Judge of this Court since the Offender was committed for trial on 25 June 2020. 3. After dismissing that disqualification application, the sentence hearing proceeded on 19 November and 17 December 2021 at the conclusion of which I reserved my decision until today. For the reasons for the second hearing date, see R v Ryan (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 733. 4. On 7 February 2022 the solicitor for the Offender sent an email to my chambers attached to which was a letter from the Offender's mother dated 31 January 2022. The email and the letter have been MFI 3. The content of the letter can only be regarded as further subjective material and the email can only be regarded as an irregular application to reopen the Offender's subjective case. 5. For the following reasons, that application is refused - notwithstanding, a lack of objection by the Crown. 6. First (and least importantly), it ought to have been done by way of a notice of motion with an affidavit in support. 7. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no explanation as to why the content of the letter could not have been provided to the Court on either 19 November or 17 December 2021. 8. Thirdly, if leave is granted, the parties would be entitled to be heard on that fresh evidence - and these proceedings have gone on for far too long. 9. Fourthly, by only a brief reading of the document, the contents would require me to go back and reconsider and revisit the various expert material, which I am not prepared to do. 10. For those reasons the application to reopen the Offender's case is refused. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 15 February 2022