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

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : REGINA v RYAN (No 2) [2003] NSWCCA 35 HEARING DATE(S) : 5 July 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 27 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Hulme J at 48; Smart AJ at 49 DECISION : Appeals allowed in part. Fresh sentence imposed. See par 47.

CATCHWORDS : Criminal appeal - sentencing - remitter from High Court - many acts of sexual abuse of boys by priest - deterrence - relevance of good character - totality principle PARTIES : REGINA v Vincent Gerard RYAN (No 2) FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60501 of 1997 COUNSEL : Crown: G Rowling Appellant: P Johnson SOLICITORS : Crown: S E O'Connor - DPP Appellant: Carol & O'Dea

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT DC 97/41/0141 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Nield DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CCA 60501/97 DC 97/41/0141

MASON P HULME J SMART AJ

Thursday 27 February 2003

REGINA v Vincent Gerard RYAN (No 2) Judgment

1 MASON P: The High Court has remitted this matter for sentencing in accordance with its reasons for judgment (Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267).

Background 2 The appellant was born on 22 April 1938. He was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1966. Between 1972 and 1991 he committed numerous sexual offences against young boys. 3 On 30 May 1996 he appeared before Judge Rummery QC pleading guilty to 11 charges and asking the court to take nine further offences into account. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment commencing from 23 May 1996 with a minimum term of four years and an additional term of two years. A Crown appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence was later dismissed. 4 These sentencing proceedings were accompanied by considerable publicity. As a result, three further victims came forward and provided information to the police. 5 In August 1996 the appellant participated in a record of interview. He admitted the three additional offfences and he volunteered detailed information about a substantial number of matters involving previously unknown victims. He told the police that he had previously not intended disclosure with respect to previously unidentified complainants because: