Legal Research
Cases
Ferris v The Queen

Ferris v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 325 9 December 2020

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Ferris v R [2020] NSWCCA 325
Hearing dates: 24 and 26 November 2020
Decision date: 09 December 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Wilson J at [88]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME - sentence appeal - accessory after manslaughter and related offence - 2 year 10 month aggregate sentence after substantial discounting of indicative sentences - starting point for indicative for accessory offence not excessive because serious example of serious offence and neutral subjective case - asserted grievance at disparity with principal offender later sentenced for assault causing death - not legitimate because principal offender's sentence inadequate - appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4, 24, 25A, 139, 348, 349, 350
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 22, 23, 53A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297
Karout v R [2019] NSWCCA 253
Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244
Loveridge v R (2014) 243 A Crim R 31; [2014] NSWCCA 120
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Carroll; Carroll v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 45; [2010] NSWCCA 55
R v Mihai [2020] NSWDC 727.
Saraya v R [2015] NSWCCA 63

Texts Cited:
DPP Prosecution Guidelines. Accessed from on 28 November 2020.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ferris (a pseudonym) (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Kluss (Applicant)
Mr E Balodis (Crown)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/212338
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

3 June 2020

Before:

Craigie SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/212338

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: An offender ("the applicant") seeks leave to appeal in respect of an aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court at Parramatta on 3 June 2020.
It is not proposed to identify the applicant because of assistance he gave to authorities. That is the reason a pseudonym is used in the title of this judgment.^[1]
1. 24.11.20 Tcpt 3.20
The sentence was for offences of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter and attempting to influence a witness with intent to hinder an investigation. A further offence relating to an attempt to steal copper piping from a warehouse, which was listed on a Form 1 document, was taken into account.
His Honour Judge Craigie SC imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months.
The offences were all contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Their details are set out in the following…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ferris v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ferris v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 325
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 325
Decision Date: 09 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ferris was appealing against his sentence for acting as an accessory after the fact to a manslaughter committed by the principal offender, and for an unrelated charge of assault causing death. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal against the sentence. The court was required to determine whether the starting point for the indicative non-parole period for the accessory offence was excessive and if the disparity between Ferris's sentence and the principal offender's sentence for assault causing death was unjust.

The High Court found that the starting point for the accessory offence was not excessive as the manslaughter was a serious example of a serious offence, and the case was neutral in terms of subjective circumstances. The court also found that the disparity between Ferris's sentence and the principal offender's sentence was not a legitimate ground for appeal because the principal offender's sentence was inadequate. The appeal was dismissed by the court, upholding the original sentence.

Orders