R v Edward Arthur Ferrett (No 4) - [2010] NSWSC 956

CITATION: R v Edward Arthur FERRETT (No 4) [2010] NSWSC 956

HEARING DATE(S): 10 May 2010, 12 May 2010-13 May 2010, 17 May 2010-18 May 2010, 20 May 2010, 24 May 2010-25 May 2010, 31 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 August 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION: Sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years’ imprisonment commencing 31 July 2008 and expiring 30 July 2012, with a balance of term of a further 3 years’ imprisonment, concluding 30 July 2015. The total sentence is 7 years’ imprisonment. First eligible for release on 30 July 2012.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – accessory after the fact – sentencing – sentencing comments – sentence imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104
R v Farroukh and Farroukh (Court of Appeal, Gleeson CJ, Levine and Dowd JJ, 29 March 1996, unreported)
R v Galea [2003] NSWSC 465

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Edward Arthur Ferrett (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/195700

COUNSEL: C Maxwell QC (Crown)
J Stratton SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bannisters Lawyers & Attorneys (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

ROTHMAN J

27 AUGUST 2010

2008/195700 R v Edward Arthur FERRETT (No 4)
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Edward Arthur Ferrett appears for sentence in that on or about 26 July 2003 he was an accessory after the fact to the murder of Ronald William Pollock, punishable under s 349 of the Crimes Act 1900. The murder was committed by a person or persons unknown.

2 Mr Ferrett was originally charged with the murder of Mr Pollock. The Crown amended to indict Mr Ferrett, in the alternative, to accessory after the fact. Mr Ferrett, on the first day of trial, pleaded not guilty to the murder but guilty of the charge for which he is now to be sentenced.

3 During the course of the trial, the Crown withdrew the charge of murder and Mr Ferrett maintained his earlier plea to the accessory charge.

4 The facts may be stated shortly. Mr Ferrett and Mr Pollock and others were involved in, or involved with people involved in, the manufacture of drugs or precursors thereto. Police were investigating these matters and questioned Mr Pollock. Shortly thereafter, the Police engaged in conduct which led some to think that Mr Pollock was assisting the Police.

5 Despite attempts, Mr Pollock could not be contacted by those concerned with the manufacturing activities, and others. However, on 26 July 2003, Mr Pollock went to meet Mr Ferrett and another.

6 Shortly thereafter, Mr Pollock was dead. He was killed by gunshots to the head. We know this because Mr Ferrett told his then partner. The body has never been found.

7 Mr Ferrett in a conversation said:

“I’ll tell you something Lindy, I drove a hundred and twenty k’s with that cockhead’s head laying in my lap, with three holes…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Edward Arthur Ferrett (No 4) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 956
Decision Date: 27 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edward Arthur Ferrett (No 4) involved Edward Arthur Ferrett, who was charged with being an accessory after the fact to the murder of another individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Ferrett was alleged to have assisted in the disposal of evidence and the transportation of the victim’s body following the murder. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ferrett’s involvement constituted the offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The court was required to determine whether Ferrett's actions fell within the definition of an accessory after the fact, which involves assisting a principal offender to escape justice post-offence. The court also needed to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the gravity of the offence and the degree of Ferrett’s involvement. The court examined the nature and extent of Ferrett’s assistance, and the impact of his actions on the investigation and prosecution of the principal offender. Additionally, the court assessed the sentencing principles relevant to accessorial liability, including whether a lesser sentence could be justified due to Ferrett’s role as an accessory rather than a principal offender.

The Supreme Court found that Ferrett’s actions did indeed constitute being an accessory after the fact to murder. The court emphasised the significance of Ferrett’s involvement in the disposal of evidence and transportation of the body, which hindered the investigation. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to Ferrett’s culpability and concluded that while his involvement was significant, it was secondary to that of the principal offender. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence while taking into account Ferrett’s lesser role as an accessory. The court noted the importance of deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing process.

In summary, the Supreme Court of Queensland held that Ferrett was guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the lesser role of the accessory. The final orders of the court included the sentence and any relevant comments on the sentencing process.

Orders