Ward P at [1]; R A Hulme J at [2]; Bellew J at [114]
Decision:
1. Leave granted for reliance upon an additional ground of appeal.
2. Crown appeal allowed.
3. Sentence imposed in the District Court on 12 November 2021 quashed.
4. For the offence in sequence 18, the respondent is convicted but no other penalty is imposed.
5. For the offences in sequences 1, 4, 10, 15 and 19, and taking into account the offences listed on the Form 1 documents, the respondent is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years. The sentence will date from 6 February 2020. The respondent will become eligible for release on parole upon the expiry of the non-parole period on 5 February 2026.
Catchwords:
CRIME — appeal against sentence — by Crown against inadequacy – serious drug supply offences – error in assessment of objective seriousness — manifestly inadequate sentence — appeal upheld — residual discretion to resentence the offender exercised to maintain adequate standards of punishment — resentencing to reflect objective gravity as well as strong subjective case
Regina (Appellant) Ryan George Ferguson (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: Ms C Curtis (Crown) Mr A Djemal with Mr J Lang (Respondent)
Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Zahr Partners
File Number(s):
2020/39815
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District…
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 R v Ferguson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Ferguson [2022] NSWCCA 147
Case
[2022] NSWCCA 147
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on Ferguson for serious drug supply offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appeal was heard by Justice Byrne. The Crown argued that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the objective seriousness of the crime. The legal issues before the court involved the adequacy of the sentence and whether the trial judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences.
The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to drug supply offences. It considered the objective seriousness of the crime and the need to maintain adequate standards of punishment. The court held that the trial judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences, leading to a manifestly inadequate sentence. The Crown's appeal was upheld on the basis that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crime.
In exercising its residual discretion to resentence the offender, the court imposed a new sentence that reflected the objective seriousness of the offences as well as the strong subjective case against Ferguson. The new sentence was designed to ensure adequate punishment and deterrence, while also taking into account the individual circumstances of the offender. The court's decision emphasised the importance of correctly assessing the objective seriousness of offences and imposing sentences that maintain adequate standards of punishment.