R v Ferguson - [2016] ACTSC 255

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ferguson
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 255
Hearing Date:	10 June 2016
DecisionDate:	12 August 2016
Before:	Burns J
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Particular Offences – serious drug offences – trafficking in controlled drug – trafficking in methylamphetamine – criminal history with same type of offences – plea of guilty – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Intensive Corrections Order imposed.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 11 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 42
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Albert Ferguson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K MacKenzie (Crown) Mr P Edmonds (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Paul Edmonds & Associates (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 65 of 2015

BURNS J:

Albert Ferguson, you have pleaded guilty to one offence that between 3 October 2013 and 22 October 2013 you trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine. A comprehensive Statement of Facts was tendered at the sentence hearing and I will not now recite the facts in full.

It is sufficient to note that on 2 October 2013 an undercover police officer made contact with you and you agreed to sell methylamphetamine to her. On 4 October 2013, you met with the undercover police officer and sold her four snaplock bags containing 0.167 grams of methylamphetamine for $200.00. Lawfully intercepted information shows that during that period you trafficked intermittently at a “street dealer” level up until 22 October 2013. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $140,000, or both. This indicates the seriousness with which the legislature views offences of this nature.

You originally entered a plea of not guilty, but on 20 April this year you pleaded guilty to the charge before the court. That plea was entered after the matter had been listed for trial. It cannot be said that the plea was an early plea, although I do take into account that there was a legal issue that arose concerning the admissibility of evidence which was resolved in the period leading up to you entering your plea of guilty.

I have a Pre-Sentence Report dated 25 May this year. I note that you are 48 years of age and that you are an Aboriginal man who describes close connections with family, both immediate and extended. You reported enjoying a caring and supportive relationship with your partner for over three years, and this was verified with your partner. The Report notes that you have been in receipt of a disability support pension since 2008 and you currently remain in receipt of Centrelink benefits. You describe a history of problematic alcohol consumption from a young age. Despite maintaining periods of abstinence from alcohol you reported your current pattern of alcohol consumption to be limited to once per month and you consider that your level of consumption to be moderate and not problematic. However, it is a…

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

Details

AGLC: R v Ferguson [2016] ACTSC 255
Case: [2016] ACTSC 255
Decision Date: 12 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ferguson was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Ferguson, was charged with trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically methylamphetamine. The court was required to consider the appropriate sentence for Ferguson, who had entered a guilty plea and had a history of similar offences. The primary legal issues revolved around the assessment of Ferguson's criminal history, his prospects of rehabilitation, and the suitability of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) as an alternative to imprisonment. The court needed to determine whether an ICO would be an appropriate sentence considering Ferguson's prior convictions and the nature of the offence.

The court acknowledged Ferguson's extensive criminal history, which included previous drug trafficking offences. Despite this history, the court considered evidence of Ferguson's prospects for rehabilitation. The defence presented evidence suggesting that Ferguson had a reasonable chance of rehabilitation if given the opportunity to participate in an ICO. The court examined the criteria for imposing an ICO, including the likelihood of the offender being deterred from reoffending and the benefits of the order in terms of rehabilitation. The court also considered the public interest in imposing a sentence that would prevent Ferguson from reoffending and the need to provide a deterrent effect.

After weighing the evidence and arguments, the court determined that an ICO was an appropriate sentence for Ferguson. The court found that, given his history and the nature of the offence, an ICO would provide a better chance of rehabilitation and deterrence compared to a custodial sentence. The court believed that the structured and intensive nature of the ICO would offer Ferguson the support and guidance needed to avoid reoffending. The court imposed an Intensive Corrections Order, reflecting its view that this sentence would best serve the interests of justice in this case.

No further orders were made by the court. The Intensive Corrections Order was to be implemented immediately, with specific conditions and requirements designed to facilitate Ferguson's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering individual circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation when sentencing offenders with a history of similar offences.

Orders