SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Ferguson |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 363 |
Hearing Dates: | 3 September, 9 November 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 9 November 2015 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Effective sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment: five months full-time imprisonment and 17 months suspended upon entering into two-year recognizance release and good behaviour orders. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –Commonwealth and ACT sexual offences – use carriage service to access and transmit child pornography – intentionally possess child pornography – lower objective seriousness – maximum penalties – general and specific deterrence – rehabilitation – comparable cases – late guilty pleas |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 65 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 474.19 |
Cases Cited: | Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Director of Public Prosecutions v D’Alessandro (2010) 26 VR 477 R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Joshua Luke Ferguson (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms K Haigh (Crown) Mr G Theakston (Offender) |
| Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 134 of 2014 |
MURRELL CJ:
Offences
On 31 August 2015, the date fixed for trial, the offender entered pleas of guilty to the following offences:
(a)Count 1: 17 December 2012, use carriage service to access child pornography material;
(b)Count 2: 23 January 2013, use carriage service to access child pornography material;
(c)Count 3: 28 January 2013, use carriage service to transmit child pornography material;
(d)Count 4: 16 February 2013, use carriage service to transmit child pornography material;
(e)Count 5: 17 March 2013, use carriage service to access child pornography material; and
(f)Count 6: 3 December 2013, intentionally possess child pornography material.
Counts 1 to 5 are offences against s 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Each offence carries a maximum available penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. Count 6 is an offence against s 65 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). It carries a maximum available penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
Following his arrest, the offender spent four days in custody. He has been in custody since 4 September 2015, when the matter was last before the Court. Consequently, the sentences should date from 31 August 2015.
Facts
On 3 December 2013, police executed a search warrant at the offender’s premises. The offender informed police that he was the sole occupant of the premises, having moved there four or five months earlier.
Police seized the offender’s laptop computer, his iPhone and a USB stick which they found in the offender’s bag in the dining room. The offender provided police with the passwords for the iPhone and two Skype accounts.
A forensic examination of the offender’s laptop revealed criminal…
Continue reading R v Ferguson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Ferguson [2015] ACTSC 363
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 363
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, which was mitigated due to the defendant's late guilty pleas. The court acknowledged that the maximum penalty for accessing and transmitting child pornography via a carriage service and for intentionally possessing such material could result in significant imprisonment terms. However, the court also noted that the defendant's late guilty pleas and the lower objective seriousness of the crime warranted a sentence that balanced the principles of general and specific deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation. The court further examined comparable cases to ensure the sentence was proportionate and consistent with the sentencing principles applicable to similar offences.
Upon weighing the relevant factors, the court determined that the effective sentence should be 22 months' imprisonment, with five months to be served as full-time imprisonment and 17 months to be suspended upon the defendant entering into a two-year recognizance release and adhering to specified good behaviour orders. The court's decision aimed to strike a balance between the need for punishment and the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, while also considering the broader societal impacts of the crime. The court's final orders included the outlined sentence and the associated conditions for the defendant's recognizance release and good behaviour.
Orders
Orders of the court
Effective sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment: five months full-time imprisonment and 17 months suspended upon entering into two-year recognizance release and good behaviour orders.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.