R v Ferguson - [2006] VSC 163

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1453 of 2003

THE QUEEN

IAN NORMAN FERGUSON

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 and 3 March; 13 April 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 April 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ferguson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 163

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to traffick heroin in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity – Money laundering – Accused police officer – Member of Drug
Squad – General deterrence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Tovey QC with Mr D. Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	Mr D. O’Doherty with Ms A. Marjanovic	C. Marshall & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Ian Norman Ferguson, you have been found guilty by the jury empanelled on your trial of one count of conspiring to traffic heroin in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence and one count of money laundering contrary to s.122 of the Confiscation Act 1997.

The first count on which you were convicted charged that you conspired between 1 April 1999 and 6 December 2002 with Stephen Cox and Glenn Sadler to traffic heroin in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence. Mr Cox and Mr Sadler have also been charged with the same offence. Their trial is currently proceeding. Although it is necessary for me to refer to their roles in the course of these reasons for sentence, the remarks which I make in relation to them are based solely on the evidence led in the trial against you and in which Cox and Sadler did not participate.

My first task is to identify the facts which are relevant to the two charges upon which you have been convicted. Any finding of fact which I make in that process must be consistent with the verdict of the jury and consistent with the manner in which the Crown put its case against you to the jury. In respect of the count of conspiracy, which is the primary count on which you have been convicted, much of the evidence against you consisted of evidence that you had trafficked significant quantities of heroin to Duy Le over a period of approximately two years. That evidence was admitted as part of the overt acts from which the jury were invited to infer that you had conspired with Cox and Sadler to traffic heroin. You were not charged with, nor convicted of, the offence of trafficking heroin. Thus you are not to be punished for that offence. However, as the High Court has made clear in Savvas v R,[1] the evidence of those acts of trafficking by you is relevant to your sentence on the conspiracy count as it relates to the content, duration and reality of the conspiracy, and is probative of your participation in it.
[1](1995) 183 CLR…

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 [2006] VSC 163
Case: [2006] VSC 163
Decision Date: 28 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ferguson involved the respondent, an officer with the Australian Federal Police and a member of the Drug Squad, who was found guilty of conspiring to traffic heroin in a quantity exceeding the commercial threshold, as well as money laundering. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who was convicted of serious criminal offences, including conspiracy to traffic heroin and money laundering, given his position as a police officer and member of a specialised drug squad.

The court considered various factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the gravity of the offences, the respondent’s role as a police officer, and the need for general deterrence. The court acknowledged the respondent's otherwise unblemished service record and his early guilty plea, but emphasised the breach of public trust inherent in his actions. The court found that a custodial sentence was necessary to maintain public confidence in law enforcement and to deter others from engaging in similar criminal conduct.

After weighing the various factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment, coupled with a requirement for the respondent to forfeit any proceeds of the crime. The court recognised the respondent's contributions to law enforcement but concluded that the severity of his crimes necessitated a significant custodial term to adequately reflect the seriousness of his actions and to serve as a deterrent to others. The court also ordered the respondent to forfeit any proceeds derived from the criminal activities.

The court's final orders included a custodial sentence of seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years, as well as a forfeiture order for any proceeds derived from the criminal activities. The court's decision highlighted the importance of maintaining public trust in law enforcement agencies and the need for severe penalties for those who abuse their position of authority for personal gain.

Orders