R v Ferguson

Case [2022] NSWDC 356


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ferguson [2022] NSWDC 356
Hearing dates: 7 June 2022
Date of orders: 14 June 2022
Decision date: 14 June 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

Orders at [129]

Catchwords:

SENTENCING – dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception – Chief Financial Officer – substantial sums misappropriated – breach of trust – offender the victim of a dating scam – catfishing – motive for offences – honest intention to repay funds – strong subjective circumstances – assistance to authorities – excellent prospects of rehabilitation – offender is remorseful and contrite – intensive correction order imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Abellanoza v R [2021] NSWCCA 4

Blanch v R [2010] NSWCCA 304

Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41

Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77

Kable v DPP [1995] 36 NSWLR 374

Kovacevic v Mills [2000] 76 SASR 404

Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97

Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

R v Curtis (No 3) [2016] NSWCCA 866

R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173

R v Gentz [1999] NSWCCA 285

R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534

R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328

R v Pont (2000) 121 ACR 302

R v Woodman [2001] NSWCCA 310

Sarah-Jane Vaughan v R [2011] NSWCCA 4

Singh v R [2020] NSWCCA 353

Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kaye Leanne Ferguson (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms C Mendes (Offender)

Solicitors:
Mr S Matchett (Crown)
Mr M Rosalky (Offender)
File Number(s): 2021/00030267
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. Kaye Leanne Ferguson is 59 years of age. She soon will be 60. She has born five children in a loveless marriage. She was subjected to verbal, emotional and physical abuse throughout her marriage. Her husband was an alcoholic. In January 2020, she separated from her husband. She was sad, lonely, depressed and vulnerable. She sought happiness from a dating site. She was scammed and lost a considerable amount of money.

  2. She went back to the dating site in search of happiness. She found a man that she thought would provide what her life had lacked – happiness. She was vulnerable with low self-esteem. She was ripe to be scammed and so she was. The scammer made her feel fault and guilt for locking him out of his bank account. To make amends she exhausted her finances in the belief that he had the means and ability to pay her back upon his return to Australia.

  3. She was the Chief Financial Officer of a club. She was the sole signatory of the club accounts. It was a successful and profitable club. She, in breach of the trust reposed in her, used over a million dollars of the club's money to assist the scammer. At the time she transferred the funds, she also believed…

Continue reading R v Ferguson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ferguson [2022] NSWDC 356
Case
[2022] NSWDC 356
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Ferguson involved the sentencing of the defendant, Ferguson, who was the Chief Financial Officer of a company. He was found guilty of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, having misappropriated substantial sums of money. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The issue for determination was the appropriate sentence for Ferguson's crimes, given his substantial breach of trust and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court had to consider various factors in determining an appropriate sentence. These included the nature and extent of Ferguson's deception, the breach of trust involved, and the impact on the victim. The court also considered the motive behind the offences, which was largely due to Ferguson falling victim to a dating scam known as "catfishing." Additionally, the court weighed Ferguson's intention to repay the misappropriated funds, his subjective circumstances, his assistance to the authorities, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that Ferguson was remorseful and contrite, which was a mitigating factor.

In light of these considerations, the court determined that an intensive correction order was the most appropriate sentence. This order would require Ferguson to participate in a structured program designed to address his offending behaviour and facilitate his rehabilitation. The court noted that while the offences were serious, the unique circumstances warranted a sentence that focused on rehabilitation rather than purely punitive measures. The court's decision was influenced by the likelihood of Ferguson's successful rehabilitation and his willingness to make amends.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of an intensive correction order on Ferguson, as outlined in the judgment at paragraph [129].

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at [129]

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.