R v Ferraro - [2009] VSC 121

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.1654 of 2008

THE QUEEN
V
CHRISTOPHER FERRARO

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 Feb,16 June, 18 August 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ferraro
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 121

---

Trafficking large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and trafficking commercial quantity of MDMA or Ecstasy – Extended period – no prior history.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C. Barbagallo	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr R. Melasecca	Rob Melasseca & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Christopher Ferraro, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking, one relating to a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and one of trafficking in a commercial quantity of MDMA or Ecstasy.

You were born on 3 January 1979 and are currently 30 years of age. You were aged between 26 to 28 years at the time of the commission of the offences and you have no prior convictions.

The maximum penalties for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty are: in respect of Count 1, trafficking of a large commercial quantity of methamphetamine at Melbourne between 1 January 2006 and 5 June 2007, life imprisonment and 5000 penalty units; Count 2, trafficking in a commercial quantity MDMA at Melbourne on 5 June 2007, 25 years’ imprisonment.

The Crown have presented a lengthy opening which I have made Exhibit 1 and I do not intend to repeat all of the material contained in that document but I will refer to some of the salient parts.

You, together with at least nine other men, were involved in the activities of a large illicit drug trafficking enterprise known as “the company”. The company was involved in the manufacture and distribution of very large quantities of methylamphetamine as well as the trafficking of cocaine and MDMA, together with money laundering. The company was run allegedly by “A” from 1 January 2006 until his arrest in Greece on 5 June 2007. “A” exercised control over various aspects of the company including directly and personally issuing orders to various people involved in the company. You were not one of the people who had any dealings with “A”. Your dealings in fact were involved with Joseph Mansour and Bartholomew Rizzo. Your role was primarily as a drug courier and storer of the drugs. You provided storage facilities or safe houses including, as I will refer to later, your sister’s house in which you stored large quantities of the drugs, chemicals and drug money which were being transacted over the trafficking period. You were paid in drugs and cash for your role.

The persons involved in this company were Mansour and Rizzo. They have been described as the right and left hand man in the company. Both would speak to “A” on a regular basis, Mansour more than Rizzo, and they would receive and act upon the instructions of “A” and were…

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 Ferraro

Details

AGLC: R v Ferraro [2009] VSC 121
Case: [2009] VSC 121
Decision Date: 6 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Mr. Anthony Ferraro, the Federal Court of Australia heard an appeal against sentence. Mr. Ferraro was found guilty of trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and a commercial quantity of MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy. The appeal was against the extended sentence imposed on him, considering his lack of prior criminal history. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the offender's background and the circumstances of the offence.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the offences, the amount of drugs involved, and the offender's role in the trafficking operation. It also took into account the principles of sentencing for drug offences, including deterrence and specific deterrence aimed at the offender. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence adequately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court found that while the quantity of drugs and the offender's involvement warranted a significant sentence, it did not consider the prior history of the offender. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offences but noted the lack of prior criminal history as a mitigating factor. Ultimately, the court decided that the sentence imposed was excessive and not proportionate to the offender's background. It allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence imposed on Mr. Ferraro. The court emphasised the importance of tailoring sentences to the individual circumstances of each offender while adhering to the overarching principles of criminal justice.

Orders