R v Ferreri - [2006] QCA 443

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ferreri [2006] QCA 443

PARTIES:

R
v
FERRERI, Aino Mary-Ann
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 5 of 2006
DC No 215 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2006

JUDGES:

Keane JA, White and Philip McMurdo JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence
dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – appellant convicted of one count of fraud with circumstance of aggravation – issue not whether appellant obtained subject money, but whether she obtained it dishonestly – appellant’s guilt depended on jury accepting crown witness’s version of events over appellant’s version – objective evidence supported crown witness’s version – verdict not unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – appellant convicted of one count of fraud with circumstance of aggravation – appellant’s sole ground of appeal in written grounds of appeal was that verdict was unreasonable – appellant also complained orally that she was not permitted to access the C drive of her computer to find particular emails to support her case; that prosecution at trial failed to use forensic handwriting expert to verify a particular signature; that a defence witness was not called against the appellant’s wishes; and that her legal representatives presented her case poorly – police forensic computer analyst found no record in any form of suggested emails on appellant’s C Drive – handwriting expert unnecessary as signature not forged but scanned – witness could not have assisted appellant’s case – perceived poor defence presentation hinged on tactical decisions of counsel

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – applicant was granted post prison community release before hearing of application for leave to appeal against sentence – application thus pointless – sentence nonetheless within applicable range

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied
R v Jacob [1997] QCA 149; CA No 46 of 1997, 12 May 1997, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf

M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: I agree with the reasons of White J and with the orders proposed by her Honour.

WHITE J: The appellant, who represented herself on this appeal, was found…

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 Ferreri

Details

AGLC: R v Ferreri [2006] QCA 443
Case: [2006] QCA 443
Decision Date: 3 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Ferreri involved the appellant who was convicted of one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation. The primary issue was whether the appellant had obtained the subject money dishonestly. The appellant's guilt hinged on the jury accepting the Crown witness's version of events over her own. The appellant's main contention on appeal was that the verdict was unreasonable. Additionally, the appellant raised several oral complaints during the appeal hearing, including that she was not permitted to access certain emails on her computer, that the prosecution did not use a forensic handwriting expert to verify a particular signature, that a defence witness was not called against her wishes, and that her legal representatives did not adequately present her case.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction, finding that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unjustifiable. The objective evidence supported the Crown witness's version of events, and the appellant's complaints did not provide a basis for overturning the verdict. The computer analyst found no evidence of the suggested emails, and the handwriting expert was deemed unnecessary as the signature in question was not forged but scanned. The decision not to call a particular defence witness and the perceived poor presentation of the defence were tactical decisions within the appellant's legal counsel's discretion.

The court also dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, noting that the appellant had been granted post-prison community release before the application was heard. Even if the application had been considered, the sentence was within the applicable range and thus not excessive. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence

dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Ferreri [2006] QCA 443
PARTIES:	R v FERRERI, Aino Mary-Ann (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 5 of 2006 DC No 215 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	3 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 October 2006
JUDGES:	Keane JA, White and Philip McMurdo JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – appellant convicted of one count of fraud with circumstance of aggravation – issue not whether appellant obtained subject money, but whether she obtained it dishonestly – appellant’s guilt depended on jury accepting crown witness’s version of events over appellant’s version – objective evidence supported crown witness’s version – verdict not unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – appellant convicted of one count of fraud with circumstance of aggravation – appellant’s sole ground of appeal in written grounds of appeal was that verdict was unreasonable – appellant also complained orally that she was not permitted to access the C drive of her computer to find particular emails to support her case; that prosecution at trial failed to use forensic handwriting expert to verify a particular signature; that a defence witness was not called against the appellant’s wishes; and that her legal representatives presented her case poorly – police forensic computer analyst found no record in any form of suggested emails on appellant’s C Drive – handwriting expert unnecessary as signature not forged but scanned – witness could not have assisted appellant’s case – perceived poor defence presentation hinged on tactical decisions of counsel CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – applicant was granted post prison community release before hearing of application for leave to appeal against sentence – application thus pointless – sentence nonetheless within applicable range M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied R v Jacob [1997] QCA 149; CA No 46 of 1997, 12 May 1997, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent