The Queen v Ferguson - [2009] NZCA 157

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA594/2008
[2009] NZCA 157
THE QUEEN
v
JASON MARK FERGUSON
Hearing:20 April 2009

Court:Ellen France, Heath and Fogarty JJ
Counsel:C J Tennet and B J Hunt for Appellant

N P Chisnall for Crown

Judgment:30 April 2009 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for extension of time for filing the appeal is granted.
BThe appeal is to be set down for hearing forthwith.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)
Introduction
[1]       The appellant was convicted of murder following trial by jury in December 2002 before Rodney Hansen J. He was sentenced on 5 February 2003 to a term of life imprisonment. He now seeks an extension of time for the filing of an appeal against his conviction.
[2]       At the hearing of this matter, we dealt only with the application for an extension of time for filing the appeal. Because we have decided Mr Ferguson should be able to have the substantive appeal heard, we need only deal briefly with the relevant background and our reasons.
Factual background
[3]       The events giving rise to the charge took place on 9 June 2002. Mr Ferguson had met the victim, John Sorrenson, while hitch-hiking and they had spent the evening together. Mr Ferguson admitted he struck the victim several times and stabbed him a number of times. His defence at trial was that he was provoked into doing so when the victim grabbed at his penis after Mr Ferguson came out of the shower. The defence case was that this conduct triggered a recall of past abuse leading to a loss of self-control.
Grounds of appeal
[4]       Numerous grounds are sought to be advanced on appeal. However, the central issue on which we heard argument was on the effect of Mr Ferguson’s mental state at the time of trial. The relevant chronology of events on this aspect is set out below.
[5]       On 13 June 2002, a District Court judge ordered a psychiatric report. Mr Ferguson was seen by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Majeed, who on 26 June 2002 sought more time to assess Mr Ferguson. Dr Majeed reported further to the Court on 4 July 2002. In that report the psychiatrist noted material indicating Mr Ferguson had suffered from post traumatic stress disorder after an earlier incident of sexual abuse but considered he did not suffer any other mental illness. Dr Majeed considered Mr Ferguson was not suffering from intellectual disability of a level or degree which would interfere with his ability to enter a plea, instruct counsel or follow the court process.
[6]       On 1 August 2002 at the request of Mr Ferguson’s counsel Dr Russell Wilson, a clinical psychologist conducted an intellectual assessment of Mr Ferguson. He concluded in a report dated 25 November 2002 that Mr Ferguson had IQ scores in the “mildly” intellectually impaired range.
[7]       Prior to Dr Wilson’s report being finalised, on 1 October 2002 Judge McAloon made a compulsory in-patient treatment…

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 The Queen v Ferguson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Ferguson [2009] NZCA 157
Case: [2009] NZCA 157
Decision Date: 30 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Ferguson is a case in which the appellant, Jason Mark Ferguson, sought an extension of time to file an appeal against his murder conviction and subsequent life sentence. The appeal was heard by Ellen France, Heath, and Fogarty JJ in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant's primary argument focused on the assessment of his mental state at the time of the trial, which he claimed had not been adequately re-evaluated before the trial commenced. The central issue revolved around whether the appellant's fitness to stand trial was properly assessed given his intellectual impairments and other mental health conditions.

The court considered several key legal principles and factual circumstances. The appellant argued that his intellectual impairments and mental health conditions, which were not reassessed closer to the trial, could have affected his ability to participate effectively in his defence. The court weighed the broader societal interest in the finality of judicial decisions against the appellant's individual rights and the potential for a fair trial. The decision to grant the extension of time hinged on the seriousness of the charge, the unusual combination of circumstances in this case, and the necessity to ensure that the appellant's right to a fair trial was not compromised.

The Court of Appeal decided to grant the extension of time for filing the appeal. The decision was based on the Court's consideration of the interests of justice, emphasizing the need to balance the appellant's right to a fair trial against the societal interest in finality. The Court also noted the importance of properly assessing the appellant's mental state, particularly given the significant implications of the charges against him. The Court's decision allowed for the substantive appeal to proceed, with further consideration to be given to the admissibility of new evidence during the appeal hearing. The Court directed the Registrar to set the appeal down for hearing.

Orders