R v Chad Alfred Ferris
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] NICA 60 |
| Date | 11 December 2020 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2020] NICA 60
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11364
ICOS No:
Delivered: 11/12/2020
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
REGINA
v
CHAD ALFRED FERRIS
________
Before Morgan LCJ, McCloskey LJ and Scoffield J
_________
Representation
Appellant: Ms Rachael McCormick, of counsel (instructed by Reavey Solicitors)
Respondent: Mr Philip Henry, of counsel (instructed by the Public Prosecution
Service)
________
McCLOSKEY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] Chad Alfred Ferris (“the Appellant”) appeals to this court, with the leave of the
single judge, against a determinate sentence of 20 months imprisonment divided
equally between custody and licensed release imposed as punishment for his
admitted commission of two offences of possession of a controlled drug (class A and
class B), two offences of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug (class A
and class B) and possession of an extreme pornographic image. In granting leave to
appeal the single judge reasoned:
“… the applicant can construct a credible case based on the
focus on the rehabilitative process undertaken by him in the
period since his arrest and the impact of an immediate custodial
sentence on him and his family. This argument is strengthened
when one considers the admitted and obvious delay in the
prosecution of this case. The fact that the applicant has taken
2
steps in the intervening period between arrest and conviction
adds weight to the submission that having regard to the
importance of rehabilitation a court could take an exceptional
course in this case.”
(Per Colton J)
[2] In substantive terms the central issue raised by this appeal is whether, having
regard to the decision of this court in R v Dunlop [2019] NICA 72, the impugned
sentence is manifestly excessive and/or erroneous in principle on the ground that,
exceptionally, a disposal not involving immediate imprisonment was warranted.
The court’s determination of this central issue requires it to determine two further
issues, namely whether it should admit new evidence or information which pre-
dates the sentencing of the Appellant but was adduced for the first time at the
appeal stage and, if admitted, the approach which this court should apply in
resolving the central issue.
Factual Matrix
[3] The Appellant is aged 29 years. In May 2016 his home was searched by
police. Small quantities of cannabis and cocaine were found. These, respectively,
had estimated values of £55/£110 and £12/£18. Interrogation of the Appellant’s
mobile phone revealed messages evidencing the supply of drugs to others during a
period of some years. This exercise also revealed eight clips of video material of an
extreme pornographic nature, including one involving a dog and a male person.
[4] When interviewed the Appellant admitted possession, but not supply, of the
drugs. He claimed that the video material had been sent to him by another person
and that his sole interest in it was as a source of humour.
[5] The Appellant has a criminal record consisting of essentially minor offences.
All were committed during the period 2011 – 2013 when he was aged 20 – 22 years.
There are 8 public order offences, 3 of assaulting police, 2 of criminal damage and 1
of indecent behaviour. All of these offences were committed on a single date in 2012.
The final entry in the Appellant’s criminal record is a conviction in respect of
obstructing a search for drugs, committed one year later. All of his previous
convictions were punished by non-custodial mechanisms.
Prosecution and trial
[6] The Crown Court machinery did not get going until over four years following
the discovery of the Appellant’s offending. Upon arraignment on 27 July 2020 he
pleaded not guilty to everything in the indictment, which then comprised a total of
seven counts. Re-arraignment followed less than two weeks later, on 06 August 2020,
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
Queen v Gerald O'Hara
...This is not intended to be an exhaustive list.” [21] It is also appropriate to repeat what this court stated recently in R v Ferris [2020] NICA 60 at [57]: 10 “A sentence which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is merely excessive and one which is manifestly excessive are not one and ......
-
The King v Niall Lehd
...court applies on appeal against a sentence said to be manifestly excessive. This principle was considered most recently in R v Ferris [2020] NICA 60 at [36]–[43]: see para [60] infra. The Sentencing of Mr M [46] Mr M was sentenced at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales on 31 Jul......
-
King v Qing Wen Lin, Long Quang Lin Lin Zheng, Zhu Lin & Yang Wu Chen
...the individual appeals, followed by the governing legal principles and our conclusions. The new material applications [11] In R v Ferris [2020] NICA 60 it was held that this court’s power to receive new material in a criminal appeal is not confined to the specific power to receive “any evid......
-
Queen v Orhan Koca
...a recent decision of this court, some examination of the legal essence of a manifestly excessive sentence was undertaken. See R v Ferris [2020] NICA 60, [48]-[59] and at [58] especially: “A sentence which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is merely excessive and one which is manifestl......
Request a trial to view additional results