Forrest v The Queen

In *Forrest v The Queen*, the applicant, Forrest, appealed against a sentence imposed by the sentencing court for offences against the person. The appeal was heard by Grant CJ, Blokland and Barr JJ of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute centred on whether the sentencing judge had erred in treating the applicant's intoxication as an aggravating circumstance and whether this error had led to a manifestly excessive sentence.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the sentencing judge had erred in finding that the applicant's intoxication was an aggravating circumstance, and whether the applicant had been accorded procedural fairness in relation to this finding. The Court was also required to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and, if a specific error was established, whether a less severe sentence was warranted and should have been passed.

The Court found that the sentencing judge had erred in treating the applicant's intoxication as an aggravating factor. The materials before the sentencing court were insufficient to establish that the applicant had foreknowledge of how he was likely to behave when affected by alcohol, nor was there anything to indicate he presented as more violent than an ordinary assailant. While sentencing courts can draw inferences from agreed facts, such an inferential finding regarding intoxication as an aggravating circumstance was not available on the materials presented. Consequently, the Court concluded that a less severe sentence was warranted, taking into account the applicant's relative youth, antecedents, prior criminal history, and the objective circumstances of the offending. Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant was resentenced.