NSW Police Force v Forster - [2015] NSWLC 3

Local Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Police Force v Forster [2015] NSWLC 3
Hearing dates: 6 March 2015
Decision date: 20 April 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: O'Brien LCM
Decision:
The offence of habitually consort with convicted offenders after warning is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - habitually consorting with convicted offenders after warning
WORDS AND PHRASES - "consort" - Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93W and 93X - "chance encounter"
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93W, 93X, 93Y
Summary Offences Act 1970 (NSW)
Vagrancy Act 1902 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Dias v O'Sullivan [1949] SAStRp 15; SASR 195
Gabriel v Lenthall [1930] SAStRp 62; SASR 318
Johanson v Dixon [1979] HCA 23; 143 CLR 376
O'Connor v Hammond (1902) 21 NZLR 573
Tajjour v State of New South Wales; Hawthorne v State of New South Wales; Forster v State of New South Wales [2014] HCA 35; 88 ALJR 860
Texts Cited: The Oxford English Dictionary
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
NSW Police Force (Prosecution)
Charlie Maxwell Forster (Defence)
Representation:
Sergeant Palmer (Prosecution)
Mr Randle (Counsel for the Defence)
Lyon Legal (Solicitor for the Defence)

File Number(s): 2012/173930
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Background

Charlie Maxwell Forster ("Forster"), Jack Hayes ("Hayes"), Eli Morris ("Morris") and Damien Case ("Case") share a number of things in common. One of them is that they are all well known to each other. The other is that each of them has been convicted of an indictable offence.
At around 9.30 am on Friday, 27 April 2012, Forster and Hayes were observed by Police speaking to each other near the front of the Inverell Motel in Otho Street, Inverell. When approached by police officers, Forster said “We’re just hangin’ out”. Both were warned and each then moved off in separate directions.
About 20 minutes later the same police officers who had spoken to both men observed Forster speaking with Morris outside Complete Angler in Byron Street, Inverell. Each were given a warning and told to move on; which they did in separate directions.
In the early hours of Saturday, 28 April 2012, Forster along with Hayes, Morris and Case were observed by Police walking along Byron Street, Inverell. Police approached the group who by this time were outside the Tattersalls Hotel in Inverell. Forster, Hayes and Case were each warned by the police officers present.
At midday on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, Forster and Case were observed by Police to be engaged in conversation outside the Imperial Hotel and then moved on in different directions. They were observed by Police to re-engage with each other shortly after and continue talking together. When the Police vehicle pulled up outside the Hotel, Forster and Case then remonstrated with Police about being warned.
Forster is charged with habitually consorting with convicted offenders after warning contrary to s 93X of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
The evidence for the prosecution was by way of an agreed tender of signed statements…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Police Force v Forster and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWLC 3
Decision Date: 20 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of New South Wales Police Force v Forster, the defendant was charged with the offence of habitually consorting with convicted offenders after receiving a warning, under sections 93W and 93X of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales, where the defendant contested the charge, arguing that the interactions were merely chance encounters and not habitual consorting. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the defendant's interactions with convicted offenders met the legal criteria for the offence, specifically whether they were habitual and not merely chance encounters.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the frequency, nature, and circumstances of the defendant's interactions with convicted offenders. It considered whether these encounters were regular and deliberate or merely coincidental. The court also assessed whether the defendant had received a formal warning under section 93W of the Act and whether the subsequent interactions constituted a breach of that warning. After careful consideration, the court found that the defendant's interactions with convicted offenders were not mere chance encounters but were habitual in nature, thereby constituting an offence under the relevant sections of the Crimes Act.

The court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was habitually consorting with convicted offenders after receiving a warning. The court's reasoning hinged on the frequency and deliberate nature of the defendant's interactions, which did not align with the definition of a chance encounter. The defendant's conduct met the statutory criteria for the offence, leading to the conviction. The court's decision was grounded in the evidence presented and the statutory requirements of the Crimes Act. The final orders of the court were that the offence of habitually consorting with convicted offenders after warning is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offence of habitually consort with convicted offenders after warning is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	NSW Police Force v Forster [2015] NSWLC 3
Hearing dates:	6 March 2015
Decision date:	20 April 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	O'Brien LCM
Decision:	The offence of habitually consort with convicted offenders after warning is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - habitually consorting with convicted offenders after warning WORDS AND PHRASES - "consort" - Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93W and 93X - "chance encounter"
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93W, 93X, 93Y Summary Offences Act 1970 (NSW) Vagrancy Act 1902 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Dias v O'Sullivan [1949] SAStRp 15; SASR 195 Gabriel v Lenthall [1930] SAStRp 62; SASR 318 Johanson v Dixon [1979] HCA 23; 143 CLR 376 O'Connor v Hammond (1902) 21 NZLR 573 Tajjour v State of New South Wales; Hawthorne v State of New South Wales; Forster v State of New South Wales [2014] HCA 35; 88 ALJR 860
Texts Cited:	The Oxford English Dictionary
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	NSW Police Force (Prosecution) Charlie Maxwell Forster (Defence)
Representation:	Sergeant Palmer (Prosecution) Mr Randle (Counsel for the Defence) Lyon Legal (Solicitor for the Defence)
File Number(s):	2012/173930
Publication restriction:	Nil