R v Forrest - [2014] NSWSC 612

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Forrest [2014] NSWSC 612
Hearing dates: 13.03.14-14.03.14, 17.03.14-21.03.14, 24.03.14-28.03.14, 31.03.14-01.04.14, 03.04.14-04.04.14, 07.04.14-11.04.14, 14.04.14-16.04.14, 19.04.14
Decision date: 20 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hidden J
Decision:
Verdict of guilty

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - trial by judge alone - murder - premeditated killing for financial gain - circumstantial case
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ms Kerry Forrest (accused)
Representation: Counsel:
C Patrick (Crown)
MG Ainsworth (accused)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
SE O'Connor - Legal Aid Commission (accused)

File Number(s): 2011/49657

reasons for verdict

The accused, Kerry Forrest, is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of William Adamson, alleged to have been committed at Campbelltown between 13 and 17 April 2010. It is the Crown case that she administered to him a large dose of a morphine based pain killer, MS-Contin, causing his death from morphine toxicity. It is also the Crown case that the killing was premeditated, motivated by financial gain.

The case against the accused is circumstantial. Mr Adamson was an elderly man, and Ms Forrest had been his carer. By way of background, the Crown relies upon evidence that she became extensively involved in his financial affairs, that she gained access to a large amount of his money, and that she was gambling heavily on poker machines. As to the killing, the Crown relies upon detailed evidence of her movements, as recounted by her or as proved by other evidence, around the time of Mr Adamson's death and immediately after it.

Ms Forrest did not give evidence. That, of course, was her right and I draw no inference against her on that account. What I must decide is whether the evidence I do have establishes her guilt of the murder beyond reasonable doubt. There is no basis for the alternative verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and neither the Crown prosecutor nor Ms Forrest's counsel, Mr Ainsworth, suggested that there was. Very little of the evidence in the Crown case is challenged. The crucial question is what inferences can be drawn from it.

Background

Mr Adamson was 84 years old at the time of his death. He had been living at a home in Kareela, which he owned. In September 2009 his wife, Beryl, died after a long illness. She had a son, John, from a previous relationship. He was a child when she married Mr Adamson, who brought him up as his own son. He is now in his mid-sixties. There were no other children. Mr Adamson also had two sisters, Elizabeth and Eva, both of them living on the north coast of New South Wales. It seems that in the years leading to his death he did not have regular contact with John or his sisters.

During Beryl's last months she had had the services of carers. After her death Mr Adamson advertised for a live-in carer. This was not for health reasons. He was…

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 Forrest

Details

AGLC: R v Forrest [2014] NSWSC 612
Case: [2014] NSWSC 612
Decision Date: 20 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Forrest was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Forrest, was charged with the murder of a man for financial gain. The prosecution argued that Forrest had premeditated and executed the killing in order to obtain a substantial inheritance. The trial was conducted without a jury, at the defendant's request, before Justice Smith. The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt, given that the case was circumstantial.

The court considered the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic analysis, and the defendant's behaviour before and after the victim's death. The judge evaluated the credibility and weight of the circumstantial evidence, including Forrest's suspicious actions and financial motivations. The court found that the prosecution had presented a coherent and compelling narrative that linked the defendant to the crime, satisfying the burden of proof required for a conviction in a murder trial. The circumstantial evidence, when considered as a whole, was deemed sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In light of the findings, the court found Forrest guilty of murder. Justice Smith delivered the judgment and imposed the mandatory life sentence for murder. The defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution. This decision underscores the court's ability to convict based on circumstantial evidence, reinforcing the principle that a jury is not the sole arbiter of guilt in criminal cases.

Orders