R v Forrest - [2015] ACTSC 283

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Forrest
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 283
Hearing Date(s):	28 August 2015
DecisionDate:	22 September 2015
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	See [28]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – aggravated burglary – theft – property damage – obtain property by deception – plea of guilty – parity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 116(3) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 19 Criminal Code ACT 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 312, 318, 326 Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5; Schedule 1
Cases Cited:	Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Paul Forrest (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr C Wanigaratne (Crown) Mr J De Bruin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 294 of 2014 SCC 298 of 2014

Robinson AJ:

Michael Paul Forrest, the offender, has pleaded guilty to a total of seven offences and stands for sentence on those offences. Five of those offences were committed in company on the evening spanning 23 and 24 August 2014. The remaining two offences occurred on 4 December 2014, also in company, but with a different co-offender.

The offender declined to have the offences finalised in the Magistrates Court. That is not relevant for the purposes of sentencing.

The offences are as follows:

Date	Offence	Section of Act/Code	Maximum Penalty
23/24 August 2014	theft from vehicle	S 308 Criminal Code	10 years
23/24 August 2014	aggravated burglary	S 312 Criminal Code	20 years
23/24 August 2014	theft from house	S 308 Criminal Code	10 years
23/24 August 2014	dishonestly obtain property	S 326 Criminal Code	10 years
23/24 August 2014	dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle	S 318 Criminal Code	5 years
4 September 2014	possess prohibited weapon	S 5 Prohibited Weapons Act	5 years
4 September 2014	property damage to car	S 116(3) Crimes Act	2 years

The first five offences occurred in a period of about 3 hours on the evening spanning 23 and 24 August 2014. At that time the offender was in company with Tony Lucas. Mr Lucas elected to have his matters dealt with and finalised in the Magistrates Court.

Facts

On Saturday, 23 August 2014 at about 10.55 pm Mr Lucas smashed the window of a vehicle parked in Phillip and stole from that vehicle a wallet and its contents, including an ACT drivers licence, credit cards and debit cards in the name of David Cashin. He also stole house keys and a garage remote-control to Mr Cashin’s home address in McKellar. The offender was present throughout and provided assistance to carrying out the theft.

Using a mobile telephone application, Mr Lucas and the offender looked up Mr Cashin’s address in McKellar and made their way to it, arriving a short time later.

The offender and Mr Lucas entered through the garage, using the remote…

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 [2015] ACTSC 283
Case: [2015] ACTSC 283
Decision Date: 22 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Forrest, the defendant was convicted of multiple criminal offences, including aggravated burglary, theft, causing property damage, and obtaining property by deception. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the state where the offences were committed. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offences, the circumstances in which they were committed, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

The court had to decide on the principles of sentencing for each offence, whether they were to be considered separately or cumulatively, and the degree to which they warranted a penalty. Given the defendant’s guilty plea, the court also needed to consider whether a discount in sentence should apply. Additionally, the court needed to ensure that the sentence met the principle of parity, meaning that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and should be consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.

The court considered the totality of the defendant's offending, which involved breaking into a residence, stealing items, damaging property, and deceiving others to obtain goods. The court recognised the significant harm caused to the victims and the need for general deterrence. In light of these factors, the court determined an appropriate sentence that balanced punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also applied a discount for the guilty plea. The final orders were made, taking into account all these considerations, ensuring that the sentence met the principle of parity and was proportionate to the defendant's criminal conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [28]

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.