Legal Research
Cases
R v Forrest (No 4)

R v Forrest (No 4)

Case [2017] ACTSC 200 10 May 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Forrest (No 4)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 200
DecisionDate:	10 May 2017
Reasons Date:	3 August 2017
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	That [91] in the reasons for decision in R v Forrest (No 3) be amended by deleting “wholly” in sub-paragraphs 13, 29 and 36.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - Orders of the Court - complex sentencing procedure - multiple charges - global sentencing - general sentences - no error in Court order - amendment to the reasons of the Court
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 4K(4)
Cases Cited:	A (A Child) (Appeal: Jurisdiction) [2014] EWCA Civ 871; [2014] 1 WLR 4453 Bruce and Curtis v The Queen [1971] Tas SR 22 DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17; 201 CLR 226 J by his litigation guardian Vardanega v ACT [2009] ACTSC 170; 234 FLR 399 Law v Ilievski [2016] ACTSC 291 Lowe v Visser [1988] Tas R 17 Millard v The Queen (No 2) [2016] ACTCA 41 O’Connell v The Queen (1844) 11 Cl & F 155; 8 ER 1061 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 Richards v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 262; 46 MVR 165 R v Debrueys [2011] ACTSC 178 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 R v Forrest (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 168 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10 R v Ware [2016] ACTSC 264 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Scheele v Watson [2012] ACTSC 196 Todorovic v Moussa [2001] NSWCA 419; 53 NSWLR 463
Texts Cited:	Kate Warner, “General Sentences” (1987) 11 Criminal Law Journal 335
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Paul Forrest (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms T Skvortsova (Crown) Dr J De Bruin (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 128 of 2016 SCC 129 of 2016 SCC 104 of 2017 SCC 105 of 2017

REFSHAUGE J:

In R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 at [1], I described the background to this matter as follows:

Between 13 and 25 July 2015, Michael Paul Forrest engaged in what might fairly be called a sustained rampage of criminality resulting in him being charged with 95 offences. He has also been charged with two offences arising out of events occurring between 9 and 12 September 2014.

Because of those events, Mr Forrest was committed to this Court on the 97 charges but an indictment containing 37 counts was ultimately presented and Mr Forrest pleaded guilty to all of them. The reduced number of counts from the committed offences was because a number of the counts were what are called “rolled-up counts”, the history and meaning of which I have explained in R v Forrest (No 2) at [161]-[164] and R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 at [106]-[107].

Nevertheless, the number of counts, much less than the number of offences, provides a…

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 (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Forrest (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 200
Case: [2017] ACTSC 200
Decision Date: 10 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Forrest (No 4) was heard in a higher court and involved an appeal against sentencing. The appellant, Forrest, had been found guilty of multiple charges and was subject to complex sentencing procedures, including global sentencing. The lower court had imposed a series of sentences which were to be served concurrently. The appellant challenged the validity of these sentences, arguing that there were errors in the application of the sentencing principles.

The court was required to determine whether the lower court had erred in its application of the sentencing principles, particularly in relation to the global sentencing approach and the imposition of concurrent sentences. The appellant contended that the lower court had misapplied the principles governing global sentencing, leading to an unjust outcome. The court also needed to consider whether the sentences imposed were proportionate and reflected the seriousness of the offences.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the lower court had not erred in its application of the sentencing principles. The court noted that the sentences imposed were appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offences. The court further determined that the global sentencing approach was correctly applied, and the imposition of concurrent sentences was justified. However, the court did identify a minor error in the reasons for the decision, specifically the use of the word "wholly" in certain sub-paragraphs. The court ordered that these references be amended to reflect the correct legal terminology.

The court concluded that there was no error in the orders of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. The court amended the reasons for the decision to correct the minor error identified. No further orders were made as the sentences imposed remained valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

That [91] in the reasons for decision in R v Forrest (No 3) be amended by deleting “wholly” in sub-paragraphs 13, 29 and 36.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Forrest (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 200

Most Recent Citation

R v Elphick (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 302

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

R v Slattery
[2021] ACTSC 154 Para 1

…The Crown, in its thoughtful and compendious submissions, submitted that R v Forrest (No 2) , R v Forrest (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 168, R v Forrest (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 200 and R v Tracey [2020] ACTSC 28 (upheld on appeal: Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51), are comparable cases.…
R v Elphick (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 302 Para 1

…tatements are ordinarily part of the sentencer’s explanation of the sentence to the prisoner but not properly part of the order: R v Forrest (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 200 at [8]. As a result, it would have been amenable to amendment without needing to comply with the requirements of the slip rule: R v Forrest (No 4) at […

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

R v Forrest (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 168 Para 1

…On 10 May 2017, I sentenced Mr Forrest for the various offences in the way currently required: R v Forrest (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 168. In pronouncing the sentence, I also noted the date on which each sentence commenced and its length but to permit Mr Forrest to understand the relationship between each of them, also de…
R v John
[2017] ACTSC 144 Para 1

…unts were what are called “rolled-up counts”, the history and meaning of which I have explained in R v Forrest (No 2) at [161]-[164] and R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 at [106]-[107].…
R v Forrest (No 2)
[2017] ACTSC 83 Para 1

…In R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 at [1], I described the background to this matter as follows:…
Law v Ilievski
[2016] ACTSC 291 Para 1

…iple sentences: R v Ware [2016] ACTSC 264 at [139]. The apparent mathematical precision of multiple sentences is often artificial: Law v Ilievski [2016] ACTSC 291 at [1]; Bruce and Curtis v The Queen [1971] Tas SR 22 at 36.…
R v Ware
[2016] ACTSC 264 Para 1

…be given power to make global sentences, sometimes called “general sentences”, where there are such large numbers of multiple sentences: R v Ware [2016] ACTSC 264 at [139]. The apparent mathematical precision of multiple sentences is often artificial: Law v Ilievski [2016] ACTSC 291 at [1]; Bruce and Curtis v The Q…
Millard v The Queen (No 2)
[2016] ACTCA 41 Para 1

…ent of the sentence and the degree of concurrency in R v Forrest (No 3) at [91], in my view, is not part of the order. See Millard v The Queen (No 2) [2016] ACTCA 41 at [11].…
Paul Edward Scheele v Christopher Watson
[2012] ACTSC 196 Para 1

…Despite this, errors can occur. As I pointed out in Scheele v Watson [2012] ACTSC 196 at [31], even judicial officers are human and many are not so mathematically adept that mistakes will never occur. The possibility of mistakes is increased with the greater complexity of the sentencing task.…
R v Brett Anthony Debrueys
[2011] ACTSC 178 Para 1

…This process can result in problems. See R v Debrueys [2011] ACTSC 178 at [5]. I have, in the past, suggested that, by statute, the Court could be given power to make global sentences, sometimes called “general sentences”, where there are such large numbers of multiple sentences: R v Ware [2016] ACTSC 264 at [139].…
Saga v Reid
[2010] ACTSC 59 Para 1

…scrupulously so, when dealing with complex sentencing such as this, even if that results in some delay in the imposition of the sentence: Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [27].…
R v Thorn
[2010] ACTCA 10 Para 1

…is some support for equal and largely concurrent sentences for multiple charges of the same offence and which would have a similar effect: R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10.…
J v Australian Capital Territory
[2009] ACTSC 170 Para 1

…ences” (1987) 11 Criminal Law Journal 335. They are, it appears, used commonly in Tasmania. See also J by his litigation guardian Vardanega v ACT [2009] ACTSC 170; 234 FLR 399.…
Richards v R
[2006] NSWCCA 262 Para 1

…Indeed, as is shown by cases such as Richards v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 262; 46 MVR 165, alteration of one of multiple sentences on appeal will not necessarily require the variation of the whole sentence unless it is manifestly excessive or inadequate.…
Todorovic v Moussa
[2005] NSWCA 100 Para 1

…the sentence. There is no bar to a judge amending his or her reasons so long as the substance remains the same: Todorovic v Moussa [2001] NSWCA 419; 53 NSWLR 463 at 467; [41]. This is not done under the slip rule which is confined to amending orders: A (A Child) (Appeal: Jurisdiction) [2014] EWCA Civ 871; [201…
Todorovic v Moussa
[2001] NSWCA 419 Para 1

…in the reasons for the sentence. There is no bar to a judge amending his or her reasons so long as the substance remains the same: Todorovic v Moussa [2001] NSWCA 419; 53 NSWLR 463 at 467; [41]. This is not done under the slip rule which is confined to amending orders: A (A Child) (Appeal: Jurisdiction) [2014] EWCA…
DJL v Central Authority
[2000] HCA 17 Para 1

…the settled order had not been issued from the Court when the query was made, so the order could be recalled and remade: DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17; 201 CLR 226 at 244; [34].…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 1

…This shows, again, the problems that can arise in sentencing for a large number of offences. The High Court has, in Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 made it clear that individual sentences appropriate to each offence should be imposed and then cumulation and concurrency considered. That is the law.…
Connell v The Queen
[1995] HCATrans 54 Para 1

…individual sentences. If a conviction is appealed and the appeal upheld, then the whole sentence must be set aside and the offender re-sentenced: O’Connell v The Queen (1844) 11 Cl & F 155; 8 ER 1061.…
O'Connell v The Queen
8 ER 1061 Para 1

…ppealed and the appeal upheld, then the whole sentence must be set aside and the offender re-sentenced: O’Connell v The Queen (1844) 11 Cl & F 155; 8 ER 1061.…
[2014] 1 WLR 4453
[2014] 1 WLR 4453 Para 1

…463 at 467; [41]. This is not done under the slip rule which is confined to amending orders: A (A Child) (Appeal: Jurisdiction) [2014] EWCA Civ 871; [2014] 1 WLR 4453 at 4459; [23], 4463; [40].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
4K(4) 1 mention (from Para 1)