SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Forster [2002] QCA 495
PARTIES:
R
v
FORSTER, Warren Leslie
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 10 of 2002
SC No 567 of 2001DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:
14 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 November 2002
JUDGES:
McPherson and Davies JJA and Dutney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court,
each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – applicant shot his wife – premeditated with intention to murder her and suicide – applicant aged 62 suffering from depression after wife left him – whether sentence was excessive
R v Reeves [2001] QCA 91, CA No 276 of 2000, 13 March 2001, followed
R v Mcadam-Kellie no 60265 of 2000 (NSW COA), consideredCOUNSEL:
D J Murray for the applicant
C Heaton for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Forest Lake Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
McPHERSON JA: I will give judgment now. The applicant pleaded guilty to a count of attempting to kill Blazenka Forster on 4 October 2000 and to a second count of doing grievous bodily harm to Peter Elcham. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years on the count of attempt and one year on count 2 to be served concurrently. Mrs Forster is the former wife of the applicant. Mr Elcham was a stranger who intervened and wrestled with the applicant and prevented him from firing a second shot at Mrs Forster.
The incident happened at about 4.00 p.m. on the afternoon of
4 October. Mrs Forster was in the florist shop which she had recently opened in an arcade in Given Terrace, Paddington. She was surprised to see the applicant enter the shop carrying an elongated cardboard box which he placed on the counter directing it at her. He fumbled around inside to pull the trigger of a .22 calibre rifle it contained. The bullet struck the complainant in the right breast, knocking her to the floor. The applicant straddled her and pointed the rifle at her evidently intending to fire a second shot.
She was screaming for help and trying to push the rifle away. He was saying he was going to kill her.
A group of people came running from the arcade, shouting, "she has been shot". The second complainant Mr Elcham, who was having coffee nearby, ran inside and into the shop. He grabbed the rifle and struggled with the applicant to gain possession of it. In the course of doing so, he suffered a small cut to the finger of one hand, which is the subject of count 2. He succeeded in wresting the rifle from the applicant and ran outside locking the applicant in the shop, where the police later arrested him.…
Continue reading R v Forster
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Forster [2002] QCA 495
- Case
- [2002] QCA 495
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the legal principles applicable to sentencing in murder cases and the need to balance the gravity of the offence against the personal circumstances of the offender. The court noted that while the applicant's actions were premeditated and resulted in the death of his wife, there were mitigating factors, including his age, his state of mind at the time of the offence, and the circumstances that led to the offence. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered these factors and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentencing judge had failed to take into account any relevant factor or that the sentence was so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive or that there had been a failure to take into account any relevant factor. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence should stand.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
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.