R v Forster-Jones (No 2) - [2019] ACTSC 286

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Forster-Jones (No 2)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 286
Hearing Date:	15 October 2019
DecisionDate:	15 October 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [36]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Multiple offences for violence – Murder – Guilty pleas
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12, 21, 23, 24 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33(1), 35A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310, 312
Cases Cited:	Azzopardi v R [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 Douglas v R (1995) 56 FCR 465 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 R v King [2008] ACTCA 12 R v Le Clair; R v Yeboah [2016] ACTSC 126 R v Minnis [2014] ACTSC 268 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Peter Forster-Jones (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 113 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 17 June 2019 the offender pleaded guilty to eight out of nine counts in an Indictment dated 4 June 2019. The offender pleaded not guilty to Count 7 of that Indictment which related to a charge of murder.

On the second day of his trial (19 June 2019) the offender changed his plea in relation to the murder charge, to guilty, satisfying the indictment in full.

The plea to the charge of murder was accepted on the basis that the offender had acted with reckless indifference when he killed the deceased.

The crimes to which the offender pleaded guilty, and their maximum penalties are as follows:

(a)Count 1: Aggravated burglary (CC2018/3161), contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is a fine of $300,000, 20 years imprisonment or both.
(b)Count 2: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (XO2018/31386), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
(c)Count 3: Wounding (XO2018/31387) contrary to s 21 of the Crimes Act, by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
(d)Count 4: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (XO2018/31388) contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act, by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
(e)Count 5: Inflicting actual bodily harm (XO2018/31389) contrary to s 23 of the Crimes Act, by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
(f)Count 6: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (XO2018/31390) contrary to s 24 Crimes Act, by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
(g)Count 7: Murder (CC2018/3162) contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act. The maximum…

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 R v Forster-Jones (No 2) 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: [2019] ACTSC 286
Decision Date: 15 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Forster-Jones and another, were charged with various offences including murder, kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, and unlawful possession of firearms. The court was required to consider the appropriate sentence for the respondents following their pleas of guilty to the charges. The central legal issue before the court was whether the cumulative effect of the offences warranted a life sentence for both respondents. The respondents argued for a non-parole period, while the Crown sought life sentences for both. The court considered the nature and severity of the offences, the culpability of the respondents, and the principles of sentencing. It was noted that the offences were severe and the respondents had demonstrated a high level of culpability. The court found that the appropriate sentence was a life sentence for both respondents, with a non-parole period of 28 years. The court held that the cumulative effect of the offences warranted a severe sentence, reflecting the gravity of the crimes committed. The final orders of the court were that both respondents be sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 28 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [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.