R v Forsyth - [2015] ACTSC 326

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Forsyth
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 326
Hearing Date:	21 October 2015
DecisionDate:	21 October 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for four months. 2. The sentence is immediately suspended and a good behaviour order for 12 months is made.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords: .	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender to be sentenced for assault occasioning actual bodily harm – road rage incident – offender a trained boxer – delays in finalising matter – not all attributable to offender – application for permanent stay previously refused – sentence reduction allowed in recognition of delays.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Liquor Control Act 1988 (WA)
Cases Cited:	R v Benjamin Taylor SCC53/2005, Connelly J, 22 July 2005 R v Christopher Barbaro SCC471/2008, Penfold J, 17 June 2015 R v Forsyth [2013] ACTSC 174 R v Forsyth [2013] ACTSC 179 R v Klobucar SCC186/2010, Penfold J, 19 September 2013
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Adam Tony Forsyth (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D SahuKhan (Crown) M K Saeedi (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 437 of 2008

In August 2013, after a judge-alone trial, I found Adam Forsyth guilty of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). That offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.

The offence was committed in November 2007. The matter has been beset by delays ever since, and I shall have more to say about them shortly.

In my judgment (R v Forsyth [2013] ACTSC 174) I summarised the incident as follows.

The accused had driven to the Canberra suburb of Fyshwick, and was attempting to park his car in Wollongong Street, close to the intersection with Gladstone Street. The complainant, who was driving a truck, turned off Gladstone Street into Wollongong Street and found his way blocked by the accused's car. The complainant blew his horn at the accused, who did not move his car out of the complainant's way. The complainant got out of his truck and walked towards the accused's car. The accused got out of his car and walked towards the truck. The two men met, and punches were thrown. In the encounter, the complainant sustained, among other things, substantial bruising and a chipped tooth. When the encounter finished, several members of the public who had witnessed parts of the incident came to the complainant's aid, and gave him their contact details.

In the end I found that the prosecution had excluded self-defence as the explanation of the incident, and accordingly found Mr Forsyth guilty. It is unnecessary to set out all the detailed findings I made on disputed matters, but several of them will be mentioned in the course of…

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 Forsyth

Details

AGLC: R v Forsyth [2015] ACTSC 326
Case: [2015] ACTSC 326
Decision Date: 21 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Forsyth involved an offender who was to be sentenced for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm that occurred during a road rage incident. The offender, a trained boxer, had previously faced delays in the finalisation of the matter, not all of which were attributable to him. The court was required to address the issue of whether the delays warranted a reduction in the sentence. The offender had previously applied for a permanent stay of proceedings, which was refused.

The court considered the circumstances surrounding the delays and the offender's conduct in the matter. It noted that while some of the delays were due to the offender, others were not within his control. The court acknowledged the importance of finalising criminal matters in a timely manner and recognised that the offender had suffered due to the delays. The court also considered the nature of the offence and the offender's background, including his status as a trained boxer.

In light of the above, the court decided to reduce the sentence to reflect the impact of the delays. The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for four months, but the sentence was immediately suspended and a good behaviour order for 12 months was made. The court emphasised the importance of timely resolution of criminal matters and the need to recognise the impact of delays on offenders. However, it also noted that the offence was serious and the offender's background did not warrant leniency. The court's decision balanced these competing considerations and resulted in a sentence that was reduced in recognition of the delays, but still reflected the seriousness of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for four months.

2. The sentence is immediately suspended and a good behaviour order for 12 months is made.

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.