R v Kerry Forrest - [2014] NSWSC 1680

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kerry Forrest [2014] NSWSC 1680
Hearing dates: 7 November 2014
Decision date: 27 November 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hidden J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 25 years, NPP 19 years, from 14.2.11

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - pre-meditated killing for financial gain - offender terminally ill
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Anastasiou v R [2010] NSWCCA 100
Goebel-McGregor v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 390
R v Forrest [2013] NSWSC 527
R v Forrest [2014] NSWSC 612
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kerry Forrest (accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr C Patrick (Crown)
Mr M Ainsworth (accused)
Solicitors:
Mr S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ms E Hearne - Galloways Solicitors (accused)

File Number(s): 2011/49657

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: After a trial before me, sitting without a jury, the offender, Kerry Forrest, was found guilty of murder. The victim was an 84 year old man, William Adamson. She administered to him a large dose of a morphine based pain killer, MS-Contin, a prescription medication which she took, causing his death from morphine toxicity. The Crown case against her was circumstantial, and in my written reasons for my verdict I examined it in some detail: R v Forrest [2014] NSWSC 612. For the purpose of sentence it is sufficient to refer to my salient findings.

In about September 2009, Ms Forrest secured a position as a carer for Mr Adamson, then a widower, and she moved in to his home at Kareela. Mr Adamson did not seek a carer for health reasons. He was reasonably fit for his age and was mentally alert. He was a retired real estate agent and property developer, who at the time was trying to market a water saving device he had invented called the Rainsaver. He selected Ms Forrest as his carer because she had administrative and computer skills which he did not, and she could assist him in his marketing project.

Put shortly, over the ensuing months she became involved in his financial affairs to the point where effectively she controlled them. Their relationship was a friendly one and he trusted her.

In February 2010, the Kareela home was put up for sale. Ostensibly, the plan was to use the proceeds to build an investment home on land which Ms Forrest owned at Bundanoon. Mr Adamson was a willing party to this scheme. However, Ms Forrest came to control the process of the sale, and to exclude Mr Adamson from it, by manipulative behaviour which I need not recount.

Settlement of the sale took place on 12 April 2010. Again put shortly, Ms Forrest misappropriated the proceeds of the sale, having already dissipated the deposit paid by the purchasers, which had been released earlier. In large part this money was spent on her gambling on poker machines at a number of clubs over a period of months, during…

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 Kerry Forrest

Details

AGLC: R v Kerry Forrest [2014] NSWSC 1680
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1680
Decision Date: 27 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kerry Forrest was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Kerry Forrest, had been convicted of the pre-meditated murder of an individual for financial gain. The deceased had been a close friend of Forrest and the motive behind the killing was to gain control over the deceased's estate, including substantial sums of money and property. The trial court found Forrest guilty of the offence and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in the circumstances. The respondent argued that the sentence was excessive, particularly given his terminal illness and the absence of any mitigating factors. The respondent submitted that his health conditions warranted a lesser sentence, if not outright parole. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offence, and that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence.

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the severity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court noted that the killing was pre-meditated and carried out for financial gain, and that the respondent had shown no remorse for his actions. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the need to protect the community and the respondent's terminal illness. The court rejected the argument that the respondent's health conditions warranted a lesser sentence, stating that the gravity of the offence outweighed any potential mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and that the sentence imposed by the trial court stand as the sentence of the Supreme Court.

Orders