NSW Police Force v Forster [2015] NSWLC 3

NSW Police Force v Forster [2015] NSWLC 3

The court adopted the Johanson v Dixon meaning of consort as associating or keeping company with some seeking or acceptance of the association. Although a purely casual encounter would not constitute consorting, it was unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that the meetings were pre-arranged. On each occasion, once Forster and the relevant convicted offender or offenders became aware of each other, they sought out or accepted each other's company through conversation or social activity after official warnings. The statutory requirements of s 93X were therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Habitually Consorting With Convicted Offenders After Warning Contrary to S 93 X of the Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) / Local Court Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The offence of habitually consorting with convicted offenders after warning was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Topics
['habitual Consorting' 'convicted Offenders' 'official Warning' 'meaning of Consort' 'chance Encounter' 'crimes Act 1900 (nsw), Ss 93 W and 93 X']
['criminal Law'] ['habitual Consorting' 'convicted Offenders' 'official Warning' 'meaning of Consort' 'chance Encounter' 'crimes Act 1900 (nsw), Ss 93 W and 93 X']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Habitually Consorting With Convicted Offenders After Warning Contrary to S 93 X of the Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) / Local Court Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Is there a difference between consort and a chance encounter?' "Was Forster's encounter with Hayes at 9.30 am on Friday, 27 April 2012, at Inverell a chance encounter or consorting?" "Was Forster's encounter with Morris at 9.50 am on Friday, 27 April 2012, outside the Complete Angler in Inverell a chance encounter or consorting?" "Was Forster's encounter with Hayes, Morris and Case outside the Tattersalls Hotel in Inverell in the early hours of Saturday, 28 April 2012, a chance encounter or consorting?" "Was Forster's encounter with Case at midday outside the Imperial Hotel in Inverell on Tuesday, 22 May 2012, a chance encounter or consorting?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The court adopted the Johanson v Dixon meaning of consort as associating or keeping company with some seeking or acceptance of the association. Although a purely casual encounter would not constitute consorting, it was unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that the meetings were pre-arranged. On each occasion, once Forster and the relevant convicted offender or offenders became aware of each other, they sought out or accepted each other's company through conversation or social activity after official warnings. The statutory requirements of s 93X were therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

The offence of habitually consorting with convicted offenders after warning was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

  • []