Forrest v R [2009] NSWCCA 11

Forrest v R [2009] NSWCCA 11

No sentencing error was shown. The matter was not conducted before the sentencing judge as one of self-defence or excessive self-defence, and the applicant did not give evidence that he believed the deceased had a knife or that the psychiatric history given to one expert should be preferred. The sentencing judge had regard to the applicant's psychiatric evidence and special sensitivity, was entitled to assess the provocation as significant but not extreme, and was entitled to conclude that the parole period was adequate. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'provocation' 'excessive Self Defence' 'psychiatric Evidence' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manslaughter' 'provocation' 'excessive Self Defence' 'psychiatric Evidence' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to assess adequately or properly the gravity of the provocation and the applicant's response having regard to the applicant's history and psychiatric conditions." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the submission that the facts also involved excessive self-defence or defence of another person.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective gravity of the offending.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to have adequate or proper regard to the applicant's history and psychiatric conditions in assessing the subjective case." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to find special circumstances reducing the non-parole period against the head sentence.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sentencing error was shown. The matter was not conducted before the sentencing judge as one of self-defence or excessive self-defence, and the applicant did not give evidence that he believed the deceased had a knife or that the psychiatric history given to one expert should be preferred. The sentencing judge had regard to the applicant's psychiatric evidence and special sensitivity, was entitled to assess the provocation as significant but not extreme, and was entitled to conclude that the parole period was adequate. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']