R v Forrest [2014] NSWSC 612

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Forrest [2014] NSWSC 612 Hearing dates: 13.03.14-14.03.14, 17.03.14-21.03.14, 24.03.14-28.03.14, 31.03.14-01.04.14, 03.04.14-04.04.14, 07.04.14-11.04.14, 14.04.14-16.04.14, 19.04.14 Decision date: 20 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hidden J Decision: Verdict of guilty Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - trial by judge alone - murder - premeditated killing for financial gain - circumstantial case Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Ms Kerry Forrest (accused) Representation: Counsel: C Patrick (Crown) MG Ainsworth (accused) Solicitors: S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) SE O'Connor - Legal Aid Commission (accused) File Number(s): 2011/49657

reasons for verdict 1The accused, Kerry Forrest, is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of William Adamson, alleged to have been committed at Campbelltown between 13 and 17 April 2010. It is the Crown case that she administered to him a large dose of a morphine based pain killer, MS-Contin, causing his death from morphine toxicity. It is also the Crown case that the killing was premeditated, motivated by financial gain. 2The case against the accused is circumstantial. Mr Adamson was an elderly man, and Ms Forrest had been his carer. By way of background, the Crown relies upon evidence that she became extensively involved in his financial affairs, that she gained access to a large amount of his money, and that she was gambling heavily on poker machines. As to the killing, the Crown relies upon detailed evidence of her movements, as recounted by her or as proved by other evidence, around the time of Mr Adamson's death and immediately after it. 3Ms Forrest did not give evidence. That, of course, was her right and I draw no inference against her on that account. What I must decide is whether the evidence I do have establishes her guilt of the murder beyond reasonable doubt. There is no basis for the alternative verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and neither the Crown prosecutor nor Ms Forrest's counsel, Mr Ainsworth, suggested that there was. Very little of the evidence in the Crown case is challenged. The crucial question is what inferences can be drawn from it.