AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 27 March 2026

R v Forrest (No 4)

[2026] NSWSC 260

HomicideFirearms & weapons
CRIME SENTENCE MURDER SHOOTING THE DECEASED MULTIPLE TIMES DISPUTED FACT ABSENCE OF REMORSE

Citation: [2026] NSWSC 260
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales — Common Law Division
Date: 27 March 2026
Judge(s): Yehia J

Background

The offender, a 32-year-old man, was convicted of the murder of a 53-year-old man at Menah, a small township near Mudgee in New South Wales, on or about 25 September 2023. The killing was carried out with a shortened double-barrelled shotgun. The offender shot the deceased once to the shoulder or chest area, then ran back to a car, reloaded the firearm, and returned to shoot the deceased at least two more times at close range. The firearm was never recovered.

The offender pleaded not guilty to murder and stood trial before a jury, which returned a guilty verdict in November 2025. In addition to the murder charge, the offender was also to be sentenced for two related firearms offences — using a firearm in contravention of a firearms prohibition order and possessing a shortened firearm without authority — which had been brought before the Supreme Court on a certificate from the Local Court.

A central disputed issue at sentencing was whether the offender had participated in burning the deceased's body after the murder. The Crown relied on this post-offence conduct as relevant to the objective seriousness of the murder. The offender denied involvement and argued the Court could not be satisfied of this beyond reasonable doubt. The sentencing proceedings also required the Court to weigh the offender's deprived and disadvantaged background against the need to protect the community.

  • Disputed fact-finding after jury verdict: Whether the Court could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender participated in burning the deceased's body, and whether that conduct was relevant to the objective seriousness of the murder.
  • Objective seriousness of the offence: How the murder — involving multiple shots with a shortened shotgun, including reloading and returning to shoot the victim at close range — should be assessed against the standard non-parole period of 20 years for murder.
  • Subjective case and moral culpability: What weight should be given to the offender's deprived and disadvantaged background (applying Bugmy v The Queen) in reducing moral culpability.
  • Countervailing factors: Whether the need for community protection, general and specific deterrence, and the absence of remorse required increased weight, potentially counterbalancing the mitigating effect of the offender's background.
  • Accumulation and concurrency: How to structure the sentence for the murder alongside existing custody for unrelated matters and the related firearms offences, applying the totality principle.
  • Victim impact: Whether the family victim impact statements should be taken into account under s 30E(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Decision

Fact-finding principles and the burning of the body

Yehia J set out the well-established principles governing fact-finding by sentencing judges following a jury verdict, drawing on R v Isaacs (1997) and Filippou v The Queen (2015). The key constraints are that the sentencing judge's view of the facts must be consistent with the jury's verdict, and that any facts found against the offender must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where evidence is insufficient or unreliable, the judge must proceed on the basis of what is proved and leave aside what is not. While the truncated text does not disclose the ultimate finding on the burning issue, the Court's detailed treatment of the applicable standard signals that this was a seriously contested matter requiring careful analysis.

Objective seriousness and characterisation of the killing

The Court described the murder as a "brutal killing." The offender shot the deceased once, deliberately returned to a vehicle to reload, and then came back to fire at least two more shots at close range — conduct clearly demonstrating an intention to kill. The use of a prohibited shortened shotgun and the deliberate, sustained nature of the attack were significant factors. Her Honour noted that the offence warranted a "lengthy period of imprisonment."

Subjective case and sentencing purposes

The Court acknowledged the offender's deprived and disadvantaged background as relevant to reducing his moral culpability, consistent with the principles in Bugmy v The Queen. However, Yehia J identified countervailing factors — including the absence of remorse and the need for community protection — that required increased weight. The sentencing remarks emphasised that punishment was not the sole purpose of sentencing; deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation, and community protection all had to be balanced. The Court also noted the profound impact on the deceased's family, as expressed in three victim impact statements from the deceased's son, mother, and sister, each of whom described devastation, grief, and ongoing psychological harm.

Victim impact statements

The Crown's application to have family victim impact statements taken into account under s 30E(3) of the CSPA was granted without opposition from the defence. The Court treated the harmful impact on family members as an aspect of harm done to the community.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced for murder (s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900) to a lengthy term of imprisonment. (Note: The precise numerical sentence is not disclosed in the truncated portion of the judgment available for this summary.)
  • The offender was also sentenced for two related firearms offences (use of firearm in contravention of a firearms prohibition order under s 74(1) of the Firearms Act 1996, and possession of a shortened firearm without authority under s 62(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996), with issues of accumulation, concurrency, and totality addressed.
  • The family victim impact statements were admitted and taken into account pursuant to s 30E(3) of the CSPA.

Note: Because the full text of the judgment was truncated, the precise terms of the sentence (including the non-parole period and total sentence) are not available for this summary. Practitioners should consult the full judgment for the specific orders.

Key Takeaways

  • Where the Crown relies on post-offence conduct to inform the objective seriousness of a murder, the criminal standard of proof applies. The Supreme Court confirmed that contested facts, such as the offender's alleged participation in burning the deceased's body, could not be relied upon at sentencing unless established beyond reasonable doubt, consistent with the principles in R v Isaacs and Filippou v The Queen.

  • Deliberate, sustained violence elevates objective seriousness. The conduct of shooting the deceased, returning to a car to reload, and then shooting again at close range demonstrated a clear intent to kill, which the Court found contributed significantly to the brutal nature of the offence and placed it at a high level of objective seriousness.

  • Under the Bugmy principles, a deprived and disadvantaged background reduces moral culpability but does not operate without limit. The Supreme Court recognised the offender's background as relevant to sentencing, yet held that countervailing considerations, including the absence of remorse and the risk posed to the community, justified giving increased weight to deterrence and community protection.

  • Absence of remorse was treated not as an aggravating factor but as relevant to rehabilitation prospects. The Court assessed the offender's lack of remorse as bearing on the likelihood of rehabilitation and, consequently, on the weight properly given to the protective purposes of sentencing.

  • An application under s 30E(3) of the CSPA for family victim impact statements was accepted. The Court determined it was appropriate to take into account the harmful impact of the deceased's death on family members as an aspect of community harm, applying the procedural requirements of that provision.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 19A
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2)(i), 21A(2)(j), 30E(3), 44(2), 47(2), 54D
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166(1)(b)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 4(3), 4(4), 165
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 62(1)(b), 74(1)

Key Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
- R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
- *R v Saliba (No 4