Jerome Kennedy Forrester successfully appeals fatal punch verdict two years after ‘substantial miscarriage of justice’

A man who has spent the past two years in a cell has had his conviction wiped after a Supreme Court found an 11th hour ‘tenuous’ theory put his trial in chaos.

In December the full bench of the Court of Appeal ruled that Jerome Kennedy Forrester was the victim of a “substantial miscarriage of justice” during his four-day homicide trial in November 2022. Picture: Zizi Averill

A Top End man who spent the past two years in a cell over a single punch has successfully appealed his conviction over the fatal blow.

In December the full bench of the Court of Appeal ruled Jerome Kennedy Forrester was the victim of a “substantial miscarriage of justice” during his four-day homicide trial in November 2022.

A jury found Mr Forrester guilty of committing a violent act causing the death of Ronald Weetra, his uncle’s friend, at a Knuckey Lagoon home on the morning of April 2, 2021.

It was alleged Mr Forrester and the older man were ‘right into each other’s grill’ and arguing on the verandah, while Mr Forrester’s relatives were inside the house.

Mr Forrester mainatained the older man headbutted him first and he retaliated with a single punch causing an intoxicated Mr Weetra to fall back and hit his head, causing a fatal injury.

The jury heard none of Mr Forrester’s family witnessed the actual punch and rushed outside to find Mr Weetra on the ground, still breathing but bleeding.

The jury heard Mr Forrester appeared to be in shock, trying to help Mr Weetra and pleading “please Ronald, get up”.

When one of his relatives said “you shouldn’t have hit him”, Mr Forrester allegedly replied “he was looking for that punch”.

A triple-0 call allegedly captured Mr Forrester repeating “I think the f**cker head-butted me, head-butted me”, while his uncle told him “Bro, you shouldn’t have hit him. It’s a f**king sick old man”.

As the ambulance arrived Mr Forrester allegedly said “the Lord has something in store for me” and “now I’m going to go to jail”.

As the ambulance arrived Mr Forrester allegedly said “the Lord has something in store for me” and “Now I’m going to go to jail”.

After paramedics and police left the scene, the family hosed down the verandah and tidied up.

It took police three hours to realise the severity of Mr Weetra’s injuries and return to the Knuckey Lagoon home to establish a crime scene.

In his opening address the crown prosecutor did not allege the family’s cleaning had a sinister motive, or that they were engaging in a cover-up to protect their nephew.

Yet, after three-days of evidence the prosecutor used their closing arguments to allege the family had “an agenda” to protect their nephew, had purposely omitted details about the tragic morning, and even suggested witnesses lied about not seeing the punch.

Mr Forrester’s defence team immediately called for the jury to be dismissed given the “speculative” and radical shift in the crown’s case.

The Court of Appeal heard the defence team was taken completely by surprise, and there was no chance for them to test “cover up case theory”, cross examine witnesses or prepare a rebuttal.

But rather than dismiss the jury, the trial judge allowed prosecution to reopen their case and recall two witnesses, Mr Forrester’s two uncles.

Both men maintained they were not part of a conspiracy to protect their nephew, restating they did not see the physical fight and were never told by police they could not clean up the scene after officers left.

However, the Supreme Court jury rejected the self-defence claims and found Mr Forrester guilty of committing a violent act causing death.

Two years after this verdict, the Court of Appeal ruled there was a real prospect Mr Forrester would have been found not guilty had the prosecutor not pulled the 11th hour stunt.

The three justices said the crown’s ‘cover up theory’ was “tenuous at best” and made serious allegations against the family without giving an opportunity to respond.

Indeed the appeal justices heard this strategy “weaponised” the deficiencies of the crown’s evidence from the trial, while the original judge’s decision to allow two crown closings “gave undue prominence to the cover-up theory”.

“These matters combined compel the conclusion that there was such a high degree of necessity for the jury’s discharge that the failure to have ordered it has resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice,” they said.

In December the justices ruled Mr Forrester’s conviction should be set aside, and a fresh trial take place.