STATE OF TASMANIA v DANIEL WILLIAM FORSTER SHANAHAN CJ
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 4 MAY 2026
Daniel William Forster you have pleaded guilty to two counts on indictment 47 of 2026.
First, that you recklessly discharged a firearm contrary to s 239B of the Criminal Code. You did so on or about 21 March 2024 at Brighton in Tasmania when you recklessly discharged a firearm without due regard to the safety of any property by firing at a wall and ceiling within the property at Brighton.
Second, that you committed a further offence of recklessly discharging a firearm, when on or about the same date at Brighton Tasmania you recklessly discharged a firearm without due regard to the safety of any property by firing at another property in Brighton.
You were also charged on complaint 6786 of 2024. Count 2 on that complaint was incorrectly committed to this Court. I was asked to deal with that matter pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code whilst dealing with the two counts charged on the indictment. The charge on complainant was that you used a firearm whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drug. I agreed to receive a plea to that charge and deal with the matter pursuant to s 385A, and your plea of guilty to that additional charge was entered through counsel.
It was flagged by the State that complaint 6786 of 2024 also contained a charge of common nuisance. That common nuisance charge is subsumed by the two counts of recklessly discharging a firearm on this indictment to which you have pleaded guilty.
At the time of the offending you were 40 years old.
Facts
Your offending arose out of an incident on 21 March 2024. At that time you were married to Eve Forster and you had been married for five years. You lived together at a property in Brighton. I will refer to your wife as Ms Forster.
Ms Forster has two sons from a previous relationship. At the time of the offending, a son of Ms Forster was 19 years old and living with you and Ms Forster.
You have two daughters from a previous relationship, who at the time of the offending were 11 and 7 years old. At that time the girls alternated living with you and their mother on a week-on/week-off basis. At the material time they were with their mother.
In the years prior to 21 March 2024, you and Ms Forster’s son had been having issues as you have very different personalities. Ms Forster identified your relationship with her son as “the absolute core of our problems and causes the majority of our arguments”.
Those tensions came to a head on 20 March 2024. As a result of an argument, you refused to let Ms Forster’s son into the house. The next day, 21 March 2024, Ms Forster came home from work at around 5.20 pm. She found you having a beer, which she found unusual because you didn’t normally drink, though she noted you weren’t drunk. You had a brief discussion about her son in which Ms Forster told you that she had been feeling isolated. You responded by saying that you were more isolated than she was, and then said you were going for a drink to cool down.
You then left for around five to 10 minutes, before returning. You told Ms Forster that you loved her, then said “When you’re looking in my grave at me, remember it is your fault”. Ms Forster did not respond.
You then went to your bedroom slammed the door shut. Ms Forster realised that the gun safe was in the bedroom and ran to the door and attempted to open it, but could not. The door appeared to have been barricaded. Ms Forster attempted to kick the door down, which caused it to break off its hinges. You lent against the door, preventing Ms Forster from getting in. Mrs Forster tried to push the door open further, but could not.
Looking through the gap Ms Forster saw your gun case and screamed at you, “Don’t”, but you did not respond. You were then the holder of a category “A” and “B” firearms licence, you had four firearms registered to you at the time of the offending. Those were a 308 calibre rifle, a 243 calibre rifle, a 22 calibre rifle, and an air rifle.
At around 6.30 pm. Ms Forster ran to a neighbour’s house, seeking help, and wanting to call triple zero. She told them that you had a gun and wanted to kill yourself. Coincidentally, the daughter of the neighbour was a police officer, who happened to be visiting for dinner. Senior Constable Johnson and **name suppressed** went to your house and attempted to speak to you from outside. You did not respond initially, but then said something along the lines of “I want to suicide”.
Shortly afterwards, Senior Constable Johnson and **name suppressed** heard something in the backyard and thought you may have gone outside. Senior Constable Johnson crouched and walked alongside of the house. She looked through the side of the rear deck and saw you sitting in the backyard holding a firearm. She tried to speak to you and asked you to put the firearm down. You said you wanted to be left alone.
**name suppressed** then joined Senior Constable Johnson down the side of the house and they kept trying to speak to you. At one point, you put the firearm under your chin as if you were going to kill himself, but did not discharge the weapon.
At around 6.50 pm, other police officers arrived on the scene. Senior Constable Johnson returned to her mother’s address and had no further part in the matter.
Sergeant Jamie Hart began to speak to you. You responded by saying that you wanted to kill yourself. Sergeant Hart observed that you appeared to be drinking from a Bundaberg Rum bottle. After around 35 minutes, Constable Jake Whittaker took over from Sergeant Hart. Constable Whittaker spoke to you at length, and you told him that you were a teacher, and that you were having a breakdown over life in general. You told Constable Whittaker that you wanted to consume enough alcohol to muster the courage to commit suicide.
Constable Whittaker spoke to you for around 90 minutes.
During this period, Constable Whittaker convinced you to give up three of your four firearms, along with some spare ammunition. You retained a bolt-action 243 calibre rifle. Constable Whittaker observed that you appeared to be calm and polite throughout these interactions. At around 8.40 pm, Constable Whittaker relocated next door when the Tasmania Police Special Operations Group (‘SOG’) arrived.
Police negotiator, Sergeant Dobner, and Constable Whittaker continued negotiations over the phone. You went into the residence and barricaded yourself inside. Constable Whittaker observed that you continued to drink. Your speech was becoming more slurred, and you could be heard over the phone pouring and consuming alcohol.
Over the next couple of hours, negotiations appeared to deteriorate, following Constable Whittaker telling you that earlier in the evening he had opened your front door. Your view was that the front door had been wedged shut since 4 pm and that it was not possible for anyone to have opened it. Constable Whittaker was captured on his body-worn camera opening the front door of the residence at 6.55 pm.
The footage does not show how far he opened the door, but it appears to open enough for him to step inside if he had wanted to. Two dogs are visible through the open door. Ms Forster’s statement outlines how she left the residence via the front door when she ran to get help earlier. It is not clear if the door had been wedged prior to Constable Whittaker opening it, but if so, it was not done to the extent the door could not be opened.
During continuing negotiations, you discharged your firearm numerous times. These discharges were recorded in the logbook of Inspector John Toohey as follows: “9.12 pm, the firearm discharged from within the residence”. “9.24 pm, the firearm discharged from within the residence”. “10.27 pm, the firearm discharged from within the residence”. “10.46 to 10.48 pm, the firearm discharged five times through the front door towards neighbouring residences and police”.
Subsequent investigations found bullet damage inside your walk-in wardrobe, indicative of a firearm being discharged while pointed towards the ceiling, in line with what you later told police. It is those discharges towards the ceiling that constitute count 1 on the indictment. Five bullet holes were also found in your front door. Later investigations found that the property across the road had been struck four times. Bullet damage was found to that property’s fence, retaining wall, boat and garage door.
The occupants of the property across the road were two adults and their two children, they were at home. They were aware that there was an ongoing incident at your residence. When they heard the shots being fired, they stayed near their fridge in an attempt to shield themselves. Nobody was injured. Police were in the vicinity of the residence but were not directly out the front of the residence, and were not in the line of fire, and no police were injured. It is those shots that are the subject of count 2 on the indictment.
As a result of what appeared to be an escalating situation, SOG sought and were granted approval to use gas.
At 10.48 pm, SOG deployed gas munitions through the rear door and kitchen window. You told negotiators that you were lying on the ground and did not want to be shot. Negotiators relayed to you that if you were to exit the residence and point your firearm in the direction of police, that you would be shot.
At 10.58 pm, SOG were advised that you were lying near the back door in possession of your firearm. In response, SOG deployed further gas into the residence.
At 11 pm, you exited the residence without your firearm through the back door. You were taken into custody and the house was cleared. Multiple empty bottles of alcohol were located throughout the residence. You were taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital and admitted for treatment. You remained in hospital voluntarily for 19 days, and you were discharged on 9 April 2024.
On 10 April 2024, you participated in an electronically recorded interview. During that interview, you made the following relevant statements: You had a long history of mental illness and had attempted suicide 10 years earlier. On 21 March, you had been having a severe illness related to his sinuses, which had significantly impacted your sleep, which was closely linked to your mental health. You had had an argument with your wife on the evening of 21 March, and as a result, you thought she was going to end your marriage. You had catastrophised the situation and thought you would then lose your house and your job, and then would not be able to see your daughters.
You said you had retrieved your rifles from the gun safe because you wanted to take your own life. You thought that if you were to kill yourself, you should also take your dogs with you. You thought you would need alcohol to generate enough Dutch courage to do it, so you grabbed a 750-millilitre bottle of Bundaberg rum. In the past you used to drink heavily, but lately only drank on very rare occasions, maybe one beer a month for the last five years. You went into the backyard to talk to your dogs and drink till you could do it.
Over the course of the night you made it clear to police that you only wanted to take your own life and did not want to harm anyone else. You had a long conversation with Constable Whittaker, to whom you gave up three of your guns. At some point during the conversation, Constable Whittaker mentioned that he had briefly gone into the residence through the front door.
When you were inside preparing to surrender, you saw that the front door was wedged shut. You said that you had wedged it shut earlier in the evening, to the top, sides, and bottom. You thought that Constable Whittaker had lied to you about having opened the door. You thought that if you’d been lied to about this, you could have been lied to about other things, and what would happen if you surrendered, and you then feared that you would be shot. At this stage, you had a panic attack. You then discharged the firearm through the ceiling of your walk-in wardrobe. Over the next half-hour, you did that again three or four times. You said that Constable Whittaker had told you that you could let off a couple of shots through the front door. This is not accepted by the State.
That account is not accepted by the State and for the purposes of sentencing I do not accept it. It would be incredible for a police officer to encourage a person in such a situation to put other lives and property at risk by discharging a weapon, especially whilst under the influence of alcohol.
Whilst you had wanted to take his life earlier in the night, by the end of the night you no longer wished to do so. You accepted that discharging your firearm towards the neighbouring property was stupid and reckless. You are prescribed venlafaxine which is an antidepressant, and you had taken that in the morning of 21 March.
At the conclusion of the interview, you were charged and bailed from custody.
You have spent no time in custody for these offences. Following your arrest you were taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital, where you remained as a voluntarily patient for 19 days. You were not held on remand during your time in hospital, and once you were released you participated in your interview with police, you were charged, and granted bail. You have since been on bail.
The State accepted that you have no relevant prior convictions, albeit you have some convictions for traffic offences.
Your neighbour, whose property was struck by the bullets discharged by you through your front door, was contacted to see if she wished to provide a victim impact statement. I am told by the State, and accept that she has been in contact with you since the incident, that you have apologised for what had occurred, and that she did not want to provide a victim impact statement.
Whilst I accept the State’s submissions in that regard the danger created by your conduct speaks for itself without the need for a victim impact statement.
Firearms Services, have confirmed that your firearms’ licence has been cancelled. The State indicated that you would be able to reapply for that licence once these proceedings have resolved.
Mitigation
Your counsel in mitigation argued for a sentence falling short of a term of imprisonment or if a term of imprisonment was to imposed that it be suspended. The argument advanced focussed on your mental health at the time of the commission of these offences, your mental health since then, your personal circumstances generally, and your lack of prior convictions.
At the time of sentencing submissions you were aged 42. I have already noted your living arrangements and the nature of your family at the time of the offending. I was told your wife in particularly is supportive. You are a carpenter by trade, having worked in that industry since you left school. You went on to become a qualified woodwork teacher, commencing teaching at TAFE, and then moving on to teaching at high schools and colleges around southern Tasmania. You were working at a College at the time of the commission of these offences.
I was provided with a 12 page report by Dr Michael P Jordan a forensic psychiatrist dated 22 January 2026. It was said that paragraph [9] of that report that it sets out the history of your poor mental health. That paragraph records that the death of your father during your twenties was a difficult period for you. It also records that problems with sinusitis coupled with intense work hours led to a gradual deterioration in your mental health in your late twenties that culminated in a psychiatric admission to the Royal Darwin Hospital following an incident when you were found by a friend with a loaded gun under your chin at a time when you were expressing suicidal ideation. You were started on anti-depressants and are said to have made a good recovery.
Dr Jordan reports that you remained on anti-depressants throughout the period 2010-2020 but following difficulties with low mood and uncontrollable sobbing your medication was changed in 2020 to venlafaxine, which you have been prescribed since that time. There were no further psychiatric admissions until the events which led to your offending.
I was told that it was the ongoing problems that you had with sinusitis that ultimately led to you pursuing teaching instead of full-time carpentry; however, there were then stresses associated with that work. The exact relationship between your sinusitis and the major depressive disorder referred to by Dr Jordan is somewhat unclear. Dr Jordan’s report at [10] refers to a second significant mental health issue of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and opines that “It is apparent that the on-going issues with your mental health are primarily linked to PTSD rather than your major depressive disorder”.
The PTSD that you are suffering from was described by Dr Jordan at [29] of his report as that you are “globally fearful on the sighting of any police officer” and you avoid “any busy or noisy places”. It is reported that your “sleep structure remains affected” with you “still experiencing nightmares”. It is said by day you can “easily become agitated and hyper-aroused, particularly if moving about the community”. It may be observed that these appear to be direct consequences of your offending.
I have ignored Dr Jordan’s commentary around s 16 of the Criminal Code as irrelevant to this sentencing exercise.
In terms of the mechanism of your offending your counsel suggested that your mental health was deteriorating before an argument with your stepson and a subsequent argument with your wife that led to your suicidal ideation and offending. I note that these events were after your medication was changed in 2020.
It was put that your heavy drinking on the relevant evening was to allow you to get up enough courage to suicide, it also appears to have had a dis-inhibitive affect that has resulted in indiscriminate discharge of your firearm. The amount of alcohol you consumed is unclear but included at least a 750 ml bottle of rum.
Dr Jordan provides his opinion in respect of the six principles in Verdins, and I note the citation.
The first Verdins principle is that impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent, can reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct as distinct from the offender’s legal responsibility, the condition affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances, and denunciation becomes less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.
In his report Dr Jordan at [34] opines about how your mental health impacted on your offending. Having referred to your long standing major depressive disorder he notes that prior to your offending you had become prone to negatively interpreting and sometimes misinterpreting interactions with family members that had led to poor self-esteem and increasing hopelessness, perhaps paranoia might be a short way of putting some of that. Dr Jordan states that these factors culminated in your suicidal ideation and whilst alcohol cannot be discounted as a catalyst in what occurred in his opinion what happened would not have arisen but for a deterioration in your major depressive disorder. In Dr Jordan’s view at [35] “although the effects of alcohol intoxication cannot be wholly sidelined” it is considered that your “your mental health condition should be seen to have reduced the moral culpability” of your actions.
The State accepts that there should be a reduction under this principle but says that the weight given to that reduction, must be weighed in light of the voluntary consumption of alcohol which led to your intoxication, which in part contributed to your mental state that evening. I accept that submission.
I am prepared to accept that your moral culpability for your offending is reduced under the first Verdins principle but not expunged. You were drunk, and continued to drink throughout the evening, and despite police intervention continued to discharge your firearm on a number of occasions. There appears to be elements of paranoia that emerged during the course of negotiations with police, and I understand persisted when you received medical treatment after the events at your home.
In respect of the balance of the Verdins principles, and there are another five, Dr Jordan states that in respect of the second principle that any custodial sentence would bear very heavily on you, albeit it is not identified with any precision why that is so. Later in his report Dr Jordan develops that opinion in respect of the fifth and sixth Verdins principles by noting the manner in which your subsequent PTSD diagnosis may work with your depression and how a sentence may weigh more heavily on you, and that a custodial sentence would have a significant effect upon your mental health status. It is important to try and seek to disentangle the references to the subsequent impact of PTSD which occurred as a result of your offending and the major depressive disorder which pre-dated it. I am prepared to accept that there is some mitigatory work to do here but not to the level suggested by Dr Jordan and only in respect of your depressive illness.
As to the third principle, Dr Jordan opines “it is not considered that this case would be a good exemplar for where general deterrence might be moderated or eliminated”. However in respect of the fourth principle Dr Jordan considers that the requirement for specific deterrence should be moderated to take into account the impact of your major depressive illness.
It was submitted that you cooperated with the police, albeit at a times when you were still feeling a certain level of distrust of the police, as a result of his mental state your antidepressant medication changed when you were admitted to the Royal Hobart Hospital, and you are now medicated in relation to his post-traumatic stress disorder.
Since that time there has been no further offending. I also understand that you have not suffered any further suicidal ideation. I am told you have used those two years to rehabilitate yourself to the point that your major depression is now in remission, and that you are dealing with the symptoms of the post-traumatic stress disorder. I am also told that you have been abstinent in respect of alcohol.
Of course the events which led to your offending suggests that your mental health has fragile elements and when combined with alcohol use can endanger your life, the lives of your family members and others, as well I might add the property of others. Merely because no one was injured does not reduce the risks generated by your conduct.
I note the personal reference provided by a retired police officer of 38 years, which speaks to your very careful history of being a firearms owner. Noting that this referee is a personal friend of yours I can only observe that whatever your history as a firearms owner it did not prevent the events that led to your offending and the fragility of your mental health suggests an incompatibility with firearm ownership.
I was told that you remain in a steady and supportive marriage to your wife, you have returned to work in carpentry on a part-time basis (60 hours per fortnight), and that has been very positive for your mental health. You continue to engage with mental health services since your discharge from hospital, and your mental health is stable. You seek to manage your post-traumatic stress disorder and now have an assistance dog that the Court can observe in the Court. It was submitted that you are well supported by family and friends, not only in relation to the offending but also in respect to the fragility of your mental health, and that you are very well supported in the community.
It is put that you deeply regret your actions. You have apologised to your neighbours, which it is said was a difficult conversation, but one that was necessary.
I have found this a very difficult sentencing exercise. What you did could easily have led to tragedy and loss of life. You put many people at risk, including neighbours and police. Whilst I accept that you have taken some strides in your rehabilitation over the last two years and are remorseful, I remain very concerned about the fragility of your mental health and the impact that alcohol can have on your conduct. It also appears that when suffering from suicidal ideation you have levels of dis-inhibition that make you potentially very dangerous particularly if alcohol is involved.
Disposition
Daniel William Forster you are convicted on both counts on the indictment. Your offending must have occasioned significant fear and distress in your family, neighbours and attending police. Your conduct was sustained and the danger created by you discharging your firearm was substantial. Such behaviour whatever origins it had in your poor mental health was fuelled by alcohol and must be condemned, it is demanding of general deterrence. On the other hand you have made a number of attempts to change your life and to avoid the risk of such offending in the future.
A term of immediate imprisonment is necessary to express the need for general and specific deterrence, the question is what period if any, of that sentence should be suspended and how it might work with a community correction order to address the risk of alcohol in your life and to ensure you have adequate support for your fragile mental health.
I impose a single sentence, which I understand gives an effective start date of today. I sentence you to 18 months imprisonment, but I suspend the whole of that term for 18 months. I make the order suspending the whole of your sentence subject to the supervision of a probation officer under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act in which regard I make the following community corrections order.
I make a community corrections order under s 42AN of the Sentencing Act to commence today and operate for a period 18 months. That order will include all the core conditions under s 42AO of the Sentencing Act, which include:
- You must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment;
- You must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction into this order during business hours and no later than 10:00 am on 5 May 2026 .
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer, and comply with the reasonable and lawful directions of a probation officer or supervisor;
- You must, during the operation period of this order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times;
- You must not leave or remain outside Tasmania without the permission of a probation officer;
- You must notify a probation officer of any change of address or employment before or within two working days after the change.
The following special conditions under s 42AP will also apply during the operational period of the order:
- You must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:
- any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001;
- any medication containing an opiate, benzodiazepine, bupropion, hydrochloride or pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication;
- You must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must if directed to do so by a police officer or community corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test or other test for the presence of alcohol;
- You must submit to testing for drug use as directed by the probation officer;
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer and complete any suitable program to deal with the impact of alcohol.
I spent some time considering whether I should suspend all or part of your sentence. In the end I have chosen to focus on your obvious need for rehabilitation. The effect of the order under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act is that the community corrections order works as a condition upon which the suspension of 18 months of your sentence rests. If you breach those conditions you may be brought back to the Court for re-sentencing and required to serve the term of imprisonment that has imposed today. By making these orders under s 24(2) I further acknowledge the seriousness of your offending. It is to be hoped that you will not come before this Court again.