A v Price - [2011] WASC 121

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: A -v- PRICE [2011] WASC 121

CORAM: COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT

HEARD: 3 MAY 2011

DELIVERED : 3 MAY 2011

PUBLISHED : 9 MAY 2011

FILE NO/S: SJA 1009 of 2011

BETWEEN: A
Appellant
AND
CLAIRE LOUISE PRICE
First Respondent
KATIE LOUISE RUTTLEDGE
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R B LAWRENCE
Citation  :FR 9112-9114 and FR 11064-11065 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Spent conviction order - Whether appropriate - No new principles

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45

Result:

Appeal allowed
Spent conviction order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Ms N H Erlandson
First Respondent           :     Mr M Seaman
Second Respondent       :     Mr M Seaman

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Legal Aid (WA)
First Respondent           :     Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Second Respondent       :     Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Brewer v Baines [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Neale v Sloane (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 970729, 6 August 1997)
R v Lauritson (2000) 114 A Crim R 333
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291
Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 89; (2008) 37 WAR 211
Riley v Gill (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970731, 8 December 1997)
Thompson v The Queen [2005] WASCA 223

COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT: This matter concerns an application for leave to appeal and appeal against a magistrate's refusal to grant a spent conviction order. On 2 May 2011, I made orders that leave to appeal is granted; secondly, the appeal is allowed and thirdly, a spent conviction order is made in respect of five offences. My reasons for these orders are set out below.
On 31 December 2010, in the Fremantle Magistrates Court, the appellant, Ms A, was convicted on her own plea of guilty, of five counts of stealing contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA).
The five counts were as follows:
1.On 6 August 2010 at Booragoon, Ms A stole two earrings, five sets of bangles and a metal brooch valued at $148, the property of Diva Pty Ltd trading as Diva Garden City Booragoon.
2.On 6 August 2010 at Booragoon, Ms A stole four bunches of bangles valued at $72.80, the property of Dotti Pty Ltd trading as Dotti Garden City.
3.On 6 August 2010 at Booragoon, Ms A stole some bangles and earrings valued at $299.60, the property of David Jones Pty Ltd trading as David Jones Garden City Booragoon.
4.On 17 July 2010 at Fremantle, Ms A stole items valued at $1,215.55, the property of Country Road Clothing Pty Ltd trading as Country Road.
5.On 17 July 2010 at Fremantle, Ms A stole a dress valued at $109, the property of Myer Pty Ltd trading as Myer Fremantle.
The appellant had no prior convictions. The magistrate imposed a global…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A v Price

Details

AGLC: A v Price [2011] WASC 121
Case: [2011] WASC 121
Decision Date: 9 MAY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of A v Price involved an individual who sought a spent conviction order in relation to a historical conviction. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether the granting of such an order was appropriate in the circumstances. The respondent, Price, argued that the application should be denied as there were no new principles of law that warranted reconsideration of the conviction.

The court had to determine whether the circumstances of the case warranted the granting of a spent conviction order. This involved assessing the nature of the original conviction, the time elapsed since the conviction, and any significant changes in the law or societal attitudes since the conviction occurred. The court also had to consider whether the individual had made significant rehabilitation efforts and whether the order would serve the interests of justice.

In its reasoning, the court noted that while the individual had made efforts towards rehabilitation, the nature of the original conviction and the time elapsed did not warrant the granting of a spent conviction order. The court found that there were no new principles of law that would justify reconsidering the conviction. The court concluded that the application for a spent conviction order was not appropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no spent conviction order was granted.

Orders