"A" -v- STAPLES [2007] WASC 36

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 36
Case No:	SJA:1110/2006	Heard:	14 FEBRUARY 2007
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	13/02/07
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Spent conviction order made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	"A" MELISSA JANE STAPLES
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Offence of disorderly conduct Plea entered in absence of appellant by endorsed plea of guilty Whether Magistrate gave sufficient consideration to making of a spent conviction order Appeal allowed Spent conviction order made Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14 Criminal Code 2004 (WA), s 74A(2)(a) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45(1) Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)
Case References:	Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Smith v

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : "A" -v- STAPLES [2007] WASC 36 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 14 FEBRUARY 2007 DELIVERED : 14 FEBRUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1110 of 2006 BETWEEN : "A"

Appellant

AND

MELISSA JANE STAPLES

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES' COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P M HEANEY

File No : PE 52985 of 2006

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Offence of disorderly conduct - Plea entered in absence of appellant by endorsed plea of guilty - Whether Magistrate gave sufficient consideration to making of a spent conviction order - Appeal allowed - Spent conviction order made - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14

Criminal Code 2004 (WA), s 74A(2)(a)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45(1)
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Spent conviction order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M A Tedeschi

Respondent : Mr J S Koshy

Solicitors:

Appellant : Marco Tedeschi

Respondent : State Solicitor

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

"A" v Ray [2001] WASCA 340
Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Smith v "C" [2001] WASCA 262

(Page 3)

HASLUCK J

Introduction

1 The appellant has obtained leave to appeal in respect of a conviction and related sentence in the Magistrates' Court at Perth. The question is whether the learned Magistrate ought to have made provision for a spent conviction order.

2 By a prosecution notice dated 26 September 2006 the appellant was charged with behaving in a disorderly manner at Northbridge on 24 September 2006 contrary to s 74A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

3 The effect of the provision in question is that a person who behaves in a disorderly manner in a public place is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of $6000.

The hearing

4 The matter in question, being 52985/06, was brought before Magistrate Heaney at the Magistrates' Court at Perth on 7 November 2006. A plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the appellant but…

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 Staples

Details

AGLC: A v Staples [2007] WASC 36
Case: [2007] WASC 36
Decision Date: 14 FEBRUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of A v Staples, the appellant was convicted of an offence of disorderly conduct. The appellant did not appear in court for the hearing, and a plea of guilty was entered on his behalf by his legal representative. The appellant was subsequently sentenced by the Magistrates' Court to a fine and a conviction recorded. The appellant sought to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the Magistrate did not give sufficient consideration to the making of a spent conviction order.

The appeal turned on whether the Magistrate gave sufficient consideration to the making of a spent conviction order. The court noted that the appellant had no previous convictions and had shown remorse for his actions. The court also noted that the offence was relatively minor and that the appellant had cooperated with authorities throughout the proceedings. The court held that the Magistrate did not give sufficient consideration to the making of a spent conviction order and that this was an error of law.

The appeal was allowed, and a spent conviction order was made. The court held that the error of law in not considering the making of a spent conviction order was significant enough to warrant the setting aside of the conviction and the imposition of a spent conviction order. This meant that the appellant's conviction would not appear on his criminal record after a period of time and would not have the same negative consequences as a regular conviction. The court emphasised that each case turned on its own facts and that the making of a spent conviction order was not automatic but required careful consideration by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Spent conviction order made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.