BLUM -v- CLIFTON [2012] WASC 469
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 469 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1074/2012 | 9 NOVEMBER 2012 | |
| Coram: | ALLANSON J | 4/12/12 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Extension of time granted Leave to appeal against conviction refused Appeal allowed against sentence | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
DARREN ROBERT CLIFTON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE K T FISHER
File No : BU 3949 of 2010, BU 3950 of 2010
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Identifying information - Request for destruction - Whether illegally retained - Fresh evidence - Forensic reports not disclosed - Lack of legal representation - Turns on own facts
Criminal law…
Continue reading Blum v Clifton
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- BLUM -v- CLIFTON [2012] WASC 469
- Case
- [2012] WASC 469
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Blum v Clifton, the appellant, Mr Blum, appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The conviction related to the illegal retention of identifying information, while the sentence appeal focused on the imposition of a custodial sentence. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to consider whether the conviction and sentence were lawfully obtained and appropriate. The central legal issues involved the admissibility of forensic reports, the legality of the retention of identifying information, and the application of the totality principle in sentencing.
The court first examined the legality of the retention of identifying information, considering whether it was obtained through an unlawful search or whether there were grounds for its destruction. The court found that the evidence was lawfully obtained and retained, dismissing the appeal against conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court reviewed the application of the one transaction rule and the totality principle, assessing whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the pre-sentence report and allowed submissions as to sentence. The court held that the trial judge had erred in not considering the pre-sentence report and in not allowing submissions as to sentence, which breached the natural justice rule.
The court granted an extension of time to file the appeal but refused leave to appeal against the conviction, finding no basis for overturning the conviction. However, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence, finding that the trial judge's failure to consider the pre-sentence report and to allow submissions as to sentence constituted a breach of natural justice. The court remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for reconsideration, allowing the appellant to potentially receive a more lenient sentence.
The final orders of the court were to grant an extension of time to file the appeal, refuse leave to appeal against the conviction, and allow the appeal against the sentence. The matter was to be remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
The court first examined the legality of the retention of identifying information, considering whether it was obtained through an unlawful search or whether there were grounds for its destruction. The court found that the evidence was lawfully obtained and retained, dismissing the appeal against conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court reviewed the application of the one transaction rule and the totality principle, assessing whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the pre-sentence report and allowed submissions as to sentence. The court held that the trial judge had erred in not considering the pre-sentence report and in not allowing submissions as to sentence, which breached the natural justice rule.
The court granted an extension of time to file the appeal but refused leave to appeal against the conviction, finding no basis for overturning the conviction. However, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence, finding that the trial judge's failure to consider the pre-sentence report and to allow submissions as to sentence constituted a breach of natural justice. The court remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for reconsideration, allowing the appellant to potentially receive a more lenient sentence.
The final orders of the court were to grant an extension of time to file the appeal, refuse leave to appeal against the conviction, and allow the appeal against the sentence. The matter was to be remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal against conviction refused
Appeal allowed against sentence
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.