BREWER -v- BAYENS [2002] WASCA 37
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 37 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1177/2001 | 31 JANUARY 2002 | |
| Coram: | McLURE J | 26/02/02 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DOUGLAS FRANK BREWER CORNELIUS BAYENS |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Public soliciting of a prostitute Whether a spent conviction order should have been made Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 196(1)(b) Prostitution Act 2000 (WA), s 5(1) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2) and s 45 Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA), s 6 and s 7 |
Case References: | Amuso v R (1987) 32 A Crim R 308 Bessell v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Bienke v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (1996) 63 FCR 567 Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Knights v R (1993) 70 A Crim R 105 Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66 Thompson v R (1992) 8 WAR 387 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
BETWEEN : DOUGLAS FRANK BREWER
- Appellant
AND
CORNELIUS BAYENS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Public soliciting of a prostitute - Whether a spent conviction order should have been made - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 196(1)(b)
Prostitution Act 2000 (WA), s 5(1)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2) and s 45
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA), s 6 and s 7
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M R Gunning
Respondent : Mr R M Mitchell
Solicitors:
Appellant : Gunning
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Amuso v R (1987) 32 A Crim R 308
Bessell v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998
Bienke v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (1996) 63 FCR 567
Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Knights v R (1993) 70 A Crim R 105
Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291
Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66
Thompson v R (1992) 8 WAR 387
Case(s) also cited:
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997
(Page 3)
1 McLURE J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions that on 23 August 2001 at Perth he,…
Continue reading Brewer v Bayens
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 37
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved Brewer, who was appealing his sentence for public soliciting of a prostitute. The court had to determine whether a spent conviction order should have been made, a matter that hinged on the unique facts of this case. Brewer had a prior conviction for a similar offence, which was relevant to the sentencing considerations.
The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge should have made a spent conviction order in relation to Brewer's prior conviction, given the nature of the current offence and the time elapsed since the previous conviction. The court examined the principles governing the making of spent conviction orders and the discretion of the trial judge in this context. It also considered the impact of the prior conviction on the sentencing of the current offence.
The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in not making a spent conviction order. The court held that the nature and recency of the prior offence, coupled with the current offence, warranted a sentence that reflected the seriousness of Brewer's conduct. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including the prior conviction. The appeal was dismissed.
The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge should have made a spent conviction order in relation to Brewer's prior conviction, given the nature of the current offence and the time elapsed since the previous conviction. The court examined the principles governing the making of spent conviction orders and the discretion of the trial judge in this context. It also considered the impact of the prior conviction on the sentencing of the current offence.
The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in not making a spent conviction order. The court held that the nature and recency of the prior offence, coupled with the current offence, warranted a sentence that reflected the seriousness of Brewer's conduct. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including the prior conviction. The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.