CONOMY -v- MADEN [2015] WASC 179 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 179 (S)
Case No:	SJA:1065/2014	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	MARTINO J	Delivered:	2/06/15
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Spent conviction order not made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JERROD JAMES CONOMY CHRISTOPHER MADEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction and sentence Stalking Spent conviction order
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45
Case References:	Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CONOMY -v- MADEN [2015] WASC 179 (S) CORAM : MARTINO J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 2 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : SJA 1065 of 2014 BETWEEN : JERROD JAMES CONOMY

Appellant

AND

CHRISTOPHER MADEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE M WHEELER

File No : MH 3334 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Stalking - Spent conviction order

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45

Result:

Spent conviction order not made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr D E Leigh

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in judgment:

Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291

1 MARTINO J: On Friday 29 May 2015, I delivered my decision dismissing Mr Conomy's appeal against conviction and sentence: Conomy v Maden [2015] WASC 179. Mr Conomy attended the hearing at which I published my reasons. He made submissions as to the costs sought by the respondent, but did not seek to make any further submissions.

2 At 12.22 pm that day, Mr Conomy sent an email to my Associate in which he said:

I forgot to raise something important today regarding a spent conviction application. I was only made aware of spent conviction applications after my conviction for the stalking charge hence the reason I did not apply at the time of sentencing. Given that the breach of VRO charge was heard at a later date I then successfully applied for a spent conviction. Given that the two charges were both a result of the same matter I had hoped to have that spent conviction also apply to the stalking charge. My submissions supporting the application would be as per my submissions in sentencing for the breach trial.

My career as an Instrument and Controls Engineer/Designer has already been affected and will continue to be affected by having this on my record.

I apologise for not raising this today but I was literally stunned by the decision.

Could you possibly put this application before Justice Martino.

3 The breach trial to which Mr Conomy referred was his conviction for breaching a restraining order. Mr Conomy had been granted a spent conviction order in…

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 Conomy v Maden

Details

AGLC: Conomy v Maden [2015] WASC 179 (S)
Case: [2015] WASC 179 (S)
Decision Date: 2 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Conomy v Maden, the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed for stalking. The appellant, Conomy, had been found guilty of stalking the respondent, Maden, and was subsequently sentenced. The appeal challenged both the conviction and the sentence, as well as the failure to make a spent conviction order. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction, whether the sentence was appropriate, and whether the court should have made a spent conviction order.

The primary legal issues that the court addressed were whether the prosecution had established the elements of stalking beyond reasonable doubt, whether the sentence imposed was excessive or inappropriate, and whether the court had the discretion to make a spent conviction order. The court examined the statutory definition of stalking and the evidence presented to determine if the appellant's conduct met the criteria. Additionally, the court assessed the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence in relation to the offence, and considered the principles governing the making of spent conviction orders.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the elements of stalking, confirming the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court deemed the sentence to be proportionate and appropriate given the circumstances of the case. Concerning the spent conviction order, the court held that it had the discretion to make such an order but determined that, in this instance, it was not appropriate to do so. The reasoning was based on the seriousness of the offence and the need to maintain public protection.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and sentence, affirming the trial court's decision. The appeal against the failure to make a spent conviction order was also dismissed. The court maintained that the sentence imposed was suitable, and the reasons for not making a spent conviction order were valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

Spent conviction order not 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.