CR v Walker - [2012] WASC 401

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: CR -v- WALKER [2012] WASC 401

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 6 JUNE 2012

DELIVERED : 29 OCTOBER 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1111 of 2011

MATTER :The Criminal Appeals Act 2004 Part 2
and
Prosecution Notice Number 39834 of 2011 in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Perth

BETWEEN: CR
Applicant
AND
DEAN ANTHONY WALKER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P M HEANEY
File No  :PE 39834 of 2011, PE 39835 of 2011

Catchwords:

Appeal against sentence - Shoplifting - Refusal to grant a spent conviction order

Legislation:

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2010 (Cth)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Spent conviction order granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms N H Erlandson
Respondent: Mr M Seaman

Solicitors:

Applicant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

A v Price [2011] WASC 121
AB v Lloyd [2011] WASC 97
AR v Wood [2008] WASC 119
Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259
Cobiac v Liddy [1969] HCA 26; (1969) 119 CLR 257
NJL v Martin [2010] WASC 310
Papas v Godwin [2010] WASC 226
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291

EM HEENAN J: This is an appeal from two sentences imposed upon the appellant in the Magistrates Court at Perth by his Honour, Mr P M Heaney, on 3 October 2011. On that date the appellant pleaded guilty to two separate charges of stealing goods from Woolworths Ltd trading as Big W Karrinyup. The first offence was committed on 1 March 2011 and involved stealing household items to the value of $406.21. The second offence occurred just over three weeks later, on 25 March 2011, and involved the stealing of manchester to the value of $248.21.
The application for leave to appeal came before Hall J on 25 November 2011 on the papers and by an order of that date his Honour granted leave to appeal in respect of all the proposed grounds on the notice of appeal.
The appellant appeared in person before his Honour in the Magistrates Court on 3 October 2011 and personally entered the two pleas of guilty. She was thereupon convicted. The court then heard the circumstances of the two offences and the appellant applied for spent conviction orders. She submitted that the offences were entirely out of character, that she was 45 years of age at the time, that she had been adversely affected by alcohol at the time but since then she had turned her life around. She produced references attesting to the good repute in which she was held by persons who knew her and submitted that convictions would prejudice her prospects of completing a five‑year nursing training course or any subsequent nursing career. She maintained that she had the illness of alcoholism and that she had since attended Alcoholics Anonymous and had successfully brought that…

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 CR v Walker

Details

AGLC: CR v Walker [2012] WASC 401
Case: [2012] WASC 401
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of CR v Walker, the appellant CR appealed against his sentence for shoplifting, arguing that the trial judge should have granted a spent conviction order. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. CR had been found guilty of shoplifting and sentenced to a fine and a conviction recorded. CR's argument centred on the contention that the trial judge should have exercised their discretion to grant a spent conviction order, which would have resulted in the conviction being disregarded for the purposes of character evidence in future proceedings.

The court was required to consider the criteria for granting a spent conviction order, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and the appellant's conduct since the offence. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge's decision not to grant a spent conviction order was unreasonable or involved an error of law. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in declining to grant a spent conviction order. The court found that the offence was serious enough, and the appellant's conduct since the offence did not warrant a spent conviction order. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence and conviction were upheld. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders