DAVIDSON -v- DI GREGORIO [2012] WASC 505
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 505 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1113/2012 | 8 NOVEMBER 2012 | |
| Coram: | ALLANSON J | 8/11/12 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TRENT THOMAS TERRANCE DERRICK DOUGHTY DAVIDSON GUISEPPE DI GREGORIO |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Whether spent conviction should have been granted Spent conviction not considered Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45 |
Case References: | A v Esposito [2011] WASC 198 Bardsley v The Queen [2004] WASCA 251; (2004) 29 WAR 338 Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510 Butler v The Queen (1989) 44 A Crim R 215 Costello v Bennasar [2012] WASC 406 Eastough v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2010] WASCA 88 Papas v Godwin [2010] WASC 226 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291 Redding v Robinson [2009] WASC 403 Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 69; (2008) 37 WAR 211 Tambyrajah v Gablonski [2004] WASCA 105 Wahab v Higgs [2012] WASC 356 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
GUISEPPE DI GREGORIO
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : B McGOWAN JP
- A MAUGHAN JP
File No : PE 21640 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Whether spent conviction should have been granted - Spent conviction not considered - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45
Result:
Appeal allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr G M Rodgers
Respondent : Ms M C Dorn
Solicitors:
Appellant : Gary Rodgers
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
A v Esposito [2011] WASC 198
Bardsley v The Queen [2004] WASCA 251; (2004) 29 WAR 338
Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
Butler v The Queen (1989) 44 A Crim R 215
Costello v Bennasar [2012] WASC 406
Eastough v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2010] WASCA 88
Papas v Godwin [2010] WASC 226
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291
Redding v Robinson [2009] WASC 403
Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 69; (2008) 37 WAR 211
Tambyrajah v Gablonski [2004] WASCA 105
Wahab v Higgs [2012] WASC 356
(Page 3)
1 ALLANSON J: On 1 May 2012, Mr Davidson was convicted of riding a motorcycle otherwise than in conformity with the conditions of his learner's permit. He was not accompanied by an instructor. Mr Davidson submitted an endorsed plea of guilty and did not attend court on the hearing…
Continue reading Davidson v Di Gregorio
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Davidson v Di Gregorio [2012] WASC 505
- Case
- [2012] WASC 505
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Davidson, appealed against his conviction and sentence for drug-related offences. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. Davidson argued that the trial judge had failed to consider that his prior conviction should have been treated as spent, which would have impacted the sentence imposed. The primary judge did not accord any weight to the spent conviction, finding that it was not relevant to the circumstances of the current offence.
The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to consider the appellant's spent conviction. The court examined the principles governing the application of spent convictions and the discretion of the trial judge in sentencing. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge's failure to consider the spent conviction constituted a significant error in the sentencing process.
The court found that the trial judge had not accorded any weight to the spent conviction, and this was a significant error. The court held that the trial judge should have considered the spent conviction as it might have impacted the sentence. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge's failure to consider the spent conviction was a significant error. The case was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.
The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to consider the appellant's spent conviction. The court examined the principles governing the application of spent convictions and the discretion of the trial judge in sentencing. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge's failure to consider the spent conviction constituted a significant error in the sentencing process.
The court found that the trial judge had not accorded any weight to the spent conviction, and this was a significant error. The court held that the trial judge should have considered the spent conviction as it might have impacted the sentence. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge's failure to consider the spent conviction was a significant error. The case was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.