DOCKER -v- FAULKNER [2000] WASCA 282

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 282
Case No:	SJA:1026/2000	Heard:	20 SEPTEMBER 2000
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	29/09/00
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CHARLOTTE ERANA DOCKER MARK LLOYD FAULKNER
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Whether order for spent convictions should be made Principles Relevance of occupation in security industry Whether Magistrate in error in declining to make orders
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 6(2), s 7(1)(a), s 7(2) Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996, s 52, s 67, s 80, s 81 Sentencing Act 1995, s 39(2), s 45
Case References:	Aitkin v Wilson [1974] WAR 166 Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65 Game v Whitehead [2000] WASCA 50 Leyte v Fisher, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990213; 9 April 1999 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Tognini & McGuire v R (2000) 109 A Crim R 411 House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Mercer v Scantlebury, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980414; 27 July 1998 Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Symonds v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : DOCKER -v- FAULKNER [2000] WASCA 282 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 20 SEPTEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1026 of 2000 BETWEEN : CHARLOTTE ERANA DOCKER

Appellant

AND

MARK LLOYD FAULKNER

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Whether order for spent convictions should be made - Principles - Relevance of occupation in security industry - Whether Magistrate in error in declining to make orders

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 6(2), s 7(1)(a), s 7(2)

Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996, s 52, s 67, s 80, s 81
Sentencing Act 1995, s 39(2), s 45

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr B G Grubb

Respondent : Ms C L Bathurst

Solicitors:

Appellant : Nicholson Clement

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Aitkin v Wilson [1974] WAR 166
Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65
Game v Whitehead [2000] WASCA 50
Leyte v Fisher, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990213; 9 April 1999
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997
Tognini & McGuire v R (2000) 109 A Crim R 411

Case(s) also cited:

House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mercer v Scantlebury, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980414; 27 July 1998
Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66
Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Symonds v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998

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 Docker v Faulkner

Details

AGLC: Docker v Faulkner [2000] WASCA 282
Case: [2000] WASCA 282
Decision Date: 29 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Docker v Faulkner, the appellant, Docker, sought to appeal against a decision of a Magistrate who declined to make an order that certain spent convictions be kept confidential. The dispute arose following Docker's application for a firearms licence, where his past criminal history was considered. Docker's occupation involved work in the security industry, which necessitated a thorough background check. The legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had erred in declining to make orders for the spent convictions to remain confidential, considering the relevance of Docker's occupation in the security sector.

The court examined the principles that guide the making of orders for spent convictions to be kept confidential. It considered the balance between an individual's right to privacy and the need for transparency and safety in certain occupations. The court acknowledged the importance of maintaining public safety, particularly in roles involving firearms and security. The appellant argued that the Magistrate had not appropriately weighed the relevance of his occupation in reaching a decision. The court, however, found that the Magistrate had adequately considered the statutory criteria and the implications of Docker's occupation, and had not erred in declining the application.

The court concluded that the Magistrate's decision was not flawed and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the principles governing confidentiality orders for spent convictions were correctly applied and that the relevance of Docker's occupation did not necessitate a different outcome. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Magistrate's decision.

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.