Ennis v D'Andrilli

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: ENNIS -v- D'ANDRILLI [2007] WASC 263

CORAM: JOHNSON J

HEARD: 7 JUNE 2007

DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2007

FILE NO/S: SJA 1019 of 2007

BETWEEN: BRENDAN WALTER ENNIS
Appellant
AND
MELINDA GAYE D'ANDRILLI
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE W G TARR
File No  :PE 6966 of 2007

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Refusal to grant spent conviction order - Driving vehicle with percentage of alcohol in blood in excess of 0.08% - Probationary driver - Exercise of sentencing discretion

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 64A
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 15, s 39, s 45
Spent Conviction Act 1988 (WA) div 3, s 26, s 27

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms M M in de Braekt
Respondent: Mr C S Bydder

Solicitors:

Appellant: Megan in de Braekt
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 37; (2002) 127 A Crim R 189
Granvias Oceanics Armadora SA v Jibsen Trading Co (The Hartrey) (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 507
Harper v Page [2004] WASCA 267
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291
Reynolds v Commissioner of Police [2001] WASCA 203
Walker [1996] 1 Cr App R 447
Wood v Marsh [2003] WASCA 95; (2003) 139 A Crim R 475

JOHNSON J: In the early hours of the morning of 9 December 2006, the appellant, Brendan Walter Ennis, was stopped by police after being observed to drive on to the incorrect side of the road and overtake another vehicle at speed near a bend in the road. He underwent a preliminary breath test which returned a positive reading. A breath analysis subsequently taken at the police station gave a reading of 0.111%, calculated to 0.102% at the time he was driving. The appellant was a probationary driver. A probationary driver is prohibited from driving if the percentage of alcohol in his blood equals or exceeds 0.02%: s 64A Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).
The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a vehicle with a percentage of alcohol in his blood exceeding 0.08% ('excess 0.08% offence') and sought a spent conviction order. The magistrate declined to make a spent conviction order and fined the appellant $500 and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four months.
The sole ground of this appeal against sentence is that the magistrate erred by refusing to make a spent conviction order. A number of particulars of that ground are identified in the Notice of Appeal, however, they can be somewhat condensed to the following issues:
1.Whether the magistrate's comments demonstrated a perceived or actual pre‑judgment of the…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was an appeal by the appellant, Ennis, against a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The appellant had been found guilty of driving a vehicle while having a percentage of alcohol in his blood that exceeded the legal limit of 0.08%, and as a probationary driver, faced additional penalties. The District Court refused to grant the appellant a spent conviction order. The legal issue before the Court was whether the District Court had erred in its exercise of discretion when refusing to grant the appellant a spent conviction order.

The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles that guide the exercise of discretion in such matters. The Court noted that a spent conviction order is not an entitlement but a matter for the discretion of the court. The Court further noted that the District Court had considered the appropriate factors in exercising its discretion, including the appellant's culpability, the seriousness of the offence, and the appellant's conduct since the offence. The Court found that the District Court had not erred in its exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.

The Court's reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and the principles that guide the exercise of discretion in such matters. The Court found that the District Court had considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion and had not erred in its decision. The Court further noted that the appellant had been given an opportunity to present his case and that the District Court had given appropriate weight to the appellant's submissions. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the District Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established