FREWEN -v- DALGREEN [2014] WASC 407
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 407 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1041/2014 | 28 OCTOBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | BEECH J | 5/11/14 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JACKSON DEAN FREWEN RYAN JAMES DALGREEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and sentencing Application for spent conviction order Possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia Application refused Whether additional evidence means refusal of application gives rise to a miscarriage of justice Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40(1)(e) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45 |
Case References: | Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510 Colwell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2012] WASCA 196 Gray-Herewini v Lee [2013] WASC 200 Hamlin v Lawson [2009] WASC 303 Hull v Castledine [2005] WASC 252 Lowndes v R [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 McKenzie v Daly [2008] WASC 284 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291 Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 69; (2008) 37 WAR 211 Taylor v McLernon [2009] WASC 211 Wheeler v R [No 2] [2010] WASCA 105 Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
RYAN JAMES DALGREEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE S M LANE
File No : MH 423 of 2014, MH 424 of 2014, MH 425 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law and sentencing - Application for spent conviction order - Possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia - Application refused - Whether additional evidence means refusal of application gives rise to a miscarriage of justice - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40(1)(e)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S B Watters
Respondent : Mr J L Winton
Solicitors:
Appellant : D G Price & Co
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
Colwell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2012] WASCA 196
Gray-Herewini v Lee [2013] WASC 200
Hamlin v Lawson [2009] WASC 303
Hull v Castledine [2005] WASC 252
Lowndes v R [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
McKenzie v Daly [2008] WASC 284
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291
Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 69; (2008) 37 WAR 211
Taylor v McLernon [2009] WASC 211
Wheeler v R [No 2] [2010] WASCA 105
Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257
- BEECH J:
Introduction
1 The appellant appeals against the magistrate's refusal to make…
Continue reading Frewen v Dalgreen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Frewen v Dalgreen [2014] WASC 407
- Case
- [2014] WASC 407
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in the matter of Frewen v Dalgreen were the respondent, Frewen, who sought a spent conviction order, and the appellant, Dalgreen, who opposed the application. The central dispute in this case revolved around Frewen's application for a spent conviction order, which was denied by the court. Frewen was previously convicted for possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia. Dalgreen opposed the application, arguing against the granting of a spent conviction order. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal.
The primary legal issues the court had to determine involved whether the refusal of the spent conviction order constituted a miscarriage of justice, considering that Frewen provided additional evidence to support his application. The court examined whether this new evidence altered the circumstances to a point where the refusal of the application would indeed result in a miscarriage of justice. The court was tasked with balancing the principles of fairness and the potential consequences of granting a spent conviction order against the established legal precedents.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the additional evidence presented by Frewen and evaluated its impact on the original conviction. The court noted that while the new evidence did provide some context, it did not fundamentally change the nature of the original conviction. The court found that the additional evidence did not sufficiently alter the circumstances to warrant a reconsideration of the original decision. Consequently, the court concluded that the refusal of the spent conviction order did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower court.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the original order denying the spent conviction order was upheld. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of maintaining consistency in the application of legal principles while also considering the unique facts of each case.
The primary legal issues the court had to determine involved whether the refusal of the spent conviction order constituted a miscarriage of justice, considering that Frewen provided additional evidence to support his application. The court examined whether this new evidence altered the circumstances to a point where the refusal of the application would indeed result in a miscarriage of justice. The court was tasked with balancing the principles of fairness and the potential consequences of granting a spent conviction order against the established legal precedents.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the additional evidence presented by Frewen and evaluated its impact on the original conviction. The court noted that while the new evidence did provide some context, it did not fundamentally change the nature of the original conviction. The court found that the additional evidence did not sufficiently alter the circumstances to warrant a reconsideration of the original decision. Consequently, the court concluded that the refusal of the spent conviction order did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower court.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the original order denying the spent conviction order was upheld. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of maintaining consistency in the application of legal principles while also considering the unique facts of each case.
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.