GAME -v- WHITEHEAD [2000] WASCA 50

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 50
Published:	03/03/2000
Case No:	SJA:1185/1999	Heard:	23 FEBRUARY 2000
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	23/02/00
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	LAWRENCE JUDE GAME DAVID WHITEHEAD
Catchwords:	Appeal against a decision to not grant a spent conviction order Offences contrary to Misuse of Drugs Act s 6(2) Numerous drugs found in appellant's possession Offences of such a serious nature that Spent Convictions Act deemed inappropriate Appellant aware of risk associated in possession of drugs Offences not of a trivial nature Appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(2) Spent Convictions Act
Case References:	Neale v Sloan, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970729; 6 August 1997 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32 Gould v Read (1990) 4 WAR 249 Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435 Hunter v The Queen (1998) 62 ALJR 432 Llyone v Faroane [1989] WAR 154 Mercer v Scantlebury, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980414; 23 July 1998 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Pallot v Harrison, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950261; 12 May 1995 Papadopolous v Hunter (1995) 85 A Crim R 572 R v Jones [1980] Crim L R 58 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Teede v Wright [1999] WASCA 121

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : GAME -v- WHITEHEAD [2000] WASCA 50 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 23 FEBRUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 23 FEBRUARY 2000 PUBLISHED : 3 MARCH 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1185 of 1999 BETWEEN : LAWRENCE JUDE GAME

Appellant

AND

DAVID WHITEHEAD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against a decision to not grant a spent conviction order - Offences contrary to Misuse of Drugs Act s 6(2) - Numerous drugs found in appellant's possession - Offences of such a serious nature that Spent Convictions Act deemed inappropriate - Appellant aware of risk associated in possession of drugs - Offences not of a trivial nature - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(2)

Spent Convictions Act

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P L Fraser

Respondent : Ms A C Johnson

Solicitors:

Appellant : Monaghan & Associates

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Neale v Sloan, unreported; SCt of WA
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA

Case(s) also cited:

Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32
Gould v Read (1990) 4 WAR 249
Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435
Hunter v The Queen (1998) 62 ALJR 432
Llyone v Faroane [1989] WAR 154
Mercer v Scantlebury, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980414; 23 July 1998
Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
Pallot v Harrison, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950261; 12 May 1995
Papadopolous v Hunter (1995) 85…

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 Game v Whitehead

Details

AGLC: Game v Whitehead [2000] WASCA 50
Case: [2000] WASCA 50
Decision Date: 3 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Game v Whitehead, the appellant challenged the decision of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria to deny a spent conviction order in relation to multiple drug offences. The appellant had been found in possession of various illicit drugs, contravening section 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Following the convictions, the appellant applied for a spent conviction order under the Spent Convictions Act, which was subsequently refused by the Magistrates' Court. The appellant then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Spent Convictions Act in the context of drug possession offences. The court needed to determine whether the serious nature of the drug offences warranted the denial of a spent conviction order, considering the appellant's awareness of the risks associated with drug possession and the gravity of the offences committed. Specifically, the court examined whether the offences were of such a serious nature that they precluded the granting of a spent conviction order.

The court held that the drug possession offences were of a serious nature, and therefore, the Spent Convictions Act did not deem them appropriate for a spent conviction order. The court reasoned that the appellant was fully aware of the risks and consequences associated with drug possession, further justifying the refusal of the order. The court also emphasised that the offences were not trivial, which reinforced the decision to deny the spent conviction order. Given these findings, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Magistrates' Court's decision.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, affirming the Magistrates' Court's refusal to grant a spent conviction order in relation to the drug possession offences. The court's decision highlighted the stringent criteria for obtaining a spent conviction order and underscored the gravity of drug possession offences in this context.

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.