HIGGINS -v- WORTHINGTON [2003] WASCA 19

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 19
Case No:	SJA:1108/2002	Heard:	11 FEBRUARY 2003
Coram:	BARKER J	Delivered:	25/02/03
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NIGEL SHANE HIGGINS FREDERICK RANDALL WORTHINGTON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Whether spent conviction order should have been made Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 318(1)(d) Justices Act 1902 (WA) Police Act 1892 (WA), s 20 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2), s 45
Case References:	Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 37 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; 22 WAR 291 Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Bienki v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1996) 63 FCR 567 Dhu v Ward [2000] WASCA 140 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 King v Power, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 930289; 27 May 1993 Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267 Narrier & Yates v Lewandowski, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallwork J); Library No 8429; 10 August 1990 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Smoker v The Queen [2001] WASCA 388 Yam v Richardson [2002] WASCA 177

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : HIGGINS -v- WORTHINGTON [2003] WASCA 19 CORAM : BARKER J HEARD : 11 FEBRUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 25 FEBRUARY 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1108 of 2002 BETWEEN : NIGEL SHANE HIGGINS

Appellant

AND

FREDERICK RANDALL WORTHINGTON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Whether spent conviction order should have been made - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 318(1)(d)

Justices Act 1902 (WA)
Police Act 1892 (WA), s 20
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2), s 45

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M T S Rennie

Respondent : Ms E A Benwell

Solicitors:

Appellant : Michael Rennie

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 37
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; 22 WAR 291

Case(s) also cited:

Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998
Bienki v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1996) 63 FCR 567
Dhu v Ward [2000] WASCA 140
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
King v Power, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 930289; 27 May 1993
Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267
Narrier & Yates v Lewandowski, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallwork J); Library No 8429; 10 August 1990
Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
Riley v Gill, unreported;…

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 Higgins v Worthington

Details

AGLC: Higgins v Worthington [2003] WASCA 19
Case: [2003] WASCA 19
Decision Date: 25 FEBRUARY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Higgins v Worthington involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The appellant, Higgins, was convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge should have made a spent conviction order under the Spent Convictions Act 2000 (Vic). This legal question centred on the interpretation and application of the Act in the context of the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offence committed.

The Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the statutory framework provided by the Spent Convictions Act 2000 (Vic), focusing on the criteria that necessitate the making of a spent conviction order. The court examined the appellant's criminal record, the seriousness of the current offence, and the potential impact of a spent conviction order on the appellant's future prospects. After a detailed analysis, the court determined that the sentencing judge had correctly exercised their discretion in not making a spent conviction order. The Court found that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the imposition of such an order, given the appellant's previous convictions and the nature of the current offence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence and the decision not to make a spent conviction order. The judges emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing matters and reaffirmed the need for a balanced approach that considers both the rights of the offender and the interests of the community. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the original sentence remain in place.

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.