Lowry v Cooper

[2010] QDC 181

[2010] QDC 181

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE KOPPENOL

Appeal No 3540 of 2009

JAYDEN CHRISTOPHER LOWRY	Appellant
and
BENJAMIN PETER COOPER	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 19/04/2010 ORDER

1-1
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from an aspect of the decision

1

of a learned Magistrate on 16 November 2009. On that occasion
the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of serious assault.
The circumstances surrounding the assault were that the
applicant and his father were passengers in a taxi on a

particular evening. During the trip there was a dispute	10
between the taxi driver and the applicant and his father about
the fare. At one stage the applicant pushed and shoved the
taxi driver, who was in his sixties. The taxi driver, once
the passengers had alighted, drove to a local police station
and reported the matter to the police. The applicant was	20
subsequently charged with that offence.
When the matter came on before the Magistrate, submissions
were made in relation to the recording of a conviction against
him. It was said that the applicant, who was completing a	30
degree in Business specialising in International Business, would be adversely affected in his future employment prospects because a criminal conviction would prevent his entry into the United States and other countries. Consequently that would curtail his business prospects and employment prospects.	40
The applicant had committed a number of criminal offences
prior to this matter. He was born in 1988. In 2005 he
pleaded guilty to obstructing a police officer and to wilfully
damaging property. On that occasion he was fined and no	50

conviction was recorded. In 2006 he pleaded guilty to stealing and to possessing dangerous drugs. On each occasion no conviction was recorded and a good behaviour bond was imposed. Then in 2008 the applicant, who was then 19, pleaded 1-2 ORDER 60

1

guilty to wilful destruction of property. He was fined and no

conviction was recorded.

The learned Magistrate felt that having regard to the

applicant's previous criminal history and notwithstanding the	10
negative impact that the recording of a conviction would have on his future employment prospects, it was still appropriate to record a conviction.
In my opinion the learned Magistrate did not place sufficient	20
emphasis on the quite significant negative impact which the recording of a conviction would have on this young man in relation to his future employment opportunities, particularly overseas in countries where the applicant would not be able to enter because of the fact that he had a conviction.	30
I tend to think that the submissions before the Magistrate
were not quite as detailed or substantial as those which were
made before me today by Mr Williamson. I can understand the
learned Magistrate looking at this young man and seeing that	40
there arguably has been an escalation in his criminal activity; but to record a conviction in these circumstances would have, I think, serious adverse consequences on a man who is still only 22 years of age.
50

1-3 ORDER 60

In all of the circumstances, I have decided that it would be

1

appropriate to allow this appeal and to set aside the entry of

a conviction. No conviction will be recorded.

-----

10

20

30

40

50

1-4 ORDER 60