LYNCH -v- HEIDRICH & ANOR [2002] WASCA 154
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 154 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1184/2001 | 29 APRIL 2002 | |
| Coram: | PULLIN J | 13/06/02 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN ANTHONY LYNCH REGINA URSULA HEIDRICH GEOFFREY FRANCIS McGRATH |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Spent conviction order Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Local Government Act 1995, s 2.22 and s 5.65 Sentencing Act 1995, s 39 and s 45 |
Case References: | Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65 Game v Whitehead [2000] WASCA 50 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mickelberg v The Queen [2000] WASCA 319 Neale v Sloan, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970729; 6 August 1997 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Rands v Oldroyd [1959] 1 QB 204 Aitken v Wilson [1974] WAR 166 Docker v Faulkner [2000] WASCA 282 Richardson v Porteous [2000] WASCA 261 Riley v Gill; unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
REGINA URSULA HEIDRICH
GEOFFREY FRANCIS McGRATH
Respondents
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Spent conviction order - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Local Government Act 1995, s 2.22 and s 5.65
Sentencing Act 1995, s 39 and s 45
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr J F O'Sullivan
Respondents : In person
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Crown Solicitor
Respondents : In person
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65
Game v Whitehead [2000] WASCA 50
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mickelberg v The Queen [2000] WASCA 319
Neale v Sloan, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970729; 6 August 1997
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291
Rands v Oldroyd [1959] 1 QB 204
Case(s) also cited:
Aitken v Wilson [1974] WAR 166
Docker v Faulkner [2000] WASCA 282
Richardson v Porteous [2000] WASCA 261
Riley v Gill; unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997
(Page 3)
1 PULLIN J: On 9 November 2001, each of the respondents was convicted by Mr S P Sharratt SM of an offence against s 5.65 of the Local Government Act1995. The respondents are married to each other and were, at the time of the offence, partners in a farming business which also conducted concreting work in the Shire of…
Continue reading Lynch v Heidrich
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Lynch, appealed his sentence for possession of a knife in a public place, arguing that he was entitled to a spent conviction order, which would have allowed him to claim that the offence did not result in a conviction. The respondent, Heidrich, argued that a spent conviction order was not appropriate in this case. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to a spent conviction order, which would have allowed him to deny that the offence resulted in a conviction. The court was required to consider the criteria for granting such an order and whether they were met in this case.
The court found that a spent conviction order was not appropriate in this case. The court noted that the appellant had a prior conviction for a similar offence and that the circumstances of the current offence were such that it could not be said to be a spent conviction. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a spent conviction order, and the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the criteria for granting a spent conviction order were not met in this case, and the appellant's prior conviction for a similar offence was a relevant factor in the court's decision. The court also noted that the circumstances of the current offence were such that it could not be said to be a spent conviction.
The court found that a spent conviction order was not appropriate in this case. The court noted that the appellant had a prior conviction for a similar offence and that the circumstances of the current offence were such that it could not be said to be a spent conviction. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a spent conviction order, and the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the criteria for granting a spent conviction order were not met in this case, and the appellant's prior conviction for a similar offence was a relevant factor in the court's decision. The court also noted that the circumstances of the current offence were such that it could not be said to be a spent conviction.
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.