Manchanda v WA Police - [2025] WASC 49

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MANCHANDA -v- WA POLICE [2025] WASC 49
CORAM:   WHITBY J
HEARD:   18 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   18 FEBRUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1076 of 2024
BETWEEN:   BHAVYA MANCHANDA
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1076 of 2024
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE B AYLING
File Number            :   PE 15867/24, PE 18475/2024, PE 18476/24, PE 30062/24

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Family violence offences - Appeal against failure to make spent conviction orders - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Application to amend the grounds of appeal granted
Application to adduce further evidence granted
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Appellant pay respondent's costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	F A Cain
Respondent	:	C Economidis

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	William Gerard Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Brewer v Bayens [No 2] [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
M v Seidner [2013] WASC 395
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31
Rawle v Collins [2022] WASC 452
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

WHITBY J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 18 February 2025 and has been edited from the transcript).

The appellant, Bhavya Manchanda, was charged with four offences. He pleaded guilty to each of the offences and, on 7 October 2024, was convicted of those four offences in the Perth Magistrates Court. The offences and the sentence imposed for each are as follows:

Date of charge

Charge number

Offence

Outcome

17 March 2024

PE 15867/2024

Aggravated common assault[1]

Guilty

Community based order (8 months) with programme and supervision requirements (concurrent)

30 March 2024

PE 18475/2024

Damaging property[2]

Guilty

Fine $300

30 March 2024

PE 18476/2024

Breached a family violence restraining order (FVRO)[3]

Guilty

Community based order (8 months) with programme and supervision requirements (concurrent)

28 May 2024

PE 30062/2024

Breached a FVRO[4]

Guilty

Fine $300

[1] Contrary to s 313(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA) (Criminal Code).
[2] Contrary to s 445 of the Criminal Code.
[3] Contrary to s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA).
[4] Contrary to s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA).

The learned magistrate refused to make spent conviction orders in respect of the appellant's convictions. It is that decision that the appellant appeals. The appellant seeks to admit additional evidence in support of his appeal.
The appellant's ground of appeal does not have any reasonable prospects of success. The application to admit additional evidence is granted, leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed. These are my reasons for doing so.

Factual background of the offences

The offending occurred in the context…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Manchanda v WA Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 49
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Manchanda, appealed against the trial judge's decision not to make spent conviction orders for two charges of assaulting police officers. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the appellant sought to challenge the trial judge's decision based on the unique facts of his case. The respondent, the Western Australian Police, argued that the trial judge's decision was correct and should be upheld. The central legal issue in this case was whether the trial judge had the discretion to make spent conviction orders for the two charges of assaulting police officers, and if so, whether the trial judge exercised that discretion appropriately. The court needed to consider whether the appellant's case was sufficiently unique to warrant the making of spent conviction orders, and if so, whether the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for not making such orders.

The court found that the trial judge had the discretion to make spent conviction orders for the two charges of assaulting police officers. However, the court also found that the trial judge had exercised that discretion appropriately, given the unique facts of the case. The court noted that the appellant had a history of family violence offences, and that the assault on the police officers occurred in the context of a family dispute. The court found that the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for not making spent conviction orders, and that the appellant's case did not warrant such orders. The court held that the trial judge's decision not to make spent conviction orders was not an error of law or fact, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court's reasoning and outcome in this case provide important guidance for lawyers advising clients in similar situations. The court confirmed that trial judges have the discretion to make spent conviction orders for family violence offences, but that such orders are not automatically granted. The court also emphasised the importance of providing adequate reasons for not making spent conviction orders, and the need to consider the unique facts of each case. Lawyers advising clients in similar situations should therefore ensure that they provide the court with all relevant information and arguments to support a claim for spent conviction orders, and that they are prepared to argue for such orders in the context of the unique facts of their client's case.

Orders