Pagnoni v Jones
Case
•
[2023] WASC 356
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pagnoni v Jones [2023] WASC 356
[2023] WASC 356
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Pagnoni v Jones was heard by Howard J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant, Sonia Pagnoni, appealed against her conviction and sentence for contravening the City of Cockburn Health Local Laws 2000 by placing bird food without using a rodent-proof receptacle. The appeal was heard out of time and on multiple grounds. The primary issues were whether the learned Magistrate erred in not adjourning the trial, failing to grant a spent conviction order, imposing an excessive fine, and awarding disproportionate costs.
On Ground 1, the Court found no error in the Magistrate proceeding in the appellant's absence. Ground 2 was allowed in part as the Court found the Magistrate erred in not considering a spent conviction order, though no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. Ground 3 was upheld as the Court found the failure to grant a spent conviction resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Ground 4 was also upheld as the Court found the fine imposed was manifestly excessive. Finally, Ground 5 was upheld as the Court found the combined fine and costs were grossly disproportionate to the criminality. The Court set aside the original sentence and costs, re-sentenced the appellant to a $200 fine, granted a spent conviction order, and substituted costs of $450 in favour of the respondent. The Court also noted that the total burden of $650 on the appellant, while still significant, was appropriate in the circumstances.
On Ground 1, the Court found no error in the Magistrate proceeding in the appellant's absence. Ground 2 was allowed in part as the Court found the Magistrate erred in not considering a spent conviction order, though no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. Ground 3 was upheld as the Court found the failure to grant a spent conviction resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Ground 4 was also upheld as the Court found the fine imposed was manifestly excessive. Finally, Ground 5 was upheld as the Court found the combined fine and costs were grossly disproportionate to the criminality. The Court set aside the original sentence and costs, re-sentenced the appellant to a $200 fine, granted a spent conviction order, and substituted costs of $450 in favour of the respondent. The Court also noted that the total burden of $650 on the appellant, while still significant, was appropriate in the circumstances.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Sentencing
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Pagnoni v Jones [2023] WASC 356
Most Recent Citation
IHS v Director of Public Prosecutions [2025] WASC 437
Cases Citing This Decision
4
IHS v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2025] WASC 437
JWG v WA Police
[2023] WASC 485
IHS v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2025] WASC 437
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Re Rules Of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex Parte Gates
[2018] WASC 213
Re Rules Of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex Parte Gates
[2018] WASC 213
Sharpe v Vinning
[2020] WASCA 79