Peterson v Quinn - [2020] WASC 294

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   PETERSON -v- QUINN [2020] WASC 294
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   23 JULY 2020
DELIVERED          :   13 AUGUST 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1097 of 2019
BETWEEN:   SHELDON LEIGH PETERSON
Appellant
AND
GEORGE QUINN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE ATKINS
File Number            :   RO 8355 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against failure to make a spent conviction order – Express error – Failed to make finding regarding preconditions for spent conviction order

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 6, s 6(g), s 7(1), s 8(2), s 9(1), s 14(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 74A(2)(a)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2)(a) - (d), s 45
Spent Convictions Act 1998 (WA), s 7

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on ground 2
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr S B Watters
Respondent	:	Mr T E Ledger

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Kate King Legal
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

GNR v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 5
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Sharpe v Vinning [2020] WASCA 79
Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257

MCGRATH J:

On 21 June 2019, Mr Peterson was convicted of one offence of disorderly behaviour in public contrary to s 74A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA) after trial in the Magistrates Court. The learned magistrate imposed a $1,000 fine for the offence and declined to grant Mr Peterson a spent conviction order.
Mr Peterson now seeks leave to appeal against the decision to not grant a spent conviction order. Mr Peterson contends that the learned magistrate did not make findings as to whether the necessary preconditions for the making of a spent conviction order had been established before purporting to exercise the discretion to not grant the spent conviction order. Further, Mr Peterson contends that the learned magistrate erred when she determined not to make a spent conviction order when it was reasonably open, in the proper exercise of her Honour's discretion, to do so.
For the following reasons, I have determined that leave to appeal should be granted but that the appeal must be dismissed.
In these reasons for decision I will consider the following:
1.The Magistrates Court proceedings.
2.The grounds of appeal.
3.An assessment of the merits of the appeal.

The Magistrates Court proceedings

On 20 October 2018, Mr Peterson was charged that on 19 October 2018 being in sight or hearing of any person who was in a public place he behaved in a disorderly manner contrary to s 74A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.[1]
[1] Prosecution Notice charge number RO 8355/2018.
On 13 November 2018, Mr Peterson appeared in the Rockingham Magistrates Court and pleaded…

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 Peterson v Quinn

Details

AGLC: Peterson v Quinn [2020] WASC 294
Case: [2020] WASC 294
Decision Date: 13 AUGUST 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peterson v Quinn involved an appeal against the failure of the respondent to make a spent conviction order. Peterson, the appellant, was challenging the decision of the lower court, which had dismissed his application for a spent conviction order. The court was required to consider whether the lower court had erred in failing to make a finding regarding the preconditions for such an order. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had made an error in failing to address the preconditions for a spent conviction order. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the lower court had misapplied the law by not considering whether the necessary conditions for the order had been met. The court was also required to assess whether the lower court had committed an error in its interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.

The Supreme Court found that the lower court had indeed erred in failing to make a finding regarding the preconditions for a spent conviction order. The court held that the lower court's decision was affected by an error of law, as it had not properly considered the necessary conditions for the order. The Supreme Court emphasised that the lower court should have addressed whether the preconditions were met before dismissing the application. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the lower court be set aside, and the matter be remitted for reconsideration. The court directed the lower court to address the preconditions for a spent conviction order in its reconsideration of the application.

Orders