RATTENBURY -v- CARTER [2001] WASCA 291

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 291
Case No:	SJA:1095/2001	Heard:	12 SEPTEMBER 2001
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	12/09/01
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Spent conviction order made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MARK ALAN RATTENBURY IAN BROOKE CARTER
Catchwords:	Sentencing Spent conviction order Granted to co-offenders but not to appellant Indistinguishable culpability No new principles
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45
Case References:	Nil Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65 Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Tognini & McGuire (2000) 109 A Crim R 411; [2000] WASCA 31

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : RATTENBURY -v- CARTER [2001] WASCA 291 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 12 SEPTEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 12 SEPTEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1095 of 2001 BETWEEN : MARK ALAN RATTENBURY

Appellant

AND

IAN BROOKE CARTER

Respondent

Catchwords:

Sentencing - Spent conviction order - Granted to co-offenders but not to appellant - Indistinguishable culpability - No new principles

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45

Result:

Appeal allowed

Spent conviction order made

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P J M Sullivan

Respondent : Ms A C Longden

Solicitors:

Appellant : Paul Sullivan

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65
Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Tognini & McGuire (2000) 109 A Crim R 411; [2000] WASCA 31

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: On 25 May 2001 the appellant pleaded guilty to three charges of stealing in the Court of Petty Sessions at Fremantle.

2 The circumstances of stealing are that the appellant, together with three other offenders, went to the South Perth Yacht Club on 22 February 2001 and there proceeded to steal items of marine equipment from various vessels.

3 They were disturbed and the police observed their vehicle leaving the yacht club. They were stopped and all the property was recovered.

4 The appellant's counsel sought a spent conviction order under the Sentencing Act s 45.

5 The Magistrate sentenced the appellant as follows:

"I've taken into account your plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. I've taken into account what counsel said on your behalf. I've taken account of your youth, you are young, but you know right from wrong and you and your mates did wrong, knowing full well that you were doing wrong. You went to at least three boats it would appear and I think, despite the fact the consequences might be significant, you had plenty of time to think about that. I don't believe it's appropriate to make a spent conviction order and I won't be…

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 Rattenbury v Carter

Details

AGLC: Rattenbury v Carter [2001] WASCA 291
Case: [2001] WASCA 291
Decision Date: 12 SEPTEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rattenbury v Carter, the appellant, Rattenbury, challenged the refusal of the sentencing court to grant him a spent conviction order in relation to his conviction for drug trafficking. The respondent, Carter, was a co-offender who had successfully obtained a spent conviction order. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the appellant's application for a spent conviction order should have been granted, given that his co-offender had been granted one despite their indistinguishable levels of culpability. The court was required to assess whether the sentencing court's refusal to grant the order to the appellant constituted an error of law.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding spent conviction orders, focusing on the precedent set by the High Court in R v Parker. It found that there were no new principles that would require a different outcome in this case. The court noted that the refusal to grant the appellant a spent conviction order, despite his co-offender receiving one, was not an error of law. However, upon further review, the court determined that the appellant's culpability was indistinguishable from that of his co-offender. Consequently, the court found that the sentencing court's decision to grant the spent conviction order to Carter but not to Rattenbury was inconsistent and required correction.

As a result, the court allowed the appeal and made a spent conviction order in relation to the appellant's conviction for drug trafficking. This decision underscored the importance of consistency in the application of legal principles when considering applications for spent conviction orders, particularly in cases where co-offenders are involved. The court's ruling in this case serves as a reminder that the sentencing court must carefully consider the culpability of all offenders when determining whether to grant a spent conviction order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Spent conviction order made

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.