REDDING -v- ROBINSON [2009] WASC 403

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2009] WASC 403
Published:	22/12/2009
Case No:	SJA:1104/2009	Heard:	10 DECEMBER 2009
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	10/12/09
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Spent conviction order made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIEL REDDING EDWARD GEORGE ROBINSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Spent conviction Fresh evidence Whether recording a conviction a miscarriage of justice
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39, s 45 Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(5)
Case References:	A v Staples [2007] WASC 36 Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510 Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259 De La Espriella-Velasco v The Queen [2006] WASCA 31; (2006) 31 WAR 291 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291 Tambyrajah v Gablonski [2004] WASCA 105; (2004) 147 A Crim R 18

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : REDDING -v- ROBINSON [2009] WASC 403 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 10 DECEMBER 2009 DELIVERED : 10 DECEMBER 2009 PUBLISHED : 22 DECEMBER 2009 FILE NO/S : SJA 1104 of 2009 BETWEEN : DANIEL REDDING

Appellant

AND

EDWARD GEORGE ROBINSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : CHIEF MAGISTRATE S A HEATH

Citation : PE 49179 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Spent conviction - Fresh evidence - Whether recording a conviction a miscarriage of justice

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39, s 45

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(5)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Spent conviction order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M R Gunning

Respondent : Ms M Teoh

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gunning Barristers & Solicitors

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

A v Staples [2007] WASC 36
Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259
De La Espriella-Velasco v The Queen [2006] WASCA 31; (2006) 31 WAR 291
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291
Tambyrajah v Gablonski [2004] WASCA 105; (2004) 147 A Crim R 18

(Page 3)

HALL J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 10 December 2009 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 Late on the evening of Saturday, 1 August 2009, Daniel Redding did a very silly thing. He had been out drinking and was in Murray Street in the City, when he was, to use the vernacular, caught short. He relieved himself against a shop. The police arrested him and charged him with disorderly behaviour. He was and still is 18 years of age.

2 On 13 August 2009 he appeared before the Chief Magistrate and pleaded guilty. Not unusually for these sorts of matters the proceedings were very brief. Mr Redding was not represented. The facts were read and he agreed with them. When asked for a reason for…

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 Redding v Robinson

Details

AGLC: Redding v Robinson [2009] WASC 403
Case: [2009] WASC 403
Decision Date: 22 DECEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Redding v Robinson involved the appellant, Mr Redding, who sought to have a spent conviction removed from his record. The respondent, Mr Robinson, was the registrar who had refused to make a spent conviction order. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal centred on whether the recording of a conviction constituted a miscarriage of justice due to new evidence and whether such a conviction could be deemed "spent."

The central legal issue before the court was whether the recording of a conviction could be considered a miscarriage of justice due to the availability of fresh evidence, and if so, whether this justified the removal of the conviction from the appellant's criminal record. The court had to determine the criteria for a spent conviction order under the Spent Convictions Act and assess whether the fresh evidence met the threshold for establishing a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court found that the fresh evidence presented by the appellant was sufficient to demonstrate that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the recording of the conviction, in light of the new evidence, did not accurately reflect the facts of the case. Consequently, the court concluded that the conviction qualified as a spent conviction under the Act. The appeal was allowed, and a spent conviction order was made, resulting in the removal of the conviction from Mr Redding's record.

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.