Legal Research
Cases
Richardson v Porteous

Richardson v Porteous

Case [2000] WASCA 261 14 September 2000

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: RICHARDSON -v- PORTEOUS [2000] WASCA 261

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 29 AUGUST 2000

DELIVERED : 14 SEPTEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1160 of 1999

BETWEEN: RODNEY KIM RICHARDSON
Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER SEAN PORTEOUS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Stamp Act offence - False statement - Nature of offence for sentencing purposes - Relevance of fine already paid - Spent conviction - Whether exceptional circumstances justify an order

Legislation:

Stamp Act 1921 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Respondent fined $1000

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr G T W Tannin & Ms B J Murray
Respondent: Mr M T Trowell QC

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Crown Solicitor
Respondent: Mark Andrews & Associates

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

Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346
R v Tognini & McGuire [2000] WASCA 31

Case(s) also cited:

Aloia (1982) 6 A Crim R 345
Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348
Anzac (1987) 31 A Crim R 310
Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Eliasen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391
Everett & Phillips v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Humphries (1997) 98 A Crim R 233
Knights (1993) 70 A Crim R 105
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Neale v Sloan, unreported, SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 970729; 6 August 1997
R v Beech, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7367; 15 November 1988
R v Brett [1983] 1 Qd R 38
R v Elvin (1996) ATC 4089
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Jones [1984] WAR 175
R v Lanham (1970) 2 NSWLR 217
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
R v Tutchell [1979] VR 248
R v Whitnall (1993) 42 FCR 512
R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510
Reppucci (1994) 74 A Crim R 353
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 970731; 8 December 1997
Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

McKECHNIE J:

Introduction

This appeal raises for consideration the proper penalty to be imposed for making a false statement under the Stamp Act 1921.

Background to appeal

The respondent who is a serving police officer also operates a company Bold Gold Nominees Pty Ltd, which apparently is in the business of leasing limousines for weddings and other functions.
The charge to which the respondent in due course pleaded guilty relates to the purchase by the respondent of a Fairlane stretch sedan from Mr Ellard of the Image Limousines in New South Wales.
On 14 October 1997 the respondent lodged an Advice of Disposal of Vehicle with the Department of Transport, indicating that a Ford Fairlane sedan had been sold by Raymond Ellard of Image Limousines and purchased by Christopher Sean Porteous of…

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 Richardson v Porteous

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Porteous [2000] WASCA 261
Case: [2000] WASCA 261
Decision Date: 14 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Richardson v Porteous arose before the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought a declaration that a conviction for an offence under the Stamp Act 1905 (Cth) was a spent conviction and thus should not be taken into account in sentencing proceedings. The defendant, Porteous, was convicted in 1992 for making a false statement in a tax return, and although the conviction had been spent, the plaintiff argued that the conviction should be disregarded due to the nature of the offence and the fine already paid.

The court was required to determine the nature of the offence under the Stamp Act for sentencing purposes and whether the fine already paid and the status of the conviction as spent were relevant considerations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether exceptional circumstances justified ordering the destruction of records of the conviction. The primary focus was on the interpretation of the term "spent conviction" and the implications for sentencing proceedings.

The Federal Court examined the statutory language and found that the offence under the Stamp Act was indeed a spent conviction. The court recognised that the fine already paid and the status of the conviction as spent were relevant factors. However, the court held that the nature of the offence, being a serious one, warranted that the conviction remain a matter of record. The court concluded that the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify an order for the destruction of records of the conviction were not present in this case.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction remained a spent conviction for the purposes of sentencing proceedings, but the records of the conviction were not to be destroyed. This decision clarified the status of spent convictions under the Stamp Act and the circumstances under which records of such convictions may be ordered to be destroyed.

Orders