Robertson v Lawrence

Case [2008] WASC 111

ROBERTSON -v- LAWRENCE [2008] WASC 111



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2008] WASC 111
Case No:SJA:1006/200820 MAY 2008
Coram:JENKINS J24/06/08
15Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:KEVIN JOHN ROBERTSON
ALAN LESLIE LAWRENCE

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Sentencing
Firearms offences
Application for spent conviction orders
Turns on own facts
Content of character references to be used in sentencing proceedings

Legislation:
Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 19(1), s 23(9)(a), s 23(9)(d)(ii)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2), s 45
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA), s 39

Case References:
Brewer v Bayens (2002) 26 WAR 510
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291
Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 69

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
CITATION : ROBERTSON -v- LAWRENCE [2008] WASC 111 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 20 MAY 2008 DELIVERED : 24 JUNE 2008 FILE NO/S : SJA 1006 of 2008 BETWEEN : KEVIN JOHN ROBERTSON
    Appellant

    AND

    ALAN LESLIE LAWRENCE
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE R G W BAYLEY

File No : JO 2457 of 2008, JO 2458 of 2008, JO 2459 of 2008, JO 2460 of 2008, JO 2461 of 2008, JO 2462 of 2008


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Firearms offences - Application for spent conviction orders - Turns on own facts - Content of character references to be used in sentencing proceedings


(Page 2)



Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 19(1), s 23(9)(a), s 23(9)(d)(ii)


Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2), s 45
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA), s 39

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr T F Percy QC
    Respondent : Ms W C Hughes

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Paiker & Overmeire
    Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)



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

AR v Wood [2008] WASC 119
Brewer v Bayens (2002) 26 WAR 510
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291
Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 69


(Page 3)
    JENKINS J:


The decision under appeal

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a magistrate sitting in the Magistrates Court at Joondalup on 11 January 2008. The appeal is against the decision of the magistrate to refuse the accused (the appellant) spent conviction orders in respect to a number of firearm offences for which he was sentenced on that date.




Grounds of appeal

2 The appellant was given leave to appeal on two amended grounds of appeal. They are:


    Ground 1

    1. The Learned Magistrates' discretion miscarried when he determined not to grant the Appellant spent convictions for each of the offences, given:

    Particulars:


      a) the appellant was of previous good character;

      b) there was no likelihood he would re-offend.


    Ground 2

    2. The Learned Magistrate erred when he determined the Appellant was not of 'previous good character' and, accordingly, refused to grant the Appellant spent convictions…

Continue reading Robertson v Lawrence

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Robertson v Lawrence [2008] WASC 111
Case
[2008] WASC 111
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Robertson v Lawrence was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondent, Lawrence, sought to overturn a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central dispute was whether the trial judge had erred in rejecting certain character references presented by the respondent at the sentencing phase. The respondent had been convicted of multiple firearms offences and was subsequently sentenced. Following his release from prison, Lawrence applied for spent conviction orders, which were denied due to the nature of his offences. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Lawrence appealed to the High Court, arguing that the trial judge had misapplied the law in relation to the admissibility of character references.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in rejecting certain character references from Lawrence's family and community at the sentencing phase. The Court needed to determine the appropriate standard for assessing the admissibility of such references and whether the trial judge's decision fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes. The respondent argued that the trial judge had not considered the content of the character references adequately and had instead focused on the nature of the offence without proper regard to the individual circumstances of Lawrence.

In delivering the judgment, the Court held that the trial judge had not erred in rejecting the character references. The Court emphasised that the admissibility of character references in sentencing proceedings turns on the specific facts of each case. The Court found that the references did not contain sufficient detail to support a conclusion that they were probative of the respondent's character in the context of the offences committed. The High Court concluded that the trial judge's decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes and dismissed the appeal. As a result, the respondent's application for spent conviction orders was denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.