Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v McLernon

Taylor v McLernon

Case [2009] WASC 211 30 July 2009

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: TAYLOR -v- McLERNON [2009] WASC 211

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 21 JULY 2009

DELIVERED : 30 JULY 2009

FILE NO/S: SJA 1036 of 2009

BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN TAYLOR
Appellant
AND
JOHN PATRICK McLERNON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE B LANE
File No  :PE 65126 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Application for spent conviction order - Whether any ground to interfere with sentencing magistrate's exercise of discretion - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 39(2), s 45

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms K J Farley
Respondent: Ms S J Keighery

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Harper v Page [2004] WASCA 267
Hull v Castledine [2005] WASC 252
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
McKenzie v Daly [2008] WASC 284
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291
Riggall v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 69; (2008) 37 WAR 211
Robertson v Lawrence [2008] WASC 111
SA v McKinnon [2009] WASC 7
Tambyrajah v Gablonski [2004] WASCA 105
The State of Western Australia v BLM [2009] WASCA 88
The State of Western Australia v Gibbs [2009] WASCA 7

BEECH J:

Introduction

The appellant was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of use of a prohibited drug, namely amphetamine. He sought a spent conviction order. The prosecution did not oppose the making of a spent conviction order. Nonetheless, the learned magistrate declined to make a spent conviction order.
The appellant appeals against the learned magistrate's refusal to grant a spent conviction order. In my opinion, for the reasons that follow, the appellant has not established a ground to interfere with the magistrate's discretionary decision not to make a spent conviction order.

The charge and the facts

The appellant was charged that on 4 October 2008 he used a prohibited drug, namely amphetamine, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). The maximum penalty for the offence at that time was 2 years' imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
The facts, as set out in the statement of material facts, were as follows:
At about 4.50 am on Saturday the 4th of October 2008 the accused and another charged were observed and recorded via the City of Perth closed circuit television footage in Russell Square, Parker Street, Northbridge.
Both were observed to be sniffing a substance of a cigarette packet.
Beat officers attended and spoke to both who admitted they were sniffing amphetamine powder.
Police located a clipseal bag with traces of a white powder which both stated contained amphetamine.
Both made full admissions to the offence outlined above.

The appellant pleads guilty

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 Taylor v McLernon

Details

AGLC: Taylor v McLernon [2009] WASC 211
Case: [2009] WASC 211
Decision Date: 30 JULY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v McLernon involved an application by the defendant to the court for a spent conviction order. The defendant, Taylor, had been convicted of an offence and sentenced by a sentencing magistrate. The nature of the dispute was whether the court had any grounds to interfere with the sentencing magistrate's exercise of discretion in the case. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The legal issues the court had to decide centred on the authority of the court to interfere with a sentencing magistrate's exercise of discretion. The court was required to determine whether there were any grounds to interfere with the magistrate's decision and whether the case presented any unique circumstances that warranted such interference. The court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there were any errors in the application of the law or in the consideration of relevant factors.

The court's reasoning focused on the principle that the sentencing magistrate's discretion should generally be respected unless there were clear grounds for interference. The court examined the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the sentence imposed. After a detailed analysis, the court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the magistrate's decision. The sentence was deemed appropriate in the context of the offence and the defendant's circumstances, and there were no errors in the application of the law.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the application for a spent conviction order. The court found that there were no grounds to interfere with the sentencing magistrate's exercise of discretion, and the defendant's application was unsuccessful. The decision underscored the importance of respecting the sentencing magistrate's discretion unless there were compelling reasons to do otherwise.

Orders