Legal Research
Cases
Twfe v Greenlees

Twfe v Greenlees

Case [2019] WASC 330 20 September 2019

Detrimental Effect on Career

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   TWFE -v- GREENLEES [2019] WASC 330
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   2 SEPTEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   20 SEPTEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1060 of 2019
BETWEEN:   TWFE
Appellant
AND
JOHN FREDERICK GREENLEES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE N LEMON
File Number             :   FR 13582 of 2018, FR 13583 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Application for spent conviction order - Whether magistrate erred in refusing to make order - Sale and supply of cannabis - Possession of cash reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained - Whether spent conviction order should be made - Young person - Detrimental effect on career prospects - Public interest in deterrence to be balance against public interest in aiding rehabilitation of an offender - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 39, s 40, s 41
Criminal Code (WA), s 417(1)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45

Result:

Appeal allowed
Spent conviction order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Ms M M Yeung

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Director Of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

A v Staples [2007] WASC 36
B v Murphy [2016] WASC 78
Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259
Greenfield v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 29
Hussaini v Szolnoski [2013] WASC 64; (2013) 227 A Crim R 586
KMT v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2018] WASCA 49
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
M v Seidner [2013] WASC 395; (2013) 236 A Crim R 17
Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35; (1989) 167 CLR 259, 273
Naik v Morgan [2013] WASC 336
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; (2000) 22 WAR 291
Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35; (1974) 131 CLR 510
Rodi v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 81; (2017) 51 WAR 96
Samuels v Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
TJH v Osborne [2018] WASC 87
Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257

HILL J:

On 19 February 2019, the appellant pleaded guilty to two offences, namely:
(a)possession of prohibited drugs, namely cannabis, with an intent to sell or supply contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA); and
(b)possession of $4,410.00 in cash that was reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained contrary to s 417(1) of the Criminal Code (WA).
The learned magistrate referred the appellant to the Pre‑sentence Opportunity Program and adjourned the matter until 16 April 2019 for sentencing. On 16 April 2019, the learned magistrate imposed a nine month community based order and made orders for the forfeiture of the cash. The appellant sought a spent conviction order but the application was refused.
The appellant seeks leave to appeal…

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 Twfe v Greenlees

Details

AGLC: Twfe v Greenlees [2019] WASC 330
Case: [2019] WASC 330
Decision Date: 20 SEPTEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Twfe v Greenlees, the applicant, Twfe, sought a review of a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. Twfe was convicted of sale and supply of cannabis and possession of cash reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained. Following the conviction, Twfe applied for a spent conviction order under the Spent Convictions Act. The application was dismissed by the magistrate, leading to this appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate erred in refusing to make a spent conviction order. The court was required to consider the public interest in aiding the rehabilitation of an offender against the public interest in deterrence. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the detrimental impact of the conviction on Twfe's career prospects, given that Twfe is a young person.

The court found that the magistrate had considered the relevant factors in deciding whether to make a spent conviction order. However, the court determined that the magistrate had not adequately balanced the public interest in aiding the rehabilitation of an offender against the public interest in deterrence. The court held that the magistrate should have given greater weight to the detrimental effect the conviction would have on Twfe's career prospects. The court concluded that, on the facts of this case, a spent conviction order should be made. The appeal was allowed, and a spent conviction order was granted.

Orders