WEBB -v- SAVAGE [2007] WASC 103

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 103
Case No:	SJA:1112/2006	Heard:	24 APRIL 2007
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	9/05/07
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentence quashed Spent conviction order made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AMY ROCHELLE WEBB IAN LESTER SAVAGE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Driving offences Plea of guilty for offence of creating a false belief Whether sentence imposed by Justices of the Peace too severe Criteria for spent conviction orders Whether offender should be relieved of adverse effect of conviction Offender a student pursuing a professional career Finding that spent conviction order appropriate Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14 Criminal Code (WA), s 171(2) Road Traffic Act 1962 (WA), s 62 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45 Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)
Case References:	A v Ray [2001] WASCA 340 Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65 Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Nevermann v R (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Smith v C [2001] WASCA 262

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : WEBB -v- SAVAGE [2007] WASC 103 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 24 APRIL 2007 DELIVERED : 9 MAY 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1112 of 2006 BETWEEN : AMY ROCHELLE WEBB

Appellant

AND

IAN LESTER SAVAGE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MR I McCLELLAND JP

MS E LOWRIE JP

File No : PE 58442 of 2006, PE 58443 of 2006

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Driving offences - Plea of guilty for offence of creating a false belief - Whether sentence imposed by Justices of the Peace too severe - Criteria for spent conviction orders - Whether offender should be relieved of adverse effect of conviction - Offender a student pursuing a professional career - Finding that spent conviction order appropriate - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14

Criminal Code (WA), s 171(2)
Road Traffic Act 1962 (WA), s 62
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentence quashed
Spent conviction order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R D Young

Respondent : Mr M G Nichol

Solicitors:

Appellant : Robert Young

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

A v Ray [2001] WASCA 340
Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65
Caseley v Zampogna [2006] WASC 259
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Nevermann v R (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291
Smith v C [2001] WASCA 262

(Page 3)

HASLUCK J

Introduction

1 The appellant, Amy Rochelle Webb, has obtained leave to appeal in respect of sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court at Perth on 15 November 2006. A central issue is…

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 Webb v Savage

Details

AGLC: Webb v Savage [2007] WASC 103
Case: [2007] WASC 103
Decision Date: 9 MAY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Webb v Savage was brought by the respondent, Savage, against a sentence imposed by Justices of the Peace. The appellant, Webb, sought to challenge the severity of the sentence on the basis that it was excessive and disproportionate to the offence of creating a false belief. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and if a spent conviction order should be made to alleviate the adverse effects of the conviction on Savage’s career prospects.

The court was required to consider the criteria for a spent conviction order, particularly focusing on whether the offender should be relieved of the adverse effects of their conviction given their current circumstances. Savage, a student pursuing a professional career, argued that the conviction was disproportionately impacting his future opportunities. The court needed to weigh the severity of the sentence against the potential long-term harm to Savage’s career and decide whether a spent conviction order would be appropriate in this case.

The Supreme Court found that the sentence imposed was indeed too severe given the nature of the offence. The court recognised that Savage's professional aspirations as a student warranted special consideration. In making its decision, the court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to balance the public interest with the individual's right to pursue a career without undue hindrance. The court concluded that a spent conviction order was appropriate in these circumstances to mitigate the adverse effects of the conviction on Savage’s career prospects. The appeal was allowed, the sentence was quashed, and a spent conviction order was made in favour of Savage.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Sentence quashed

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.