The Court held that where a magistrate had granted a spent conviction for a sexual offence and the conviction was subsequently set aside on appeal with a verdict of acquittal entered, the identification of the appellant in the published appeal reasons could undermine the object of the spent conviction, and it was in the interests of justice to anonymise the appellant's name and business name. The Court emphasised that there is no rule or practice that an appellant's name will be suppressed merely because a conviction for a sexual offence is set aside on appeal, but the distinguishing feature here was the spent conviction order, which reflected the magistrate's findings under s 45 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) that the offender should be relieved of the adverse effects of the conviction.
The full text is available to signed-in members.