The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against refusal of spent conviction orders for 19 stealing offences, on the basis that new psychological evidence not available at sentencing established the appellant was unlikely to reoffend. The Court confirmed that where additional evidence is admitted on appeal going to the appropriateness of a spent conviction order, the question is whether the refusal has occasioned a miscarriage of justice on all the evidence, not whether the magistrate erred on the material before them. On the facts, the combination of the appellant's good character, extraordinary personal stressors underlying the offending, completed psychological intervention, self-employment status, and potential adverse effects on his builder's licence and mine site contracts justified the exceptional exercise of the spent conviction discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members.