The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's refusal to grant a spent conviction for a drug-driving offence under s 64AC(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), confirming that the Magistrate's characterisation of the spent conviction power as exercisable only in 'exceptional and rare circumstances' was not a misdirection but a proper recognition of binding appellate authority. The Court held that where the offence has a rational connection to the offender's employment (here, driving-related work), the public interest in employers being aware of the conviction can properly outweigh personal detriment to the offender. The Court also held that post-sentence changes in employment, particularly a voluntary shift to a new field not based on training or qualifications, carry limited weight in establishing a miscarriage of justice on appeal, and that exemptions under sch 3 of the Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA) should be considered when assessing claimed detriment from security-related employment.
The full text is available to signed-in members.