Intentionally Causing Serious Injury

Area of Law – Sentencing

An Article about Conviction or non-conviction in criminal case

Conviction or non-conviction
Often for people who have not been to Court before the most important issue that they are facing is whether they will get a conviction or not. A conviction these days can have a huge effect on a person’s life. When you go for a job it is likely that the person who does not have a conviction will get the job over the person who does have one.

Preparing the matter properly so that a Magistrate is presented with all the information to make the decision easily in your favour can be the most important step that your lawyer takes for you.

Following is what the Sentencing Act says in relation to the issue of conviction or non-conviction.
8. Conviction or non-conviction (1) In exercising its discretion whether or not to record a conviction, a court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including- (a) the nature of the offence; and (b) the character and past history of the offender; and (c) the impact of the recording of a conviction on the offender’s economic or social well-being or on his or her employment prospects.

SENTENCING ACT 1991 – SECT 8 Conviction or non-conviction

Offenders given non-conviction
Armed robbery where disguised and possessing a screw -driver

DPP v Candaza, Koufomanolis, Mavros & Nunez [2003] VSCA 91 (25 June 2003)

R. v. McFarling, where the Court allowed an appeal against sentence on four counts of theft totalling $3,500 by an accountant whose future prospects of employment would be impeded by the recording of a conviction.

In R. v. Brown, ex parte Attorney-General, which involved dangerous driving causing death by a 23-year-old, no conviction was recorded because of the possible effect of a conviction upon the offender’s future career, although that aspect of the sentence was upheld only by a majority.

Similarly, in DPP (Cth) v. Li this Court dismissed a Crown appeal where the primary judge did not record a conviction against a 42-year-old businessman who had engaged in a sales tax fraud amounting to $160,000.

This Court adopted a like approach in DPP v. Robinson.It dismissed a Crown appeal against the failure by the sentencing judge to record a conviction in respect of a company director who pleaded guilty to six counts of publishing a misleading written statement as a director pursuant to s.85(1) of the Crimes Act, an offence which Charles, J.A. described as “inherently serious”. It needs to be said, however, that the offending in those cases did not involve intentional violence as occurred in the present case.

DPP v Candaza, Koufomanolis, Mavros & Nunez [2003] VSCA 91 (25 June 2003)

 

Date: 09/01/2009