26 Jun 2023
Appellant's involvement was not minimal and, although personal mitigation lowered overall gravity to low–moderate, there was insufficient evidence of a real and appreciable risk that conviction would cause consequences out of all proportion to that gravity; therefore s 107 threshold was not met and the District Court's refusal to discharge without conviction was upheld.
16 Nov 2022
The High Court found the offending to be of low gravity but accepted there was a real and appreciable risk that a conviction would materially and disproportionately harm the appellant's current and future employment prospects (supported by the employer's statement and the appellant's role handling client information); accordingly the s107 threshold was met and the conviction should be discharged without conviction.
7 Sept 2020
The Court held the District Court judge was not plainly wrong: on the evidence, including the immigration affidavit and the defendant's business travel history, it was open to a rational judge to conclude that a conviction would cause significant ongoing travel and business consequences that could be out of proportion to moderately serious offending, so the discharge without conviction with $10,000 reparation was upheld.
26 Mar 2020
Appeal allowed and appellant discharged without conviction because, applying the s 107 three-step test, although the offending was moderately serious (victim required stitches), there was a real and appreciable risk that conviction would have disproportionately severe indirect consequences for this young offender with caregiving responsibilities and no prior convictions; those consequences were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence and a discharge without conviction was warranted.
2 Apr 2019
The High Court upheld the sentencing Judge's assessment that the offending was moderately serious, that the asserted employment consequences were speculative and not sufficiently disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, and therefore the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the offending; discharge without conviction was not warranted.
28 Feb 2019
The appeal is dismissed: the High Court held the District Court did not err. The offending was correctly characterised as moderately serious (an unprovoked two-handed push causing foreseeable serious injury) and, while a conviction may impede travel and employment to a real and appreciable degree, those consequences are not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending so s107 threshold was not met and discharge without conviction was properly refused.
13 Feb 2019
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that Judge Roberts erred in giving no weight to probative affidavit evidence about employment consequences; the appellant faced a real and appreciable risk that a conviction would blight his prospects of permanent employment in his industry, and that consequence was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending under s 107 Sentencing Act 2002, therefore the conviction was quashed and the appellant discharged without conviction.
8 Nov 2018
Linterman does not displace the statutory s 107 test; drink-driving is moderately serious so consequences of conviction must be relatively significant to be 'out of all proportion'; neither the District Court nor the High Court erred in applying the statutory test; leave to appeal and application to adduce further evidence are declined.