24 Oct 2023
The judge did not err in refusing discharge because the evidence of collateral immigration consequences was too general and speculative to establish the required 'real and appreciable risk' that a conviction would preclude overseas travel; therefore the consequences were not out of all proportion to the moderate gravity of the offending and discharge was not justified.
2 Aug 2023
No miscarriage of justice: counsel met professional obligations and the appellant failed to provide or obtain the evidentiary prerequisites (completion of CADS and proof of employment impact) for a s 106 discharge; consequently the District Court correctly concluded the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion and appropriately imposed 12 months' supervision.
7 Nov 2022
Section 106(3)(c) must be read to permit only those orders which would have been mandatory upon conviction; the District Court rightly concluded it had no power under s 106(3)(c) to impose discretionary psychological counselling as part of a discharge without conviction and therefore the appeal on that question of law was without merit and the application for extension of time was declined.
2 Nov 2021
The High Court upheld the District Court: the offending was properly assessed as low to moderate after mitigation; the appellant failed to establish that a conviction would causally and materially worsen his immigration prospects or lead to deportation such that the consequences would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending; therefore refusal to discharge was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
2 Jul 2021
The High Court held the direct and indirect consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the dangerous driving offence; the District Court was right to refuse discharge under s106/s107 and was not required to substitute a community-based sentence under s94; appeal dismissed.
18 Jun 2021
Applying ss106 and 107 the court found the offending to be of low overall gravity and the likely direct and indirect consequences of conviction (including potential employment loss) to be low to very low and largely speculative; therefore the consequences would not be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and discharge without conviction was refused.
10 May 2021
Failure of trial counsel to advise the appellant of the option to apply for a discharge without conviction under s106 constituted counsel error that created a real risk of affecting the sentencing outcome; therefore a miscarriage of justice occurred, convictions and sentence were quashed and the matter remitted to the District Court to permit a proper s106 application.
10 Feb 2021
The High Court held the District Court judge materially erred by failing to take into account significant mitigating factors which reduced the gravity of the offending; when recalibrated the consequences of conviction (notably substantial impediment to employment and rehabilitation for a young primary caregiver) were out of all proportion to that reduced gravity under s107, and accordingly the discretion under s106 was properly exercised to discharge the appellant without conviction.
7 Dec 2020
The Court found the offending overall to be of low gravity when mitigation (no prior convictions, voluntary anger management course, completion of community work, remorse and low risk of reoffending) was taken into account; the conviction had caused and risked substantial immigration and employment disadvantages which are out of all proportion to the low gravity of the offence; accordingly the conviction was quashed and the appellant discharged without conviction under s106.
24 Sept 2020
The High Court allowed the appeal because the newly disclosed matrimonial and relocation evidence was fresh, credible and could not with reasonable diligence have been produced before the conviction; the conviction's entry caused unfairness by depriving the defendant of the opportunity to apply for a discharge without conviction under s106; the Court therefore quashed the conviction under its appellate jurisdiction (s229 CPA) and remitted the matter to the District Court for sentencing and consideration of any s106 application.