29/09/2026
Common document / filing problems for spent convictions
1. Incorrect or incomplete court heading
o Wrong court level, wrong registry (“HELD AT”), missing or incorrect CIV number/year, inconsistent party names.
2. Notice of Motion not properly completed
o Convictions table not fully particularised (court, date, offence, penalty).
o Options left unselected (e.g. “requests/does not request public hearing” left as a slash option).
3. Affidavit defects (ex*****on and content)
o Not properly sworn/affirmed; jurat incomplete; witness details missing/incorrect.
o Affidavit is too “conclusory” (assertions of rehabilitation without supporting facts).
o Inconsistencies between affidavit narrative and annexures (dates, employment history, treatment history).
4. Annexures not properly handled
o Annexures not clearly marked (A, B, C…).
o Annexure references in the affidavit don’t match what’s actually attached.
o Pagination/annexure tables incomplete (court often wants the bundle to be easy to navigate).
5. Failure to annex critical supporting material
o For serious conviction applications, criminal history material is typically treated as essential background.
o Where the application relies on employment impact, treatment, stability etc., supporting documents (letters, reports) are often expected to be exhibited/annexed rather than merely described.
Common procedural / service problems
6. Service on the Commissioner of Police not proved
o Service not effected at the correct WA Police legal services address.
o No affidavit of service, or affidavit of service missing key details (what was served, when, where, how).
o No receipt/acknowledgment exhibited where the template/process anticipates one.
7. Witness material not in admissible form
o Supporters provide “letters” only, but the court process requires evidence on oath/affirmation (affidavit) with the letter attached as an annexure/exhibit.
o Support letters not addressed/formatted consistently, or not clearly adopted as true in the affidavit.
Common “merits presentation” problems (not technical, but practical)
8. Insufficient rehabilitation evidence for a serious conviction
o Application doesn’t squarely address risk of reoffending, treatment, protective factors, and what has changed since conviction.
9. Not addressing the factors the court is likely to weigh
o Time since offending, conduct since, compliance with any orders/reporting, current circumstances, hardship/need, and community protection considerations.
10. Overreach in what’s being asked for
• Orders sought not matched to what the Spent Convictions Act process in the District Court can actually grant (or mixing “spent conviction” relief with other relief in a way that creates confusion).
________________________________________
