La Mancusa v WA Police - [2025] WASC 290

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   LA MANCUSA -v- WA POLICE [2025] WASC 290
CORAM:   SEAWARD J
HEARD:   21 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   21 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1006 of 2025
BETWEEN:   KALE ANTHONY LA MANCUSA
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1006 of 2025
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE L ATKINS
File Number            :   BS 1935 OF 2023, BS 251 OF 2022, BS 436 OF 2022

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - Possession of a prohibited drug - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted after trial - Whether conviction was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence as a whole

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr P Holmes
Respondent	:	Ms K Ellson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Holmes Criminal Lawyers
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Cases referred to in decision:

Ardrey v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2017] WASCA 41; (2017) 55 WAR 1
C v WA Police [2024] WASC 79
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; (2022) 274 CLR 651
Egan v The State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 3
Lia v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 216
MHS v The State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 85
Rayney v Aw [2008] WASC 295
Yappo v The State of Western Australia [2021] WASCA 133 (S)

SEAWARD J:

Introduction

On 2 October 2024 the appellant, Kale Anthony La Mancusa, was convicted of one count of possessing a prohibited drug, namely 2.25g of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) (MDA).
Mr La Mancusa seeks leave to appeal his conviction on the single ground that the verdict of guilty is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence as a whole.
The respondent concedes the appeal and submits that leave to appeal should be granted, the conviction set aside and a verdict of acquittal entered in its place by this court.
The matter was heard by me on 21 July 2025 and at that hearing I concluded that the respondent's concession was properly made, and I made orders allowing the appeal. I indicated that my written reasons for doing so would follow. These are those reasons.

The trial

The prosecution case

The key charge the subject of the appeal is charge BS 1935/2023. The prosecution opened its case on the basis that, at 1.03 am, on 22 July 2023, Mr La Mancusa was located unconscious in the driver's seat of a Suzuki vehicle, on Bussell Highway, in Ludlow. There were no other people in the car. Police entered the vehicle to conduct a welfare check on the driver and located a small clip seal bag that was in the centre console, in plain view of the driver. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read La Mancusa v WA Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 290
Decision Date: 21 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of La Mancusa v Western Australia Police, the appellant appealed against his conviction for the possession of a prohibited drug. The conviction was made after a trial and the appellant contended that it was unreasonable or could not be supported when considering the evidence as a whole. The central issue before the court was whether the conviction was indeed unreasonable or unsupported given the totality of the evidence presented.

The court had to determine if the trial court had correctly applied the principles of assessing the reliability and weight of evidence. It was necessary to review the evidence in its entirety and decide whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in convicting the appellant. The court needed to ensure that the conviction was based on the evidence that was properly admitted and considered, and that any reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt had been adequately addressed.

The court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the evidence and exercised his discretion appropriately. The evidence, when considered as a whole, was sufficient to support the conviction. The court found no basis to conclude that the conviction was unreasonable or unsupported. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The trial judge's assessment of the evidence was upheld, and the conviction stood as valid.

Orders