Long v Mayger

Case [2004] WASCA 41


LONG -v- MAYGER [2004] WASCA 41



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASCA 41
THE FULL COURT (WA)15/03/2004
Case No:SJA:1117/20034 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
STEYTLER J
MCKECHNIE J
4/02/04
28Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed, Sentence of 11 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years
A
PDF Version
Parties:JAMES HOWARD LONG
WAYNE KEVIN MAYGER

Catchwords:

Courts and judges
Apprehension of bias
Application to Magistrate to disqualify himself
Factual matters put to Magistrate
Facts wrong
Application withdrawn
Subsequent application based on Magistrate's reaction to earlier application
Criminal law
Unlawful wounding
Sentence
Whether term of imprisonment should have been suspended

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995, s 39

Case References:

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) HCA 63; 205 CLR 337
Hall v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 364
Hauff v SA Police (1994) 63 SASR 286
Jarrett v The Queen (1992) 58 SASR 457
Johnson v Johnson [2000] 8 HCA 48; 201 CLR 488
Long v Mayger [2003] WASCA 223
Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227
Paterson v Stevens (1992) 57 SASR 213
R v Brazier (1994) 75 A Crim R 404
R v Causby [1984] Tas R 54
R v Davey (1980) 50 FLR 57
R v Gillan (1991) 100 ALR 66
R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Kirk (1984) 6 Cr App Rep (S) 231
R v Kruger (1977) 17 SASR 214
R v Locke (1973) 6 SASR 298
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v P (1992) 39 FCR 276
R v Percy [1975] Tas SR 62
R v Wacyk (1996) 66 SASR 530
R v Whitnall (1993) 42 FCR 512
Renshaw v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (1996) 67 SASR 139
Scott v SA Police (1994) 61 SASR 589
Walker v SA Police (1993) 61 SASR 159
Wood v Samuels (1974) 8 SASR 465

Adams v The Queen [2003] WASCA 91
Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327
Evans v Vanderheide [2001] WASCA 352
Janerka v Bethell [2002] WASCA 198
Messaoui v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 92101; 4 December 1991
Miller v The Queen [2001] WASCA 426
R v Barbis & Rouse [2003] WASCA 107
Shooter v The Queen (1997) 97 A Crim R 581

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : LONG -v- MAYGER [2004] WASCA 41 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
    STEYTLER J
    MCKECHNIE J
HEARD : 4 FEBRUARY 2004 DELIVERED : 4 FEBRUARY 2004 PUBLISHED : 15 MARCH 2004 FILE NO/S : SJA 1117 of 2003 MATTER : Justices Act 1902 BETWEEN : JAMES HOWARD LONG
    Appellant

    AND

    WAYNE KEVIN MAYGER
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR HEANEY, SM

File Number : JO7781 of 2002


(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Apprehension of bias - Application to Magistrate to disqualify…

Continue reading Long v Mayger

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Long v Mayger [2004] WASCA 41
Case
[2004] WASCA 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Long appealed against his conviction and sentence for unlawful wounding. The appeal concerned two issues. Firstly, Long argued that the Magistrate should have disqualified himself from presiding over the matter due to an apprehension of bias. Secondly, Long argued that the sentence imposed was excessive. Long's case was that the Magistrate should have recused himself from presiding over the case due to comments he made during an earlier application in which Long sought to have the Magistrate disqualified on the basis of factual matters. The earlier application was withdrawn when Long realised that the facts he had put to the Magistrate were incorrect. Long's later application was based on the Magistrate's reaction to the earlier application. Long submitted that the Magistrate's comments indicated that he had already formed an opinion about the case and was unwilling to reconsider it. The Court held that the Magistrate's comments did not indicate that he had already formed an opinion about the case. The Court found that the Magistrate had not been biased, and dismissed the appeal on that issue. The Court found that the sentence imposed was excessive, and ordered that the sentence of 11 months' imprisonment be suspended for 2 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed, Sentence of 11 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.