Mack v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, Mack, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the murder of his partner. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Mack was found guilty of murder by a judge sitting alone and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. Mack, who suffered from autism spectrum disorder, raised several grounds of appeal including that the trial judge erred in finding that he was fit to stand trial, that there was no evidence of consciousness of guilt, and that the evidence of a water usage test at the victim's premises was wrongly admitted or not relied upon. The court was also required to determine whether the conviction for murder was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and whether the minimum term of 20 years was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether Mack was fit to stand trial, noting that the trial judge had found him to be fit based on expert evidence. The court concluded that the trial judge was entitled to accept the expert evidence and that the finding of fitness to stand trial was not erroneous. Regarding consciousness of guilt, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of consciousness of guilt, including Mack's failure to report the victim missing, his inconsistent accounts of events, and his attempts to cover up the crime. The court found no error in the admission of the water usage evidence, as it was relevant to the circumstances of the crime. The court further held that the conviction for murder was supported by the evidence and was not unreasonable. The court found that the minimum term of 20 years was not manifestly excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed. The court affirmed the conviction for murder and the sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court held that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful in both respects.