Mansell v Hughes - [2024] TASSC 28

[2024] TASSC 28

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Mansell v Hughes [2024] TASSC 28
PARTIES:	MANSELL, Lonewolf Brent Shayne
v
HUGHES, Evan
FILE NO:	2721/2023
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	9 May 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Conduct of magistrates – Procedural fairness and natural justice – Contempt in the face of the court – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Private conversation or communication as to consequences of defendant's conduct.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1122]

Legislation:

Justices Act 1959 (Tas), s 25(1).

Cases cited:
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63, 205 CLR 337
Fraser v The Queen [1984] 3 NSWLR 212
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Registrar, Court of Appeal v Collins [1982] 1 NSWLR 682
Stanley v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 24
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41

Zukanovic v Magistrates Court of Victoria at Moorabbin [2011] VSC 141, 32 VR 216

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: H Goss
Respondent: L Ogden

Solicitors:

Applicant: Tasmania Legal Aid
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 28
Number of paragraphs:	20

Serial No 28/2024 File No 2721/2023

LONEWOLF BRENT SHAYNE MANSELL v EVAN HUGHES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BLOW CJ
28 May 2024

1 This is a motion for the review of a conviction for contempt of court. On 6 September 2023 the applicant, Lonewolf Brent Shayne Mansell, unsuccessfully applied for bail in the Magistrates Court in Launceston. His application was heard by the respondent to this motion, Mr E Hughes. When the learned magistrate was giving his reasons for refusing bail the applicant walked out of the courtroom into a secure area where there is a lift used for the transportation of prisoners. He banged noisily on a door. The learned magistrate heard the noise and said this:
"I hold Mr Mansell in contempt. And in holding Mr Mansell in contempt, I therefore – Mr Mansell can be taken away. I don't need him for the purposes of this next step in the proceedings. Take Mr Mansell away. Take him away. Pursuant to s25 of the Justices Act, I find that Mr Mansell has wilfully misbehaved himself before me in the course of these proceedings and the exercise of my jurisdiction under any Act, in this case the Bail Act. The wilful behaviour of Mr Mansell is particularised in the following way. That Mr Mansell caused – attempted to cause damage to Court property by banging on a door in the waiting area of the Magistrates Court, and thereby attempted to cause damage to Court property during the course of a decision with respect to bail. They are the particulars with which I find Mr Mansell to be in contempt. I deem him to be guilty of that contempt and I'll proceed to sentence him in half an hour's time."

2 The applicant…

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.

Continue reading Mansell v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Mansell v Hughes [2024] TASSC 28
Case: [2024] TASSC 28
Decision Date: 28 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mansell v Hughes was an appeal against a conviction for contempt of court in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The respondent, Hughes, was convicted of contempt in the face of the court and sentenced to a fine and imprisonment. The appellant, Mansell, sought to appeal on the grounds of procedural unfairness and apprehended bias on the part of the magistrate.

The central issue before the court was whether the magistrate's private conversation with the prosecutor, after the contempt hearing but before sentencing, was such that it would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This conversation was about the consequences of Hughes' conduct, and Mansell argued that it violated the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. The court had to determine if the magistrate's conduct fell short of the required standard and whether this warranted a quashed conviction.

The court found that the magistrate's actions did not constitute a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness. The conversation in question was not related to the merits of the case but rather to the prosecutor's concerns about the seriousness of the contempt charge. The court held that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias as the magistrate's actions did not suggest any predetermination of the case's outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No additional final orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders