Mansell v Mignacca­Randazzo

Case [2013] WASCA 262

MANSELL -v- MIGNACCA­RANDAZZO [2013] WASCA 262



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2013] WASCA 262
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACR:72/20131 NOVEMBER 2013
Coram:McLURE P
NEWNES JA
MAZZA JA		20/11/13
10Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:CAMERON JAMES MANSELL
HIS HONOUR MAGISTRATE G MIGNACCA­RANDAZZO

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Contempt of court
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15(1)(e)
Appellant charged with stealing offences
Appellant refused to comply with direction of court to appear by video link
Whether contempt 'in the face of the court'

Legislation:
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15(1)(e)

Case References:
Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425
Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd [No 1] (1981) 147 CLR 246
Mishal v The Queen [2001] WASCA 328

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MANSELL -v- MIGNACCA­RANDAZZO [2013] WASCA 262 CORAM : McLURE P
    NEWNES JA
    MAZZA JA
HEARD : 1 NOVEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 20 NOVEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : CACR 72 of 2013 BETWEEN : CAMERON JAMES MANSELL
    Appellant

    AND

    HIS HONOUR MAGISTRATE G MIGNACCA­RANDAZZO
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HALL J

Citation : MANSELL -v- MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO [2013] WASC 66


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Contempt of court - Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15(1)(e) - Appellant charged with stealing offences - Appellant refused to comply with direction of court to appear by video link - Whether contempt 'in the face of the court'

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15(1)(e)

Result:

Appeal dismissed


Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : In person
    Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

    Appellant : In person
    Respondent : No appearance



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425
Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd [No 1] (1981) 147 CLR 246
Mishal v The Queen [2001] WASCA 328



1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Hall J who dismissed an appeal by the appellant against his conviction in the Magistrates Court for contempt of court.


Background

2 The appellant is and was at the material times a serving prisoner, having been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on 8 November 2011. Following his conviction and imprisonment, charges of stealing were preferred against him and these were listed for mention in the Perth Magistrates Court on 15 December 2011.

3 On 15 December 2011 the stealing charges were called on for mention before Magistrate Hawkins. A video link to Hakea Prison, where the appellant was then incarcerated, was established but the appellant did not appear. A prison officer then appeared on the link and stated that the appellant was refusing to come into the video room.

4 The appellant was…

Continue reading Mansell v Mignacca­Randazzo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
MANSELL -v- MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO [2013] WASCA 262
Case
[2013] WASCA 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mansell was charged with various offences of theft and faced the Magistrates Court. He was ordered to appear by video link from prison, but refused to comply with the direction. Mansell's refusal to appear via video link was considered contempt by the court under section 15(1)(e) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). Mansell's appeal against the contempt order was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Mansell's refusal to comply with the court's direction to appear by video link constituted contempt 'in the face of the court'. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) and previous case law on contempt of court. It was determined that the refusal to comply with a court direction to appear via video link was an act that obstructed the administration of justice and constituted contempt 'in the face of the court'. The court also noted that Mansell's actions were deliberate and not due to any inability to comply with the order. The appeal was dismissed, and the original contempt order remained in place. The court's reasoning was based on the principle that a court has the inherent power to preserve its dignity and authority, and that refusal to comply with a court direction can be considered contempt. The court held that Mansell's actions constituted contempt 'in the face of the court' and dismissed his appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.