ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE G MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO
File No  :PE 56340 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Contempt of court - Whether there is a right of appeal from a conviction for contempt in the Magistrates Court - Refusal to appear by video link when directed to do - Whether contempt 'in the face of the court' - Whether proceedings were fair - Whether appropriate to convict in light of apology - Whether sentence of 1 month's imprisonment manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 6, s 7, s 8
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 77, s 183
Magistrates Court (General) Rules 2005 (WA), r 30, r 31
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15, s 16

Result:

Leave to appeal granted in respect of ground 1 (17 September 2012 grounds) and ground 3 (8 October 2012 grounds)
Leave otherwise refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     In person
Respondent:     No appearance
Amicus Curiae              :     Mr A J Sefton & Ms C A Lakewood

Solicitors:

Appellant:     In person
Respondent:     No appearance
Amicus Curiae              :     Attorney General for Western Australia

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

6IX Southern Cross Radio Pty Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [1999] WASCA 254
Able Lott Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle [2012] WASC 431
Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84
Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273
Balogh v The Crown Court at St Albans [1975] QB 73; (1974) 3 All ER 283
Beasley v Lane [2011] WASC 98
Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of NSW (1988) 15 NSWLR 292; (1988) 38 A Crim R 412
Carew‑Reid v Carew Corp Pty Ltd (Unreported, WASC, Library No BC9301051, 23 April 1993)
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Chisholm v Norgard (1991) 4 WAR 202
Corruption and Crime Commission v Allbeury (No 2) [2011] WASC 26
Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Cullen v The Queen (unreported, WASCA, Library No 6450, 25 September 1986)
Davern v Messel [1984] HCA 34; (1984) 155 CLR 21
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
European Asian Bank AG v Wentworth (1986) 5 NSWLR 445
Fraser v The Queen (1984) 3 NSWLR 212; (1984) 15 A Crim R 58
Gliosca v Ninyette (1992) 10 WAR 562
House v The Queen (1936) HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Johnson v Johnson (No 3) [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Lewis v Judge Ogden [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR…

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 Mignacca-Randazzo

Details

AGLC: Mansell v Mignacca-Randazzo [2013] WASC 66
Case: [2013] WASC 66
Decision Date: 5 MARCH 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant, Mansell, who was convicted of contempt of court by a Magistrates Court. Mansell had been directed to appear by video link but refused to do so, leading to his conviction. Mansell appealed against the conviction and sentence on several grounds, including the scope of contempt of court, the fairness of the proceedings, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The court was required to determine whether the contempt was committed 'in the face of the court', whether the proceedings were fair, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the nature of the contempt and whether it was committed 'in the face of the court'. It considered that the refusal to appear by video link was an act of disrespect towards the court, but held that the contempt was not 'in the face of the court' as it was not a direct interference with the administration of justice. The court also assessed the fairness of the proceedings, taking into account Mansell's apology. It held that the proceedings were fair, as the apology did not excuse the contempt but could be considered in determining the appropriate sentence. Finally, the court reviewed the sentence of one month's imprisonment, finding that it was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the contempt and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that there was no right of appeal from a conviction for contempt in the Magistrates Court, and that the conviction and sentence were appropriate in the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice and the need for courts to be respected and obeyed. The decision reinforces the principle that contempt of court is a serious matter and that appropriate sanctions may be imposed to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.

Orders