MANSELL -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 111

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 111
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL	Published:	02/06/2004
Case No:	CCA:76/2003	Heard:	9 MARCH 2004
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	9/03/04
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	MURRAY WILLIAM MANSELL THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Gaining a benefit for another by deceit or fraudulent means Definition of "person" in the Criminal Code (WA) which definition includes a corporation applicable to such offence Whether definition of "person" in s 5 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) applicable so as to include a corporation
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 409(1)(c) Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 3(1)(b), s 5
Case References:	G J Coles & Coy Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 183. , Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative v Munro [1963] WAR 129 Grain Sorghum Marketing Board v Supastock Pty Ltd [1964] Qd R 98 Parsons v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 619 Tan v The Queen [1979] WAR 149 BRK v The Queen [2001] WASCA 161 Lewis v The Queen [2000] WASCA 9

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MANSELL -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 111 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

MURRAY J

EM HEENAN J

HEARD : 9 MARCH 2004 DELIVERED : 9 MARCH 2004 PUBLISHED : 2 JUNE 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 76 of 2003 BETWEEN : MURRAY WILLIAM MANSELL

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : KENNEDY DCJ

File Number : IND 977 of 2002

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Gaining a benefit for another by deceit or fraudulent means - Definition of "person" in the Criminal Code (WA) which definition includes a corporation applicable to such offence - Whether definition of "person" in s 5 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) applicable so as to include a corporation

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 409(1)(c)

Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 3(1)(b), s 5

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S M Brennan

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant : Shane Michael Brennan

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

G J Coles & Coy Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 183. ,
Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative v Munro [1963] WAR 129
Grain Sorghum Marketing Board v Supastock Pty Ltd [1964] Qd R 98
Parsons v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 619
Tan v The Queen [1979] WAR 149

(Page 3)

Case(s) also cited:

BRK v The Queen [2001] WASCA 161
Lewis v The Queen [2000] WASCA 9

(Page 4)

1 MALCOLM CJ: This is an appeal against conviction. On 15 May 2003 the appellant, Murray Mansell, was convicted after trial, a trial which commenced on 12 May 2003, of an offence under s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) that…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mansell v The Queen [2004] WASCA 111
Case: [2004] WASCA 111
Decision Date: 2 JUNE 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mansell v The Queen was heard in the court of appeal. The central issue was whether the definition of "person" in the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) included a corporation, thereby making the accused liable under the Criminal Code (WA) for gaining a benefit for another by deceit or fraudulent means. The respondent, the Crown, argued that the definition of "person" in s 5 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) was applicable and thus included a corporation. The appellant, Mansell, contended that the definition did not extend to corporations and therefore he could not be held liable under the Criminal Code (WA).

The court examined the language of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) and the Criminal Code (WA) to determine the applicability of the definition of "person" to corporations. It was noted that the definition in the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) was broad and inclusive, whereas the Criminal Code (WA) did not explicitly mention corporations. The court considered the legislative intent and the purpose of the Criminal Code (WA), finding that including corporations within the definition of "person" was consistent with the objectives of the Act. The court held that the definition in the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) was applicable, thereby extending the liability to corporations under the Criminal Code (WA).

Having found that the definition of "person" in the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) included a corporation, the court dismissed the appeal. The appellant's argument that the definition did not extend to corporations was rejected. Consequently, the appellant's conviction for gaining a benefit for another by deceit or fraudulent means was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the lower court was affirmed.

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.