Mansell v The Queen - [2001] TASSC 73

[2001] TASSC 73

CITATION: Mansell & Anor v R [2001] TASSC 73

PARTIES:  MANSELL, Robert Dean
  MANSELL, Rohan Gregory
  v

R

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION: APPELLATE

FILE NO/S:CCA 66/2000
CCA 20/2001

DELIVERED ON:  10 July 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  22, 23 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ, Slicer and Evans JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Grounds for interference - General principles - Whether sentence was manifestly excessive - Factors justifying a departure from the general range of sentences for a single count of causing grievous bodily harm.

Inkson v R (1996) 6 Tas R 1, distinguished.
R v Dowie [1989] Tas R 167, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1003]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M I Evans
             Appellant:  T L McDermott
             Respondent:  J Ransom
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Beeton & Mansell
             Appellant:  T L McDermott
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 73
Number of paragraphs: 38

Serial No 73/2001
File No CCA 66/2000

File No CCA 20/2001

ROBERT DEAN MANSELL v THE QUEEN
ROHAN GREGORY MANSELL v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
SLICER J
EVANS J
10 July 2001

Orders of the Court:

A Robert Dean Mansell

Appeal allowed.

Sentence of five years' imprisonment from 7 June 2000 quashed and a sentence of four years' imprisonment from that date substituted.

B Rohan Gregory Mansell

Appeal allowed.

Sentence of five years' imprisonment from 6 June 2000 quashed and sentence of three years nine months from that date substituted.

Serial No 73/2001
File No CCA 66/2000

File No CCA 20/2001

ROBERT DEAN MANSELL v THE QUEEN
ROHAN GREGORY MANSELL v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
10 July 2001

Both appellants were convicted on their plea of guilty of one count of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to the Criminal Code, s172, and were sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years from the date each was first taken into custody. The circumstances were that together with two other co-offenders, Coad and Evans, and the complainant Hanson, they had been drinking near Ritchie's Mill in Launceston adjacent to the Tamar River on 5 June 2000 at about 6.15pm when the appellant, Rohan Mansell, made an unfounded suggestion to one of the others that the complainant had raped a girl some years earlier. As a result of the allegation being made, Coad then repeatedly punched the complainant in the head and thereafter all four took turns in assaulting him. The appellant, Robert Mansell, punched and head butted him to the head. Rohan Mansell punched him in the face on a number of occasions and the other two men punched and kicked him to the head and body. The assault went on for some 20 minutes, for it was only then that the fourth man Evans joined in. The complainant was beaten to the point…

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 [2001] TASSC 73
Case: [2001] TASSC 73
Decision Date: 10 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the sentences imposed on two offenders who together with two others, attacked a man, leaving him unconscious, gravely injured and exposed to the elements on a winter's night. The victim was found by chance, rescued from the river into which he had fallen and taken to hospital where he was treated for severe facial injuries, multiple fractures and hypothermia. Both appellants pleaded guilty to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to the Criminal Code, s 172 and were sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The appeals against sentence challenge the severity of the sentences imposed. The Court of Criminal Appeal, in a joint judgment, found that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The sentence imposed on the first appellant, Robert Mansell, was reduced to four years' imprisonment and that imposed on the second appellant, Rohan Mansell, was reduced to three years nine months' imprisonment.

Orders